UK Economy
Liam Byrne Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie
Indeed, and I will come to the recovery in certain areas in just a moment. The hon. Gentleman is right when it comes to the FTSE 100, but let me come to all the other indices, and we will see the real damage and how it is being played out.
It was not simply stock prices that were affected. Sterling was trading at $1.45 before the referendum. The value of the pound against the dollar fell by almost 8% on Friday the 24th—almost twice the fall in 1992, when the UK was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Of course the FTSE 100 is going to rebound a bit, because the vast majority of the business of FTSE 100 stocks is outside the United Kingdom. If we look at indices such as the FTSE 250, which is much more domestically exposed, we see that the fall has been catastrophic.
Stewart Hosie
That is absolutely correct. The FTSE 250 is far more exposed to the domestic market. Whether the index moves up or down slightly at any given time, the key point is that the exposure to the UK market and the lack of confidence at the moment are precisely what is driving that uncertainty.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I welcome today’s debate and the tone that we have heard this afternoon. After what has been all too often a foul-mouthed debate over the past couple of months, the tone of constructive engagement and working together is very important. It is down to the leaders in this House to put the decency back into our democracy and, like many others, I was shocked to hear the statements, tweets, messages and incidents that hon. Members read out during our proceedings on the statement earlier today. We just cannot have that in this country; we are not going to have that in this country. It is a responsibility on all our shoulders to ensure that in the communities we serve we stamp it out, and we stamp it out fast.
Part of a decent democracy is that people honour their promises. Let us be honest that we have already seen promises that were made in the campaign being broken into shreds, tatters and little pieces. It is a job for all of us to hold to account the leaders of the leave campaign who made promises that now appear not to be honoured. We need to hang those promises around their necks in the months ahead because, frankly, our democracy cannot withstand too many more broken promises. The guilty men and women who made those promises must be held to account in this House.
I wanted to speak in the debate because I want to say that we need to honour the people’s decision. They have given us a stark lesson. We know how to globalise, but we do not know how to make globalisation work for the majority of voters. What I think most voters told us in the referendum is that we have become a world of very rich elites and very remote elites. People have had enough of it; they want a different settlement.
We need to move with speed in this House to set out the principles for a new special relationship with our closest neighbours. The sooner we agree those principles across the House, the better. I am glad the Chancellor set out a couple of principles, but I hope that he agrees, and that when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury winds up the debate he will agree, that we ought to have been better prepared. We were told yesterday by the Prime Minister that there is a new EU unit, yet somehow the Government have forgotten to include the Home Office in it, as if somehow immigration was not an important feature of this debate. Quite frankly, that beggars belief.
We are blessed in this House with the European Scrutiny Committee, which does a good job. It is charged with scrutinising individual instruments of EU legislation that come before us. It is, of course, chaired by that neutral and commanding figure the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). However, it is not equipped to look at the big picture nor to look at the principles that we need to agree. I therefore hope the Prime Minister will take seriously the call from Opposition Members for a new Joint Committee of both Houses to try to get to the bottom of the 6,500 instruments we might need to incorporate into UK domestic law, give or take those aspects we do not like.
Parliamentary sovereignty has just been voted on, but Parliament cannot be sovereign if Parliament is blind. We need to ensure that we are equipped in this House with a method of coming to agreement and making sure that the right plan for a new relationship is on the table.
Stephen Gethins
On the question of democracy and sovereignty, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government, in terms of setting out their timetable for Brexit, should also set out a timetable for scrapping the House of Lords so that we do not have any more unelected bureaucrats deciding day-to-day business?
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am on his side when it comes to the House of Lords. This Government’s idea of democracy is to bring forward proposals to cut the number of people in this House while increasing the number in the other place, I think by more than 200 at the last count. It makes one wonder what they are scared of when it comes to democratic decisions.
I want to touch very briefly on some of the principles that have to define the new special relationship with Europe, and we have to start with national security. Since we put in place co-operation on justice and home affairs, we have made important progress. We have good ideas, such as the European arrest warrant, and we have concerted action on sharing information relating to crime, terrorism and watch lists. Terrorists do not respect international borders and nor must the fight against terrorism. It is therefore essential that we agree to collaborate and co-operate to the maximum possible extent with our neighbours when it comes to the fight against crime and the fight against terror.
Secondly, it is clear from this vote—the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made this point well—that we will have to update the principle of free movement and replace it with a new principle of fair movement. I was the Minister for Borders and Immigration who introduced the points system for non-EU immigration into this country. During the French presidency, it became clear to me that there was an appetite across Europe for reforming the free movement directive. I said at the time that it would be a long struggle to get such reform, but the sooner we started, the sooner we would finish. Surely we now have to take that lesson and begin putting on the table serious proposals for the reform of free movement.
There are a million and one choices to make. We have to start by honouring the rights of those who are already here. We cannot retrospectively tamper with the rights of people who have already made the life-changing decision to move home. There are then questions about restrictions on low skill or high skill, how long visas should last, whether visa rights should lead to rights of settlement and citizenship, and what access to benefits should be enjoyed for taxes paid in. Of course, there is the huge question of how, as part of a new agreement on fair movement, this country steps up to its international obligations to help refugees struggling due to war in the middle east. We should be doing far more to help Europe with the burden of giving safe haven to refugees fleeing war zones and make that part and parcel of our proposals for fair movement.
Within all that, we have to be careful that we do not damage the free movement of ideas, which is why I always argue that students and scientists should be exempt. Alongside that, we must ensure that co-operation on ideas, intellectual capital and intellectual property protection are part of the new arrangements.
Thirdly, we must ensure that there is no race to the bottom on workers’ rights and human rights. It was this country, and one of our greatest Prime Ministers, that helped to found the Council of Europe. Over the decades that followed, we were among the most important authors of the European convention on human rights, and we are the proud co-authors of the European Court of Human Rights. We must ensure that there is no race to the bottom on workers’ rights, and that we do not enjoy second-class human rights in this country.
Fourthly, we obviously have to try to maximise free trade, free movement of goods and free movement of capital throughout the single market. We will need to be honest that we will pay a price for introducing restrictions on migration. We need to think carefully about what price we are prepared to pay. That is why I believe we need to introduce the minimal possible restrictions on free movement and the fewest fetters possible.
When it comes to the free movement of trade and of capital, we must ensure that our rights to tax revenue are protected. We have made progress over the past few years in ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax, but heaven knows we have an awful long way to go. We know that hundreds of billions are sheltered by European companies in tax havens. We have to deepen collaboration and co-operation with Europe to ensure that people pay their fair share.
Finally, we need a big debate about sharing the burdens of our neighbourhood. Good neighbours do not shirk their duties, whether on climate change or common border protection. There will be countless other burdens regarding which Britain has to step up and say, “Yes. We are going to take on the obligations that come with sharing this part of the world.” The Prime Minister was right to say that we will not turn our back on Europe. We have to send a very clear signal that we will be not just good neighbours, but the best of neighbours.
In the debates that come, there will be an iron relationship between reform of free movement, access to the single market and the integrity of the United Kingdom. If we are to maximise the integrity of the UK and to keep our trade balance good, we have to keep changes to free movement to an absolute minimum. It would be an error to slam the door to this country closed and lose our place in the world as a great trading nation, which would inevitably lead to the unravelling of the United Kingdom.
We need great British moderation now more than ever. We must have no more pie in the sky from politicians with no intention of honouring their promises, which is why I hope this place continues to lead such debates.
Greg Hands
No, I will carry on.
The result may not have been what some of us wanted, hoped for or even expected, but that does not mean that the Government were unprepared for it. In the past six years, we have been working hard to bring our economy back from the brink and get our public finances back under control. We said we needed to fix the roof for any economic storms ahead, and that is what we have done. We have brought down the deficit, and we have steady growth, record employment and a resilient financial system, which we spent the past six years strengthening.
We have done the analysis on what leaving the EU might mean, and considered the potential impacts on our economy in both the short and the long term. There was general consensus in the House a fortnight ago on the risks we might face, so hon. Members recognise that it will not be plain sailing and that there are challenges ahead, but thanks to the measures we have taken over the past six years our economy is as well prepared as it could be to face whatever comes our way.
We anticipated that there would be an immediate impact on the value of our currency and the stability of the financial markets. The Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority have extensive contingency plans in place and we are watching the markets closely. Although we have seen volatility, the markets nevertheless continue to function effectively.
The Prudential Regulation Authority has worked closely with major financial institutions to prepare extensively for the consequences of a vote to leave. The Bank of England stress tests show that UK banks have enough capital and liquidity reserves to withstand a scenario more severe than the country currently faces. Thanks to our work to strengthen our financial stability, banks in the UK have raised more than £130 billion of additional capital in the past six years, and have more than £600 billion in liquid assets to ensure that they can keep lending to UK businesses and households during challenging times. The Bank of England can provide more than £250 billion of additional funds to support the banks and the smooth functioning of the markets. It can also provide liquidity in foreign currency if required. The authorities have all the necessary tools in place to protect financial stability. They are monitoring developments closely and will not hesitate to take further measures as required.
As we embark upon the renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, I reiterate the reassurances of the Prime Minister that the result does not mean that everything changes overnight. For British subjects living in the EU and EU citizens living in this country, there will be no immediate changes. People can still travel across the EU, businesses can trade as they did and our services can be sold as before.
The Prime Minister has been clear that there will be no immediate triggering of article 50, the procedure by which a member state can leave the EU. That gives us time to plan the new arrangements we are seeking with our European friends and neighbours. It also gives the Prime Minister’s successor the opportunity to make any adjustments to economic policy and our public spending, informed by an assessment of our economic situation from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility this autumn. In the meantime, we will continue to work hard to maintain the fiscal stability we have always worked so hard to deliver. A new unit will be set up in Whitehall bringing together experts from across the civil service, and in answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill I can say that it will extend right across Whitehall, including all Departments likely to be affected, and that it will be given the resources it needs.
Greg Hands
Yes, it will include the Home Office, and it will advise on the many options we face as we determine our future relationship with the EU. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I expect to play my own part in that task over the coming months.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Liam Byrne Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett
I believe the hon. Gentleman said North Yorkshire. If I remember correctly, North Yorkshire got £10 million in transitional funds. West Yorkshire and south Yorkshire got not a single penny. Not a single council in the whole of west and south Yorkshire got a single penny, yet the cuts that west Yorkshire councils faced were much more acute than those that North Yorkshire had faced.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making his case well. Is there not worse to come? We heard last week that another £3.5 billion worth of efficiency savings are to be made in the final year of the forecast, yet this Secretary of State is asking many councils to agree four-year funding deals. Has my hon. Friend heard whether those that agree four-year funding deals will be spared that £3.5 billion extra efficiency savings, or will they just have the money taken off them?
Jon Trickett
Not a peep from the Secretary of State so far. Unfairness and inequality run through the DNA of this Government in every Department. Local government provides services that make the lives of the most vulnerable in our society bearable, yet it is suffering the most draconian cuts.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I do not want to speak at length this evening, but I do wish to add my voice to the chorus of congratulations that has greeted this Budget from all parts of the House. Certainly, in the 12 years that I have been in this House, I cannot remember a Budget in which so big a hole has opened so fast, which is why it is perfectly natural for it to have provoked such a hymn of praise.
According to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), when one starts picking the details apart, the whole thing falls apart. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) said that the Government had made some poor decisions. Over the weekend, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that this was a Budget that hit exactly the wrong people. According to The Times, Members of Parliament, who were presumably once supportive of the Chancellor, now say that he is a “busted flush” and “damaged goods”. Let me associate myself with this new consensus breaking out right across the House.
I also congratulate the Chancellor on going to such lengths to, in his words,
“put the next generation first.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 951.]
That was a pithy message, and he has presided over an economy where that is exactly what has happened. This is now the first generation to be worse off than the generation that came before them. This is now the first generation to be more likely to live in poverty than pensioners. Today’s young generation are the first generation to have to work years longer in order to earn their pension. Young people today are the first generation to graduate from university with over £50,000 of debt. This was indeed a Budget for the next generation, but not quite in the way the Chancellor presented it. In fact, it was just the latest from a failed generation of Conservative politicians.
For me, the final proof was this: if the Chancellor wanted to do something for the next generation—if he truly wanted to put the next generation first—he would surely have done something significant, perhaps even magnificent, for Britain’s youngest city, which is of course my home city of Birmingham. Instead, we have a Conservative Birmingham bombshell of over £100 million of tax rises and spending cuts. That is the how the Chancellor has put Britain’s youngest city first. The Government now admit—this is the irony—that the great city of Birmingham needs a fair funding formula. In fact, they are so convinced of the need for this new funding formula that they are determined not to introduce it now but in a couple of years’ time. This short-changing is costing our city some £98 million in lost grants. Indeed, there would be almost no need to introduce cuts in this year’s council budget were it not for that short-changing.
Jack Dromey
I am grateful to my fellow Birmingham MP for giving way. The great city of Birmingham has been hit by the biggest cuts in local government history—three quarters of a billion pounds. Had it been treated fairly this year, it would have been £98 million better off. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern, and that of the people of Birmingham, that although we put a powerful case to the Government for support out of the transitional fund, 95p in every 100p goes to Conservative councils, but not one single penny to hard-hit Birmingham?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It takes some doing to sit in Whitehall and write a formula that means that pretty much only Conservative councils get the money, but I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for somehow finding a way of doing it.
The problem is not just that £98 million was short-changed from the budget for Birmingham this year, but that because we have a weaker tax base in our city, we have to raise significant extra resources from the social care levy, costing us another £5.5 million, and that despite the fact that our police service is on one of the most dangerous frontlines, we have had £10 million of cuts to its budget this year. Altogether, the total is £113 million. This is a bombshell that the people of Birmingham will not forget.
Whoever is winding up this debate should recognise that there are some significant questions that we from our home city need answers to. We would like to know why we have not got any of the transitional funding that went to others. We want to know whether, if we agree a four-year funding settlement, our budget will be put into play in 2019-20 as part of the £3.5 billion of efficiency savings earmarked by the Chancellor last week. This is a significant issue for councils up and down the country. If they agree four-year funding settlements with this Government, will they be protected from the new £3.5 billion efficiency drive that the Government announced last week? Yes or no is the simple answer. Birmingham is up for the challenge of business rate retention, but we need much clearer answers than we got earlier about whether the gaps will be made good. Will Ministers confirm whether the OBR’s assumptions that there will be a 14% increase in council tax over the next four years are true? Do they share those assumptions?
The Labour party in Birmingham is rebuilding our city and getting it back to work, delivering record numbers of new businesses, record amounts of new investment, and record new infrastructure. We have built more council homes than any other council in the country, we have got over 3,000 young people into work, and we promised and delivered the living wage on day one of the new Labour council. Give us the tools and we will do the job!
Tax Fairness
Liam Byrne Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any indication from the Government on whether they plan to make an oral statement on the subject of the bedroom tax. Yesterday, in questions to the Department for Work and Pensions, Ministers assured us that the scheme was running smoothly, yet this afternoon we have another rushed U-turn that offers no money and no protection for disabled children. Right hon. and hon. Members would have welcomed the opportunity to put those points directly to the Secretary of State, and expose today’s announcement for the shallow nonsense that it is.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Chair has received no notification that there will be a statement before the House. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench and other Secretaries of State will have heard the comments that have been made, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that there are other avenues he may wish to pursue.
Jobs and Growth
Liam Byrne Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I welcome the overall thrust of this Queen’s Speech and, in particular, the fact that it concentrates on the need for growth, more jobs and private-sector, wealth-producing buoyancy, which we did not see for a very long time under the watch of the previous Government. I must say that, yes, I do my best to be honest with the people I represent—
Mr Binley
I do—they will tell you that, Sir—as you did when you said that there was no money left. We are both honest men.
I wish that the shadow Chancellor would welcome some of the achievements that the people of this country welcome; it is foolish of him not to do so when there are considerable signs of recovery. It simply lowers the esteem in which all politicians are held, and I urge him, and the Opposition Front Bencher who responds to this debate, to take that into account.
There are welcome signs of recovery. The private sector has created more than 500,000 jobs since the general election; the International Monetary Fund forecasts that the UK will grow at twice the speed of Germany and three times that of France; borrowing costs have fallen, investment has been increasing and only yesterday we saw a drop of 45,000 in the number of unemployed people in the first quarter of this year. All those things are welcome, but it would be refreshing to hear Opposition Front Benchers greet them with some enthusiasm—although I doubt that they will.
The truth of the matter is that consumers and businesses are saying, “To hell with it; we’ve got to get on with life,” and that is one reason why we are seeing some of the green shoots of recovery. Now we need to nurture them and ensure that they continue to grow and bear fruit.
The situation is fragile, and no one would say otherwise. Consequently, I urge the Government and the Chancellor to do more. We will not achieve growth with new laws. The previous Government tried that for 13 years, and we saw what happened. This place does not create the growth; it simply sets the atmosphere and ambience for it. So I appeal to the Chancellor to recognise that we need to change the culture regarding entrepreneurialism and the attitude to small businesses, and indeed serious and important recommendations on doing so are coming forward from various parts of the House.
We must also understand the needs of small businesses, because therein lies our best chance of growing jobs and the well-being of this nation.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a busy year for tourism in Britain and we must get those aspects right. This is not the first time that those points have been mentioned in this debate, and I think that the Chancellor has taken them on board.
The other thing I would like to point out about the local elections—this will be the same in future elections—is the deluge of news that has been thrown at us by the 24-hour news industry. We must think about how the message is managed, not just about the message itself. The Budget is remembered more for Labour’s sensationalist catchphrases, which have been heard again today, than for its game-changing announcements, such as the increase in the personal allowance, which will affect 24 million people; the largest single rise in pensions ever; and the cuts in corporation tax, which make us the most competitive country in the G8.
The latest phrase that Labour is peddling, which has leaked into the media, is “double-dip recession”. If I took my son, Alex, to the fairground and we went on a rollercoaster called “The Double Dip”, he would be pretty disappointed—even at the age of three—if the second dip was eight times smaller than the first. Labour is being disingenuous with the figures and undermines our economy by constantly peddling that phrase. [Interruption.] I hear Labour Members grumbling, so perhaps we should look at the figures. The Q1 results for 2012 were better than the GDP growth results for 2011, which suggests that the graph is going in the right direction.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a privilege to wind up a week of debate and speeches on the Gracious Speech. However, let me start by saying what a disappointment it was to hear not a word of recognition, humility or apology from the Chancellor for a litany of Budgets that have put this country back in recession and given us a Queen’s Speech with nothing to dig us out.
We have, however, had something very significant this afternoon. We have had an admission—a confession, in fact—from the Chancellor. He finally forced himself to say it, in response to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), although he had to choke it out. He said that austerity is not enough. The Chancellor finally said it. However, confession is not enough; redemption will demand a change of course. He has U-turned this afternoon on his policy for Europe; he should now U-turn on his policy here in the UK. Instead, what we got was a lot of jokes. Most people in this country now feel that if he focused more on economics and less on jokes, perhaps the country would not be in quite the mess that it is. The customary advice is: “Don’t give up your day job”, although most of us probably feel that the sooner he gives up his day job, the faster Britain will be back on its feet.
This is the Chancellor who told us a year ago that he was putting fuel in the tank of the British economy. What has happened? Where has the fuel gone? It has somehow been siphoned off into the jerry cans in the Cabinet Office. Instead, what we have got is £150 billion of extra borrowing, 1 million young people out of work, fewer hours worked this year than last, and a fall in our national output in the last quarter of £700 million —a development that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said was a step in the right direction. This is the first double-dip recession since 1975, the year of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, the story of a bunch of incompetent chancers, supposedly running the country, chasing after something that they had somehow misplaced. What an allegory of this Government’s pursuit of growth!
All week we have seen an unedifying witch hunt for the culprits—the people who have somehow misplaced Britain’s growth. This week the Government found someone else. The fault, it now seems, lies with those in the British business community, who just need to be working harder. My advice to them is that they should not take the attack personally. Indeed, they join illustrious company: we have had “the weather”; we have had “the wrong type of snow”; and we have also had the royal wedding. When it comes to their failure, this Government will blame only others.
Mr Byrne
I will not give way, because there are so many points to respond to.
We know that this recession was not made by British business. It is not down to the weather, the snow or the royal wedding; it is down to the failed policy of this Government. Despite the good news we had on unemployment this week—there was a glimmer of hope—Britain’s jobs crisis has now gone on for too long. We now have more people working part time or becoming self-employed, because they will do anything to make ends meet. Long-term unemployment is surging towards the 1 million mark, the number of people out of work for two years is up to 500,000, 100,000 more people are signing on than last year, redundancies are up by 50,000, and vacancies are down by more than 10,000. Families all over Britain are facing a disaster, because of the failed policies of this Government.
This afternoon we heard those stories from all over Britain. The point was made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), and it was a story repeated by my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) and for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). We heard in the debate this afternoon that we need growth and demand—a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for East Lothian. We heard how higher unemployment is hitting some communities and some regions harder than ever—that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). It is hitting ethnic minorities harder than ever—that was the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth. It is now hitting young people harder—that was the message we heard from hon. Members from all parts of the House, and it was a point made with particular force by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood).
That is why what we needed in the last Budget and in the Queen’s Speech was not excuses, but action. We needed action on bank lending—that was the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), and by the hon. Members for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). We needed action on infrastructure spending, too—that point was made with great force by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) and for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). This absence of action is now costing this country a fortune.
Andrew Selous
When the right hon. Gentleman wrote his famous note saying that there was “no money” left, what did he think the implications of that were?
Mr Byrne
The hon. Gentleman speaks for a party that has now put up borrowing by £150 billion more than projected. Does he know why? It is in large part because the benefits bill is not being capped by this Government—the benefits bill is going through the roof. It is set to be £25 billion higher than was projected by the end of this Parliament, with the cost of unemployment benefit set to be up by £5 billion and the cost of housing benefit set to be up by £6 billion by the end of this Parliament. I really do not know how he has the temerity to say what he has just said, given that it is his Government who are putting up debt.
The problem is that this Government have not learned the lesson that the way to bring the benefits bill down is by getting people into jobs—that is where this Government are failing. It is no wonder the people all across Britain are saying that this Prime Minister and this Chancellor have no idea how ordinary people live. The Prime Minister is riding on horses with editors of newspapers who are charged with perverting the course of justice while our young people cannot even afford a bus fare to college. We heard this afternoon just how much that bill has now become in a powerful speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband). We heard that youth unemployment will cost our country £30 billion over the years to come. When are this Government going to heed that lesson?
When will they look at the hit now being taken by working parents, who are struggling with child care? These parents are now losing £500 this year. No wonder 32,000 women have already had to give up work this year because they cannot afford the child care. We should look at what this Budget means for working parents—a point made with some eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury and by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). Such is the incompetence and such is the incoherence that families in this country are now better off on benefits than they are in a job—what a catastrophic failure of policy and what a catastrophic failure by this Chancellor.
Look at what these proposals mean for savers—people doing the right thing. Alongside the granny tax, the Government tried to sneak out in the Budget small print another £900 cut for pensioners by getting rid of the savings credit. Look at what the proposals mean for workers with disabilities. Some 11 million people in this country have disabilities. Disability Rights UK says that 25,000 people with disabilities have had to give up work this year because their support and help are being cut away from them. This Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is now administering reform of the incapacity benefit system with all the finesse of border control at Heathrow airport. It is now taking people up to 11 months to get a hearing and then, when they reach that tribunal, half the decisions are being overturned. That is not a result that he can be proud of.
Worst of all is the treatment being handed out to workers at Remploy. These are workers indirectly employed by the Secretary of State himself. Worst of all—worse than anything I have heard over the past few months—are the reported comments that he made to Remploy workers. Apparently he told them that they “are not doing any work at all. Just making cups of coffee.” That is not compassionate conservatism; it is the conservatism of contempt. The Secretary of State should apologise to those workers this afternoon. When he should have been launching a war on poverty, he has launched a war on decency.
This Government have no idea how these young people, these parents, these working mothers and these workers with disabilities are now living. They are failing on jobs, they are failing on growth, and they are out of touch, out of their depth and out of steam. We need a change of direction and Labour’s amendment today offers that. I commend it to the House.
Equitable Life
Liam Byrne Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Equitable Life.
Both coalition parties are committed to justice for Equitable Life’s policyholders; we each made manifesto commitments, and these are reflected in our programme for government. No one should be in any doubt about our commitment to policyholders, who have waited a decade for justice. We are committed to implementing the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendation, made two years ago, and
“to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders through an independent payment scheme for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”
We have taken important steps towards implementing that commitment. We announced in the Queen’s Speech that a Bill would be presented to Parliament in this legislative Session, and today we are doing just that.
When I came into office, I reviewed Sir John Chadwick’s terms of reference and asked him to complete the work that he had started. I can tell the House that Sir John’s report, alongside the extensive actuarial advice underpinning it, has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Vote Office. I want to thank Sir John for his dedication in completing this complex and challenging task. Sir John has helped to progress the aim to establish a scheme that is fair both to policyholders and to taxpayers. He has proposed a flexible approach to determining losses that eliminates the need for policyholders to show what they would have done if the maladministration had not occurred.
I want to stress, however, that Sir John’s review is just one of the building blocks in resolving what is a complex matter, and that there are other judgments to be made in determining the final shape of the scheme and the amounts that will be paid out. I have always been committed to dealing with this matter with the utmost transparency. I therefore want to set out to the House today the key elements of Sir John’s methodology and the figures calculated at each intermediate step in quantifying losses according to his approach. First, however, let me make it clear that these are preliminary figures. There is further work to be done before a final estimate can be produced. These figures have been produced for the Treasury by Towers Watson, and I have placed a copy of its letter in the Vote Office.
Let me remind the House that the ombudsman considered that the financial loss suffered by policyholders was a consequence of the reduction in policy values in July 2001. These amounted to a reduction in the gains they expected to make from their policies, rather than the sums they were contractually entitled to. As a result, Equitable Life’s policies are lower in value today than they would have been without these cuts. The difference is the absolute loss, which Towers Watson estimates as being between £2.9 billion and £3.7 billion. Sir John then goes on to identify relative loss—that is, the difference between the returns that policyholders actually received from their Equitable Life policies and the returns they would have received if they had invested in a comparable product in an alternative life insurance company. This step produces a loss of between £4 billion and £4.8 billion.
For a number of policyholders, because of the strong performance of comparable life companies, their relative loss is greater than the absolute loss they suffered. Consistent with the ombudsman’s recommendation, Sir John has advised that relative loss for an individual policyholder should be capped at the absolute loss they suffered. It is hard to see how it would be fair either to the taxpayer or to other policyholders if some policyholders received more through redress than they had actually lost. If the proposed cap is adopted, then the figure will be £2.3 billion to £3 billion.
Sir John and the Equitable members action group—EMAG—are in agreement that not all policyholders would have decided against investing in Equitable Life had its regulatory returns not been subject to maladministration. There is scope for debate about by how much investment would have been reduced. Sir John advises that the majority of policyholders would have invested in Equitable Life irrespective of maladministration. He therefore proposes that policyholders should receive only 20% to 25% of the capped figure that I mentioned. I know that some stakeholders will dispute this proportion. This results in a figure of £475 million to £650 million.
Another difficult aspect of Sir John’s methodology is the assessment of internal relative loss—the loss that policyholders have suffered as a result of keeping money in Equitable Life when it was not being regulated properly. Taking this step into account, Sir John’s final loss figure is £400 million to £500 million. This figure is lower principally because a number of policyholders made relative gains as a result of maladministration.
As I said earlier, Sir John’s work is a building block that helps us to produce a fair and transparent payment scheme. I am aware that some of his findings will be contentious and are based on complex analysis, so I will reflect on his report and I will listen to representations by interested parties, including Equitable Life and EMAG, which has campaigned tenaciously on behalf of policyholders. As is apparent from the letter from Towers Watson, further work needs to be done over the summer to produce a final estimate of loss.
As the ombudsman noted, it is appropriate to consider the impact of any scheme on the public purse. The scheme will be a significant spending commitment for this Government and will therefore be considered in the light of what is affordable as a part of the spending review. I will set out the funding available for the scheme at the spending review on 20 October, alongside the final loss figure.
The ombudsman also concluded that the design of the scheme should be independent of the Government. I support this view, and I announced on 26 May that I would establish an independent commission to advise on the best way to allocate payments to policyholders and help to develop the design of the scheme. Today I can announce that Brian Pomeroy, John Howard and John Tattersall have agreed to form the independent commission on Equitable Life payments. I believe that their experience and expertise will be invaluable to the commission, and I am confident that we have the right people to do the job. The commission will start work imminently so that we can begin making payments as soon as possible. I have asked the commission to report by the end of January 2011.
The final question that I would like to address is how soon policyholders will receive payments. I would like to end the plight of policyholders as quickly as possible, and I aim to begin making payments in the middle of next year. If we are to achieve this goal, however, it is important to avoid any unnecessary delays. I will do all that I can to make sure we stick to this timetable, and I hope all interested parties will help us to do so. This is, however, a very complex task. We have made much progress since the Government were formed, but there is a great deal left to do. We need a simple, transparent and fair scheme that meets the needs of 1.5 million policyholders who have between them 2 million policies and have made 30 million premium payments. It is in the interests of each of those policyholders to complete this task quickly, but also carefully and thoughtfully.
In the past two months, we have published Sir John’s report; set up the independent commission on Equitable Life payments; published the first robust figures surrounding the calculation of relative loss; opened up the process, making it much more transparent; put in place a framework for the payment scheme; and produced legislation to give the Treasury statutory authority to make payments. We have achieved more in two months than the last Government did in the two years since the ombudsman reported. The coalition Government have demonstrated their commitment to justice for Equitable Life policyholders, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement and for the opportunity to review Sir John’s report in full at the Treasury this morning.
I would like to start by repeating the words of apology to Equitable Life policyholders that I made to the House earlier this year for the failure of regulation of Equitable Life under successive Governments between 1990 and 2001.
I thank Sir John Chadwick for his detailed report, which we commissioned. He has taken on an extraordinarily complex matter, and he has done an admirable job. I also thank officials at the Treasury for the work that they have done over the past six months in getting ready the legislation which I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has published today. I, too, thank EMAG. I am grateful for the work done by the all-party Equitable Life policyholders group, chaired by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton).
When I came to the House earlier in the year, I said that there was a clear ethical obligation, even if not a legal obligation, for compensation for Equitable Life policyholders. Equally, however, I knew that case-by-case compensation for policyholders, as suggested by the ombudsman, was not practical. I said that there were two tests for the right solution—speed and justice. I went on to say that we expected the Government to produce a report within two weeks of Sir John’s final report, which we wanted to see in May. So here we are in July, and there are a few questions that I should like to put to the Minister this afternoon.
First, is the Minister actually accepting Sir John’s recommendation? Earlier in the year he did a good impression of wanting to ditch Sir John’s approach and revert to the one set out by the ombudsman. Today, Sir John makes it clear in paragraph 10.17 that the ombudsman’s approach
“poses very difficult issues of principle, and would be impossible to implement within any realistic time-frame.”
Can the Minister confirm that Sir John’s approach is the right one? He called it one of the building blocks, but will he set out whether he is accepting Sir John’s report?
The second question that the House will want to know the answer to is who precisely will be entitled to help. Sir John states in paragraph 6.3 that help should cover new investments made between 1 September 1992 and 31 December 2000. Does the Minister agree with that approach? How many policyholders will be included on that basis, and how many will be excluded?
Thirdly, how much are policyholders actually going to get? Part 6 of the report sets out an approach and a method for calculating losses. Can the Minister confirm that what he has just said is that the maximum compensation will be based on a quarter of the relative losses faced by policyholders, and that that figure will itself be capped at absolute loss? Many policyholders will find that hard to square with what he said in the House earlier this year. What the House will want to know this afternoon is how much, on average, policyholders will actually get.
Fourthly, how quickly does the Minister want to complete this process? I am glad that he wants to get started next year, but the House will want to know how quickly he wants the final payments to be made. Finally, what appeal mechanism will the Government put in place for those policyholders who want to challenge their individual determinations?
It is incumbent on all of us to speed this matter to resolution. I am glad that the Minister has set out legislation this afternoon, and we will support it going through as rapidly as possible, but there are questions that our constituents will want answers to today. I hope that he will be as full as he can in replying to what I have asked.
Mr Hoban
I find the right hon. Gentleman’s comments rich, as he was a member of the Government who for nine years sought to frustrate, block and delay investigations into Equitable Life and its regulation; who ignored Lord Penrose’s findings of maladministration in 2004; who did everything they could to stop the ombudsman’s second inquiry; who bombarded the ombudsman with new documents and comments on her draft report; who took six months to reply to her report when it was published; and who set up a review by Sir John with a report carefully timed to be released after the general election. I will take no lessons at all from him about speed of response.
Sir John’s report sets out a range of approaches to calculating loss. As I said in my statement—the right hon. Gentleman had sight of it, as he said—I have not accepted that report. I will reflect on Sir John’s findings and think very carefully about them. The amount that policyholders will receive will be determined by a number of factors, and partly by the compensation figure set as part of the spending review process, as I said very carefully in my statement. The independent commission will need to respond to that matter when it designs the payment scheme, which was a key recommendation of the ombudsman that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues rejected but we are prepared to accept and put in place. He will have to wait until that scheme design has taken place and we have worked through its implications across 1.5 million policyholders, their 2 million different policies and the 30 million transactions that they entered into.
I am determined that the scheme will proceed as quickly as possible and that we can resolve the problems faced by Equitable Life policyholders—problems that the right hon. Gentleman and his party did little to sort out over the course of the past nine years.
Finance Bill
Liam Byrne Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he knows, with this Budget we have set out more distributional analysis than any previous Government have ever done before. On the VAT increase, I say to him that all tax matters are kept under review. He has a fine reputation for finding opportunities to raise particular points in Parliament, and I am sure that he will do so on this matter. I am sure that there will be opportunities for him, and for other hon. and right hon. Members, to raise these matters in future. For the moment we have put in place an increase in the VAT rate. We cannot make any promises to change it, and it would be dangerous for us to do so, given some of the points that we debated in Committee; a promise of a VAT cut in future is likely to result in a deferral of expenditure. However, this is an ongoing debate and I am sure that he will contribute to it fully, just as he has contributed to this debate fully over the past few days.
We believe that this Budget has been demonstrated to be a progressive Budget that deals with the deficit fairly; all sections of society contribute, but the richest pay more than the poorest. I also have to make the point to the House and to my hon. Friend that, of course, we should not look at the VAT increase in isolation, because it is part of a wider package that ensures that the most vulnerable in society are protected. It is also worth making the point that during these days in which we have debated this matter we have learned that support for the VAT increase was more widely spread than we ever realised. With exquisite timing, we learned from Lord Mandelson that the previous Chancellor wanted to raise VAT.
Mr Byrne
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of VAT, can he clear up one problem that I came across in the Red Book? The scorecard for the Budget says that about £8 billion will be raised in taxes by 2014-15, yet the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in the back of the Red Book says that only £3 billion in tax will actually come through the door. Why is there a £5 billion difference?
Mr Byrne
The matter can be cleared up very quickly. The scorecard on page 40, with which the hon. Gentleman will be enormously familiar, states that the “total tax policy decisions” will result in £8.230 billion being received in 2014-15, whereas table C12 on page 101, which shows the OBR forecast, says that only £3.1 billion in receipts will actually come in. Why is there a difference between what is on the scorecard, which is a little more than £8 billion, and what is in the OBR forecast for the money that will actually be raised, which is £3 billion?
Mr Gauke
The right hon. Gentleman appears to be raising a perfectly fair point. The OBR was heavily involved in calculating the numbers for the scorecard, so I suspect that there is a perfectly innocent explanation and I will endeavour to ensure that he receives it before this debate reaches its conclusion.
Mr Byrne
Is not the answer very straightforward? Is not the answer that the Budget depresses growth so much that tax receipts will actually be down, so even though the scorecard sets out a series of measures that should, in theory, raise the amount that it sets out, the OBR, understandably, knowing that growth is depressed, has set out that far less money will actually come through?
Mr Gauke
If that is the point that the right hon. Gentleman is getting at, I must point out what the OBR made very clear in the Red Book. That point is that it is misleading to make a straight comparison between the growth figures that were projected on the basis of market expectations of interest rates, which were lower as a consequence of the anticipated fiscal tightening that this Government promised to deliver and that we have delivered, and the forecasts that do not take that into account. That is a point that we have gone over a number of times. The OBR said that such comparisons were potentially misleading, so if that idea is what is driving the right hon. Gentleman’s queries, I must point out to him that the OBR would not accept that.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend might well have the answer. One point that we learned from Lord Mandelson in the course of his much-loved memoirs is that the then Chancellor, who is now shadow Chancellor, apparently accused the then Prime Minister of having a “ludicrously over-optimistic” view of what the growth forecasts would be and about
“Britain’s ability to support such a large and expanding deficit.”
That might well be the explanation.
Mr Byrne
I rise with the ambition of being helpful to the Minister as he will not want knowingly or unknowingly to mislead the House. He will know that the OBR forecast on page 101 is a forecast of what tax receipts will come in on the basis of the Budget set out in the Red Book. These things are entirely consistent with each other and the forecast has nothing to do with previous Budgets or previous OBR estimates. Will he confirm that for the House?
Mr Gauke
The fact is that the big risk to growth for this country would have been if we had done nothing about the deficit. If we had tried to ignore it, we would have found ourselves having our credit rating downgraded, as has happened to Greece, Portugal, Spain and now the Republic of Ireland, and we would have faced a contagion of sovereign debt. We have taken the necessary actions to ensure that growth is secure and the fact is that the OBR projections have far greater credibility than the previous Government’s—we have learned about how political they were in making their growth forecasts. Our growth forecasts have credibility. Our public finances have a credibility that they did not before. We can be proud of that.
As we have heard, the previous Treasury team believed that an increase in VAT was necessary and that was only blocked by the previous Prime Minister. One can hope that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), has seen the error of his ways. I noticed that he did not feature in the Division Lobby opposing the VAT increase—perhaps we have persuaded him, after all, that his views on VAT were unwise. We have succeeded where the shadow Chancellor failed.
We have heard legitimate concerns about how the most vulnerable in society will be protected, but we have sought to provide such protection in the Budget. For example, we have committed to the uprating of the basic state pension through a triple guarantee of earnings prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest, from April 2011. We have taken steps to increase the child tax credit.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to say a few things in conclusion to our debate about the panic Budget that has been sped through this place. To all those who have observed these debates about the Budget and the Finance Bill, it is now clear that the Budget is born not of economic necessity, but of political anxiety—anxiety that, if Liberal Democrat Members are allowed to see any more evidence of the damage that the Budget is doing to confidence and growth, they will remember where they buried their Keynesian tradition, disinter it and refuse the Chancellor their support.
The great question that this Budget and Finance Bill should have answered is how do we lock in the recovery that Labour left? Winning that recovery dominated our final two years of office. Not since 1945 has the world been hit by a recession on the scale of that which hit our shores in 2008. The global economy shrank by some 1% for the first time since the war, G7 economies shrank by some 3% and world trade fell by some 12%. What started as a collapse in confidence on Wall street rapidly infected the world’s financial system and triggered a disastrous domino-like collapse in confidence among markets throughout the world. No country, not least one of the world’s great trading nations, could be isolated from its effect, and we were not.
Kelvin Hopkins
My right hon. Friend referred to the 1940s, when the deficit was massively higher than it is now. Of course, the magnificent Labour Government of 1945-51 grew their way out of problems by keeping full employment and public spending going.
Mr Byrne
Precisely. The Minister could not understand that point from his own Budget, but I shall explain it in more depth in a moment.
On Friday this week, we will be able to test the durability of the recovery that Labour delivered. Almost two years on from the oil price hitting $147 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Office for National Statistics will publish growth figures for the second quarter of 2010, which I am sure all hon. Members await with some interest. But this much we already know. The ONS has told us that our economy has grown by 0.7% since its low point last year; that growth in the first quarter of 2010 was some £8 billion larger than it was in the final quarter of 2009; and that output is growing by about £88 million a day.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has also already estimated that output in the second quarter of this year could hit 0.7%. If that comes to pass, it will be no mean achievement, especially when our neighbours tell us precisely how hard it is to sustain recovery. In the first quarter of this year, our last quarter in office, growth in this country reached 0.3%. In Germany, it was lower; in France, it was lower still; in the eurozone, it was lower; and Spain, Ireland and Greece are all forecast to see negative growth this year. Labour is proud to be the party of the recovery, and the question that the Bill should have answered is, how do we guarantee the recovery’s future?
We are proud to have been the party that brought together a global response to the recession. Here in London, countries from throughout the world agreed a plan, including a £1.1 trillion support package, that helped to ensure the revision of global growth from 1.9% last year up to 3.5% this year. We are very proud to be the party that stopped the British banking system collapsing in the face of its exposure to melting international credit systems, and we are very proud to be the party that put in place here at home the most comprehensive recovery plan to protect people’s jobs from the axe, homes from repossession and employers from liquidation.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman quotes ONS statistics, but he will also be aware of how last week the ONS reported that, from peak to trough, the British economy declined by 6.7%—more than any other industrialised economy. Is he also proud of that?
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to intervene again. The 6.7% decline was bigger than that of any other industrialised economy; no other economy racked up a debt, both visible and unofficial, at the rate that we did; and no other economy pumped in £200 billion of its own printed money, the results of which we still do not know. He might be proud of the results that he thinks have been achieved, but the full consequences of the Labour party’s actions over the past two or three years are not yet known and may be much worse than we know them to be today.
Mr Byrne
Let us come to that point directly. If we want to understand the difference between our parties, we need only compare the recession that we have been through in the past two years with the one presided over by the Conservative party. Unemployment in this recession is half what it was during the recession of the 1990s. Furthermore, repossessions are 40% lower and company insolvencies are running at about a third of the rate reached in the 1990s recession. We Labour Members believe that it is right to act to protect people’s jobs and homes and the firms that they work in.
Stewart Hosie
Much as I like the shadow Chief Secretary and much as he is doing a sterling job in attacking this new nasty Con-Dem Government, a wee bit of revisionism is going on here. The UK did not lead the way. The fiscal stimulus packages in the United States, France, Japan and even Germany predated the United Kingdom’s. If there were a bit more reality in this, there would be a lot more credibility to the attacks that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to level at the new Government.
Mr Byrne
It would be churlish of the hon. Gentleman not to acknowledge the role that the Labour Government played in bringing the G20 to London and agreeing a £1.1 trillion package of support, as well as the measures on international banking reform. All that ensured that whereas fairly low levels of growth in world trade and world economic improvement were projected last year, we are now looking at a significantly better picture. Surely he will acknowledge that.
Stewart Hosie
I supported fiscal stimulus; I still support fiscal stimulus when it is necessary. The question is not what may or may not have been spun at a G20 meeting, but why the Labour Government left the UK as one of only two G20 countries without a fiscal stimulus package in 2010. I welcome banking regulation, but given that Northern Rock began to collapse in the late summer of 2007, why will the real new banking regulation that we need still not be in place until the autumn of 2012?
Toby Perkins
I should like to bring my right hon. Friend back to what he was talking about—unemployment, housing, the impact on people and how the last Labour Government protected people on the ground. Is it not strange that there seems to be no acknowledgment from those on the Government Benches about how many extra people are in work and still have the homes for which they have worked so hard all their lives? There seems to be no acknowledgment from the Conservative party that that issue is worth worrying about. Perhaps that is because they were not the people who lost their jobs or were in danger of losing their homes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I press hon. Members to make shorter interventions. The shadow Chief Secretary is being generous; may that continue.
Mr Byrne
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I want to pursue the argument for a moment longer. The implication of the intervention by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) is that somehow there was a cut-price way for us to have ensured the recovery, which is now under way in this country. Sometimes when I listen to Conservative Members, I cannot make out whether their preference is simply to have done nothing during the past two years or whether it is that we should have invented some kind of cut-price plan to kick-start the recovery. Sometimes I feel that there is an illusion on the Government Benches that we could have rummaged around in a Budget bargain basement and found a Ryanair, cut-price, no-frills plan that would have delivered the economic growth that this country is now experiencing.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
What we are criticising is how the debt was built up prior to the economy going into freefall. Public spending in many areas doubled, yet productivity did not increase. Between 1997 and 2007, productivity went up by 2.3% in the private sector, but fell by 0.3% in the public sector. What we had was years and years of waste.
Mr Byrne
Perhaps the hon. Lady could explain why the Conservatives supported our spending plans until 2008. As for public sector productivity, she will know as well as I do that if more medical staff are put on to nurse patients, one might get a higher survival rate and better care, but such outputs do not show up in the cold light of productivity statistics.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman talked about an illusion, and we can trade statistics back and forth, but at the election the ultimate judgment came down to the British people, who judged that Labour had failed to regenerate the economy and offer a way forward. That was the ultimate judgment, as opposed to the rose-tinted spectacles that he appears to be looking through.
Mr Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of mandates. If one thing is clear in the debates that we have had in the months since the election, it is that there is absolutely no mandate for the VAT measure in the Finance Bill. I would be interested to hear how he is explaining that to his constituents.
I do not believe—nor have I heard any explanation of this—that some kind of recovery plan on the cheap could have delivered the economic recovery that is now under way. In life’s difficult moments, one is always open to advice, but the truth is that if we had followed the prescription of the Conservatives, we could have kissed goodbye to the recovery, not least because our banking system would have collapsed, the cash points would have stopped, the dole queues would have spiralled, repossessions would have spiked, and Britain’s small businesses would have been submerged beneath a wave of foreclosure, bankruptcy and liquidation.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
In August and September 2007, when I and some others were urging the Government to make more cash and liquidity available to the banking system to prevent the collapse of Northern Rock and others, why did they ignore our warning? Why did they lecture the banks about having got it wrong, instead of supplying reasonable amounts of money to see them through, and then bankrupt them as a result?
Mr Byrne
I seem to remember that the Government’s response to the banking system was opposed by the Conservatives when it came down to the substance of a vote. When legislation was brought before this House to accelerate the way in which the banks could be sorted out, the Conservatives voted against it.
In the Budget and the Finance Bill, the Conservatives should have centred their rationale on how the recovery can be sustained. In the debates on those measures, I think we have established that there is a consensus that the deficit has to come down. The price of dodging an economic doomsday was not cheap, and the deficit was bound to rise. However, when the shocks hit back in 2008, we had the second lowest debt in the G7. Between 1997 and 2007, we cut public sector debt from 42.5% of gross domestic product to 36% of GDP. Over the 10 years before the crisis, UK borrowing averaged 1.4% of GDP compared with 1.9% for the rest of the OECD economies. As a result, even amid the current expense, our national debt will simply rise in line with every other major economy.
We have learned something from the debates on the Finance Bill and the Budget about the disposition—the economic philosophy—not only of the Conservatives but of the Liberal Democrats. They may feel that the price of recovery was not a price worth paying, but they cannot ignore what economic statistics are now saying about how the recovery is improving the position of the public finances. In March, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor told the House that the deficit this year was £13 billion better than expected for 2010-11; in June, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that it was £8 billion better even than that. Since February, £123 billion has been knocked off projections for national debt, and that is before we sell our shares in the banks. The Government’s budget was underspent last year to the tune of £5 billion according to Treasury figures that we saw a week or two ago, and interest rates were falling in the months before the election.
When we examine the savings generated by falling unemployment, we can really see the wisdom of a strategy that hinges on growing our way out of recession. Our policy all along was to act to ensure that we kept unemployment down. Not only did that policy work well, and not only was it morally right, but it was economically wise. Our policy has delivered unemployment that is 2% lower than either in America or across the European Union. In the Budget in 2009, we had to assume that unemployment would stick at about 2.44 million. A year later, in the 2010 Budget, that forecast had fallen by 700,000 people to 1.74 million. That meant that over the four years from 2010 to 2013, there would have been a fall of £14 billion in the unemployment benefit bill, as well as an incalculable saving in human misery.
With that inherited recovery in place, the question that the House should ask in relation to the Finance Bill is what action should be taken to speed up the recovery. How can we guarantee the recovery’s certainty and begin to marshal investment into rebuilding an economy that is better balanced? Instead of providing any answers to those questions, the Budget and the Finance Bill will slow the recovery down and put more people on the dole. They offer a strategy for rebalancing the economy composed in equal measure of a wing and a prayer.
Nothing better illustrates the gambling instincts of this Government than the fast cuts to public sector jobs and the depression of consumer demand through VAT. With the most breathtaking casualness, they are prepared to put our hardest-fought recovery at risk. With such an unlikely scenario for growth in his pocket, one would have thought that the Chancellor might just hedge his bets a little and ensure that the private sector was creating jobs at some pace before bringing forward plans to sack up to 800,000 public servants. One might have thought that he would have some regard for cities such as my home town, Birmingham. It already has high unemployment, but if the Chancellor cuts 9% of the 156,000 public sector workers there, it will potentially rise by 14,000 people. That will not help the recovery in Birmingham; it will act as a drag anchor on recovery. That story can be told in towns and cities all over the country.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
On precisely that point about the different levels of private sector job creation and public sector job losses around the country, was my right hon. Friend worried to see the Oxford Economics report of last week predicting that in Wales, for example, just 4,000 jobs will be created, which represents 0.3% growth over the next five years? That will lead to significant net increases in unemployment in Wales and the report predicted that we would not see a return to the current levels of employment until 2025. The picture is similar in the west midlands and other areas across the country.
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend highlights the second risk that I wish to move on to. With risks so great, and talked about so freely and with such casualness, one would have thought that at the very least, the Finance Bill would contain one or two more measures to encourage the growth of domestic demand instead of measures to try to tax it back into recession.
The truth is that the Bill attacks domestic demand with such viciousness that the country is now hoarding its silver at an almost unprecedented pace. Britain’s families and businesses now have so little confidence in the future of the economy that rather than make the odd investment here and there, they have tucked away something of the order of £130 billion in the bank as the household saving rate has escalated. Britain is now saving money that is not being spent either in the shops or on building new factories or production lines. The Budget has not restored confidence but is draining it fast.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Justine Greening
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he thinks the savings ratio is too high and that we should encourage people to go out and spend, spend, spend even if they cannot afford it?
Mr Byrne
No. I am saying that the country’s investors now have so little confidence in the economic plan that they would rather save their money than dare to invest it in productive capacity and growth for the future.
Let us look at some of the measures that show the decline in confidence. The Bank of England says that mortgage approvals fell in June; last month, the consumer confidence index fell for the first time in a long time; and yesterday, Rightmove told us that house prices have been cut for the first time this year. The Budget and the Bill are putting Britain’s recovery in the slow lane. The greatest irony of all is that we must all pay more as a consequence.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned two aspects of aggregate demand—consumer spending and Government spending—but is he also concerned that the Government are depending partly on an increase in exports, because all the indications are that the markets in Europe and America will not be as buoyant as was assumed? Therefore, all three major areas of aggregate demand will be subject to downward pressure.
Mr Byrne
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. The evidence on that is mixed. The CBI industrial production survey, which was published earlier this afternoon, shows that manufacturers reported that the second quarter of this year was good and that they have a degree of confidence in exports. However, the problem is that the OBR is projecting a £100 billion increase in exports over the next four or five years. That is the equivalent of our exports to America tripling, our exports to China going up by something like 20 times, and our exports to India going up by something like 40 times. That may well come to pass, but it is safe to say that very few people would bet on it. That is why the Opposition believe that the Government should do a little more to nurture both domestic business investment and domestic demand.
The alternatives for reducing the deficit that we have rehearsed in the past couple of weeks bear a final word this afternoon. I want to return to the explanation of the difference between the scorecard projections for tax growth and what the OBR said would come through the door, which the Exchequer Secretary struggled with earlier. The point centres on how much growth will contribute to paying down the deficit over the next four years. The Labour Government’s deficit reduction plan projected that the deficit would be reduced by something of the order of £78 billion over the next four years, and the OBR inconveniently told the Chancellor that we were on course to deliver that. That plan involved £57 billion-worth of discretionary action, which was set out in detail in chapter 6 of the March Budget—£19 billion in tax increases and £38 billion of spending cuts. However, £21 billion of the deficit was projected to be closed by the economy returning to growth, with higher tax receipts and lower benefit bills.
The June Budget appears to hit growth so hard that £9 billion of extra tax is necessary to make good the effect of lower growth. That is the price of slowing the recovery. The Liberal Democrats are awfully pleased that they got an increase in income tax thresholds, and I congratulate them on securing that concession, but the truth is that they have been sold a pup. They could have had the increase in the threshold they originally wanted if we did not have to pay for the cost of lost growth.
The Budget scorecard on page 40 of the Red Book says that by rights, the Chancellor’s decision ought to bring in an extra £8.2 billion in tax by 2014-15, but the OBR says that only £3.1 billion will actually come through the door, because growth will be depressed so much by the Budget. The Red Book goes on to say—on page 97, table C9—that something like £9 billion in extra taxes and spending cuts are necessary because of this go-slow Budget. In other words, the Government have almost halved the contribution of growth to closing the deficit. It is now quite clear to the House that although the Government may have lost their monetarists, they have certainly not lost their masochists.
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman was comparing the growth forecast of the previous Government to that of the current Government. Is not the truth that the forecasts of the previous Government were made up by Ministers whereas the forecasts we are looking at today were made up by the independent OBR? He talks about selling a pup, but was not the pup the forecasts of the previous Government?
Mr Byrne
I hope that at some point in his future illustrious career in this House the hon. Gentleman has the chance to put that argument to the chief economist of the Treasury, David Ramsden. The growth forecasts that were published in our Budget were set out by Treasury civil servants. Like me, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the rebound in growth that was projected by the then Chancellor—now the shadow Chancellor—was very much in line with the rebound in growth that we saw after recessions in the 1980s and 1990s, but it was supported by far stronger monetary policy action. We were comfortable with the growth forecasts that we presented. The hon. Gentleman will have to reconcile himself in the months to come to the impact of slower growth and the fact that we are now having to put taxes up—something that I always thought the Conservatives opposed—because demand has been depressed to such an extent.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Only this morning in the Treasury Committee we were talking with Sir Alan Budd and some of the members of the OBR, who made it clear that their role in challenging Treasury forecasters was strong and robust. They see the role of the OBR—as confirmed by Dave Ramsden when he was interviewed—as extremely positive. In fact, Mr Ramsden said that the OBR has achieved, in transparency terms, 20 years of progress in eight weeks.
Mr Byrne
The hon. Lady is right to underline the virtues of the OBR. I, too, welcome it, which is why it is so regrettable that it moved forward its press releases and gave the appearance of supporting the Prime Minister through what was a sticky Prime Minister’s questions. I look forward to the day when Members of Parliament have the right to appoint the leadership of the OBR, just as I look forward to the day that we have the right to appoint leaders of the Office of Tax Simplification, who—we learned this afternoon—appear to have been appointed on some kind of whim.
My final point is the basic failure of fairness in the Bill. The truth is that the Government were so embarrassed—perhaps some of their members were even slightly ashamed—that the Budget was so regressive that they only dared describe its effects flattered by Labour measures and three years before the full horrors take effect. We did not hear a word from the Government about the £8 billion hit that our country’s pensioners will take in new VAT bills. Nor were we told about the £70 million of extra, irrecoverable VAT that our charities will now pay.
We gave both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats a chance to vote for an amendment to delay the VAT increase until a plan was in place to compensate pensioners and charities fully, and they voted against it. The public will draw only one conclusion—that this Government simply do not care. If I am not mistaken, the entire contribution of the big society bank that Labour created will be wiped out by the VAT increase—[Interruption.] I hear protests from the other side of the House. If they read the March Budget they will see clearly set out the measures to recycle dormant accounts into the social investment wholesale bank. The proposals appeared under that heading in many manifestos.
What a cruel con trick to perform on some of Britain’s most deserving. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that he wanted to put some oomph into Britain’s communities. Many of us would agree that it was a phrase worthy of the Mayor of London. This Budget tells us that the only thing going into communities from this Government will be the boot. That is why we will campaign up and down the country for a proper plan for growth and jobs, and for proper protection from this Budget for our pensioners. It is also why we will oppose this Bill in the Lobby tonight.
Matthew Hancock
I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to the then Chancellor, who expressed his gratitude to the then Opposition Conservative party for the support it gave him during September 2008. That is often forgotten on the Labour Benches.
On the evidence, one of the central questions to which we return time and again in this debate is whether there is a contradiction between dealing with the deficit and getting growth. It is clear that the Labour Front-Bench team think that those two things are entirely in contradiction. However, I want to consider the evidence for whether that is true. We all know that, in the long term, tackling the deficit is unavoidable—occasionally that is even acknowledged by those on the Labour Front Bench. Any child born is born with £23,000 of debt, and under the former Government’s plans, interest payments would have amounted to £70 billion a year, which could otherwise have been spent on important public spending.
There is also a question, in the shorter term, of whether fiscal responsibility can lead to growth. I was interested in this, so I went to look at some of the evidence. There is a very good literature review by Alberto Alesina, who, having described the argument that there is only either fiscal consolidation or growth, wrote that
“the accumulated evidence paints a different picture… Many even sharp reductions of budget deficits have been accompanied and immediately followed by sustained growth… These are the adjustments which have occurred on the spending side and have been large, credible and decisive.”
If the shadow Minister thinks that the Budget was large, credible and decisive, I would be happy to hear from him.
Mr Byrne
I understand the debating technique that the hon. Gentleman is adopting—trying to set up a straw man in order to knock it down—but our deficit reduction plan contained £57 billion of decisions relating to fiscal consolidation alongside £22 billion of growth. Fiscal consolidation was not posed as an alternative to growth; actually the two things were seen very much as twins.
Matthew Hancock
Unfortunately, those from whom the previous Government had borrowed so much did not see a credible plan from the Labour party. That is why we have had to introduce the emergency Budget, so that we could put that credible plan in place. Since the election, there have been downgrades in the debt of many of our competitors, so it is critical that we have managed to put that triple A rating on to a sustainable basis.
I want to go through three reasons why a fiscal consolidation can lead to growth. The first, of course, concerns interest rates. The long-term interest rates at which many companies around the country borrow—they include those in my constituency, and no doubt those of all other Members—have fallen. In fact, since the election the 10-year rate has fallen from 3.88 to 3.44%, which represents more than a 10% fall in the funding costs of companies up and down the country. Of course, that was not taken into account in the two productions of the Office for Budget Responsibility analysis, which is why a direct comparison of the two is, as stated by Sir Alan Budd, misleading.
Matthew Hancock
My hon. Friend is getting a reputation for making extremely good interventions, and that was one of them. Fiscal consolidation also means that interest rates can be held lower for longer by the independent Bank of England, which is a second important channel through which economic growth can be supported, and not opposed, by fiscal consolidation.
Mr Byrne
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest. He will have worked at the Bank of England for long enough to be able to read bond yields. Like me, he will have noticed that they were actually coming down from late 2008, down to a low point in February, not least because there was a flight to safety in the European bond markets. As people began to worry about what was going on in the eurozone, they chose to transfer to safer assets, including UK gilts. That was because there was credibility in what was the fastest and clearest deficit reduction plan of any country in the G7.
Matthew Hancock
Of course, the bond market could see a Conservative—or coalition—Government coming, and that is exactly what happened. I will say this to the right hon. Gentleman: when there is a flight to safety, I would rather it was to British bonds, not to bonds overseas, which is what could easily happen if we did not have a credible policy.
Office of Tax Simplification
Liam Byrne Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the structure and approach of the Office of Tax Simplification.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the establishment of the Office of Tax Simplification, further to the written ministerial statement that I laid before the House this morning.
The need for simplification in the UK tax system is clear. The quality of our tax law is a major determinant of our economic competitiveness. A complex tax system creates uncertainty and instability, which sends the wrong signal to international businesses looking to invest in the UK and so damages our economic growth. A complex tax system also means that businesses end up spending more time dealing with their tax affairs and less time on their core business. That can be particularly burdensome for smaller businesses.
We set out our proposed approach for reforming the tax policy-making process in a discussion document that was published alongside the Budget last month, but as well as reforming the way in which we develop new tax law, there is also significant work to be done to correct the mistakes of the past by reducing the complexity in the British tax system. That is where the Office of Tax Simplification comes into play.
In his Budget statement of 22 June, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed our plans to establish the Office of Tax Simplification. Today, we have done so. The OTS will advise Treasury Ministers on delivering a simpler tax system, drawing together expertise from throughout the tax and legal professions as well as from business and other interested parties, to provide advice on options for addressing existing complexity in the tax system. Its objective will be to reduce the burden of compliance for both businesses and individuals. The OTS will do that by advising the Government on where, in its expert view, the tax system is too complex and could be simplified, and by conducting inquiries into complex areas of the tax system, gathering evidence and suggesting options for reform.
The office will publish a report on each of its inquiries, detailing the evidence that it has collected, the views of interested parties, its analysis of potential reform options and proposals for simplifications. Either the Chancellor or I will discuss the findings of each report with members of the OTS board. The first such inquiry will be a review of all reliefs in the tax system. The OTS will review the full list of reliefs and identify those that should be repealed or simplified to create a simpler tax system. The second review will focus on simplifying the tax system for small businesses and the specific question of finding a simpler alternative to IR35.
The OTS will be led by an externally appointed and unpaid chairman and tax director, who will be supported in undertaking their duties by a secretariat of civil servants and private sector secondees. The chairman and the tax director will have complete control over forming the OTS’s judgments and will be accountable to Parliament for their advice. Michael Jack will be the interim chairman, and John Whiting has agreed to be the interim tax director. Together they will lead the establishment of the OTS and the reviews that it conducts in its first year. Over the summer, John Whiting will lead the appointment of the permanent secretariat, so that the first reviews can begin by early September. He will also establish committees over the summer to steer the OTS’s work and ensure close consultation with all interested parties. The committees will include experts from the tax and legal professions, the business community and other interested parties.
Making the right reforms to the tax system will help to pave the way for bringing more international business to the UK, which will give our economy the boost that it so urgently needs in the years ahead. We commend the creation of this body.
Mr Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his statement. He will hear this afternoon that there is wide-ranging interest in the questions that he has raised, which is why it was all the more unacceptable that the statement was delivered at a press conference before it was made to Members. That, I am afraid, is becoming a pattern of behaviour. First, £6 billion of spending cuts were announced in the Treasury courtyard rather than in the Palace of Westminster. Then the approach to the spending review was announced in a press conference, not in this Chamber. Then reforms to the institutional arrangements for bank regulation were briefed to newspapers before the House was told. Then plans for a bank levy were outlined in a speech in the City, not from the Treasury Bench. If we wanted a timely reminder of the importance of the first debate to be held on business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee—on information relating to statements—the hon. Gentleman has just given us one.
Let me turn to the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s announcement. From all parts of the House this afternoon he will hear an endorsement of the principles of a simpler tax system that allows people to focus on their business affairs and profitability. He will see, too, an endorsement of the use of outside experts; that is nothing novel. But will he confirm the answers to a couple of questions about the office’s scope? If he is all for simplification, will the Office of Tax Simplification be advising him on his proposals to complicate the tax system by introducing a marriage tax allowance, all for the sake of sending an ineffective £3-a-week signal about his party’s views on what a family should look like? Will the office be advising the Chancellor either to advance or to drop those plans, and if so, on what timetable?
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Office of Tax Simplification will be advising him on dropping the measures announced in the Budget to increase the number of people facing marginal deduction rates of more than 90%? And if he is all for simplicity, why is the Treasury briefing that it wants a more complicated stamp duty system in connection with energy conservation in housing?
Secondly, there are a series of questions to be asked about the nature of the new beast that the hon. Gentleman has told us about this afternoon. We have heard a lot of talk in recent weeks about the Chancellor’s push for a bonfire of the quangos. Can the Minister tell us how much the new office will cost? Can he promise us that this is the last quango that the Treasury will announce this year? Can he tell the House how Mr Jack was appointed, and whether his appointment is fully in line with Nolan principles? What reassurances can the hon. Gentleman give the House this afternoon that, unlike the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Chancellor’s last independent creation, this office will not release its reports to help the Prime Minister get through a sticky Prime Minister’s Question Time?
Simplification is a good thing, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. But I am afraid that today’s announcement sounds rather more like an attempt to grab headlines than like real evidence of a push to improve legislation—legislation that is the responsibility of this House.
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman requested an urgent question because he had prepared a speech and had forgotten that this development was announced in the Budget on 22 June. The creation of this organisation was not only in the Conservative party manifesto and the coalition agreement; it was also announced to the House on 22 June by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Today we have announced the appointment of two distinguished individuals to perform the task that we have already set out. The misplaced outrage from the right hon. Gentleman is extraordinary, particularly given the record of the previous Government in this regard.
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman recognises, at last, the need for a simpler tax system and for outside experts to be involved in the tax system. We think that an important point; we have to make use of the expertise in the tax and legal professions, and the OTS is but one example of how we will do that, along with the creation of a business forum and a tax professional forum. All that will add to the sense of co-operation that exists in our tax system and the sense that the system can become an asset, not a liability—as, sadly, it had become under our predecessors.
The purpose of the OTS is to look at the stock of tax law—the thousands of pages of tax law in this country, which has the longest tax code in the world. It is an attempt to examine the existing tax code to make recommendations for simplification. All decisions will be made by Ministers accountable to the House. Parliament will continue to make tax law, but clearly the use of independent experts and publication of their recommendations and analyses will be a useful addition to our tax system.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the appointment process. These are interim appointments; we believed that it was important to establish the OTS quickly. The appointments will be there for 12 months, at which point we will go through the usual process of appointment for permanent appointees. In that 12-month period Mr Whiting and Mr Jack will add a great deal to our tax system, will establish the OTS—[Interruption.] In spite of that attack on the appointees, John Whiting, for example, has advised Opposition parties, including the Labour party in the past few weeks. These are well-established individuals. Michael Jack was a distinguished Minister in this area, who established the tax law rewrite project, and we think that that is useful experience.
As for the cost, I know that the view of the Labour party in government is that quangos must always cost a great deal of money—but Mr Jack and Mr Whiting are not being paid for this. The cost of the secretariat will be paid out of existing Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs budgets. This is good value for money, it will be a good contribution to our tax system, and we are very proud to announce it.
Finance Bill
Liam Byrne Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Redwood
That is what I am trying to explain, while remaining in order on this narrow amendment. The bottom line of my case is that motorists comprise a large category and, when polled, they say that they feel badly done by because they pay a disproportionate amount of tax and do not get much back. It is argued that motorists ought to pay more because they get the use of the roads, which are provided free at the point of use in most cases. It is not like that, however, because the bulk of the taxes levied on the motorist, including this insurance premium tax, are used for purposes other than roads and motoring. That is why motorists feel hard done by.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider carefully the general category of the motorist. I would love it if he could make a concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, but if he cannot, it would help us and the people we represent if he could say that the Government were at least aware of the bad deal that the motorist has been getting in recent years, and that, where possible, they will do something about that. As we have heard, people in rural areas have no choice; they have to use their cars. People in urban and suburban areas also have no choice at certain times of the day or at weekends. People who work antisocial hours clearly need a car. Most MPs need a car, for example, because we still work antisocial hours.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with some care. He said that motorists get only a limited amount back from the taxes that they put in. Does he therefore support arguments in favour of the greater hypothecation of taxes such as the insurance premium tax, to help to resolve that problem?
Mr Redwood
No, I do not. I am sufficiently in tune with Treasury thinking to know that all Treasuries under any Government hate hypothecation, and I understand the complication. Critics of motoring and cars often argue that motorists are walking off with all these free goods, but people have come up with lots of figures that show conclusively that, in a hypothecated way, motorists get a particularly poor deal. People now look at these issues in such a way partly because the green movement has made them do so. It has now been demonstrated that, calculated in a hypothecated way, motorists put in a lot more than they get back. I do not think that the Treasury should operate all its taxation on that basis, but it does need to take account of the mood and the politics surrounding this question, which we are here to represent.
The feeling of unfairness is now quite extreme among the motoring community, and motorists want to communicate through us the fact that they are often motorists because they have to be. There is no train to take them to the shops, for example. The train might be 2 miles away from their home so, unless they have plenty of time to walk to the station, they need to start their journey in the car and sometimes they might as well finish it in the car as well. There is often no alternative, which is why some 86% of our journey miles are carried out by car, and only some 6% by train. There is a basic necessity, which is why we need to be fair when making any tax proposals affecting motorists.
The case of private health insurance is somewhat different, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would agree. I make my declaration: I have no private health insurance, so I am not arguing my own case. I rely on the NHS, should ill health befall me, as I am sure do many other Members. However, I am not saying that some of my constituents are wrong to take out private health insurance. It is still a legal thing to do. Indeed, in a way, I feel that I am cheap-skating at their expense, because they are paying twice and I am paying only once. I pay my taxes, and if something happens to me, I hope to receive NHS care, whereas they contribute to everyone else’s NHS care through their taxes—they have no choice, of course, but some of them do it graciously—and then make the additional choice to pay for their own insurance. There is a double advantage: more money comes into the health sector, but when those people become ill they make no claim on the health service, even though they contribute to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is making a reasonable point. Given that it is not illegal to have private insurance, and that those who have it help to eke out NHS funds, should we be taxing it more? That is a very good question to raise. I shall make no stronger statement than that, but it will be interesting to see how the Treasury responds. After all, on this side of the House, we are all now big society fans and advocates—[Interruption.] Well, practically all of us, perhaps. There might be one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are not so enthusiastic about it, but I am; I think it is a great idea. The essence of the big society idea is to harness private money, voluntary effort and charitable activity, and to understand that the state cannot solve all the problems. In a complex, difficult and expensive area such as health care and related social care, we need voluntary and private contributions as top-ups, or in addition to public sector care.
This issue poses a particularly interesting question for Ministers. If they are really serious about the big society idea, do they want to increase the taxes on people who make voluntary contributions and take some of the demand away from public services? Ought they not to be encouraging people to do such things? I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s reply to these nice philosophical questions in this wonderful caring, sharing age of coalition government, in which the big society will require some erosion of the old boundaries between public and private.
Mr Byrne
It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). The strength of their contributions was in illustrating that the proposals in clause 4 raise a wide range of policy concerns and debates. Hitherto, the House has not had much explanation of the logic or rationale of all the changes set out in the clause. The arguments for some of the proposals are fairly easy to deduce, but the core of the clause is the increase in the standard rate of insurance premium tax, which has not been explained.
The lack of explanation underlines the fact that the Bill is somewhat piecemeal. It is fragmented. It is not a whole Bill; it is not even a half Bill; it is a bit of a Bill. We were told with great fanfare a few weeks ago that the Government were introducing an emergency Budget. The Bill and the clause illustrate in our debate this afternoon that the only emergency was the need to get some pretty difficult changes on to the statute book by the summer, before Liberal Democrat members on the Treasury Bench got cold feet or had, dare I suggest, too many conversations with their constituents.
So the result of that emergency—something that some would uncharitably call a panic—is a Finance Bill with measures such as clause 4 that so far are bereft of logical explanation. The strategy has also produced clause 5, which we shall debate later this afternoon, which withdraws tax legislation without putting anything back in its place. Where there is certainty, the Government in their panic have decided to substitute mystery. So much for the simplification credentials.
The effect of clause 4 on one level, as I have said, is reasonably straightforward. It raises the higher rate of insurance premium tax from 17.5% to 20%. That would appear to be a fairly automatic consequence of the decision to raise VAT to 20%. The higher rate of IPT was introduced in 1999 to prevent a problem called value shifting, whereby some retailers and other producers tried to lower prices of goods and bundle them with insurance policies, for which they redeemed some of the value. I was not sure whether that was some of the financial innovation that the hon. Member for Dundee East was beginning to welcome in his remarks. Perhaps he will say more about that a little later.
Mr Byrne
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. The answer is that I do not know. It is a mystery. The Budget scorecard has a certain number, but of course it has bundled together the revenue that is to be raised from the increase in the higher rate and the increase in the standard rate. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
It is possible to deduce why the higher rate has gone up, but it is curious that the Government have chosen to increase the standard rate. We have to assess that decision alongside the decision to preserve exemptions and zero-rating from VAT on a range of goods and services. We were told on Tuesday night by the Economic Secretary that the existing zero ratings and exemptions would be kept in place for the course of this Parliament. That commitment was given to the House on Tuesday night, and we will all watch the Government’s adherence to it with a great deal of attention over the next few years. That decision to keep in place a series of zero ratings and exemptions just adds to the mystery of why this standard rate has been singled out for such an enormous rise.
Chris Leslie
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. Many pensioners in my constituency will be oblivious to the impact that this stealthy tax rise from the Government will have on them, especially as they are diligent in keeping up with their contents insurance, buildings insurance and motor insurance. In many ways, the Government are grinding the burden of taxation on their shoulders. My amendment on advertising the increase in IPT was not selected. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of the Treasury’s imposition should be more prominently displayed on policy documents so that at least pensioners are aware of what the Government are doing?
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend raises an extremely significant point. I am sorry that his amendment was not selected. The insurance industry will almost certainly pass on the increased taxes directly to consumers. That has been the history of increases in this kind of tax. So there is a strong case for advertising the increase more widely. I am sure that all of us as politicians will do our level best to make the news known in our constituencies.
Mr Bone
Is the shadow Minister saying now that he would support the private Member’s Transparent Taxation (Receipts) Bill—something in which the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means had a slight interest in a previous life—which required that receipts showed how much tax and duty had been paid so that they were better advertised?
Mr Byrne
I have not studied the Bill, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to my attention. We have had good debates over the past two or three weeks about the need for greater transparency both in economic policy making and in tax policy. The Bill certainly sounds as though it would contribute to that agenda.
The hon. Member for Christchurch raised a number of public policy points. He did not dwell much on the impact of the new charges on low income groups, and I should like to touch on that different policy question. It is important that we debate it this afternoon. The Association of British Insurers has argued for a long time that the tax is regressive. IPT has been raised in the past by Conservative and Labour Governments, and the ABI has been consistent:
“IPT is a regressive tax. It imposes a disproportionate burden on the less well off individuals and the smallest businesses. These are most likely to need the protection of insurance.”
Given those arguments, we deserve a full and thorough explanation of the public policy rationale for introducing such taxes.
We have heard about the impact that the tax will have on consumers. The hon. Member for Christchurch did not remind us of his distinguished career as a Transport Minister, but he understands well the impact of higher rates on, for example, car insurance. In the days shortly after the Budget, The Guardian told us that the average car insurance buyer would pay about £18 a year more in tax. The AA said that the bill would be slightly higher—at least another 35 quid on an average insurance policy. The right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke eloquently about the impact that the increase will have on young drivers. Some press reports estimated that the bill would rise by only £15, but the intimation in the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and those of the hon. Member for Christchurch, was that it might be a little higher. Of course the increase comes at a time when car insurance premiums have been rising consistently for the last 12 months.
There will be an impact on travel insurance, to which Members have alluded, but many Opposition Members are particularly worried about increases in the cost of general household insurance. Many of us serve constituencies with high rates of poverty and worklessness and many areas, including some in my constituency, are also troubled by relatively high rates of crime, with drug use fuelling burglary. Over the short number of years that I have served in the House, I have seen many constituents who did not have insurance and lost everything in burglaries and had to rebuild their lives, sometimes from scratch. The ABI has told us that for the average household a 1% increase in IPT will put at least another £8 a year on the general cost of household insurance, taking it up to £850. For many of my constituents, £850 is unaffordable, particularly if they live in areas that attract premiums.
For those reasons, the director general of the ABI has described the move announced by the Chancellor as “regrettable”. Kerrie Kelly, in remarks to which the hon. Member for Dundee East alluded, was clear, saying that the change
“is a direct tax increase for the vast majority of people who sensibly protect themselves.”
The hon. Member for Dundee East also mentioned Eric Galbraith, who said bluntly:
“This is a tax on protection.”
That is a public policy concern which we need to hear more about.
We do not have a theoretical objection to insurance premium tax and, subject to a decent explanation from Treasury Ministers, I do not plan to put our amendment to a vote. The history of IPT is one of consensus. It was introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—now the Lord Chancellor—and increased in 1999 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). None the less, there are some important questions that it is important for the Government to answer this afternoon.
What assessment has been made of the increase in insurance premium tax? I should be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary would set out his assessment of the impact of that hike on Britain’s pensioners? What will be the impact of the increase on the availability of general household insurance for people on low wages? Why is he raising the rate from 17.5% to 20%? Is it to preclude the value shifting that was the inspiration for the rate change in 1996? Most important, why is he raising the standard rate from 5% to 10%? Can he confirm that it is not the Government’s policy to harmonise the standard rate with levels across Europe?
In 1999, when Labour raised the IPT rate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo), then the Paymaster General, was clear on the matter. She said:
“Rates vary tremendously across Europe, but they are significantly higher than in the UK, which has one of the lowest rates.”
It was put to her that the rise was part of a wider, hidden plan to increase the rate successively to levels in Europe, but my right hon. Friend was clear:
“The increase does not signal a future change.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 June 1999; c. 642.]
I should like the same assurance from Ministers on the Treasury Bench this afternoon. Can the Exchequer Secretary confirm that the change is not part of a plan successively to increase rates of insurance premium tax to levels across Europe, which amount to 11% at the low end of the range in countries such as Austria and 22% at the higher end in countries such as Italy.
It is important that we have some assurances this afternoon that there will be no further rises in IPT in this Parliament. Subject to satisfactory assurances and explanations of the points I have raised, I would see no need to put the amendment to a vote. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
Mr Gauke
What I can say is that given how IPT is currently structured and where it is levied, it does not apply to long-term insurance; the conclusion to be drawn about something that falls within the definition of long-term insurance is fairly logical.
However, in respect of the types of insurance that are affected, insurers have the right to respond to the tax as they see fit. They are not obliged to pass on IPT through higher premiums. [Interruption.] We recognise that many insurers will pass it on to their customers through higher premiums, but I will not be dragged into the detail of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie).
The question was asked whether further regulation should be imposed on insurers, making them display prominently how much is being paid in IPT. Unlike VAT, IPT is a tax on insurance, so there is no obligation to pass it on or to recover it for businesses. We do not think that that would be appropriate. Insurers are, of course, perfectly free to display the IPT rate on documentation, and many do so. Requiring them to do so, however, would be burdensome and unnecessary.
Mr Gauke
I am not denying that we expect the increase to be passed on predominantly to consumers; we expect that the bulk of it will be. The analysis of VAT, another indirect tax, shows that two thirds tends to be passed on straight away and that much of the rest is passed on over the following 12 months. However, it is not always possible to predict and it partly depends on the level of competition.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining an earlier point that I made—that it is not necessary to introduce regulation in this area. As I say, we anticipate that it will be passed on, but it is not mandatory. I am not denying that position.
Despite these modest impacts, the IPT rate increases will contribute more than £450 million a year to reducing the deficit. As I said, such decisions have been forced on us by the economic circumstances that the UK finds itself in, and they have not been taken lightly. We are confident, however, that this modest rise in IPT, which leaves the main rate of the tax significantly lower than that of many of our European competitors, is a means of raising much-needed revenue that will not have a significant impact on households, businesses or the insurance industry.
Mr Byrne
The Minister is making an argument about choices that are made in order to increase revenue, but I think the Committee is struggling to understand the reason for the increase in the standard rate of IPT. Other choices were available. Why have increases in cider duty been withdrawn, for example, while new taxes are being introduced on insurance?
Mr Gauke
The central point is that the country is in a very difficult position as regards the public finances. I hope that the shadow Chief Secretary is grateful for the fact that I have got this far through a speech without once referring to his letter. With another intervention, I may be tempted to do so. We have made a series of judgments. If he thinks that cider duty is the way to reduce the deficit, I suggest that he is somewhat mistaken.
Amendment 18 would exempt personal health insurance from the increase in the standard rate of IPT, and amendment 19 would do the same in relation to motor insurance. In effect, that would mean creating a new reduced rate of IPT that applied only to private medical insurance and motor insurance. Of course, the Government recognise the value of these types of insurance and, indeed, of insurance more generally.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that we do not disapprove of people taking out private medical insurance—that is not something we wish to prohibit, either in law or by imposing enormous costs on it. In health policy, our focus is of course on improving the national health service, and we have this week set out important proposals on improving the quality of the health service and reducing expenditure on bureaucracy. We are also, as a Government, protecting the NHS from spending cuts, which is not, as I understand it, a policy endorsed by Labour. The purpose behind this tax increase is clearly to raise more revenue—it is not an attempt to try to dissuade people from taking out private health insurance.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his old socialist credentials and his prejudice. I shall not get into a full debate about the NHS, as I hope that we will have an opportunity to do so when the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—which I support—is debated on a Friday in February. Let us not forget that many of our top clinicians stay in this country because they can supply their services to the NHS—[Interruption.] Yes, they do so for money, but they can also top up their income by getting money for providing their services to private patients. That mixed market in health care provision, including the providers of health care, is healthy for our country and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not support it. That is a philosophical divide, but I think that we need the best health practitioners in this country. The private health insurance companies make a significant contribution to the health of the nation.
I shall not go through all the contributions that were made in this debate, but I wish to touch on the motor insurance issue, which found most common cause across the Committee. Because the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) did not seem to be committed to the idea of protecting motorists—especially young motorists and those from areas with high insurance premiums—and did not say that he would support my amendment, he has created a slight difficulty for me.
Mr Chope
The right hon. Gentleman has deployed an old trick. Instead of responding to my challenge, he has put a challenge back to me. He has listened to the same debate as I have, and the Government need to raise money because—as he so candidly recognised—there is no money left. That is one of the reasons behind the insurance premium tax.
Mr Byrne
The hon. Gentleman is being slightly unfair. We had a very different approach to introducing £19 billion of new taxes. The Government have chosen a different course, but they have had to raise so much in VAT and IPT because the Budget so slows down the recovery that £9 billion in extra taxes will have to be raised to make up for the lost growth.
Mr Chope
I shall not get involved in that debate now, because I want to keep the focus on the narrow issues in my amendments. I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond to my concern—echoed by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and others—about the regressive nature of the insurance premium tax, especially on the motoring public. One suggestion I made was that instead of having a standard tax on insurance premiums, we could have an individual transaction tax so that every motorist would pay the same tax for his annual insurance premium.
Oral Answers to Questions
Liam Byrne Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
When the Chancellor rose to give us his Budget a few weeks ago, he promised that he would give it to us straight. He somehow forgot to tell us that Britain’s pensioners may face an £8 billion VAT bill over the course of this Parliament. Given that neither Government party has a mandate for introducing VAT increases, does the Minister agree that, at the very least, this House deserves a report on the impact of VAT on pensioners before the increase comes into effect?
Mr Gauke
We have provided more detail of the distributional impact of this VAT rise than the previous Government ever did or would have done had they increased VAT last December. The fact is that this Chancellor—like this Treasury team—has the courage of his convictions to do the right thing, unlike his predecessors, who neither pursued the policies they believed in nor had a leader they believed in.
Finance Bill
Liam Byrne Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the tables on page 67 of the Red Book. I draw his attention to chart A2, which is on the
“Impact of all measures as a per cent of net income by income distribution”.
He will find that it makes it clear that the impact on the top decile is the highest as a share of income. Other charts make it clear that it is the highest in cash terms and that the impact is broadly progressive across income distribution.
Danny Alexander
I give way to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who tried to intervene first.
Danny Alexander
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a bit rich coming from the Opposition, given that we have set out for the first time in any Budget its distributional impact.
Danny Alexander
I wish to respond fully to the intervention. I will come to the right hon. Gentleman in a little while.
We have taken a number of measures in the Budget, such as the earnings link with pensions, with a triple lock of earnings, prices or 2.5%, which the previous Government never managed in 13 years. That is a record of which we can already be proud. I give way to the former Chief Secretary.
Danny Alexander
As I understand it, the House of Commons analysis does not include the impact of all the measures in the Budget. VAT is paid much more in cash terms––that has been accepted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies––so it is paid more by the wealthiest. The analysis that we should rely on is that which is presented in the Budget because it shows that the distributional impact of the Budget measures hits those on highest incomes hardest. That is the relevant measure and the one that I intend to draw attention to.
Danny Alexander
Those are not my figures; those are the figures that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility produced. By the way, the figures that the previous Government put forward contained hopelessly over-optimistic forecasts for economic growth. In this Budget, we are taking measures to reduce corporation tax, to reduce the small companies rate of corporation tax and to tackle the Labour jobs tax on national insurance, all of which will help to support business development. Those measures, which I shall come on to if I get the chance during my speech, will all help to stimulate economic growth in the private sector, and that is the best way to lead this country out of the economic mess that we are in.
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman can do anything to help me, given that he left the note saying that there was no money left, and that his decisions led the country to that position. I hope that in response to this debate he chooses to apologise for the mess in which his Government left the country.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
May I begin by putting on record the Opposition’s thanks to Sir Alan Budd for his excellent work in the short months that he has served the Government? May I also congratulate the Chief Secretary, who is rapidly becoming one of the Chancellor’s longest-serving advisers? After his performance this afternoon, I think we can see why that is. He is pursuing what is now a noble Liberal Democrat tradition of fronting up some of the Government’s nastiest and most regressive policies in the House. His speech was a Liberal Democrat defence of an emergency Budget—an emergency so great that the Chancellor could not be bothered to join us this afternoon to listen to the House’s deliberations.
It is fair to say that since we met last week to debate the Budget, the economic horizon has darkened. British families and businesses fought so hard in the past year and a half for this country’s recovery, but the Bill puts all that at risk. We can see from the Bill that the Chancellor would like us to believe that size is not everything—although it is very thin, it is none the less very dangerous.
We all enjoyed the Chief Secretary’s summary of business opinion, but Opposition Members thought it odd that he missed some of the news that has appeared since the Chancellor gave his Budget speech. The truth is that, as we warned last week, the dangers in the global economy have become not less visible—they have not ebbed away—but, if anything, become more visible and more dangerous. This week, for example, the news from our trading partners and from the United States, which is our single biggest export market, has not been good. Factory orders in May dropped after eight consecutive months of improvement, and confidence surveys last week showed the biggest falls for some time—far bigger than expected.
Last week, we heard that the number of Americans in work has fallen by almost the largest number since 1995, and new figures for the eurozone show unemployment stuck at more than 10%. The news from new markets is likewise not great. China’s stock exchange hit a 15-month low yesterday, and confidence surveys have reported the worst outlook for a year and a half. Therefore, we cannot blame British businesses, investors and exporters for being somewhat depressed. They know that the odds of success in the gamble on which the Chancellor has embarked are slim, and they know very clearly who will pay the price for his failure.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The previous Labour Government said that they would halve the deficit in four years. What spending cuts and tax increases would they have introduced if they do not like ours?
Mr Byrne
The right hon. Gentleman has today put out a number of very constructive suggestions—for example, urging people hit by budget cuts to wear more clothes, to turn down the thermostat and to eat more vegetables—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”] I am merely quoting the Daily Mail, which is a source I trust—it is, of course, beyond reproach.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Obviously the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) used the Daily Mail. I am sure that it was not meant with intent, and that we can be a little more careful in the way that we proceed.
Mr Redwood
The Daily Mail withdrew the article from its website because it was untrue.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that comment if it has been withdrawn from the website.
Mr Byrne
I am happy to withdraw comments published in the Daily Mail.
The point that I was about to make was that the business community, having had a chance to reflect on the Budget, has come to some conclusions, and I was surprised not to hear about them in the Chief Secretary’s remarks. A fortnight ago, the Chancellor told us that the Budget was
“a balanced package that will send the signal that Britain is open for business.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 176.]
In the weeks since, it is fair to say that business has not been hanging out the bunting. The stock market has now recorded its worst quarterly fall for eight years, as it fell to its lowest point for 10 months. Goldman Sachs has warned that tighter fiscal policy now
“would make it hard to deliver improving growth for all, or possibly any”
country. The chief economist of the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the scale and severity of the Budget
“inevitably increases the danger of an economic setback”.
The Chartered Institute for Purchasing and Supply has said that its managers have
“voiced grave concerns that budget cuts and VAT will tip the scales and amplify the likelihood of the UK slipping back into recession”.
The confidence of Britain’s finance directors has fallen to a 12-month low—just one in four is optimistic, and two thirds say that tighter fiscal policy will hurt their business. Yesterday, the confidence of Britain’s supply chain had its largest monthly fall since 1997. It is for those reasons that a wise man once said that
“the next government has to recognise the fragility of the economy and not take action which would precipitate a double dip recession leading to more unemployment and even bigger budget deficits.”
That was, of course, the Business Secretary in April—once a prophet and now a lost cause.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the important sectors in the economy is the service sector? Has he seen the Markit/CIPS purchasing manager index this month, which has recorded its largest drop in confidence in the last 14 years?
Barry Gardiner
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the real point is that if we should slip back into a double-dip recession, the coalition’s efforts will be null and void, because they will not have been able to address the deficit as a proportion of GDP?
Mr Byrne
That is precisely right and I will have more to say on that in a moment.
I promised a ray of good news among all the bad news and depressed expectations from the business community. A command paper was sneaked out last week. It had barely a press notice—it ran to a grand total of six lines—and there was no written ministerial statement with it. What could justify such secrecy? All is revealed on page 52 of the public expenditure survey, published last week, wherein we discover that Departments under Labour’s management underspent their budgets last year by £5 billion. Anyone would think that the Government wanted to keep that news secret. In a knee-jerk response yesterday, they decided to cover it up by announcing another £1.5 billion of spending cuts instead.
Derek Twigg
In Halton, £168 million of the Building Schools for the Future project was cut yesterday. The Mersey gateway has been postponed, and if it is cut it will take the total loss of investment—in that one area—to £0.5 billion. In an area like Merseyside and Cheshire, which especially needs that investment, that will be a massive blow to the construction industry. Does not it also underline the fact that public expenditure provides private sector jobs?
Mr Byrne
One of the great flaws in the Budget is that the Government are relying on a bounce-back in private investment, for which there is barely a precedent, and nor is there any evidence from the business community that it might happen.
Make no bones about it, since the Chancellor sat down a fortnight ago, the gloom has grown. However, the Finance Bill does not adjust the Government’s strategy. All we have heard from the Chief Secretary this afternoon is a very clear economic credo: where there is worry, let us spread fear, and where there is risk, let us bring danger. Whereas the Labour Government planned to halve the deficit in four years—a plan that the Chancellor’s own independent advisers said we were on track to deliver, and which the G20 said met its timetable—this Chancellor has added nearly £40 billion in new tax rises and spending cuts. He has locked us on a course to slash away come what may, and, in a world full of risk, he is now preaching to others to do the same.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Do the recent figures for the motor car industry not show that the previous Government were on the right course for an economic recovery, and does my right hon. Friend not agree that a £360 million cut in Coventry’s schools programme will have a devastating effect on the schools and construction trade there? I am sure he knows that the construction trade always leads economic recovery.
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend is right. One reason the British supply chain is now so worried about the Government’s intentions is that it has seen these knee-jerk reactions, such as yesterday’s decision, of which the Chief Secretary was so proud he did not dare come to the House to say a word about it.
I want to make a point that follows on from what my hon. Friends have said. Rather than balancing spending over the economic cycle, we now have, in the Budget, a plan to eliminate in just five years the structural deficit. However, the Finance Bill ignores the question of what happens if growth is weaker than expected. It is worth for a moment the House exploring the economic consequences of this Chancellor’s proposals. If growth fails, the structural deficit as a percentage of our economy goes up, yet the timetable for its elimination remains unchanged, so the Chancellor’s only course of action is to cut deeper and deeper. If growth falters or the economy shrinks, the Chancellor cannot stimulate the economy, but can only respond with cuts. It is not a plan to manage the economic cycle; it is a plan for an economic death spiral. Like some kind of self-flagellating penitent who believes borrowing is so morally wrong, he responds to any new urges with another bout of whipping. He might feel it gets him to heaven a little faster, but I am afraid it is no way to run an economy.
Charlie Elphicke
I enjoy the right hon. Gentleman’s thirst for talking down the economy, but how many independent economic forecasters are predicting the double-dip recession that the Labour party seems to constantly hope and pray for?
Mr Byrne
I note that the hon. Gentleman was so eager to participate in this debate that he missed the beginning of it. The words I used were not my words, but the words from a wide section of the British business community. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] Well, Goldman Sachs, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, and the judgment of the stock market. This is not a perspective held by a narrow corner of the business community. The judgment on this Budget is widely shared across this country.
Ben Gummer
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether it was Goldman Sachs or the chief economist at Goldman Sachs who made those comments? It is an important distinction.
Mr Byrne
Absolutely. Jim O’Neill is a very respected economist, he is chief economist at Goldman Sachs, and his opinion was echoed by the chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce. So this is not a narrow perspective from any one particular corner of the business community. This view is widely shared.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
We have to accept that the Prime Minister has kept one promise. He said that the cuts would affect the north-east of England the most, and that has been proved to be true. The Government have cancelled a new hospital, abolished One NorthEast and stopped nearly 100 Building Schools for the Future projects, which would have created many construction jobs in the private sector. Is it not a shame that the Prime Minister did not keep the other promise, which was that cuts would not affect the front line?
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like so many words that we heard during the election from those now in government, those ones turned out to be rather empty.
Perhaps we would not be quite so worried about what we have heard from the Chief Secretary this afternoon if we did not know that the risk of failure for this Budget was so great. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which is supposed to know, has said that there is just a 40% chance of the Chancellor hitting his growth forecast for next year, yet the VAT increase in the Bill will tax consumption so hard that we will be forced to rely on a history-making burst of exports and business investment. Last week we heard that just once since 1966 have we had the kind of rise in investment and exports on which the Chancellor will be banking in each of the next three years. The House would therefore be right to ask what measures exist in the Finance Bill to help. On close inspection, there appears to be no help at all for exporters, yet the Chancellor needs Britain’s exporters to grow their trade abroad by £100 billion for his plan to come true. That is the equivalent of our trade with America rising threefold, our trade with China rising by 20 times or our trade with India rising by 40 times. It is fair to say that that is not a bet that any of us would take.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Was my right hon. Friend surprised when he saw the Deputy Prime Minister in Germany—he is obviously fluent in German, but not in economics—persuading the Germans to cut their expenditure, when Germany is exactly the sort of market that we rely on for export growth?
Mr Byrne
Precisely. We need the German Government to contribute to growth right across the European area. One would have thought that the Deputy Prime Minister might have a word to say about encouraging the German Government to do more to help British exporters, but there we are—not a word about that from him.
Stewart Hosie
Although the right hon. Gentleman’s excoriating attack on the coalition Government is pretty accurate so far, will he confirm that we had a balance of trade deficit in goods last year of some £82 billion, that Labour lost 1 million manufacturing jobs before the recession and that the impact on GDP growth was to suppress it every year since 2000? Just for the sake of accuracy, will he confirm that those figures are right?
Mr Byrne
I have not brought those figures with me to the Chamber, but the hon. Gentleman will know that exports from this country have grown strongly over past years. That is precisely why, as we came through the crash, we said that we needed to rebalance our economy, which is why we fought so hard for investment in companies such as Sheffield Forgemasters and why we said that we needed new investment in manufacturing—all investment that has now been cut back.
Mr Byrne
No, I am going to make another important point, on which the hon. Gentleman might want to comment. The question of business investment is vital—it relates to the argument at the heart of the Budget—and I hope that we will have a good debate on it this afternoon. Business investment is the subject of clause 1, which offers, I am afraid to say, no salvation through investment allowances, which drive up investment and which manufacturers say make the world of difference. This is what the senior economist of the Engineering Employers Federation had to say about investment allowances:
“For smaller companies…there will be cashflow consequences …that will hurt their ability to reinvest in their own competitiveness.”
That is because the Government have withdrawn such allowances.
What, then, of corporation tax? We were promised in the Budget a four-year plan to bring down the rate of corporation tax to 24%, but clause 1 offers us just a one-year plan. We do not know whether that is a wheeze to avoid an unhelpful valuation of deferred tax assets—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was silent on that point—but is it not more likely that the Treasury is simply hedging its bets? The Government promised us certainty on corporation tax, and all we have got is more risk. The truth is that business is not going to bet on a one-year deal when this country’s recovery demands a longer-term planning horizon. The Chancellor might be a gambler, but Britain’s business community is not.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The business community are not gamblers. In this Budget, they will see encouragement for the bedrock of our economy—namely, small and medium-sized enterprises. Measures in the Budget such as the small profits rate of taxation will help 800,000 small businesses across London and the south-east, and the small business rate relief will help 48% of the businesses in the region. Is that not the kind of investment that will encourage exports?
Mr Byrne
It would be, but it appears to be absent from the Bill.
The economic gamble that the Chancellor has taken in the Budget is quite clear to the business community and, I think, to the House. There is also the question of who pays. The Chancellor is fond of taking the approach that we are all in this together. One writer called that the equivalent of a chorus line from “High School Musical”. However, the Finance Bill disabuses us of any notion that that claim might actually be true. It is now quite clear that the price of this Budget will be paid by people’s jobs, and that the greatest price will be paid by the poorest in this country.
Mr MacNeil
For the past five years, the poorest in my constituency were paying the highest level of tax per litre of fuel in the UK. Is the shadow Chief Secretary in any way embarrassed or ashamed that a Labour Government let that happen? Or does he now repent and support a rural fuel derogation?
Mr Byrne
I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to the debate a little later. It was not quite clear whether he was talking about marginal deduction rates or other impacts of the tax system but, like me, he will have noticed table A3 on page 69 of the Red Book, which shows that the marginal deduction rates for people on a 90% deduction rate, for example, have not gone down as a consequence of the Budget; they have gone up.
Stephen Hammond
We know from the note that the right hon. Gentleman left for the Chief Secretary that it clearly would not have been he who paid. Will he tell the House exactly where the £50 billion of cuts would have come from under a Labour Government, and how the deficit would have been reduced? Who would have paid in those circumstances?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his attacks might just begin to be credible if Labour’s record were not so dreadful? Inequality increased, the link between earnings and pensions was never delivered, child poverty was not reduced over the whole period of the Labour Government, fuel poverty increased and poor people on low incomes were not taken out of tax. Where is the credibility in that? This Budget will clearly deliver a fairer outcome than the one that his Government left us with.
Mr Byrne
I was empathising with the hon. Gentleman until his final sentence. As he will know, over the past 10 to 15 years up to 2006, just four countries out of the entire 20 or 30 members of the OECD succeeded in reversing inequality. They were Turkey, Ireland, Mexico and the United Kingdom. The attack on inequality was always a central mission for the Labour Government. Yes, of course we wanted to go further, but we were proud of our record of lifting 900,000 pensioners and 500,000 children out of poverty, of legislating to restore the earnings link and of introducing innovations such as tax credits. In constituencies like mine—and, I suggest, the hon. Gentleman’s—which suffer from a high rate of unemployment, that help is beginning to make a difference. That is why we are so passionate in our objection to the attack on the poorest people in this country contained in this Budget.
Simon Hughes
I respect the right hon. Gentleman for his constituency commitment to dealing with the poor. Over the period of the Labour Government—during which not everything was done wrongly—the greatest failure of all was that inequality was not reduced over the entire 13 years; in fact, it increased. The rich became richer, the very rich became very much richer, and the people at the bottom—pensioners in particular—did not have the protection from a Labour Government that history suggests they could have expected.
Mr Byrne
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman telling us later how the increase in VAT is going to support the argument that he is trying to prosecute. I hope that he will also reflect on the cost of this Budget to jobs. The official figures for job cuts as a result of this Budget are bad enough, but the real figures are even worse. We have already watched the extraordinary spectacle of the Office for Budget Responsibility tell the Chancellor that employment will be 100,000 lower as a result of Budget measures, but then the real figures were published in The Guardian—not in this House, but in The Guardian—from which we learned that secret Treasury papers say that the Budget will cost 1.3 million jobs over the next five years. When the Chancellor stood at that Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago, he told us that he would not hide things in the “small print” and that he would give it to us “straight”; he was so straight and so open that he kept the Treasury advice out of the Budget altogether. Yet even that picture might not reflect the entirety of the Budget’s impact.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats’ comments would have more credibility if they had not spent the six or eight weeks before the general election arguing very accurately and articulately against the very Budget they have just helped to deliver?
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some Front-Bench Labour Members believe in redemption, and we have not given up on the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). That is why we are looking forward so much to hearing his contribution later this evening. [Interruption.] I hope he is not going to dispel the image I have of his virtue and integrity.
Simon Hughes
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) that the four major proposals on tax, finance and equality with which we went into the election have been delivered in the Budget? The only one that was not delivered was value added tax. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is concern about its increase, but he has heard me say that I believe that, in the event, rather than making further spending cuts, it was the least worst option.
Mr Byrne
I will cling on to my image of the hon. Gentleman’s integrity and await his contribution a little later. I remain convinced that, for him, redemption is still possible.
I was about to say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) that the reality is that the impact on jobs might be even worse than we saw in the Red Book, or even worse than we read about in The Guardian, because the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development tells us that it forecasts that unemployment could continue to rise up towards 3 million.
This Finance Bill hits growth so hard—this is a point that I hope the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark in particular will reflect on—that, buried in the back of the Red Book, we learn that the Chancellor has had to raise £9 billion of extra taxes to pay for the lost growth. That is not cutting public debt, but adding to it—in pounds and pence and in the unquantifiable misery of wasted human lives. It is, I am afraid, a philosophy that is all too familiar. It is a distant echo of 1992, when a Tory Chancellor told us that unemployment was “a price worth paying”. Back in 1989, another Tory Chancellor, the now noble Lord Major—
Charlie Elphicke
Perhaps I am just confused, but I am looking at the OBR table C.2 and it seems that ILO unemployment and the claimant count will be falling over the course of this Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm if I have misread the table?
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development not only made predictions on unemployment, but also said that the Government’s targets for job creation were not achievable? Its chief economist, John Philpott said:
“There is not a hope in hell’s chance of this happening.”
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Very few people in the country believe the Budget’s forecasts for employment growth, which is not surprising given how hard the Budget is hitting growth.
I want to move on from the economics of the Bill, and the possibility that it may work, to a wider question that I know we will want to debate this afternoon.
Danny Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman began, quite rightly, by paying tribute to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the work that it has done. Does he accept that the OBR forecasts make it clear that over the period of the Budget, growth will rise and unemployment will fall? That confirms—if we are trading quotes—the view of the secretary-general of the OECD, who has said that the Budget
“provides the necessary degree of fiscal consolidation over the coming years to restore public finances to a sustainable path, while… supporting the recovery.”
That is what the Budget does, and the right hon. Gentleman should be welcoming it.
Mr Byrne
I ask the Chief Secretary to be patient for a moment. The last year in which exports grew as a percentage of our economy in anything like the way that the OBR projects for the next few years was 1974. The Chief Secretary is relying on a unique combination of the business investment that we saw in 2005 and the exports that we saw in 1974. He is assuming that they will come together in perfect harmony in each of the next three years. I must say to the Chief Secretary, very gently, that that is a bit of a gamble for him to take.
Danny Alexander
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—which I think he welcomes—that forecasts that growth will rise over the current Parliament and that unemployment will fall? Does he accept that, yes or no?
Mr Byrne
It is not a great triumph for unemployment to fall as an economy returns to growth. The point that I was making is that employment in this country is lower as a result of the Chief Secretary’s Budget, that growth is lower as a result of his Budget, and that the Budget hits the economy so hard that he must raise another £9 billion of taxes, although the Chancellor refused to admit it at the Dispatch Box.
I now wish to turn to a question to which I hope we will devote quite some time today: the wider question of why this Finance Bill is so unfair. We now have the judgment of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which tells us that the Budget is so regressive that its only redeeming features are Labour policies. Age Concern tells us—clearly, starkly, urgently—that it will put older people’s lives at risk. The Child Poverty Action Group tells us that it will drive poorer parents into the arms of loan sharks. The House of Commons Library tells us that nearly three quarters of the £8 billion tax and benefits bill will be paid by our country’s women—and that is before we get to VAT.
Clause 3 is the clause that deals with VAT, and I think it fair to say that it is the clause without a mandate. I have come to learn that, after nearly 30 years in the House, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark did not get where he is today without knowing what makes his party tick. I believe that when he said, a week before the Budget,
“I hope we don’t have a VAT increase because it is the most regressive form of tax”,
he spoke for the majority of his party’s voters and his party’s members. Before too long, those words will come back to haunt the Chief Secretary and the rest of the occupants of the Treasury Bench.
Back on 7 April, the Deputy Prime Minister warned us about hikes in VAT. He said:
“let’s remember, it is a regressive tax”.
He was right: it is a regressive tax, and we now know that he is a regressive politician for supporting it.
I think that it is fair to say—I feel that I can say this among friends—that I know a thing or two about writing something and regretting it later, but the Liberal Democrats did not just write a silly note. They unveiled a whacking great poster on a lorry saying, “Tory VAT bombshell”. Little did we know that they would be the ones not only to prime it, but to set it off.
Mr Byrne
I will in a moment.
If Members go to the Deputy Prime Minister’s website—for those who do not have the address, let me be helpful, it is nickclegg.co.uk; it is not a site that I visit quite as much as I used to—they will see that that famous poster saying, “Tory VAT bombshell” is still on the website, available to download. The Liberal Democrats cannot kick the habit of saying one thing and doing another.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share the astonishment of the 87% of the electorate in the Chief Secretary’s constituency who did not vote Tory at the last election but see him fronting up a VAT rise to 20%?
Mr Redwood
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why putting VAT up by 2.5% before the recession was scarcely over, as the Labour party did in government, was a good idea and did not destabilise the recovery, but putting it up another 2.5% to pay all the previous Government’s bills, which Labour still will not tell us how it would pay for, is a bad idea?
Mr Byrne
Let me come to that point in a moment because—[Interruption.] I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question after touching for a moment on some of the questions that we will raise in this debate and in Committee next week. We will want to press the Government on their clause without a mandate. We will want to know what studies have been conducted, as will many Back-Bench Members in the coalition party, on the impact of the new VAT on Britain’s poorest families. We will want to know the impact on pensioners, children and child poverty. We will want to know whether all zero-rated goods will remain zero-rated for the course of the Parliament. We will want to know whether all exempt goods and services will remain exempt for the course of the Parliament. We will want to know how much the Chancellor has short-changed our pensioners by uprating pensions this September and then legislating for higher prices in January. We will want to know his estimate of the growth in black market trading by increasing the rewards for unregistered traders. We will press the Government on those questions during discussion of clause 3.
We will also want to know the answers to questions on other clauses. Why does clause 1 make corporation tax less certain when we were promised clarity? Why is the measure silent on the regime for North sea oil? Why does clause 2 complicate the tax system when we were promised simplicity? In respect of clause 4, what assessment has been made of the impact of insurance costs for low-income families? Will the reform of pension tax relief bring in as much as Labour budgeted for? Will the plan be as fair?
The great tragedy of the Budget and the Bill is that there is an alternative, so let me deal directly with some of the questions raised by Government Members. In March, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out the fastest and clearest deficit reduction plan of any country in the G7.
Mr Byrne
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but she has of course read chapter 6 of the Budget of March 2010 and, like me, she will remember that there was £3.5 million in savings by holding down public sector pay; there was £1 billion in savings through the reform of public sector pensions; there was £5 billion in savings through cuts to lower-priority programmes; and there was £11 billion in savings by revolutionising Whitehall. There was also the promise of a benefits bill that would have been £14 billion lower through falling unemployment, which was only possible as a consequence of growth. She will also remember the precision with which we set out £19 billion-worth of tax increases, which unlike this Bill, did not hit the poorest in her constituency or mine.
We know that Governments have to govern, so our opposition to the Bill will be careful, but Labour Members will stand up for jobs and for fairness. That is why we will vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
Andrew George
I am going to draw my remarks to a close, so I will take no further interventions. My proposal was purely for VAT impact assessments, and through questions to Ministers, I am seeking further information on the impact of the VAT increase.
Mr Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—the House has been following his remarks with some care. Before the Liberal Democrats gave their consent to the proposals in the Budget, they will have discussed the matter. In the interests of the debate that he is trying to stimulate, was it ever explained in those discussions that an extra £9 billion of tax must be raised by the Budget because its overall effect is to slow the recovery to such a serious extent?
Andrew George
If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will move on. That is part of the debate that he will no doubt continue with Treasury Ministers. If Labour Members wish to avoid a VAT increase such as that proposed in the Bill, they need to propose alternatives. Those might include a further increase in the banking levy or an increase in capital gains tax, or perhaps VAT increases could apply to luxury goods but not to others, but alternative measures to fill the £13 billion hole in the public sector accounts would be needed.
I hope that future stages of the Bill will provide a more constructive environment in which to debate VAT and other matters.
Clive Efford
We have seen so many unexpected changes from the parties opposite, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw our attention to the fact that they have been silent on that issue.
I have another question about the Bill. Where does it mention the tax on the banks? When can we expect to see that measure before us? Why is it not part of the Bill? Perhaps the Liberal Democrats would like to intervene on me to tell me when we can expect to see it. We are told that it will be consulted on. If that is the case, is it going to go up or down, or is it going to stay as it is? What is the point of consulting the bankers—I assume that that is whom the Government are going to consult—on something that they would rather did not happen?
The Liberal Democrats told us that they were going to break up the casino banking system. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills wanted the banks to be broken down into smaller banks, separating casino banking from normal banking. Yet we are told that the Chancellor opposes this and has set up a commission to look into it, which will take at least a year, thereby kicking it into the long grass. [Interruption.] I hear a sedentary intervention that we are dealing with the Finance Bill. Yes we are, and this is not in the Finance Bill, but it is an integral part of the Budget. It is therefore legitimate to ask where it is, when it is going to happen and what the consultation will be about, because it impacts on what taxes we raise on the people we represent. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who did not make a very good job of defending his position on the increase, that that includes VAT.
On 12 March the Deputy Prime Minister called for a 10% tax on bank profits and a £2 billion job creation scheme to rescue the victims of recession. We keep being told by the Liberal Democrats that they have had an enormous impact on this Budget, so perhaps they could explain the impact they made here. I would have supported and voted for a 10% tax on bankers’ profits, instead of for taking people’s benefits away from them or for poor families paying VAT increases. After all, where did the financial problems start?
The Deputy Prime Minister kept digging during the general election, and on 20 April accused the bankers of behaving like “Arthur Scargill in pinstripes”. He then went on to say:
“The banks have basically been given untrammelled support by Labour and Conservative governments to do exactly what they like, and take massive risks with our livelihoods and our savings. They have been holding a gun to the economy. A progressive liberal like myself is not going to be squeamish about blowing the whistle on a vested interest.”
Well, where is it? Where is the whistleblowing on those vested interests?
The Liberal Democrat website—I do not know whether Liberal Democrat Members ever look at it—still says that they are going to bring “fundamental change” to our banking system.
“We will break them up and break them down.”
It continues:
“Until such a time, the taxpayer will have to continue underwriting the banks”—
well, we know that from this Budget.
“To recognise this, we are proposing a new levy on bank profits at a rate of 10%...This levy would be supplementary to corporation tax”.
Well, where did that happen? If we look at corporation tax outcomes—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) intervenes from a sedentary position. Would he like to repeat what he just said? I think he said that the Lib Dems did not win. Well, we all know that; that is why we are complaining about what they are doing.
If I look at what the banks are saying about corporation tax, I find that they are rewarded and compensated for the £2 billion levy that the Budget wants to raise. We have some more juicy quotes here; the Lib Dems might want to listen to them. Here is one:
“Bankers were relieved that the chancellor’s speech failed to repeat the coalition government’s threat to end ‘unacceptable bonuses’”.
Deutsche Bank analysts noted the significance of the corporation tax change:
“Taking 2% off the 2012 tax rate for the five banks listed in the UK would increase profit by £1.16bn, that is it should almost offset all of the banks’ tax. Overall a good outcome for the banks.”
A number of bank analysts calculated that some banks could benefit from the Chancellor’s measures. As I have said, Deutsche Bank concluded that it was a “good outcome” for banks, while an analyst at UBS expected Lloyds and HSBC to benefit by 2012 because the cut in their corporation tax bill was larger than the hit that they sustained through the bank levy. HSBC banking analysts concurred:
“We’d expect most domestically-orientated banks, for example Lloyds, to be better off after four years than they were pre-budget”.
How has it come about that a party that went through the general election giving all those quotes about how they were going to break the banks up and break them down, and make the bankers pay until the pips squeaked, has come to support a Budget that takes from the bankers with one hand, pays it back with the other and rewards the banks with a tax benefit at the end of it? And at the same time they will be marching through the Lobbies to the drumbeats of the Tories, voting for cuts in benefits and an increase in VAT, and making the poorest people in our communities pay, when the banks are not paying.
It was all puff and wind from the Liberal Democrats during the election. We have heard it all before, and we are hearing it again. This time, however, they have actually got to vote for something. They are actually in charge and responsible for what they are voting for, and they are going to pay a very heavy price indeed.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36), but the Deputy Speaker withheld his assent and declined to put that Question
Mr Byrne
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance under Standing Order No. 15(1)(a), which says that the proceedings on any stage of a
“bill brought in upon a ways and means resolution”
including the Finance Bill, are exempt from interruption and may be proceeded with until “any hour though opposed”.