Steve Baker
Main Page: Steve Baker (Conservative - Wycombe)Department Debates - View all Steve Baker's debates with the HM Treasury
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Steve Baker Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I am rather excited by this debate on fiscal responsibility. This is not to say that I am an anorak who should get out more. My happiness resides more in the fact that those who support the motion will be committing to balanced budget economics. Anyone voting for the motion will not just be saying that they believe in balanced budgets; they will be voting for that.
In the new world of transparency the public will be watching who votes for what, and they will rightly hold everyone who votes for the motion to account for the two propositions contained in the charter. The first is the fiscal mandate. As the Chancellor spelled out—there is no confusion—we will balance the current budget by 2017-18. The second is the supplementary debt target, which means falling debt as a share of GDP by 2016-17.
How will we do this? The Conservatives are clear. It means that for the first full two years of the Parliament we will continue the public spending reductions, so that total managed expenditure will fall at roughly the rate that it has been falling in this Parliament—about 1% overall in real terms. That is equivalent to about an extra cut of £1 in every £100 being found in the next forecast period. Any business in my constituency asked to find a cut of £1 out of £100 would do it standing on its head, especially if it knew that that was vital to the survival of the business.
Specifically, we know that £30 billion of fiscal consolidation is required to deliver the fiscal mandate. So Members who vote for the motion tonight are absolutely committed to finding £30 billion. The Conservative party thinks it can be done as follows: £13 billion of that £30 billion by cuts to departmental expenditure limits, excluding the protected budgets for schools, the Department for International Development and health, and a further £12 billion from annually managed expenditure—the welfare budget. I shall not speculate, as I am not in the Government, but we might be looking to find those £12 billion-worth of cuts by, yes, restricting child benefit, maybe to two children; yes, perhaps restricting the top-heavy housing benefit budget and consider saying that those under 21 or under 25 should have their housing benefit curtailed. Finally—one of the biggest exemplifications of social justice that the current Treasury has come up with—yes, tough anti-avoidance rules. The Labour party in 13 years never dared introduce a general anti-avoidance rule. We are saying that those who have the broadest backs cannot be allowed aggressively to exploit tax loopholes. That will find £5 billion.
Our numbers add up. After those first full two years of consolidation, we would have flat real-terms settlements—flat, not further cuts. The result of all this, as we know, is that we would run an overall surplus, not just a surplus in the third year on current budget. Why is that important? Why did the Chancellor say it? The Chancellor said it because he understands that we have to start paying down debt. If we do not pay down debt, it will mean further tax increases and inevitably spending cuts further down the road for the next generation.
This is an ethical proposition, not an ideological one, as the Chief Secretary—I hate to say it—has branded these Conservative plans, and the Labour party as well. We need not waste any time on the Orwellian invocations of “The Road to Wigan Pier”. That is childish point-scoring. This is not ideology. It is about paying down debt.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In the Red Book there is a chart showing debt interest in 2015-16 overtaking the education budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an extremely practical problem of making sure that debt interest does not consume all the tax revenue that we might otherwise spend on services?
Mr Ruffley
My hon. Friend makes a trenchant point. Do we want burgeoning debt interest under the policies of the Opposition parties to eat away at front-line services? The money, as we know, has to come from somewhere.
I am not clear where the major Opposition party stands on this. The £30 billion is what anyone who votes for the motion today must account for. It was not clear whether the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that figure on Sunday, but he made a stab at how the Labour party might fiscally consolidate. There was the reintroduction of the 50p tax rate for high earners; we know that that raises less than £1 billion. There has been reference today to restricting pensioner benefits to very well-off pensioners; we know that that raises less than £0.5 billion. Labour Members are not even remotely in the ballpark in coming up with a £30 billion consolidation in anything they have said today inside or outside the House.
This leaves us with two possibilities in relation to Labour Members who are going to vote for this proposition today. The first is that they are voting for it in the full knowledge that they have no intention of balancing the current budget in year 3. I am a kind and generous individual, and I do not think they would do anything as dishonourable as to vote for something they had no intention of honouring. They are not going to get the money from spending cuts most of which they admit they will not pursue, and they will not guarantee our spending reductions. That leaves us, I am afraid, to conclude that the iron law of modern British politics still obtains: dogs bark, cats miaow, and Labour puts up taxes.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
This has been a fascinating debate in which we have learned a great deal. The Government have been accused variously of making savage cuts and of making no cuts at all. We have learned that the Labour party is a party of fiscal discipline; indeed, the shadow Chancellor could not have been any clearer that he intends to balance the books and cut the deficit in every year. I think, therefore, that something that has happened in Greece is beginning to happen here. As the mainstream left-wing party shows its fiscal credentials, talks tough and prepares to fight the election, it creates a hole on the left. Who fills that hole? The hard-left parties: the parties of nationalism and the green parties—parties that live in a fantasy world where it is possible to keep on borrowing and taxing and where the rich will pay. We have heard all that nonsense before. It is not too much to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) did, that down that path lies a situation similar to that in Venezuela.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) suggested that we have not done anything like enough. Of course, not that long ago he was on the Conservative Benches, strongly supporting the Government.
We ought to consider what would happen if there was a change of Government. The Labour party would find that there was no low-hanging fruit. Labour would not cancel HS2, I think we can rely on it not to scrap the international aid budget, and it would not leave the European Union. Labour has suggested that it was reckless of us to protect the NHS, so perhaps it would cut the NHS. It might reduce the number of nuclear submarines in our deterrent. It would find that it is extremely difficult to cut spending.
There are, of course, three big taxes: income tax, national insurance and VAT. No one should want to put up VAT, because it is too high already.
Steve Baker
I am well aware of that, but it was necessary in the context of the hideous mess left by the hon. Gentleman’s party. It is always the same and this is the essence of the problem: there is no kindness whatsoever in making to those in need attractive promises that subsequently cannot be kept. That is not kind; it is cruel.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the chaos that could be brought about by a lack of fiscal discipline would result in huge uncertainty for public sector workers, who will not be able to rely on their jobs if balanced books are not maintained, because they will lose them? More importantly, for the thousands—possibly millions—of households across the country who were encouraged to pick up an extra £1 trillion-worth of household debt in the Brown bubble in the lead-up to the financial crisis, the uncertainty of unbalanced books could result in much higher interest rates and imported inflation as a result of reduced currency. An enormous amount of pressure would be put on those households as a result of chaos through ill-discipline.
Steve Baker
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. He and I sit on the Treasury Committee and we have heard from the Debt Management Office about the factors propping up the current level of borrowing. Not only has borrowing been back-stopped by the Bank of England, but bond market traders are aware of the Chancellor’s and the Government’s intention to balance the books, have confidence in it and, therefore, will keep lending to us. The situation, however, is precarious and the Labour party would put it in danger.
VAT cannot really go up. If it went up further, it would hit the poorest hardest and that would be wrong. On income tax, perhaps Labour would reduce the personal allowance. The truth is that the top 1% already pay a quarter of income tax. How much further can we go? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that the 50p rate was pointless, I think—I will have to check whether that is what he said, but it is pointless. It is an act of spite to pretend that the rich will pay through their income tax; all they will do is adjust their behaviour. We put up capital gains tax and the revenues from it went down. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has explained that in detail on his blog.
The truth is that the evidence shows that in this country there is a hard limit to how much the public will pay in taxation. Depending on how we measure GDP, it is somewhere between 35% and 40% of GDP. If we are committed to balancing the books, we have to take overall Government spending down to the level that people will pay in tax, and there is a historical limit.
Labour Members have been rather hysterical about the Government consumption chart, which shows us going back to the 1930s. This is about balancing the books. I believe that Labour Members want to put up capital spending, and debt interest is already forecast to overtake education spending. There is a really tough problem here. The truth is that hysterics on either side of the argument will not do. For example, wealth taxes will not work. Opposition Members seem to think we will get the rich to pay, but Denis Healey said of a wealth tax:
“I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.”
The truth is that there is very little chance of getting out of the mess we are in without taking extremely difficult decisions. Unlike turning around a commercial company, we cannot cut to the bone once and then build back up; reducing the deficit has to be taken gently, and we have done it at an appropriate pace. The Chancellor has the right plan, and I shall certainly back him tonight.
Guy Opperman
Absolutely nothing whatever. My hon. Friend and I are leading lights in the all-party apprenticeships group, which has seen fantastic work. I should probably make a declaration that I am the first MP to hire, train and then retain an apprentice as an office manager—not as an MP, I hasten to add—because she was doing a fantastic job.
On what the Opposition intend to do, we have to address the deficit. The Chancellor eloquently put it that the Leader of the Opposition is practising Basil Fawlty politics by not mentioning the deficit at every opportunity. We also have to look at fiscal consolidation. We all heard what the shadow Chancellor said today, but what did the Leader of the Opposition say only on Sunday on “The Andrew Marr Show”? He said that
“if we…cut our way to getting rid of this deficit, it won’t work”.
So there goes fiscal tightening in any way whatever. To the clarification put to him that
“that requires a £30 billion fiscal tightening”,
he replied, “I don’t accept that.” Whatever the Opposition say today, the reality will always be that the Labour party will introduce greater taxes and greater borrowing, and greater difficulties for our children.
On attempts to address the deficit, other Members have made the point, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that raising the tax rate to 50% will not increase the tax take by any margin and will actually decrease investment. On the minimum wage, tax credits from the coalition have already addressed that in a very successful form and we intend to raise it. I heard on the BBC “Daily Politics” today the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) proposing that his plan for addressing the deficit was an increase in gun licences. That may be laudable, I do not know, and I am sure he has fiscally costed this matter in great detail, but if that is his plan to address the entirety of the deficit, we really are in more trouble than we thought.
We were indeed fortunate to hear from the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). It is always a pleasure to comment on his speech. I will not cast aspersions on his honour, but I will attack his memory and grasp of economics. He supported the coalition as we did the tough work from 2010.
Guy Opperman
I will not. I am so sorry, but I have zero time. The hon. Gentleman supported us then, but he does not support us now.
Chris Leslie
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The trouble for the Chancellor is that this debate gives us an opportunity to draw attention to his colossal failure to fulfil his promise to tackle the deficit. In his eagerness to trip up the Opposition, he has caught himself in a series of contradictions and entangled himself in his own spin.
We should remember that it was only nine months ago that this charter was changed. It keeps changing because the Government desperately have to pretend that they have a grip on things and that they are somehow on top of the deficit issue. The deficit after the next general election, however, is predicted to be a massive £76 billion. Revenues have collapsed over the lifetime of this Parliament, and we have seen rising tax credits and rising levels of housing benefit to subsidise low pay and the high-rent economy that the Chancellor has been fashioning. The Government now find themselves with an extra £200 billion-worth of borrowing over what they originally set out.
The Tories love to talk tough. They publish their documents—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see the Chancellor back in his place. He loves to bang that Dispatch Box and was getting very shouty and loud in his earlier contributions, but the reality is that his strategy has failed. The Chancellor and the Chief Secretary do not have a clue about what they are doing.
The debate was revealing, however, and I would like to ask the Chancellor about it. He said in his opening remarks that his deficit plan had not gone any slower than he had planned. I have taken the opportunity to look at the Hansard record of what the Chancellor said. He said:
“What we have done is cut the deficit by a half. We have neither gone faster than we said we were going to go, nor gone slower than we said we were going to go.”
The Chancellor has got himself into a terrible muddle if he thinks that he did not promise to eradicate the deficit back in 2010. The Prime Minister himself said:
“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books.”
That was the Prime Minister’s solemn promise to the country.
The Chancellor did become a little bit over-excited. Perhaps he found this rather a difficult occasion, given that the situation was blowing up in his face. Not only did he get into a tangle thinking that he had not changed his deficit reduction plan, but he got into a terrible muddle with the charter. That is quite embarrassing for the Prime Minister in particular. At 3.30 pm on 15 December, the Prime Minister said in a speech that targeting the current budget deficit would be
“a great, black, ominous cloud”
—that it would be a total disaster—but by 4.30 pm, the Chancellor had tabled a Charter for Budget Responsibility that actually supports a current budget process, which is, of course, the correct strategy.
Perhaps the Chancellor needs to be reminded what he said originally, in his 2010 Budget speech. He said that the mandate was current—[Interruption.] Does the Chancellor want to deny that he said, back in 2010, that the mandate was
“current, to protect… productive public investment”?—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
If so, let him correct the record now from the Dispatch Box. He will not do that, however, because he knows that targeting the current budget is the right thing to do.
At no point does the Charter for Budget Responsibility commit itself to a fixed deadline for 2017-18. The Treasury would like to pretend that it does, but it does not. Instead, it goes for a “rolling horizon” and year 3 of a five-year rolling forecast. The Chancellor needs to understand properly what that means; he did not quite get it earlier. It means that the target moves forward by a year each year. Perhaps the Chancellor does know that. Perhaps he did this because he wanted to wriggle out of any responsibility to which he might be held now, ahead of the approaching general election. However, if he feels that this is somehow a firm commitment to 2017-18, he is wrong. Labour Members believe that we shall need to get the current budget into surplus as soon as possible in the next Parliament, and nothing in the charter is inconsistent with that view. The Chancellor, incidentally, did not really talk about the charter at all.
Chris Leslie
No, I will not. We have only a few minutes left, and I must give the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury a chance to reply to some of my questions.
The Chancellor referred to an “aim” rather than a “target”. I should be grateful if the Chief Secretary could explain why he chose to allow the language in the charter to move away from the idea of a target and towards the idea of an aim.
It is not enough for the Government to explain in the charter how they will measure progress. They need to explain how they will make progress, and that requires a balanced and fair plan. Ministers simply do not understand that the health of the economy and rising living standards are a vital pillar in the process of tackling the deficit and securing healthier public finances. If only wages and living standards rose at the historic average level during the next Parliament, there would be an additional £12 billion in tax revenues.
Cuts alone do not cut it. We have seen where that road leads: it leads to failure. We need a balanced approach across the three routes to improvement in public finances. Yes, we need sensible reductions in public spending, but we also need fairer tax choices—which means not giving away £3 billion to the richest 1% in society—and, crucially, we need rising living standards and sustained growth. The Government have lost revenues of nearly £100 billion over the current Parliament, and if we repeat that, we will lose £100 billion again. Any proposals in our manifesto will be fully funded, and the IFS has said that we are taking “the most cautious approach”.
Before I end my speech, I want to ask the Chief Secretary two more questions.
Chris Leslie
No, I will not, because I do not have time.
First, I want to ask the Chief Secretary about whether we can have an elevated level of debate and discourse ahead of the general election. Does he agree that it would be preferable for the OBR to audit and validate the costings of the manifesto proposals of the main political parties properly? My understanding is that the Chief Secretary agrees with that, but I want to get on the record and make clear his view on that.
My second question for the Chief Secretary is about what happens after deficit eradication and the Chancellor’s lurch to the right—his wish to return to what the OBR has called the public expenditure situation of the late 1930s, when we did not have a national health service, there were only 1 million cars on the road and children left school at 14. We know that the Conservatives want to wage war on the public services, but the Chief Secretary signed off the spending assumptions in the official projections. We know from Robert Chote, chairman of the OBR, that these projections, all the way to 2020, were
“signed off by the quad”,
and so far as I understand it the Chief Secretary is a member of the quad, so why did he agree to allow the official projections to take that lurch to the right—to go down that particularly ideological route? [Interruption.] The Chancellor might give him some clues, but I want him to answer for himself. If it was a genuine mistake and he did not spot it, he should just say so and we will accept that; or did he for some reason actually think that, yes, he does want to go down that far right-wing position? If that is the case, did he get scared when he saw the public reaction to it? I want to get a sense from him of what is happening.
Going down to that consistent 35% of GDP or national income has severe consequences for our public services. The Government must realise that we need a sensible, moderate approach to tackling the deficit. The focus must be on eradicating the current budget deficit. That is what the charter says, but we will take a fairer and more balanced approach to clearing the deficit. Where the Government have failed during this Parliament, we will succeed in the next.