Amendment of the Law

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

Well, I suppose there comes an occasion, you turn up, there’s a lot of people there—and you just start to talk. These things happen, and we should be in a forgiving mood. I mean, anybody can compare themselves to Martin Luther King.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Who would you compare yourself to?

[Mr Pickles]

Certainly not to Martin Luther King.

Let us be clear: Communities and Local Government was the unprotected Department under Labour’s plans. Unprotected Departments would have received a larger average real-terms cut over four years under Labour than they are under the coalition’s deficit reduction plans over the spending period.

Thanks to the £18 billion of savings from our welfare reform programme and the £3 billion of savings from lower debt interest, the coalition is cutting £2 billion less from departmental budgets than the Labour party would have. Labour would have cut local government more, and, without the support for a council tax freeze, the end result would have been soaring council tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was making her point so well, and I commend her analysis of this Budget, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and for Telford (David Wright), among others. They all made the point that it is a no-growth Budget that is hurting many people and that certainly will not help our economy in the years ahead.

We do not have to look far to see the cracks emerging. Setting aside the scepticism that some might have had about the Office for Budget Responsibility, a cursory flick through its detailed analysis shows that the Budget has had a dilatory effect on our economy. The first line of chapter 3 on page 31 of its report cites a squeeze on household disposable incomes in the coming months weakening consumer spending growth. The OBR states on the same page that

“we have revised down our central forecast for economic growth in 2011 from 2.1 per cent to 1.7 per cent.”,

as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has pointed out. Page 53 of the report says that real household incomes will “fall further in 2011”, and page 54 states:

“We have revised down our forecast for consumption growth…from 1.3 per cent to 0.6 per cent”.

Page 62 tells us that the medium-term forecast for exports needs to be revised downwards and page 72 states:

“We expect unemployment to rise over the next few quarters,”

with unemployment 80,000 higher in 2012. On page 75, the OBR downgrades forecasts for average earnings and output growth and on page 76 it tells us that aggregate wages and salaries will be

“around 1 per cent lower by 2015-16 than expected”—

and on and on it goes.

Economic growth matters, but that simple fact is lost on the Chancellor. I asked the Library about the cost to the Exchequer of that infamous quarter 4 reduction in economic growth in the last few months of 2010 when the economy shrank by 0.6%. It estimated that that reduction has caused a £3 billion reduction in Treasury revenues—£3 billion that might have been anticipated in revenue if performance in quarter 4 had been anything like that in quarter 3. That significant sum would have been enough to offset the need for the freeze in child benefit or the cuts in capital allowances for business investment that the Chancellor announced.

There is a symmetrical irony in that the OBR says, on page 125 of the report, that an

“increase in the claimant count”

will lead to “higher benefit payments” in 2012-13. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) have pointed out, the OBR has forecast an increase in social security costs of

“approximately £3 billion per year from 2012-13 onwards”.

When economic growth is driven down and unemployment is increased, those costs and the deficit are both going to be increased, as the eminent economist Paul Krugman has pointed out this week. This obsession with deficit reduction to the exclusion of all else—this fetishism—is a very narrow view of the world and ignores the impact that the Government’s belligerent strategy is having on the real economy.

The other document that was published with the Budget, “The Plan for Growth”, has also failed to convince anyone that the Government understand the importance of the real economy. The OBR’s reaction to the policy measures, when it had totted up all the Chancellor’s announcements, was that

“we do not believe there is strong enough evidence to raise our trend growth assumption”.

That is its response to the measures in the growth plan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) so eloquently put it, the Government have taken a machete to growth—that is exactly what has happened. Their growth plan is riddled with confusion, fudge and contradictions.

Enterprise zones sound interesting at face value, but when they were tried in the 1980s they took jobs from surrounding areas. My hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) tried to be as optimistic as they could when looking at those enterprise zones, but we have seen that the Government give with one hand and take away so much more with the other. Any improvements to capital allowances on the margins are taken away by a factor of 10, with the cuts in capital allowances of £5 billion announced for the next five years.

There are in the growth plan allusions to weakening employee rights, as though that is the avenue we have to go down to boost growth. There is an allusion to clarity on the national minimum wage. We will have to see where that goes. There is opposition to improvements in maternity and paternity rights—typical Tory fare. There are some interesting vignettes on legal reforms that the Government want to make. For example, injured parties will have to deduct their legal costs from their compensation, instead of those costs falling on the negligent party. The Government want fewer food safety inspections at takeaways, as some hon. Members mentioned this evening.

There are references to abolishing money-laundering regulations and reducing corporate accounting, but hold the front page! Many people may not have got as far as page 121, where the Government say—this is absolutely serious—that they will review the Outer Space Act 1986. Presumably they will give us a clue what planet they are living on. One assumes it is planet Redwood, but who knows?

As we can see from the discussion that we have had today, the cuts have been significant and they are having an effect on the real economy. We can see that the unprecedented reductions in local government expenditure will harm local economies. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) mentioned that 737 jobs are being lost in Sheffield alone. The Government are facing both ways when it comes to local government reform. The set of proposals in the Localism Bill is hardly deregulatory, with 142 order-making powers. The Government are facing both ways on business rates. They promise local freedoms to councillors, but when businesses object, they say, “We will have national certainty when it comes to business rates.”

There is a looming crisis in residential housing and property finance. On planning policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, so much for localism, when the Government’s clear expectation is

“that the default answer to development is ‘yes’”.

We will see how far localism goes in each of the constituencies of those on the Government Benches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out that although the planning process needs to be speeded up, the supposed guarantee of a 12-month closure, including the appeal, is incongruent with the 35% cut in the planning inspectorate’s budget—35%. We will see whether the Government can live up to that guarantee. They are abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission, but they will have to recreate a major infrastructure planning unit within the planning inspectorate. They say they will get rid of top-down guidance, but the growth plan refers to five new national guidelines.

It must be recognised that there are significant problems with the Budget, one of which is the risk of a lost generation of young people. Youth unemployment is up 30,000 in the first quarter of this year to just under 1 million claimants between the ages of 16 and 24, the highest since comparable records began in 1992. We know that in the 1980s—the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has joined us as a shibboleth for that era—the Government neglected the risk of unemployment. We know the story.

Now, again, a younger generation is forgotten by the Government. Young people are losing their education maintenance allowances, their tuition fees are being trebled to £9,000 per year if they go to university, and opportunities to get into work or on to the career ladder will be rare. There is insufficient emphasis in the Budget on work experience and apprenticeships. The Government should have repeated the bank bonus levy that we implemented last year to raise resources to target job creation, but no; instead, they have scrapped the guarantee of apprenticeship places for 16 to 18-year-olds—a massive backward step.

What hope do young people have of getting on the housing ladder with the rather puny Firstbuy scheme, which Shelter says will help less than 1% of first-time buyers? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East mentioned, there is a 50% cut in the new social homes construction budget. On top of that there are cuts to housing benefit. Even on pensions, young people are penalised should they dare to want to save for the long term. The Government assume that they can get away with pulling the rug from under young people, perhaps because they do not vote, but the mood is changing across the country. There is a profound sense of unfairness in cutting young people adrift. It is foolish economics to consign a generation to poorer prospects and less prosperity than their parents enjoyed. The Budget’s adverse impact on young people will penalise and alienate those in their teens and 20s. It is a catastrophe in the making, and the Chancellor will rue the day he neglected the younger generation.