Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no requirement or need for the Chancellor to comment on Opposition policy. I would have thought that we had grasped that point by now.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In reaction to this year’s Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that, if the Chancellor is to meet his borrowing targets, he will be
“now even more dependent on a bounce back in the rate of economic growth from 2013”.
Borrowing has already been £1.5 billion higher in the first two months of this financial year than it was in the same period last year, as the Chancellor’s tax rises and spending cuts kick in. If growth outturns fail to meet the forecasts, will the Government change their plans on borrowing?
Mr Osborne
When the director of the IFS was asked this month:
“Have things changed so much in the past 12 months that you would expect the Government to change course now?”
he replied, “No”. In fact, the advice of the IMF is also that now would be the wrong time to adjust macro-economic policies, while the Governor of the Bank of England at Mansion house said that we should not adjust the macro-economic mix. The truth is that the Labour Opposition, who got us into this mess, have absolutely no answers for getting us out of it. Is it not striking that the shadow Chancellor gave a speech last week with his big new economic policy, and not a single Labour MP has mentioned it yet?
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I will bypass the first eight minutes of the Minister’s speech, in which she reiterated the usual mantra about everything being Labour’s fault—she usually resorts to that when questioned about the Government’s policy, but today she started her speech with it—and instead focus on the charter.
The Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 was passed with consensus, at least on the principle of setting up the Office for Budget Responsibility and introducing the changes to the national audit process that the previous Government had already floated and that we would have implemented had we been re-elected in 2010. There was consensus on the principle, if not on all the details that we discussed in Committee. We welcome the fact that the House is debating the charter in Government time, as we received assurances in the Public Bill Committee that it would do so. Indeed, that formed a central part of our debates on the Bill and it is a central facet of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s functioning and relationship with the Government.
However, I note that the Government have on previous occasions attempted to get this motion through on the nod at the end of the day’s business. Only after efforts made by the Labour Opposition to secure a debate do we now have the opportunity to talk about the charter, which rather goes against the spirit of the reassurances that were given in Committee. Indeed, I questioned the Minister repeatedly in Committee about what was meant by the phrase “laid before Parliament” and whether such a promise would mean—not just on this occasion, but on future occasions—a proper debate on the Floor of the House or the measure being put through on the nod. However, at least we are here now, with the opportunity to discuss the issue.
Debates on the Bill in Committee were, as I pointed out at the time, slightly hampered by the fact that we could discuss only the draft charter. I repeat my observation that it would have been better for the Committee—and for the House on Report when we approved the Bill—to have a finalised form of the charter for consideration. I note, however, that the final version laid before Parliament has not changed substantially, which is somewhat unfortunate, as it has not been improved as much as we had either been led to believe in Committee or had hoped for.
Chapter 1 of the charter refers to section 6(2) of the 2010 Act and confirms that
“the Charter may not make provision about the methods by which the OBR is to perform its duty,”
which is an additional provision. That is important and crucial to the OBR’s independence. However, we pressed for the final version of the 2010 Act or the charter to guarantee complete discretion on what the OBR can consider, as well as how. Regrettably, as I shall set out later, that has not been included. Chapter 2 has not been changed substantially, although we welcome the inclusion of other Departments in the memorandum of understanding with Mr Robert Chote, on behalf of the OBR, and the Treasury, which recognises that the work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions in particular is similarly pivotal to responsible fiscal policy and sustainable public finances.
Given the importance of the memorandum to the transparency, objectivity and impartiality of the OBR, it is only right that the House should consider it. We therefore welcome the Treasury’s publication of the memorandum. The document refers to the forecast liaison group. Given the Government’s professed commitment to guaranteeing the transparency and independence of the OBR, will the Minister confirm that the Treasury will publish the minutes of the group meetings? If a dispute is escalated to the chair of the OBR or the permanent secretaries, will a Minister report to the House on the cause of the dispute and how they intend to solve it? Finally on the memorandum, it states:
“Analysis of the direct impact of Government policies on the public finances will be provided to the OBR for independent scrutiny which will state whether the OBR agrees or disagrees with the Government’s costings”.
Such analysis is one of the fundamental roles of the OBR, yet neither the memorandum nor the charter explains the consequences of the OBR’s assessment contradicting the Government’s own report. I will come later to the worrying implications if the Treasury were to disregard the OBR’s verdict.
We also discussed in the Public Bill Committee the possibility of duplication and inconsistencies in OBR and Bank of England forecasts. Neither the charter nor the memorandum addresses that, and the Minister has previously advised that it would be for the two organisations to formalise their relationship in this respect. Perhaps she could update us on any discussions that the Treasury has had with the two organisations on their roles, and indeed on how the Chancellor intends to proceed in the event of a disagreement between the two.
Mr Redwood
Perhaps it would be a good idea if there were such a disagreement, because the Bank of England has been so bad at forecasting inflation, and we hope that the OBR will be a bit better at it.
Kerry McCarthy
The Bank of England’s forecasts have not always been as accurate as one might have hoped, but that proves my point: there could well be conflict between the Bank’s forecasts and the OBR’s forecasts. It is therefore right to ask what the Government would do in such circumstances. Would such a disagreement discredit the Bank of England’s forecasts? Will the OBR be seen as the ultimate arbiter on such matters, or will the Government be able to pick and choose whichever forecast suits their purposes?
Chapter 3 of the charter and the Government’s objectives for fiscal policy are obviously at the core of the document. Some of the provisions in the charter might not be entirely necessary, however. For example, it places the Treasury under a duty to prepare a Budget report for each financial year, which one would hope would happen without it being told to do so. We acknowledge, however, that including the Government’s fiscal mandate in the charter and consequently requiring any modifications to be laid before the House is a welcome step. We hope that it will enhance Government accountability, although that should not be taken as an endorsement of the Government’s economic policy or of their fiscal policy objectives.
Regrettably, given that economic growth has flat-lined under this Government and that forecasts have repeatedly had to be downgraded, it remains to be seen whether the Government are meeting their stated objectives—particularly that of supporting confidence in the economy. Nevertheless, we approve of the idea of working towards maintaining confidence in the economy. The charter rightly acknowledges that achieving that must be the responsibility of the Government and not of the OBR.
The second objective, that of promoting inter-generational fairness, is much more contentious, and it has been challenged here and in the other place. It is not at all clear from the document what the Government mean by the term, although from the Minister’s comments tonight and on previous occasions, I assume that it refers to passing debt from one generation to another, rather than to passing on wealth, advantage and opportunity from one generation to another. If that is indeed the case, and the objective refers simply to inherited debt, it would appear that the Government under this Chancellor’s leadership have an exceptionally narrow conception of fairness which does not chime with most people’s understanding of the world.
We should not be surprised by that, however, given the Government’s record on fairness to date. A Government who choose to take £7 billion of much-needed support from children in their first Budget and comprehensive spending review—three times the amount that they thought appropriate for bankers to pay—who choose to target women for spending cuts, who choose to penalise people on lower incomes, and who choose the regressive measure of increasing VAT can hardly be considered fair.
Earlier today, many of us met constituents supporting the Hardest Hit campaign for people with severe disabilities and chronic illnesses, and I would ask the Government to explain to them how making people with disabilities and chronic illnesses pay the price for the financial crisis is fair. One of the constituents I met today is registered blind and has a guide dog, but she has been told that she is not eligible for the higher rate of disability living allowance. She used to work for a bank, and she wants to know why she is paying a bigger price for the financial crisis than her former bosses in that industry.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not realise that the financial crisis is the product of deficit, debt and debasement—in other words, Government policy.
Kerry McCarthy
The financial crisis was global and it started in the US. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the banks did not play a role in creating that financial crisis and that people such as my constituent, who are struggling to get by on disability living allowance and a modest income, were responsible for it?
Steve Baker
I know that the crisis originated in the banks, but it did so because of currency debasement, which was a result of deficit spending—a Government policy.
Kerry McCarthy
We cannot get into a whole debate about macro-economic policy. Needless to say, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of how the financial crisis occurred. The point I was making—the intervention was not particularly relevant to it—was that this Government’s action in reducing the deficit too far and too fast is hitting people at the bottom end of the income scale far harder than it is hitting people such as bankers. If the Government were to adopt our suggestion of introducing a banking bonus tax again this year, as we did last year, they would not have to make cuts that hit people at the bottom so hard.
Justine Greening
I find the hon. Lady’s comments ironic in a debate welcoming a charter that sets out some guidelines on the operation of the Office for Budget Responsibility—an independent group of forecasters who have looked at and then provided input into distribution analysis showing that the richest people have borne the greatest burden of deficit reduction. I do not understand how we can have that debate on the one hand, yet hear the hon. Lady saying on the other hand that the burden has fallen on the most vulnerable. This Government have worked hard to protect the most vulnerable.
Kerry McCarthy
I shall come in a few moments to some of the Government’s measures that have done precisely the opposite of what the hon. Lady claims. Will the Minister explain why thousands of people with disabilities—people in wheelchairs, people with chronic illnesses and so forth—were protesting outside Parliament today under the banner of the Hardest Hit campaign, supported by reputable charities? Is she saying that being hit by what the Government are doing is a figment of their imagination?
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend think that those blind people and deaf people and the people in wheelchairs who were protesting today are ungrateful to the Tory Government for what they have done?
Kerry McCarthy
That certainly seems to be the suggestion. For some, it seems that they should be thankful as they do not realise how well off they are. The Minister has come close to saying that they have “never had it so good” under this coalition Government.
We talked in Committee about the Child Poverty Act 2010, and the Government have since published the child poverty strategy. We pressed for a wider remit for the Office for Budget Responsibility to include scrutinising the Government’s progress under the Act. Although the Government rejected our amendment in Committee, I hope that the Office for Budget Responsibility will consider the proposals again in due course, as tackling child poverty is a crucial element of inter-generational fairness. It is disappointing that the Government do not seem to recognise that. I hope that the OBR will be afforded the necessary discretion to include this aspect in defining its role.
It is highly disputable whether the Government have any mandate from the country for their fiscal policy, especially given that the Deputy Prime Minister led his party into the general election on an entirely different approach. Although setting out fiscal objectives has its advantages, it is clear that the Government are bringing in their targets far too early and cutting spending far too fast, as is demonstrated in the forecast that they will need to borrow £46 billion more than was planned last year because of their failure to promote economic growth successfully. That should prove to the Government that their fiscal mandate is not appropriate to the current economic climate and that a different approach is needed to secure the economy on a sustainable footing. That explains why it is key for the OBR to make wider reference to still fundamentally important economic determinants such as employment and growth.
Ensuring a responsible fiscal policy is clearly beyond the OBR’s remit; instead, it is this House’s responsibility to try to make the Government take heed of its advice. For that reason, the charter’s assertion that the Government
“retains the right to disagree with the OBR’s forecasts”
is a serious concern, especially when reliable forecasts will be so crucial to the forward-looking targets. The Government have made a great song and dance about how the OBR will enhance the credibility of fiscal forecasting because of its independence from the Treasury, and the charter itself states:
“The OBR is designed to address past weaknesses in the credibility of economic and fiscal forecasting and, consequently, fiscal policy”.
However, enabling the Treasury to disregard independent official forecasts would make a mockery of the fundamental purpose of the OBR. It would also lead to dangerous uncertainty about which official forecasts we can and cannot believe, and which should inform fiscal policy. That is relevant to a point raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). I urge the Minister to clarify the status of the OBR and its forecasts.
According to chapter 4 of the charter, the role of the OBR is to
“examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances.”
During the passage of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act, a number of attempts were made to secure a broad definition of sustainability, and to persuade the Government to acknowledge that it was not enough to focus on the deficit in an insular way while ignoring the impact on economic growth, employment, inflation, and other factors that are central to sustainable finances and responsible fiscal policy.
Although the Government rejected our amendment which sought to guarantee a multi-dimensional approach to sustainability, arguing that the OBR should be able to define the concept, the Minister reassured the Public Bill Committee that she intended
“to amend the charter to require the OBR to set out how it will approach sustainability in each of its reports.”––[Official Report, Budget Responsibility and National Audit Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2011; c. 48.]
We therefore welcome the addition of paragraph 4.7 in the final charter, which confirms that
“The OBR will consider a wide range of factors and dimensions relating to the sustainability of the public finances and will be transparent in its approach. More generally, in each report published under its main duty, the OBR will explain the factors taken into account when preparing the report, including the main assumptions and risks.”
That reflects many of the concerns raised in both Houses. The reference to risks is important, given that the Government appear to be blinkered when it comes to the risks that are inherent in their deficit reduction plan.
We are also pleased that chapter 4 refers to projections of GDP, inflation and the labour market. However, the absence of any complementary references in chapter 3 to the Government’s role, or indeed the Act, remains highly disconcerting. It suggests that the Government do not consider such fundamental considerations to be part of their role. I assure the Minister that promoting employment and growth are part of the Government’s responsibilities. Perhaps, in time, the OBR will help them to understand that. More positively, we welcome the inclusion of paragraph 4.13, which confirms the Office’s access to Government information, and the omission of the definitions of “objectively”, “transparently” and “impartiality”, which are terms that the OBR is best placed to define.
We are slightly concerned about the inclusion of paragraph 4.12, which is an additional provision and which states:
“The OBR should not provide normative commentary on the particular merits of Government policies.”
There is a fine line between giving an impartial and informed assessment of the effectiveness of Government policies in achieving the declared objectives, and being seen to pass judgment on their merits. How does the Minister think that such a provision will be policed, and who will be the arbiter of whether the OBR has overstepped the mark?
There is no reference in the charter or the memorandum to the funding of the OBR, which we argued in Committee was critical to its independence, but the charter does refer to the office’s discretion in regard to the timing of its publications, although that seems to be weakened by the requirement for
“a regular and predictable timetable”.
The fact that there have already been doubts about whether reports have been published in time for Prime Minister’s Question Time reinforces the need not only to ensure that the wording of the charter is sufficient but, more important, to ensure that it is followed in both the letter and the spirit.
Our key reservation is that neither the Act nor the charter includes any means of ensuring enforceability. I have already mentioned the get-out clause that allows the Chancellor to ignore the OBR’s reports, but there is also no indication of the consequences of the Chancellor’s failing to meet his obligations under the charter. Will the Minister commit the Chancellor to reporting to Parliament following OBR publications? Most important, will she commit the Treasury to listening and responding to OBR reports in its actions as well as its words?
It is not enough for the Office for Budget Responsibility to tell us whether the Chancellor is acting responsibly—we know that he is not—and it is certainly not responsible to disregard its advice or forecasts, but neither the OBR nor the charter can do anything about that. Only the Chancellor can, and he must realise that a charter that proclaims the credibility of economic forecasting does not remedy the damage caused by the Government’s policies, and does not automatically translate into credible policy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. One challenge is to make sure that everyone hears about these schemes over the next couple of years. Because the Budget focused on big issues like fuel duty and the corporation tax cut, the same amount of attention was not given on Budget day to the charitable giving measures. Over the period before they come into effect, I want to make sure that all the charities are aware of the benefits. Every charity will be able to benefit, but small charities will be disproportionately better off.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Many local charities would disagree with the Chancellor’s statement. Will he explain why he chose in the Budget to focus on tax breaks for the wealthiest owners when many small local charities who will not benefit from such donations are being hit by the triple whammy of a rise in VAT, the end to the gift aid transitional rate and cuts to local government grant funding? What help is he giving to those charities that he expects to form the backbone of his big society?
Mr Osborne
I am not sure who the hon. Lady has been listening to, but this is what the British Red Cross said: “Allowing charities to—”[Interruption.] I am sorry; it seems that we should disregard the views of the British Red Cross. Let me, however, repeat what it said for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
“Allowing charities to claim back on up to £5,000 of small donations per year will have a big impact for small charities”.
The Charities Aid Foundation said:
“The Chancellor has today delivered for charities and those who want to support them.”
Instead of carping from the sidelines, why does the hon. Lady not get behind this good scheme and ensure that all charities in all our constituencies make use of it?
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 7, page 12, line 36, at end add—
‘(8) The Chancellor shall publish, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.’.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.
Kerry McCarthy
The backdrop to today’s debate is an economy that is flat-lining, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted last week. Since the Chancellor’s spending review, we have had no economic growth, and it is ordinary people who are hardest hit by that stagnation, with 2.5 million people out of work, including nearly 1 million young people—one in five 16 to 24-year-olds. An increasing number of people have been jobless for more than a year—nearly 850,000 and rising. This year, as the Government’s cuts start to bite, hundreds of thousands more people could lose their jobs. I believe that that is what the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office called an
“immediate national crisis in the form of less growth and jobs than we need.”
Apparently, it is what the Chancellor describes as “good news” and a sign that the economy is on the right track. Families are feeling the effects of the crisis in their pockets. Prices are still rising by more than 5% on the retail prices index, while earnings are growing at just 2% a year.
Rising fuel prices are a big part of this squeeze. According to the Office for National Statistics, fuel prices are currently one of the most significant contributors to consumer price inflation. According to this week’s figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the average UK pump price is now £1.36 for a litre of petrol and £1.42 for a litre of diesel. I am sure that many Members will be aware that at their local petrol pumps prices are even higher. That means that petrol is more than 3p a litre more expensive than it was last month, or 15p more than this time last year, and that diesel is 3p more expensive than last month, or nearly 20p more than last year. Unfortunately, the 1p saving we got from the Chancellor’s cut in fuel duty lasted barely a week before price rises at the pumps wiped it out.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to fuel prices. Does she not find it extraordinary that the coalition Government are proposing to subsidise fuel prices in some of their friends’ constituencies, thereby increasing by default the duty on those in many of the urban constituencies that we represent?
Kerry McCarthy
My right hon. Friend is quite right that the Government are looking for a derogation in some rural areas, but only a very limited number. When the House last discussed the proposal, considerable representations were made by Government Members who argued that if there was to be a derogation, other areas should also benefit from it and that it was unfair that just a few remote islands should see the benefit.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The argument that a derogation in remote and rural areas is somehow an increase elsewhere is an interesting one. Should we take it from that that the hon. Lady is opposed to the road equivalent tariff being implemented in the Western Isles as well?
Kerry McCarthy
The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) was making was that if taxes are to be cut for some people somewhere, but the same amount of revenue has to be raised, that means that someone else is subsidising it. That is a fairly simple point to take on board.
As I was saying, it is not just rising fuel prices that are hitting people. Rises in fuel prices feed through to higher food prices and higher energy prices for household bills. Despite a recent up-tick, the OECD estimates that food prices in the first quarter of this year were nearly 6% higher than they were last year, and energy prices more than 9% higher. As real incomes fall, spending on basic items, such as food—[Interruption.]
The Chairman
I must admit that, if there was noise interference, I did not know where it was coming from and could not hear it in front of the Chair. I am sure that Members will be quieter in future.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for that, because it certainly seemed quite noisy from where I was standing.
As I was saying, as real incomes fall, spending on basic items such as food, energy and fuel makes up an increasing proportion of the average family’s weekly spend, as the Office for National Statistics acknowledged in March when it changed the make-up of its retail prices index basket. That means that families are increasingly vulnerable when prices rise quickly.
The Opposition accept that no Government can control the price of oil, which the global markets set, and that the situation in the middle east is affecting people in countries throughout the world, to which the UK is of course no exception, but the Government have control over fuel taxation, and that has a significant effect on pump prices. When so many people are out of work and real wages are falling, the Chancellor has a responsibility to do all he can to help business and to promote economic growth and jobs; and when ordinary working people are struggling to make ends meet, he has a responsibility to do everything possible to help them get on.
That is why we tabled amendment 7. It is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s policies on fuel taxation and their total effect on fuel prices at the pump, because the Chancellor’s cut in fuel duty, as set out in clause 19, is not all that it seems. In January the Government decided to increase VAT on fuel from 17.5% to 20%, even though the Prime Minister told voters just before the election that he had “no plans” to increase VAT. Without that VAT rise, petrol would be almost 3p cheaper now, swamping the 1p cut that the Bill brings in.
The Federation of Small Businesses said that the UK’s small and medium-sized enterprises would be “severely affected” by that hike in fuel tax. A survey of its members in January pointed to the increase as the single biggest threat to their business—something that will resonate with Government Members, who I am sure have been lobbied by the FSB on that point. Some 89% of businesses that responded thought that the Government’s measures would add £2,000 to their costs over six months. A spokesperson for the FSB said in response to the January rise in fuel tax:
“The Government have said it is putting its faith in the private sector to put the economy on a firm footing, yet 36% said they will have to reduce investment in new products and services and 78% said their profitability will be reduced—hardly conducive to growth.”
Many small business people in my constituency are struggling to stay afloat, particularly in the face of cash-flow difficulties. The VAT increase at the beginning of this year was expected to put severe strain on their cash flow, so the Chancellor’s 1p reduction in fuel duty has to be seen in that context.
Some people will be able to cut down on their use of fuel or even stop using petrol all together. Some people are switching to cycling or to public transport, and for those who are able to do so that is a good thing. As an MP for Bristol, which saw investment from the previous Labour Government so that it could become the UK’s first cycling city, I welcome people taking up cycling.
Mr Kevan Jones
The argument that my hon. Friend puts forward is very interesting, but does she agree that the situation is difficult for rural constituencies such as mine, where bus subsides are being cut because of the Government’s cuts to Durham county council and some communities will not have any access to any public transport whatever?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point, which I was just about to turn to. Some people will say that the rise in fuel prices is an incentive for people to use public transport such as buses, but they can only do so if they are in an area that is well served by public transport. Bus subsides are being cut, and increasingly some areas—particularly remote rural areas—are being completely left without a bus service, meaning that people simply have no choice but to use their car. They include not just people who are poorly served by public transport, but those who run businesses and have to visit customers and suppliers and transport goods throughout the country. They include those who have to run around in the morning dropping children off at different schools or at nursery and then get to work on time, and many other people besides. At a time when fuel prices are rising, adding to them with extra tax is hammering people at the worst possible time. These are often families who are already running a very tight budget, and even a few extra pounds a week on their bills makes a real difference to their ability to get by.
The Chairman
Order. We must keep questions to the subject of the amendment that we are dealing with.
Kerry McCarthy
Before the election, the Economic Secretary said in this House during a debate on fuel duty:
“What people want from the Government today is a helping hand to get them out of their financial troubles. Instead, what they see from the Government is no help at all. Far from providing a hand to pull them out of their troubles, the Government are pushing them further down into them.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 359.]
How astonishing, then, to find that that is exactly what she and her Government are doing. They may have made a show of helping people up with a small fuel duty cut, but that is after they have given them a much bigger push down with their VAT rise on fuel. Before the Chancellor gave his Budget statement, Labour Members called for him to look again at the fuel duty escalator, which I think the Economic Secretary is muttering about from a sedentary position. In previous Budgets, we cancelled or postponed fuel duty rises when pump prices were rising quickly. In the 2010 Budget, the then Labour Chancellor phased in the increase for that year in three stages to ease pressure on business and household incomes. In the 2008 Budget, the previous Government postponed the increase in fuel duty for six months, again to support the economy and help businesses and families. We therefore welcome the fact that the Chancellor has done so again in this Finance Bill. However, when that cut is put in context, we see that families and businesses are facing more pressure than before as a result of the Government’s policies on fuel tax.
This is not the only policy in the Bill that is not all that it seems when it is put in context. The Government have made much of their increase in the personal allowance for income tax. The Chancellor said:
“The increase in the personal tax allowance already announced will vastly exceed anything lost through employee NICs uprating”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 954.]
However, he failed to mention that the rise in the allowance is swamped by his VAT rise, which will take £450 a year, on average, from the pockets of families with children. Families earning as little as £31,000 could lose their child tax credits as the Government take £400 million out of the system, while the Government’s Welfare Reform Bill creates uncertainty for families over whether they will keep their child care support and free school meals. In a couple of years, a family with two children with a single earner earning just £44,000 could find that the Government have taken £1,750 a year away from them in child benefit. It is no wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Chancellor was
“giving with one hand…and taking away with lots and lots of other hands.”
Nor is it surprising that the economist Roger Bootle said today that household incomes were “all but certain” to fall.
All this comes at a time when Government cuts mean front-line cuts in services that people rely on—schools, the NHS, social care, even the police—and workers in those vital public sector jobs are facing redundancies. The Government may say that some factors are outside their control. When we were in government, oil prices rose substantially, as we are seeing now, but we left government with a proportional tax take on fuel lower than when we came into government—down from 75% to less than 65% on petrol and down from 74% to 64% on diesel. It is no coincidence that under the last Conservative Government fuel taxation shot up from 66% of the price of petrol in 1992 to 75% in 1997, and from 66% to 74% for diesel.
The Minister of State for International Development made the front pages in March, saying:
“if this does go wrong”,
referring to the Budget,
“£1.30 at the pump could look like a luxury, $200 a barrel is on the cards”.
He can hardly have expected that remark to put a stop to speculation in the oil markets.
Rather than helping people through the tough times, the Government seem to want to make things worse. There was an alternative for the Government. Before the Budget, we called on the Chancellor to scrap the hike in VAT on fuel. That would have been of genuine help to families and businesses.
Andrew Gwynne
Is my hon. Friend, like me, extremely surprised at the lack of ambition from the Government parties when it comes to seeking a derogation for the rise in VAT on fuel? Given that President Sarkozy managed to get a derogation on VAT for French restaurants, does she not think that the British Government should do the same for fuel?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will come on to in a moment. [Interruption.] Ministers are peddling the line that it would take six years to achieve such a derogation from the EU. I ask them, have they even tried? I suspect that the answer is no. It is a fairly defeatist attitude to say that we will not even ask because we know what the answer will be. That is not fighting for Britain’s corner in the European Union.
As I was saying, there was an alternative for the Government. We called on the Chancellor to scrap the hike in VAT on fuel, which would have been of genuine help to families and businesses. It could have been paid for from the £800 million more than expected that was raised from the bank levy. Unlike the stabiliser proposed by the Conservatives in the run-up to the general election, that would not have been “unbelievably complicated and unpredictable”, to use the words of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The stabiliser is based on the idea that taxation will vary according to fluctuations in petrol prices, so that
“when fuel prices go up, fuel duty would fall. And when fuel prices go down, fuel duty would rise”,
to use a direct quotation from the Conservative party consultation document on the issue. The stabiliser was a flagship policy for the Conservatives in the general election campaign. The present Prime Minister made an issue of it when he visited a Coca-Cola plant in Morley just a week before polling day, where he said that
“it would give you certainty as you go about your lives, knowing what your salary is, knowing what your mortgage is, we’d be helping with the cost of living by trying to give you a flatter and more constant rate for filling up your car”.
When the Conservative party got into government, it soon realised that that was an empty promise, made glibly without doing the homework required, as we have seen with so many of its policies in its year in government. In the Budget, the Chancellor resorted to a different so-called stabiliser by increasing the supplementary charge on North sea oil. We will discuss that issue later tonight when we come on to the next group of amendments.
It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, that asking for a special rate of VAT would require our asking for a derogation from the European Commission. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the Government could not afford to “sacrifice income willy-nilly”. However, he was willing to go to the EU to ask for a derogation for remote islands, although not for the rest of Scotland or the UK. Even members of the Conservative party agree that the solution should apply to the rest of the UK.
Justine Greening
I just want to check that the hon. Lady is aware that she is talking about two entirely different taxes. The tax that relates to rural areas is fuel duty, and the other derogation that her party is unwilling to accept is illegal to pursue relates to the EU VAT directive.
Kerry McCarthy
I am making the point that there are precedents for applying to the EU for a derogation, and I will come on to examples of other Governments who have done so.
I was about to quote the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who said from the Conservative Benches when we were debating the rural derogation:
“The pressures that affect the islands of Scotland and the Scilly Isles affect our constituents too.”
He went on to say that
“if any solution is applied to one part of the United Kingdom, it must be applied to other parts of it as well.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 352.]
Incidentally, we have heard reports that the Chief Secretary’s derogation on that issue may be approved by this summer, after he applied only on Budget day. That is rather quicker than the six to seven years that the Government have claimed would be needed for a broader derogation on VAT for fuel.
The French Government were willing to go to the EU to ask for special dispensation for French restaurants, and several member states have asked for other derogations in the past. Derogations have been granted for goods as diverse as fertilisers, pesticides and works of art, and for services from amusement parks and hotels to cleaning and cable television. In 1994, the British Government secured a derogation for domestic fuel, and in the past derogations have been granted to some member states for reduced VAT on goods such as heating oil.
Justine Greening
Since the hon. Lady gives a whole list of derogations, perhaps she will also be prepared to tell the Committee how long they took their respective Governments to achieve.
Kerry McCarthy
As I said before, the Economic Secretary invents a mythical time frame which she says it would take for her to achieve a derogation from the EU on VAT on fuel. I have asked her several times now in various debates whether efforts have even been made to raise the subject with the European Commission, and answer has come there none.
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady obviously does not know the answer, but I do—it took more than six years. Does she think motorists should have to wait six years before her party’s policy can come into effect? It is unlikely ever to be accepted.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Lady invents a mythical obstacle to achieving a derogation, without even having tried. Many of her Back Benchers who are constantly urging Ministers to stand up to the European Commission will be very disappointed that they are using the Commission as an excuse. They could have avoided this situation by not introducing the rise in VAT on fuel earlier this year. They should have considered the consequences before entering into such a policy.
The UK has not applied for as many derogations as other member states. We have only one reduced rate, which is used largely for energy and energy-saving materials and a number of health products, as well as the zero rate. France, Italy and Poland have each secured three different reduced rates of VAT, in addition to a zero rate, so there is clearly scope for the UK to ask for a little more.
While Labour was in government, we never applied for a special rate of VAT on fuel, but the reason for that is simple: we never raised VAT on fuel in the first place. This is a problem that the Government have created, so rather than simply telling the Committee that a derogation would be illegal, perhaps the Economic Secretary can once and for all tell us whether the Government have made any serious attempt to start negotiations with the European Commission on the matter, or whether they are simply capitulating to the Commission without putting up a fight.
We have tabled the amendment so that the Government’s fuel duty cut will be shown for what it really is—a 1p cut that is wiped out by the 3p a litre increase resulting from their VAT rise on fuel. It comes at a time when petrol prices are already rising rapidly and reaching record highs, when families are already squeezed and when the economy is struggling to grow. It comes after the Government refused to take the alternative approach that we put forward, which would have been a genuine help to families. The amendment means that the Government will have to face up to the fact that they have made the wrong choice at the wrong time and are harming, not helping, working people.
Alison McGovern
I rise to speak in favour of the amendment, which states clearly that the Chancellor should publish
“an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.”
It is a short but, I think, highly important amendment, not least because fuel prices are a key part of our economy and have an impact on inflation. I want to say a few words about why taxation on fuel has a bearing on inflation and why that is at the heart of some of the economic problems that we face today, not just from a dry, technical point of view but from the perspective of families in Wirral, Merseyside and elsewhere who are struggling at the moment.
This country has previously dealt with severely high inflation, but for many years we have had relatively low and stable inflation. That is also true across the globe. The nature of the fuel industry means that fuel prices have a specific impact on inflation, but I would point out that inflation in the UK is slightly higher than in the rest of the EU. That should be a warning signal to us. I am not particularly hawkish on inflation and on saying that fuel prices could drive problems in our economy. We need to recognise not the danger of returning to the days of terribly high inflation, but the danger of inflation of nearly 5% when wages are being held down, which limits people’s quality of life. People see food and fuel price increases when they go to the shops or fill up their cars—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) correctly said, food prices are partly driven by fuel prices—yet their wages are held down, so at the same time, they face higher prices in the shops and less in their pay packets every month.
Justine Greening
As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said back in May 2009,
“there are very few even socialist theorists who would suggest that commodity prices were somehow controllable”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 918.]
I do not think the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) can expect the Government to control commodity prices, but what we can do is take action to lessen the effects of swings in the oil price as they feed through to the pump. That is precisely what we are doing in clause 19 on fuel duty, and we will shortly debate the mechanism by which we can pay for that, which is the fair fuel stabiliser.
Of course, the Labour party has suggested that we should create a separate VAT rate for petrol. As has been pointed out even by Labour Members, that would have provided no help for hauliers, and I remind the Committee of why the Chancellor rejected the proposal. It would take six years, and it would not even be able to come into effect then, because the current EU VAT directive means that it is illegal. I do not think motorists should have to wait for six years, and the Government are not going to wait six years. We listened, and we responded as of 6 pm on Budget day.
Finally, I shall address the issue of VAT. I know that it is not strictly within the scope of the debate, Mr Hoyle, but it is important. The Opposition have been quick to point out that although the Government cut fuel duty by 1p in the Budget, pump prices have increased by about 3p following the VAT increase. They appear to be implying that motorists would be better off under their plans for an escalator and a VAT rate of 17.5%, although of course we know that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) was planning to increase VAT himself. I suspect that they wish to use the amendment to prove their point.
It is simply not true that motorists would be better off under the previous Government’s tax plans, and let me be absolutely clear that even comparing the changes that we announced in the Budget with the previous Government’s fuel duty and 17.5% VAT plans, it is likely that on 1 April pump prices were 3p a litre lower than they would have been. Even after the two increases in fuel duty next year, average pump prices could still be about 1p a litre lower than they would have been under the previous Government’s plans. Cutting fuel duty and scrapping their escalator more than offsets the impact of the VAT increase, and I should not need to explain to Opposition Members that an increase in VAT was needed to cut the deficit that they left behind. They did not even have the political courage to vote against that measure, which they were so upset about—absolutely shameless.
In government, Labour Members ran our country’s public finances into the ground, and now, in opposition, they bring forward this feeble and unnecessary amendment. Dare they even push it to a vote? We will find out. I suspect that in the case of clause 19, it will be a case of another day, another abstention. The Government are providing motorists with a fair deal. Where the previous Government left tax rises, we have taken action, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
We have had an interesting debate over the past couple of hours. It is notable that although we have had some significant and thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friends, not a single member of the Conservative party, apart from the Minister, or a single Liberal Democrat has felt the need to speak up for their constituents and talk about rising fuel prices. I am sure their constituents have lobbied them about it, but their silence in the Chamber today speaks volumes.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) have all highlighted the impact of the rise in fuel prices and of the Government’s decision—and it was the Government’s choice—to raise VAT from 17.5% to 20%. They described the impact on families’ living standards, on businesses in their constituencies, on the haulage industry and across the board.
The point is that the Minister’s view of the impact is short-sighted. She cited the impact of the measures in the Budget from 23 March to 28 March, which must be the smallest, most selective economic data ever cited in the Chamber. It would be interesting to know what happened after 28 March, to which she did not refer. She also tried to lead us down the garden path by talking once more about the fuel duty escalator, but she knows full well that the Opposition called for the Government to reconsider that in the Budget and welcomed the fact that they did so.
The debate is on the VAT increase, which the Government chose to introduce. We are asking simply that they publish an assessment, within three months of the Bill becoming law, of the impact of taxation on fuel prices. I do not think that that is too much to ask. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that we would not press the amendment to a Division, because I can inform you, Mr Hoyle, that we do indeed intend to do so. With that, I rest my case.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kerry McCarthy
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). He has made an eloquent case on behalf of his constituents, who are directly affected in more ways than most people by the Government’s proposal to increase the supplementary charge on North sea oil to 32%. Amendment 10 simply asks the Chancellor to produce, before the end of this September, an assessment of the impact of taxation of ring-fenced profits on business investment and growth, including an assessment of the long-term sustainability of oil and gas exploration in the North sea.
The amendment should not be at all controversial, although we saw in the debate on the last group of amendments that the Government were not happy to be asked merely to produce an assessment of the impact of that policy. That is surprising because, after all, the Government say that they want more consultation and more transparency in their tax policy making. They say that they will—I am quoting their tax policy making document—
“embed impact analysis in the policy development process”
and
“integrate impact analysis into the consultation process.”
Those are both the kind of sentences that one has to read several times before one can work out quite what they are on about, but my understanding is that the Government are trying to say that they want more transparency and consultation. We have had to table amendment 10 because, in reality, none of that has happened.
The Government are right to consider increasing taxation on sectors of the economy that are enjoying windfall profits. We did the same when we were in government. There is an urgent need to deal with the fiscal deficit that is recognised on both sides of the House, and it is right that we should ask for more from those who are able to pay, but this change has been rushed through without consultation, as the right hon. Member for Gordon said, surprising the industry, and inevitably it has fallen down at the first scrutiny.
If the Economic Secretary had consulted representatives of the industry, they might have told her that the stability and predictability of the North sea tax regime is important for investment. Oilfields are long-term investments that require long-term certainty and stability to attract investors. The industry believes that the value of investments in UK oil and gas has fallen by 24% as a result of the 2011 Budget. That will cause long-term damage to the industry’s trust in the Government for short-term political gain.
I agree with the Select Committee on the Treasury, which said:
“The decision to increase the supplementary oil and gas levy by 12% without warning, less than a year after the Government had undertaken to provide a ‘stable’ tax regime in the sector, may weaken the Government’s credibility in seeking to establish a stable tax regime in this and other areas.”
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Given the concern I raised earlier about people in the north-west of England who work in the industry, particularly in relation to Centrica’s decision about Morecombe bay, does she find it all the more surprising that the Economic Secretary once worked for Centrica?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I wonder what the current sales and marketing finance manager for Centrica thinks of the actions of the holder of that post from 2002 to 2005, and what experience the Economic Secretary had during her three years working for the company that has caused her to turn against it in such a fashion.
As I was saying, there is a real requirement, as the Treasury Committee has noted, for a stable tax regime in the sector. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has said that
“the last minute and precipitate change in Oil tax rates for an industry that is particularly dependent on long-term planning seems wrong”.
Does the Minister agree?
The threshold chosen by the Government may also be a problem for stability. The average oil price in 2008 was $100 a barrel, but in 2009 it was $60 a barrel and in 2010 it was $80 a barrel. If prices carry on fluctuating above and below the $75-a-barrel mark, as they have over the past three years, the uncertainty about the tax rate and whether companies will be caught by it could drive more investment away from the UK.
Had the Economic Secretary consulted the industry before the Budget, it might have reminded her that the supplementary charge applies to gas as well as oil. Gas prices are on the rise, but at less than 60p a therm they are still significantly below the Government’s $75 a barrel trigger price on an equivalent basis. In the UK, gas prices are less closely correlated with oil prices than in other jurisdictions, where there are often still contractual links between the two. Whereas oil prices are set by the global market, gas prices are more localised. Graham Parker of the Office for Budget Responsibility told the Treasury Committee quite recently that gas prices were “quite variable” so even if the Government think they have chosen the right level for oil, they might have set the balance wrongly for the gas sector. That could be disastrous given that gas accounts for 46% of the North sea industry’s production.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend find it remarkable that such a decision should have been taken in such haste that the Treasury did not realise that that issue relating to the difference between oil and gas prices would arise?
Kerry McCarthy
Certainly, when I met Oil & Gas UK, it was very surprised and seemed to be of the view that the Treasury had forgotten that gas would be affected by the measures. The policy is very much back-of-a-fag-packet stuff. It seems that, in a knee-jerk reaction to the rise in public concern about petrol prices, the Government felt they had to act on that front, and so had to came up in haste with some sort of mechanism to raise revenue to fund the 1p cut in fuel duty. The effect on gas is an important issue, and the cost could end up being passed on to ordinary people in their gas bills, either because the increase itself is passed on to consumers or because UK gas production drops, meaning that we have to import more gas from abroad.
Had the Minister consulted the industry prior to announcing the measure in March, it might also have reminded her that when the previous Government increased North sea taxation, they introduced measures to promote investment alongside that change. When we introduced the supplementary charge in 2002, we also introduced a 100% first-year allowance for capital expenditure in the North sea. That not only provided a buffer for companies to make the transition to the new regime but encouraged investment in UK oil and gas fields. When, in 2005, we increased North sea taxation again, we allowed further flexibility on the capital allowance. To maintain the stability of the tax system, we also gave a commitment not to increase the tax again in that Parliament. I wonder whether the Minister can echo that commitment today.
It was right to increase taxation on oil and gas at a time of windfall profits, and now is also such a time, but we were conscious of the need to create stability for the industry and to maintain investment for the future. If this Government had thought their changes through, they could have taken a similar approach, but instead the effects of their hasty and ill thought out decision are already being felt. We have heard the reports about disinvestment in the industry. Centrica, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has mentioned, has hinted that it might decide not to reopen its Morecambe Bay field, which produced 6% of the UK’s annual gas requirement. I wonder what the Minister’s former colleagues have to say about that. Statoil has suspended $10 billion-worth of investment in the Mariner and Bressay oilfields, which together hold reserves of 640 million barrels of oil. Research from Aberdeen university has gone further, suggesting that over the next three decades the Government’s tax change could slash oil and gas investment in the UK by £30 billion. Production could be reduced by up to a quarter, leaving the UK more reliant on imported oil and gas.
This debate is not just about the profits of oil and gas producers. The oil and gas industry directly and indirectly supports 440,000 jobs in the UK. There are reports that at least 40,000 of those jobs are at risk because of the Government’s action, at a time when 2.5 million are unemployed, including an increasing number of people who have been out of work for longer than a year. The Government have a responsibility to act with extreme caution before putting those jobs at risk.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in the north-east who were previously made redundant from shipbuilding yards, for example, travel regularly throughout the UK and internationally to work in the oil and gas industry? Surely the Government’s proposals will affect those people, who have come to rely on home-based employment and travelling overseas, in some cases long distances, to support their families?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The jobs being lost are in areas where there is little other employment. As he says, people in the area he represents have been affected by the decline in other traditional industries under the last Conservative Government. Now they are being hit by a double whammy with their jobs in the oil and gas sector being put at risk.
Dame Anne Begg
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to deal with the deficit is to grow the economy? The industry was growing and investing, but that growth and investment could be put at risk as a result of the measures.
Kerry McCarthy
Precisely. We come back to that time and again with this Government. They are looking at the very short term for quick revenue gain or political gain, not taking a longer-term approach. The point should not have to be made that if the Government want to encourage growth in the private sector, which they are always talking about, they need to encourage investment and have the right economic climate for that investment to take place. If the tax regime is not stable, that is put in jeopardy.
I accept that it may not be possible for the Government to consult widely on every tax policy. There is a balance to be struck between robust scrutiny and consultation and the Government’s freedom to act when necessary in the national interest, and consultation may flag up to certain companies that they ought to engage in tax avoidance measures, but in this case, the Government not only ditched their brand new tax policy framework, but went back on specific assurances to the oil industry.
The previous Government had formed a good working relationship with the industry, which may now be damaged. After a meeting in 2008 between the then Prime Minister and Chancellor and the oil and gas industry, the Government consulted with the industry to develop a package of new measures to revitalise investment in UK oil and gas reserves. Those were announced in the 2009 Budget and included the new field allowances and other incentives for companies to invest in the UK’s smaller and more difficult fields. Such close working together is vital to the stability of the tax system for North sea oil and gas. Unfortunately, it will become more difficult if the Government cannot restore trust with the industry.
Although it sounds hard to believe, as I said earlier, last year the Government created new golden rules for themselves to make tax policy more predictable, more stable, and more transparent. We can only conclude that the Government have ditched those rules altogether, just a year after taking office, because we cannot see how Treasury Ministers are
“committed to providing clarity and certainty on the future direction of tax policy.”
The industry body for the UK oil and gas industry agrees with us, saying that the measure has damaged the industry’s confidence and trust in the tax regime. I cannot see either how the Treasury still believes, as it said last year, without a hint of irony, that consultation is
“an integral feature of all policy making”,
which
“helps ensure that changes are well targeted and without unintended consequences, and that legislation is right first time.”
What happened to that statement of intent from the Government? Clause 7 is a perfect example of a policy for which there was no consultation. As a result, it is poorly targeted, has potentially serious unintended consequences for the industry, and is certainly not a policy that they got “right first time”, and all because the Government did not consult on their decision.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Economic Secretary said in her winding-up speech on the last group of amendments that the result of the Government’s policy on fuel duty has led across the board to a 0.8p reduction in the price of fuel at the pumps. Is that really a price worth paying for the effect it will have on the oil and gas industry?
Kerry McCarthy
The Economic Secretary said that it had led to a drop of 0.8p at the pumps between 23 March and 28 March, which seems very selective. It is clear now that petrol prices at the pumps have gone up and that the Government have gained very little from their approach.
In the run-up to the general election, both the current Chancellor and the current Prime Minister were clear that they would deliver on a fuel duty stabiliser. Voters were led to believe that the Government could and would act on that. However, in March, as we approached the Government’s second Budget, the Opposition pointed out that the fair fuel stabiliser was still nowhere to be seen. Even with fuel prices rising above £6 a gallon, due to the rising price of oil—the very situation that a stabiliser was meant to help with—the Government had still been unable or unwilling to act. That was because their original plans would never have worked.
The Conservative party had believed that rising oil prices led to higher tax revenues for the Government, which could then be shared with motorists. It turned out that, just like the proposals we see in the Bill, they had been poorly thought through. They were told that they were wrong not only by Labour Members, but by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which stated that
“the claim that the Treasury receives a windfall gain when oil prices rise that it can “share” with motorists is incorrect.”
They were told that they were wrong by the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, who said it
“would be likely to make the public finances less stable rather than more stable.”
They were even told that they were wrong by the current Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who said before the election that the fair fuel stabiliser would be
“unbelievably complicated and unpredictable.”
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is providing a critique of our policy, but her party has just decided not to oppose our fuel duty reduction, which, compared with what they proposed for the public finances, represents a difference of approximately 6p per litre. How does she propose to pay for the change in fuel duty that she has just not voted against?
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister is trying to return to the topic we debated in the previous group, so perhaps she should have been a little quicker and thought up her intervention then. I am talking now about stability in fuel prices and the empty promises the Government made to the electorate in the run-up to the election that they would be able to do something to stabilise fuel prices at the petrol pumps.
Representatives of the oil and gas industry tell us that as recently as February the Government were giving assurances that they wanted to keep the North sea tax regime stable, as they had said in their previous Budget, but between February and April they very swiftly changed their mind. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why? What caused the Government to have such an urgent rethink on the fair fuel stabiliser? Many of us suspect that the increased scrutiny that the Opposition brought to bear on the Government’s policy might have prompted them belatedly into action—action they would have realised much sooner was needed if they had only done their homework and listened to what people were trying to tell them.
Inevitably, given the panicked way in which it was put together, the Government’s new version of the fair fuel stabiliser is equally as half-baked as the proposal put forward before the election. As a result, potentially tens of thousands of jobs, as well as billions of pounds worth of investment, are at risk, and the Government have broken their commitment to stable, consultative tax policy making.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a superb case about the short-termism of the Government’s approach. Is she not absolutely right to point out that, in a short-term fix on gas and oil, this discredited Government are going to risk jobs, industry and investment in this country?
Kerry McCarthy
Again, that is a very good intervention by my hon. Friend. The industry needs stability and long-term investment, because we cannot dig an oil well or develop an oilfield overnight, yet the Government are creating uncertainty that will send investors off to other countries where the tax regime is more stable.
The Government have also completely damaged the trust between themselves and the industry, and that is why we have tabled our amendment. We simply call on the Government to do what they said they would do before making major tax changes: carry out a proper assessment of the impact, so that we can scrutinise it and have transparency. The Government were right to look towards North sea oil and gas to ensure that the burden of taxation was fairly spread, but without stability tens of thousands of jobs could be at risk. For the Opposition, that is not a price worth paying for short-term political gain.
Stewart Hosie
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said in his opening remarks that the Government wanted the UK to be seen to be open for business. That is a very good objective, but the problem is that an 81% marginal rate of tax on anything, and the instability caused by a shock 60% increase, puts at risk their stated aim of promoting the UK in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point about investment, and investment levels are unchanged generally, but there is now less focus on frontier developments than on investment in the mature North sea, and that is a huge concern. The 60% rise in the supplementary charge that was created, it is told, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—whom I see leaving the Chamber barely at the start of the debate—was the most damaging thing that the Government did in the Budget.
The Government will take £2 billion a year extra in tax from the sector, on top of the £4 billion windfall that they got last year, to which the right hon. Member for Gordon referred, and on top of the windfall that they will get this year—2011-12—over the 2010 forecast. All that runs counter to the Chancellor’s stated objectives of tax stability, delivering a growth agenda and production here in lieu of imports.
Let us remember that when that bombshell was announced, leading industry members reportedly met in a state of disbelief about the Government’s plans. There were immediate reports about the threat to some 40,000 jobs. Statoil immediately announced the suspension of the Mariner and, possibly, Bressay investments, and it was argued that a slowdown in North sea activity would increase the UK’s reliance on imported oil and gas, with the consequence of an even higher balance of payments deficit and the corresponding impact of a suppression of GDP growth.
On tax receipts, Alan Booth, the chief executive of EnCore Oil, rightly said:
“Undeveloped and undiscovered oil and gas pays no taxes,”
and it got worse, of course, because Valiant immediately announced that it was not going to invest in its £100 million project, saying that it was
“no longer viable because of the surprise Budget move.”
Chevron warned that there would be “unintended consequences”, and let us remember that Oil & Gas UK was very clear when it said that the measure had
“shaken investor confidence to the core.”
The right hon. Member for Gordon said at one stage that Ministers had robustly defended their position. I do not believe that they have. When these fears and concerns were put to the Chancellor, a Treasury spokeswoman said:
“Mr Osborne did not expect investment to be damaged.”
That is not a robust defence of a position; it is intransigence and a failure to understand the consequences of the actions that the Government had undertaken.
There are other consequences. Jim Hannon from Hannon Westwood, the drilling analysts, said that 30,000 people could lose their jobs if exploration activity dropped by merely 15%. The detailed work by Professor Alex Kemp—I will not go through it in detail but it is well worth everybody in the House reading it—has warned that up to 2 billion barrels of oil and the equivalent amount of gas could be left in the North sea, untaxed and unused. Derek Leith from Ernst and Young has warned of projects being delayed and cancelled, saying that the Statoil decision was
“only the tip of the iceberg…There are a lot of companies that will not pursue projects but will not go public about it.”
Amendment of the Law
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pickles
It is certainly our intention to release an awful lot of Government land.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned three cities having local enterprise zones, but he did not mention Bristol, although that was one of the 12 listed in the Budget. It is somewhat surprising that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was in Bristol on Friday but did not, as far as I am aware, tell us where the local enterprise zone is going to be. Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten me?
Mr Pickles
This is a very clear example of the difference between how we do business and how the Opposition did business. We are not going to tell the people of Bristol where the enterprise zones will go—they are going to tell us.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Government have had to face up to two challenges in this Budget. The first was to do with growth, on which the news presented to the Chancellor as he drew up his Budget was not good. The UK economy shrank by 0.6% in the last quarter and the Office for Budget Responsibility was forced to revise downwards its growth forecast for the next two years. Unemployment is more than 2.5 million, a 17-year high, and is rising rapidly, and again the OBR has had to raise its forecast. The Chancellor must know in his heart of hearts that it is simply not possible to reduce the deficit while the economy is shrinking, tax revenues are falling and the number of unemployed people is rising.
Kerry McCarthy
I am afraid I do not have time, as I want others to be able to speak.
Instead of listening to the mounting evidence that the plan is not working and preparing a fiscal plan B, the Chancellor is not for turning. He has stuck to his plan of cutting too far and too fast, and instead of a plan for growth that would create jobs, he has gone back to the failed Thatcherite ideology of the ’80s—that by simply removing regulations and lowering taxes, the private sector will rush in and save the day.
I welcome the announcement of a local enterprise zone for Bristol, of course—this Government have so little to offer us that we have to grab what we are given—but how long will it be before we see the benefits of such a move, and how will we ensure that this does not simply displace investment from other areas that need it just as much? The Work Foundation says that up to four fifths of the jobs created by enterprise zones in the 1980s were merely shifted from other areas. It also says the cost of creating such jobs was in today’s money £26,000 per person. We should compare that with the £6,500 cost per job created under the future jobs fund, which, as I recall, not very long ago the Conservatives were decrying as a waste of public money.
With the regional development agency axed, where is the strategic overview for the wider city region of Bristol to come from? Where are the sources of match funding? Where is the focus on, or funding for, our infrastructure needs? On infrastructure, may I once again make a plea for an integrated transport authority for the Bristol area, as that is badly needed? On housing, I agree with the National Housing Federation, whose representative said:
“Removing regional spatial strategies, without putting anything in their place, was a short-term mistake”.
The NHF has estimated that local authorities have already scrapped plans for more than 200,000 homes as a result of that, and that there may be no new social homes built until 2015. In Bristol alone, 9,600 planned homes were scrapped by the city council. Shelter says that only 39% of housing need is met in Bristol. Last year, about 10,500 people were on the waiting list for social housing, and with transfers included, the number was as high as 15,000, but only a few thousand people a year are being rehoused. There is a clear need for a strategic level of planning to ensure that local need is met.
The Government now promise a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning system, but neither that nor the promised national planning framework were set down in the Localism Bill, and that presumption would appear to be at odds with the Localism Bill itself, which gives nimby power to small sections of a community to block developments in a local area. It is therefore unclear whether or not local people have been given more say over planning decisions in their area.
I welcome the Budget’s proposal to speed up major planning decisions. Developers in Bristol have in the past complained to me that it takes a long time—years sometimes—to get approval for their big projects and that it is simply not financially viable to hang on in there and wait. I accept that the planning authorities do need a rocket put under them, but that must not lead to decisions being railroaded through without local people being given a proper say.
The second challenge the Chancellor faced in his Budget was to deliver help for ordinary people, and again he comprehensively failed. The economic crisis began in the financial sector, but ordinary working families are paying the highest price for it. The cost of living is now rising by over 5% per year on the retail price index measure. That is in no small part due to the Government’s decision to raise VAT. Meanwhile, average wages grow at just 2.3%.
At the same time, cuts to services are also affecting the quality of life of ordinary people. Councils are grappling with cuts to their formula grant of 28% over four years. The Communities Secretary said that councils should be able to find efficiency savings rather than make front-line cuts, and the Deputy Prime Minister said that
“they shouldn’t immediately start issuing redundancy notices for savings that they can phase in over four years”,
but the Local Government Association believes councils will make 140,000 redundancies next year across the UK, and the Liberal Democrat-controlled Bristol city council is making 340 people redundant next year alone, and it is reported that 600 jobs are now under review. The Communities Secretary told councillors last year:
“You are now in charge of something like £38 billion every year, no strings attached.”
He also said that they were back
“in charge of the decisions which matter”,
but in fact the only decision that councillors are now empowered to make is the decision to slash services on which local people rely.
The Chancellor could have chosen to implement a real strategy for growth by keeping people in work, building homes and infrastructure, and investing in businesses and industry. Instead he is cutting too far, too fast, and his Government have removed the strategic mechanisms for delivering the investment we think is needed. Even staying within his fiscal plans he could have chosen to put a greater share of the tax burden on the banks by reintroducing the bankers bonus tax. That money could have been used to create jobs and homes, as we suggested. He could have chosen to smooth the cuts to local authority budgets and protect the most vulnerable groups from sudden front-line reductions, rather than front-loading the cuts. The Chancellor is not listening. I predict that in time he will wish that he had.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Opposition support the Bill. It has been debated at length in the other place and in this House on Second Reading, in Committee and—perhaps at greater length than some of us anticipated—on Report today.
Not much has been said during the passage of the Bill about part 2, which relates to the National Audit Office. That is not least because it implements the measures that were introduced in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It is fair to say that there is widespread agreement on part 2.
As was clear in previous proceedings, there is similarly common agreement on the creation of the Office for Budget Responsibility and on placing it on a statutory footing. We did, however, table a number of amendments in Committee to challenge some of the details of how the OBR will function, as one would expect from the Opposition. In particular, we addressed the concern that has been expressed inside and outside this House that the OBR may not turn out to be sufficiently independent from the Government. For the public to have confidence in the OBR, it has to be seen to be independent. That is why we proposed measures that would have made it more accountable to the House and measures that would have increased the role of the Treasury Committee. We also wanted to ensure that the division between the Treasury and the OBR in terms of staffing and premises was enshrined in law. We are grateful for the assurances that the Economic Secretary gave in Committee on those points. We also welcome her promise that substantive details of the contact between OBR staff and the Minister’s special advisers and private office staff will be published.
We were also concerned about the potential overlap between the OBR’s responsibilities and the Bank of England’s economic forecasts. We therefore proposed that the Bill provide for a memorandum of understanding to ensure that there was clarity from the outset for all parties. I urge the Economic Secretary to ensure that the memorandum is subject to proper scrutiny in this House. I hope that the OBR and the Bank of England will in time formally agree their working relationship.
We consider that a crucial way to secure the independence of the OBR is to ensure transparency in its funding so that the budget responsibility committee is not at the mercy of the Treasury and vulnerable to the whim of the Chancellor. Comparisons with other countries were made earlier. In Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published two critical reports of the Government in its first year. It is difficult to divorce that from the fact that its budget was frozen, despite promises that it would be increased by a third. Some people would say that that was not a coincidence.
Likewise, Sweden has a similar organisation to the OBR in its Fiscal Policy Council, which reported that its resources were not sufficient to enable it to carry out its remit properly. In response, the Minister for Finance suggested that the council’s budget be cut. We obviously want to avoid a situation like that, and we have received assurances from the Economic Secretary that the OBR’s funding is secure for the next five years. We very much welcome that.
Much of the OBR’s decisions and remit will be based on the charter, so it is disappointing that we have not had the opportunity to scrutinise the revised charter today alongside the Bill given that it is so central to the OBR. The Economic Secretary has assured us that it will be published promptly after Royal Assent, which we expect in no time at all, so we look forward to a full debate on the charter in the Chamber before too long.
Although we support the principle of the OBR and the Bill, we have reservations about how the OBR will work in practice. A major concern is the Treasury’s insular conception of economic policy and sustainability, which seemingly allows it to focus narrowly on the deficit and to ignore the consequences of its own policies. Rising unemployment, rising inflation, as seen in today’s figures, and falling growth are not sustainable and cannot be ignored, so we hoped that the Government would allow the OBR the latitude to take into account those crucial determinants for the long-term recovery, even if the Treasury will not. Unfortunately our amendments were rejected, so we could not enshrine that in the Bill, but we hope that a truly independent OBR will include those matters in its remit. The House may well return to the definition of “sustainability” and the issue of intergenerational fairness when we come to debate the revised charter.
During Labour’s last Budget, the present Prime Minister was fond of claiming that our growth forecasts did not match those of the independent experts. In fact, they were consistently much more reliable than he made out. He concluded:
“What we need is a proper independent office of Budget responsibility, which we would set up to set independent forecasts and to keep the Chancellor honest.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 268.]
I agree with the present Prime Minister, for once, about the need for that, but as is so often the case, the reality does not match his rhetoric. Now we have the OBR, but its independence has been undermined by the release of favourable figures in time for a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Moreover, the British Chambers of Commerce has described the OBR’s growth forecasts as “too optimistic”, and despite the Prime Minister’s concern that official forecasts should match those of independent experts, it seems that other independent experts disagree with the Government’s independent experts. In February, the consensus forecast for 2011 was 1.9% growth, which was downgraded to 1.8% in March, whereas the OBR forecast was a more optimistic 2.1%. The discrepancy increases for next year’s forecast. The consensus forecast is 2.1%, compared with the OBR figure of 2.6%, which it has already had to downgrade once thanks to the Government’s policies.
The differences between the OBR and consensus forecasts could be critical. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which the Government seem to respect on the occasions when it says anything favourable about their policies, has reported that they will fail to achieve their fiscal mandate to
“achieve cyclically-adjusted current budget balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast horizon”
if growth does not meet the OBR’s central economic forecast. Whether the Chancellor will achieve his fiscal mandate is clearly in the balance, and although he may use the OBR figures, it would be a great mistake if we held the OBR responsible for whether he fulfils that mandate. Only the Treasury can determine that.
Fundamentally, and finally, we have to remember that the Bill places no enforceable obligations on the Chancellor for responsible fiscal policy. The OBR can report on the state of the economy, and its analysis will no doubt be very valuable, provided it is genuinely independent. However, the Government already have a track record of ignoring expert advice and indisputable evidence that their policies are failing.
The British Medical Association and almost every health organisation that we care to think of warned against the Health Secretary’s reckless experiment with the national health service, but with the Prime Minister’s full backing, he ignored the evidence and carried on regardless. The IFS published independent research proving that the Government’s June Budget and comprehensive spending review would disproportionately hurt women and children and the most vulnerable people in our big society, but the Chancellor ignored the evidence and carried on regardless.
The Office for National Statistics reported that unemployment had reached a 17-year high and that youth unemployment was at its highest level ever, and the OBR itself reported that the Tory-Liberal Democrat plans would mean 110,000 more people on the dole by the end of this Parliament, but did the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions review their policies in the light of that evidence? No, they ignored the evidence and carried on regardless.
The OBR downgraded growth forecasts after the coalition’s emergency Budget, and again as a result of its comprehensive spending review, and the economy contracted by 0.6% in the last quarter of 2010, proving that the Government’s policies had undermined the economic recovery, but the Chancellor ignored the evidence and blamed it on the snow. The question for the House is whether we can do enough to secure the status of the OBR so that ideologically driven Ministers cannot just disregard its reports.
Kerry McCarthy
No, I am just drawing to a close.
I urge the Minister to ensure that the principles of objectivity, transparency and impartiality are respected, particularly when she lays the revised charter before the House. Most importantly, we seek assurances that Ministers will actually listen to the evidence provided by the OBR and respond accordingly.
When the Chancellor came to office, unemployment was falling, growth was predicted at 2.3% for this year, inflation was lower and falling, and borrowing had come in £20 billion lower than was forecast in 2009. I do not need to tell the House again how the Chancellor has reversed that recovery, but that is the context in which we must consider the role of the OBR. The office is intended to report on responsibility, but it cannot guarantee responsibility. That is the Chancellor’s role, and it is about time he realised it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Chancellor chose to hit women three times as hard as men in his Budget last year and now, as living costs rise and the public sector is slashed, he wants to hit them yet again by changing the rules around maternity and paternity leave and flexible working in small companies. Is it really women whom the Prime Minister has in mind when he talks about taking on the enemies of enterprise, and can the Minister reassure the House that it will not be women who bear the brunt of tomorrow’s Budget?
Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
We have heard today from Members on both sides of the Chamber about how ordinary working families and people are feeling the squeeze in these tough economic times.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) made an excellent speech in which she spoke up for the constituents who have contacted her by e-mail telling stories of how they are being hit by the fuel price rises. My hon. Friends the Members for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) added their tales of woe from constituents who are finding times difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned a constituent who wrote to him about being hit from all sides by a litany of blows rained down on him by this Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) referred to a cocktail of economic policies that amount to an assault on the living standards of ordinary working families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South talked about the impact on small businesses, as did the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who spoke from first-hand experience as someone who used to run his own business. He said that the cost of fuel had gone up from £2,000 per month to £3,000 per month, which was obviously having a major impact on the ability to run a profitable business.
Robert Flello
Is my hon. Friend aware that organisations such as the Road Rescue Recovery Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Scottish Vehicle Recovery Association are asking, “When are the party in government going to honour their pledge about the stabiliser?” They are desperate for that to happen.
Kerry McCarthy
I will turn in a moment to the pledge about the stabiliser. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) called for it to be implemented very soon, as did the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who is no longer in her place.
Tessa Munt
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister will be very generous in seeing representatives of the FairFuelUK campaign, who have 140,000 signatures on their petition as of today? That is organised by Peter Carroll. The chief executives of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association and the operations director of the RAC, together with Quentin Willson, the motor journalist, and I, coming from a hard-hit rural constituency, will discuss this tomorrow. We are suffering the double whammy of domestic oil and fuel oil—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This is supposed to be an intervention, not an opportunity to make another speech or to put out an advert.
Kerry McCarthy
I would not expect any less of the Minister, as she certainly should be meeting the organisations. It is a shame that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury were not also here today to listen to people.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about his election leaflets hounding his constituents about the fuel duty stabiliser. He referred to the work that Conservative central office had put into the policy, which he described as a well-thought-out policy from before the election that will be implemented shortly. I may disabuse him of that delusion a bit later in my speech.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) talked about the impact in rural areas and the fact that people could not afford to go to work, and he urged the Chancellor not to go ahead with the fuel duty escalator. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) ventured further afield and discussed the impact of fuel poverty on people who were having to spend more than 10% of their income on heating their homes, saying that what the Government are doing across the board is likely to push more people into fuel poverty. It was a very thoughtful speech.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) talked about petrol prices in Bristol. I am sure that one of the few things on which we can agree is that Bristol desperately needs to sort out its transport issues and develop a better public transport system. It has the worst congestion of any city in the country, and we need to address that. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—did I pronounce that correctly?
Kerry McCarthy
Almost. The hon. Gentleman talked about the rural fuel derogation, but I do not think that he got an answer from the Economic Secretary. He asked when the pilot in the Outer Hebrides would happen and whether he could have more details.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) went on a bit of a flight of fancy about the Economic Secretary engaging people in head-locks and bare-knuckle fighting, which, I am afraid, she missed. He then expressed disappointment that we had had no softening up from her—I am not sure where he was going with that. However, he also spoke evocatively about the impact of the fuel price rise on his Northern Ireland constituents.
The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) accused the Labour party of shameless opportunism in speaking up for constituents and trying to address the impact on hard-hit motorists. What I would describe as shameless is the Conservative party’s leading people to believe before the election that it could cut 10p off the price of petrol and then doing nothing about it.
Kerry McCarthy
I am sorry, but I have no time to allow any more interventions.
We heard today that unemployment has now risen to more than 2.5 million. Another 27,000 people have been added to the dole queue in the past three months. Those who are in work find their income squeezed by the rising cost of living, with inflation surging over 5%, but average wages growing by just 2.3% and many in the public sector facing a cut in real terms. People are struggling to make ends meet.
This month, the Office for National Statistics added iPhone apps and online dating fees to its RPI shopping basket—I am not sure what was in its RIP shopping basket. The ONS believes that essentials such as food and fuel now make up an increasing proportion of the average family spend. Of course, we have heard today that the price of fuel is rising fast. A litre of fuel is now £1.32, which is up 7p from the beginning of the year. That is an extra £80 for the average driver.
We accept that the Government cannot control the price of oil. We understand that the turmoil in the middle east and north Africa is having an impact on global prices. However, the Government are not powerless. They have a choice. They could choose to help working families get through the tough times, or to carry on regardless down their reckless path of cuts, which are too fast and too deep, slashing support for families and putting the recovery at risk.
The Government have made the wrong choice. The Chancellor chose to raise VAT to 20%, which hits low and middle-income families hardest and has pushed up the prices of fuel, energy and food and, as we have heard, has hurt businesses, too.
Kerry McCarthy
I am afraid that I do not have time.
Before the election, when a litre of petrol was 12p cheaper than it is now, the Conservative party said that it would consult on the fair fuel stabiliser. It said that it would ensure that families, businesses and the whole British economy were less exposed to volatile oil markets. The Prime Minister said that he would help with the cost of living by trying to give a flatter, more constant rate for filling up the car. The Chancellor said that that would be delivered in the Government’s first Budget. It was not. Conservatives led voters to believe that they could and would act. However, we now face the exact problem that the policy was designed to prevent. Rising oil prices have pushed up fuel prices at the pump beyond £6 a gallon, yet there is no sign of the fair fuel stabiliser. Not only that, but the Government have added nearly 3p to the price of a litre of petrol with their VAT rise this year.
The Government need to come clean about whether they will move ahead with the stabiliser and answer the criticisms of a host of commentators, who said that the idea would never work because rising oil prices do not necessarily lead to higher tax revenues. They include the Office for Budget Responsibility, the new head of which said that its analysis suggested that a fair fuel stabiliser was likely to make the public finances less rather than more stable, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said that the claim that the Treasury receives a windfall gain that it can share with motorists when oil prices rise is incorrect. Even the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said before the election that the fair fuel stabiliser would be “unbelievably complicated and unpredictable”.
The Government are no closer to introducing the fuel duty stabiliser now than they were a year ago. Rather than teasing the public and dangling the prospect before them, the Government need to nail their colours to the mast and tell us what they intend to do. Labour believes that the Government should reverse their VAT rise on fuels and reconsider the fuel duty escalator rise, which is due in April. In government, Labour often postponed fuel duty increases when oil prices were rising and families felt the pinch. It was clearly the right thing to do then and we urge the Government to reconsider now.
Obviously, there is a balance to be struck between raising revenue and ensuring that ordinary people who are trying to get on with their lives—earn a living, get the kids to school, get to work on time—are not unfairly penalised. For some, driving is a choice and they can cut down on their journeys when petrol prices increase, but what about those who rely on their cars every day and do not have the option of using public transport because the bus and rail services simply are not there, or those who run small businesses, or the self-employed who need to run vehicles as part of their work?
Ordinary working people did not create the global economic crisis; it began in the financial sector. However, under this Government, it is ordinary working people who are paying the price. The Government are taking away more money from families with children than they are asking for from the banks that caused the problem in the first place. The bank levy is expected to raise £2.5 billion, but the last Budget and the spending review took nearly £5 billion from families with children through cuts to child benefit, child tax credits and other measures. The Government have refused to repeat the bank bonus tax that Labour introduced last year, which raised £3.5 billion and could be expected to raise another £2 billion this year.
We believe that the bank levy, which is expected to raise £800 million more this year than was originally predicted, could be used to pay for a reversal of the VAT rise on fuel. That would be the right thing to do: helping people when times are hard, getting the economy moving again and asking the financial sector to pay its fair share. Asking ordinary people to pay and hitting them where it hurts most is the wrong choice. Government Members can try to pass the buck and blame the EU for their failure to act, but the fact is that they have a choice. They could choose to help ordinary working people in the Budget next week. I urge Members to support the motion.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This has been an interesting, if somewhat truncated debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) is probably right that the relatively few number of people in the Chamber and the fact that the debate will finish a couple of hours early is not evidence of a lack of interest in the subject under discussion, but proof that romantic hearts beat beneath our tough and cynical exteriors. [Interruption.] I mean some of our tough and cynical exteriors.
We support much that is in the Bill, but I will turn first to the contributions of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said that the establishment of the Office for Budget Responsibility was an attempt to separate politics from economics. I suspect that that will be difficult to achieve, but as she said, it is important that we at least try. She also talked about rules-based economic policies, how they were introduced under the previous Government, and how the establishment of the OBR entrenches that approach. She also spoke at the end of her speech about something that I know is a great passion of hers: the problem of youth unemployment and what we can do to tackle it. I am sure that she will return to it on many other occasions in the Chamber.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made an excellent speech and talked about how it is important that, when discussing such issues that are technical and very much about structures, we focus not just on the numbers, but on the outcomes that we want to achieve. This is not just a dry discussion about the fiscal mandate and the mechanisms that we put in place to monitor it or to forecast the future trajectory of Government economic policy; it is about the underlying policies brought in to achieve that mandate. She spoke passionately about intergenerational fairness and the importance of considering how we can better model imputed behaviour, and she suggested that departmental evidence was very thin on behavioural change and that the OBR might have a role in fleshing that out. That was a valid point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East talked about how the OBR, if it does not totally instil caution in the actions of Ministers, will at least act as a brake on Governments’ over-optimism and the wishful thinking that leads them to think that things are rosy, or will be rosier than the evidence suggests. She made the point that we cannot divorce the question of reducing the deficit from the question of how we go about doing it and the policies we implement to achieve that end. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) warned of the dangers of complacency, and of thinking that the recovery is secure, that we are out of recession and that the country is out of the danger zone. He also talked about the fiscal mandate for eliminating the deficit and warned of the dangers of pursuing that in too rapid a fashion.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) has had to leave to go to a black-tie event. I suspect that he has rather more black-tie events than most of us in the House. The sorts of events I attend usually involve the St George Labour club and beer at 99p a pint. However, he obviously leads a more exalted existence than many of us. Both he and the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) were fairly political—dare I say it—in their comments. They made references to the previous Government living beyond their means. The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell denied that the banks were responsible for the recession and again mentioned the country living beyond its means. At this time of night, and perhaps with better things to do, we do not want to rehearse those arguments. However, it is important that rather than trying to score political points, we look at the details of the Bill and the seriousness of what it is trying to achieve in introducing a more evidence-based approach to economic forecasting.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) made a very good and thoughtful speech. He quoted J. K. Galbraith, which I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for—
Kerry McCarthy
I knew it began with a W. Anyway, she is probably very familiar with this quote:
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”
The hon. Member for Macclesfield said that he was not a great fan of J. K. Galbraith. I happen to be a great fan, although I had not heard that quote before. His “A Short History of Financial Euphoria” ought to be required reading for anyone who takes up a job in the City these days. The hon. Gentleman resisted the temptation to resort to political point scoring. His point that the OBR can in time become a respected and trusted reference point is valid—I certainly hope it will be achieved.
What the hon. Member for Macclesfield said about greater powers being given to the Treasury Committee was interesting. I was a member of the Committee for a couple of years when first elected to Parliament in 2005, and I remember spending many sittings seeking assurances from the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England about regulation, the risks that derivatives trading imposed, and so on. I remember receiving blithe assurances that it was difficult for Committee members— with their limited resources—to challenge on an ongoing basis. If increased powers are given to the Treasury Committee to vet appointments, to scrutinise the work of the OBR, particularly its funding, and to ensure that it has the necessary resources to do its job, thought needs to be given to whether the Committee has the resources necessary to do that job.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) slightly lost me at the beginning with his talk about Disraeli and fridge magnets, but then moved on to talk about Bank of England independence, which he claimed was a Liberal Democrat manifesto—
Kerry McCarthy
I am not denying it. The hon. Member for Bristol West said that it was an example of Liberal Democrat manifesto policy being implemented 13 years before they got into government. I would suggest that the reason he is claiming credit for that is that there are very few examples of that now that they are in government.
Let me move on to the Bill. The plans for the National Audit Office have received very little attention in this debate, because there is a general consensus that they are the right thing to do. They are almost exactly in line with our plans for the National Audit Office that we set out in our Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which we did not get through the parliamentary process before the May 2010 election was called.
We support the creation of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which we see as continuing the direction of travel that we set in government by giving independence to the Bank of England and the Office for National Statistics. However, we have a number of concerns about the details of the proposals. We welcome the amendments that were introduced in the other place—with some, limited success—to try to make the OBR more independent from the Government, for example by giving it budgetary independence, so that we can be sure that it has the resources that it needs to do its job and produce genuinely independent forecasts without being compromised by Treasury control. We intend to explore that further in Committee, to see whether we can give the OBR greater independence. It is also important to explore in Committee how we make the OBR more accountable to Parliament, rather than to the Treasury.
However, we will not let this Government hide behind the OBR or use its independence as a shield to protect them from valid criticism of the impact of their economic policies. The Government are wrong if they believe that the OBR will protect us from the consequences of the Chancellor’s misjudgments. Indeed, the OBR will help to hold the light up to the Government’s record. It is notable that the OBR has already predicted that unemployment will be higher under this Government than under Labour plans, that growth will be lower under this Government, and that consumer prices index inflation will be higher. In fact, as has been mentioned—I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East, or perhaps by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South—the OBR has already had to revise its growth forecast downwards twice, down from 2.6% to 2.3% after the emergency Budget, and down again, to 2.1%, after the spending review. That is a telling verdict on this Government’s policies for growth—or lack of them—and the Chancellor’s failure to produce a growth plan. We wait to see whether the March Budget will force the OBR to downgrade its growth forecast yet again.
The OBR has also confirmed—although the Government seem to have ignored this because it is politically inconvenient for them to acknowledge it—that the deficit was more than £20 billion lower in 2009-10 than expected, owing to firm and decisive action taken by the Labour Government. What is clear—we do not need the OBR to tell us this—is that under this Government unemployment and inflation are rising, living standards are falling and the recovery has stalled. Although we support the substance of this Bill to a large extent and we shall not seek to push its Second Reading to a vote this evening, we remain deeply sceptical about whether the Government have learnt any lessons from the past eight months during which the shadow OBR has been in place. We hope that lessons will be learnt going forward.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
We share the Government’s desire for a strong manufacturing sector, hence our disappointment at Pfizer moving overseas and the Government’s failure to support Sheffield Forgemasters. According to today’s Financial Times, the Deputy Prime Minister, despite his dismal track record on Forgemasters, is leading the drive for more bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises to secure regional economic growth. Who is now in charge of growth policy? Is it the Chancellor or the Deputy Prime Minister?