Amendment of the Law
Pat McFadden Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The most significant thing about last week’s Budget is that it did not move the dial on economic growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that and said that it has not revised its expectations for growth or employment. On the basic problem facing the country—the need for jobs and growth—the Budget changes precisely nothing. If there was an argument within the Government about a plan for growth, it has been lost. Indeed, the pre-Budget discussion was not about jobs and growth but about which party in the coalition could claim credit for which tax rate they felt related to their own manifesto.
The Treasury Committee recently took evidence from the permanent secretary to the Treasury. He confirmed that regional policy work in the Treasury has been wound up. In fact, the only regional policy the Government have left is to cut public sector pay in the regions. The permanent secretary spoke of “intrinsic scepticism” about policies to drive growth beyond the fiscal measures that we know about. The Budget is the evidence that that scepticism has won through. The Government have hung their flag firmly on deficit reduction alone, abandoning the effort for a convincing plan for growth and jobs alongside it. The Government are persisting with a hit on manufacturing companies, through cuts in investment allowances, to pay for their corporation tax cut. It is not so much the “march of makers” as the levy on the makers to pay for the non-makers. Rhetoric and policy are pulling in two entirely different directions. It is not enough to say that we want to be open for business; the Government have to play their role in helping business to grow and succeed.
If the Budget changed nothing economically, it certainly sent strong political signals. At its heart is a tax cut for those earning over £150,000 a year, paid for by two groups: pensioners, through the freeze in the personal allowance, and also—this has been under-commented on—middle-income earners who are being dragged into the 40% tax bracket, and there are 300,000 of them. Reference has been made to the allowances being frozen before, but Budgets have to be taken in the round. The central message of this Budget is that pensioners and middle-income earners will now pay for a tax cut for people earning far more than them—four or five times more. That is what the Government have signalled politically in the Budget.
Let us think a little about the low-paid. The Liberal Democrats have claimed great credit for the increase in the personal allowance. It is true that it will be of help to some of the low-paid, but there is something else, which we should not forget. There are 300 families in my constituency, and hundreds more in constituencies represented in this House, who will be plunged into poverty by cuts to tax credits, of up to £3,800 a year, unless they can find more hours of work. The money that could have ameliorated that change has gone to a tax cut for people earning more than £150,000.
It is claimed that the Budget is fiscally neutral overall. However, although we know what the measures in it cost, we do not know what they will raise. In the end, the real picture might not be a fiscally neutral Budget, but a gross tax give-away to the richest in the country. That shows the political colours of the Government more than anything else.
Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses
Pat McFadden Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
At first glance it might seem as though youth unemployment and bank bonuses are separate issues, or that if they are linked it is only at the level of an argument about fairness or equity. But that is not the case. The level of reward at the very top of the financial services industry is not just an argument about fairness or equity, although it is certainly that; it is something that has a material effect on the functions carried out by our financial institutions, including the level of lending available to the economy and, thus, the capacity for job creation in it.
I should make it clear that I am talking about bonuses at the very top. We should not forget that the vast majority of people who work in the financial services industry receive ordinary salaries, and that if they do get a bonus it is of a modest amount to which no one would object.
Indeed, we all value the employment created by our financial services industry, but there is a broader problem, which we all know. In recent years we will have all met businesses that cannot find the funding that they need to keep going or, in some cases, to expand, grow and employ people. Sometimes that is because the price of credit rises so much that the business in question cannot afford it, but sometimes it is because the credit is not available on any terms.
No Government can second-guess every individual lending decision, but there is no doubt that access to finance has become a barrier to the creation of employment. This Government’s answer was to get together with the banks in the Merlin agreement, which was based on gross lending, not net. Let me give the House one politician’s verdict on such agreements. He said:
“This would be completely letting the banks off the hook. It’s perfectly possible for banks to achieve a gross lending target while withdrawing capital from small to medium-sized businesses.”
He went on to say that, in agreeing to gross lending targets, the previous Government allowed the banks to run rings around them. I am of course quoting the current Business Secretary, who had that opinion on gross lending agreements before he came into office—and then supported exactly the same thing.
The right hon. Gentleman subsequently pirouetted and said that the Merlin project had not worked, telling the House last month:
“The Merlin project certainly did not succeed in its central objective, which was to achieve growth in gross lending by banks.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 397.]
The banks’ argument is that they are under conflicting pressure both to increase the amount of capital that they hold and to lend more to business. They tell the public and they tell us politicians that we can have either safe and secure banks or more lending, but not both; and that brings us back to bonuses.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who is no longer in his place, referred to the evidence, given last week to the Treasury Committee by the new regulatory body responsible for financial stability, which suggested that that was not the case at all.
Meg Hillier
Does my right hon. Friend wish to comment on the sudden enthusiasm of Conservative Members for regulation, given that, when regulation was proposed by the previous Government, they were not keen on it at all?
Mr McFadden
There are many quotations from Conservative Members calling for less regulation during the previous Government’s period in office, but I refer to the Treasury Committee evidence from Mr Robert Jenkins, a former Credit Suisse trader who is now a member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee. He recently made a speech in which he said:
“The truth is that banks can strengthen their balance sheets without harming the economy. They can do so by cutting bonuses, by curtailing intra-financial risk-taking and by raising term debt and equity.”
As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds said, last week Mr Jenkins told the Select Committee that if the banks reduced the bonus pot by £1 billion, that would make available £20 billion more for small businesses.
This weekend, the banks hit back at that estimate. The Sunday Times was briefed, by an industry insider who clearly has a thing or two to learn about rapid rebuttal, that the real figure if bonuses were cut would not be £20 billion but only £13.5 billion. That argument is based on whether we apply the capital and regulatory rules that exist at the moment or those that may come in future. But whether the figure is £13.5 billion in future or £20 billion at the moment, the argument is clear: reward is an issue not only about fairness, but about the function that we want the banks to have in the economy.
Of course it is galling for a nurse on a pay freeze to be paying for a crisis that they did not cause and then to see a seven-figure bonus, but it is more than galling—the truth is that we have been presented with a false choice between restoring the capital position of banks and supporting lending in the economy. There is not an automatic trade-off between levels of safety and levels of funding once we take into account issues of reward at the top. Put simply, less money in excessive pay at the top would make more available for the lending we need to create jobs. That is why youth unemployment and bank bonuses are linked.
I have one final thing to say. In the coming days, we are going to hear a lot about what top bankers are entitled to contractually; no doubt that argument will be wielded by Ministers. However, contracts are not the only thing that matters. Context matters too, and the context is the greatest squeeze on family living standards since the war. That should be taken into account by the bankers themselves as we decide on restraint on bonuses.
The banking industry is hugely important to this country, but its relationship with the public has been broken. It is time to repair that relationship, and there is no better place to start doing that than in striking a better balance between reward at the top and the job that we want the banks to do—to lend in the real economy.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The motion links the issue of bankers’ bonuses and youth unemployment. With my constituents in Bristol West, I agree that the levels of both are currently excessive.
I shall deal with bonuses first. Executive pay is meant to be the reward for company growth and shareholder return. Over the past decade, executive pay has gone up by an average of 13.6% each year, but the growth in the index of the top 100 companies on the London stock exchange has gone up by only 1.7% each year. Executive pay has vastly outstripped the underlying growth in the companies over which the directors have presided.
Bonuses, of course, are usually the worst manifestation of spectacular reward—sometimes for just modest return for the company’s shareholders, or even a paltry return. Even worse, they can be a pay-off for corporate failure. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the Government’s action to deal with that excess in the boardroom. The boardroom is the place where that excessive behaviour should be tackled and reined in, and shareholders need to take action in shareholder meetings.
The coalition Government will implement or consult on 10 of the recommendations of the High Pay Commission. Taxes, of course, have a role to play, but it is a subsidiary one. The behaviour itself needs to change. Under the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the bonus tax was a failure according to the terms that he used to describe it when he announced it in the Budget. It was meant to curtail behaviour in the boardrooms of banks, but it failed completely.
At that time, the underlying rate of income tax and national insurance on the recipients of bonuses was 41%; under the coalition Government, the figure is 52%. When we factor in employers’ national insurance, we see that roughly two thirds of the value of a bonus comes back to the Treasury. In addition, the permanent bank levy will raise £2.6 billion for each subsequent year of this Parliament, which is more in net terms than the bonus tax raised under the Labour Government.
The previous Government were, of course, in office for 13 years. They had ample opportunity to do something. I sat through five Queen’s Speeches, in each of which a raft of legislation was announced by Her Majesty, but not once did I hear of an attempt to tackle corporate greed. Indeed, I would say that the Labour Government, certainly for their first eight years, positively encouraged corporate greed. We just heard from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). The Cabinet Minister to whom he reported in the latter years of the Labour Government, Lord Mandelson, said famously that he and new Labour were
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
It was the Labour Government who gave a knighthood to Mr Goodwin.
Mr McFadden
I have heard that quotation twice today and I think that it is time to complete it. Lord Mandelson went on to say,
“as long as people pay their taxes”.
Royal Bank of Scotland (FSA Report)
Pat McFadden Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Responsibility clearly rests with the leadership of RBS, not with those working in the bank’s branches, those working at its insurance company and others, who did their job properly and to the highest standards. It is important to recognise that, having identified regulatory issues to address, his party and my party came together in a coalition Government committed to regulatory reform. The Labour party was wedded to the status quo and to the regulatory regime that allowed this to happen unchecked. That party should take its full responsibility, just as we should recognise the excellent work that people at RBS did.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The report makes it clear that the primary responsibility for the collapse of RBS lies with the firm. The shadow Minister was big enough to say what he did about past regulation, and the Minister’s anger would be more credible if he and his party had not continually called for lighter regulation. The Minister had said:
“Effective light-touch, risk-based…regulation is in the interests of the sector globally, and the Government need to send that message more strongly to the US Administration and Congress”.—[Official Report, 28 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 995.]
The Chancellor had said:
“I fear that much of this regulation has been burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult.”
If people are going to admit culpability on regulation, the truth is that those on both sides of the House need to look in the mirror. Is that not the case?
The Economy
Pat McFadden Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Darling
I am, and I shall come on to that in a minute, but I want to make a further point. If the OBR comes out with another downward revision of its figures at the time of the Budget next March, does it mean that we are going to embark on yet another round of reducing expenditure? It this not the same sort of argument that we had in the 1930s? The prevailing orthodoxy did not work then, and it will not work now. My guess is that this argument is going to dominate politics and economics over the next few months—not just here, as I said, but in Europe.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the construction industry. I welcome some of the measures the Chancellor announced on infrastructure, but with this big caveat. First, if he looks at some of them, particularly the road announcements, he will see that they have been announced by successive Governments over many years. He will no doubt have been told by the Treasury that the problem with these big plans is the huge lag between the time they are announced and the time we see them. I remember opening the M6 expressway and a reporter said, “This must be a great triumph for the Labour Government.” I said, “Indeed, it was. Harold Wilson would have been absolutely delighted to see it built.” That illustrates the point.
Although this is not a transport debate, I am glad that the Government are looking at the issue of aviation, but they cannot escape from the consequences of the decision not to proceed with the expansion at Heathrow. I know this is no longer my party’s policy, but I believe that issue needs to be looked at again for the future prosperity of the country. The High Speed 2 line is no substitute for it.
The Chancellor has, of course, had to change course. He was very much against quantitative easing. When I introduced it, he said it was the last act of a desperate Government, but it now turns out that it is a jolly good thing and we can expect to get even more of it. I suspect we will need more as the economy slows down. As I said, he has also had to introduce the infrastructure projects to try to help—although not enough, in my view. I think he will have to do more, particularly about jobs for young people facing unemployment, which is going to be a real economic problem as well as a real social problem. Many of us here remember the lost generation in the 1980s. Many of those individuals never got over the experience of having no job when they left school, college or university. The Government are going to have to come back to this, no matter what the Chancellor says, because the outlook is such that the Government are going to have to at some stage accept that at a time like this only the Government can take the action necessary to stimulate the economy and restore confidence. That brings me to Europe.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend talks about the effect of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the forward outlook. How does he view its projections for returning to the trend rate of growth in two or three years’ time, given the drastic revision that has taken place between the forecast in March and the forecast last week?
Mr Darling
As it happens, there is a passage in my book about the trend rate of growth. I believe that economists find it terribly difficult to work out what the right trend rate of growth is. On the point raised in the Select Committee this morning, I am surprised that the OBR has said that the productive capacity of the economy has been so reduced, partly because of lack of productivity. Part of the OBR’s problem is that it fails to recognise that businesses have retained labour through this recession in the hope that they will need it when recovery comes. One worry is that if businesses think there will not be a recovery, the people they have held on to will then lose their jobs. No doubt the Select Committee will look into that.
Let me touch on what is happening in Europe. I appreciate that it is a risky business because what is happening today might not be what is happening tomorrow or the day after that. The Chancellor touched on it and I hoped he would say rather more about what is being proposed—if, indeed, he knows.
As far as I can see, the agreement reached between President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel on Monday seems to be a re-creation of the stability and growth pact—and we know which were the first two countries that actually broke it. I have a feeling that they are trying to reach a sufficient political agreement to give Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank sufficient cover to do what we all know the ECB has to do in terms of intervening in the market. It does not go any further than that. Mario Draghi made a good speech last week, in which he said, “Look, we’re ready to intervene, but you lot have got to show willing.” Interestingly, that is exactly the same position that Jean-Claude Trichet took in the ECB at the last ECOFIN meeting I attended in May 2010, to which the Chancellor is fond of referring, when it was necessary for Ministers in the European Union and the eurozone to decide on sufficient action to allow the ECB to intervene.
I am glad that the ECB is going to intervene, but the agreement reached on Monday does not go far enough because it does not address the fundamental questions and fundamental problems of having a single currency without something approaching fiscal or economic union. That was not addressed and neither was the Greek problem, which will not go away because that fix will not work. The rescue fund is still a virtual one and, of course, there is the whole question of the recapitalisation of European banks, which remains for next summer.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). I do not agree with what he said about wind farms, but he made a thoughtful and interesting speech, and I hope that when he listens to what I say about the north-east, he may feel that things in Wales are not quite so bad.
At the weekend I received an e-mail from a constituent which said:
“I wanted to apply for a crisis loan for my heating oil but when I rang up I was told this was not possible … and I would have to apply for a budgeting loan which has a three-week wait … My problem is I am unable to pay by direct debit … I have been unable to save the money from my employment and support allowance as I have been trying to pay my other important bills . . . My dilemma is that my oil will not last much longer and as I suffer from diabetes and had a heart procedure in September my health will suffer as a result of no heating.
What can I do to sort this out?”
The e-mail is interesting not because of what it says about the benefits system, but because of what it reveals about the level of poverty being faced at present in some households, as well as the consequences of the failure to tackle the energy giants adequately.
There are two major themes that I want to pull out of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his autumn statement—the unfairness and the unintelligence of the proposals that he put to the House. In many cases they are unintelligent because they are unfair. Let us look first at who is bearing the burden of the measures that he announced. We can see from the analysis published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that it is the poorest who are paying the most. The IFS analysis makes it clear that the measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced will make the bottom 30% worse off and the top 60% better off.
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend is right in what she says about the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates. She will also know that the IFS says that by household types, it is families with children who are worst hit. What does she think the Government and the Chancellor have got against families with children?
Helen Goodman
I cannot imagine what the Chancellor has against families with children, but it is obviously a matter of extreme concern not just that the number of children who live in poverty will go up, but that to tackle the problem, the Government are going to redefine poverty. They will find that that is a massive mistake. If they go to an absolute measure, they will not look good against the Labour Government, who reduced the number of children in absolute poverty by 2 million.
Those on £14,500 will lose eight times the share of their income that those on £32,000 will lose. The poorest 10% will lose four times the share of their income that the richest 10% lose. In other words, it is a cynical way of focusing money on so-called marginal voters. The proposals are unfair. They are unintelligent to the point of stupidity, because the propensity to consume is highest among the poorest. Maintaining the incomes of people on low incomes will have the fastest and greatest impact on demand, so even with the same level of borrowing as they propose and the same fiscal stance, the Government could have a bigger bang for their buck. They could have a greater impact on demand and on the growth of the economy, simply by redistributing.
The second dimension on which the autumn statement is both unfair and unintelligent is the regional distribution. The Government are switching £4 billion from current to capital, of which only £4 million—that is, 0.1%—is earmarked for the north-east. That is 25 times less than the £100 million that was lost from my constituency alone when the Building Schools for the Future programme was cut. For example, improvements to the A1, the A19, the A66 and the Tyne tunnel are not going ahead.
The North East chamber of commerce has described this as “hugely disappointing”. The extension of 100% capital allowances till 2017, the new enterprise zone in the port of Blyth and the increase in the regional growth fund are all minuscule in comparison with the impact of the abolition of the regional development agency.
Furthermore, the infrastructure plan is old-fashioned. Only £100 million of the new money is in the communications strategy and that is all concentrated in the cities, whereas the lack of access is in rural areas. Today the Federation of Small Businesses and the National Farmers Union came together to point out that hundreds of thousands of people will be left behind, so where it is most useful and most needed, it will be least available.
In announcing his weakening of the habitats directive, the Chancellor seemed to be scornful of green considerations. After the excuses of snow and royal weddings, it seems to be the butterflies that are the problem, or perhaps it was the seaweed that he was complaining about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) pointed out the detrimental impact of regional pay on our regional economy. Lower pay in the north-east is a symptom of our problems. Reducing the pay further will take yet more money out of the demand in the regional economy. To set this in context, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made an excellent speech in Westminster Hall, pointing out that the cuts in incapacity benefit are already taking £170 million out of the regional economy. What may look like a sneeze in the south can cause pneumonia in the north-east.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I shall use the time available to make a couple of points about the economic challenge facing the country, and in particular about the era of the politics of less. All of us must look to achieve our political and economic aims in an era of lower growth than we have been used to in recent years.
The central feature of the autumn statement last week was the further downgrading of economic forecasts for the short term. The Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its growth forecast for this year from 2.6% to 0.9% and for next year from 2.8% to 0.7%, and said that by 2015 the economy will be 3.5% or £65 billion smaller than previously forecast. The Financial Times has estimated that the gap between the economic growth trajectory had the recession not happened and where we will be in a few years’ time is 14% of GDP. We are therefore entering an era in which our economy is smaller—and by some projections significantly so—than it would otherwise be. Recovery will be weaker than expected, unemployment will be higher and the economy will be smaller for some years to come.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that between 1997 and 2010 the British economy grew by 75%—in other words, that it almost doubled? It has now come to a shuddering stop and is going into reverse. Can he think of any previous historical period in the past 200 years, and not only in the 1970s, when a Conservative Government presided over such an astonishing, shrinking, no-growth economy?
Mr McFadden
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the economic times that we are in should make us reassess what we think of as normal.
The human implications have been laid out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in its analysis of the impact on households. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, the IFS has shown that the distributional impact of the measures is geared so that the greatest losses come in the lowest-income deciles, and that there are particularly harsh effects on families with children. The shadow Chancellor in his opening speech referred to the impact of the tax credit measures on individual constituencies. The most striking figure for me is that the IFS forecasts that between 2009-10 and 2012-13 there will be a 7.4% fall in real median net household income, which is about the same as the largest fall since records began.
Angela Smith
In the context of what my right hon. Friend says, can it be fair that while £1.2 billion in tax credits for low-income families is taken away, only £300 million extra will be required from the bankers?
Mr McFadden
Anyone who looks at the IFS distributional charts would certainly not judge the impact of the Government’s measures as fair.
The background, therefore, is less disposable income, weaker growth, more unemployment and more borrowing. Against that, it is little wonder that there is such low confidence among families and businesses alike.
The question, therefore, is what to do to promote the economic growth that we so urgently need to create jobs. The Chancellor set out a number of measures in the autumn statement—more lending to small businesses, more spending on infrastructure and so on—to try to boost growth. Some of those individual measures are perfectly sensible and should be welcomed. Of course small businesses want more lending, and more capital spending will create jobs, but the real question is whether those measures will contribute to economic growth.
The OBR has already given its verdict. Paragraph 1.14 of its report states:
“We have not made any material adjustments to our economy forecast on the basis of these policy announcements”,
meaning the ones in the autumn statement. Its verdict is that however worthy the individual measures are, they will not make a material difference to the overall picture. Therefore, if growth will not come from consumer spending because the consumer is being squeezed in the way that the IFS has set out, and if it cannot come from Government expenditure because that is contracting, it must come from trade and investment.
The Government should ask what more they can do to encourage business to invest. My contention is that that is not a matter of putting one or two measures suggested by business lobby groups into such statements. Rather, it is a matter of making a sea change in our thinking of how we get growth in these economic times.
I shall focus on one particular issue on which I have spoken before in the House. Although industry welcomes the change announced on R and D tax credits, there is real concern about why the Chancellor is pressing ahead with his plan for a £3 billion-a-year hit on manufacturing industry through his cuts to capital allowances. It is not enough to argue for enhanced capital allowances in enterprise zones when manufacturing in the economy as a whole is putting up with that £3 billion tax hit. How does it help us to generate a low-carbon economy if the Government make investment in the equipment and machinery that will get us there more expensive through their tax policy? Even the excuse that that is a necessary deficit-reduction measure is not available, because the money is not being used to reduce the deficit; it is being recycled in a give-away to businesses in those sectors of the economy that do not invest, including the very banks that will not lend to manufacturing businesses in the first place.
If we really want to rebalance the economy, our manufacturing tax stance should recognise the shortened lifespan of machinery, help businesses to invest, and ensure that British companies have an incentive to invest and that they are not hindered in their efforts to keep ahead of the game. That is made more urgent by the sharp downgrading last week of the forecast for growth over the next couple of years. That shows that the Government need to be more, not less, ambitious in their plans to promote trade and investment.
We have twice heard Government plans that have been billed as plans for growth, yet at each economic statement, growth has fallen, and it is projected to fall further. If we should have learned one thing in the past three or four years, it is that assumptions of snapping back to so-called normal trend rates of growth have been consistently over-optimistic. These are not normal economic times. The downturn has been longer lasting than we feared and hopeful projections of future growth have a habit of retreating into the middle distance.
My contention, therefore, is that the era of the politics of less poses challenges for us all—Government and Opposition. How do we secure economic efficiency and social justice in an era of lower growth and squeezed household incomes? If the Government’s spending is to continue on a downward path for some years, and if households face the kind of squeeze in their incomes set out by the IFS, the circumstances demand an industry policy on a scale and ambition way beyond what we saw in the autumn statement last week. They demand a resolve from the Government, industry and all levels of education to make the rebalancing that we talk about happen, and to put weight behind those areas where Britain can succeed. The situation demands more than a regional growth fund at half the level of spending of the regional development agencies; more than a tiny fraction of the €5 billion-a-year relief for energy-intensive industries that is available in Germany; and tax policies that support the rebalancing effort rather than pull in the opposite direction.
Angela Smith
It absolutely does explain the scale of it. Let us make real-life sense out of some of these figures. They mean that 700,000 public servants had to be cast aside, 300,000 more than the Chancellor said would lose their jobs just a few months ago. Some £1.2 billion has been taken off tax credits while bankers suffer a mere £300 million increase in the take from their pay packets by the Treasury.
Any pretence of fairness and of our all being in this together went out the window last Tuesday. Ordinary families are taking a massive hit: already more people are unemployed than at any time since 1994—the current figure is 2.6 million—and to make matters worse the number of people out of work for more than a year is 868,000, with the long-term rate for 16 to 24-year-olds standing at a staggering 30%.
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend refers to the cuts in tax credits in the autumn statement. Since they entered office, the Government have made great play of increasing the incentive to work. How does she think that the incentive to work will be affected by cutting tax credits for low-income families?
Angela Smith
It can only have a regressive impact because it will mean that families are less able to provide for their children and to develop the aspirations that are so important in later life.
One in three young people have been unemployed for more than one year and youth unemployment stands at a staggering 1 million, with the figure for those not in education, employment or training standing at a terrifying 1.2 million. The Government are creating another lost generation similar to the one that they created in the 1980s. Clearly, the Chancellor’s policies are hurting the British people, but they are certainly not working. The young in particular are paying a high price for his failures.
There is worse to come as the OBR now states that, at best, the British economy is set to stagnate next year and the year after, with growth broadly remaining flat. Even worse, if the well-respected OECD is correct, the economy will dip again into recession early next year. The British economy has been stagnating for the past 15 years, and the growth and jobs crisis has its roots firmly planted at No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street. Real incomes are being squeezed like never before, with high inflation and rocketing fuel bills not helped by the Government’s decision to increase VAT in January.
Last week’s statement gave hard-pressed families two more years of austerity, with real median incomes set to fall by 7.8% according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That means that real median household incomes will be no higher in 2015-16 than they were in 2002-03 and that we will have suffered the longest period of austerity since the second world war.
The Government inherited an economy that was fragile but nevertheless in growth, yet they gambled that recovery on the basis of tired ideas that have been tried before and found wanting. The right-wing prescription failed in the ’30s and is failing again now, with the consequence that the economy could dive into a double-dip recession. The level of unemployment in Yorkshire is almost twice what it is in the south-east and is growing at twice the rate. It is entirely possible that Yorkshire is already in recession.
The autumn statement did not announce any new resources to be injected into the economy—all it announced was a moving around of the money. It will be families with children who will pay for the back to the future jobs fund—the youth contract—through the £1 billion cut to the child element of family tax credits. If this country is not to face a lost decade, or even worse, we need a strategy for growth, and we need it now. The stakes are high and we urgently need to get people back to work before another generation has to pay the same price as mine for an ideologically driven Government who refuse to learn the lessons of history.
In particular, we need as a starting point Labour’s five-point plan, which would reverse the damaging rise in VAT temporarily and give a one-year national insurance tax break for every small firm that takes on extra workers. And crucially, it would bring forward long-term investment projects for schools, roads and transport to get people back to work. What we do not need is what has been recently proposed: a shopping list of projects here and there paid for by redistributed money. Instead, we need a rigorous, strategically driven investment regime designed to drive long-term economic growth.
In the medium and long term, we need a better economic way forward. On that point, I echo the points made by my hon. Friends. The Thatcher-Reagan consensus is crumbling before our eyes. Will Hutton put it even more starkly in a recent article when he said that
“we are about to experience economic, social and political tectonic plates on the move”.
We desperately need to develop an alternative economic paradigm, which means changing the way our capitalist structures work. We need to go back to making things and to give manufacturing a much bigger role in our economy. We need a capitalism that looks to the long term, not just to short-term profits, and we need a society where reward and risk are shared and where it is understood that the state has a role to play in pioneering and driving strategic investment. And we need to invest in innovation
The Government’s strategy of cutting and hoping that growth will magically reappear is not working now and did not work in the past. The Government are bankrupt of ideas for our future and lack the imagination and the bravery needed to take our country forward to its next phase. These extraordinary days require extraordinary solutions, but the fear is that it could soon be too late for many millions of British families who are paying the price for this out-of-touch, ideologically driven Government who seem determined to follow their chosen course no matter what damage it does to the British economy and to families in this country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Smith
May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and others for their kind words regarding my role?
As I have mentioned, the green deal is a key part of supporting such green growth and the Government are taking a range of actions to help people to gain control of their household energy bills. I certainly note my hon. Friend’s suggestion and I am happy to meet him to discuss options within public finance constraints.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
May I also welcome the new Minister to her post? She will be aware of the importance to the UK economy of energy-intensive industries such as the steel, chemicals and ceramics industries. German competitors in such industries are benefiting from rebates worth more than €5 billion a year; will she consult the Chancellor and make sure that the pre-Budget report includes a special package of measures for those industries so that rising energy costs do not simply result in jobs being exported abroad?
Miss Smith
I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is looking into exactly this and we shall be reporting back on it.
Amendment of the Law
Pat McFadden Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
I am not sure that what Keynes said was a matter of changing his mind in response to a change in fact. He was stating one of the basic principles of Keynesian economics—that the cost of capital has to be kept low.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that the evidence had borne out his decision to change his mind on the scale and pace of deficit reduction, but what evidence does he need? Since he made that decision, the unemployment forecasts have risen, the inflation forecasts have risen, the growth forecasts have fallen, the debt repayment forecasts have risen, and as for bond yields he has no evidence that at the time of the election they were causing any problem for the UK’s financing of its debt under the last Government. What evidence is there to suggest that he was right to change his mind?
Vince Cable
I do not know when the right hon. Gentleman last opened a financial newspaper. If he had done so recently, he would know that all the countries on the periphery of Europe that have been hit by the rising cost of capital are in very acute financial crisis, which we have avoided. We have German interest rates, and at the same time we are carrying a deficit on the scale of the most debt-ridden economies such as Ireland and Portugal.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The first thing to say about this Budget is that it has to be seen in the context of last year’s Budget, because that gave us a large-scale fiscal adjustment of some 6.9% of gross domestic product over the course of the Parliament and the measures announced this year were inevitably going to be smaller in scale and focus. So our discussion is not so much about the measures about to be taken, but, inevitably, largely about the measures already taken: the VAT rise; the shift from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index for so many things; the pay freezes; the child benefit freezes; and the cuts to public expenditure. All those are going to have a far larger impact on household finances and on businesses than anything announced yesterday.
The one headline the Chancellor did not want to see in today’s newspapers was anything that smacked of a U-turn or a reversion to a plan B in terms of his broader strategy. What that means for the public is set out in the forecasts published alongside the Budget by the Office for Budget Responsibility. For the third time since the election, we have seen a downgrading of growth forecasts—growth down last year, this year and next year. Inflation forecasts are up and unemployment is at a 17-year high. The forecasts for borrowing and the interest to be paid on borrowing are also up, even though dealing with that is supposed to be the central purpose of his grand economic strategy. Those forecasts underline the fact that growth is needed and although the Chancellor will continue to claim that any problems he is addressing are Labour’s fault, he will find out that, to use his own metaphor, this particular tank of political fuel runs out over time.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor fairly pointed out that growth was increasing at the time of the general election, before falling back sharply at the end of the year. I am not sure that even the Chancellor believes that that was about snow. It was about confidence, as the country realised what a tough time lay ahead for family budgets over the next couple of years. The central antidote to all this bad news about cuts was supposed to be the growth plan published yesterday. The Chancellor announced a stream of measures on innovation, tax, planning, training and so on. It was tempting to close one’s eyes, just as the Justice Secretary did, imagine a different accent and be reminded of some of the Budgets that the Chancellor used to attack so strongly for their blizzard of initiatives. We can imagine a range of groups being invited to the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to be asked what was on their shopping lists. The question for us is whether the sum of these various parts adds up to a plan for growth or whether they are a list of things to insulate the Government against the accusation of having no plan for growth—the two are certainly not the same thing.
I wish to discuss a few of the individual measures, because I believe that my party should adopt a level-headed approach to them. Some of them may work, some of them may not and some of them are, in fact, Labour party policy. The technology and innovation centres announced by the Government are welcome. They were recommended by Dr Hermann Hauser in a report to the Labour Government last year and are based on the successful Fraunhofer institutes in Germany. Their essential task is to bridge the gap between concept and production—between the great idea and the manufactured product. We have long heard commentators say that Britain is less successful at doing that than other countries, so I am glad that the Government have carried on this idea begun under the Labour Government.
The Chancellor also made much yesterday of his new regime for short-life assets in manufacturing, which is designed to encourage investment in new machinery. That has been welcomed by manufacturers over the past 24 hours, but before the Government get too carried away we have also to remember what the Chancellor announced last year: a hit of almost £3 billion on manufacturing to pay for his corporation tax cut by cutting capital and investment allowances. In other words, he made manufacturing—the part of the economy that needs to invest in new plant and machinery—pay for a tax cut for the parts of the economy less reliant on such investment. This is not, as he claimed yesterday, a conversion to support for making things; this is the Chancellor applying a dressing to a wound that he created last year. What he has given back in the measures on short-term assets is a lot less than he took last year—[Interruption.] If there is any doubt about that, I refer the Economic Secretary to pages 42 and 44 of the Red Book, which clearly set it out.
The Chancellor also announced 21 new enterprise zones, with the relaxation of planning control, business rates and so on. If they can create jobs in areas such as the black country, which I represent, they should be welcomed. I sense in the proposals, however, the spirit of Lord Heseltine, who was also involved in the regional growth fund. We had enterprise zones back in the 1980s, when unemployment was 3 million and industry was collapsing all around us. I hope that in reaching for them now the Government are not privately expecting a repeat of the circumstances that gave birth to them in the first place. I also hope that they are not a consolation prize for local enterprise partnerships that are disappointed when the results of the first round bids for the regional growth fund are announced in a week or two’s time.
Some of the measures are worthy of consideration and support, but do they add up to the plan for growth that the Government have claimed they are? Surely to answer that we need to return to the broader context. There is no denying that, had the outcome of the election been different, there would have been difficult decisions to take. It is important for all of us to say that to the electorate. The deficit cannot just be wished away, but there is a legitimate debate to be had about the speed and scale of deficit reduction and its impact on families up and down the country.
The deficit is not there because the Labour Government lost control of the public finances; it is there because of the hit that our public finances took as a result of having a large financial sector and because of the measures we took to stop recession turning into depression. That is not a loss of control, but a Government acting to stop recession having a more painful impact on the public and on business than would otherwise have been the case.
The Budget claims to be a Budget for growth, but there is no escaping the fact that the growth forecasts have been reduced. That is what will matter to businesses and families throughout the country.