Spending Round 2019

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Davies of Stamford

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very enjoyable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Young, having the freedom of the Back Benches, and I hope we are going to hear far more from him in that capacity. We should, of course, be debating the great crisis we are facing in our nation’s affairs, but he was very pungent in his remarks on BBC News yesterday about what the Government should be doing, with which I agree.

This has actually been a very enjoyable debate. I would also like to say how much I enjoyed listening to my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Horam—I learned a lot from him in his very long political career, particularly in the earlier stages—and he had a lot of interesting things to say.

The document we are discussing is very flimsy, and not backed up by any economic analysis from the OBR. The question is: does it represent a turning point in our attitudes to public spending and tax? Are we finally getting away from the policy of the last decade, which has basically been to hold public spending down below the rate of economic growth so we can achieve a gradual reduction in the ratio of debt to GDP when we think we can get away with that, but cutting taxes instead when we face political trouble? So the question is, are we moving away from that framework? Are we now accepting that both infrastructure investment and some types of social investment by the public sector make economic sense because they add to economic growth potential? One should not just be looking at the pure number of the deficit but should be asking oneself how much within the public spending envelope will add to growth potential and is therefore a sound investment.

Are we facing up—I think none of the political parties is--to the great demographic challenge we will face in the next 10 years?. According to the IFS and the Resolution Foundation, if we are to maintain present standards of pensions, health services and social care, tax as a proportion of GDP will have to rise by 5% because of the challenge of demography. I think that this is where the Government ought to open a public debate.

As we were discussing at the Labour conference in Brighton, the tax burden on the top 1% or 5% can certainly go up a bit; the broadest backs should bear the heaviest burdens. However, the fact is that we will not enjoy a decent quality of welfare state and public services in this country unless we can make the case to the public overall for a general increase in taxation. This is going to be difficult in an environment of Brexit—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am listening to my noble friend with great attention—he is a great expert on these matters. As an alternative to increasing tax, would it not be possible to consider some compulsory universal insurance system, such as happens on the continent?

[Lord Liddle]

I would include compulsory social insurance or hypothecated taxes as part of the general remark that I made. However, we are going to have to find new ways of funding our welfare state because of the demographic challenge. This is going to be difficult if Brexit goes ahead because, even if we avoid no deal, which we have legislated against, the kind of medium-term deal that Boris Johnson has in mind—the Canada-plus, free trade agreement—is not the smooth Brexit that the economic forecasts of the OBR have relied upon. It is a much tougher, harder Brexit than the customs union and regulatory alignment that Mrs May was aiming for. It will have more serious economic consequences for the country, and I worry about that a great deal.

Of course, you could not possibly justify, as a result of Brexit, a temporary increase in the government deficit, but you can only do that for a time. We saw in the 1970s that there had to be an adjustment for the higher price of oil, and we saw after the 2008 financial crisis that there had to be an adjustment for the fact that the deficit had risen as a result of the cost of saving the financial system.

If that will be the case, who will bear the pain? The people who cannot afford to bear the pain, and the people whom this document completely neglects, are poor working families. There is nothing in this document to relieve the burden that they have faced in the last 10 years. This is a gross generational unfairness: I get a nice real-terms increase in my pension every year, but what do the young mother and her children get? They get their benefits frozen as a direct result of the Government’s policy.

Most of these people are not people who do not work. They are not, to use that horrible language, scroungers; they are people who work the living daylights out of themselves, sometimes with two or three jobs, in order to meet the family budget. This squeeze on working families is having a dreadful impact. The Resolution Foundation, one of the best independent think tanks of the past few years, suggests that we will have something like 1.5 million children in poverty— 37% of all children—if we continue on our present policy path on tax credits, universal credit and the rate of benefits. That is unacceptable. Even in the period that we are talking about, there is a 4.1% increase in departmental expenditure in the coming year but further cuts in benefits are going on. It cannot continue. I notice in Cumbria the dreadful impact that is having on the ground. We have a great increase in demand for our children’s services, from parents who cannot cope with bringing up their children themselves, and the costs of our children’s services are rising dramatically. This will become as big a challenge as social care unless we address it.

The big question is: is this a turning point? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, from his new position will be able to say positively that the policies of the past nine years have been abandoned.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Davies of Stamford

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for the amendment will be welcome. It reflects what I have always thought was a considerable cross-party consensus in this country in favour of a reasonable amount of regulation. Of course there are fanatics. Professor Minford is a very good example of an intelligent man who believes if we got rid of all regulation it would be a very good thing, and he has made calculations of the economic benefits to the country if literally all regulations—health and safety, environment, consumer protection and employment protection and so on—were simply abolished. However, he is rightly regarded as a fanatic in his own profession and indeed in politics. There are a number of people on the right wing of the Conservative Party who have always been very close to that way of thinking, and it would be quite terrifying if the Government, under the camouflage of taking powers apparently needed to bring about Brexit, found themselves in possession of instruments that meant that without any real let or hindrance they could simply take an axe to the protective regulation that has emerged in this country over the decades.

All civilised countries have to have a reasonable amount of regulation in these fields or they very rapidly cease to be civilised. One of my great worries about leaving the EU is that we will probably end up with more regulation that in many cases will be much less rational: it will be the result of a campaign by the Daily Mail and weak Ministers giving in, saying, “Oh goodness, let them have what they want”, and regulating on this or that. There is a much greater chance of that happening when we are no longer part of a body of 28 countries that are forced to look at these issues in realistic terms and come to some agreement on the subject. That is very worrying.

[Lord Liddle]

Would my noble friend give way? I want to be helpful to his argument. He refers to Professor Minford and the cost of EU regulation. It is only by making the extreme assumption that all these regulations will be abolished that the tiny number of economic studies that demonstrate some growth benefit from Brexit are able to get to that number. Those studies are quoted very frequently from the Front Bench opposite as examples of the fact that some economists differ from the consensus, but in fact that difference depends on the assumption that we would scrap every single piece of EU social protection.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I think that was an intervention. I gave way believing that it was.

[Lord Liddle]

It was to help my noble friend, yes.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I do not know whether or not to be pleased by that remark. It was very kind of my noble friend to want to help me but I do not know if I was in that much need of help at that moment. However, he has made a major contribution to the debate. He has pointed out something that all of us who were involved in the referendum campaign are well aware of: there were constant references by leave campaigners and the leaders of the leave campaign to the costs of the EU, but when you looked at the figures you found that they were based on the assumption that we would get rid of a whole raft of regulation—perhaps all regulation, as Professor Minford would like. However, very few people, if you put it to them, would want to live in a society in which there was no regulation in these areas. So there has been a great deal of dishonesty and obfuscation, not only in this area but in the whole European debate. In my view, that has not been a positive contribution to the ability of the British people to make an intelligent and well-informed decision. It is regrettable that some people have been prepared to be that cynical in this context.

To revert to the amendment and the clause before us, there is an extraordinary aspect to this: if the Government really do not have sinister intentions in this area—I cannot believe that they do; I do not actually think they intend to get rid of a whole raft of regulations, even in areas like employment protection, which we know the Conservatives particularly tend to dislike—why have they themselves not produced, in drafting the Bill or subsequent amendments, protections that would assure everyone that they had no such intentions? The amendment is a good one but it should not be necessary. It is most unfortunate that the Government have allowed the suspicion to be created that these regulations, which are fundamental to a civilised society, should be at risk. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that I am quite mistaken and the Government have no intention of using these powers in a deregulatory fashion but want only to use them functionally to assist in the transition to the post-Brexit era, and that they are prepared to accept the need to reassure the public that these powers cannot be misused and therefore will introduce some protections of their own, if they do not agree with this amendment, on Report.