The Economy

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Youth unemployment in my constituency is falling because of a work experience programme that has now been rolled out across the country. I say that to preclude the shadow Chancellor’s rebuttal. He has just argued in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that private sector debt is a good thing. Will he have the balls to say that explicitly?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not quite sure we are going to allow “balls”. I am sure you can think of a better word, Mr Hancock.

[Matthew Hancock]

I withdraw it. Will the shadow Chancellor have the weight to state explicitly what he has just argued, which is that private sector debt is a good thing?

[Ed Balls]

The numbers for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency show that 8,600 families in his constituency are losing out from the cut in tax credits. [Interruption.] He is normally quite excitable, but he is really getting rattled this afternoon.

What are the facts? “We are all in this together,” yet women are being hit twice as hard as men; there has been a 100,000 rise in child poverty, according to the Treasury’s own figures; there is a four times bigger hit for families and children than for the banks, which have seen their taxes cut this year compared with last year; not 400,000 but 710,000 public sector jobs are set to go; there is £158 billion more in borrowing than was planned a year ago—£6,500 more in borrowing for every household in this country—and there is the cost of rising unemployment. That is the cost of the failure of the Chancellor’s plan. As for the Deputy Prime Minister’s contribution, we have a cobbled-together replacement for the future jobs fund that is judged by the OBR to have no impact at all on employment and zero impact on jobs. I have to say to the Chancellor and to the Chief Secretary that protecting our economy, businesses, jobs and family finances is more important than trying to protect a failing plan and their failing reputations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

I will take interventions from Members who have not already intervened twice.

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

Oh, I can’t resist.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am very grateful. The right hon. Gentleman keeps making his argument about borrowing, but is it not completely undone by the fact that according to the OBR forecasts, borrowing has fallen and is set to fall over the next five years, and then debt will fall once it is under control? Can he answer the question that neither the shadow Chief Secretary nor other shadow Treasury Ministers can answer? How can spending more money possibly lead to lower borrowing?

[Ed Balls]

The economics of this are clear and easy to understand, which is why both the IMF and the OECD have made exactly the point that I am making. The fact is that the Government are borrowing £158 billion more than they planned, and the deficit is coming down much more slowly than was planned, because unemployment is going to be so much higher.

The issue is the pace at which we try to get the deficit down. If we try to get it down too fast, as the Chancellor did a year ago, it blows up in our faces. Growth and taxes slow down, unemployment goes up, and we end up borrowing £158 billion more. The right thing to do is to have a staged and balanced approach, get the economy moving, get people into jobs and get the deficit down. That is the only plan that will work.

Let me make an offer to the Chancellor. It is not too late to change course, and the deepening euro crisis makes it more important for him to see sense. If he does, we will back him—a new start, a second attempt. We read in The Daily Telegraph today about the Chancellor’s recent efforts to land a plane at Manchester airport—on a flight simulator, I should add, to reassure Members. There was too rapid a descent and a crash landing on the runway, narrowly missing ploughing into the terminal building. Too far, too fast—no surprises there. However, the Chancellor had a second go. With a little help from the experts and a steadier hand on the controls, things worked better the second time round. Perhaps there is a lesson for him in that story.

Perhaps the Chancellor should take my prescription after all. He claimed last week that a balanced plan to get our economy moving and to get the deficit down was like

“the promises of a quack doctor selling a miracle cure.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 810.]

Was not the Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman closer to the truth when he described Britain’s experiment in austerity as being

“like a medieval doctor bleeding his patient, observing that the patient is getting sicker, not better, and deciding that this calls for even more bleeding”?

The patient is crying out for a second opinion, and all we hear from the Chancellor is a call for more cuts and more leeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Darling]

As it happens, there is a passage in my book about the trend rate of growth. I believe that economists find it terribly difficult to work out what the right trend rate of growth is. On the point raised in the Select Committee this morning, I am surprised that the OBR has said that the productive capacity of the economy has been so reduced, partly because of lack of productivity. Part of the OBR’s problem is that it fails to recognise that businesses have retained labour through this recession in the hope that they will need it when recovery comes. One worry is that if businesses think there will not be a recovery, the people they have held on to will then lose their jobs. No doubt the Select Committee will look into that.

Let me touch on what is happening in Europe. I appreciate that it is a risky business because what is happening today might not be what is happening tomorrow or the day after that. The Chancellor touched on it and I hoped he would say rather more about what is being proposed—if, indeed, he knows.

As far as I can see, the agreement reached between President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel on Monday seems to be a re-creation of the stability and growth pact—and we know which were the first two countries that actually broke it. I have a feeling that they are trying to reach a sufficient political agreement to give Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank sufficient cover to do what we all know the ECB has to do in terms of intervening in the market. It does not go any further than that. Mario Draghi made a good speech last week, in which he said, “Look, we’re ready to intervene, but you lot have got to show willing.” Interestingly, that is exactly the same position that Jean-Claude Trichet took in the ECB at the last ECOFIN meeting I attended in May 2010, to which the Chancellor is fond of referring, when it was necessary for Ministers in the European Union and the eurozone to decide on sufficient action to allow the ECB to intervene.

I am glad that the ECB is going to intervene, but the agreement reached on Monday does not go far enough because it does not address the fundamental questions and fundamental problems of having a single currency without something approaching fiscal or economic union. That was not addressed and neither was the Greek problem, which will not go away because that fix will not work. The rescue fund is still a virtual one and, of course, there is the whole question of the recapitalisation of European banks, which remains for next summer.

[Matthew Hancock]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I am grateful for the intervention. I was going to go on to say that some of these things are actually working.

One of the biggest employers in Lancaster, Northern Tissue Group, is halfway down the line of achieving extra support from the regional growth fund. That will lead to extra jobs. Oaktec, a small company that is developing innovative energy recovery from vehicles, has just got a grant from the Technology Strategy Board to take that innovation further. Those are small beginnings, but the innovation is there.

I want to suggest how we can develop that through the local enterprise partnerships and the new enterprise zones that hon. Members have talked about. One problem that my part of the north-west has had with all Governments is that every time they look at the north-west, they look at Greater Manchester or Merseyside. Although I welcome Lord Heseltine’s intervention, or should I say re-intervention, in the north-south divide and his talk of city hubs, which we are all behind, my part of the north-west also has businesses that have potential, as you will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker. With a bit of extra investment, which I hope is coming following the Chancellor’s announcements in the autumn statement, those businesses could provide a good return. I have cited two small examples—Northern Tissue and Oaktec—but there are many other possibilities in the area.

My area also has two universities, Lancaster university and the university of Cumbria, and Lancaster university does a great deal in terms of innovation. My suggestion draws on two developments that we already have. The first is technology innovation centres, which are planned for Warwick, Strathclyde, Bristol, Rotherham and Sedgefield. In 13 years, the Labour Government delivered none of them. At least we are now getting five. Germany has 59 of them. Their mission is to bridge

“the gap between research findings and outputs, and their development into commercial propositions”.

The second development is enterprise zones, the mission of which is

“to support genuinely additional growth and create new businesses and new jobs”.

The original concept envisaged only one zone per local enterprise partnership. Perhaps that idea was developed by some Treasury mandarin who had to calculate the hypothetical loss in taxes due to the hypothetical creation of the new businesses and jobs. As they will be new, I am yet to understand how they can calculate that. Obviously, I am just a simpleton when it comes to the Treasury.

In a nutshell, my suggestion is that we should allow all universities to bid to designate mini-enterprise zones on their campuses. Perhaps not all universities would take that up, but it might fulfil the other Government objective of ensuring that there are more direct outcomes for the economy from universities. It seems to me that there is nothing in the practical definition of an enterprise zone that most universities cannot fulfil.

I suggest that there would be savings to the taxpayer, because universities would not need all the investment that is required for the planned enterprise zones. By their nature, the zones would be incubators for new start-ups that would eventually have to move off campus on reaching a certain size. A mini-enterprise zone on a university campus would therefore create a quicker turnover than the planned enterprise zones. The hypothetical loss in taxes calculated by the Treasury mandarin would therefore be far less, because once a business on a campus got to a certain size, it would feel restricted and would have to move off quicker than those in the planned enterprise zones.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am interested by my hon. Friend’s proposal. Does he recognise that it is similar in structure to what happened at Stanford in the United States from the 1960s onwards, where the cheap start-up costs for IT firms led to the creation of Google and many other world-beating companies?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My suggestion is a hybrid scheme for which universities could bid. As part of a technology strategy, the universities could make some money out of the start-up companies through joint ventures with them, which could then be reinvested. I believe that it would cost the taxpayer less in the long run if we just let such zones happen.

To use Lancaster as an example, I can think of two or three innovative businesses on campus that are struggling to find extra funds, but that had to start paying taxes straight away. Just a little bit extra would allow them to move. By the nature of a university campus, the businesses will not be there for ever. By definition, they will have to move on and there will be a swifter turnover.

To put it simply, let 100 university zones bloom. The hon. Member for Blaydon is not in his place, but he would have liked that phrase. There is potential for growth and for new jobs. This could apply to most universities. It would be a simple thing to do, provided that we could get it through the Treasury mandarin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I shall continue directly from what was said by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). Our country faces very difficult economic times, as does the continent of Europe. In recovering from a debt crisis throughout the west, we face difficult challenges. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. It closely followed the line of argument that was put forward by the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) in a speech last week. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East recognised the scale of the problem and the need to deal with the deficit. Some of his suggestions were sensible; others I would not follow so closely. None the less, he was engaged in the economic argument. People across the country want to see politicians engaging directly in the economic argument about how we deal with the problem that exists now. I am not talking about the forecast that was set out before the credit crunch in 2007 and before the last election. Incomes are 14% smaller than anticipated, which is a serious problem. Most of the blame rests with the previous Administration, so it is absurd to make party point-scoring interventions on this particular issue. This is an important argument with which to engage, which is why I am so disappointed by the arguments that were put forward by the shadow Chancellor and the Labour party; they completely failed to engage in the seriousness of the economic debate.

I should like to tackle three issues that show just how much the Opposition arguments miss the point. I will not dwell on the fact that the Opposition seem to believe that borrowing is in and of itself a good thing and I will not set out any further than has been set out already the chaos of their euro policy—a policy that was changed from the Dispatch Box in response to an intervention. However, I will set out the complete failure of the Opposition on three specific points.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his next point, will he accept that economic growth was choked off well before the eurozone crisis? Government Members were being warned about the situation by many people. They were even warned by me, and I have very little knowledge of the economy.

[Matthew Hancock]

I certainly accept that growth and the protection of the economy will be difficult because we are escaping from a debt crisis in which we had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. Certainly there are some very important domestic causes of our problems. The massive boom was funded by borrowing—both by the Government and in the banking sector. I also accept that inflation, and especially commodity price inflation, has had a negative impact on the economy as set out by the OBR. Moreover, the Greek crisis broke in the weekend after Labour had lost the election, but before the coalition was formed. The then Chancellor set out that Britain should participate in bail-outs, a position from which this Government have extricated themselves. The euro crisis certainly has had an impact and it broke in May 2010.

My first specific point is that I have not yet had an answer to a question that I have been posing on TV, on the radio and in this House, which is how can spending more money lead to lower borrowing?

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

Let me set out my point and then I will take the intervention. The conditions under which that can be true are highly specific so as to be utterly extraordinary. The Lafferites on the right argue that in the case of very high marginal personal taxation rates, they can pay for themselves if they are cut, but there is little evidence of that. Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with the Laffer curve is that one does not know where one is on it.

The idea that spending can lead to a Lafferite consequence—that borrowing is lower because of more spending—has absolutely no force in economic evidence or logic.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It has more force in economic theory. That was precisely the point that was made during the 1930s and subsequently by Keynes. It was said that the time one should be borrowing is during a recession. We should borrow to build houses, create construction jobs and to keep people in work and not, as this Government are doing, to keep people out of work.

[Matthew Hancock]

I will come on to that point a little later. That is the argument that is put. The question that has to be answered is how can the extra tax that the Government get from employing people exceed the cost of employment when it is the Government who are paying the tax? It does not make sense.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

No, I will make the point in another way. If a person borrows money to employ somebody and then claims that they will get back more than the cost of employing that person through tax and lower unemployment benefits, the Government would have to pay more to themselves in tax than they spend in tax. That cannot be true in logic let alone in economics.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Is the point not being missed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore)? On this Keynesian argument, a person would have had to be saving during the good times, and that is what was missing from the programme of expenditure of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Keynes himself argued that we need to save in the good times or, as JFK on the left put it, we need to fix the roof when the sun is shining. That argument has no foundation in economic theory or experience. I have a second argument that I want to challenge. It was put this morning by the shadow Chancellor in The Times. He said:

“The argument is whether it is better to be borrowing billions more… or whether action now to get our economy moving will get more people into work paying tax and help to get the deficit down in a fairer way.”

I could not agree with him more. It is better to be taking action now to get our economy moving rather than borrowing billions more, which is the policy of the Labour party. Their position, therefore, is illogical. Their argument is that borrowing is going up. However, the shadow Chancellor was forced to admit after an intervention that borrowing is falling; it is lower this year than last year and it was lower last year than the year before under Labour. It is falling in the OBR’s forecast every year. Labour members may smile, but when their argument is inconsistent with the truth, they know that they are on weak territory.

My final argument concerns the idea that low interest rates are a bad idea. The shadow Chancellor holds both that borrowing is good and that higher interest rates would be better because he has said that low interest rates “are a failure”. I put it to all Members in this House to ask their mortgage-holding constituents and their small businesses whether that is the case. The only conclusion I can come to is that the reason they hold this position is purely political so that they can oppose the cuts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes one correct point but draws a false conclusion. It may well be true that unsecured debt did not rise as rapidly as secured household debt under the last, Labour Government, but it is absolutely not true that the last, Labour Government did not preside over one of the most massive increases in debt of any nation on earth.

In response to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), let me make four points. The first is about the potentially crushing impact of household mortgage debt. Let us compare a household deciding whether to purchase a house with a mortgage in 1997 with one making that decision in 2007, looking at the loan-to-value ratio and average house prices in those two periods, and ask how much money the average household will lose over the next 25 years because house prices were allowed to rise so much. The answer is that the average household will have £250,000 less to spend—it will be a quarter of a million pounds worse off—in the next 25 years precisely because the last, Labour Government thought that they were creating wealth by making average house prices escalate way out of the range of the average family.

As a Government we need to look at building more houses and regulating mortgage lending to maintain sustainable norms. We need to look—as we are—at simplifying planning controls and removing obstacles standing in the way of house building. At some stage we also need to analyse the impact of the reintroduction of mortgage interest tax relief, should interest rates rise precipitously.

[Matthew Hancock]

Should we not also consider regulating the overall debt in the economy, as was done until 1997, but then stopped?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; indeed, that is also an idea that we should consider.

The other thing that we are leaving the next generation that we need to consider is our pensions liabilities and how to resolve them. The happily titled “Project Armageddon” report from Tullet Prebon shows that the public sector pensions liability is £1.18 trillion, which is almost the same as the published, or “treaty”, Government debt of £1.11 trillion. I do not particularly want to dwell on public sector pensions, but this raises in my mind the way in which we have structured our pensions liabilities—that is, the pay-as-you-go nature of the basic pension scheme—such that we expect the next generation to pay for them rather than paying ourselves. Given that this generation will pass on such significant debts to the next generation in other ways, I have been considering various ways to change how we fund our pensions in this period.

In 2006 the Australian Government established the future fund, with 18 billion Australian dollars of seed capital. The goal was to invest in long-term infrastructure projects with a commercial return in order fully to fund the pension liability of public servants—that is, to move from a pay-as-you-go approach to an essentially self-funding system for public sector pensions. In the autumn statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor talked about £21 billion of credit easing, which he will put through the banks via the national loan guarantee scheme. Let me suggest to the Minister that instead of putting that £21 billion of credit easing through the banks, perhaps we should create a UK version of the Australian future fund, essentially moving a portion of our pensions liability into what might be termed a hypothecated fund for that purpose. That is one thing that the Government could do that would significantly benefit the future generations that will have to pay off the debts racked up over the past 15 years.

Let me make two observations about job creation. There is nothing worse than people not having work to do when they are seeking it—hon. Members on both sides of the House think that is true. I am very pleased that the Chancellor has said that he will ask the independent pay review bodies to consider how public sector pay can be made more responsive to local labour markets. That would be a far more effective way of addressing wage-price rigidities than calls to scrap the minimum wage or other such measures. It is an issue—I listened to a speech by an Opposition Member about this earlier—that in certain parts in the north of our country, the public sector premium over private sector pay is 20%, whereas in other parts it is much lower, at 4%. In those areas the private sector should not be priced out of the market getting people to work for it because public sector pay is set significantly higher.

In closing, let me also gently suggest to the Minister that, with national insurance contributions at 13.8%, we have a significant tax on jobs. As we look to implement our policy to take the lowest paid out of tax, may I ask him perhaps to consider the national insurance tax on jobs too?