Finance (No. 2) Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Sawford]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the real figures to the House. He is right that the Government are grossly exaggerating the total number of private sector jobs that have been created and, crucially, the nature of those jobs.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the huge problem of unemployment under all Governments. Is he aware that in his constituency, between 2005 and 2010—that is, under the last Government —the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants rose by 103%, whereas the number has risen by just 8% for the duration of this Government?

[Andy Sawford]

If the hon. Gentleman is being honest, he knows that the figures that he is quoting reflect the impact of a huge global economic crash in 2008, which had a big impact on my constituency, not least because it is a manufacturing constituency. [Interruption.] The Economic Secretary is suggesting that because the figures go from 2005 to 2010, they reflect the Government’s record across the whole period. Government Members fail to say that the economy was growing for much of that time. We all acknowledge that a global crash happened in 2008 and that that caused unemployment. The critical thing is what we do about it.

Tax Fairness

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let us look at what was in the last Budget in respect of stamp duty and the cap on reliefs. We could also look at what we have done with regard to capital gains tax. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has made it clear that the top 20% are affected most by the fiscal consolidation policies that have been pursued in this Parliament. Those with broadest shoulders are bearing the greatest burden. However, we have an enormous deficit that we have to get down—a deficit that we inherited from the Opposition.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the highest rate of income tax currently under this Government is higher than was the case in the previous Government’s 13 years, all bar the last couple of weeks?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. The Labour Government were in office for 4,758 days. For all but 36 of those days, the highest rate of income tax was at 40p. Then it moved to 50p. There is a good question to ask the Opposition about why they kept it at 40p for so long. Why did they leave it until the fag-end of their Government, when it was clear that they would not be in government any more? The reason is that the 50p rate, predictably enough, did not do what it was supposed to do. It did not raise revenue, and an income tax that does not raise revenue is not something that a sensible Government would persevere with.

I turn to the mansion tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Exactly. The Chancellor, no less, decided to announce that half a million people would be sacked but did not say who they were, so people stopped spending and started saving, consumer confidence fell and the economy has been flatlining ever since.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman refers to employment. Does he recognise the fact that there are 1 million new private sector jobs net, unemployment is falling and the level of employment, which is currently about 30 million, is the highest on record?

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If 1 million more people are in work but there is zero growth—in other words, there has been no overall increase in production—that implies that people who had been in full-time jobs are now in part-time jobs and that aggregate production has not increased, which is a complete failure. It is symptomatic of Tory Britain, with people scratching around for anything they can find in difficult times.

There has been some discussion of the 50p rate of tax. As I have mentioned, the reason the Treasury thinks it would not make any money from a 50p rate is that it knows that millionaires can move money between tax years, which is precisely what they have done. They knew that their Tory mates would reduce the top rate of tax the next year and so simply shifted their income to that year. The point that I had wanted to make in another intervention—I appreciate that two were taken—relates to the idea that the 50p rate does not work and is therefore dead. However, people earning between £32,000 and £42,000 already pay 52% marginal tax—12% for national insurance and 40% for income tax—but of course no one talks about that. How does that change their behaviour, and why is it fair that they pay the higher rate while people on £150,000 do not because they have accountants? It is ridiculous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

Who can tell with these things? My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) has given assurances, but the policy proposals that I cited have been submitted to the federal policy committee of his party. It is difficult as an outsider to judge how formal and important that is, but there are clearly Liberal Democrats who are talking about a broader tax on wealth and capital, including on jewellery. I think that would be a mistake.

It is unfortunate that the Opposition with this motion and our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches have become so focused on the arbitrary sum of £2 million. The Government are doing very good things in raising tax from people who own high-value properties but have not been paying their fair share of tax. The Opposition and the Liberal Democrats seem to want to confine their efforts to rein in tax avoidance to those who own houses worth more than £2 million. I and my Conservative colleagues do not understand why we should be concerned about tax avoidance just when a person’s house is worth more than £2 million.

It is hugely welcome that the Government are bringing in the anti-avoidance measure of a 15% tax when homes that are worth more than £2 million are enveloped into a company, which is generally done for the purposes of tax avoidance. However, I am not entirely clear why we are doing that only for homes worth more than £2 million, except for the fact that that is the arbitrary number that has been chosen by the Liberal Democrats for such taxation. [Interruption.] The Opposition are calling out, but they did nothing about this matter for 13 years. It is a huge improvement that this Government are dealing with tax avoidance using properties worth more than £2 million.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Reckless]

If I may, I will continue for a while.

There have been consultation papers and draft legislation on how the anti-avoidance measure will be introduced. There will be self-assessment, so there will be no need for the great costs of revaluing properties. I am sure that the Minister is keen to raise more money, so will he say whether there is any hope that the Government will take action against people who avoid the 5% tax on a property that is worth between £1 million and £2 million by putting it into a company?

Perhaps the Minister will assist me on another point. Where people have enveloped houses into a company there will be an annual charge of between 0.3% and 0.7% of the property’s value, which is welcome. Many of the papers have suggested that the purpose of that is to encourage people—or in this case companies—to de-envelope their properties, and the measure will come in only after 1 April 2013. Do the Government expect stamp duty to be paid on those de-enveloping transactions, so that if the property’s value is more than £2 million there will be a 7% charge, or do they expect the sale to be from a controlled company to the person controlling that company, perhaps at a nominal rate that will not attract stamp duty, in order to recoup some of the avoidance they may have made over previous years? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.

As well as dealing with tax avoidance on properties under £2 million, I would also like non-residents to make a fairer contribution. I was first alerted to the issue by the Chancellor when in opposition. He said that he found the situation extraordinary, and there was a great deal of resentment when he explained how it worked and about the exemption from capital gains tax for non-residents. I do not understand why a resident of this country must pay capital gains tax on the sale of their property—unless it is their principal residence—yet a non-resident is exempt from that tax.

A huge flow of overseas money has come to this country as people fear the break-up of the eurozone and there is a rush to safety, and much of that has gone into property in central London. We say to people who own those homes, “As long as you don’t live there and you stay overseas, we will give you a tax break and you won’t have to pay capital gains tax.” When we go to Mayfair or parts of Belgravia, it sometimes feels as if not many people are about. We are subsidising and giving a tax break to people as long as they do not live in this country, and I have never understood the purpose of that.

Given that the Labour party did nothing about that situation for 13 years, I was pleased that the Budget and Finance Bill contained measures to extend stamp duty to at least some overseas residents. The Government consultation states:

“The Government announced in the Budget that it will extend the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) regime from April 2013 to gains on the disposal of UK residential property by non-resident non-natural persons, such as companies. The measure creates a more equal treatment in the CGT regime between UK residents and non-residents, and brings the UK’s tax policy in line with that of other countries, many of whom already tax non-residents’ gains.”

If we want an equal regime between UK residents and non-residents, why are we extending CGT only to non-resident, non-natural persons—basically companies? Surely we should also extend it to natural persons who are resident overseas. Other countries are doing that; India and China have made moves in that direction, so why not us? Some industrialised countries do not do it, but none of those have such a pool of property that acts as a free piggy bank for overseas residents. We keep their wealth and capital completely secure in central London yet they pay no capital gains tax on it. Could we perhaps consider going further in that area and look at extending capital gains tax to overseas non-residents who are natural persons, rather than concentrating simply on companies?

I welcome what the Government are doing. The Liberal Democrats refer to a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million, but the Government are already doing substantial work to obtain a more proper tax take from such properties and we could look at whether that could go further. Obviously, I do not expect answers about what will be in the forthcoming Budget, but in some areas higher tax would be a good thing. I am not generally in favour of that, but where people avoid tax by putting houses into companies, even if they are worth less than £2 million, we should try to get the proper tax. Where overseas residents are doing nicely by securing capital in the UK but paying very little for the privilege, by taxing the capital gains they make on later sales of those houses it would be welcome to see them paying their share and doing a little to help us close the deficit, which, of course, is the great uniting purpose of the coalition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

Indeed, and back in the beginning the decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives—rather than, for example, entering into a looser agreement —was to facilitate many of these measures. In crucial votes of the kind I have mentioned, the Liberal Democrats have not broken rank at all. We have heard a lot of warm words, particularly from the Deputy Prime Minister, about things such as the mansion tax, but when we get down to it, they turn out to be only warm words and not something that Liberal Democrat Members are prepared to stand up for in this House and within the coalition.

Fairness is a large part of what we must all be about. Over the past three years, the very poorest people, those on low earnings or those who, for example, are unable to work because of illness and disability, are bearing substantial contributions that we are told cannot be alleviated because our economic recovery will be put at risk. Over the past few weeks we have had heated debates about the bedroom tax. The issue has been raised on numerous occasions and we have been told time and again that it is essential to make those savings to reduce the deficit.

[Mel Stride]

Given the under-occupancy subsidy—after all, a tax is where one earns money and the state comes and takes it away, but that is not what we are dealing with—does the hon. Lady have no sympathy for the quarter of a million people living in overcrowded accommodation and the 2 million families on the housing waiting list who are desperate for bedrooms that can be freed up through this measure?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I have great sympathy for people who are overcrowded and for those on the housing waiting list. The majority of people waiting for housing in my city are looking for small houses, so that could also cause certain problems.

Fundamentally, however, this is not a housing issue. If we want to make the issue about housing, we should deal with it as a housing issue and look at ways of encouraging and facilitating moves for people who want them. That is not necessarily happening. People have asked me, “Well, if I did move who would help me pay for this move? Who will reimburse me for the fact that I put my own kitchen into this house? My landlord did not quite get around to it, so when I was working a few years ago I put in that new kitchen. Is somebody now going to reimburse me for that? Are they going to help me with the cost of moving my things? Are they going to help me with the cost of setting up in a new place? I don’t think so.” If a local authority—some do—decided that it wanted to encourage people to move once they had outgrown their homes, it could do so. It might have a cost, but it would have a benefit.

If every single person suffering from the bedroom tax was able to move—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin]

I am afraid my hon. Friend is also luring me down a route that I would rather not go down, because I would not like to face your ire, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is being exceedingly generous in giving way. As he has said, he is keen to talk about tax fairness. He referred earlier to the iniquity of reducing the top rate of tax for higher earners from 50p in the pound to 45p, which is coming up this April. Does he therefore not accept that, in his terms, the last Labour Government acted totally unfairly in having a top rate of just 40p in the pound right the way through until the last 36 days of his Government?

[Nic Dakin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I have not yet said that—I am going to say it later, so I will come to his point when that is appropriate.

I was describing the difficult choices that hard-working families are having to make to keep their heads above water. The obligation we face—those of us who govern, as well as those on the Opposition Benches—is to make difficult choices about where revenue is raised. It is therefore right and proper to look at ways of taxing people who have significant wealth, such as people who own properties valued at more than £2 million. Therefore, it is right and proper to look at ways of ensuring that that part of our nation makes a contribution in these difficult times.

We know that people of great wealth are sometimes quite imaginative and inventive when it comes to avoiding taxes. I commend the work of Government over the ages to find ways of tackling tax avoidance—this Government have done a number of things that are to be welcomed. Property is obviously difficult to hide. One of the big advantages of a property tax—a mansion tax, as expounded over the years by the Liberal Democrats in particular—is that it is difficult to avoid paying, because property is visually identifiable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said earlier—she is no longer in her place—60% of high-value properties in London are owned by people from overseas. Indeed, I note the comments of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on this issue. He made an intelligent and helpful contribution to the debate.

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) in his place and I very much welcome him to the House. I am sure he will continue to build on his excellent maiden speech and make good contributions to the work of the House. However, prior to the by-election, the Deputy Prime Minister, writing in The Observer, described the Prime Minister as being “stuck in the past” for opposing the mansion tax. The Observer commented that this came

“amid signs that the Liberal Democrats are ready to challenge the Tories more vigorously over key aspects of economic policy.”

Today’s debate is an ideal opportunity for them to do that. The Deputy Prime Minister attacked the Prime Minister in his article, saying that the Conservatives were instinctively against fairer taxation

“even as people on lower incomes feel the pinch”.

He said that the plan for a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million, which was being backed by the Labour party, was an idea “whose time has come”, and said it was a “certainty” that some levy on high-value properties would be introduced soon. He continued:

“The Conservatives and opponents of fairer taxes have a choice. They can dig their heels in and remain stuck in the past. Or they can join with the Liberal Democrats and the chorus of voices seeking to make our tax system fair. Far better, surely, to move with the times.”

I very much welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s rather prophetic contribution to this debate. It puzzles me that the Liberal Democrats who have spoken so far have indicated that they might not support the motion. However, a number of them have been here for a large part of the debate, so I hope they will be persuaded by the power of argument.

It is worth noting that the motion says:

“That this House believes that a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million, to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, should be part of a fair tax system; and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for such a tax at the earliest opportunity.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said from the Opposition Front Bench, nothing could be simpler. Indeed, this is the sort of simple motion that the Business Secretary called for and that the Deputy Prime Minister called for before the Eastleigh by-election. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) confirmed today that he could have written it himself, so one wonders why the Liberal Democrats cannot support it. One is helped to understand why they cannot do so by reading the rather entertaining amendment, the middle of which

“notes that the part of the Coalition led by the Deputy Prime Minister…advocates a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million, as set out in his party’s manifesto, and the part of the Coalition led by the Prime Minister does not advocate a mansion tax”.

We have a pushmi-pullyu Government, pushing in one way and pulling in the other. We have a real pantomime horse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said, from a pantomime Government, but this is not pantomime time. It is a serious time, and a serious time requires serious politics. The Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to stand by their principles—to stand on the side of honest, hard-working people—by coming into the Lobby this afternoon to support our motion, which could have been written by the hon. Member for Bristol West.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Was Denis Healey the same Chancellor who had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund in the 1970s because this country was bankrupt?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

He did indeed go to the IMF, but I think it has now been recognised that that was unnecessary. We did not need to kowtow to the IMF or to impose those strictures. In fact, remarkably, the economy survived quite well during that time, although a mistake was made at the end. I shall not go into that now, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you would call me to order if I did, but it was the reason why things went wrong in 1979. Nevertheless, we survived the 1970s, although the oil price rose by five times in a very short period, which affected the whole world including Britain.

At that time, I was working for the Trades Union Congress and then in the trade union movement. I was an economist, and was lobbying the Government. I was at the TUC General Council when the £6 pay policy was agreed to. That was an historic moment. I thought it amazing that the trade unions had agreed to a cap on pay increases for everyone, but the reason they agreed to it was that it was fair. Everyone would receive a £6 pay rise. For someone with a low income that was a big rise, while for someone with a high income it was not very much, but it was fair, and was seen to be fair across the board.

Other Members are too young to remember this, but in those days the top rate of tax was 83p in the pound, and there was also a 15% surcharge on unearned income. Some of those whose income was entirely unearned, perhaps in property, were paying a 98% rate on the top part of their income. I thought that was pretty fair, but of course we cannot go back to those days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)

This has been a good debate on what is really quite a simple premise—that our taxation system should be based on fairness and equity—but there have been some disappointing, although I would also say unsurprising, contributions from Government Members. The Minister’s speech in particular seemed to confirm that the Government have their head in the sand when it comes to their disastrous economic policies and performance. Manufacturing has fallen by 3% since last year, business confidence and investment are plummeting, growth is flatlining, and the economy desperately needs some emergency care. Borrowing is going up, not down, and it is rising to pay the price of the Government’s failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) described the position very passionately.

The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) complained bitterly that the Opposition had been stealing the Liberal Democrats’ policy. He now admits that it is his policy. In fact, he could have written it himself. I therefore still hope that the Liberal Democrats will go through the Lobbies with us today to support what will be a very measured step towards ensuring that the cost of deficit reduction is borne by those with the broadest shoulders as well as by those who can bear it least but who are, at present, bearing the brunt.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady referred to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who asked a simple question of her Front-Bench team: will a mansion tax be in the next Labour party manifesto, yes or no?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We gave a simple response to that question—[Interruption.] First, we challenged the Minister to say what would be in the Government’s Budget next week. He will not specify that, so we are not able to announce at this stage what will be in our manifesto in two years’ time. If it is appropriate and a mansion tax will seek to deal with the mess that we anticipate this Government are going to leave this country’s finance in, it is certainly something we will consider.

[Mel Stride]

Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that just because a Minister will not make a serious breach of parliamentary protocol by leaking a Budget in advance she will not inform the House whether her party will have a mansion tax in its next manifesto?

[Catherine McKinnell]

No. That illustrates why the Government were not giving away what they are going to do in next week’s Budget, but we have said clearly that if we were in government now, we would not be cutting taxes for millionaires. We would be looking to put in place a mansion tax, which the Liberal Democrats would support, and we would be using that to take a measured approach to deficit reduction. Unfortunately, we are not in government. The Chancellor is presiding over a flatlining economy, so we are suggesting a way for him to try to get some growth back into the economy —we hope that the Liberal Democrats will support us today and proposals will come forward.

Finance Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Gentleman’s party is.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. The notion of very high bankers’ bonuses is nothing new, of course, as it has been going on for an awfully long time. Her party was in office for 13 years. Could she explain exactly what it did about that?

[Rushanara Ali]

After the financial crisis, as part of the deal, my party introduced the bankers’ bonus tax and we raised £3.5 billion that went towards the attempt to get people back into work that was so successful in constituencies such as mine. I urge the hon. Gentleman’s party to consider what works, and that did work. Instead of being partisan and ideological, his party should look at what works and enforce it. The people of this country will not forgive his Government for not acting, for creating a double-dip recession and for leaving so many people out of work. It is a disgrace and he should apologise, with his party, for presiding over two years of being in government in which they have caused a double-dip recession and much more unemployment. That is what his party should be focused on and addressing, not trying to score party political points. You are in government. Do something.

[Mel Stride]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Has the hon. Lady given way or has she concluded?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Good. May I remind everybody that I am not in government?

[Mel Stride]

It is a great shame that you are not, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Will the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), by the same token, apologise for the doubling of unemployment under the previous Government?

[Rushanara Ali]

When my party was in government, we cut unemployment. We got a million young people into work. After the financial crisis, when unemployment started to increase, we did something about it. I urge the hon. Gentleman’s Government to do something about unemployment, instead of looking backwards. Do something about the unemployment rate which is causing so much damage to our country, instead of doing what his party did when it was in power in the 1980s, which was to go around telling people that unemployment was a price worth paying.

The hon. Gentleman’s party is demonstrating that the nasty party is back with a vengeance. That is devastating for people in constituencies such as mine. They do not want to see the nastiness of the party. They want jobs. I suggest that his party focuses on creating jobs and growth. That is what people want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour in Merseyside for his intervention. He is quite right. The return to things such as the youth training scheme has been one of the most unfortunate aspects of the Government’s work in this area.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady makes the important point that youth unemployment is deeply regrettable and has been rising recently, but she skips over the fact that youth unemployment has been rising since 2004, so most of the period of that rise actually occurred on her watch when the kinds of policies she is advocating were clearly not working.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful about apportioning blame, because although we have seen an extreme rise in youth unemployment over the past couple of years because of the recession—I will move on to the problem of demand in the economy later—under the Labour Government there was successful action to prevent levels of youth unemployment from rising to those we saw in the ’90s. If he wishes to, we can talk at length in the Chamber on another occasion about some of the structural reasons for young people’s unemployment, such as how skills are transferred in different ways, how small businesses recruit differently, which hits younger people more than it does those with experience in the economy, and why those patterns were starting to emerge from 2005. However, in new clause 13 we are trying to establish the urgency of getting money from a particular source and prioritising the needs of young people in my constituency and in his.

The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations has done an important piece of work to calculate the cost to the Exchequer of young people being out of work, and, although I hope that Treasury Ministers will have already heard the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) cited, I want to alight on this one. If youth unemployment continues at current rates, by 2022 the cost to the Exchequer and to the economy in lost output is estimated to be £28 billion—on top of the human and social costs. That is a huge figure, and we as a country cannot afford to see this crisis continue.

I shall take a few moments, however, to consider not only the financial cost, huge and important though that is, but the impact of the crisis on individuals, on their pride and on their self-worth. I mentioned earlier the Government’s own research, carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions, into the future jobs fund, and if Ministers have not read it they would do well to do so. The research, first, considered the impact on young people who took part in the future jobs fund programme, and it is a shame that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) has left his place, because I wanted to ask him—I tried to intervene on him to do so—whether he had met, spoken to or asked the opinion of any young person who took part in the future jobs fund.

Just in case hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read the research, however, I shall quote a young person and how they were feeling prior to the introduction of the future jobs fund. They said that they were

“feeling a bit low. I was about four and half, five months, unemployed and I thought ‘oh no, this isn’t good’. Most employers I spoke to, it was like if you’ve been unemployed for more than 2 months, it really puts people off. I knew how to do a job; it’s just the fact that I’d been unemployed for nearly 5 months. Almost half a year, which was quite embarrassing really. I know there was nothing out there, but it was still kind of embarrassing.”

Despite this person realising that aggregate demand and low job vacancy numbers had caused their problem, they blamed themselves, so I ask hon. Members to consider the impact of low self-esteem and poor mental health on the extra 65,000 young people who have become unemployed since 2010.

The research, secondly, asked young people how they felt about their work once they had taken part in a future jobs fund employment placement, and to me the following quotation says it all. On the question of what the most important gain was, one person said:

“Trust in my determination. Self belief, the belief from my employer that I am able to succeed”.

What more important thing could anybody have for success in life than self-belief? When people are left to languish on the dole, such self-esteem is undermined every single day.

Changes to the Budget

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

May I pass on a huge thank you to the Chancellor and to the Minister from Pathfinder Park Homes, a manufacturer of static caravans in my constituency, which is delighted with the reversal on VAT? In its view, it has saved its business.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I am sure that his constituents are grateful to him for the work he has done on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

T7. Youth unemployment under the previous Government grew by more than 40%. That is 277,000 more young people out of work from the time they first came to office. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to tackle youth unemployment is not to invest in wasteful schemes such as the future jobs fund, but to invest in skills for young people, which means apprenticeships, which this Government are delivering?

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that youth unemployment has been rising since 2004, which suggests that it is a deep-rooted structural issue in our economy, not just the subject of political knockabout at the Dispatch Box. That is why we are, as a Government, investing far more in apprenticeships. That is a very good way to give young people the skills that they need to survive and thrive in today’s labour market. That is why, in relation to youth unemployment, we will not be deflected from the path that we are on.

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It gives me huge pleasure to join this debate in which we can all surely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that youth unemployment is too high and must be reduced. As many hon. Members have said, none of us is complacent on this issue, so what to do? The hon. Lady had three main suggestions: spend more, lower VAT, and bash the bankers. There was also a possible fourth suggestion of bringing back the future jobs fund or, as she put it, creating 100,000 jobs. The first of those suggestions has been utterly discredited and the second did not work. On the third suggestion, no Government except those of the ex-USSR and the current Democratic People’s Republic of Korea create jobs. We must be clear that the business of government is about setting the conditions in which businesses can create jobs. It simply does not work when Governments try to create jobs.

On the future jobs fund, the evidence we looked at in the Select Committee on Work and Pensions was absolutely clear: it was expensive and public sector-dominated. It was useful and it did give experience, but no future jobs came from it.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the future jobs fund—that it was basically about short-term jobs that did not last. Does he agree that this Government’s approach to apprenticeships and investing in young people and skills will give us sustainable, long-term jobs for the future?

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is entirely right and brilliantly anticipates the thread of my argument.

Fuel Prices

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

When Labour came to power in 1997, fuel duty stood at 36.8p per litre. When it left office in 2010, the price was more than 57p per litre—“a pain in the gas” as they say in the United States. I therefore welcome the early and decisive action taken by the Treasury in taking 1p off fuel duty, scrapping the duty escalator and delaying the 3p per litre rise. Many Members have today made a compelling case for why we now need the Treasury to go further, however.

I represent a large rural constituency in south Devon, and having a car in order to get to work or exercise choice in education is not a luxury; it is an absolute essential. My constituents spend a far greater proportion of their disposable income on fuel than those who live in cities.

A further 3p rise in January would not just hit householders, however; it would hit essential local businesses, too. Some 65% of all the UK’s groceries are delivered on retread tyres produced by a company in my constituency: Bandvulc tyres. It also exports to cities across Europe. It is a significant employer and wealth generator, but a 3p a litre rise in fuel duty would cost it an additional £24,000 a year, because it uses more than 500,000 litres of fuel a year. It is a family-run manufacturing business producing a sustainable product and creating local jobs. It wants to stay in Devon but knows that it would make economic sense to relocate part of its business to eastern Europe as a result of the fuel duty rise. There are similar examples among other businesses in my constituency.

Another very important sector in my constituency is tourism. I am talking about businesses such as Sharpham wines and cheeses, which attracts 7,500 tourists a year and employs up to 40 people. More importantly, it is in the top six wine producers in the UK and it is another wealth creator that exports across Europe. That business spoke of the ripple effects of a further rise in fuel duty, as did many others. A business that I visited last week, Palladium Building Supplies, told me of the knock-on effect to the entire building industry across south Devon that there would be if we go ahead with this rise.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the effect on businesses. Does she accept that not only are these high fuel prices damaging businesses, but that, in turn, that is leading to less revenue to the Exchequer, because businesses are becoming less profitable?

Jobs and Growth

Mel Stride Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I hope that the five-minute time limit was not brought in because I was the next speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the considered comments of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). In particular, I welcome his comments about enterprise zones, which were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson). The Jaguar Land Rover investment that he mentioned was bid for by Wales, too. It is a great shame that, as Tim Williams from the Welsh Automotive Forum stated, one reason why Wales lost out on that investment was the foot-dragging of the Labour Welsh Assembly Government, who refused to implement the enterprise zone process in Wales because it was a Westminster Government proposal.

The comments of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough were much more positive and balanced than those of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who decided to attack the credibility of bankers. He might be right, but when one is making a point in the House about the credibility of individuals, one should ask about the credibility of the shadow Chancellor, who advised the former Prime Minister to sell our gold reserves at a very low price. If we want to talk about credibility, we should remember the actions of Members on our own side as well.

This debate is about jobs and growth. I represent a constituency in north Wales where we have a significant small business community. That means that we have a lower dependency on public sector jobs in the Aberconwy constituency than in most of north Wales and most of Wales. That is not to say that the public sector is not important. I regret every single job lost in the public sector, but we have to acknowledge the fact that we must live within our means. The small business community in my part of north Wales has broadly welcomed the actions of the coalition Government. It has seen a credible approach to reducing debt, dealing with the financial crisis that we are facing, and creating a stable economic environment that will allow it to invest and create real employment opportunities for the people I represent.

However, in the context of the debate it is important to point out that there are issues that cause concern for small businesses. When I mention small businesses, I am talking about what most Members would describe as micro-businesses. In the 1980s, when we saw Wales recover so dramatically from the loss of the heavy industries, that recovery was based on the fact that Wales created more new businesses than any other part of the United Kingdom. I am certain that there are businesses in Wales that are willing to take that challenge forward, but there are issues that we need to deal with.

Those issues might not look very important to people dealing with swaps in the market in London and so forth. For example, one of the issues that small businesses in the tourism sector in my constituency resent is the VAT threshold. Most people would say, “What’s he going on about?”, but the VAT threshold is a barrier to growth. Someone setting up a small business in the tourism sector reaches a turnover level of £73,000 and faces a cliff edge—the fact that if they go on to turn over more than £73,000 a year, they are penalised by the system. Anyone who visited Llandudno this week would see cafes that have closed for the winter, bed and breakfast businesses—

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about VAT and tourism. Does he accept that it is wrong that our tourist businesses, particularly those offering accommodation, are handicapped because VAT rates are higher in this country than in many of our continental competitors?

Summer Adjournment

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I declare a lifelong interest in this subject and refer Members to the Register of Members' Financial Interests. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, because I want to talk about a tale of British craftsmanship at its best, our failure to compete and a remarkable industrial revival.

The automatic watch is almost the same now as when it was invented in 1770 and it has often triumphed over computers. For example, in 1970, after Apollo 13 was crippled by a ruptured oxygen tank, Jack Swigert’s Omega Speedmaster was famously used to time the critical 14-second engine burn, allowing for the crew’s safe return. Even today, the Omega Speedmaster is still the only watch to have been worn on the moon.

Secondly, I wish to discuss British craftsmanship. London led the world, changing the course of history in the 17th century by manufacturing accurate clocks that allowed us to sail throughout the world, trade, make maps and acquire the British empire. British companies such as Smith and Son, George Graham, Josiah Emery, and J. W. Benson forged the first clock-making industry, despite outbreaks of the plague and the great fire of London. Many hon. Members will know the story of John Harrison, a self-educated English clock maker who solved the problem of longitude and was eventually awarded thousands of pounds from Parliament.

Sadly, in the 18th and 19th centuries Britain lost its expertise. The decline of our watch industry is a British parable, just like the tin can.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend shares with me a love of watches. I know that he is also passionate about apprenticeships, so does he have anything to say about their importance in this area?

[Robert Halfon]

I will answer my hon. Friend in my later remarks, and I thank him for his intervention.

The decline of our watch industry is a British parable, just like the tin can and the car assembly line: we invent but others capitalise. In 1800, London was producing some 200,000 watches a year, which were exported not just to Europe, but to Russia, the middle east and even China. However, we became trapped by tradition. After Napoleon’s defeat in 1814, the Swiss started to make machine-made copies of London clocks and flooded the market with cheap products. Britain responded with protectionism and price controls. We failed to compete, and our expertise was lost to Switzerland, America and even the far east.

However, there has been a revival in recent times. In 1923, the British National Physical Laboratory produced quartz oscillators, and we all know about the production of the atomic caesium clock in 1955. These are the foundation of telecommunications, satellites and space travel. Famous British household names in horology have resurfaced: Dent & Company, and J & T Windmills, which even has a factory in Essex. Today, we have one of the greatest living names in horology, George Daniels, a British man who invented the coaxial escapement, which is the first practical new watch escapement in 250 years; it is a smoother watch movement that almost eradicates friction, and it was commercialised in 1999 by Omega. Those who have done the most to support this revival in Britain are the British Horological Institute and the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers. We have lost out to Switzerland and the far east, but we still have repair shops, a wealth of academic study and some ultra-high-end manufacturing.

So what is to be done? I welcome the Government’s policy on apprenticeships and the work of the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is in his place, in his promotion of craft. As I mentioned in my early-day motion 623, our funding for skills qualifications must be open to small specialist courses for industries such as horology. I strongly welcome what the Government did last year to extend funding for BHI certificates in clock and watch servicing, and repair, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his letter of support in that campaign.

However, there is a wider issue to address: many smaller qualifications are being discontinued because they are not profitable enough for awarding bodies. There are now just three horology training facilities in the UK: Birmingham City university; West Dean college; and the British School of Watchmaking. In Harlow, we are very lucky to have the Eversden family of watchmakers, and they show that in an age of digital technology there is still a public demand for the crafts of old. As George Daniels proved, there is still a demand for British horological genius. I hope that all possible support will be given to the watch-making and clock-making industry, which was once dying but is now showing signs of life in Britain today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I very much welcome this debate and the opportunity to speak about the importance of the growth of business to our economy. In doing so, I should express a personal interest, in that I have a majority holding in a small private company.

The Government have set the stage well for business growth, in that we have at least avoided being where Greece and Ireland are and where Portugal is teetering on the brink of being. Our economy is fundamentally sound and growing. That is happening against a backdrop of our having inherited the worst budget deficit in the G7 and against the more recent headwinds of the spikes in the oil price—it has increased by 60% in the past year—and the eurozone crisis, which we are all facing at the moment. Although some of the Labour Members who are shaking their heads may disagree with that, I am sure we can all agree that if we are to move away from a debt-driven, public sector-reliant economy into manufacturing and exporting, creating private sector jobs will be vital. I welcome the fact that the Government have done that over the past year, creating 500,000.

We must do whatever we can to support business and I welcome the fact that the Government have intervened in a number of critical ways. The first is Project Merlin, which aims to get the largest five banks lending another £190 billion to small and medium-sized businesses. I know from such businesses in my constituency that that is vital and I urge the Government to maintain that progress.

I also welcome what the Government are doing about red tape through the one in, one out rule on regulation, through embracing the recommendations of Lord Young’s review, which is extremely important, and through the work done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning on apprenticeships, on which this Government have a particularly proud track record, much of which is down to the personal commitment that he has shown in this vital area.

I also think that Government should get out of the way of business. It is important that we get taxation on businesses down. Over the next four years, as hon. Members will know, the corporate tax rate will fall by 5%, but that is not good enough. We need to do even more. When our local and national tax rates combined are compared with those of other countries in Europe they show that we are doing pretty well: in Germany, they are at 30%, in France at 34% and we are at 26%. However, when we look further afield, as we must when we consider the competitive pressures of the future, we see that places such as Hong Kong and Singapore have combined rates of 16% to 17%. I urge the Government to keep pressing firmly in that direction.

Let me make two more important points. First, although we have avoided the worst excesses of what Labour planned to do with national insurance, although it is expensive to lower national insurance as it is one of the three great revenue raisers of taxation and although I recognise and applaud the fact that the Government have introduced national insurance holidays in most regions of this country for new business start-ups, we must do more. It is a tax on jobs and we must start to get the figures down.

Secondly, micro-businesses—those that employ 10 or fewer employees—represent 96% of the businesses in this country and employ 700,000 people. We must get the number of onerous regulations for that group down. In particular, we should consider paternity and maternity rights and the idea that employees can leave the work force for 26 weeks or up to 52 weeks-a-year and their jobs must be held open. That needs to be considered and perhaps relaxed for those businesses, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

Of course, as my hon. Friend says, that biscuit would be a Bourbon.

It is worth while clarifying the question of the ownership of the Crown Estate. Is it owned by the monarch as an individual or the monarchy as an institution? When the Public Accounts Committee looked at this matter, there was a consistent attempt by officers of the monarchy to confuse and conflate the two. We need to ask ourselves this question: were the monarchy abolished, would Crown Estate moneys and properties belong to the deposed monarch as an individual or would they remain with the state? It is quite clear that they would remain with the state. Therefore, the moneys and the estates are not the property of the individual who happens to be the monarch at any particular time. That clarifies a number of things.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davidson]

No, I want to proceed because we are short of time.

I am seeking clarification from the Chancellor, who, I remember, was on the Public Accounts Committee when he was a young whippersnapper—I have often wondered what happened to him since. Will the National Audit Office, the interventions of which I will welcome, also be able to look at all elements of royal involvement? In particular, can it look at the royal art collection, about which there were serious discussions and disputes in the past? That would seem to be covered by what he has said, but it is not immediately clear.

Is the Crown Estate the right body to take into account when determining the monarch’s income? Those of us on the Public Accounts Committee who examined the Duchy of Cornwall’s accounts were absolutely clear that the Duke of Cornwall was manipulating the money involved, by playing a major role in determining the amounts of expenditure and income, thereby determining how much money came, or was available, to him as an individual.

Quite clearly, the Crown Estate could be leant on by the monarchy to make decisions on expenditure and income in the short term to affect the amount of grant that the royal family receive. The grant would then be on, as it were, a golden ratchet—a bit like EU expenditure, it would always go up, and never down. There is clearly scope for abuse in those circumstances. Will the Chancellor clarify those points?

Will the Chancellor also take into account the fact that there is due to be a windfall from wind and wave power? Will he assure the Committee that all of that will be taken into account when the review takes place in due course?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I have a series of concerns with the Bill. First, it creates an artificial link between the profits from an estate given up by the royal family in 1760 and an amount required to carry their official duties in the present day. My major concern is with the escalator process that is put in place, whereby the amount that is received each year will be the same as or greater than that of the previous financial year, either through the floor introduced in the Bill or because 15% of the Crown Estate’s profits is greater than the floor. I am disappointed that the Opposition amendment on that was defeated in Committee.

There are curious oddities in the Bill. Why is there a need to round up the Crown Estate’s profit to the nearest £100,000? Why round it upwards and not downwards? Why round it up at all? The profit of the Crown Estate is a red herring. There is no link between the successful organisation of the estate’s affairs and the amount received by the royal family. This is not a business arrangement. I recognise that there are arguments that the royal family should receive a lump sum and be able to transfer funds for better use. I also recognise the argument that the money provided is given for a specific purpose. However, if it is not being used for that purpose, on what grounds is that amount of funding being given?

As many Members have said, there should be a regular needs-based analysis of the royal family’s expenditure, with grants provided accordingly. Having said that, I like the idea of a reserve fund for money that is not used. This sounds like the end-of-year flexibility that the Welsh Government set up under Plaid Cymru a few years ago, only for the Treasury to steal back £400 million earlier in the year. I look forward to the day when the Treasury follows the same pursuit in taking back money allocated to the royal family.

The Crown Estate, which is a key part of the Bill, is owned by the state and administrated by commissioners. It owns large areas of land in Wales and claims the seabed and foreshore as part of its urban, rural and maritime portfolios. Yet last week’s annual report fails to provide a nation-by-nation or regional breakdown of the investments and profits of the Crown Estate. Figures for Scotland are provided on the website, but apparently no comparable figures for Wales are published. In the interests of transparency, we would like to see those figures published. In the interests of Wales, we would like to see responsibility for the Crown Estate in Wales transferred to the Welsh Government. This is our land and our seabed, and it should be used for investments that benefit the people of Wales.

[Mel Stride]

I feel that I must return to the status of the Crown Estate. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is effectively owned by the institution of the monarchy and not by the state at all?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I do not agree. My belief is that the Crown Estate in Wales should now be devolved to the Welsh Government.

Profits are coming from the use and exploitation of these assets. Those profits, be they for renewable energy on land or sea, should be given to the people of Wales. Having control of the Crown Estate land and sea in Wales would give us the opportunity to be a world leader in renewable energy and to develop our economy accordingly. In the meantime, the Bill should not include reference to the Crown Estate and should instead provide a series of grants according to the needs of the royal family to undertake their duties. If we are to have one single sovereign grant that is not needs-based, then why not simply increase it by the consumer prices index, as that seems to be the Government’s preferred measure of inflation?