Finance (No. 3) Bill
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He will perhaps know that the Economic Secretary, having taken this measure forward, is making that case for greater flexibility at a European level. As this country has taken a lead on having greater flexibility in beer duties, we are in a stronger position to argue this case. Similarly, as this country has taken the lead on deficit reduction, we are in a stronger position to argue the case that we must argue at a European level, which is that further increases in the EU budget are unacceptable. So in a number of ways the actions this Government have taken put us in a position to make strong cases at European level.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Are the Government not just tinkering with the alcohol measures, rather than facing up to the reality of the drink problem that Britain faces? Would it not be much better to have a significant unit price for alcohol, which would not affect pubs, beer drinkers in pubs or the average bottle of wine, but would raise the floor price for those who drink to excess, particularly the young?
Danny Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman were being fair, as I hope he would be, he would recognise that this Government have taken a number of measures to tackle problem drinking and that our approach on beer taxation, which is the subject of part of the Bill, will send further right signals. I hope that many hon. Members would agree that the consumption of high-strength beer is a particular problem in relation to antisocial drinking, and that allowing this sort of differentiation within the tax system should help to send the right signals. The Bill also includes a further step to help people to stop smoking, as clause 16 raises the duty on tobacco.
In conclusion, the Bill sets out changes that will enable our businesses to grow and succeed, supports the necessary plan to deal with the deficit, helps to tackle the rising cost of living, supports growth and supports fairness. I commend it to the House.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give the Finance (No. 3) Bill a Second Reading because whilst the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office acknowledged that the country faces an ‘immediate national crisis in the form of less growth and jobs than we need’ this Bill does not address it; because the economic approach set out by the Government in this Bill puts jobs and growth at risk; because the Bill cuts capital allowances to businesses who invest in growth; because the Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that after all the measures in the Bill are taken into account the number of unemployed will be higher by up to 200,000 than forecast in November 2010; because the Bill fails to reverse the higher petrol prices faced by families as a result of the Government’s VAT increase in January 2011; because it does not address the damage done to family living standards caused by the wider tax and benefit changes this month; and because without a repeat of the bank bonus tax, the bank levy alone will mean lower taxes for the banks at a time when families and children are bearing the brunt of the Government’s cuts to household incomes.”
At the beginning of the Second Reading debate on a Finance Bill, it is appropriate to take stock of the situation that we face in the UK and of the Government’s handling of our economy almost a year into their time in office. This was the self-styled “Budget for Growth” that downgraded the growth figures. When one in five young people were out of work, it was a Budget that forecast higher levels of unemployment. This was a Budget from the deficit cutters which forecast £46 billion of higher Government borrowing.
After listening for months to his analysis of the economic challenges facing this country, I must confess that I am very worried about the credibility of the Chancellor. His explanation of the origins of the banking crisis and the recession that it caused is partisan fiction—it has very little connection to economic reality. It seems that I am not alone in worrying about his grasp of the facts, because over the weekend he has been attacked by the enemy within. He has been accused of “fiddling the figures” and telling “untruths”, threatened with a lawsuit and told to withdraw “completely unfounded” claims or risk losing “his credibility as Chancellor”—that is just what the Energy Secretary is saying about him.
The Chancellor is clearly also a founder member of the enemy faction identified by the Deputy Prime Minister in his interview with The Independent over the weekend as
“a right-wing elite, a right-wing clique who want to keep things the way they are”.
Perhaps the Chancellor could tell us, if he bothered to turn up—[Interruption.] Perhaps the “Orange Book” Liberals are part of that right-wing clique. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us whether this right-wing clique all have a uniform as fetching as the Bullingdon club tux?
What about the Chancellor’s deputy, the Chief Secretary? In response to the Chancellor’s wild accusations last week about the funding of the “Yes to AV” campaign, the Chief Secretary said:
“I think it is a real shame that this sort of pretty desperate scaremongering is going on.”
Well let me tell the Chief Secretary that I know just how he feels, because the Chancellor has been indulging in pretty desperate scaremongering about the threat of a UK sovereign debt crisis since his theatrically named “Emergency Budget” last June, and he has been aided and abetted by none other than the Chief Secretary. As the Energy Secretary said in his letter to the Chancellor over the weekend:
“Robust debate is normal in British politics. Persistent resort to falsehoods is not.”
So the Energy Secretary is off to consult his lawyers, and the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the chair of the Conservative Party all appear to be in his sights.
In the meantime, will the Chief Secretary now admit, in the interests of not persistently resorting to falsehoods, that the banking crisis and global recession were not caused by the previous Prime Minister? The truth is that he helped to avoid a global depression and that the current Chancellor got every important call in those days of world crisis wrong. Will the Chief Secretary also have the decency to admit that the deficit was not caused by too much spending on schools and hospitals or by the profligacy of nurses and teachers? The truth is that the crisis was caused by unforgivable excess in the banking sector. Will he also take this opportunity to disown and stop repeating the Chancellor’s irresponsible and pretty desperate scaremongering about Britain being on the brink of a sovereign debt crisis like Greece or Portugal, when it is obvious that it is not?
Like the Energy Secretary, I believe that robust debate is normal in British politics, but persistent resort to falsehoods is not. Will the Chief Secretary therefore now disown the “pretty desperate scaremongering”—I use his own words—about the supposed threat of a UK sovereign debt crisis? The truth is that it was the banking crisis that had a disastrous impact on the public finances. Between 2008 and 2009, nominal GDP fell by 1.8%—that cost £20.6 billion—and tax receipts dropped by 3.7%, costing £19.9 billion. Will he acknowledge that this sudden collapse in economic activity is responsible for the bulk of the deficit? This is not a deficit caused by too much public spending before the crisis, but a deficit caused by the crisis. The truth is that the deficit is the price that we are paying for the failure of the banking system and the recession that was caused by that failure. It is also the price that we paid to prevent a global recession from turning into a worldwide depression, and it was essential to our future well-being as a nation that a depression was averted. We could all have a more mature and relevant debate in this House about the formidable economic challenges facing us, if we began with an acknowledgement of the truth of these facts.
Last June, in their first Budget, this Government embarked on a risky and dangerous experiment with the future of our economy. Last year, they abandoned Labour’s plans to halve the deficit in four years and decided to plough full steam ahead with a deficit reduction plan that went further and faster than that of any other major economy in the G20. So preoccupied were they with their desire to make the biggest public spending cuts since the second world war that they also failed to ensure that growth formed a key part of deficit reduction. They opted for a high-risk approach, and this Finance Bill continues that dubious experiment.
It appears that the Government are in thrall to the economic dogma of a long-dead 19th-century economist, David Ricardo, and their ideological preference for a small state. They imagine that the smaller the government, the less taxation and spending there will be. They think that the private sector will somehow automatically fill the gap left by cuts and that the economy will just grow. That is why they have embarked on a drastic programme of deep and immediate cuts that, if their theory is correct, should already be turning the economy around by now and why they are so uncomfortable with publishing their wholly inadequate self-styled, “Plan for Growth”, which was meant to be the public relations centrepiece of the Budget. Their laissez-faire economic approach assumes that growth will happen automatically without the need for any Government support, much less a plan. That is why the plan was so delayed and of such dubious merit when it finally arrived. Keynesians, however, believe that the economy works very differently and that the Ricardian equivalence dogma is wrong. We ignore the insights of Keynes at our peril, which is why the Government’s economic policy, as set out in the Bill, is taking us in the wrong direction.
The great banking crisis of 2007, which began in the American sub-prime mortgage market, administered a huge and near-fatal shock to the world’s financial system.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree entirely with everything my hon. Friend has said. The Government have completely failed to understand the importance of demand in the economy if we are to get growth, and demand looks as though it is weakening. Even the Treasury now estimates that by the end of this Parliament, borrowing will overshoot by £11 billion. The Government are driving the economy in precisely the wrong direction.
Ms Eagle
That is essentially the insight that Keynes developed from his experience as a practising economist. We ignore his insights at our peril—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches can laugh, but if we get this wrong and the economy does not grow or develop, the price will be paid through a smaller economy, fewer opportunities and lower standards of living for men and women up and down the country. That is not something that the Government or the Government parties should be making a joke of.
The great banking crisis transmitted itself to the real economy in the form of a synchronised global recession. Nothing so serious has been experienced in the advanced economies since the Wall street crash. That great crash destroyed the economic and social fabric of many societies in the interwar years, causing untold hardship and misery. Governments in the 1930s were in thrall to the same Ricardian dogmas as now hold sway in both the Government parties. They did not see a role for the state in protecting the economic and social well-being of their citizens. Their lack of vision and hands-off approach to economic policy led to the great depression and ultimately, the collapse into dictatorships and a cataclysmic world war.
Fortunately, in 2007 the previous Labour Government and economic policy makers the world over did not make the same mistake. They had absorbed the lessons of the interwar years, and they took actions to prevent the recession from turning into a global depression, but before the recovery had become securely established, the deficit hawks reasserted themselves, demanding austerity despite warnings from leading experts around the world that that would be the wrong approach.
Ms Eagle
That is true—the Liberal Democrats gave us such warnings before the election.
Undeterred by the lessons of history and without an electoral mandate for such drastic cuts, the new Administration in the UK have proved to be the most extreme of the deficit hawks. They decided that dealing at breakneck speed with the deficit created by the banking crisis was more important than any other consideration, including protecting people against long-term unemployment or against cuts in vital public services. So, before the patient was long out of the emergency room, the Government decided to start administering a deficit reduction shock therapy that could end up being worse than the original illness. There is nothing in economic theory that dictates that Governments should plan to eliminate deficits in four years rather than eight.
The sheer scale and speed at which the Government have proceeded came as a surprise, not least to the 6.5 million people who voted Liberal Democrat at the last election. The Business Secretary warned about the dangers of cutting too far and too fast before the election, only to go along with the most savage cuts that we have had in the UK in peacetime straight after it. Meanwhile, in his speech to the Liberal Democrat Scottish conference last year, the Chief Secretary promised to
“create…jobs and boost the recovery”.
Instead, he has followed the example of the leader of his party when it comes to election promises—he has done the exact opposite of what he said he would do.
Just today, Mr Gary Millar, a councillor in Liverpool, has quit the Liberal Democrats in disgust over their broken promises. He said that he was once
“happy to call myself a Lib Dem, today they make me question my integrity and reputation.”
Like so many others, he feels personally betrayed by the Liberal Democrats, which is why they will face the wrath of an angry electorate next week.
At the time of the election last year, the economy had begun to improve from the depths of the banking-induced recession. Growth was up, inflation and unemployment were falling and borrowing had come in £20 billion better than forecast in the 2009 pre-Budget report. Formidable problems lay ahead, of course, but we were moving in the right direction and growth was seen as part of the solution.
Since the fiscal hawks rolled up at the Treasury, our economy, which was improving, has ground to a halt. Unemployment is higher, inflation is double the Bank of England target and the Chancellor has presided over a collapse in consumer confidence to lower levels than it reached in the depths of the 2009 recession, because he made the political choice to inflict on ordinary families the largest and longest squeeze in living standards since the 1920s. As the cost of living rises and wages fall, he has chosen to impose the increase in VAT, huge cuts in local services and a reduction in the support for child care that threatens to drive many women out of their jobs. His VAT increase alone will cost the average family with children £450 this year, far more than they will gain through increases to tax thresholds. Little wonder, then, that the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded the growth forecast again and again.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor boasted:
“Our country’s fiscal plans have been strongly endorsed by the International Monetary Fund, by the European Commission, by the OECD, and by every reputable business body in Britain.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 951.]
The IMF has lowered its growth forecasts for the UK, however, and its head, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, has warned against cutting budgets too far, creating long-term unemployment and abandoning entire generations to a workless future with no hope. The recent interim OECD assessment of G7 economies predicted that the UK was expected to grow more slowly than any other G7 country except Japan, which has just been hit by powerful earthquakes, devastating floods and the ongoing battle against a nuclear disaster.
Kelvin Hopkins
Again, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who is making an absolutely excellent speech. There is another factor, however, driving deflation, and that is the fear of unemployment. When people are frightened of losing their jobs, they stop spending their money and try to pay off their mortgages. That is what is happening now and that is why demand will be savagely cut by this Government’s policies.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about confidence and sentiment in the economy transmitting their way into the real figures through their effect on demand.
Even those who gave their personal stamp of approval to the Chancellor’s aggressive cuts agenda last year in a letter to The Daily Telegraph are now voicing their doubts about weak growth. Ex-Tory MP Archie Norman is worried that the Government’s growth predictions are too optimistic and former Asda boss Luke Bond is predicting a two-year retail recession, which picks up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has just made.
The Government are going too far too fast, and we are paying the price in lost jobs and slower growth. Their phobia about the deficit means they are cutting public expenditure much further and faster than any other major economy. They have made deficit reduction the only thing that matters, regardless of how terrible its social or economic effects will be; they appear to be blind to the lessons of history; they refuse to listen to public concern; and they fail to recognise the absolute necessity of re-establishing growth to get the deficit down. Without growth, austerity measures simply make the deficit worse and impoverish the society they are inflicted on. The Chancellor should, as he so notoriously lectured us in February 2006, “Look and learn from across the Irish sea”. Ireland is on its fourth austerity budget with no end in sight. The evidence shows that all the countries that implemented drastic austerity measures saw their economies go into reverse in the fourth quarter of 2010. Those economies shrank in Greece by 1.4%, in Iceland by 1.5%, in Ireland by 1.6%, in Portugal by 1.5% and in the UK by 0.5%. In contrast, both the German and the American economies grew.
The Chancellor is not solving the problem; he is in danger of making it worse. The day after the Budget, the ratings agency Moody’s embarrassed the Government by suggesting that the UK’s triple A rating might be at risk not because of the deficit but because of slower growth. I would take any pronouncement from the rating agencies with a very large pinch of salt, as they are hugely compromised by the part they played in making the banking crisis worse and they need to be reformed, but, unlike the Chancellor, we have neither made their flawed and partial judgments the central justification for our economic policies nor installed them as the most important judges of our success by giving a dangerous credence to the fiction that the UK’s ability to finance its debts is at risk for reasons of petty party politicking. Their influence makes the inconvenient point for the Government’s political cuts narrative that growth is equally important to successful deficit reduction. Without growth, the deficit will not be sustainably reduced.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
No, I do not. That was one reason why we raised this issue in Committee. The Bill sets out tests on the responsibilities of the OBR and the Treasury yet there was not really an adequate response from the Minister about the justiciability of those tests. For example, the Minister gave no cut-and-dried answer to the question of a member of the public who might wish to sue the OBR on its efficiency or effectiveness, what sort of legal process that might entail and where it would eventually go. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
In a cynical moment in Committee, I raised an eyebrow about the fact that 10 clauses are necessary to establish the OBR. I queried whether we needed 10 clauses to do that. The Bill contains a number of embellishments that, in a more sceptical moment, made me suspect that it was slightly padded out to make it appear to be a grander piece of legislation when a couple of clauses and a schedule would probably have done the trick. Perhaps I was unfairly cynical.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) draws a useful parallel with monetary policy and the Bank of England, but in reality the bank’s Monetary Policy Committee currently interprets its remit flexibly because of the state of the economy. If the committee interpreted its remit rigidly, it would raise interest rates, because inflation is above the target level. It is not doing so, however, because it is sensibly looking at the wider interests of the economy.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I am glad that the Bank of England is being flexible, but absolutely, if such mandates are set out rigidly in legislation, as the mandate is before us, and if they are interpreted as they currently are, it is hardly any wonder that the Treasury has a blinkered view of the economy and is obsessively—some might say, fetishistically—focused on deficit reduction and debt to the exclusion of almost any other facet of the economy. What we need right now is a flexible approach to economic policy which can take account of environmental and external facts, jobs and growth, and those are the issues we are raising today.
Chris Leslie
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. As I understand it, however, the Government, in creating the Financial Policy Committee at the Bank of England, propose to give it a particular responsibility for macro-prudential regulation. That is quite different from the role of the OBR, which, as an analytical and assessing independent body, will have a duty to provide comment and analysis on, and a degree of scrutiny of, the proposals of the Treasury and, more narrowly, the Treasury’s policy in relation to the accounting aspects of fiscal policy alone. If we are to have an Office for Budget Responsibility—or, as some hon. Members have suggested, the equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office, with some kind of parliamentary Budget office, which we will discuss later—it must be an independent body, so it must have the indisputable right to comment on the Treasury’s policies writ large on macro-economic and fiscal policy. I do not feel that there is necessarily a conflict with the Government proposals on changing financial services regulation, although we have not yet seen their proposals, and we do not really know what powers they intend to vest with the Bank of England on macro-prudential regulation. We will come to that another day.
I will explain why I think it is important that we focus on the concept of a growth mandate. It is not something that was just dreamed up by the Opposition. The Engineering Employers Federation has also called for a growth mandate to supplement the fiscal mandate in the charter for budget responsibility and in the Budget. It states that a growth mandate would
“send a powerful signal to business in the forthcoming Budget that government has a clear strategy to address the barriers to growth”
and calls for
“a Parliament long programme to deliver on it.”
Terry Scuoler, the chief executive of the EEF, has said that a growth mandate should be introduced to
“report on the progress at each Budget in the same way it does with the Fiscal Mandate.”
The EEF also states that
“like the Fiscal Mandate, the Growth Mandate should span the lifetime of a parliament with each subsequent Budget and policy announcement showing further incremental progress.”
The EEF makes a good point about the impact on the industries that it represents, which are in the real economy. Ultimately, that is what matters to our constituents.
Kelvin Hopkins
In line with that, would it not be sensible to ensure that the members of the OBR, when they are appointed, represent a range of views? The Monetary Policy Committee has hawks and doves, who have widely differing views on what should happen to interest rates. Equally, there ought to be voices in the OBR putting the case for the real economy, as well as simply for the Budget.
Chris Leslie
That is absolutely right. The Government have given the concession to the Treasury Committee that it can hold pre-appointment hearings for three of the five members of the OBR board. That is, of course, welcome.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be such a pity if this edifice—the OBR—did not scrutinise the things that the Government know they are vulnerable on, and on which their policies are deficient. The Government do not have a strategy for growth and jobs, and we need the OBR to be able to expose that. Growth has a number of drivers—
Chris Leslie
I will not, if my hon. Friend will allow me, because I want to focus on what the OBR needs to take account of.
Chris Leslie
Quite the contrary. Perhaps that was published in the free phase when the OBR, untrammelled by legislation and existing in the ether, as it currently does—we are post-hoc legislating now—had its moment of freedom when it could comment on such things. If the Bill locks the OBR into a narrow band of responsibilities and duties, it is reasonable to worry that it will be limited to commenting on a certain number of aspects. I accept absolutely that, as the Minister says, fiscal policy is affected by growth, and that therefore the OBR has an implicit right to comment, but that has not been made clear enough, which is a sign that she still does not understand the centrality of growth and employment policy to what the Treasury should be pursuing.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is right to focus on the importance of flexibility and the ability to deal with the problems he has described in his constituency. However, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) made a useful point about the EU’s arrangements, under which a completely independent central bank with no democratic controls sets interest rates that might or might not be appropriate for different nations. There are Maastricht rules and a rigid currency that cannot be flexed by countries that need to do so. Our situation is so much better because we have preserved a degree of flexibility so that we can manage our economy in the interests of our people.
Chris Leslie
Indeed, and we should pay tribute to the previous Prime Minister for maintaining and establishing those freedoms and that independence. However, you would rule me out of order, Mr Speaker, if we departed too much from the amendments.
A growth mandate is necessary on the four principal components of growth. The Government’s strategy on consumer spending is falling apart by the day. The nationwide consumer confidence index published this week showed a record low among the general public. One reason consumers are losing confidence is the possibility of VAT going to 20%. Real disposal incomes are falling back to the 2008 level, and median income is falling more than at any time since the 1980s. John Lewis reported falls in sales last week, Debenhams is saying that trading conditions are tough, credit levels are contracting, and from April onwards, of course, some of the tax credit changes and other changes will take money out of the pockets of consumers. We know therefore that on the consumer spending components of growth the Government have already lost control of a decent growth strategy.
On business investment, banks are still slow to lend to high-growth businesses. More than 20% of commercial real estate loans are in default or in breach of their covenants, and the much-trumpeted national insurance holiday that Ministers offered to new start-up businesses has not been taken up to the extent predicted by Ministers, owing to the complexities they have imposed on the arrangements. The Government’s growth strategy currently seems to depend on a number of odd assumptions, including that it is the fault of employee rights, which need to be eroded to boost growth. That is the kernel of their growth strategy.
On planning law, the Government are sometimes localist and sometimes not; sometimes they devolve powers but sometimes they do not want to give certain powers to councils. Their approach on planning is confused. Will they relax Sunday trading laws? There is speculation all over the place. There is even confusion over business rates. The Minister’s colleagues in HMRC have issued 40 different consultations, discussion documents, updates and responses on tax changes since the previous Budget, which, as many businesses complain, brings uncertainty and confusion. And to cap it all, with the abolition of the regional development agencies, they have created these local enterprise partnerships, with no clarity about their role or budget. We will see tomorrow about the enterprise zones, but on business investment the growth strategy is very deficient.
The Government are relying totally on an export-driven miracle to be the salvation of their growth strategy, yet if the Treasury predictions are correct we would need the highest export growth every year for the next three years, which last occurred in 1974, I think. That means, for example, that our exports to the USA would have to triple or our exports to China would have to grow twentyfold. That is not a growth strategy, but a prayer for a miracle.
To cap it all, we know what is happening with public sector expenditure. The rush to reduce the deficit so deep and so fast is causing great harm to the growth prospects of the economy and taking out a number of posts, particularly in parts of the country that are least resilient.
Amendment 3 would add to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s duties the requirement to assess the impact of Treasury policy on jobs and economic growth. Defining responsibility as such a purist, accountancy-type concept is to take a slightly dry and aloof approach, which seems to us irresponsible, given the real-world impact on people, jobs and society. We need to ensure that the OBR is a more rounded organisation that is grounded in the real economy, not just a narrow, bean-counting institution that looks at statistics or just one aspect of economic policy. It needs to be strategic, predictive, competent and authoritative, and it can do that only by having a duty to analyse the Treasury’s impact across the board. That would be one way of creating longer-term sustainability for the Office for Budget Responsibility, beyond the Government’s current plans for deficit reduction.
Amendment 4 would give the OBR a duty to assess the impact of growth in our regions and nations. We know that the Government’s spending cuts are hitting less prosperous parts of the country disproportionately. The disparities in our economy are growing as a result of the Government’s policies, and clearly that is harmful. Indeed, we saw that in the unemployment statistics this week, for example, with 27,000 more people made redundant in the west midlands and 8% unemployment in my region of the east midlands.
HM Revenue and Customs
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
We are discussing the administration of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and I should declare a constituency interest because Cumbernauld HMRC is one of the largest tax offices in the country. It is a strategic site, and the largest employer in my constituency. As this debate shows, HMRC is equally important for the Government, who must collect tax more effectively if they are to be successful in their economic and financial objectives.
I should like to address a few issues regarding HMRC’s effectiveness, many of which were touched on in the thoughtful contributions of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) and, most recently, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). In my view, two things are necessary if HMRC is to be as effective as possible. First, it must be properly resourced, and I endorse the final words of the hon. Member for Redcar about the wisdom of getting HMRC sorted out before moving to a programme of further cost cutting.
Secondly—this relates to observations that have already been made—HMRC must have well-organised and highly motivated staff. I am concerned that that will not be the case in the future, not only because of the cuts that the Government are making in HMRC’s budget, but because of how they are being implemented. Together, the cuts and their implementation are having serious effects on the morale of HMRC staff in Cumbernauld and elsewhere. Simply put, HMRC staff know that cuts are being made, but do not know yet where they will fall.
HMRC received a tough settlement in the comprehensive spending review. The settlement mandates overall resource savings of 15% and efficiency savings of 25%. Those cuts were announced in October, as Members in all parts of the House are well aware, but we have yet to receive any confirmation from the Government of how HMRC is to be restructured.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Is it not the case that every additional tax officer collects many times their own salary, and that if we want to collect more revenue and make HMRC a more profitable organisation, we need more staff, not fewer?
Gregg McClymont
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a problem of short-term savings at the cost of long-term benefits—what we might call a false economy. I shall come to that.
We have not had any confirmation from the Government of how HMRC is to be restructured. We do not know which services to the public will go, or which services will be changed. We do not know yet which jobs will go. Before Christmas I asked the Treasury Whip about the future of HMRC jobs in Cumbernauld in a Back-Bench debate. The Treasury Whip suggested to me that the Cumbernauld jobs were safe. I understand that as it is a strategic site, its situation is different from that of some of the smaller call centres and the like. I urged the Treasury Whip to share the information that proved this to be the case: it has not yet been forthcoming, for good reason.
Subsequent questions for written answer revealed that the Government cannot give any such undertaking until HMRC publishes its business plan. It is better for HMRC to take its time and get its business plan right than to get it wrong in a rush, but that has consequences. It seems that the business plan will not appear before April. The delay and the mixed messages do not make tax officers’ jobs any easier. Clearly, the increased anxiety can damage morale.
We have heard about the situation from the hon. Member for Chichester and others. It is not surprising in those circumstances, and also given the nature of the job, that in a recent survey only 11% of HMRC employees felt that change in the organisation was well managed. HMRC employees in Cumbernauld are now just as uncertain about their future as they were when the programme of cuts was first announced in October. Such uncertainty has an impact on staff morale, and thus on productivity and performance. More fundamentally—this goes to the point raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)—I suspect that the cuts to HMRC’s budget may well prove to be a false economy. Short-term savings at HMRC could reduce the Government’s ability to maximize tax revenue in the long run.
John McDonnell
Yes. In recent years and from the time of the initial legislation, there has been almost a Dutch auction between Front Benchers competing to see who could cut more jobs from HMRC. We tried to point that out. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East gave a good example of how not to do a tax return. Some people need a face-to-face discussion about their tax affairs and that cannot be done through a call-centre mentality.
Some Members have pointed out that the evidence on call centres is fairly appalling. The pressure on call centres has mounted. Let me give some statistics for the record. Calls were up 20% from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Call attempts were up 100% from 2009-2010 to 2010-11. Engaged and busy tones played were up from seven to 35 minutes. One can see why that tune—“Greensleeves” or whatever it is—pushes some people right over the edge if they have to listen to it for 35 minutes. The current contact directorate performance prediction for 2010-11 is that only 40% to 50% of call attempts will be answered.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Together with the cuts in staffing, which have put extra pressure on staff, and de-professionalisation, will my hon. Friend mention the relatively low pay with which many tax office staff have to cope?
John McDonnell
We once prided ourselves on an effective and efficient tax delivery service through tax collection, and the job of tax inspector was one to which people aspired. We have undermined that through the de-professionalisation of the service, the way in which staff are treated and pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has direct experience, having met large numbers of his constituents who work in that tax office. The problem is not just the numbers of staff or how some of the services have been downgraded; it is the fact that the redundancy payments of people who are being laid off as a result of the recent cuts are being cut by up to two thirds. In addition, their pensions are now threatened by the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index.
Of course, that spells disaster for many people in planning their careers and their futures, so it is no wonder that the statistics on morale are so appalling—and morale is getting worse, not better. Staff were asked whether the changes were usually for the better, but fewer than one in 10 answered yes, meaning that they hold out no hope for the future.
Staff have been treated appallingly by management over a period too. Some Members were in the House when we debated the introduction of the lean system to HMRC, which was lifted straight from the Toyota car factories. That system produced the first strike in the history of HMRC in Scotland, because of how staff felt they were being treated. Hon. Members have learned that members of staff describe the imposition of the new attendance management system as draconian. One said that HMRC management seems to be
“more interested in finding ways to justify dismissing staff to get the numbers down as this is cheaper than redundancy rather than staff welfare and delivery of good customer service.”
The fact that professional staff have those sorts of opinions is an indication that something is wrong.
Staff are also concerned about elements of privatisation, such as the increasing role of private debt collection agencies in pursuing tax debts of under £10,000, and the conduct of private companies that do not have the expertise that HMRC has developed over the years in door-to-door collection. There are real concerns about not only office closures but the disbanding of whole HMRC business streams, which is reducing expertise and damaging service delivery.
Kelvin Hopkins
One feature of privatisation and the call centre culture is that it destroys the public service ethos. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said earlier, the public service ethos is vital in an important job such as tax collection.
John McDonnell
I fully agree, and we have painted a picture this afternoon of the impact of a combination of job reductions, cuts in redundancy pay and the threats of cuts to pensions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East described as a perfect storm. The message from those on the front line of tax collection is that HMRC is in a perilous situation. I hope from here on in that those voices will be heard and that we will consider a more systematic approach to HMRC reform.
Hon. Members have been told that access to face-to-face inquiry services has been significantly reduced, which is extremely worrying. Let me put on record what a number of tax inspectors have said about that. They say:
“Those offices that remain open”
after the 200 closures
“are having their enquiry centre opening hours significantly reduced. In some case these offices are due to be opened for only two or three days”—
maximum—
“rather than the five days a week they currently open for.”
There is also concern about the disbanding of the complex personal return team in March 2009. Many thousands of the top UK taxpayers no longer have the services of a dedicated case owner and customer relationship manager. Thirty-five thousand taxpayers whose tax affairs were handled by that dedicated team—a highly trained, professional team—are now dealt with in the wider HMRC network. There is a view that the skills are therefore not available or not dedicated in the most effective way to increase tax revenues.
In conclusion, I have heard figures bandied about for how much tax is avoided or evaded, and therefore should be collected. They range from the internal estimate of £46 billion up to £120 billion. A number of us have worked with Richard Murphy and John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network over the past five to eight years to try to highlight the issue. Until recently it was not taken up or reported particularly effectively by the media, so I pay tribute to UK Uncut—a group of individuals who have come together spontaneously, taken information from the tax justice campaign and mobilised direct action, which, whatever Members think of it, has been incredibly effective in raising the issue up the political agenda. As a result of campaigning by the Tax Justice Network, UK Uncut and others, and as people are experiencing the cuts and moving from abstraction to reality in their communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East said, they are now asking the question: why are we not collecting this tax? It is due not just to a lack of political will—although there is a tax reform issue that needs to be addressed—but to the way in which we have treated HMRC over the years, undermining its ability to collect those taxes.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I shall speak very briefly.
I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I especially agree with what he said about the need not to demoralise the staff of HMRC any further, but to put the blame where it truly lies—with the Treasury. My experience has led me to believe that the Treasury is the most stupid of all our Departments, and I say that advisedly.
I had my earliest experience of the Treasury and HMRC when I first entered Parliament and visited a local VAT office. There were splendid people there who were doing a good job, but they said, “We have not enough staff to collect all the tax.” They said, very modestly, “Every tax inspector collects at least five times his or her salary. What we really need is a few more inspectors.” I wrote to the Treasury, as one does, suggesting that because they were collecting more than their own salaries, employing more of them would bring in more revenue. I thought that that was a wonderful idea. The letter that I received from the Treasury, however, was one of the most vacuous, stupid letters that I have ever received from a Government Department. It said, “We are trying to reduce costs by minimising staff.” An eight-year-old child would have seen the illogicality of that. Obviously, cutting staff would cut revenue by far more than the salaries that would have been paid to those staff.
I have not changed my mind about the Treasury since then. I would add that managing the economy has not been one of its great successes either. I hope that one day I shall be challenged by the Treasury—by Ministers, or even by senior civil servants—to justify my accusation. That letter read like a thin press release rather than a proper, intelligent letter from a Department.
I subsequently raised the matter with union members. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I am a member of the union support group. They said that inspectors dealing with income tax and corporation tax raise sums that are many times greater than their salaries—five times is just a modest amount for VAT inspectors, and it is much more for other forms of taxation: the Vodafone scandal involved billions of pounds, for example. HMRC cannot collect enough tax simply because it does not have the resources to do so. It has been demoralised and de-professionalised. I have had many private conversations with senior tax officers, so I know what the problems are.
My next point might not be popular with my party colleagues. Against my better judgment, the previous Government arranged for HMRC to hand out benefits as well as collecting taxes. They gave it the job of handing out credits, but in my view benefits should be handed out by a Department specialising in that, namely the Department for Work and Pensions. No other country in Europe has three major Government Departments handing out means-tested benefits— I have checked that. Housing benefit is paid by the Department for Communities and Local Government, tax credits are paid by the Treasury and other benefits are paid through the DWP. Why not have one Department responsible for handling benefits, especially as each is means-tested, they all overlap and the people who receive them and therefore have to deal with these complex, means-tested benefits are often the elderly and people who might not be the most able? These benefits should be handled by sympathetic, professional staff who can deal with all of them in one place. Part of the problem is that the people who currently do this job have been landed with it.
These two tasks are completely incompatible. Taxation is collected on an annual basis; most taxes are paid yearly, and some of us fill in tax returns while for most PAYE, or pay-as-you-earn, is collected automatically. Benefits change throughout the year, however. Those who claim benefits are often people whose circumstances change almost by the week. They might be in and out of work and their pay rates change so they are either entitled to a credit or not. The situation is immensely complex, therefore. It was stupid to hand that responsibility to HMRC, and I opposed the move. I have stated before in the Chamber that we should have one Department responsible for handing out benefits and another responsible for collecting taxation. The two roles are completely incompatible. I stand by that position, and I hope that one day a Government will be more sensible and will start to unify the handing out of benefits in one Department.
I have met many tax staff, both senior tax officers and the basic back-room staff. All of them complain that they are demoralised and overworked, and that there are too few staff. The less senior staff are very poorly paid, too. If we are going to have a good HMRC for the long term, we must re-professionalise it, and provide enough staff and make sure they are properly paid, and we must take away the nonsense of them handing out benefits as well as collecting taxes.
My message is simple, and I hope it goes home and is thought about, even if it is not acted on immediately.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns about online filing. It is the case that one of the providers has been unable to meet the timetable that HMRC set out, although a number of other software providers have been able to do so. We are seeking to ensure that we implement this in a way that is sympathetic to businesses, but we want to stick to the original timetable. Those businesses that have delivered should not be punished because of the failures of another.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Manufacturing has undoubtedly been helped a lot by the depreciation of sterling, which took place under the last Labour Government. That was only possible because Labour wisely kept us out of the euro. There is now a possibility that interest rates might rise. Will the Chancellor be putting pressure on the Monetary Policy Committee not to raise interest rates?
Mr Osborne
The Monetary Policy Committee is independent of this Chancellor—and, indeed, of previous and future Chancellors—and that is how we intend to keep it. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the devaluation of the currency, I would just observe that it is incredibly important that the manufacturing industry makes itself even more competitive, and it could use the devaluation as an opportunity to do that. Some Government policies—on taxation and on employment law, for example—will also help in that regard, but the thrust of his question is right: we should not rely solely on the devaluation to make our manufacturing industry globally competitive.
Court of Auditors 2009 Report
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 25 November 2010 submitted by HM Treasury on the implementation of the 2009 EU budget, the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 24 November 2010 submitted by the Department for International Development on the activities funded by the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds in the financial year 2009, European Union Document No. 12393/10 and Addenda 1 and 2 on Protection of the European Union’s financial interests, European Union Document No. 13075/10 and Addendum, relating to an annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2009, the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 22 October 2010 submitted by HM Treasury on the European Anti-Fraud Office’s tenth activity report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2009, and European Union Document No. 16662/10 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the follow-up to 2008 Discharge; and supports the Government’s continued engagement with its EU partners to improve financial management of the EU budget.
I should start by saying that it is a pleasure to have this debate on the Floor of the House, as I believe that this is the first time that that has happened. European Union issues are occupying hon. Members’ thoughts at this time, so holding this debate on the Floor of the House demonstrates how important it is to focus also on the crucial issue of ensuring sound financial management of the EU budget. I therefore wish to emphasise at the outset the seriousness with which this Government take the issue. Managing taxpayers’ money properly is crucial.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Yet again, the European Court of Auditors has failed to approve the European budget. Will the Minister tell us for how many consecutive years that has occurred?
Justine Greening
I completely reject the hon. Gentleman’s intervention about this Government being soft on Europe, and I think that even he does not believe it. Far from being soft, we have taken a proactive approach to managing down the EU budget and getting control over it. We are dealing with a key part of that because, as he is aware, we have been leading the debate on the size of the EU budget, with some success. We plan to lead the debate as we enter the next financial perspective about how large the budget should be and the need for it to reduce in real terms over time. He will also be pleased to hear that we are steering the debate on what we should be spending the budget on. However, we are here tonight to debate the fact that although that is crucial, if we do not have the final piece in place—ensuring that once the decision has been taken on that money it gets spent in the way that was intended—we are not fulfilling what we need to fulfil. That means we are not getting value for taxpayers’ money, and that is why this debate is so critical.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) asks how we can make a difference. I hope the fact that I am an accountant will bring some—[Interruption.] He is groaning, but it is a good thing to be an accountant in this role. I understand some of the technical issues involved in auditing and managing financial accounts and in managing budgets, and I assure him that I shall bring that experience to my role as Economic Secretary on behalf of the Government.
Let me set out for the House the background to this issue before taking more interventions from hon. Members who rightly want to have their say on this topic. First, managing taxpayers’ money properly is crucial at any level, be it local or national Government or across the EU. It is a key part of the responsibility of Government and essential to the credibility of the EU budget and the European Union as a whole. As I have said, this Government and I, like other Members of the House, find it completely unacceptable that the Court of Auditors was, for the 16th year in succession, unable to provide a positive statement of assurance on the EU’s accounts. That is a continuing blot on the EU’s reputation and it raises serious questions about the management of EU funds. As I have said, British and EU taxpayers need to know their money is being well spent, but the Court of Auditors cannot provide that assurance. We are talking about large sums of money and it remains difficult to spend them effectively to deliver clearly the results we want—growth, jobs and a stable EU.
Kelvin Hopkins
As an accountant, the Minister will understand large numbers. In 2009, reported irregularities in agriculture increased by 43%. Things are getting worse, not better.
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman is right that in some areas things are getting worse, but in others they are getting better. The problem is that there is no clear pace of improvement at a rate that will make a big enough difference fast enough. The key challenge that we have to debate tonight and that the Government are keen to push within Europe is how to get that step change. What will it take to make sure that core financial management of EU funds is further up the agenda in the European Union than it has been? I will discuss later how to manage that more effectively.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, for lots of different reasons. Two spring to mind. The first is the macro level of the argument, which is that new members joined the EU during the ’80s. Those member states got cohesion funds to help to develop their economies. There is a question as to the effectiveness of that spend. We are about to embark on investment in a new group of countries that are coming in. The assumption about and the argument made for the accession countries is opening up markets, but we need to see those economies develop for that business model of the EU to work.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that yesterday I met the Bulgarian Minister who oversees the EU funds in Bulgaria. His entire job is administering those funds. He has been in place for about a year. For the reasons that my hon. Friend mentions, I was keen to talk to the Minister about Bulgaria’s perspective. He made the point, which I thought was right, that in the past people said to countries like Bulgaria, “You’re not spending the money that we are giving you.” His point was that those countries are keen to have it spent effectively, because that is in their interest.
Clearly, countries such as Bulgaria are at an early stage of putting in place the structures and processes. The Minister talked to me about the work that they are starting to do at national level and at regional level to enable better financial management of EU funds. That is a move in the right direction. The question for other member states is what we can do at pan-EU level to make that easier. We should get rid of unnecessary complexity and consider what we can do to help those member states to get along the road to stronger financial management faster. I believe they want to do so.
States such as Bulgaria understand that it is important for their relationship with other EU member states to be seen to be stronger financial controllers of the money that they are getting. They understand why that is important, not only in the medium or long term, but in the short term. The challenge for us is to ensure that we improve the framework within which they are working, and transparency is part of that.
I am aware that I have taken several interventions. In part, that is forcing me to jump to bits of my speech that I will come to shortly anyway. Perhaps I can make a little progress and talk to the House about what I think we need to do, some of the steps that we are taking, and what a better system of financial management at EU level would look like. I shall begin with a little more background to the European Court of Auditors report and go on to the discharge negotiation, of which this debate is an important part—in other words, how we get those accounts signed off.
On the report, it is fair to say that there are some improvements. We have had a positive statement of assurance on the reliability of the EU’s accounts, but as we can see and as we have already discussed tonight, everybody agrees that much more needs to be done. The pace of change is too slow, and we see no discernible trend in the right direction. We want to see financial management clearly supporting and controlling spend by the EU.
I shall set out the steps that the coalition has already taken to drive through improvements since we took office in May. It is worth reminding the House that the European Court of Auditors report relates to 2009, prior to the time that the coalition Government were in office. In October, when I was in Brussels having some of my meetings in relation to the EU budget, I took the opportunity to meet the Commissioner in charge of financial management in the EU, Commissioner Šemeta, to talk about our concerns and some of our ideas, and to push the case for transparency and sound financial management. I believe the Commissioner was receptive, and I think he understood that in his role, that needs to be a more fundamental priority than it has been for Commissioners in his position in the past. Since then, we have had a firm but constructive line throughout the negotiations among the member states. Let us not forget that they are responsible for management of 80% of EU funds spent.
The Government and other like-minded member states have pushed for concrete processes in several areas. First, at the pan-European level we must have further simplification of what are excessively complex rules that often hinder, rather than help, strong decision making that drives strong value for taxpayers’ money. We must push EU-level auditing toward a more risk-based and proportionate system. Simply checking through receipts in member states that are randomly selected really will not work in future. We need to move towards a system where the European Court of Auditors operates a risk-based approach, where the focus is on member states for which there seems to be evidence of poorer and weaker financial management, and where we understand exactly where the management is breaking down in those processes and control systems. We are keen to ensure that what we do at the level of the European Court of Auditors is done more effectively than it has been in the past, and I plan to meet the European Court of Auditors to discuss those issues.
We are also encouraging member states to take greater responsibility for the funds that they implement, which, as I have said, is the vast majority of the budget. In practice, that means that we are lobbying for member states’ annual summaries to be upgraded and published. The UK is currently one of only four member states that publish the sort of consolidated statement that we are debating today. We want more transparency, which we think will drive better financial management; it is not the only consideration, but a key one. The Government have pursued that agenda at the domestic level because we think that it is worth while, so we are pursuing it at the EU level. We need those annual summaries to be published and to contain more meaningful information so that people can use and interpret them.
Kelvin Hopkins
Is there not a vested interest in countries that are net recipients having a relaxed approach to the budgets? It is a bit of a slush fund for them to keep them on side. We are the ones who will be upset about it, because we are net contributors.
Justine Greening
I can see why the hon. Gentleman says that, and there is always a risk that that might be the case. Interestingly, when I met the Bulgarian Minister in charge of EU funds, that was precisely not his attitude, because clearly there is a debate about what will happen to structural and cohesion funds in future, given that new member states are now involved and want to see investment to help grow their economies. They also want value for money; they do not want billions of pounds handed over if it makes no difference on the ground. As member states, we need to drive that agenda and point out that it is unacceptable for a 16th audit report not to be given the statement of assurance. At the same time, we must have a positive agenda to work with member states to improve not only our own ability to control the finances and funds that come from the EU, but the ability of other member states to do so.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who does such an excellent job in chairing the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member and in which I do my best under his chairmanship.
The problem that we face has existed for many years. This is the 14th speech that I have made on these matters. I made the first 13 in European Standing Committees, and I am pleased to be able to make this one on the Floor of the House. Although we are given less time on the Floor of the House, there is a greater focus on debates here and they gain a higher status.
Although I may have said the same thing repeatedly for 14 years, at least the numbers change. Let me introduce a few facts to the debate. In agriculture, which I mentioned earlier, the number of reported irregularities increased by 43% in a single year. The number of irregularities relating to cohesion policy increased by about 20%, and the number of irregularities involving pre-accession funds by 35%. Those are significant figures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) cited some of the positive conclusions of the report by the Court of Auditors. The big negative is that it was
“unable to give a positive Statement of Assurance on the legality and regularity of expenditure in the areas of agriculture and natural resources, cohesion, research, energy and transport, external aid, development and enlargement and education and citizenship”.
That is pretty much what the budget is about. There is not much left, really.
Henry Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, despite the best and, I believe, sincere efforts of Her Majesty’s Government, the Court of Auditors will ever be able to sign off an EU budget? I doubt it.
Kelvin Hopkins
The evidence that we have seen so far is not very encouraging, is it? I must say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Stone made the serious point that the Court of Auditors is not really a separate organisation in the sense that the National Audit Office is in Britain. I should like it to be much stricter. If it were stricter, it might reveal even more irregularities and fraud than it does now, and might bring the European Union into even greater negative focus.
At the end of our last presidency, I urged the Government—from the other side of the Chamber—to call for the abolition of the common agricultural policy, which is the main problem in relation to the budget. We were given endless assurances about reform of the CAP at that time. Apparently, at the end of our presidency, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, went to the European Union to call for its reform, if not its abolition, but what he came back with was no reform at all. As was pointed out by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, he had given away a substantial proportion of our rebate. According to her, it amounted to some £10 billion over a five-year Parliament, or £2 billion a year, which is four times the sum that the Government plan to save by abolishing education maintenance allowance. Tony Blair gave that money away, and not one question was raised before he did it. Apparently he did it on the spur of the moment, hardly even checking with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Economic Secretary and others have mentioned the previous Government. I believe that the former Prime Minister, who is still a Member of Parliament—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—was on our side, in a sense. He prevented us from joining the European single currency despite immense pressure from Tony Blair and others, and it could be said that by doing so he saved us from worse difficulties.
Mr Davidson
Does my hon. Friend accept that, at this moment, there are more Members on the Government Benches who are in favour of joining the euro than there are on our Benches?
Kelvin Hopkins
I do not see many Members on any Benches who are in favour of it at the moment, and I am greatly encouraged by that. I believe that we have a kind of common sense.
I should say to the Economic Secretary that I appreciate her sincerity. I believe that she will fight as hard as she can to support our interests, and the interests of the European Union as a whole as well. It is important for other countries as well as ours that we get these things right as much as we can. As the hon. Member for Stone has suggested, the Economic Secretary and everybody else faces serious inherent problems when considering these matters. It is the system.
The common agricultural policy is one of those problems. If it did not exist and member states simply managed their own agricultural industries, choosing to subsidise where they thought appropriate, not where someone else thought appropriate, the system would be much better. The CAP will cause more difficulty, because when it comes into full effect in respect of the new member states, it will cost much more than anybody anticipated. That is because wages have risen in those countries, so the cost of subsidising agriculture in them will be much higher. There are ongoing problems with the CAP and we ought seriously to suggest to the European Union that the CAP should be abolished, by being phased out or whatever. Let us give notice that we want it abolished—let us say within the next five years, in order to give France time to adjust. That would save a lot of problems, as a range of difficulties in the budget would disappear.
Other areas of the budget have problems, too. The suggestion that I have made several times in the Chamber and in Committee is that we should get rid of the budget in its current form, which is about fiscal transfers. It is about transferring income or money from the more wealthy nations to the poorer ones; it is a redistribution policy. It does not work very well because of the formulaic way in which it is done, with some countries unfairly contributing too much and other countries unfairly receiving too much.
Let us suppose that there were no such thing as the CAP and all the other budgetary arrangements, and the European Union simply transferred a substantial sum to countries that needed it from countries that could afford to pay. For example, we might contribute 0.5% of our gross domestic product and Romania might receive 1% of its GDP. A lump sum would be handed over to the Governments of the countries involved and they would then decide how to spend that largesse. That would be more accountable because those Governments would be accountable to their own electorates. At the moment, no direct accountability is involved and we cannot do much to control the budget spending, but the member states themselves, with their own democratic Parliaments and Governments, could control that spending. That could be done in Britain at least and one hopes that that would spread to other countries.
I have suggested many times that instead of having this complicated arrangement of special budgets for all sorts of different things, we should have a system of a simple payment each year from the more wealthy countries to the poorer countries, in proportion to their living standards. So the wealthiest nations would give according to their wealth and the poorer nations would receive according to their need.
Henry Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the concept of zero-based budgeting would be helpful?
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Gentleman would have to explain the position to me, because I am not an accountant, but if there were no budget and no European Union at all, that would solve the problem entirely. Given that we are generous by nature and would want to help our fellow European countries to develop, some sort of transfer might be helpful and the European Union would be a way of doing it. So I am not against the idea of wealthy countries contributing to poorer countries, but the current cumbersome approach, which invites corruption and irregularity, is not the way to do it and does not work out fairly. I have made my suggestion a number of times and I hope that, in time, our Government at least will take it seriously. Perhaps we will be able to debate that in the European Councils themselves and discuss completely changing the method by which these fiscal transfers take place. I have made my point and I have spoken for long enough.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I call the next speaker, may I remind hon. Members that at 8.54 pm I am going to call the Minister to do a three-minute wind-up? There are three speakers to come. The first will be Chris Heaton-Harris.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
The clue to the proposed changes before us is in the words that the Clerk read out, “not amended in the Public Bill Committee”. The proposals were reflected on and discussed in Committee, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has had time, with a good break behind him over Christmas, to reflect on the common sense in them.
I would find it amazing if the Minister were not able to accept new clause 1, because it simply asks for information that, if he looks carefully, he knows I could table questions—with probably more work for him and his officials—to secure in due course. It is important that he assesses the scheme to ensure that we have a national insurance holiday, which, under the current Bill, includes the whole United Kingdom minus three regions—London, the east and the south-east.
The Opposition support, welcome and recognise the Government’s objectives in seeking to use the mechanism of forgoing national insurance income to encourage businesses, but it is important that the Government, the Opposition and, indeed, the House, who endorse that proposal, know its impact over the relevant period.
New clause 1 asks the House to ensure that, following Royal Assent, there is an annual report to Parliament on the outcomes of the scheme, meaning that between now and 2013 we would potentially have three annual reports with the information outlined in the new clause. Essentially, that would include the total sum of national insurance expenditure saved by businesses under the scheme by constituency, but, if the Minister wanted to reflect on the proposal and have it brought back in another place, I would be happy for the information to be listed by sub-region or by region. The information would also include the number of businesses availing themselves of the secondary contributions holidays, the number of employees in each business and the total expenditure saved by businesses under the scheme.
I tabled new clause 1 for several reasons. It is important that we know the facts. The Minister said in Committee that he expects about 400,000 businesses to take part in the scheme during its operation. That figure is a valuable indication and a good benchmark by which we can judge the success of the scheme. When the Committee sat before Christmas, we were already effectively five to six months into the operation of the scheme and about 1,100 businesses had applied for it. An annual review to Parliament would not only have provided an indication of whether Parliament should pass the Bill but would have ensured that we know exactly the take-up of the scheme. New clause 1 refers to the fact that we would also know the take-up by constituency and by businesses.
That is important for two reasons. We need to know the trajectory of the take-up. Is the figure of 1,100 to date what was expected? What will the trajectory be for those businesses in 2011 and 2012? If we have our first annual report in, let us say, December 2011—when the scheme will have been operating for 18 months—what will the take-up of the scheme be? Is the trajectory for the remaining two years likely to mean we get to the 400,000 figure that the Minister has mentioned? An annual report would provide transparency and openness, to which the Government are committed, on those issues and those take-ups. There would be nothing in the report that I could not ask the Minister in a parliamentary question in December this year, next year or the year after. It would simply be good business for the Government to supply that information as a whole.
It is important to consider the number of businesses in each constituency, and we will return to the exclusion of London, the south-east and the east region when we discuss other amendments. Given the deprivation in many of the London constituencies represented by my hon. Friends in the Chamber this afternoon, we feel particularly strongly about that matter. The Bill will have a significant impact on 400,000 businesses across the remainder of the United Kingdom, but will it and the proposed holiday impact on areas that have the highest public sector employment, which is the Minister’s primary objective, and areas of high deprivation and unemployment?
We discussed unemployment and deprivation in areas of the United Kingdom a number of times in Committee. For the purposes of explanation, I shall randomly look at constituencies that currently benefit from the national holiday under the scheme and will benefit if the scheme goes ahead. The annual report is important because unemployment in the Tatton constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about 2.1%, in the Richmond constituency of the Foreign Secretary it is about 1.8% and in the Rushcliffe constituency of the Justice Secretary it is about 2%.
It is important that we look at where the scheme ultimately is taken up and who will benefit. If businesses are opening in Tatton, Rushcliffe, Richmond and, indeed, other constituencies with low unemployment, that is all well and good, but it will not tackle deprivation in Manchester Central, Liverpool, Riverside or Newcastle upon Tyne East, which ultimately also might benefit from the scheme. For transparency, it is important that the Minister produces an annual report showing not only how many people and businesses have taken up the scheme, but in which constituencies it was taken up outside London, the south-east and the east region.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend is saying. One of the estimates we should perhaps make is whether the loss of jobs as a result of the VAT hike will wipe out any possible advantage of the Bill?
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that the Opposition are extremely concerned about the impact of the VAT rise on businesses, on consumer confidence and on consumer expenditure. Although the measure is not directly linked to the VAT increase, its aim is to help businesses in difficult times. From the Minister’s perspective, the measure is primarily designed to help businesses take up the slack caused by the massive 500,000 people who will lose their jobs as a result of public spending cuts. We will come back to the impact of that on London, the south-east and the east region, where many public sector related employment opportunities will be lost and there will be no benefit from the scheme.
It is important that the Minister not only takes on board where job losses will be but that he looks outside the three excluded regions at the benefits that the scheme will bring to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The production of an annual report will show with full transparency where the businesses are that benefit from and take up the scheme. If those businesses are in areas where there is already low unemployment and deprivation, or they are in areas in the rest of England or Wales where there is not high public sector employment, the objectives set by the Minister will not have been met. In the interests of transparency, it is important to have such a report.
Mr Hanson
My right hon. Friend touches on an important point to which I will return when we discuss the group of amendments on London’s exclusion. She will be interested to know that the number of business deaths in London was 13.7% higher than anywhere else in the country. While business births are higher in London, at 12.6%, the figure for business deaths shows that there is a higher turnover and a greater loss of businesses in London than anywhere else.
London, the south-east and east region is not included in the Bill. However, even with the Bill as currently constituted, an annual report by constituency would clearly show where the business successes are, where new start-ups take place, and how many employees are being employed as result of the scheme—in other words, it would clearly show its success in meeting the Minister’s stated objectives. Without the annual report, I will have to table questions to find out that information. The Minister will need to have the information to monitor the progress of the scheme and look at its take-up and distribution, but it will not be public unless we have an annual report.
Kelvin Hopkins
On business deaths and bankruptcies, does my right hon. Friend agree that we have yet to see the full impact of the cuts in the school building programme, which will affect many small sub-contractors who work in the construction sector—precisely the businesses that might have benefited from the Bill had they continued to exist?
Mr Hanson
Indeed; my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The Minister’s objective in the Bill is to help new businesses to develop to compensate for the loss and shrinkage of public sector businesses in other parts of the country; that is his main focus. The annual report would clearly show not only where new businesses are commencing but, through other information that we will be able to glean, where businesses such as construction firms are shrinking because of cuts in public expenditure on schools, hospitals and other major capital projects. I can think of building firms in my own constituency in north Wales that depend on public sector contracts in housing, education and health for their work. As my hon. Friend says, if that sector shrinks, those employment opportunities will shrink too.
I would be interested to know how many new businesses commence, and how many people are employed in each of them, in my own area in north Wales as a result of this measure, but I will not have that information unless I table parliamentary questions.
Mr Hanson
We are forgoing £940 million of taxpayers’ money, in the shape of national insurance contributions, to pay for this scheme—£940 million that could be put into the Building Schools for the Future programme and hospital expenditure. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman was interested in where and how that money was being spent and whether it was being spent effectively. The annual report would show clearly how that £940 million of forgone expenditure was being spent, and which constituencies or regions were receiving the benefit and which were not. My main focus is to ensure, from my perspective and that of my right and hon. Friends, that areas of unemployment, deprivation and high public expenditure get that resource, not areas that already have low levels of unemployment and high levels of prosperity, and do not require this level of resource.
The House is bound to consider how we expend public resources, and it is incumbent on the Government to provide that information. The Minister will have it as he monitors and receives reports on progress on projects, as I did when I was a Minister, and I do not see why he cannot publish it. Ultimately we can drag it out of him through parliamentary questions, but it would be far better for him to be transparent and open, in accordance with this proposal.
Kelvin Hopkins
On the point made by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), is it not important to disaggregate the statistics to show the specific impact of this Bill rather than taking them out of the general trends in small business creation and so on?
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I did not have the benefit of sitting on the Committee, although I did attend Second Reading and I think that I made a short intervention on the Minister.
I will make a short contribution in response to the new clause. I listened carefully to the Opposition spokesman’s speech, and to his closing remark that this is a sensible case that the Minister should accept. I ask the Minister to think carefully about the case that has been put to him. First, the full impact of the policy will inevitably not be shown after the first or second year. With such policies, there can be a significant cumulative effect, which is what the Government are looking for.
Secondly, it has been estimated that the scheme will have considerable benefits. The Opposition spokesman did not query the basis of the estimates made by the Government and outside bodies on the impact of the holiday. We have a pretty good assessment of its impact, so the Government should consider whether the annual report would add to that.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to consider that the policy is temporary. Although it is a recurring cost, it is only for three years. Were the policy extant for a longer period, the Opposition spokesman’s arguments might have more basis.
Fourthly, the Opposition spokesman made the point several times to the Minister that he could table questions. He did not say whether he thought an annual report would be cheaper than that. If he wanted to do so, he should have given a cost analysis. I fear that the proposal is an expensive way of getting at the information that he wants, and probably does not cover everything.
Finally, when the panoply of talent on the Conservative Front Bench was not as great, I spent four years as an Opposition spokesman. I spoke on various measures that, like the Bill, were extant for the life of the Parliament, such as the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007. I made similar requests for annual reports and, time after time, Ministers told me that such proposals would be costly and serve no purpose; that they would of course keep the scheme under review; and that there was transparency through other sources of information available to me. Therefore, before the Minister is tempted by the beguiling words of the Opposition spokesman on transparency and the need to review the policy, I ask him gently to remember that, freed from the responsibility of Government, the Opposition are not accepting the arguments that they made in government.
Kelvin Hopkins
I welcome what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and support strongly new clause 1 and amendments 5 and 6.
In the context of the current economic situation and the level of the cuts being imposed by the Government, the Bill is a relatively small reflationary measure. It is a supply-side measure, rather than the direct reflationary measure of additional spending that I would like to see. If I was in government and had £1 billion to spend—I would love that opportunity, but am unlikely to get it, at least in the short term—I would not spend it in this way. We could, for example, increase capital spending programmes in sectors such as construction and restore school building programmes; £1 billion would sustain a much larger capital programme as a measure of revenue support, so that is the direction in which I would go.
Stephen Hammond
I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Has he noticed the latest academic evidence on the size of the public expenditure multiplier? It suggests that in an open economy, the actual size of the multiplier is something like 0.1%.
Kelvin Hopkins
I have not seen that academic work, but I will be interested to read it in due course. I remain fairly convinced that spending capital funds on school building actually generates a lot of employment, certainly in my area. The cuts in school spending programmes will have a damaging effect on local employment in Luton. We can debate that in another economic seminar, perhaps, and we shall see. Nevertheless, the measures in the Bill pale into insignificance compared with the overall level of cuts that will be imposed. Some have suggested that the VAT rise alone will cause 250,000 jobs to be lost, which is a staggering figure and surprised me greatly.
In Committee, the Exchequer Secretary leapt on the fact that I was giving lukewarm support to a measure of tax relief, which is not normally my politics. However, it was lukewarm—I said that the Opposition had decided to acquiesce in what the Government were proposing, but that our Front Benchers had tabled substantial amendments. I still believe that tax reliefs are the wrong way to go. They tend not to be as reflationary as direct spending on jobs, particularly in areas where manual workers on relatively low wages tend to spend all their money, which is then circulated in the economy, causing the multiplier effect that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) mentioned. Tax reliefs tend to go at least partly, and sometimes substantially, into savings and have less of a reflationary effect, so I prefer direct spending to help job creation.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has suggested that there might be as many as 900,000 job losses in the private sector, which is a vast number. Added to the nearly half a million jobs being lost directly through public expenditure cuts, we are talking about 1.5 million jobs being lost. The Bill will go only a tiny way towards countering those massive losses. Indeed, the effect of those job losses, added to the 2.5 million people already unemployed, means that nearly 4 million people will be unemployed, which is a staggering figure. That will be deflationary, because people will become frightened of losing their jobs and stop spending in the shops.
Stephen Hammond
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to clarify the number of private sector job losses that he has just mentioned. Actually, we have seen in the past two quarters—the evidence from the following quarter is the same—that the private sector is creating jobs.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to say what I have said many times in recent weeks and months. We are still benefiting from the pre-election reflation of the Labour Government. To save the economy from a massive depression, and perhaps from sliding into serious long-term deflation, Labour sharply reflated the economy, and it was absolutely right to do so. We are still benefiting from that, because of the time lag effect in economics.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
May I remind my hon. Friend that some time ago, leaked Treasury papers demonstrated clearly that unemployment in both the private and public sector would rise very sharply during this Parliament? When the Prime Minister was questioned about those figures on the Floor of the House, he refused to answer the question.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am not at all surprised that the Prime Minister was not prepared to be drawn on that. What happens in a year’s time, and in two years’ time, as a result of what the Government are doing now will be the true measure of whether their policies are successful. I suspect that we will have a massive rise in unemployment, as forecasts suggest. That will tend to damage confidence among consumers, businesses and everyone else in the long-term future of our economy, so the Government are pursuing a dangerous policy.
The Bill, although welcome, is modest in comparison with what the Government are doing as a whole. The precise impact of what it will do needs to be measured and published, so that we can set it in the context of the rest of the economy rather than let it drift along, with the Government perhaps making exaggerated claims for its success.
Dr Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does that mean that my hon. Friend agrees with the Minister, who told me in a letter that £940 million was a large sum of money to allocate for an uncertain benefit? That is exactly why we need to see the figures, to see whether the Bill is working.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in the context of the current economic situation, the level of Government cuts and what the Government are spending on the European Union, bailing out Ireland and so on, £1 billion is a small amount of money, especially when it is spread over a number of years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn is right to insist that the new clause be inserted into the Bill, so that we can measure its true impact.
I will leave my comments there, although I will wish to speak to other amendments later. The Bill is modest, and, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, we must ensure that a true measure of its impact is published.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to return to the Bill and to some of the arguments that were made many times in Committee, and indeed many times in the speech of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) this afternoon. It is always fascinating to hear Opposition Members talk about the beneficial effect on employment of reducing employers’ national insurance contributions, although to be fair, I should exempt the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) from that comment.
I do not intend at this point to address all the points about regional matters and so on that the right hon. Member for Delyn touched upon, because we will return specifically to them later. I shall address new clause 1, which would require the Treasury, after Royal Assent, to provide to Parliament an annual report on the national insurance contributions holiday for new businesses. The report would be required to contain the total sum of business expenditure saved under the scheme and a breakdown by constituency of
“the number of businesses availing themselves of the secondary contributions holiday…the number of employees designated qualifying employees under the scheme; and…the total expenditure saved by businesses under the scheme.”
I think it would be fair to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) did, that it is not uncommon for Oppositions to table amendments requiring reports on the implementation and operation of a Bill, and for Governments to resist them. I say to the right hon. Member for Delyn that I do not believe the new clause is necessary, because in Committee I undertook to provide updates to the House and the public on the operation of the scheme after the end of the tax year, including information at regional level. His point that we should provide such information was entirely reasonable, and I can now give a little more detail about what we intend to provide.
We envisage a factual report that will state, regionally and nationally, the number of new businesses applying, the number of applications rejected, the number of qualifying employees for whom a holiday has been claimed and the amount claimed. The main difference between what I am saying we will do and the requirements of the new clause is that the latter would require a constituency-level breakdown, even though the scheme is regional in England and will not cover every English constituent.
The central point, which I made in Committee several times—the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) also touched on it—is that the locations of people’s work and of the businesses for which they work are not necessarily the same as the locations of people’s homes. Many people travel to work, and operating specifically on a constituency basis could result in a somewhat misleading view of the way in which the scheme works. We could identify one constituency that falls within a relevant region, where many businesses that benefit from the scheme are created and have many employees, and where public sector employment or unemployment is not high, and the right hon. Member for Delyn might then say, “This is an example of the scheme not operating as it should. Money is going into a relatively prosperous area and is not well targeted.” However, that ignores the fact that many employees who benefit from the scheme could live in neighbouring constituencies that are heavily dependent on the public sector, or where unemployment is high. I believe that looking at the matter on a constituency basis does not necessarily give a fair indication, and that examining it on a regional basis is better and more accurate. I therefore intend to prepare my reports on not a constituency but a regional basis. None the less, that should be helpful to hon. Members.
Dr Creasy
The hon. Gentleman raises the interesting question of how we guarantee that. That is precisely the point that I am coming to, because his Government made a pledge to my Walthamstow constituents that they would “cut the deficit, not the NHS”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has set out in his remarks, there is some uncertainty over whether that is the case. Indeed, we could be seeing cuts in the NHS unless we can be sure that the money it needs will be generated. The amendment provides the Government with an opportunity to show how and why they will do so and to consider hypothecation through the national insurance contributions fund, which has been accepted as a principle across the House, to ensure that the money is provided.
There has been sleight of hand in the investment promised by this Government for the NHS through the attribution to social care. As a former local councillor I know that social care is one of the largest costs that any local authority will face, so the cuts that we have seen in local authority budgets over the last couple of months raise severe questions about the ability to deal with adult social care—even before we consider its relationship to health care at local level. It is very clear to me that there are real concerns about the funding that will go to the NHS in the years ahead.
The amendment would mean that we could all have confidence in the fact that money would go to the NHS budget, about which I know Members across the House care, so that the real-terms increase that my constituents and the Minister’s constituents were promised can be made good—not to mention concerns about job losses in the NHS as a direct result of some of this Government’s policies. If Government policy is about job creation and the Bill is about ensuring that people are employed and the economy is in recovery, cuts in the NHS that will lead to job losses will provide a real challenge. The amendment is designed to make sure that, given the pressures on its budget, the NHS has the money that it needs, and that the public’s expectation, which is reasonable and proportionate given the statements made by Ministers both before and after the general election, will be met.
I note in particular that before the election the Chancellor was very concerned about what the national insurance contribution rise might do to the NHS budget. I am sad to see that the Chancellor is not in his place today; I wish he was here to talk to us. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne wrote to him, encouraging him to participate in today’s debate. The Chancellor should apply the same degree of concern to ensuring that the money is there for the NHS.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which deals with the National Audit Office, I particularly support the amendment. The amendment would involve the NAO, which has a strong track record of ensuring not just probity but value for money. It is a key concern for us all in these times of economic austerity to ensure that the money goes to the front line in the NHS, that there is a real-terms increase, as we have been promised, and that the Government are held to account if we do not get that, because my constituents living in a poor area such as Walthamstow are already losing out by not getting the national insurance holiday and should at least have confidence that when national insurance contributions go up, the money will go to the NHS, as many of us hope.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is a reasonable amendment to help the Government keep their promise to the people of Britain that the money goes to the NHS so that we can all have confidence that the NHS will thrive in the years to come.
Kelvin Hopkins
I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment. I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy) have said. Strains in the health service are already being felt, as are pressures on jobs. In my constituency, we are already seeing job losses in the primary care trust and the hospital trust.
There are obvious points to be made about the increasing costs of modern treatments and the reorganisation mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is no longer in the Chamber. Even Conservative Members have suggested that that reorganisation will lead to further privatisation of the health service, and private health services are inherently more inefficient than public health services. The Americans spend twice as much on health as we do, yet millions of Americans have no proper health cover, because private sector health care is much more expensive than public sector health care. We want to keep public health care in the public sector. Indeed, I believe that even the services that have already been privatised should be returned to a full public national health service. I am sure that Nye Bevan would agree. No doubt he is turning in his grave at this moment at the thought of what the Tories are going to do to the health service, but that is a debate for another day.
However, there are other, less obvious points to be made about the health service. It is, for example, inherently labour-intensive. Unlike manufacturing, it cannot take advantage of productivity gains. Its costs rise not in line with inflation, but in line with average earnings. If we are to ensure that health service employees are properly paid, there must be real-terms increases equivalent to the rise in earnings, not just the rise in prices. In general, earnings rise more quickly than prices as the economy grows, although that is not necessarily the case at present. If we are to have a health service that is as good as we wish it to be, we must bear the employment costs in mind.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said about what Labour achieved during its 13 years in office by increasing spending and improving the quality of the health service. The previous Tory Government had left it in a terrible state. However, although the improvements have been massive, there is still more to do. We must not allow health service funding to be threatened in the ways that have been mentioned today. Amendment 8 is important because it will ensure that that funding is protected. There are many other problems in the health service, and we must not put more pressure on it. We do not want what happened at Stafford hospital to happen elsewhere because of underfunding and understaffing in wards. We must ensure that the service is properly funded.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I cannot help wondering whether the hon. Gentleman realises that Buckinghamshire, for example, has inherited an underfunding of 17% per head in comparison with the national average. I am afraid that Labour did leave us a legacy of underfunding, although only in certain parts of the country.
Kelvin Hopkins
I believe that there is a massive difference between the proportion of gross national product spent on health under the Tories before 1997 and the proportion spent on it now. Although I think that we should spend more on health—I have always argued that we should spend as much on it as Germany and France, but we have still not quite reached those funding levels—we have made massive improvements.
For a long time I complained that health service spending in Luton was below the fair funding target. We lobbied our own Ministers heavily on the issue, and I think that we made some progress in persuading them to move in the right direction, but we must ensure that health funding in all areas increases as a proportion of GDP. I hope that Buckinghamshire as well as Luton North will benefit in that regard.
We must accept that improving health care sometimes means increasing rather than decreasing labour intensity. Health care will improve if a ward containing 20 beds and two nurses is given a third nurse. That is certainly true in the elderly care sector, about whose future I am seriously concerned. The fact that our population is ageing is an additional major burden for the health service. We all want to ensure that we are cared for properly when we are elderly—even more elderly than I may be at present. When we are elderly and need care, we want that care to be properly funded, so that we do not suffer in the later stages of our lives.
I strongly support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, and I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendment.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
It has puzzled me slightly over the years that successive Governments, and the Treasury in particular, have been so reluctant to engage in hypothecated funding. I know that there are arguments for and against it, but one of the main arguments for it—as has been borne out by the changes in 2003 involving the hypothecation of increased national insurance contributions—is the building of public support for the deed itself. It is true that if we want good services we must pay for them, but people want to know for sure that their money is going where they think it is going.
People in Britain tend to say that we should have Scandinavian-style public services with American-style taxes, but the two simply do not fit together. Scandinavian-style public services come with high taxation. If people can feel confident that their money is going where it is most needed, they will be much more committed to spending it. As I said earlier, I have not always understood why even my own party’s Governments have not necessarily been particularly keen on that point of view. It seems that Members have been captured by the Treasury as soon as they have become Treasury Ministers. However, an innovative step has been taken.
Amendment 8 does not ask for the national insurance increase to be hypothecated at this stage. It merely suggests that the door should be left open, and that if it proves impossible to reach the health service spending target to which the Government have committed themselves, it should be possible to use the national insurance increase to ensure that that commitment can be fulfilled.
Mr Gauke
First, may I welcome the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)? It is a great pleasure to debate with him again. My first experience as a Front Bencher was debating with him and, although we now sit on different sides of the House, it is good to do so once again. I am pleased to be sitting on the Government Benches now, rather than on the Opposition side, but I am sure he has ambitions to return to these Benches. There are not many subjects on which I agree with the vast majority of Labour MPs, but one on which I do is the high regard in which they obviously hold the right hon. Gentleman. I am pleased by his popularity and the progress he has made.
Amendment 8 would require the National Audit Office to report on how much would be required from the additional rates in order for the health service allocation to grow in real terms every year. It may be useful to clear up one or two potential misconceptions. The amount that is to be spent on the NHS was confirmed at the spending review, and is unaffected by whether funds come from national insurance contributions or elsewhere. The amount of national insurance contributions allocated to the NHS depends on economic circumstances as well as the proportions specified in legislation. I would like to reassure the House that it is no part of Government policy to cut NHS funding automatically if, for example, global economic conditions lead to a reduction in national insurance contributions allocated. To be fair, that has not been the position of any Government, notwithstanding the fact that there has been an allocation element of national insurance contributions not just from 2003, but from 1948 when the NHS was created.
Kelvin Hopkins
We have to be very precise about what we mean when talking about cutting funding. Previous Governments and Ministers have talked about funding not being cut when it has stayed the same in money terms, which is a real-terms cut. Even raising funding in line with one or other measure of inflation may mean a cut. We have to talk about this in real terms in the sense of what is actually done within the health service. That is the measure we should use, in order to make sure nothing is cut inside the health service.
Mr Gauke
I note the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The position is set out in the coalition agreement, and the October 2010 spending review met the Government’s commitment on HNS funding in full, and did so without changing the allocation of national insurance contributions to the NHS. The effect of our policy is to maintain the level of national insurance contributions allocated to the NHS and to allocate additional revenues from rate rises to the national insurance fund. This helps ensure that plans for payment of pensions and other contributory benefits are sustainable in the long term. We can protect pensioners by the new triple-lock, which guarantees each and every year a rise in the basic state pension in line with earnings, prices or a 2.5% increase, whichever is greater.
In ordinary circumstances, we should expect contributions to rise broadly in line with earnings, and therefore to rise in real terms. Therefore, under the Government’s proposals we should expect allocations to the NHS to rise in real terms in a typical year. Amendment 8 would require the NAO to report on how much would be required from the additional rates in order for the health service allocation to grow in real terms every year. The Government’s view is that this would be a pointless exercise, since whether or not the NHS allocation grows, the Government have decided on the amount the NHS will spend. In any case, the amount allocated to the health service from national insurance contributions would, other factors being equal, be expected to grow in line with earnings and therefore grow in real terms every year under the terms of the Bill. This amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I recommend that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne withdraw it.
I have focused my remarks narrowly on what the amendment is about and why it does not do what is intended. However, I must remind the House of Labour Members’ comments on the subject of health spending more widely. The right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor as shadow Health Secretary, who is now shadow Education Secretary, has said:
“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms within the overall financial envelope that he, as chancellor, is setting.”
It was also not that long ago that the shadow Chancellor, whose remarks we study closely, said that there was
“no logic, sense or rationality”
to the policy of ring-fencing NHS spending. I am pleased that Labour Members are now taking a different approach. It has been clear from the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne that they are in favour of real-terms increases in health spending, and we are pleased that the Government have won that argument.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend mentioned inflation costs, over which the health service currently has no control, because they relate to things such as energy, fuel and food. All those costs are externally generated, because we import a lot of those things, and so we have no real control over the costs. Therefore, the health service has to be compensated properly for the extra costs.
Chris Leslie
Absolutely. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) have all mentioned that these costs are increasing. As we know, the drugs budgets and so forth are increasing, so this issue will be right at the centre of the national political debate. We know that this Government have a habit of casually casting aside the commitments that they made in the coalition agreement. We really do not want them to rack up yet another broken promise, but it is starting to look as though the Treasury is in that particular space. This situation is not good for our constituents, we want the national health service to grow successfully and we thought that this amendment would offer the olive branch of friendship across the Chamber so that the NAO could, once and for all, clarify whether the Government are living up to their promise. The Minister’s description of our attempt as “a pointless exercise” is hurtful and, for that reason, we probably have to divide the House to ensure that we can at least test this issue and try to keep the Government to their commitments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 262.
Kelvin Hopkins
I strongly support the amendments, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) moved so ably. As it stands, the Bill has crude, arbitrary and unfair discrimination built into it. The amendments would remove the unfairness and discrimination at a stroke and turn the measure into something that we could all happily accept.
I have to declare an interest: my constituency is in one of the excluded areas. The proportion of public sector employment in Luton North puts it at the top end of the table—number 48 out of 650 constituencies. Some 41.2% of employment in my constituency is in the public sector, so it will suffer substantially as a result of the Government’s cuts in public spending. If 450,000 jobs go nationally, we could be talking about 1,000 jobs in my constituency at the very least. Already it is suggested that 500 jobs might be going in Luton as a result of the cuts, and a higher proportion of those will be in Luton North because of the degree of public sector employment there. I therefore have a vested concern and a constituency interest.
I am more concerned, however, about the overall principle, which will affect so many other people unfairly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn suggested that because of the likely decline—certain decline, I think—in economic activity and rising unemployment, take-up will be much lower, owing to the fact that far fewer businesses will be formed in an atmosphere of the economy entering recession, with jobs being lost in both the public and private sectors. If the economy were expanding, of course, we would expect many more small businesses to be created, and therefore a much higher take-up. The take-up will probably be well below anything that the Government anticipate, simply because the economy is going to enter—I believe—serious recession as a result of their policies.
It is strange that the Government have chosen the British standard regions to discriminate in this way. They have actually played down regionalism—they are abolishing the regional development agencies—and are diminishing the regions as a basis for policy in other areas, but they are using the standard regions as a basis of policy in this area. That seems to be contradictory. If we are to provide assistance to industry and employment, it would be preferable to target it much better and in other ways. Given that the Bill will work in such a way, however, the only fair approach is to apply it across the country as a whole. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said, the costs would not be so great of including the three regions excluded in the Bill and ensuring that every small business across the country has the advantage of the subsidy.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Surely the whole point of the regional argument is that we should be focusing on the regions that need extra help to encourage the development of smaller business. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the state of the economy, it is the growth of new small and medium-sized businesses that will boost the economy. That is what we want to encourage through this legislation.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the Government have chosen to play down regionalism by getting rid of RDAs, yet have chosen regions as a crude way of excluding certain areas from the policy in the Bill. Within those regions, of course, some areas really require assistance, and by any standards, Luton is one of those. We have seen a massive loss of jobs there as a result of the decline in manufacturing industry. Fortunately, we have an airport, public sector employment and so on, which has helped, but we have also lost a lot of jobs and need assistance more than most other areas not just in the south-east, but elsewhere in the country.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have abandoned regionalism. It is true that RDAs are going, but they have been replaced on a more localised basis by local enterprise partnerships. If he and his colleagues have a really compelling case for investment in the Luton or greater Bedfordshire area, surely a bid to the LEP would benefit his town, even though it cannot benefit from the scheme in the Bill.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am strongly in favour of proper targeting, but the RDAs could do that: they could look at their regions, advise on which areas needed the most support and provide assistance in that way. I am in favour of targeting, but if we are to exclude areas, it should not be done regionally, because within regions there are areas that need strong support and other areas that need less support. As I said in earlier debates in the Chamber today, I would use that £1 billion in other ways and target it rather better. We in Luton feel unfairly discriminated against for the reasons that I have set out.
There is also a problem with regional boundaries, which have been mentioned before. In Committee I mentioned a regional boundary that goes right through a small conurbation not far from me, Leighton-Linslade. Linslade is in the south, in Buckinghamshire, and Leighton Buzzard is in Bedfordshire. We therefore have a conurbation that is split by the regional boundary. How will people in that small conurbation feel about one side of the town getting a benefit and the other side not getting it?
I think I have probably made my point, and others wish to speak. The Government have got this wrong. I hope that they will accept the reasonable amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn and make this a fair Bill that we can all support.
Mike Gapes
Allegedly, we are all in this together. If so, why is it that those of us in east London, along with people in the 21 authorities in the Thames Gateway, which include authorities in Kent, where there is not a single Labour Member of Parliament—they are only Conservatives—and those in Essex, are excluded from the package that we are discussing? We heard earlier today about the Maoist chaos of the Government’s regional policy. That is not the responsibility of the Treasury; it is the responsibility of its close allies and partners, and the Business Secretary. However, as we are all in this together, presumably the Treasury is also involved up to its neck.
We have also heard that, apparently, the Government are refocusing regional policy. Well, that regional policy refocus includes, in today’s measures, discrimination against poor people in poor communities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) spoke from the Front Bench about a number of boroughs and constituencies that have high unemployment—higher than the national average—and where, at the moment, there are also high levels of public sector employment. Those areas will take a disproportionate hit because of the measures announced in the comprehensive spending review and the Government’s policy to reduce, for ideological reasons, the size of the public sector so drastically and quickly.
So, we are not all in this together: some of us are in it much deeper than others. I suppose that we are a bit like the residents of Brisbane, Australia. When the tsunami or flood comes in, we hope that it will meet a certain ceiling point before going back down, and that the next day it will go no higher. Some people have a little footbridge or step to get them above the water, but others are pushed down below it. People in the small business sector in my community—in Ilford and Redbridge, which is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat borough—will not benefit from these measures. When it comes to benefits, we are not in this together with those in Tatton or elsewhere. We will lose out.
Other Members represent poorer communities than mine, but I have wards in my constituency with very high unemployment. I also have a very diverse community. One of the interesting features of excluding London from the proposals is that it is not only discriminatory geographically; it could also be discriminatory ethnically. That needs to be taken into consideration, given the way in which the measures disproportionately affect different communities in different parts of the country.
I do not want to delay the House for long. I spoke on Second Reading in November. I hoped at that time that the Government would come forward with some changes to their proposals. I hoped that they would listen to the logic, but they did not. We have already had Committee stage and Report brings us to today.
The Thames Gateway Partnership for London, Kent and South Essex recently wrote to Members, urging us to make representations to the Minister—[Interruption.] He might wish to listen to this. It wanted us to write to him to point out the discriminatory nature of the proposals and to urge the Government, even at this stage—I say again, even at this stage—to see what they can do to help the Thames Gateway authorities. The partnership pointed out that there are 3.5 million residents in the Thames Gateway local authorities area and that it believes that in
“excluding London and the South East from the regional freeze on National Insurance contributions the government is failing to take proper account of local economies, particularly the challenges faced by the Thames Gateway growth corridor.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has already referred to that.
The Bill is damaging to a potential growth sector of our economy. The Thames Gateway is part of the future of London as a global city. It is vital to the prosperity of our nation, yet this short-sighted, quasi-Maoist Government are operating in such a chaotic way that they cannot see the damaging consequences of what they are proposing. Next year, I hope, they will come seriously to regret what they are doing. I urge all local authorities in the Thames Gateway area to look very closely at the Division lists for today and to register which Members from Essex, Kent and London went through the Lobby in favour of such discrimination against London, Kent and Essex and which Members voted against it. Then, hopefully, those local authorities, councillors and communities will hold those Members to account.
Kelvin Hopkins
The chief economic adviser for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that
“the VAT hike will prove a far more significant ‘tax on jobs’”—
to use the Government’s term—
“than the hike in…National Insurance contributions”.
That outside organisation estimates that 250,000 jobs will be lost because of the VAT rise.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
The Treasury will respond in the normal way to that report, and it would not be proper for me to comment on it until we have published the relevant Treasury minute. The Treasury and the Cabinet Office are working closely together to ensure that the PFI industry contributes its fair share of savings from operational projects.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
PFI was, of course, invented by the Tories; I may be in a small minority in having consistently opposed PFI and urged that we should have public investment instead. In making an assessment of PFI, will the Government make comparisons with superb public investment projects such as Luton sixth-form college, which has been rebuilt at far less cost than it would have been under PFI?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful for that comment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the decision that we took in the spending review to end the PFI credit system. Departments now have to look at the best way of funding projects within their own budgets; effectively, the PFI credit system meant that they could top-slice local government funding for local authority projects. The change that we have made means that Departments will have to make a proper comparison between PFI costs and the sorts of costs that the hon. Gentleman has described. I am sure that the House will have heard what he has said.
Loans to Ireland Bill
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cash
The provision appears to apply to the Irish component, but because of the implications of what I am saying and the interlocking aspects in the kaleidoscope, it is extremely difficult to work out exactly what is intended by such opaque words. What I am asking for is very modest: simply the removal of all doubt by making it clear that any such loan would be
“other than a loan by virtue of any provision by or under the European Communities Act 1972.”
If all doubt were to be removed in that way, it would be the end of the story and there would be no problem, so why not do it? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Another issue arises under paragraph 6 of the summary of key terms document. The paragraph covers events of default, and sub-paragraph (h) states that one event of default will be
“the Borrower”—
Ireland—
“not being or ceasing to be a member of the European Union”.
Why would such a provision be wanted if it were not integral to the fact that Ireland is a member of the European Union? I do not think I need to advance the case any further as it is very simple: if we would exclude Ireland from the arrangements by virtue of its ceasing to be, or not being, a member of the EU, that must have special significance, otherwise it would not be stated. That is another exceedingly worrying feature.
Paragraph 8 refers to the governing law, and it states:
“The credit agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it will be governed by English law.”
Paragraph 9 is on enforcement, and the document’s authors have clearly thought a lot about this matter, and the more they think about it the more worried I get, because they are transposing their thinking into the provisions of the Bill and this document:
“The English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to any dispute including a dispute relating to non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with the credit agreement.”
That gets to the heart of the problem, because anything that within law is under the jurisdiction of the European Union and within the framework of the European Court under the European Communities Act 1972 cannot be excluded from that jurisdiction by such words in a document of this kind that is “for information purposes”—hence our European Scrutiny Committee report on the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the judiciary. Therefore, merely writing in such a document that something will be governed by English law and that the English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to any dispute is not worth the paper it is written on.
If it is within the European Union legal framework, that means the European Court will get its hands on it. It may be that if there was a dispute or default or any of the other difficulties that could arise from the agreement in the Bill as enacted—as I rather suppose it will be—that will in no way alter the fact that ultimately, as long as parliamentary sovereignty prevails in the light of the European Communities Act, the Supreme Court will not prevent it from falling within the framework of the European Court of Justice.
Of course, it would be open to any future parliamentary Bill to try to unravel the arrangement, but what a pity it would be if we found that the fast-track arrangements we are experiencing today led us to the situation that I have described, simply because we were not prepared to listen to the argument that could resolve the problem by excluding the European jurisdiction. The legal advisers, the Treasury officials and the Minister may well be wrong. If they are wrong, we are in deep trouble. If they are doubtful, perhaps they could listen to those of us who have been proved right on a number of past occasions.
These are my final words—not from Cassandra, but from me. When things go wrong, it is much better to have taken advice beforehand and keep ahead of the curve, rather than allowing the curve to catch up with us.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash); I very much agree with what he has been saying. He is clearly much more erudite on these matters than me, but I understand what he is saying—that today, we are making to our closest friendly neighbour country a bilateral loan which has nothing to do with the European Union and which is not part of the panoply of EU arrangements. I am happy to go along with such an arrangement.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has said many times that, if there are problems in the eurozone with the eurozone, they should be sorted out by the eurozone, not by countries outside the eurozone. I agree with him very strongly. This is a country that is our closest neighbour, with which we have deep, long historical relations—very friendly relations now, we are pleased to say. Indeed, I have many Irish constituents who are concerned about their country. We are making a friendly gesture to a neighbouring country—our nearest friendly neighbour—that happens to be in the eurozone, which we happen not to be.
We do not want to be in a situation where, if another country gets into difficulty, it says, “You made a loan to Ireland—you can make a loan to another country in the eurozone.” That would not be acceptable.
Mr Hollobone
That is exactly the danger. Under the present discussions about the permanent crisis resolution mechanism, the draft conclusions of the European Council state:
“Member States whose currency is not the euro will be associated to this work.”
So the danger is that this Bill could be a precedent for the “Loans to Portugal Bill”, the “Loans to Spain Bill” and the “Loans to Italy Bill”, which may be just round the corner.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The amendments from the hon. Member for Stone will hopefully clarify the position and change the Bill to the way we would like it to be, so that it will not have implications for other members of the eurozone.
As I have said, however, if the Irish are to recover from their situation, they must remove themselves from the eurozone, re-create the punt, depreciate their currency and bring it into line with sterling, because we are their natural trading partners. Their economy and ours are the most closely integrated, and that is the sensible thing to do. I have said that before in this Chamber, and I have said it in private to senior Irish politicians on two occasions—I must say that it was not received in a very friendly way. Nevertheless, that is the logic, and even now we are looking towards a progressive deconstruction of the eurozone, partial or complete, in the not-too-distant future.
It would be better to deconstruct the eurozone in a rational and controlled way, rather than in a disastrous crash. So I hope that the eurozone members will be sensible and start to deconstruct it as practically and sensibly as they can and not allow it just to go into a massive crisis, which will benefit nobody. Even deconstructing it through country-by-country removals will cause problems, because many other countries have money in Irish and Greek banks, so it will be devalued and people will lose. Nevertheless, it is better to do that than to allow the situation to continue and the elastic eventually to break, causing the whole thing to come crashing down.
Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 7 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
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I have a large number of Irish constituents, and I am naturally concerned about their families and livelihoods back in Ireland. The fact is that the Irish crisis is part of a wider crisis in the eurozone, affecting a number of countries that will be unable to sustain long-term membership of the euro. Is it not time to have discussions—privately, perhaps—about the possibility of reconstructing national currencies, particularly the punt, so that the Irish can join the sterling zone, where they belong, and not the eurozone?
European Union Economic Governance
Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own inimitable way, but I do not want to be diverted from the substance of what is before us. There is a substantial proposition on the table, and I think it is important for all Members to understand it. The detail that will eventually emerge from the final taskforce report is important, and it would be useful if the Minister could deal with some of the question marks that hang over some of the detail, to which Members have already alluded.
For example, a series of new fiscal disciplines—as they are called—will be pursued across the European Union but, of course, largely for eurozone countries; yet the adoption of enforcement measures will apparently be subject to the negative qualified majority voting procedure. That presumably means that the United Kingdom will take part in any of those decisions. If that is so, can the Minister say how we will inform our policy position if we are involved in votes on enforcement measures? While we may not have a vetoing power here, our role could be strategically significant.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is using terms like “largely” and “presumably”. These are not definite enough for me. Please will he be firmer and clearer in what he is saying?
Chris Leslie
I wish I could be firmer and clearer, but we are dealing with a malleable set of proposals. The bundle of directives keeps changing, moving and morphing from phase to phase, and the directives will clearly go into a different phase when the European Council meets in December, but we can discern the rough direction of travel, and many Members will take a firm view on that.
The Minister talked about the sanctions. Yes, it is the case that they may not apply to the UK because of our opt-out from the euro, but the range of non-binding standards and early warning requirements in the event of significant deviation from the adjustment path apparently would apply to the UK; I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the case. Even if the UK is to be subject only to such commentaries, public observations or other non-binding standards, the Minister should tell the House how they would work and what the implications for us would be. Clearly, what the taskforce report calls the new reputational and political measures will be phased in progressively, but is it correct to read the proposals as also applying to the UK? In other words, is it not true that we will be subject to reporting requirements, potential formal reporting to the European Council in certain circumstances and enhanced surveillance—whatever “enhanced” may mean—if the situation dictates? Is it not also true that we will be subject to onsite monitoring from a mission of the EC—which I thought was curious, and which certainly might be of interest to some Conservative Members—and possible publication in the public domain of these reports and surveillance? Will the proposed regulations to strengthen the audit powers of Eurostat also apply to the UK, and what are the anticipated compliance costs of those changes for the UK and the Treasury? If we fail to comply with the proposed requirements, is it not the case that sanctions could be applied to the UK?
Chris Leslie
Those of us in opposition are merely asking questions and scrutinising what is on the table, but we are trying to find out what will be the impact on the UK. Ministers are arguing, “Don’t worry, absolutely nothing changes and there is no impact whatever.” As far as I can see, there are strands and suggestions that there will be an impact, both direct and indirect. In that respect, although we might have different views, there might be a point on which we can agree.
If the eurozone deflation and the shrinkage of European economic markets affect our exports, that matters, because the Treasury has depended on them so greatly. The June Budget and the spending review were predicated on a return to strong economic growth here in the UK, based principally on higher business investment and strong export growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility analysis shows that the cuts imposed because of the Chancellor’s austerity programme and his overly speedy deficit reduction strategy will see private consumption shrink rapidly and Government consumption doing the same.
Cuts in domestic expenditure will hit growth—that much is clear—but the Chancellor has bet the shop on the countervailing growth in trade and business investment. The Treasury states clearly that it needs £100 billion of growth in exports and business investment, yet the last time we saw such a massive rate of growth for exports was in 1974 and we achieved that rate of improvement in business investment only in 2005, but the Chancellor’s sums depend on the UK achieving both those record levels in each of the next three years—a very tall order indeed, equivalent to tripling our exports to the US and seeing our exports to China grow 20 times or to India 40 times.
Clearly, our reliance on the eurozone’s appetite for our exports is central to the Chancellor’s strategy, so there are implications for British fiscal policy here.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He focuses on trade, but it is in trade that we have our worst possible relationship with the rest of the EU. We have a gigantic trade deficit. We buy billions more from them every month than they do from us. The only advantage we have had in the last year or two is that we have depreciated the pound relative to the euro and we have started to see a slight improvement in our trade balance with the EU.
Chris Leslie
If we see growth dented here in the UK because those ripples flow from the eurozone—changes as a result, perhaps, of the measures we are debating—we could see further implications for spending cuts here in the UK in respect of vital public services and more austerity when perhaps stimulus would be the order of the day. However, there is a balance of risks here and it is clearly important for fiscal discipline to be exercised, but responsibly so. We have argued for a sensitive and measured approach to deficit reduction in this country, rather than the doctrinaire approach of steep and swift cuts favoured by the parties whose Members sit on the Government Benches.
I am glad to note the ironic analysis of the Minister in the explanatory memorandum that was referred to, which he signed last week. He said that he believed
“that the main consideration should be whether a Member State’s debt is on a downward trajectory, rather than the specific pace of annual debt reduction”.
He also said that the numerical pace should remain
“only as an indicative benchmark…that…is not used as a concrete rule by which Member States’ debt reduction plans are judged.”
How right he is—if only he applied such pragmatic sense to our economy and public services in the UK, too.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I shall speak briefly, but it is important for the House to know that there are also Members on the Opposition Benches who will be voting against the Government motion, and on similar grounds to do with the implicit transfer of sovereignty in the Commission’s initiative. I congratulate the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), on ensuring that the House is fully aware of the concern about such matters and on the fact that we are having this debate, as it is largely down to him.
There is serious confusion about the wording of the documents. The terms “all member states”, “eurozone states” and “non-eurozone states except the UK” are used at different points throughout. It would be simpler if only the term “eurozone states” was used throughout, so that we could be absolutely clear that the provisions apply only to the eurozone states. In the first draft regulation—on the preventive arm of the stability and growth pact, as it is called—reference is made to all member states. In the second draft regulation—on what is known as the excessive deficit procedure—reference is made to all member states, but a little later it refers in two places to the eurozone. The third draft regulation talks about eurozone states. The two further regulations, on macro-economic imbalances, refer to member states—not “all member states”—or, alternatively, to eurozone member states, but right at the end there is a reference to non-eurozone member states except the UK. I want to be clear that the provisions apply to the eurozone, not to the United Kingdom, so that we can know precisely where we stand on sovereignty over our own economy.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I, too, had to read the documents several times before I began to understand what was being proposed, but is not the simple distinction that the information-sharing provisions apply to all EU member states, whereas the sanctions under the stability and growth pact apply only to eurozone members?
Kelvin Hopkins
The Minister himself said that any information about the economy that was needed could be found by Googling it, and there is also the Library note on economic indicators, which I use regularly. All the information is there—for example, in the Budget statements and so on—and we do not need to provide much more than that. There is masses of public information. We do not need to have it in regulations. It can be provided as a matter of course. We must put down a marker for the European Union saying that we will not go this far, and that we do not want changes that show political creep or gradual encroachment of the European Union into British sovereignty over our own economy, going beyond the treaties.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) about the nonsense of the eurozone and the economic arrangements that it entails. There is a reference to “surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances”, but the trade imbalance that I focused on earlier in the debate is serious. We have a massive trade deficit with the rest of the European Union, particularly Germany, which sustains a massive trade surplus. Will the European Union focus on that imbalance?
In 1944, Keynes said that countries running massive trade surpluses should be required to appreciate their currencies to bring them into line. Will that be suggested to Germany? That cannot happen because Germany is in the eurozone, and all those other countries that cannot compete and cannot inflate at a greater rate are having severe difficulties, which are becoming worse year by year. Will that imbalance be addressed? When it is, I will start to take the European Union a little more seriously on economic matters.
I have probably said enough. I intend to vote against the motion, and I hope that the Government will challenge the European Union to make the wording of its documentation right and acceptable to the United Kingdom.