Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The eight core cities are a well-established group that have a proven role in driving economic growth in England. As I said, the main tax increment financing scheme will be available to all local authorities in England, including that of the hon. Gentleman, from 2013. We will set out the details of that shortly as part of the business rates retention scheme. Other pools of funding, such as the Growing Places fund, may be able to help with the scheme that he mentioned. The local enterprise partnership allocates those funds.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. If the city pilots are successful, will he consider extending this method of financing to all county authorities?

[Danny Alexander]

Tax increment financing has great potential in helping local areas to develop infrastructure projects and supporting economic growth across the country. As I said to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the main tax increment financing scheme will be available to all local authorities in England from April 2013. That will apply to the kind of local authorities that my hon. Friend described.

IMF

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is absolutely right, and while I was sitting in the IMF meeting on Friday and on Saturday morning, my mind wandered to thinking about what would have happened if I had turned up and said that we were abandoning our fiscal consolidation plan. I came to the conclusion that we would have been the subject of the meeting’s discussion rather than the problems in the eurozone.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that not a single penny is being added to either our national debt or our deficit as a result of this action?

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, I can confirm for my hon. Friend’s constituents in Suffolk and for people around the country that an IMF loan does not add to the debt or the deficit. We have to ask ourselves why, when people analyse the British economy, they do not add an IMF loan to the debt or deficit. It is because they understand that it is a loan that is paid back with interest and an asset that is exchanged for some of our foreign exchange reserves, not a call on public spending.

Amendment of the Law

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

This has been a fascinating debate and some excellent contributions have been made by Members from both sides. I refer, in particular, to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made a typically thoughtful contribution, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who, along with a number of other Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), warmly welcomed the package of measures for the creative industries in this Budget. Indeed, a number of other Labour Members welcomed that point, too. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) referred to, among other things, broadband funding in his constituency, which he welcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) rightly made the point that we should be highlighting the positive news for business in this country, and she highlighted some of the positive news in her constituency.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm what corporation tax rate companies will be paying in this country? Will it be the lowest in the G20?

[Danny Alexander]

I can certainly confirm that, as a result of the measures in this Budget and the measures that we announced in earlier Budgets, we will have not only the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, but one of the lowest rates of tax in the G20. That will make a fundamental difference to this country’s attractiveness to investment from overseas.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches are becoming rather vexed, and one does not have to wonder why, given the message that they are sending out to the electorate with this tax cut, which will cost more than £3 billion at a time, as the Government emphasise, of austerity.

The hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) suggests that empirical evidence shows that the 50p tax does not raise any money, but there is no empirical evidence in the document presented by the Government. There is a series of estimates, based on a view of behavioural change, itself based on a view of human behaviour, which one would have thought would have at least been challenged by the financial crisis and all that it brought.

This Government are taking a gamble that the £3 billion that they would have had in the bank—in their coffers—will be almost cancelled out by millionaires from Monte Carlo and Caribbean boltholes rushing back to show their patriotism to this country by paying a slightly lower rate of tax. Those are not my words, but the words of the Business Secretary in a previous incarnation. This tax cut for millionaires is the wrong priority for this country at this time.

We have a crisis of employment—a crisis of youth unemployment, with 1 million in the UK and one in four in Scotland now unemployed. What we need are measures to get young people back into work, but how long are they meant to wait, to take the argument of Government Members? A national insurance holiday for small and medium-sized enterprises—that is what we need. A bank bonus tax to create 150,000 jobs for young people—that is what we need. A temporary VAT cut to stimulate the economy and help out hard-pressed motorists—that is what we need. And a VAT cut for home repairs and maintenance to stimulate that important sector of the economy—that is what we need.

Then we have the granny tax. Under the guise of simplification the Government have brought in a stealth tax on more than 4 million pensioners. Some 700,000 people turning 65 years old will lose more than £300 per year—[Interruption.] Someone shouts, “No one will pay more,” and there is a debate to be had about sharing burdens.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

I am afraid that I have no more time to do so.

There is a debate to be had about sharing burdens across the generations, but to begin it with a stealth tax described as a “simplification” is surely not the way to encourage a healthy, long-term debate about that kind of distribution.

I finish on this point: wrong priorities, wrong values, wrong Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Alas, I do not have a cable car, but that is a great idea for a new business in my constituency, although where it would take people from and to, I am not exactly sure.

There is no support for transport, despite the fact that business leaders in the north-east have expressed concern that a failure to invest in the region’s transport network could stifle long-term growth. They have made a point that without the right transport and energy supply infrastructure, the region could struggle to realise its full potential. I hope the Minister will take on board these matters in her comments.

What do we know from the analysis of the Budget so far? I have with me an extract from the Financial Times, which concludes that that it is a Budget “without economic significance”. It also says that the Government have absolutely no plans in place to change the unhappy outcome of the slump, and that includes, critically, no plans for the north-east of England. What we do know is that the unemployment figures for the north-east are much higher than those for the south-east: 10.6% in the north-east, compared with 6.6% in the south-east. IPPR North has said that it is the largest gap since the labour force survey began. One might have expected the Red Book reforms to prioritise the north-east in support of economic growth, but in fact there is only one mention of the north-east in its many pages dealing with growth, compared with seven mentions for London. I want to see economic growth in London. It is our capital city and it is important that it is supported. However, that does not excuse giving no attention to the north-east apart from one mention of Newcastle. County Durham is not mentioned at all.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Does the hon. Lady accept that from the growing places fund, the north-east has been allocated more than £10 million, which is far more than is going into my region?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I will deal shortly with some of the measures that have been made available for the north-east.

Many measures in the Budget will have a negative impact on people’s income, including that of 8,000 families in County Durham, who will lose out from the changes in tax credits. There is no action to tackle youth unemployment, despite the fact that it is much higher by several percentage points in the north-east than elsewhere in the country. The Government should have set out a coherent strategy in the Budget to get the north-east economy back on track. Instead we have a measure to reduce regional pay, taking £78 million out of the north-east’s economy. There is no evidence to support the contention that the current position inflates public sector salaries or acts as a disincentive to the private sector.

Business leaders have been calling for some sort of holistic strategy, which we simply do not have. I say to the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that there have been several small measures, but they are outside any coherent framework. Seventy-three per cent. of successful bids from the first two rounds of the regional growth fund, including 40% from the first round, have not yet been signed off. They are therefore not delivering anything for the north-east, and £14.25 million of the regional growth fund supports only 91 jobs. I emphasise to the hon. Lady and her colleagues that that is a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed.

We also have enterprise zones and local enterprise partnerships. In doing research for my speech today, I had to try to determine what was happening through two enterprise zones, two LEPs, two regional growth fund allocations, the business enterprise network in the north-east and the chamber of commerce. It is difficult to get a flavour of what is happening in the region, in great contrast with the position under the regional development agency, when it was easy to monitor the impact of what was happening with investment and jobs in the north-east. It is now extremely difficult to get that information.

Without a coherent framework and an overall strategy, the economy of the region is simply not growing and not enough investment is going into key sectors for economic growth, including those that had been identified under the RDA. It is not only me making that point; our business leaders say that, of all the policies the Chancellor could have introduced in the Budget that would have had an impact on the north-east, measures on investment allowance and employment taxes would have been the most important. They say also that, although the target to double UK exports is commendable, there is absolutely no detail on how it will be achieved. Rather, Government Members have today given us a complete fantasy land, where they somehow think that the measures in the Budget are going to deliver growth for the north-east. But there is simply no plan.

We want instead to see measures to create jobs for young people, a tax on bankers’ bonuses which would create 5,500 jobs for 16 to 24-year-olds in the north-east and a temporary reversal of the Government’s VAT increase which would put £450 back into family budgets. Labour would give 58,000 small businesses in the region a tax break if they took on extra workers. That is the challenge I throw down to the Government today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I definitely agree that the framework is a big step forward, and protecting our precious marine environment, which supports the whole fishing industry and ecosystem of parts of the UK, is important, but we need to balance that with our economic growth, stability and jobs, which is really important too.

The Budget reports on the review that was set in train in the autumn statement in order to analyse the implementation in the UK of the EU habitats directive, to which I think my hon. Friend was referring, and which can create so many problems for our port operators. In reading through that review, I think there is a great deal to be welcomed. It has engaged with a range of stakeholders, all of whom acknowledged that the implementation of the habitats directive caused considerable problems for our ports operators, and many positive measures have been put in place in terms of collecting data.

Many disputes about planning applications arise because there are no accurate data, and a lot of work is going to be put into that area, and into ensuring that the various regulatory bodies—ultimately, the Marine Management Organisation will make the licensing decisions for our ports, but many are involved—engage earlier and more constructively with ports operators, which should make them more confident that proposals for development can go forward.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

My hon. Friend and I have made common cause in trying to help those matters along, as we share similar issues. I understand that she welcomes much that was in the review, but does she share my concern that it missed the opportunity to look at certain regulations and determine whether we should have them at all? Indeed, the review’s terms of reference included looking through that and making appropriate representations to the Commission.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that the review is a work in progress. The review team did not have much time, but I think they managed to cover a lot of ground. Certainly, if we look at the terms of reference the Chancellor gave them, we will see that there are things that subsequently have been passed over to the Law Commission for its consideration. I was somewhat perturbed to read in a footnote in the review document that the Government would consider the Law Commission’s recommendations “in due course”. I would like reassurance from the Chancellor that he will ensure, through the all-departmental working group he set up, that regulations are not standing in the way of economic growth and development of our ports, that this “in due course” is acted on speedily, because in due course without reform we will not have the ports to enable us to import our energy or the food and other vital materials we need. I would like to see that “in due course” in the footnote turned into something a little more urgent.

I think that eventually representations will have to be made at an EU level. Interestingly, the review showed that other European countries with ports have had experiences similar to ours when interpreting and implementing the habitats review. I am sure that all Members with ports in their constituencies or an interest in ensuring that Britain returns to being the great trading nation it always has been will want to watch these things and help the Government constructively to tackle these issues.

With regard to other vital infrastructure, a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), mentioned that for those of us living in the more remote parts of the UK a lot of transport is by road, so fuel prices and levies on fuel are of great significance to us. All the goods and services and the great things that are manufactured in Cornwall need to be able to get to market in the rest of the country. Although I was disappointed that fuel levies will go up in August by 3p, I understand why, given the huge mess that the Government are trying to sort out and the economic legacy they were left. That is something we have to bear.

One thing I would like the Minister to consider is a recent precedent. We have heard from colleagues today about the extent to which we believe fuel companies are profiteering from customers in our parts of the world, where the price at the pump is 3p, 4p, or 5p more than it is in other parts of the country. The Office of Fair Trading has the task of looking at whether there is a proper competitive market working in the region. The Department for Energy and Climate Change recently referred the fuel oil market to the OFT, because the winter before last many of us experienced the most appalling hikes in the price of fuel oil, which many people in remote, rural areas use to heat their homes. After the referral to the OFT, some very good work it did and the implementation of measures, we saw no repeat of such hikes last winter. With that recent precedent in mind, I think that the OFT could play a useful role in ensuring that our regional fuel markets are working efficiently. Based on that, hopefully we could see real pressure to reduce the profiteering that I believe is going on at the pump so that people in constituencies further away from the south-east of England will not feel the full impact of the 3p rise.

I welcome the measures in the Budget to support infrastructure. The investment in rail will affect not only HS2 but places such as Cornwall, and the connectedness of the remoter regions of the UK is vital to our economic future. I very much support and commend the Government’s single-minded focus on making sure that we have an infrastructure that is fit to get Britain working and Britain back to work.

Rural Bank Closures

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies]

That is right. As we reduce spending power, every service goes. Each one affects the others.

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

I just want to highlight what has happened in Aldeburgh, where HSBC pulled out—its only communication with the wider community was a poster in the window. Retailers responded by offering cashback. Does my hon. Friend agree that the subject in question is a very suitable one for the Office of Fair Trading to look into? After its study of oil supplies it is examining other issues affecting rural communities; access to financial services could be its next topic.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for that sensible suggestion. There have, indeed, been other suggestions from hon. Members, including one about a summit, which also seems sensible to me. I am sure that more will be made, and I look forward to the Ministers’s response to the debate, to find out where the Government are going with the issue. There is a responsibility on the Government to serve everyone in this country. They have, rightly, worked closely with business and banks to ensure that money is available to business, for the creation of employment. That is currently a huge Government policy issue.

Access to services for our rural areas is also a huge issue. It is not a new issue; it has been there all of my life. The coalition Government have taken a serious and responsible approach to post offices. We need the same discussion and pressure on our banks. If a summit is the answer, that is the way we should go.

The responsibility rests with the banks. The current view of banks is very much influenced by the debate about bonuses and very high salaries. There is a view among the poorest in our society that there is a lot of money available in banks—I know that that is not necessarily the case—so that when they see their banks being closed or their banking hours being reduced for a relatively small saving, as is happening in Llanidloes and Montgomery, they cannot understand it. The banks are disengaged from a major section of the community. The Government must ensure that the banks understand that they have a responsibility not just to the bottom line but to deliver services.

Public Service Pensions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Opposition Members seem to be making increasingly desperate attempts to find new ways of saying that they do not agree with what we have offered. It would be simpler for them to say that they welcome the agreements that we have reached in many areas.

I said in my statement, but will happily repeat for the hon. Lady’s benefit, that the contribution made to the country by public service workers such as teachers, civil servants, nurses, local government workers, firefighters and prison officers is enormously important. That is why one of the Government’s objectives has been to ensure that they continue to receive better pension provision than any other work force in the country, which is absolutely right. I hope that, on reflection, she will choose to welcome that.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that following these reforms, lower-paid nurses, teachers and civil servants will no longer subsidise the pensions of chief executives, permanent secretaries and the like?

[Danny Alexander]

I entirely agree. That is one of the abiding reasons why both the hon. Lady’s party and mine have sought to reform public service pensions for many years. As a result of the inequities in the current system, the contributions of hard-pressed low-income workers subsidise the pensions of the wealthiest public service workers. The new deals will mean that that will no longer happen.

The Economy

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The allocation of time for parliamentary debates is not a matter for the Chair, but the right hon. Gentleman has recorded his view, as has the Deputy Chief Whip.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. Is it fair to say that anyone who has spoken in the debate and then voted against the motion is actually misleading the House by saying that it has not considered the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

The very simple answer to the hon. Lady is that the House has not been misled in any way. Nothing disorderly—[Interruption.] Order. I have just made the point, which brooks no contradiction, that the House has not been misled in any way. Nothing disorderly has taken place. The vote is what the vote is; it is not for me to interpret. Other hon. and right hon. Members and people outside the House are free to do so as they wish.

Private Finance Initiative

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy]

One of the genuine delights about serving on the Public Accounts Committee with the hon. Gentleman is that he has such a wealth of knowledge and anecdotes that clearly illustrate the challenges that we are dealing with. He took part in the Committee’s session, so he will know that I have grave concerns that moving assets overseas to offshore tax havens has substantial consequences for our assessment of the value for money of PFIs. When the decision to go for a PFI project is taken, an assessment is made of the tax that we will get in return, but there is widespread evidence that many companies then move their assets overseas to offshore tax havens. In fact, the Treasury Committee took evidence showing that 91 PFI projects were owned by secondary market infrastructure funds, so we are losing money. One of the best examples of that problem is a body set up by HSBC. The HSBC Infrastructure Company Ltd, which manages a number of hospitals in this country, has made £38 million in profit from 33 PFI schemes, but it has paid just £100,000 in tax in the UK in the past six months.

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

Just to clarify, is the hon. Lady suggesting that, as part of the negotiation of a PFI contract for, say, an NHS hospital, a calculation is done on the basis of what corporation tax would be paid? Were NHS trusts doing that? I am a bit surprised to hear that.

[Stella Creasy]

No, let me be clear. The Treasury uses the Green Book to assess whether a PFI is an appropriate model. An assessment is made specifically of the Exchequer’s tax take over the life of the contract. It is precisely because that is part of the value-for-money assessment that I have great concerns about the fact that we are not getting the tax we expected, which would make the PFI a reasonable model to use.

It is therefore fair to ask what we can do. If the Government are proceeding with the PFI—that is an interesting issue for Government Back Benchers who are concerned about this issue—what action are they taking to learn from the way in which previous contracts were negotiated? One thing that is clear to those of us on the PAC is that there is a better understanding of the skills needed to negotiate these contracts. The hon. Member for South Norfolk was clear about the skills needed in the public sector to negotiate with the private sector and to improve the way in which contracts are negotiated. We must also appreciate that we in the public sector have tried to renegotiate contracts after the fact by asking for increased provision in our hospitals, for example, or by looking at different services. That, of course, has consequences for the response from the private sector.

The fundamental question as regards continuing with the PFI—the Government certainly seem content to do so—is what action Ministers are taking on tax and tax havens. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire is right that we need better data on tax assessments, and those of us on the PAC were certainly unable to get information about assessments of the tax that various PFI projects were expected to generate when they were commissioned and about what would happen next. What concerned us was that, although Treasury officials accepted that an initial assessment would be made, they were clear that no assessment would be made further down the line of whether that initial assessment had been reasonable.

Indeed, there has been no learning about the way in which tax is assessed in decisions to go for the PFI, even though that could be used in future contracts. Specifically, officials were clear that there is no commitment from the Government to look at the tax status of funds or even to explore what action might be taken, for example, to require a company bidding for a PFI contract to show in its books that it has been operating in the UK for the past five years, so that we can be confident that the bulk of its work is done in this country and therefore that we would get the tax back. We would then have a reasonable expectation that the Treasury would recoup the general sum that was part of the calculation. This is not a new concern or a new idea; in fact, a previous Labour Member tabled a private Member’s Bill on precisely this point, but it did not receive support from the then Opposition, and I hope that that will change if we can all agree that we want to improve the way in which the PFI operates, if it continues to be taken forward.

The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire has said that the PFI might be a better model for some types of infrastructure projects than others, but the list of the 61 projects that the Treasury is developing includes a wide range of projects, including hospitals, schools, fire buildings, roads and police stations, so this is a live issue. We could be making progress on challenging the costs to the Exchequer and the value for money of projects, but there is no commitment from the Treasury to look at these issues.

Those are the main concerns that I wanted to put on the record about the hon. Gentleman’s campaign. First, were we to push for a rebate, it would be difficult to get the private sector to renegotiate, although I wish him well in looking for haircuts from people such as David Metter. Secondly, there might be very real consequences for the renegotiation of the cost of the services that are delivered, although I am sure that they would be unintended consequences as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

Thirdly, it is a real concern that we may leave untouched the tax status of these companies and the money that the Exchequer might lose, but which was part of the original decision to go for a PFI project. In putting as much pressure as possible on the Government to talk to companies—the briefing says Ministers have, but the reality revealed in the PAC is that they have not—I hope the hon. Gentleman will also put pressure on them to look at companies’ tax status. I hope he will put pressure on them to look at how we can close the present loophole, so that we can be sure that where an assessment is made of the money that will be returned to the Exchequer over 30 years or whatever term is chosen for the 61 projects, the Exchequer will actually recoup that money. We all agree that value for money should be at the top of the agenda, and we should be thinking about the best way to get the infrastructure buildings that our country will need in the future. If so, how do we make sure, not only when the contract is committed to but in the years ahead, that we are securing that value for money?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on securing the debate, and I urge him to think about his target. I look forward to hearing what he has to say later.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mrs Main. I appreciate your candour in admitting that you have had very little to do with PFI.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for securing the debate. I commend his initiative and his ongoing campaign. I am not sure whether he has been nominated, but he is certainly my Back Bencher of the year for the work that he has done on PFI. It is a great scandal, Mrs Main, that this debate is being held in Westminster Hall. It is always good to debate PFI, but I feel that something of such importance—an emerging scandal that people are only just waking up to—should have been debated in the Chamber, with the full prominence that would be given there.

I was also concerned to hear earlier that evaluation of PFI projects is not being undertaken by the Treasury. Will the Minister tell us whether that can be reversed? Before I talk about some of the challenges of PFI, I want to assure people that I am not fundamentally opposed to PFI in principle; my concern is the legacy. We have heard many stories about that. The legacy has been a disaster and has tarnished the name of PFI, which could have been a force for good. It is a classic case of off-balance sheet financing. Not only will our generation pay for it, but future generations will continue to pay for that, as well as all the other debt accumulated by the previous, profligate Government.

On early memories and anecdotes that hon. Members were relating, I will not go on about light bulbs costing God knows what. However, I remember the first meeting of the all-party group on rural services when we heard from the deputy chief fire officer of a particular authority. His very last comment was, “For God’s sake, never allow me to sign another PFI contract again, because I didn’t have a clue what I was doing. In hindsight, I recognise that I made a huge problem for my fire authority. Because of that, I shouldn’t be here.” But he then went on to use the usual defence: “I didn’t know what I was doing. My accountant said it was fine, so I just signed the contract.” He was embarrassed, and it was good of him to say that, but that story is not unique. I am sure other hon. Members have heard such stories.

Indeed, we all received a briefing from the NHS Confederation: a wringing-their-hands exercise about “It was early in the ’90s; we didn’t know what we were doing; we’ve learned the practices now.” I wonder whether they have. I sent a message back to the confederation to ask what advice it gave to its member hospitals and trusts. It said, “It wasn’t our role to do so. It was the role of the Treasury and the Department of Health.” So I feel that a lot of buck-passing is going on. I know that that is in the past, but we are living with the costs today and will do so in future.

I logged on to the Partnerships UK database to see what PFI projects were awarded to Suffolk. There were only four listed, which surprised me, because I know of at least two others. The most recent PFI contract is a 30-year contract to be shared with Norfolk, and it is for six new police investigation centres, as they are called. Basically, they will be the new police cells. This contract dwarfs all the others: the East Anglia courts; the Wattisham married quarters; the hospital trust’s Garrett Anderson treatment and critical care centre in Ipswich; and indeed the fire and rescue service serviced accommodation PFI project.

We are spending £61.3 million on six centres that will be the new places where people are detained. I challenged that before I was elected. I was told that we had to have the new centres because of the recommendations of the National Policing Improvement Agency. The cost over 30 years for the contract, including the servicing, is £294 million. The budget goes from about £6.7 million spread across the two authorities to more than £11 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) alluded to that. In the days of decreasing budgets, when we are trying to tighten our belts, we face the enormous cost of a brand-new building, which, frankly, is going to be used by prisoners. I am sure many people in Suffolk will be disappointed to hear that we will probably be losing front-line police officers to pay for what I see as a rather gold-plated building.

I genuinely hope that other savings will be found. I hope that we will improve our detection rates so extraordinarily that we will make the savings. I hope that people will not feel that they have got the bobby in the car driving people hundreds of miles back and forth between the detention centres, homes and courts instead of having the bobby on the beat. I hope that we will not be regretting this in the next few years.

Other projects have caught my eye. Apparently, the M1-A1 link road is a shadow toll road. As part of the PFI contract, the Government pay a fee—a toll—to the company. The numbers of journeys are more than double what was originally estimated, so the Government are happily paying through the nose for that. To be fair, as has already been suggested, I do not believe that we should condemn the private sector for how it has made significant amounts of money. Much of the fault lies with us as clients. People should look themselves in the mirror when they recognise the profits that they make from PFI. I have a wealthy constituent who stopped speaking to his brother because he was so ashamed of how much money he was knowingly making out of some of the contracts. He recognised that he did not have a sophisticated client.

Just a few weeks ago, the Government released their construction strategy in which they recognised that 80% of the challenges have been within internal processes. Change orders, which were mentioned earlier, classically add so much to the cost of a project, as does the lack of sophisticated negotiating. The Government are trying to change that, which is to be welcomed. The last piece will be for the construction team, along with financing, to come together and ensure that we have a simpler, focused contract that is flexible and appropriate for future needs.

As for the way ahead, I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire would name and shame those institutions that have thus far not consented to voluntary repayments. I would also like to hear the results of Lord Sassoon’s review on the renegotiation of contracts, which was initiated in February.

I am delighted to hear that PFI is no longer the default place in which to look for capital; there are other sources available. Unlike under the previous Administration, it is not the only game in town. I am glad to see that we have a more balanced potential source of capital funding for the future. I shall conclude, because I recognise that others wish to speak. PFI will be one of the greatest scandals, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it to the attention of the House. Let us keep up the volume to ensure that this scandal is not repeated.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

We have four hon. Members still hoping to catch my eye and there are 30 minutes left before the wind-ups. I will now call Mr Mark Garnier, who I hope will be mindful of his colleagues.

The Economy

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

May I draw attention to my interests as registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

My remarks will concentrate on the housing market, their theme being that that sector, which is fundamental to the healthy operation of the overall British economy, and after showing good signs of a recovery a year ago, is currently stagnant. It is in an extremely parlous position, and there is no evidence of the growth that is fundamental to delivering the jobs and the future prosperity that we need, but while the Government continue with their current policies, we will continue to see a seriously underperforming housing market which, in turn, will contribute to a seriously underperforming British economy.

The interrelationship between the housing market and the wider economy is widely understood. The recession of 2008 had its origins very much in housing. We saw the beginnings in the American subprime housing crisis; the contagion spread rapidly; and it was no coincidence that Northern Rock constituted the first evidence in the UK of the problems that were to engulf us. The crisis was the product of unsustainable lending that had fuelled an unsustainable bubble in this country and a number of others, and the consequences were dire.

That was not the first time we have seen such a process of adjustment after unsustainable growth in the housing market. It has been a pattern over the past 40 years, because there were growth bubbles in the 1970s, the 1980s and the mid-2000s. However, unlike the adjustment after the bubble of the Lawson boom in the late 1980s, the consequences for the public of the recent adjustment—which was painful in many ways and had a dramatic impact, as house prices fell by some 20% and the output of new homes fell by slightly more than a half—were far less damaging and severe than those of the previous recession of 1990-91.

Repossessions have been mentioned, and the following is very telling. Although in 1990-91 repossessions reached some 75,000 annually, with the disaster and tragedy for all people affected matched of course by a huge incidence of negative equity, this time, although the fall in the value of houses was more extreme, the level of repossessions was very much lower—peaking at about 40,000 and falling away, although, sadly, the evidence is that it is rising again—and the problem of negative equity did not blight the lives of millions of people as it did during the 1990s. The difference was that the Government and the Monetary Policy Committee had recognised the importance of swift and clear action to respond to the unprecedented challenges of the recession—through low interest rates plus a series of measures designed to restore confidence in the market, and through public sector investment to help to mitigate the impacts of the declines of private investment and people to retain their homes rather than suffering repossession. All those actions helped to mitigate the impacts of recession.

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

I recognise that the low interest rate is one of the reasons that the number of repossessions was so low. On the other hand, the Monetary Policy Committee’s remit was to tackle inflation, and yet we are now seeing the challenges that an ongoing low interest rate present to people on fixed incomes, whom he seeks to defend because they are suffering as a result.

[Mr Raynsford]

I will not go into a detailed diversion on the whole issue of inflation. The Governor of the Bank of England has made very clear his view that the inflationary factors are not such as to create a fear of long-term damaging consequences and that it is right and appropriate to maintain the low-interest regime to ensure that we do not damage further the prospects for growth—the main theme of my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I always enjoy these occasions and think that it was a very good birthday present from the Opposition to allow the Government to defend their record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said, the debate gives us an opportunity to remind the British public not only of the legacy we inherited, but of the positive action we have taken.

I always enjoy the contributions of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), which I find quite jovial occasions, although I was disappointed that he would not allow me to intervene. The only slight challenge about listening to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to live on planet Balls or in la-la land, is that I wake up and realise that I have participated in a horror show. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) seems to be adding to Aesop’s fables with his portrayal of a golden legacy that we apparently inherited. So what do we end up with? A second-choice shadow Chancellor asking for a second chance. Hopefully, the British public will realise that his plan B just means more boom and bust, more borrowing and potential bankruptcy. Frankly, I do not see the British public voting for that again in the near future.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) referred to a plan B and quoted the CEO of Vodafone. Normally Labour Members are not the biggest fans of Vodafone when it comes to aspects of its contribution to the economy. He will probably not be impressed by the conversation I had with the CEO, who criticised the Government for not cutting fast enough or deep enough and said that, by not making quicker progress on that, we would make a rocky road for ourselves.

The right hon. Gentleman used to cite the USA in support of his plan, but we now see the Obama Administration stepping up the pace of deficit reduction, which they need to do.

[Thomas Docherty]

I suspect that the hon. Lady was not here in May, but I certainly recall President Obama making it absolutely clear that he did not agree with the current Government’s policies on the deficit.

[Dr Coffey]

Well, perhaps he did not, but he seems to have changed his mind and is stepping up the pace of deficit reduction.

Plan C is the VAT cut that the shadow Chancellor announced, unknown to some of his shadow Cabinet colleagues, it seems. Yet again, it is another unfunded tax cut. I was not a Member the last time that happened, in 2008, but many people will remember that earlier that year the 10p tax rate was abolished, and what was the impact of that? The economy continued to contract, leading CEOs said that £12.5 billion had been wasted on that tax cut, and hon. Members may recall the Federation of Small Businesses survey, in which 97% of its members said that their earnings had not increased.

In spite of all that, the right hon. Gentleman has wheeled out the plan again, and eight times today the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) refused to endorse it. We have been told that we need a credible plan with public and political support, but perhaps the shadow Chancellor needs to start with his Back Benchers, rather than by trying to persuade the British public.

I know brotherly love is a big feature of the Labour party, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will start with his brother, who I understand works for PIMCO, the world’s biggest bond fund, which has publicly stated that the UK has the best combination of fiscal and monetary policies in the G20—and so say all of us. No wonder in a Populus poll last week, only 23% of the population supported the Labour leadership in its desire to control the economy, a reduction of 10% in the past three months.

Instead, the British public have responded to the two parties on the Government side of the House, which just over a year ago came together in the national interest to form a coalition, and which with wide political support have put together a credible plan to restore fiscal sanity. Government Members have demonstrated a proactive attitude in starting to untangle red tape; in incentivising the creation of small businesses and entrepreneurs; in the significant policy of welfare reform, whereby we have been very clear that people will be better off if they work, unless they cannot; in the extra money going into apprenticeships, building on the good work—I recognise—of the former Government; and in funding infrastructure.

I was a little surprised at the contribution of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who seemed to have forgotten the amount of money that the Government are spending on infrastructure. Indeed, we recognise that we need to do so.

Reference has been made to RDAs, but a PricewaterhouseCoopers report last year suggested that generally they have been poor value for money, and despite spending those billions, the prosperity gap has widened.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) referred to life in the ’80s in Liverpool, but I grew up in Liverpool and was there in the ’80s. I am going to do a lame Welsh accent, because it was a Labour council—a Labour council—that fired 30,000 employees to stave off bankruptcy—[Hon. Members: “By taxi”]—by taxi. Those people were understandably fed up with the Labour council leader, and they did not just take the ferry across the Mersey to Birkenhead; they left Liverpool. We have seen that with the reduction in the number of people living there, and in the money that is left, too. Ironically, the port of Felixstowe in my constituency benefited from the situation, but it has been a great shame, because I am very proud of where I grew up.

The Conservatives went in and put in investment.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Lady cannot mention our home city of Liverpool without acknowledging the previous Government’s role in rebuilding it and in restoring the pride that we take in it. Will she acknowledge their role, because her comments do not paint a true picture?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am very proud of my home city, but I hope that she will also credit Lord Heseltine. We started back in the ’80s, we saw the Albert dock and other aspects of the city transformed, and some of that continued under the previous Government, but investor confidence in the city was knocked by that legacy of the ’80s which was referred to earlier.

The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood also seemed to use marine terms, trying to suggest something about fancy yachts and the similar. The previous Government, in marine terms, were possibly the equivalent of the Titanic. People took their eye off the ball—holed by an unseen disaster, perhaps—with unintended, tragic consequences. That is the state of the economy which has been left behind, however, with tens of thousands of pounds of debt being loaded on to every child born and on to children not yet born.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) referred to the impact of the Budget last year on mothers and families, but every mother and family I know has to cope with a household budget which means that they have to try to balance the books every month. That is absolutely key.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Coffey]

No, I have already given way a couple of times to Opposition Members.

It is absolutely key to ensure that when one has already maxed out the credit card, one cannot not keep spending but has to stop and start paying it back.

Staying with the nautical terms, I recognise that it is not going to be plain sailing ahead, but I can assure members of the British public that Conservative Members will be firmly on watch. We may need to tack and jibe to reach our final destination, but that destination is fiscal sanity, a growing economy, and a prosperous working Britain. That is why I will support the amendment to the motion.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

That is absolutely right. The investment that the Labour Government tried to encourage in completely new energy industries such as the offshore wind industry used very similar skills. It is important to have a critical mass in these industries, and the achievement of that is now being put at risk.

It is not at all clear what the Government mean by rebalancing the economy. Our debate earlier this evening revealed a bizarre situation in which taxes on the financial sector are not tough enough, while taxes on the primary sector are over-strong. That is simply not going to take us down the route that we all want to go down.

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

I do not know when the hon. Lady first came to the House, but she will recall that when the Labour Government first came to power, they imposed a windfall tax that punished the utility companies for their success. Now, this Government are trying to redress the balance, while recognising that oil prices are at an all-time high and that profits are being made simply through speculation. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is simply talking to the Westminster bubble. She should be thinking about how we can make a real difference to this country, rather than continuing to talk through the night.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s analysis. Unnecessary complexity is one of the problems. A positive aspect of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) is the improvement in transparency, stability and predictability that would ensue from them. Those things would simply not ensue from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s proposals.