Financial Assistance (Ireland)
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I think my hon. Friend is referring to the period between the general election and the creation of this Government. I have given the House my account of that. I thanked the former Chancellor for keeping us out of the eurozone facility, but I did not agree with his decision to commit us to the mechanism, and I communicated that to him. However, I also made it clear at the time there can only be one Chancellor of the Exchequer operating for the UK, even in the unusual situation between the general election and the formation of this Government. He will account for his decisions and I will account for mine.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I know that a week is a long time in politics, but can I take the Chancellor back to when he was the shadow Chancellor? He wrote an article for The Times in which he said:
“Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking…They have much to teach us, if only we are willing to learn.”
Does the Chancellor stand by or repudiate that article?
Comprehensive Spending Review
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I will not give way because I have limited time available. [Interruption.] In the great tradition of not giving way, I will not give way after taking two interventions. One very important point is that we must look to the private sector to create the jobs. It is true that the OBR has said that 490,000 jobs will be lost in the public sector, and there is no getting away from it. It is also true that PricewaterhouseCoopers has suggested that 500,000 jobs in the private sector might go as a consequence of the slimming down of the public sector. So we must look to growth from the private sector.
I am therefore very pleased that this Government have had such a firm and positive focus on private sector growth. We have removed national insurance for new business start-ups outside London and the south-east; we will bring corporation tax down, in steps, over the next four years from 28 to 24%; and we have cut red tape. We have also created the regional growth fund, which we heard about in the Business Secretary’s statement earlier today. It involves some £1.4 billion, much of which is to be channelled into the very areas of the country where the private sector is weakest and the public sector has been strongest, and I welcome that as positive action.
I also welcome the fact that the Government are listening to business in a way that their predecessors never did. The Conservative party is a party that understands business; we understand how difficult it is to create the wealth that is needed to supply the public services that all in this House want.
Mel Stride
I will not give way now, because I have very little time left.
I am also pleased that the OBR, an independent body, has stated that employment will grow in every year across this plan. I know that one swallow does not make a summer, but it is encouraging that in the last quarter—the one up to the end of September—growth was double that anticipated, at 0.8% as opposed to 0.4%. That is an encouraging sign. The Opposition should cheer at that. They should stand up for our country. They should feel good about the fact that we are improving where we are going and that we are beginning to make a difference—a difference that they never achieved.
I want to talk briefly about fairness, which is at the heart of the CSR. I want to challenge the IFS’s point that somehow the CSR is regressive. It is to an extent, if one considers taxation and benefits, but if one includes the use of public services, it is not regressive. It is a progressive move.
I welcome the fact that we are going to keep 50% as the higher rate of tax, with 800,000 people coming out of taxation altogether, and child benefit being means-tested. The £2.5 billion that will be saved is exactly the amount that will go into the pupil premium to help the poorest children in our land. Those are all aspects of fairness, and we cannot build a society based on social justice on a mountain of debt. I commend the review to the House.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I have had the pleasure of listening to speeches all afternoon. In a way, they could be summed up by saying that Labour Members believe we are all going to hell in a hand cart, whereas Government Members believe we are heading towards the sunny uplands. My own view is that we are somewhere in between, but I am a little closer to the Government side.
Tony Blair apparently said to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) in 1997, “Go away and think the unthinkable on welfare reform.” He promptly went away and thought the unthinkable, and a key part of it was recognition that benefits had to follow low incomes for people to get back into work and that benefits cost far too much—and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and subsequent Prime Minister crushed it on the spot. So what is happening under the comprehensive spending review? It looks as if welfare reform is heading towards thinking the unthinkable. My understanding is that an extra £2 billion is to be included within the universal benefit, which will mean that people on low salaries can take a lot of their benefit with them. I will obviously need to check the fine detail as it gets presented over the next few months, but if that is right, it will make a profound difference to many hundreds of thousands of people.
Let me provide an example. A few years ago, I had to do something in Eastbourne. Although it is clearly the best constituency in the whole country, this was a little bit of a nightmare, which I suspect other Members might have experienced at some time in their lives. I refer to judging a beautiful baby contest. Trust me, it is a nightmare. How do we ensure that we do not win only the winning parents’ votes and lose all the others of the babies that we do not choose? I recall coming across a particular lady whom I knew. She looked about 50, but was probably in her late 30s. She was holding a baby of about six months or less. Standing next to her was her daughter—probably 17 or 18, but she looked a lot older—and the grandmother, who was completely inebriated. This was at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. As I looked at that child, I have to admit that behind the veneer of the politician’s smile, I felt utter fury because I knew that I could write that baby’s curriculum vitae right away—it was a goner. I find that absolutely unacceptable. If the changes to welfare reform, when followed through by people coming off benefit and going into initially low-paid jobs, mean that they can take their benefits with them, it will be a rational decision to get a job.
Chris Williamson
If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about low-paid workers, will he not concede that cuts to housing benefit will make it much more difficult for many of them to hold down their jobs? Contrary to his assertion that the policies he supports will help people to get into work, they will throw more low-paid workers out of the jobs that they are undertaking at the moment.
Stephen Lloyd
The reality is that when a nation has reached a place where it is acceptable and normal for rents upwards of £30,000, £35,000 or £40,000 a year to be paid by the state, something has to give. I see the challenges, but I am hopeful that the Government will come up with a greater amount of discretionary money, particularly for places like London. In principle, however, I support the narrative. We need to realise how crazy the vast majority of working people view the fact that they could never rent a £20,000-a-year flat in a million years, yet the state allows rentals for much more than that. Forgive me, but I genuinely believe that anyone supporting that lives on a different planet.
Let me make another couple of important points about this comprehensive spending review and welfare reform. Just last week, I stayed at the Premier Inn—as we all know, that very salubrious place across the river. I have stayed there about 20 times since the election. I have met about 20 to 30 members of staff, and very nice they are too, but not one of them is an indigenous black or white British person. Not one! What is going on? I spoke last week to a friend who runs a café in Eastbourne. He said, “Stephen, I keep trying to get people to work and I offer them jobs, but they keep telling me that they cannot accept them because they will lose their benefit if they work for more than 16 hours a week.” What is going on? We have to forget all the backwards and forwards; I profoundly believe that we have got to change the system. It is not only inefficient, it is profoundly cruel.
As I have the Minister here, I want to flag up a number of areas of the CSR about which I have concerns. The first relates to Equitable Life. I commend the Government for their payments to Equitable Life policyholders; they came forward when the previous Government did not. However, the payment of £1.5 billion could have been higher. Considering that the second instalment of £500 million is going to be paid in the second term, I certainly believe that we should increase and expand it. We have a moral duty to do so.
My second area of concern is small businesses. I spent a few years working as a consultant with the Federation of Small Businesses in south London before I got elected to this place. Small businesses broadly support the comprehensive spending review, but they need the Government to be really active on cutting bureaucracy and setting small businesses free. I urge the Government to do that. I believe that this is a fair comprehensive spending review. It is a challenging one, and I appreciate that we shall have to see what happens over the next few years, but I commend it to the House.
Justine Greening
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have set up the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is an independent office. It is the OBR that is predicting year-on-year falling unemployment and rising employment. I hear Opposition Members talking about 480,000 or 490,000 public sector job losses, but I am afraid they have to consider that the same report assesses that 1.6 million jobs will be created in the private sector. They cannot have it both ways.
Justine Greening
I will not, because we have had a long debate and I have three minutes to respond to each hour of it. I really do want to try to cover the points that hon. Members who participated raised. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to respond to what has been said.
The bottom line is that if a country loses control of its finances, it loses the ability to choose how to spend its money, and its priorities become those of its debtors, not of its people. That is why we outlined a clear and credible plan to deal with the deficit when we came to government and that is why we will stick to it. The Government are firmly focused on achieving sustainable growth. Tackling the deficit will help to provide the strong economic bedrock on which the private sector can build, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) pointed out.
Chris Williamson
This morning, I met a representative from the UK construction group that represents some of the largest construction companies in the country, which said that it did not recognise the growth figures that the Prime Minister quoted yesterday. It said:
“The 4% increase in construction turnover in”
quarter 3
“is unbelievable and does not reflect the mood of the major players”.
Is it not a fact that the private sector-led recovery on which the hon. Lady is relying is just a fantasy and will not come to fruition?
Justine Greening
I was about to ask the hon. Gentleman to give way, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government are spending slightly more on capital infrastructure than the previous Government, so heaven knows what the industry would have thought of Labour’s plans. In the next four years, we will invest more than £30 billion in transport projects, £14 billion of which will fund maintenance and investment in our railways and £10 billion of which will be spent on road, regional and local transport schemes. We have created the new green investment bank to help finance sustainable infrastructure for the future and we have launched the £1.4 billion regional growth fund, which has rightly been welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for Macclesfield (David Rutley).
Even when faced with the economic problems bestowed by the Labour party, we are still investing tens of billions of pounds in Britain’s future. That goes alongside the reduction in corporation tax that we brought forward in the emergency Budget and the reduction in national insurance that we have also brought forward, scrapping the Labour party’s jobs tax. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said that the spending review is not just about numbers, but I shall give her a number—400,000. That was the number of extra unemployed at the end of Labour’s time in power, but Labour still wanted to introduce the jobs tax.
The hon. Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) all spoke of their concerns about the spending review and the cuts, but none of them offered any alternatives. We hear about the Opposition supporting cuts, but we never find out which ones they support.
The second principle behind our decisions is to ensure fairness and make sure that those with the biggest shoulders bear the largest burden, while protecting the most vulnerable in our society. That is why the Government have restored the earnings link for the state pension and ring-fenced NHS funding. We want to give every child the best possible start in life by increasing the child tax credit for the lowest-income families and by protecting our investment in schools. There is nothing fair about not tackling the deficit and placing the millstone of debt that we currently have around the necks of our country’s 20-somethings for the future.
Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green
There is work to be done to consider the balance of taxation versus spending cuts, as Labour Members have repeatedly pointed out. As for where the money is taken from, it is notable that the coalition Government, whether by accident or design—I suspect that it is more by accident, but I give them the benefit of the doubt—have taken more from women and children. An evening up of the way in which the spending axe fell might provide more scope.
Far from seeking to improve the financial position of some of the poorest in society—those who are reliant on safety-net benefits—some of the coalition’s measures will make matters worse: the changes to housing benefit; the VAT rise, which will reduce the spending power of the poorest; and the plans to link safety-net benefits to the consumer prices index, which will, over time, significantly reduce the value of those benefits to low-income families, and will therefore have an impact on the disposable incomes of the poorest women before conception, during pregnancy and after birth. I urge Government Members to think about how they would address that.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the policies pursued by the Con-Dem coalition will lead at best to the economy growing slowly, and at worst to a double-dip recession, which will result in a much lower income tax take for the Exchequer? Our proposals to improve and support growth in the economy would generate the tax revenues that would enable us to fund schemes such as the health in pregnancy grant.
Kate Green
Absolutely. Although you will not want this evening’s debate to extend into the whole range of economic policy, Mr Deputy Speaker, clearly, a strategy for growth and increasing tax receipts will be vital to protect the poorest families.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel slightly guilty that you have had to do so three times in almost as many days. I assure you that I am not modelling myself on Psmith—with a silent “P”—and his haunting of John Bickersdyke, which you will remember from the book “Psmith in the City”. I am really not trying to do that, and I will be as brief as I can while discussing this important Bill.
Benjamin Disraeli famously said that the job of the Opposition was to oppose, and we have seen that today. Indeed, we have seen it all afternoon. We have seen rather specious opposition to the Bill. Whenever the subject of where the money is to come from arises, there is no answer. VAT should not go up to pay for our bills; benefits should not be cut to pay for our bills; so we must spend, and we must have no increase in taxation. What happens to the nation’s finances at that point? What happens to the national debt? What happens to the deficit? We go down the sorry road towards bankruptcy. That really is what Opposition Members have been arguing for. It is the “do nothing” school; the argument that, like Nero, we should fiddle while Rome burns.
Chris Williamson
Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that before the economic downturn, the debt ratio in this country was lower than the debt ratio that the Labour Government inherited in 1997? The fact is that it was the Labour Government who introduced measures to keep people in their homes and in employment, and to prevent the appalling circumstances to which ordinary working people were subject in the 1980s when the hon. Gentleman’s party cast people aside.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman’s point is fundamentally flawed. In 1997, the socialist Government decided to stick to Conservative spending targets. That is the one sensible decision that they made. It is not surprising that they managed to reduce the public debt by doing what the Conservatives had said that they would do. As for the deficit that built up before the crisis hit, there was a structural deficit—probably equivalent to 7% or 8% of GDP—which had resulted from excessive and extravagant expenditure. That is the nub of what we are debating today. We need to examine these benefits, and establish whether they are right in principle.
I will declare an interest. My three children have been the fortunate beneficiaries of £250 each—£250 spent extraordinarily well, Members may think, beneficially and wisely, so that in 18 years’ time my children will have something to spend when they are a little older. Is this really a sensible use of taxpayers’ money? It is too small a sum to make a difference even with the benefits of compound interest, yet too large a sum for our public finances to stand when aggregated across the whole of the economy and the total number of children who will be born. It is a wrong benefit, which is rightly being abolished. To contradict the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who spoke before me, it is also a benefit that cannot be spent for 18 years; it will be of no economic benefit until the child is 18.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The winter fuel allowance goes to the elderly, many of whom will have paid full national insurance contributions, and it is therefore in some sense a recompense for what they have paid in. I think that to look after the old in society is an important and virtuous thing to do. It is right to give that help so that people can be warm in their homes, but we are talking at present about £250 for children when they are born that will give them a pitiful amount a few years later. We are talking about £190 given to every woman who is going to have a baby for no necessary benefit to her because she may not need the money or it may be received too late for her to address some of the problems referred to earlier. Those two benefits are therefore unnecessary and wrong.
The third benefit is the Government’s matching of personal savings, and there is a misconception here. Saving from a deficit is a dis-saving to the economy because there are costs associated with allocating that saving. To put that more simply, if someone borrows money from one account to put into another account they will pay a higher rate of interest on their borrowings than they will receive on their savings so, net, the country is dis-saving by topping up savings accounts. Opposition Members are therefore wrong to say that this is an encouragement to saving.
We need to look at all that is being done in the broader context. We have this phenomenal deficit—our highest peacetime deficit—which the Government have, in a workmanlike and serious-minded way, decided to tackle. They have decided to bring the deficit down so that we may have the conditions for economic growth. The essence of good government and of a sensible Treasury policy is to ensure that there are the conditions where business can thrive, jobs can be created and money can cascade through the economy. That is what really lifts people out of—
Chris Williamson
The hon. Gentleman referred to job creation. Will he therefore comment on the fact that almost 500,000 jobs will go in the public sector as a direct consequence of the comprehensive spending review, followed by a further 500,000 jobs at least to go in the private sector? How does the hon. Gentleman square that circle?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am not going to try to square circles, which I believe is not possible, but those figures are fundamentally contentious, and it is also worth bearing in mind that outside the private sector the country has no income. Every penny spent by the Government either has to be raised in taxation or borrowed.
Chris Williamson
Is the hon. Gentleman therefore contesting the figures of the Office for Budget Responsibility?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman knows the figures are contentious because he cited the figure of how many jobs will go in the private sector, but he is ignoring the jobs that will be created. We find ourselves in the extraordinary situation that 700,000 public sector jobs were created by the last Government without the money to pay for it. We cannot run a system under which we employ people and pay them what are essentially tokens because we have no real money. Are we to follow California and pay servants of the state IOUs because there is no proper currency with which to pay them? Are we going to so debauch our currency and print even more of it that there are no funds with which to pay people? Are we going to destroy our gilt market so that the Government are unable to raise money? No, Her Majesty’s Government have been brave, courageous and right, and they have taken tough decisions. They have taken decisions mocked by Labour Members because they dared not do this; they talked quietly in secret rooms about how much they were going to cut. These cuts then get leaked in the newspapers because Labour Members dare not come boldly to this House to say what they want to do.
Chris Williamson
I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that of the House for continuing to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot allow him to get away with his remarks. I wonder whether he studied history at all when he went to school and university, and whether he would care to ponder on what happened in the 1930s in America, when its plans put people back into work, compared with what happened then in this country. The prospectus that is being followed by this Administration was similar to what was done in the 1930s and saw mass unemployment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind and helpful intervention, because I happen to have with me some economic data from the 1930s. I believe they will prove helpful because they are from the United Kingdom. It is a common error—if I may say so, it is a schoolboy error—to confuse the situation in the United Kingdom with that in the United States in that decade. In 1931, public spending in the United Kingdom was £1.174 billion, a figure that had been cut to £1.061 billion by 1934. Unemployment peaked in 1932 and gross domestic product grew from £4.399 billion in 1931 to £4.813 billion in 1934. So there was a percentage cut of nine-odd per cent. in public spending accompanied by a 9% rise in GDP, and unemployment peaked long before the cut in public spending was at its maximum point.
So in fact this Government are rightly following what the British Government did in the 1930s, and the key thing, which I will give credit to the Labour Government for, was coming off the gold standard. In 1931, having an active monetary policy meant that the economy could grow even while public spending was being cut. Her Majesty’s previous Government, the one that she dispensed with on 6 May or thereabouts, allowed the pound to fall so much and allowed the Bank of England to ease quantitatively—or print money, to put it in less jargonistic terms—that the increased money supply created the conditions where this Government can and must cut fiscally, and can have economic growth and falling unemployment. We are already seeing some of the fruits of that coming through in the figures announced today.
Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Like other hon. Members present, I have been lobbied by a considerable number of constituents. Let me be clear: had Labour won the general election, we would by now be implementing the Chadwick recommendations and people would be receiving payments. What I find so irritating is the extraordinarily cynical, pre-election tactics that were adopted by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in an attempt to garner additional support. It is no good Government Members referring to the country’s financial situation and using the comprehensive spending review as cover for their inaction, because when they signed up to those pledges, they knew very well what the financial situation was. That simply will not wash.
The Opposition have been accused of showing “synthetic anger” and I have heard Government Members congratulate their Front Benchers, including the Minister. Members have said how they trust the Minister and their Front-Bench team. Before the election, one of the most vociferous cheerleaders of the pledge to pay a more generous settlement to the Equitable pension holders was the Minister himself, who regrettably is not in his seat.
I call on Members on the Government Benches to look at the Bill before us. It is extremely thin, and some Members’ contributions seemed to recognise that fact. It is clear from the terms of the Bill that the Government are dragging their feet on the issue. There is no detail on the criteria for payments, there will be no independent appeal process, and there is no timetable for payments.
Only yesterday I received a letter from EMAG, which stated:
“EMAG welcomes legislation to enable payments to Equitable Life sufferers.
However, EMAG is alarmed about the following:
The continuing reliance by the Treasury on Sir John Chadwick’s advice, despite the clear view of the Ombudsman that it is ‘an unsafe and unsound basis on which to proceed’.
There is a mismatch between the formal acceptance of all the ombudsman’s recommendations by the new government and the Treasury’s dogged determination to ignore the PO and build upon Chadwick’s advice, seemingly to provide a phony justification for derisory payments.
The lack of a proper comprehensive assessment of ‘relative losses’ based on all of the PO’s findings.
The inappropriate inclusion of Chadwick’s work as the central building block in the terms of reference for the independent payment commission.”
Chris Williamson
There is not time to give way as I want other Members to have an opportunity to speak.
That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Government’s position, is it? A lot of crocodile tears are being shed this evening. We heard many exaggerated promises in opposition, but the Government are significantly under-delivering now that they are in power. Given the commitments that were made by the Minister and other Front Benchers, as well as virtually all the Back Benchers, they have a moral obligation to do more than they have done so far.
It is a poor show to have misled the political parties and misled people into thinking that they would receive more than they will. As I said, had Labour won the election, people would at least now be receiving some payments. We still do not know when people will receive any payment as a result of the Bill.
Finance Bill
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
No, I will not.
The OBR said that the deficit was £12 billion larger than had previously been suggested, so our priority was to tackle that deficit. Although reductions in public sector spending will be necessary to ensure that it is at a level affordable to the public, taxes clearly have to play their part as well. As we have heard, even from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), growth in employment must be led by the private sector. Reducing incentives to employers, as the previous Government would have done by introducing the jobs tax and raising small companies’ corporation tax rates, would have reduced incentives and led to our economy languishing for longer and longer, and debt building up.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware, though, that the Financial Times published research last month showing that 1.2 million jobs in the private sector rely on the public spending that she is going to cut?
Justine Greening
That is typical of the contributions that we have had from Opposition Members all the way through our debates. The hon. Gentleman’s party went into the election having passed its Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, which set out 20% cuts. That means one of three things. Either Labour Members had no intention of ever reducing or tackling the deficit, in which case the Act was gross duplicity; or they went into the election standing on a platform of cuts with no idea whatever of how to deliver them, in which case it was gross incompetence; or they knew what they wanted to do but still, in spite of all the hours of debate, fail to admit to any of the measures that they were planning to take, in which case it is gross concealment. We need take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman.
Finance Bill
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
There has been a degree of hysteria from Members on the Con-Dem Benches this evening. It might be the lateness of the hour, or there might be another reason, but I have been disturbed by the amount of sneering and laughing by Government Members at the serious points that Opposition Members, who are concerned about the Bill’s implications for their constituents throughout the length and breadth of this great nation, have made. A little humility from Government Members, and particularly from the Liberal Democrats, would not go amiss.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and all Government Members would benefit from some counselling from Gamblers Anonymous, because they are gambling massively with the British economy. Although history teaches us that their gamble is doomed to fail, they are ploughing on regardless—just like a wretched compulsive gambler betting on a course of action with incredibly long odds, in the vain hope that it will turn out all right in the end.
Crossing fingers and hoping for the best is not a credible economic prospectus. The Chancellor is pursuing the same old stale, worn out and inept Tory economic policies that have failed the country before and are set to fail it again. However, the Con-Dem coalition is not betting on a horse, but playing with the lives and livelihoods of the British people. Just like its Tory predecessors in the 1930s, the 1980s and the 1990s, this Con-Dem coalition is, yet again, making the wrong choice. It is risking the fragile recovery that the Labour Administration worked so hard to secure. [Laughter.] Yes, they like laughing—that is typical of the Con-Dem Benches.
The fact is that the Government’s corporation tax proposals provide inadequate support for businesses. The Chancellor’s very own Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that his Budget will result in lower growth not just this year, but next year as well. How will that help business? Are Government Members laughing at that? If growth declines, that will not help business at all. On top of that, the OBR says that unemployment will be caused. The OBR’s predictions remind me of two notorious Tory maxims coined by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and a former Prime Minister. One said that
“unemployment…is a price worth paying”
and the other, John Major, said:
“If it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working.”
However, as the shadow Chief Secretary pointed out earlier, the situation is even worse than is indicated by the OBR’s predictions. The number of people who will lose their jobs will be far higher than the figures that have surfaced so far.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that Opposition Members are in denial. I put it to him and to other Government Members that they are in denial. It is their policies—those failed policies—that led to interest rates that averaged 10% during the Tories’ 18 years in power and that hit 15% on one occasion. I say to Government Members that they are in denial. Their failed policies, which they want to pursue again, resulted in record numbers of repossessions and millions of people ending up in negative equity. That, in turn, had a massive impact on the construction industry and the ancillary trades that rely on a buoyant housing market.
We all remember how the failed policies now being pursued again by Government Members resulted in unemployment that exceeded 3 million. Government Members are in denial about the fact that manufacturing was decimated by the policies that they are pursuing. They smashed the coal industry, nearly wiped out the steel industry, almost destroyed the British car industry and torpedoed British shipbuilding. They are in denial because they want to destroy the very instruments that will help the recovery, by undermining the regional development agencies and by taking away the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, which would have had such a big impact in assisting the resurgence of the nuclear industry in this country.
The Con-Dem coalition is in denial because of its unrealistic expectation of growth in respect of the exports that it expects to achieve while the worldwide economy is in a fragile state.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend’s constituency is rightly known and admired far and wide for the quality of its Rolls-Royce engines. Has he done any research into the possible effect on demand for aero engines of an increase in insurance premium tax from 17.5 to 20%? Does he share my fear that that will dampen demand for travel and, ultimately, for the wondrous engines produced in his constituency?
Chris Williamson
I am very proud to have Rolls-Royce in the constituency adjacent to mine, Derby South. Indeed, many of my constituents work at Rolls-Royce, a company renowned for its excellence. My hon. Friend is right: the insurance tax rise is bound to have an impact. The cancellation of the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters will also have a big impact, because Rolls-Royce is seeking to diversify into the nuclear industry—to expand its operations in that regard—and was hoping to purchase equipment from Sheffield Forgemasters, but it will now be forced to look abroad. That is a direct result of the policies of Con-Dem Members, who should hang their heads in shame.
John Woodcock
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the double whammy facing Rolls-Royce? I agree with him wholeheartedly about the potentially catastrophic effect on the civil nuclear supply chain of cancelling the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, but there is also the restriction on capital allowances, which will hit Rolls-Royce as it will hit BAE Systems in my constituency and many other manufacturers across the north of England and the whole country who will be affected through the potential loss of jobs and loss of ability to export.
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend is right. Conservative Members are reverting to type. We saw what they did—I have outlined some of the implications—when they were last in power. The policies that they are pursuing now will have exactly the effect that he describes in undermining manufacturing, because they are the enemy of manufacturing industry in this country.
There is an alternative. Historical precedent proves that investing in the economy at a time of economic fragility is absolutely the right course of action. Government Members should look at their history books. We had a lecture from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who referred to the 1930s. I refer him and other Government Members to Roosevelt’s new deal. Roosevelt demonstrated that by using the power and instruments of the state to invest in the economy, Government could get the economy moving again and put people back to work. Do not forget that when Roosevelt came to power, 25% of the American people were out of work, and his new deal put them back into work. By contrast, in this country we were pursuing a deflationary policy that resulted in millions of people losing their jobs and remaining unemployed for many years.
Indeed, President Obama agrees. He wrote to all the G20 leaders—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that we cannot have a general discourse on the merits of the policies of respective American presidents, however strongly he and others feel about those matters? I am sure that it is only a matter of seconds before he returns to the substance of the Bill.
Chris Williamson
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I merely wanted to make a brief reference to President Obama’s letter. I think that Government Members are familiar with it. I referred to it in a previous speech, and I will therefore move on.
From the historical precedents to which I have referred, and indeed the precedent of the Attlee Government in 1945, it is clear that by investing in our economy and not taking the course of action that the Government are taking in relation to VAT, corporation tax and the insurance premium tax, we can secure greater opportunity for recovery. If we can put people back to work by investing in our economy, that will ensure that the tax take is increased.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in his constituency, the VAT increases in the Finance Bill will have a disproportionate effect on the poorest individuals? Will that not hamper not only the recovery but the personal circumstances of those individuals?
Chris Williamson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Certainly the increases will impoverish countless people living on modest incomes in my constituency. That is very clear. The point that I was trying to make, though, was that growth is the key to recovery, and by investing in our economy we can secure that growth.
Lilian Greenwood
Has the growth of the retail sector in Derby made a significant contribution to the city? I know that the Westfield centre there seems to have attracted many people. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the increase in VAT will have—[Interruption.]
Chris Williamson
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen a retail-led regeneration of the city centre in Derby, and the increase in VAT will certainly have a negative impact. Already retailers are struggling in the difficult economic circumstances with which they are confronted, and clearly an increase in VAT is bound to have a negative impact.
What we wanted to achieve, and what we believe is the right way forward, is the creation of an economic virtuous cycle through investment in our economy. That would lead to more jobs, which would increase tax and national insurance income, which in turn would lead to the opportunity for more investment, and so on. The Government are pursuing a course of action that will lead to an economic vicious circle. The cuts in investment will result in more unemployment and a reduction in the tax take, resulting in more cuts and more unemployment, and so on. The VAT increase will clearly hit the poorest people in our community. The Treasury figures say that, as do the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
What I find astounding is the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats. On 7 April the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“Our plans do not require a rise in VAT. The Tory plans do. Their tax promises on marriage and jobs may sound appealing. But they come with a secret VAT bombshell close behind.”
It is little wonder that support for the Liberal Democrats in the latest YouGov opinion poll has slumped to 15%. Furthermore, another YouGov poll last month showed that 48% of Liberal Democrat voters were going to abandon the party as a direct result of its supporting the Tories on the issue. Even the Prime Minister said last year that VAT was regressive and hit the poorest hardest. He went on:
“It does, I absolutely promise you.”
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told The Times on 10 April that the Tories had no plans to increase VAT this year.
The Chancellor keeps telling us that we are all in it together, but there is a world of difference between the impact on privileged former Bullingdon club members, such as the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and the families on modest incomes in my constituency who will have their tax credits cut—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. A rather unseemly exchange is going on between the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne). I would not want to find that, as a result of excessive noise, I miss out on what I am sure is coming soon, namely the peroration of the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson).
Chris Williamson
There is an even bigger difference between those privileged former Bullingdon club members and the people whom they will throw on the dole—the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of people who will be thrown out of work as a direct consequence of their policies.
The Chief Secretary concluded his remarks today by saying that the Budget was tough but fair.
David Morris
(Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con): A debate that goes on till 12 minutes past one is an oddity so early in the Parliament. Call me cynical, but will the hon. Gentleman concede that the debate has just cost the taxpayers more than £200,000 to keep the House open and Members of Parliament in here, who can claim a free hotel after 1 o’clock under Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority rules? Shame!
Mr Speaker
Order. The fact that there is a generally convivial spirit is good, but the House must come to order because, as I said, we must shortly hear the hon. Gentleman’s peroration.
Chris Williamson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that he is cynical.
How is it fair to increase VAT when the Chief Secretary said that he would not do that? How is it fair to hit the poorest the hardest? How is it fair to cut tax credits from families on modest incomes or to scrap child trust funds, which give young people a nest egg? How is it fair to slash free school meals? How is it fair to short-change pensioners through the failure to operate tax allowances? How is it fair to blame public sector workers for the deficit and the national debt, when international bankers are at fault? Let us remember that Conservative Members resisted any additional regulation of those bankers, many of whom have more in common with Government Members than they have with Opposition Members. How is it fair to chop benefits, including the swingeing cuts to which my hon. Friends referred, for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country? The shameful Finance Bill is the antithesis of fairness. That is why Labour Members will vote against Second Reading.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
Personally speaking, on my own behalf, I would not have carried out the bail-out in such a way. I think that the true consequences and costs of that bail-out are yet to be borne out.
I know from my own experience of the bond markets that they take no hostages. We now depend on them utterly for the nation’s finances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right to point out that we face a major sovereign crisis unless we take serious action. Some Labour Members have said that it does not look as though we have had problems with financing our budget deficit to date. We borrowed about £225 billion in gilts in the last financial year, but at the same time, the previous Government, through the process of quantitative easing, printed about £225 billion of new money. It is therefore not difficult to work out how, in effect, much of that borrowing was paid for.
The United States was the only other major economy that went through a process of quantitative easing, and we cannot use it as an example to compare with ourselves because, as we know, it has a reserve currency and we do not. That makes its situation entirely different when it comes to such an economic policy. The only other country in the world that I can think of without a reserve currency that went ahead and printed money at about the same time as us—indeed, before—was Zimbabwe. It is rumoured that the Finance Minister of Zimbabwe sent a note in 2008 to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer offering him his economic advice in exchange for lifting visa restrictions on him and his family. I think the then Chancellor took the advice but did not give anything in return.
The bond markets are picking off grossly indebted nations one by one with rising bond yields and falling prices. We have heard today about Greece, and we have seen what has happened in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Those who observe the markets carefully need only look at what has happened, to a lesser extent, in France in recent weeks, where problems have started. That is why France, too, recently announced an austerity package. We have no choice but to reduce the record budget deficit, or else we will face an economic crisis of cataclysmic proportions.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I would be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about Professor David Blanchflower’s comments yesterday. He said that the Budget made him more certain that there would now be a double-dip recession, with no room for manoeuvre because interest rates are already so low. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Sajid Javid
Yes; Professor Blanchflower has been consistently wrong for the past three years since the crisis started, and he was wrong in what he said yesterday.
We have no choice but to cut the deficit, and that requires both cuts in spending and the raising of taxes. As we have heard today, we have to a strike a balance between the two, and the burden must fall on public spending. We have no choice about that, because if we raise taxes too much we will destroy the very incentives that we need to create the growth that will get us out of this economic mess.
As we go through that process, we must naturally try to protect the most vulnerable as much as we possibly can. Opposition Members have accused us of being ideological about the matter, but how can we be anything else? They are absolutely right, and there is no shame in it, because there is an ideological difference between what they believe and what we believe about how to get our country back on track and our economy going.
The Opposition believe in some kind of Alice in Wonderland economics in which we can go on living beyond our means year after year. We believe in the real world, where we have to pay our way. They believe that the state has the answer to all society’s problems, but we believe that individuals, helped by the state, have the answers. They believe in an ever increasing welfare state, in which people are tied down and not allowed to profit from their own industry, and we believe in helping the most vulnerable in society—those who cannot help themselves—but freeing those who can work for themselves and earn an income, and giving them the incentives to do just that. Because of that, we believe that we can get more out of our constrained budget, repair our economy and create a fairer and more responsible society.
Capital Gains Tax (Rates)
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on making their maiden speeches today.
A week before the general election, the Prime Minister said:
“The test of a government is how it looks after the most vulnerable, not just in good times but also in bad”.
On April fools’ day, he told BBC News that the Conservatives’ plans did not involve an increase in VAT, and when speaking on “The Andrew Marr Show”, the Prime Minister also said that
“any cabinet minister…who comes to me and says, “Here are my plans” and they involve frontline reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.”
That prompts the question: why did he not ask the Chancellor to think again about his dreadful Budget—a Budget that will result in the quality of life of Britain’s most vulnerable people being sacrificed on the altar of Tory dogma, a Budget that will result in massive reductions in front-line services, and a Budget that will lead to a colossal increase in unemployment? It is less than seven weeks since the Prime Minister made those solemn pledges, but the Chancellor’s proposal to increase VAT is making a fool out of him.
We must not forget the Deputy Prime Minister either, who said that he wanted to “hardwire fairness” into society. However, increasing VAT does not hardwire fairness into society; on the contrary, it short-circuits fairness, because it hits the poorest families twice as hard as the richest. Britain’s richest families spend just 7% of their disposable income on VAT, while the poorest spend almost 14%. How fair is that? The truth is that it is not fair at all. Cutting tax credits, freezing child benefit, slashing housing allowances, cancelling the help in pregnancy grant and chopping free school meals are not fair either.
No doubt the Liberal Democrat members of the coalition Government will point to the increase in tax thresholds that they wrung out of the Chancellor as evidence of their influence. However, the sad fact is that the meagre increase that they secured will make little difference to low-paid workers and will be more than offset by the regressive measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday. Worse still, many of the workers who might benefit from the modest uplift in tax allowances will end up losing their jobs if the Liberal Democrats vote through the Budget.
Of course, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor insist on repeating their quasi-egalitarian mantra, “We’re all in this together.” Needless to say, it is nonsense, and it has overtones of the infamous scene in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” when the animals realise that the pigs have changed the seven commandments to read:
“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”—
or, to put it another way, “We’re all in this together, but if you’re poor, you’re in it a lot deeper than others,” such as the numerous millionaires who sit on the Government Benches.
Increased unemployment will force more people on to state benefits, which will put pressure on the size of the national deficit, which the Chancellor claims to be so concerned about. However, unless he has a damascene conversion, I suspect that he will respond to the failure of his economic prospectus by making even deeper cuts in welfare provision, as happened in the 1930s and 1980s. No doubt he will try to justify his failure by repeating his Orwellian mantra, but the reality is that it will not be his former Bullingdon club colleagues paying the price of that failure. No, it will be Britain’s poorest people, who will be in it up to their necks.
Of course, the Tories have form on that. I saw what they did in the 1980s to proud working-class communities in constituencies such as mine all over the country. They caused mass unemployment, slashed welfare provision, decimated front-line public services and did not stop cutting until they were thrown out of office in 1997. They even used another Orwellian ploy: to blame the unemployed for being out of work, labelling them as “scroungers”. Indeed, I see that the Prime Minister was at it again over the weekend when he talked about “welfare scroungers”. The Chancellor joined in the Orwellian chorus with his “Ministry of Truth” description of his Budget as a “progressive Budget”.
Andrew Percy
I have a quick question for the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell us whether unemployment in his constituency was higher or lower at the end of 13 years of a Labour Government?
Chris Williamson
Unemployment certainly fell in my constituency in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. I will tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: thanks to the measures that they put in place, poverty was reduced in my constituency, people enjoyed the national minimum wage and were able to get health treatment far more quickly than previously, and children were not taught in overcrowded schools, so let us have no more lectures from him.
Let us never forget that everything that I have described has only been made possible by the vacillating Liberal Democrats, who say one thing then do another. Less than seven weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that his party represented a new kind of politics, with fresh ideas. What we got was a party supporting reactionary right-wing policies instead. Fewer than seven weeks ago, he was apparently opposed to the self-same right-wing policies that he now endorses. This is what he told his party conference on 23 September last year:
“We know what happens when you simply squeeze budgets, across the board, until the pips squeak. We know, because we lived through it before, under the Conservatives. We remember the tumble-down classrooms, the pensioners dying on hospital trolleys, the council houses falling into total disrepair. We remember, and we say: never again.”
In an interview with Jeremy Paxman on 12 April this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“Do I think that these big cuts are merited or justified, at a time when the economy is struggling to get to its feet? Clearly not.”
That is what he said at that time.
Millions of people who rejected the Conservatives’ right-wing policy prospectus were seduced into voting for the Liberal Democrats by the Deputy Prime Minister’s rhetoric. People actually believed that the Liberal Democrats represented progressive values. How wrong they were. People now see that the reality is very different from the Deputy Prime Minister’s rhetoric. People see that he is now so determined to appease his Conservative masters that he is even prepared to sacrifice his own constituents by opposing a Government loan to Sheffield Forgemasters.
That is nothing new. The Liberal Democrats and their predecessors in the Liberal party have assisted the Conservatives into power in four out of the last seven general elections. It is thanks to the Liberal party splitting the centre-left vote in 1983 and 1987 that Margaret Thatcher was able to secure two landslide election victories. Then the Liberal Democrats did the same thing in 1992, forcing the country to endure another five years of Tory rule. The truth is that they are not a progressive party at all; they are merely a collection of self-indulgent political loners.
All the post-war progressive legislation has been introduced by Labour Governments often in the teeth of fierce opposition from the Tories and sometimes the Liberals, too. Examples include the NHS, the welfare state, comprehensive education, equal pay, civil partnerships, the national minimum wage, Sure Start, the ban on fox hunting, and the Open university, to name but a few.
Chris Williamson
No, I do not have time.
Some of the country’s greatest progressive advances were brought about by Labour when the size of the national debt was far higher than it is today.
I heard Members of the coalition parties, including the Chancellor, eulogising the Canadian experience of cutting its deficit in the 1980s and arguing for the same approach to be adopted here, but their “Ministry of Truth” description of themselves as “compassionate Conservatives” imposing so-called caring cuts defies all reason. The reality of the Canadian experience saw increased homelessness, overcrowded classrooms, pension cuts and a drastic shortage of hospital beds. On one occasion, the Canadians even emptied a hospital and blew it up in a desperate attempt to save money. Is that really what the coalition parties mean by “caring cuts”?
By contrast, the US President has written to all G20 leaders begging them not to cut spending too quickly. Mr Obama says it is critical that
“the timing and pace of consolidation in each country suit the needs of the global economy”.
He adds:
“We must be flexible in adjusting the pace of consolidation and learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships and recession.”
But the Chancellor just does not seem to get it. He is obsessed with implementing an approach that failed in the 1930s, failed in the 1980s, failed in the 1990s and is destined to fail again. He wants to implement an unfair budget that will hit the poorest hardest, undermine the economic recovery, destroy public services and increase unemployment.
David Blanchflower, one of Britain’s top economists, said today that he is
“now convinced that as a result of this reckless Budget the UK will suffer a double-dip recession or worse, not least because there is no room for interest-rate cuts, although lots of additional quantitative easing… from the Bank of England could soften the blow”.
Growth is the key to addressing the deficit, and the Budget is a wasted opportunity. The Chancellor has chosen to penalise the weak and the powerless, instead of making the rich and powerful individuals and institutions pay.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
The lack of responsibility taken by Labour Members for the state of the country’s finances is breathtaking. The Labour Government left this country not with a small hole in the public finances, but with a yawning chasm, which this Government will have to sort out.
Chris Williamson
That irresponsibility is on the Government Benches, because David Blanchflower, an esteemed economist in this country who predicted the recession and who should be taken seriously, is now predicting a double-dip recession as a result of “this reckless Budget”. The hon. Lady ought to reflect on his words, rather than criticising Labour Members.
Rather than taking the appropriate steps against powerful individuals and institutions, to ensure that they pay a fairer contribution towards reducing the deficit, the Chancellor has chosen to penalise the weak and the powerless. The Budget has let down the great British public. I assure Government Members that it will come back to haunt them. We will certainly ensure that the British public know what this Government, and the Liberal Democrats in particular, have inflicted on them. When the next general election comes, the Liberal Democrats, who have been swallowed whole by the Conservative party in this Chamber, will live to regret the day that they put the Tories in power.
Office for Budget Responsibility
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
First, I will tell the Prime Minister what I am up to, because another thing that emerged over the weekend was that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer hid the numbers not only from the rest of the country, but from his own Prime Minister.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
May I begin by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your new role? Will the Chancellor explain why he is obsessed with pursuing economic policies that failed in the 1930s, failed in the 1980s and failed in the 1990s?
Mr Osborne
The most obvious set of failed economic policies is that pursued by the Labour party.