Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I am pleased that consensus was eventually reached yesterday and that the Chair of the Treasury Committee will now be able to perform his role in that inquiry. The Government’s confidence in the Treasury Committee Chair and its members in respect of that inquiry contrasts with their lack of confidence in respect of allowing the Committee a decisive role in the appointment of the Governor.
It is increasingly clear that the new Governor will have significant responsibility, and it is becoming obvious that we need root-and-branch reform of our financial services and our banking system. Therefore, whatever recommendations come out of the various inquiries, and especially the inquiry that was established yesterday, much of the work of implementing reforms will fall on the shoulders of the new Governor.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Treasury Committee’s role in the inquiry into LIBOR, but does he accept that inquiries are the traditional role of Select Committees, and that making Executive appointments is a very different role?
John McDonnell
The roles are different, as I will mention later, but the Chancellor did give the Treasury Committee responsibility, in the way it is asking for here, for the appointment of senior members of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Obviously, then, he had sufficient confidence in the Committee to involve it in appointments.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on bringing forward the Bill. I was slightly worried earlier when I looked up and he had moved over to this side of the House and was having a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady). I thought that perhaps the arguments of my colleagues had been so compelling that he had decided to move. I was concerned about his cynicism—he has been in the House for longer than I—that some of today’s contributions might be intended to filibuster and drag out proceedings. I hope that he does not think that I have that intention, because I have thought carefully about his Bill.
When I read the Bill and the words,
“the appointment and dismissal of the Governor of the Bank of England be subject to the consent of a Committee of the House”,
it seemed to me that it was okay. On the face of it, the Bill would add the Select Committee to the process that is nominally in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, but is really conducted, as we all know, by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and so on. It was only when I continued reading and thinking about the subject that I thought that there were a number of compelling reasons not to support the Bill. I do not say that because of dogma or because I have been told to by the Whips or anybody else. I am pleased to have the opportunity briefly to put those arguments forward.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced quite a few improvements in the process for selecting the Governor of the Bank of England. Traditionally, it has been done behind the scenes, nobody has known quite how it has been worked out, and in the end there has just been an announcement. Some of the changes might seem superficial, such as the post being advertised. However, as far as I know, in no other democracy or comparable economy is a post of this magnitude advertised openly in publications such as The Economist. It is also clear who is on the selection panel. It will comprise members of the Treasury and No. 10, and will take the advice of the court of directors, which is effectively the board of the Bank of England. That is not dissimilar to the process for appointing chief executives in most major companies and other significant organisations.
The changes perhaps reflect the way in which society is moving. Every Member of the House to whom I have spoken generally welcomes the increasing transparency in these systems and procedures. I realise that that comes nowhere near the veto power that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is proposing in the Bill, but I do not think that it can be taken as insignificant; it is a step forward.
Secondly, there is the question of how public the scrutiny can be for an executive position. Governor of the Bank of England is an executive position, not a scrutiny position or a non-executive position. It is effectively the chief executive of the Bank of England. I have tried to compare the Bank of England to a business, because most of my experience in life has been in business, from quite small businesses to larger ones, while reading about and observing public life. I am not one of these people who are obsessed with business and who say that everything is like a business. However, some matters of governance are comparable.
This proposal is comparable to the chief executive of a major company being appointed and ratified not just by the board of directors, but by its shareholders, with Parliament as the shareholders. I know that we act on behalf of the general public, but we are a shareholder-type body. There is market sensitivity in big appointments in businesses, but it is as nothing to the market sensitivity that there is when a country’s financial system is involved. I do not think that it would ever be feasible to have this kind of open, televised, broadcast scrutiny for a chief executive’s position, even in a large company. I therefore do not think that it is suitable for the Bank of England.
Another significant point is that the Select Committee system is evolving. There is no doubt about that. The coalition agreement calls for an enhanced role for Select Committees. Most Members from both sides of the House have sat on Select Committees that have scrutinised appointments. As a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I have taken part in the appointment process for the independent scrutineer of the activities of the Department for International Development. An example that has been mentioned often by colleagues, including in this debate, is the appointment process for the Office for Budget Responsibility, in which a veto was used for the first time. However, those are all matters of scrutiny. They are all extensions of the Select Committee’s role in relation to bodies or individuals involved in scrutiny. They do not relate to executive appointments.
If I may use a DFID analogy, it would be difficult to reason that because Oxfam is a major beneficiary of DFID’s money, the International Development Committee should have a veto on the appointment of its chief executive. I do not say that to suggest that the roles of Oxfam and the Governor of the Bank England are of the same magnitude, but the principle is the same. Select Committees scrutinising the responsibilities of people or institutions is one thing, but their deciding on executive roles is completely different.
Parliament is perfectly free to decide that we need an American-type committee system, in which almost every appointment, including to the equivalent of ministerial roles, is approved in public committee hearings. I do not support that view, but I can understand it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Historically, there was a much better check on appointments to the Executive, because its members had to resign their seats and stand in a by-election. The public scrutinised appointments to the Cabinet, which was a fantastic system.
Richard Harrington
For once in my political career, I am completely speechless. I cannot claim before I scrutinise Hansard tomorrow that I fully understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I am sure that, being the person he is, he is absolutely right.
A further extension of the role of the Select Committee would make a fundamental difference to our system. It is not just a question of extent, as is the spreading practice of giving various Committees different scrutiny roles. Select Committees getting involved in hearings on major executive posts would be a fundamental change, and Parliament should discuss it if Members believe it is the right thing to do. That would an interesting and significant debate.
I would oppose the change. We have all seen the hearings that take place in America on the appointments of judges, Secretaries of State and so on, which are watched live all over the world. Although I do not feel that such hearings add anything to the democratic process, a valid argument can be made for them. However, they should not be introduced on a one-off basis in the case of the Governor of the Bank of England, because that would represent a fundamental change to our system. I do not think many people in this country would support judges being publicly appointed, and the same is true of many other roles including, I believe, the Governor of the Bank of England.
Select Committees are very good for scrutiny—that is their role. The Standing Orders, which I probably do not read enough, state that a Select Committee is
“appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments”.
However, the control of executive appointments is quite different. The importance of that point should not be underestimated.
In 2000, in the report “Shifting the Balance”, the Labour Government stated:
“Any indication that a Ministerial appointment relied upon the approval of a Select Committee or was open to a Select Committee veto would break the clear lines of accountability by which Ministers are answerable to Committees for the actions of the executive”.
That is true. I ask the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to consider the fact that the Treasury Committee having a veto over the Governor of the Bank of England might allow a Chancellor or Prime Minister to say, “Well, it wasn’t my doing. That wasn’t the candidate I wanted”. That would give them an excuse, whereas now there is direct and clear accountability to Parliament.
I hope that no one, least of all the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington himself, thinks I am saying that he has introduced the Bill with anything other than the best intentions, but the point about accountability should be considered. I believe in direct accountability, not in our senior elected politicians—or indeed junior ones such as myself—having an excuse to blame somebody else. I fear that that could be an unintended consequence of the Bill.
I believe in extra accountability and in making Select Committees strong, but I cannot support the Bill, because it goes totally against our current system. It is that system itself that Parliament should discuss and debate at length.
Jobs and Growth
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I am listening with some perplexity to how the shadow Chancellor referred to the Budget as one for rich people, because I have calculated that in my Watford constituency, nearly 4,000 people have been taken completely out of tax by the increase in the personal allowance. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating the Chancellor on such an excellent measure.
IMF
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
The parliamentary authorisation is expressed in special drawing rights, and on the exchange rate at the moment the loan is just less than £9 billion.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I realise that mind reading is not among my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s talents, but does he think that as the shadow Chancellor did his gallant marathon yesterday, he suddenly had a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment and thought, “Ah, the organisation that I have supported for so long, the IMF, now has enough money, so I don’t agree with increasing its resources”, or does my right hon. Friend think, as I do, that the shadow Chancellor’s act is one of blatant, naked political opportunism that should be condemned?
Mr Osborne
I do think it is an act of political opportunism. As I have said, there was complete astonishment at the IMF when I said that the Opposition would probably oppose what I was doing. The people there all know the shadow Chancellor, because he negotiated on behalf of the Treasury as Britain’s representative at the IMF, so they find his decision very difficult to understand.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
That is like suggesting that if inflation was 10% and the Government had to increase pensions by £10 a week to keep pace, pensioners should celebrate and thank them. Of course they will not thank them because the increase in pensions only keeps pace with the rising cost of living. If the Government want to take credit for record high inflation, be our guest.
Rachel Reeves
No. Cuts to vital services such as the NHS and to social care and local transport also hit pensioners hard on top of the increases in VAT and the cuts to their pensions.
Many of the worst cuts are still to come. Analysis of the 2010 spending review showed that, on average, pensioner couples would be hit hard by cuts to services, amounting to £1,275 a year or 6% of their household income, while single pensioners stood to lose services worth £1,300 a year or 11% of their income. As we heard from the Treasury Committee yesterday, many pensioners are also paying a price for the Government’s failure to get the economy moving because the Government are relying on the Bank of England to undertake more quantitative easing to prevent the economy from sinking deeper into recession. That means that annuity rates and returns on pensioners’ savings are lower than they would otherwise be.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on hosting the National Pensioners Convention in Parliament today. It came to make the very point that my hon. Friend just made, and that pensioners made to us in the Committee Room earlier. Some Government Members would do well to listen to some of the pensioners in their constituencies.
It adds insult to injury for the Prime Minister and other Government Members to tell pensioners that they should be grateful for a rise in the basic state pension that merely matches the rate of inflation. It is not a rise—it simply keeps things level. If Government Members do not know the difference, they should get out into the real world, where the costs of food and fuel are going up and it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet.
Rachel Reeves
The idea that pensioners have been protected from the squeeze on living standards is simply not true. It is divisive and distorts reality when Government Members try to make that point, and conceals the fact that many older people are under genuine pressure. We should do what we can to help them, not see pensioners as a soft target for stealth taxes, as the Chancellor so clearly does.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. All hon. Members know that the average rate of inflation for pensioners is often very high—higher than it is for ordinary families—because they spend more of their income on gas, electricity and food, the rates of inflation for which are going up at a higher rate.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend sticks up for pensioners in her constituency, where, as she says, there are many pressures on their costs and standard of living.
In fact, the only people insulated from the Government’s unfair choices and economic failures are the wealthiest. The richest 10% of people over the age of 65 will be wholly untouched by the tax increases that we are debating. Indeed, those with incomes over £150,000, including, we might note, some members of the Cabinet, will benefit from the cut in the 50p rate of tax that we debated yesterday.
Richard Harrington
I am so extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—I hope she will forgive my perseverance. Having listened to her argument in some detail, I should like to ask her a question. Principle is very important to her. Does she believe that under-65s should have a lower personal allowance than over-65s as a point of principle?
Rachel Reeves
Winston Churchill was right in 1925 when he introduced that measure. People who are retired have fixed incomes, as a result of which there are more pressures on them and they cannot make up the additional changes. That is why the Opposition will vote against the Government’s change. We do not think it is the right priority or the right thing to do at this time, especially because the money is not being used to help young people to get back to work, to help the poorest pensioners or to help families of children who are struggling with the rise in the cost of living. Instead, the money is being used to give a tax cut of £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what my principle is: we should prioritise ordinary families, ordinary pensioners and young people who are out of work, not those on multi-million pound salaries. That is my principle and those are my priorities. I am sorry that Government Members do not share them.
That is the second reason why the Opposition are opposing the tax increase on millions of modest-income pensioners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) so eloquently expressed on Monday, the measure is unfair and unnecessary when the Government are spending £3 billion on a tax give-away for the richest 1%. Hon. Members will remember that, originally, the Government said that the 50p tax cut would be paid for by a mansion tax and a crackdown on tax avoidance. However, the cut costs 10 times as much as is raised by the new measure on stamp duty—the Chief Secretary’s sorry substitute for a mansion tax—and more than three times as much as is raised in the Budget by reductions in tax avoidance. In fact, cutting tax avoidance should be part of every Budget anyway, and the money raised by measures to tackle tax avoidance in this Budget is less than the average reductions in tax avoidance achieved by Labour’s Budgets. In addition, we have since discovered that the Government’s definition of tax avoidance includes donations to UNICEF, Macmillan, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities that do fantastic work in our communities. That the Government cannot see the difference between tax avoidance and giving money to worthwhile causes again shows how out of touch they are.
Meanwhile, the single biggest revenue raiser in the Budget is the measure before us. More than £3 billion over the next five years will be raised from the pockets of pensioners with modest incomes. Where does it all go to? Does it go towards paying down the deficit? No. Does it help young people to get back to work? No. Does it help poorer pensioners? No—they have been hit too by VAT rises and service cuts. Instead, the money, which is being taken from those with pensions of just a few thousand pounds a year, is being spent on a tax cut for people for whom this tax grab would have counted as mere small change.
The Government were said to have been surprised by the anger that the measure has aroused, but that again goes to show how out of touch they are with the reality faced by most people, and how far they have strayed from the values and priorities of the British people. It goes to the heart of the problems that the Government face and the problem with their conception of fairness, and the callous arrogance with which they have abandoned the pretence that we are all in it together.
Age UK responded to the Government’s measures by stating:
“we feel it is disappointing that the Budget offered a tax break of at least £10,000 to the very wealthy while penalising many pensioners on fairly modest incomes who are already being squeezed”.
The chief executive of Saga said:
“Over the next five years, pensioners with an income of between £10,500 and £24,000 will be paying an extra £3 billion in tax while richer pensioners are left unaffected.”
The National Pensioners Convention, which I met earlier today, stated:
“We have been inundated by pensioners who are disgusted that those on around £11,000 a year will no longer get additional reductions in their tax…whilst those earning £150,000 or more will see their tax bills reduced. This is seen by many as the last straw…Pensioners feel they are being asked to bail out the super rich…and it’s simply not fair.”
Age UK, Saga, and the National Pensioners Convention have hit the nail on the head. It is just a shame that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are so blinded by the demands of the super-rich that they fail to see it.
Finally, it is worth recognising that the measure is not the only reason why people are so angry. It is not just the blatant unfairness that has offended people, but the way in which the change was announced. Most people believe that our older generation deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, yet this Government and the Chancellor tried to get away with going back on a previous promise by dressing up a tax grab as a “simplification”. Just one year ago, on page 35 of the 2011 Budget Red Book, people were told:
“For the duration of this Parliament…the age related allowance will be over-indexed”
according to
“CPI and will increase by the equivalent of the…RPI”.
What the Chancellor said then was clear and unmistakeable, but that is another broken promise by the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat friends. The Institute for Fiscal Studies agrees. It says that the Chancellor
“should have avoided dressing up what is clearly a tax increase as merely a simplification”.
In the same letter from Age UK to the Chancellor that I have quoted, it also states:
“We are concerned that you announced the change to age allowances as a way to simplify the tax system and indeed the Budget Report lists the change under…‘Simplification’... rather than under ‘Personal and Property taxes’”.
The Chancellor also attempted to hide behind the Office of Tax Simplification, but its director has told the Treasury that attempts to use its recommendations as a cover for his tax grab are “not 100% accurate”. The relevant report by the Office of Tax Simplification states clearly:
“we would stress…that the Office of Tax Simplification has not reached any conclusions as to the best way forward with age-related allowances, nor have we formulated detailed recommendations”.
It is all too clear why the Chancellor did not bother to wait for the final OTS report: he was not really interested in simplifying taxation for older people. Rather, his single-minded focus and overriding priority was getting his millionaires’ tax break through, and he was willing to fund it by cutting the incomes of pensioners.
In conclusion, we all know what an embarrassment this Budget has become to Government Members. We know how it has shaken their confidence in the strategic genius of the Chancellor and that many of them have heard from constituents who are anxious about the impact that the measure will have and angry about how the Government have treated people who deserve better.
Therefore, today, the Opposition are glad to be giving Government Members an opportunity to make amends and a chance to dissociate themselves with this disreputable raid on the incomes of older people. They have a choice. Do they stand with the millions of people who have worked hard and saved what they can? Or do they stand with the Chancellor and his friend, the Chief Secretary, who see pensioners as a soft touch ripe for a sneaky tax grab? The Opposition know whose side we are on. We are about to find out whose side Government Members are on.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) in this important debate. It is important because it touches on perhaps the greatest challenge facing politicians and representatives in this Chamber. She is a luminary of the new Labour party and one of the stars of her intake, and it is always a pleasure to hear her in the Chamber and on the television. No doubt, at some point, she aspires to high office not only in her party but in government. [Interruption.] There is no punch line. The hon. Lady is no joke. It is important to remember that, at some point, Labour will form a Government. I hope it is not too soon, but it is in the nature of our democracy, and a fine thing, that we swap sides now and again.
Richard Harrington
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about Labour’s prospects of forming a Government. I listened to the comments about pensions from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). Does he think I will be a pensioner by the time Labour forms another Government?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is full of vigour and will be going a long time, so I hope not.
The key challenge facing us is the extraordinary rate of demographic change in this country. Between now and 11 minutes past 3, the average age at which people are expected to die in this country will increase by 15 minutes. As a consequence, by 2041, the amount we spend on old-age pensions will have increased from about £80 billion now to £250 billion, even with the changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues. Even with the reforms that the Government have initiated, we will deliver to our successors in this place—including the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury—a formidable challenge, and not only have we not properly faced up to the challenge but we are not talking properly to the public about it.
I can understand why Labour Members have tabled amendments on VAT and other matters—they can make their political points about the balance in the Budget and the Finance Bill with complete justice—but I am seriously disappointed that they have tabled amendments on this issue, because it is the most modest start to trying to deal with what is a really big and fundamental problem for us all.
Richard Harrington
I am trying to follow the hon. Lady’s rationale and that of her colleagues about this change in the pension arrangements. Their argument is that this money is being used to fund wealthy people through the reduction from 50p to 45p, but would it not be just as logical to say that it is being used to fund the big increase in personal allowances, which benefits everybody?
Sheila Gilmore
I think it is important to see this in the context of the cut in the 50p rate.
I am also concerned about some of the attempts today to counterpose and, as usual, level down. It is fascinating. We heard earlier that if we were going to increase the allowances for young people and working people, it was not fair that older people who were already retired should have a higher threshold. Why do the Government always want to level down? Why do they feel, essentially, that they have to pit one group against another rather than saying that the unfairness lies in the high tax levels for working families? Let us not forget that many of those families have not benefited from the rise in the tax threshold because of the changes to tax credits.
Some of the apparently quite small measures that the Government are introducing are illogical. We keep being told that we want people to save and to benefit from savings and work, but yet again this measure undermines that. We have seen that, too, in the way in which working tax credit has been dealt with. We have heard about people with very low working hours who will lose a lot of working tax credit. Working tax credit was frozen, however, and was not increased in line with inflation when benefits were. That totally contradicts the Government’s own policies, because if we want to make work pay rather than benefits, why put up benefits in line with inflation but not working tax credit?
At lot of what is happening is illogical and it is important that we straighten things out and oppose this provision. I shall sit down now so that my hon. Friends can speak.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I do not want a 50p rate to last for ever and I accept that the City of London plays a very important role in the whole UK economy, but I tell the hon. Gentleman that I feel anxious that this country’s economy depends far too much on what happens in London and the south-east. My fear about the way in which this policy has been developed in the past few months is that the Government intend to increase that dependency, rather than undermine it. I know that there are logical arguments to say that we should have different pay rates for public sector jobs in different parts of the country—
Chris Bryant
Just one moment. However, I say to Government Members that if they do that, they will further exacerbate the gap between peripheral parts of the economy—places such as the Rhondda and the Vale of Glamorgan—and the south-east of England and London. That will undermine the very competitiveness that the hon. Member for South West Norfolk is trying to advance.
I also disagree with the move that the Government are making because, politically, it sanctions the process of avoiding paying tax, in which some wealthy people have engaged. I have not been in this place for that long—just for 11 years—but in that time I have heard an awful lot of Chancellors say, “The solution to this is to close a tax loophole.” However many times we try to close these loopholes, wealthy people will still employ accountants to try to minimise how much tax they pay. I would prefer to live in a country where the vast majority of wealthy people said, “You know what, I am a wealthy person and I want to contribute my fair share. However easily I can legally avoid paying tax, I actually want to pay my fair contribution.”
Chris Bryant
If hon. Members bear with me, I will give way. I have already promised to give way to the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), so I will do so in a moment. I just say that the message coming out of this is, “Frankly Mr Wealthy Person or Mrs Wealthy Person, if you have not got an accountant and you are not trying to minimise how much tax you are paying, you are pretty daft.” That is a bad place for us to be in ethically.
Richard Harrington
I apologise for stopping the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow on two occasions, but I would like to ask him whether he accepts that for people in business, who are creating wealth and—we hope—employing a lot of people and investing money, a very high personal income tax rate is a disincentive to doing that. Does he accept that however public-spirited business people are—in my experience, most people do take the view that he put forward and they are prepared to pay a reasonable rate of tax; they do not try to avoid paying every penny and they want to contribute to society—a high tax rate is a disincentive and would lead to a lot of people saying, “I am just not going to do the extra and employ more people”?
Chris Bryant
Broadly speaking, of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman; a very high tax rate could act as a disincentive to many people and, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) was intimating, could make this country uncompetitive compared with other countries. However, I just ask two questions in return, the first of which is: what counts as a “very high” tax rate? That is a judgment call; it is about our rate relative to that of others and whether we have the balance right. My second question is: given that, when is the right time to change? I just say to hon. Members that now is not the time, because this country will gird our economic loins and start seeing economic growth only if everybody does genuinely feel we are all in it together. This move undermines that precise point.
Richard Harrington
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and sorry for interrupting him mid-sentence, but in welcoming you, Mr Hood, to the Chair, I should like to ask him this question. Does he believe, as I do, that there are circumstances in which economic beliefs have to take precedence over political ones? Governments have to consider what they believe to be good in the long term for the country, for the economy and for growth, not just what might appear in newspaper headlines.
Sammy Wilson
I do agree, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening he would have heard that the economic case—that we did not raise as much revenue as we should, that we will raise more revenue than we were doing and that we will improve the competitiveness of the UK economy through this new measure—has not been made. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but on the basis of the Government’s own publication, the economic case has not been made.
Richard Harrington
To be clear, that is not what I was asking. I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the current economic policy is the right one, but does he accept my view that in many circumstances Governments have to consider what they believe to be the best economic case over and above the politics of the situation?
Sammy Wilson
That may well be the case. However, if a Government have to make that decision—and, yes, there are occasions when that has to be done— they must first convince people that the economic case is sound, and on the basis of the Government’s own published information, that is not so. Indeed, even the Prime Minister did not seem to know what his own Government’s information said when he was answering Prime Minister’s questions earlier. It cannot be argued that there are times when the economic case is more important than the politics and so the right decision has been made, because the Government have not made a sound economic case.
We have a political context in which the Government are saying to people: “Make sacrifices. If you’re working in the public services, take a pay freeze. If you’re a motorist, you’re going to have to pay more for your petrol. If you’re a pensioner, you must have your tax allowances frozen for some time so that allowances can catch up, with the result that you’re collectively going to lose £1 billion a year. You’re going to have to do this because we’ve got a deficit that we’ve got to address.” I could go through a whole lot of other measures. If people are going to be asked to follow a policy that is designed to reduce the deficit and to accept those impacts on their standard of living, they must understand that the weakest are not being selected for the heaviest burden. This decision is not only economically flawed but politically flawed because it will call into question the Government’s sincerity when they argue that we all have to make sacrifices together.
I have another role in Northern Ireland as Finance Minister. We have frozen wages. We have stopped all bonuses in the public sector where that has been possible and there are no contracts. We have said to people that there will be no recruitment or promotion within the public sector. We have said to people who work in the private sector, “You’re going to have it tougher because we’re going to be spending less on public sector contracts and so on, with the impact that that has on people’s jobs.” We have said about new house building and a whole range of other things, “This can’t be done.” We have said to voluntary groups and community groups, “You’re going to get cuts in your grants because we don’t have the money to do this.”
By and large, I have found that most people accept that when they see that it is evenly spread. People stop me in the street all the time and talk about the impact that it is having on their lives. They say, “We don’t like it, but if we have to put up with it because we know we can’t carry on spending money we don’t have, we’ll do it.” Nothing undermines the argument made by those of us who wish to be responsible about the budget deficit more than the news that the Government are saying to people, “Make sacrifices”, while those who are earning more than they need to live on will get a 20% or a 10% tax cut. That is why the politics of this is all wrong. The economics is not sound and the politics is not sound, and for that reason we will vote against it.
Richard Harrington
Does the Minister agree that the Opposition are missing the point by talking about the amount that was raised by the 50p rate? The real point is the money that was not raised, owing to the disincentive that it created for people to set up businesses and to spend to create jobs and provide the growth that the country needs.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us put away some of the rhetoric that we have heard this afternoon and focus on the disagreement over the previous Government’s assessment of the behavioural impact of the 50p. Their assessment was that about 66% would be lost through behavioural impact. On the basis of the additional evidence that has emerged following the HMRC study, which is consistent with the consensus of the academic studies in this area, the estimate that the OBR has signed off is that the behavioural impact is closer to 83%. No reasonable case can possibly be made that there is no behavioural impact, yet the shadow Chancellor’s consistent argument that this is a £3 billion tax cut for the rich implies a behavioural impact of zero—miles away from any realistic case.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I intend to address my remarks not to the Finance Bill generally, but to the part relating to charities. When I put in to speak, I did not realise that would become one of the great cause célèbres of the Budget debate. I feel I have some experience in this field, having in a previous life spent three years as chairman of fundraising for one of the country’s largest children’s charities. Indeed, it got to the stage where people whom I had known for years would cross to the other side of the street rather than say good morning to me, in the certain knowledge that I would get them for a philanthropic donation. In fact, it was very good experience for speaking in the Chamber, as I seem to have the same effect on people in this place.
There is a serious point to make, which is that I do not think this debate is about charities; rather, I think it is about whether, in a sophisticated society such as ours, where 40%-plus of gross national product is spent by the Government, certain individuals should have the freedom to decide, for whatever reason, quite legally, that they will not pay any tax at all. Although we are talking about charities—that is what the recent debate has been about—society has to make a decision on that question. Is it acceptable, under any circumstances, for people obeying the law and earning money—a lot of money—to say, for what might be a perfectly good reason, “I’m opting out of paying tax on my income,” in this case because they are giving to charity?
I think back to my 20s, when I started work. People had many different options to avoid paying tax. Pensions were uncapped, so self-employed people could go through their whole lives and pay as much as they wanted into pension funds, cutting their taxes on their salaries in exactly the same way. At one time, there were many investment schemes where the amount of money and the conditions attached were almost open-ended, so that people could legitimately avoid paying tax. There are quite a lot of schemes where Governments—not just this coalition Government, but previous Governments—have decided, for whatever reason, to cap the amount of tax deductibility that is allowed. I know that this is not a popular argument, but I would argue that charities, charitable donations and philanthropy should be no exception to the general rule that everybody earning money in a society such as ours should pay some tax.
Richard Harrington
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. It had to happen sooner or later in my political career, and I am delighted that it should be today.
Most of us in this House and in the country generally regard the charitable sector as part of all the wonderful organisations that we deal with in our constituencies. In Watford we have the Peace Hospice, which is probably one of the most important hospices in the south of England, along with homeless charities and Mencap. Indeed, we have many good charities, so it is difficult to be the person standing here today and even putting the thought in donors’ minds that there may be circumstances where what they want to give cannot be a tax deductible donation. However, people should be aware that the tax aspect is not the predominant reason for philanthropy—that is my experience. If it is, there is something wrong.
John Mann
I totally support the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor on this specific matter. Does he not find it rather disturbing that one or two individuals are saying that they will refuse to give to charity if the money has come out of their own pocket, rather than being tax deductible?
Richard Harrington
I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says, but when it comes to it, that aspect is not such a defining factor as those statements would suggest. We must remember that this country is very good at philanthropy. Among the developed nations, we are the third highest in the world, after the United States and Israel, in terms of the amount per head of GNP that we give to philanthropic organisations. I do not accept that that is just because of the tax breaks; I think it is because of a tradition in this country. Trade unions and working people are involved in it, wealthy people are involved in it, and business people are involved in it, just as Victorian philanthropists were once involved. All in all, we have a huge tradition of philanthropy.
We are very proud of that tradition, but we have to remember that it is very easy to set up a charity. Even today, the forms are simple to fill in. Within 24 hours it is possible to set up a charity, which is then basically a conduit for almost any form of tax-deductible donation. Many charities are very good organisations—I would be the last person to suggest that there was a predominance of fraud, negligence or dishonest behaviour. However, a lot of charities are charitable to some people, who might think the causes are excellent—for example, I could set up a charity to research the history of Watford, which I might think was an excellent cause, and it may well pass the Charity Commissioner’s barriers to becoming a registered charity, albeit not in any dishonest way, because it would be educational or whatever—whereas a lot of other people might not regard such organisations as very charitable at all. It strikes me as very strange that any such organisation can be set up and, provided it has proper directors and an office—it can also be somebody’s house—all of a sudden it can become a charity to which basically any amount of money can be donated. Such a charity could be based abroad, or it could be for a very narrow sector in this country.
It seems strange that there is a perception that giving money to a charity is a great thing almost by definition, but paying tax is not, yet after all, what does tax pay for? It pays for the NHS and education—indeed, it pays the majority of the money going to many organisations that are perceived as being charitable organisations. For example, many years ago, when my late father was chairman of Mencap—it was then called the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, although obviously the organisation has developed a lot since then—5% of its money came from Government sources and 95% came from sponsored walks, charitable donations, rich people, poor people, tins outside shops, or whatever it was. Now it is almost the other way round; in fact, many registered charities depend more on money from the taxpayer than on individuals giving. It seems strange that the media can say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants money for the big public pot, some of which may come from philanthropic giving, one thing is automatically good, almost by definition, and one thing is automatically bad.
As we all know, there is a shortage of public funds, and we cannot—or we choose not to—borrow any more money. I shall not get into those arguments, but I think there is a consensus that public expenditure is fairly high by any traditional standards. The Chancellor is taking a lot of different measures to try to fill a gap. The gap was filled by borrowing, and perhaps it will now be filled rather less than it was by that means—that is what we think will happen. Nevertheless, there is always a gap between what a Government such as this —or, in fact, any Government in recent memory—want to spend and what they can raise. Before the public decide who to criticise, it is important that they should remember where the tax saved would have gone, because were those organisations private, it would be perfectly reasonable to regard many of them—be they schools or things like that—as charities. That point should not be forgotten.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that Governments have to think beyond comfortable, cuddly philanthropy, compared with nasty, horrible public expenditure. Governments have to decide on the balance. We have to remember the fundamental point: is it right that people should earn a lot of money and pay no tax at all? There are ways round this problem, and I am sure that the Government will be looking at that in the consultation on the details. Indeed, I would suggest that they might look at “lifelong gifts”—how much money people give in their lives. If someone has a windfall of £1 million, it might be wonderful for them to say for that year, “I’m going to give that £1 million to a charity—I won’t pay any tax, but it’s going to useful causes,” but should they be allowed to do that every year? Should that be their normal way of doing things? Some people may say, “It’s wonderful, because they’re very philanthropic.” Others, if they look it objectively, may say, “Well, each year the state is losing out on £450,000,” or whatever the marginal rate happens to be.
I believe that society has to make a decision on whether people should be able to opt out of the tax system, for whatever reason. I believe strongly in philanthropic giving, in charities and in tradition, but, as with everything else, there has to be a compromise. It is unacceptable that people, irrespective of their income, should be able to choose not to pay tax using a variety of avoidance methods, one of which might be charitable giving.
I found it strange to hear the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) criticising the proposals on charitable donations. She should consider whether it is right that some multimillionaires pay no tax at all, and that some people should be able to choose what good causes to support. Should people be able to choose to support, say, the National Theatre, the opera and Christian Aid, while choosing not to support the national health service, education and social services? I ask the Opposition to consider that point before being so critical of the Government’s desire to make tax fair for all and to ensure that very wealthy people no longer pay no tax at all.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Harrington
This has been like the show, “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?”—a question is asked, there is an advert break, and everybody is waiting for the answer. My quiz show might be called, “Who used to want to be a millionaire but now is a Member of Parliament?” I shall endeavour to continue after the commercial break in the spirit in which I started, by asking hon. Members to consider what growth in the economy means.
As a Johnny-come-lately to professional politics and prior to that having been in business for 30 years in various ways, successfully and, I have to say, unsuccessfully, it seems to me that growth often means something different to politicians, people who work in think-tanks, journalists and people who work in public affairs. For economists it is easy to consider growth as a statistic—0.5%, 0.8% or negative growth, on which Opposition Members and Government Members take different views.
For me, growth is a collective decision by individuals, whether they are business owners, people who want to start a business, or the management of a large company. In a capitalist society—there is a general consensus that the profit motive is what drives private enterprise—business people must make the decision to start or expand their business. Growth in the economy is the collection of such decisions. It is Government’s role and the role of this Budget to facilitate that.
Richard Harrington
Now. Unfortunately that was not the case with the situation we inherited, with a huge deficit and the economy plummeting. Opposition Members should remember what I said—that growth is not a statistic. If we are to get growth, it requires a collective series of decisions by people to expand their businesses and start other businesses.
The predecessors of the current Opposition believed in a different type of economy. They believed in a socialist economy. They believed that Governments, by nationalising businesses or taking investment decisions themselves, could make a fundamental decision, people would do things because they were told to do so by Government and the result would be a growing economy. Society has taken the decision—and this is the general consensus among nearly everyone in the House—that growth will come from private enterprise.
If growth comes from private enterprise, we must accept that that comes from people accepting all the aggravation, mortgaging their houses, setting up businesses, employing people and taking very little money out during much of the growth period of the business. What makes them want to do that is the fact that they want to get rich themselves. I am fine with that. If they pay their taxes—I am certainly against tax avoidance and all the legal and illegal schemes to do that—and if they employ people who pay their taxes, it is right that they should keep the majority of what they earn. I hope that when criticising the reduction from 50% to 45%, hon. Members on both sides of the House will bear that in mind. I believe that that ambition is the core of growth in this country and I commend the Chancellor for progress in this respect.
Gregg McClymont
As usual, my hon. Friend hits on the apposite point. Corporates do have an enormous cash pile, and we have to ask, why are they not investing? It is because they do not think there is anyone to buy their products; it is as simple as that.
Of course, no one is suggesting that this issue is all about one side, because it is not all about stimulating demand at the expense of cutting the deficit, but my and the Opposition’s view is that the Government have got the balance wrong. Confidence will not be restored if there is no growth in the economy.
Richard Harrington
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way, but does he not agree that, actually, it is hard to say which comes first? He says that confidence comes from growth, but I say that growth comes from confidence. I think he has got it the wrong way around.
Gregg McClymont
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which will be the last one I take, given the time constraints. The lessons of history are that, unless we can make people feel that they have money in their pockets to spend and to stimulate growth and the economy, the chances are—the Japanese example is a perfect illustration of this—that we are unlikely to recover to pre-trend levels.
At this time of stagnation and austerity, what is the Government’s priority? Is it growth, jobs and helping the hard-pressed squeezed middle? No, it is a tax cut for millionaires. Some 14,000 millionaires will get a tax cut of £40,000 per year. The 300,000 payers of the 50%—[Interruption.]
Banking Commission Report
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
That is an issue that some building societies have raised with us. That is why we say in the report that we are attracted to a leverage ratio—indeed, it is now part of the international regulatory architecture—but that we will consult on exactly how to implement it so that it does not have a perverse impact on building societies, which have served customers well throughout this period.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
On behalf of my knees, Mr Speaker, I thank you. [Laughter.] I commend the Chancellor on his statement. Will he confirm that had these proposals been implemented before 2007, the RBS-ABN AMRO deal could not have taken place?
Mr Osborne
The RBS-ABN AMRO deal stands out as the moment of greatest folly in banking regulation, not just because—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor was the City Minister. He has incredible amnesia about his role, but thankfully we are here to remind him. It is extraordinary that the ABN AMRO deal was given the go-ahead after Northern Rock had failed. People do not appreciate the fact that it happened after that. We were highly critical of the Government’s regulatory system then, and we remain highly critical of the regulatory system that we inherited.
Autumn Statement
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I commend the Chancellor on his statement, particularly the parts about young people and small businesses, which will be gratefully received in my constituency. I am sure that he shares my concern about the shadow Chancellor’s seeming lack of interest in interest rates and the amount of national debt. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend confirm that a top priority of the Government is to reduce the £130 million per day that taxpayers in my constituency—and all taxpayers—pay to get the interest on the debt down?
Mr Osborne
Despite the deterioration in the borrowing forecast, the debt interest payments that we are making are £24 billion less than forecast. That is the burden of the debt, and it would be billions more if the shadow Chancellor ever got his hands on the British economy again.
Northern Rock
Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I, for one, would like to thank the Financial Secretary and his colleagues for this deal, as I believe it is a good deal for the taxpayer and it offers a good future for the employees of Northern Rock. Does the Financial Secretary agree with the shadow Chancellor, who unfortunately is not in his place but who said in 2006 that the tripartite committee provided robust supervision of risks to financial stability?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The reality is that Northern Rock’s problems and ultimate failure as an institution were a consequence of the architectural flaws in the system of tripartite regulation, under which no one body was monitoring, and could respond to, the build-up of an asset price bubble, and no body was able, or prepared, to challenge Northern Rock’s business model which led to its being over-dependent on money borrowed in the wholesale markets. That was the cause of Northern Rock’s problems, and we are putting in place measures that will tackle some of them.