Fiscal Responsibility and Fairness
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I believe that in the next Parliament, we should protect the budgets in real terms not just of schools, but of early-years education and 16-to-19 education as well. Saying simply that cash per pupil should be provided on a frozen basis across the Parliament amounts to real-terms cuts for education. That is what people will get from one party of this coalition, but from our part of it people will get real-terms growth and expenditure in all parts of the education system. I think that is vital, given the role of those institutions in fostering opportunity for all in our society.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary has just talked about education. If he is really concerned about the education of 16 to 24-year-olds, why is he cutting the further education budget in Coventry by 24%? He should look further at the validity of the claim that the Government are going to create more apprenticeships. That rings hollow, certainly in my ears, so will the Chief Secretary please clarify the answer he just gave to the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)?
Danny Alexander
It is a matter of record that 2.1 million apprenticeships have been created under this Government. That was the result of substantial investment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. I would have thought that apprenticeships, and their growth, would be welcomed on all sides, because it is an important way for people to gain skills, not least within this House. I very much hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will welcome that substantial investment.
Future Government Spending
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but he reminded me of a performance by Sir Ian Bowler at a “Stand up for Labour” event at the Labour club in my constituency, which was a caricature of a particularly unpleasant form of Conservatism in this country. I can see now how Ian Bowler was inspired. The hon. Gentleman used ugly language to portray a gross mischaracterisation of the events of recent years.
The hon. Gentleman called for some humility. He might have acknowledged that when the Government came to office, they promised to balance the books and said that we would all be in it together. They have failed on both counts, and people in his Peterborough constituency know that.
“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books,”
the Prime Minister told the CBI in October 2010. Let us be absolutely clear: that promise has been broken. They have not balanced the books and the next Labour Government are set to inherit a large deficit as a result. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that borrowing in 2015-16 is set to be £75 billion. The Government will be borrowing over £200 billion more than they planned in 2010. It is because of their failure to deliver on debt and tackle the cost of living crisis that we so desperately need a Labour Government.
Despite Tory claims that our economy is fixed—Conservative Members go around the country and we see pictures of the Chancellor in his hard hat doing a lap of honour while the public look on incredulous—wages have stagnated for many workers. Too many of the jobs that are being created are in low-paid insecure work, rather than high-productivity sectors. I have consistently called for action on zero-hours exploitation, and I introduced a private Member’s Bill on the issue. I am pleased that we have made a tiny bit of progress, and I was proud of the role I played in getting the Office for National Statistics to change the way it records figures so that we now have a more accurate reflection of the situation.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The problem of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is that a lot of us were in the House when the world economic situation deteriorated. He forgot to tell us that the problems started in America. Conservative Members were in their bunkers at the time and talked about doing something about regulation and so on; they never had a policy. Therefore when they talk about honesty in this debate, they should get up and admit that they suddenly discovered there was a problem after they came to power. What happened? People’s wages have been cut by 7%.
Andy Sawford
My hon. Friend is right. Conservative Members were calling for less regulation of banking in this country. Not only did they back Labour’s spending plans right up to the time of the global financial crash, but I remember that in my area they paraded around during the 2005 election calling for more spending and criticising the then Labour Government because we had not built enough hospitals, rebuilt enough schools, created enough Sure Start centres, or put more police on the beat. They had the cheek to call for more public spending in 2005, and now 10 years later they pretend that they were counselling caution at that time when they plainly were not.
The notion that the Labour party—the powerful Labour party that created a global financial crash that hit a Conservative-led Government in Germany and right-wing Governments in France and America—did so because we were investing in schools and hospitals is completely absurd. The public have found the Government out and they will be exposed for it at the election.
Tax Avoidance
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I am surprised the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. If he were to read the debate on that measure in the Finance Bill Committee, he would know that concerns were raised about the effectiveness of the initial draft legislation put forward by the Government. In fact, the Government had to table 100 amendments to their own legislation at the last moment on Report before the Bill became law. At the time, the concern was that nobody even understood what the impact of those 100 amendments would be. That is why the Opposition took that view at that time. If all the issues relating to the 100 amendments were remedied, of course we would support the thrust of that measure, but that was a technical issue discussed in Committee. The hon. Gentleman does himself no favours by not knowing the detail, given how much of an interest he takes in Finance Bill Committees and how much I have enjoyed debating with him in those Committees.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Has she thought that had the Government collected all the taxes due to them, rather than protecting their friends, they might not have needed to inflict cuts and could have paid off a good bit of the national debt?
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which goes to the central point: we need to make sure we are collecting all the tax that is owed. That is fundamental not just for trust in the system for our taxpayers and businesses, but for our public services that depend on that tax take.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. In Lincolnshire and across the country, people have seen unemployment fall and businesses grow. We have got to stick with the long-term economic plan, particularly at a time when the global economic risks are increasing. By working through that plan, we can deliver that economic security for his constituents and mine, and make sure this country has a brighter economic future.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
T4. Is the Chancellor aware that of the 150,000 people employed in Coventry, 50,000 of them—mainly women and young people—are in part-time, low-paid jobs? What are the Government going to do about it?
Mr Osborne
Of course we want to get unemployment down further, and for those who want full-time work, we want to make sure it is available. However, I would point out that, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, youth unemployment is down by 73% over this Parliament and unemployment is down by more than a half, so we have got to go on with our long-term plan, which is delivering those jobs in Coventry. Eighty per cent. of the jobs created in the UK at the moment are full time, so we need to sustain that plan, not go back to the chaos we saw under the Government he supported.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Chancellor said that he was not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. Yet since 2010 there have been 24 tax rises that have meant that ordinary families are paying £450 a year more in VAT. Households will be £974 a year worse off by the time of the next general election because of tax and benefit changes alone since 2010. The Chancellor cut the 50p rate to 45p, which gave an extra £3 billion not to the poorest but to the richest 1% in the country, meaning that someone earning £1 million will receive a tax cut of over £42,000 a year. The Chancellor has opposed a mansion tax to improve the NHS, but he has hit the poorest and the most vulnerable in our society with the bedroom tax. Not on the backs of the poor? I think not. All in this together? I think not.
In fact, the Conservatives have pencilled in spending cuts to public services in the next period that are 30% greater than those they have already introduced. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) said that Labour wanted to take the country back to the 1930s. He should check the figures. In fact, it is his own party that will see the level of public spending as a proportion of GDP reduced precisely to the level it last was during the great depression, the way out of which was not to cut more taxes but to make sure that the economy grew. The Government have now announced £7 billion of unfunded tax cuts. We would like all our parties’ manifesto commitments to be scrutinised by the Office for Budget Responsibility, but the Chancellor has set his face against that. That is hardly surprising, because his failure is significant.
Barry Gardiner
I am sorry, but I cannot because of the time limit. I am conscious that other Members want to speak.
In 2010, the Prime Minister told the CBI:
“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books.”
Some might say, “Surely that was before the general election—before he saw the books”, but it was not: it was on 25 October of that year, well after the general election. The Conservatives have broken that promise, and borrowing in 2015 is set to be over £75 billion. The Chancellor is now borrowing £200 billion more than was planned in 2010.
This failure to deliver on the central goal is fundamentally linked to the Government’s failure to tackle the cost of living crisis. Wages continue to stagnate for very many workers. Too many of the jobs that are being created are low paid and insecure; they are not jobs in high-paid, high-productivity sectors. As a result, our public finances have been weakened. Low and stagnant pay means that tax receipts are £68 billion lower, while receipts from national insurance contributions are £27.3 billion lower across the same period. Low pay combines with higher housing costs and failure to deliver benefit reform to drive social security costs higher. This Government are now set to spend £25 billion more on social security than they planned five years ago. The Government who came in to reform social security because it cost too much are spending £25 billion more than they said they would.
In the 2014 Budget statement, the Chancellor said that he wanted a vote on an absolute surplus. The country understands that there are few, but significant, levers that one can use to sort out the deficit: one can vary spending, vary taxes, and vary borrowing. However, varying spending and taxes can vary the level of tax receipts the Treasury gets in, and that level determines how much one needs to borrow to balance the books. The Chancellor said that
“in this Budget all decisions are paid for. Taxes are lower but so, too, is spending”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 784.]
He should have gone on to say: “But so too are tax receipts, and social security spending is up.”
The Government have failed on their fiscal mandate, but we should look at not just the Red Book but the green book, because growth cannot be built by eroding our natural environment—
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Nothing says more about why we need change in 16 weeks’ time than the Government’s cynical attempt in this debate to divide Parliament and the country by tactical tricks and wheezes as a cover for their failure on the deficit and their inaction on the other big challenges that face our country: wages, productivity, inequality and banking reform.
This is a debate that the Chancellor has been plotting for months as his election battleground, but just last week we saw his attack on the fiscal policies of the Labour party collapse within hours. In 2010, he pledged to eliminate the deficit within five years, but now, having borrowed £200 billion more than he planned, he presents a watered-down charter for budget responsibility in a desperate attempt to ensnare the Opposition on tactics. This is a Chancellor who makes billions of pounds of unfunded tax commitments but refuses to allow the impartial OBR to cost all parties’ election spending promises. Today, his guile has deserted him and his economic failure has rebounded on him. From iron Chancellor to boomerang Chancellor in just five years: Britain surely deserves better than this.
When the OBR slashes its forecasts for receipts from income tax and national insurance contributions as comprehensively as it did in December, we have the proof that the Government are taking the country down the wrong path. In December, the OBR downgraded its forecasts for income tax receipts and national insurance contribution receipts for this and the next four fiscal years by a staggering £39 billion and £53 billion respectively, compared with its forecasts from March 2014. The bulk of that shift was down to much lower than predicted wage growth. That shows that our economy under this Government is simply not generating the scale and number of higher wage, higher skilled jobs that modern Britain needs to succeed in the world. That failure on skills and prosperity is led by a Chancellor who has been the worst for the nation’s pay packets since the 1870s.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
When we look at the general trend over the past five years, we can see that the Chancellor thought that the problem was confined to Britain. He has consistently made excuses every time his targets have not been met because the Tories cannot face up to the fact that the crisis started internationally, particularly in America, but unless they face up to that, they will never get the economy right. They will tinker with it, but they will not get it right and as a consequence the cost of living has gone up and wage values have gone down by 6%.
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. The historic weakness of wage growth under this Government, the disastrous levels of productivity, the growth of insecure work, the failure of the Government to meet their targets on export-led growth and the fact this is a country in which the number of apprenticeships fell, rather than rose, in 2013-14 are not factors that any Chancellor who wants to get the deficit down should ignore. Tackling them will be central to any credible plan to get our deficit down and to move forward the living standards of millions of ordinary people in this country.
The reason for this Government’s failure on wages and tax receipts was explained to me by a constituent I met on her doorstep in Ruchazie last Saturday morning. It is important that the voices and experiences of ordinary people are brought into this debate. Her husband works as a security guard and earns barely above the minimum wage. He does not earn a living wage. She told me that life is tougher for her family than it was five years ago. They are working harder, but they have less to show for it. They do the right thing and get up early and go to work, but they have never felt so insecure. They keep going, but they speak for millions of people in this country who have suffered the same fate. In just 16 weeks, they will have the opportunity for change.
Like the Prime Minister chickening out of televised debates, the Chancellor is ducking out of an independent evaluation of our spending proposals because, like the Prime Minister, he knows that he would be the loser. All the Government have left are weeks of cynical tactics rather than a vision of hope for our country, but political stunts are no substitute for a national strategy for increasing our nation’s productivity, increasing the minimum wage over the next few years, restoring the promise of our young people with a credible plan for skills and rising apprenticeships, and making a plan for a fairer economy with rising living standards. If the Government find that task beyond them, they should get ready to move aside because others are ready to offer hope in place of fear in just 16 weeks’ time.
Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
It is an example of that. In yesterday’s Treasury questions, in the context of the reduction of the 50p rate of tax to 45p, I pointed out that the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% has been higher—and is projected to be higher—in the years since that cut than it was when the 50p rate was in place. There is a similar point to be made here. For properties, we estimate that the top 1% will be paying just under 40% of all stamp duty yields, whereas in 2010, under the old system, the top 1% were paying only 19% of all yields. Stamp duty has become more progressive as a consequence of our changes.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
How does that affect the shrinking tax base? This is a genuine question, by the way. The tax base seems to be shrinking at the moment, so will this change have an impact on the tax base, or will it be neutral?
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that there has been a deliberate shrinkage of the tax base, in that we have taken 3.4 million people out of income tax. Perhaps that was not what he meant, but I am happy to draw the House’s attention to that policy none the less. The Government have, on a number of occasions, made the tax system more progressive. At a time when the public finances are in a difficult position and we need to consolidate them, we have ensured that the wealthiest in society bear a significant burden, and this measure is an example of that. We have made stamp duty land tax more progressive by reducing the burden on ordinary households and collecting more tax from the top end, where there has been a significant appreciation in values in recent years.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, I am about to mention some of the measures that we have taken in respect of helping the housing market, including Help to Buy.
We are investing billions of pounds of public money to provide affordable new homes, including £4.5 billion during this spending review period to provide 170,000 new units, and a further £3.3 billion to deliver 165,000 more units over three years from 2015. As announced in the autumn statement, there will be another £1.9 billion between 2018 and 2020 to continue delivering homes at the same rate. We are also reforming planning laws. The autumn statement package contains commitments on releasing land with capacity for up to 150,000 homes and new measures to support up to 133,000 homes.
Mr Gauke
I should like to make some progress, as I want to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West.
In September, we introduced a new £400 million rent to buy programme, boosting the building of new rental homes to help people to upgrade into home ownership. The programme allows people to rent affordably and to save for a deposit, and then to buy that home or another one. To answer my hon. Friend’s question, more than 66,000 households have benefited from the Help to Buy equity loan and mortgage guarantee schemes, four fifths of whom were first-time buyers.
Mr Cunningham
Obviously we want people to be able to own their homes, but there is another facet to this: social housing, either through local authorities or housing associations. What element of the money that the Government are putting into these schemes is going to that end of the market? The drop from 70% to 65% that the Minister mentioned earlier probably relates to people going into the rental market.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that almost 217,000 affordable homes have been delivered since April 2010. Between 2011 and 2015, some £19.5 billion of public and private investment is going into affordable homes, and we are on track for the highest rate of affordable house building in at least two decades. The Government are delivering on all aspects of how we ensure that we give people the opportunity to have decent housing. These SDLT reforms will give another boost to people wishing to fulfil their aspirations to own the place they live in.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
The right hon. Lady is right about that, and I join her in congratulating all 1,000 of those businesses in her constituency and millions more nationwide. We are talking about people who have set up their own businesses and are working hard to create wealth, jobs and growth for this country. That is why a range of the tax and regulatory changes we have put in place have been designed precisely to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
T7. A few weeks ago, the Chancellor rushed off to Europe to try to get the cap on bankers’ pay lifted. Will he do the same for public sector workers, and, in particular, nurses?
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that that is a matter for discussion at a European Union level.
The Economy
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
It is the complacency from those on the Government Benches that will, I think, shock our constituents most of all.
Only last week, the Deputy Prime Minister said in questions that “the economy is fixed”. How out of touch are Ministers in this Government, whether they are Liberal Democrats or Tories?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
If we listened to the Government, we would never think that the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the collapse of Fannie Mae in America caused the last economic crisis. They continually blame the previous Labour Government, but they have to face up to the truth, which is that it started in America and no Government could have legislated for it. They have now found out that there is an economic crisis and recession in Europe, so is that the next excuse for a punitive Budget?
Chris Leslie
The previous Government did the right thing after that banking crisis by getting growth moving forward—growth that had the rug pulled from under it by the lack of confidence shown by the Chancellor and the measures he took in that autumn statement back in 2010 and in his emergency Budget.
The Government’s long-term plan is little more than trickle-down economics, which has failed in the past and will fail again in the future. The share of national income held by 90% of earners has shrunk since this Government came to power, whereas the share of the cake held by the wealthiest 1% has—surprise, surprise—gone up.
We need a plan that genuinely delivers a recovery for the many, not just for the few. We do not need the slogan-heavy, content-light, trickle-down plan of Treasury Ministers, but we need action on house building, which is at the lowest level since the 1920s, with a goal of building 200,000 new homes each year by 2020. We need a minimum wage rising as a proportion of average earnings and real incentives for the living wage. We need the expansion of free child care for working parents, paid for by the bank levy that the Government failed so spectacularly to collect. We need a cut in business rates for small firms, rather than a reliance and a focus only on corporation tax cuts for big businesses. We need an independent infrastructure commission to deliver the transport networks that our economy needs, rather than what suits the Government’s short-term political needs. We need to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts, we need to hear the Government argue for Britain to play a leading role in a reformed European Union, and we need a real economic plan that can enable us to earn our way towards rising living standards for all, not just for the few. Those are the priorities for next week’s autumn statement.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I will try to be as quick as I can, because I appreciate that Members on both sides of the House take this debate very seriously and wish to participate in it.
Government Members should be reminded that they should not try to rewrite history. I listened to the tirade by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury over who did what in the lead-up to the current economic situation. It is worth reminding the Government that in 2008 we saw the collapse both of the Lehman Brothers in America—it is always good to remind them of that—and of Fannie Mae. The conservative US President then pumped $260 billion into the American economy and introduced quantitative easing, which shows that the economic situation was international, because many countries depend on America for trade. We should start to set the record straight. Running alongside that is the fact that in the first two years after taking office in 1997, Labour paid off large chunks of our national debt. That is conveniently forgotten by those on the Government Benches. We should also remember that the current US President had to bail out the motor car industry in America. The Conservatives tend to forget that little one as well.
It is also worth reminding the House of what we achieved. We introduced quantitative easing and low interest rates, which facilitated growth and helped mortgage payers. We capitalised the banks for the dead simple reason that people were in danger of losing their savings. The Opposition had only one answer to that matter which was to cut red tape. How many Members of the House remember the Conservatives saying that?
When we left office, the economy had grown by about 1.8%, and we had managed to retain our three star credit rating, which is why we could borrow money to try to rejuvenate the economy and keep people in jobs. The Government must be reminded of those things, because sometimes, rather than giving us the reality of the situation, they sound more like an Administration from North Korea. People often say that politicians do not reflect what is happening to them on the ground. Anybody listening to the Government today would certainly have had that impression.
No matter what the Government say, no one can dispute the fact that people are worse off by £1,600 a year. It is worth saying that the purchasing power of wages has also been reduced by between 5% and 6%. In the public sector, pay increases have been kept at 1%, which means that workers have had a wage cut of something like 5%.
In one of the most astonishing episodes of this Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last week or the week before, rushed off to Europe to get the cap on bankers bonuses lifted—unbelievable! That is how out of touch the Government are with public opinion. The public want us to hold bankers to account for causing the previous recession with their prolific spending. People want something done about the bankers, and we have the Chancellor running around trying to get the cap lifted on their bonuses to reward failure. It is astonishing.
Mr Mudie
Was it not made more unacceptable by the fact that this week midwives were here lobbying for a 1% wage increase that the Government had turned down? That same Government were taking Europe to court because the cap limited bankers’ bonuses to 100% of their pay. At the same time as taking Europe to court for stopping bankers getting bonuses above 100% of their pay, the Government were not allowing midwives a 1% rise, which was recommended by their pay review body. In other words, midwives were considered to be worth nothing.
Mr Cunningham
My hon. Friend confirms what I have just said about the Government being out of touch. That is why the public think that politicians in general are out of touch with their constituents.
Before I reflect on some of my constituents’ concerns, let me talk about food banks, the number of which is at an all-time high under this Government. They were introduced to help asylum seekers; they were never intended to be used in the way that this Government are now using them. We should remind the Government of that, because it shows what is happening outside this House to people in this country.
Let me touch on the issues that affect the people of Coventry. Local government cuts are a concern. Coventry has to find £65 million over the next three years. We will have to lose 1,000 jobs. Services such as libraries and those relating to care could be cut. That is the reality of this Government’s policies; we cannot blame anybody else for the problems. Even the education service in Coventry, which backs up teachers and head teachers and gives advice, will be cut. Care for the elderly is also under threat. At a regional level—I am talking about the west midlands—we have seen cuts to the police force. The fire services have a big problem with pensions. A couple of days ago, we had a dispute in the west midlands in which people withdrew their labour. The whole of our public services has been under attack by this Government. The Government have also squandered between £3 billion and £5 billion on the reorganisation of the national health service—that is how out of touch these people really are.
When we look at the public sector in general, pay increases have been kept at 1% for three or four years, which has reduced the public purchasing power by between 5% and 6%. We have seen large-scale redundancies in the public sector. The Government call it rebalancing the economy, which shows just out of touch they are.
The last figure that I have seen suggests that 75,000 people are waiting to be assessed for the employment and support allowance, which is astonishing. The citizens advice bureau in Coventry has dealt with something like 1,300 inquiries in the past 12 months, with the ESA accounting for about 25% of its inquiries. Some of the time spent on those inquiries could be better spent helping people. There are unacceptable delays in appeals, with 40% having negative decisions overturned. People who wait more than a year to be assessed suffer financial difficulty and stress. Terminally ill people are also facing long delays, and the Government are doing nothing about it. That is how out of touch they are.
Employment tribunal fees range from £160 to £250, and a tribunal hearing costs £950, which makes a total of £1,200. That has to be paid by people who cannot afford it. I have constituency cases in which people cannot get proper legal advice because of the cost. The TUC report shows that there has been a fall of 79% in overall claims, which includes an 80% fall in the number of women pursuing sex discrimination cases. That is what is going on under this Government. The CAB has reported that seven out of 10 potentially winnable cases are not being pursued. Then we have the issue of zero-hours contracts. I will not go into any of the details on those now as they have been well and truly rehearsed over the years. I welcome increases in employment, but what we have are jobs that do not even pay a minimum wage. With zero-hour contracts, people cannot plan for a holiday or get a mortgage. That is the reality.
More and more people in this country are in work but on very low wages. What good is work if a person is still in poverty? People should earn enough in their job to be able to live a decent life, and more should be done to make firms pay a living wage.
Money Creation and Society
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Baker
It is extremely dangerous and it has been repeated around the world. An extremely good book by economist and writer Philip Coggan, of The Economist, sets out just how dangerous it is. In “Paper Promises: Money, Debt and the New World Order”, a journalist from The Economist seriously suggests that this huge pile of debt created as money will lead to a wholly new monetary system.
I have not yet touched on quantitative easing, and I will try to shorten my remarks, but the point is this: having lived through this era where the money supply tripled through new lending, the whole system, of course, blew up—the real world caught up with this fiction of a monetary policy—and so QE was engaged in. A paper from the Bank of England on the distributional effects of monetary policy explains that people would have been worse off if the Bank had not engaged in QE—it was, of course, an emergency measure. But one thing the paper says is that asset purchases by the Bank
“have pushed up the price of equities by as least as much as they have pushed up the price of gilts.”
The Bank’s Andy Haldane said, “We have deliberately inflated the biggest bond market bubble in history.”
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What is the hon. Gentleman’s view of QE? How does he see it fitting into the great scheme of things?
Steve Baker
As I am explaining, QE is a great evil; it is a substitute for proper reform of the banking system. But this is the point: if the greatest bubble has been blown in the bond markets and equities have been pushed up by broadly the same amount, that is a terrible risk to the financial system.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I, too, strongly congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing this debate, which everyone recognises is vital and which has not been debated in this House for 170 years, since Sir Robert Peel’s Bank Charter Act 1844. The hon. Gentleman drew that fact to my attention when we were last speaking in a similar debate. That Act prohibited the private banks from printing paper money. In light of the financial crash of 2008-09 and the colossal expansion of money supply that underpinned it—no less than a twenty-two-fold increase in the 30 neo-liberal years between 1980 and 2010—the issue is whether that prohibition should be extended to include electronic money.
It is unfortunate that it is so little understood by the public that money is created by the banks every time they make a loan. In effect, the banks have a virtual monopoly—about 97%—over domestic credit creation, so they determine how money is allocated across the economy. That has led to the vast majority of money being channelled into property markets and the financial sector. According to Bank of England figures for the decade to 2007, 31% of additional money created by bank lending went to mortgage lending, 20% to commercial property, and 32% to the financial sector, including to mergers and acquisitions and trading and financial markets. Those are extraordinary figures.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Given what my right hon. Friend has just said, is there not an argument, in this situation of unlimited credit from banks, for the Bank of England to intervene?
Mr Meacher
My hon. Friend anticipates the main line of my argument, so if he is patient I think I will be able to satisfy him. Crucially, only 8% of the money referred to went to businesses outside the financial sector, with a further 8% funding credit cards and personal loans.
Mr Meacher
Let me finish, and I will of course give way.
The banks have been encouraged by that provision into much more risky, even reckless, investment, especially in the case of exotic financial derivatives—
Mr Meacher
Members are beginning to queue up to intervene, but let me finish my point first.
The banks have been encouraged even to the point at which after the financial crash of 2008-09 the state was obliged to undertake the direct bail-out costs of nearly £70 billion as well as to provide a mere £1 trillion in support of loan guarantees, liquidity schemes and asset protection arrangements.
Mr Jim Cunningham
On the question of banks investing in the property market, does my right hon. Friend think we could learn anything from the United States and the collapse of Fannie Mae? Are we in a similar situation?
Mr Meacher
Again, that takes me down a different path, but there is considerable read-across.
Mr Meacher
Public ownership of the banks is a significant issue, but I am not going to propose it in my speech. It would be a mistake to return RBS and Lloyds to the private sector, and the arguments about Barclays and HSBC need to be made, but not in this debate. I shall suggest an alternative solution that removes the power of money creation from the banks and puts it in different hands to ensure better results in the national interest.
Against that background, there are solid grounds for examining—this is where I come to my proposal—the creation of a sovereign monetary system, as recommended by several expert commentators recently. Martin Wolf, who, as everyone in this House will know, is an influential chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an article a few months ago—on 24 April, to be precise—entitled “Strip private banks of their power to create money”. He recommends switching from bank-created debt to a nationalised money supply.
Lord Adair Turner, the former chair of the Financial Services Authority, delivered a speech about 18 months ago, in February 2013, discussing an alternative to quantitative easing that he termed “overt money finance,” which is also known as a from of sovereign money. Such a system—I will describe its main outline—would restrict the power to create all money to the state via the central bank. Changes to the rules governing how banks operate would still permit them to make loans, but would make it impossible for them to create new money in the process. The central bank would continue to follow the remit set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is currently to deliver price stability, which is defined at the present time as an inflation target of 2%. The central bank would be exclusively responsible for creating as much new money as was necessary to support non-inflationary growth. Decisions on money creation would be taken independently of Government by a newly formed money creation committee or by the existing Monetary Policy Committee, either of which would be accountable to the Treasury Committee. Accountability to the House is crucial to the whole process.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Going back to the question I asked my right hon. Friend earlier, what would be the role of the Bank of England?
Mr Meacher
I will come on to explain that. The Bank of England has an absolutely crucial role to play. If my hon. Friend listens to the last bit of my speech, he will get a full answer to that question.
A sovereign money system thus offers—if I may say this—a clear thermostat to balance the economy, which is notoriously lacking at present. In times when the economy is in recession or growth is slow, the money creation committee would be able to increase the rate of money creation, to boost aggregate demand. If growth is very high and inflationary pressures are increasing, it could slow down the rate of money creation. That would be a crucial improvement over the current system, whereby the banks either produce too much mortgage credit in a boom because of the high profit prospects, which produces a housing bubble and raises house prices, or produce too little credit in a recession, which exacerbates the lack of demand.
Lending to businesses is central to this whole debate.
Childcare Payments Bill
Jim Cunningham Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point and I was just about to come to that. We are the party of Sure Start and the thousands of Sure Start centres that existed in 2010. It is not specifically relevant to this debate, but we could not allow it to pass without mentioning the very deep concern up and down the country about the future of our Sure Start centres.
There are concerns, which were made abundantly clear by a number of witnesses in Committee last month, that the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough to provide the support that thousands of parents and families desperately need right now. They need that support now, not in 12 months’ time, which is why we tabled new clause 1. Based on the Family and Childcare Trust’s annual survey, we know that child care costs have risen five times faster than wages since 2010, at a time when wages have lagged behind prices, leaving people £1,600 a year worse off on average. This support is even more vital when we see how much parents have lost out as a result of the Government’s choices: the decisions to cut tax credits, child benefit and maternity pay, and to close thousands of Sure Start centres.
As we saw and read in the news yesterday, research from the London School of Economics and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the university of Essex shows clearly how the burden of austerity under this Government has fallen most heavily on those with lower incomes. The research found that the Government’s tax and benefit changes have seen the poorest lose about 3% of their incomes, while the richest half of the country have actually seen their incomes increase by 1% to 2%. That blows away the Government’s claims from the start that we are somehow all in this together. The research highlighted the fact that families with children have fared worst of all, which confirms our worst fears. Single parent families, in particular, have lost far more through cuts to tax credits and other support than they may have gained through any tax changes, proving that the Government have given with one hand but taken away far more with the other—so much for being the most family-friendly country. Families have lost out on up to £1,500 a year due to changes to tax credits alone. Tax credits are a vital part of income for many working parents, especially those on the most modest incomes.
When we look at all the tax and benefit changes since 2010, including the Government’s much-lauded and touted personal allowance increases, we see that families have clearly been hit hardest of all, and that will remain the case right up to the general election. A family with both parents in work will be about £2,073 a year worse off and a family with a single parent in work will be about £1,300 a year worse off. Despite the Conservatives’ claim of creating the most family-friendly country and the Liberal Democrats’ supposed belief that families should get the support they need to thrive, the Government have not been family-friendly and they have not stepped in to provide families with the help they so desperately need to get to grips with the soaring costs of child care. Far from stepping in, they have pulled the rug from under the feet of many families. Any extra help for parents struggling with the cost of child care is clearly to be welcomed. However, not only is the Bill too little too late for hundreds of thousands of families, we are disappointed that the Government have so far refused to consider that additional support could be offered to families right now. That is why we have tabled new clause 1.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we can see the Government’s attitude to child care with their closure of more than 400 Sure Start centres?
Catherine McKinnell
Up and down the country, there is deep concern about the disappearing Sure Start services. We know that the worst is yet to come when we look at the dire straits in which many local authorities find themselves and the difficult decisions that many are having to make about their Sure Start services. My hon. Friend makes a very good point: that does sum up the Government’s attitude to support for children and families. They simply wash their hands of the issue whenever it is raised in this House.
We tabled new clause 1 because we want to compel the Government to explore the effectiveness of extending the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds when both parents are in work. The first part of new clause 1 seeks to understand what support the current proposals will provide to the parents who need it most. The free entitlement introduced under the Labour Government, which happily has been continued under this Government, makes a real difference to hard-pressed families. The simple truth is that, months after the Bill was first published and introduced, we are still none the wiser about exactly how many parents will be better off as a result of the top-up payments, or, crucially, by how much.
That stands in marked contrast to our plans to extend the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds, which will be worth £40 a week, or £1,500 a year, to about half a million children. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that of those families who will be newly eligible for support under the Bill—those who are self-employed, or those whose employers do not currently offer employer supported child care vouchers—the average benefit will be about £600 a year. Clearly, that is far lower than the £2,000 per child that the Government have been touting ever since they announced the policy for top-up payments in March.
It is worth remembering that some 520,000 families currently benefit from ESC vouchers. The Government’s impact assessment sets out a number of case studies where families might be better off or, indeed, worse off under the new top-up payments. The impact assessment suggests that families can retain their ESC vouchers if they wish, but goes on to list a whole range of caveats relating to whether parents will be able to continue to qualify, whether they would be better off remaining under the current voucher scheme, or whether the new top-up scheme might be better for them.
Clauses 62 and 63 seek to wind down the ESC scheme over the next few years, closing it to new entrants. Presumably, ESC vouchers will eventually vanish completely. If a parent changes jobs or if their employer stops offering vouchers—this could well happen, as voucher providers are set to see the majority of their business disappear—they will have no choice but to switch to top-up payments, leaving many worse off.
We heard evidence from a wide range of witnesses in Committee last month who cited the Resolution Foundation’s work. It is worrying that the Resolution Foundation had to undertake that work because the Government have not done sufficient work to look at the true impact on parents. The Resolution Foundation suggests that 80% of the families who will benefit from top-up payments are in the top 40% of income distribution. The remaining 20% will go to those in the middle of the distribution scale. If the key aims of the Bill are to support parents with the cost of child care and to help more parents back into work by making work an economically viable option, those figures raise questions about whether its aims are achievable through this Government scheme alone. In contrast, many child care experts agree that Labour’s child care plans, as outlined in new clause 1, meet these twin aims.