Hot Takeaway Food (VAT)
Lord Mann Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Scott, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on securing the debate and on his accurate description of the problem that the Government have got him into. I appreciate his panic, because with this betrayal of Cornwall one almost expects Mr Sacha Baron Cohen to appear at the door.
For 100 years, the Liberals have been out of power, then the first time that they can get into a real argument and debate it is on the destruction of the core Cornish industry. One could not make that up. Of course we know why it has happened. When I asked my innocent question of the Chancellor in the Treasury Committee, he was somewhat stumped by the fact that there might be a problem. The reason he was stumped is that he is not a man who pays any attention to detail—that has been proven time and time again. Ask him a factual question, he gives a vague answer. That is a problem for someone who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer meddling with detail. There is good reason why no Chancellor has meddled with such details since 1984—because the detail is so complex that whatever rules they come up with, it is possible to find a way round them. I shall explain some likely scenarios in a minute.
What has been the Government’s stock response, fed to their loyal Back Benchers over the past month or so? Fish and chips. Yet, coming from the country’s heartland of fish and chips, I do not recall anyone in my lifetime who eats fish and chips cold. Unless the Government surreptitiously intend to continue to spread VAT to include cold foods, in which case the nation would like to be informed of the plan, they need to reverse the absurd decision that was made.
Let me give some examples, because it is not only Cornwall that has been betrayed—England has been betrayed. I mentioned Bakewell pudding in the Finance Bill Committee yesterday, and Ministers started muttering about almonds. Attention to detail is everything for Treasury Ministers. When I talk about the Bakewell pudding, I am not talking of a processed derivative created by a Mr Kipling, sold in supermarkets with almonds on top and bearing no comparison to the traditional English Bakewell pudding. The Bakewell tart is an entirely different product and, because it is cold, is zero-rated. No, I am talking about the Bakewell pudding, the quintessential English product made as it has been for many centuries, using traditional methods, of which Prince Charles and many others, myself included, would wholly approve—doing things in the traditional way, passing on the skills needed to create the product. Now, solely because Bakewell pudding is made in the traditional way, it will be taxed at 20%. If the manufacturers of the Bakewell pudding were to use processed ingredients, they would be able to concoct a product—vastly inferior, but in some way with the same name; as I pointed out, a major manufacturer has already done so—which would be zero-rated, but we lose the English tradition, we lose the real food. There are other such examples.
By definition, the businesses involved are small businesses. Those traditions, kept in the traditional way, cannot be transported into some mass-produced product sold in supermarkets throughout the country and the world. That is the point and that is what we will lose if those traditional producers are disadvantaged by being charged 20% VAT under this cack-handed measure.
Let me give another example. There has been a rush to eat pasties among senior politicians, including the Chancellor. The Prime Minister allegedly once ate a pasty on Leeds station—a station I know extremely well, coming from Leeds—but from a shop that had closed two years previously, so it was a time-lapsed pasty which, by definition, must have gone cold in the time. But he ate the pasty.
Let us take a railway station such as Knutsford—let us assume that there is a station there, although I have not been to the Chancellor’s constituency—or think of our own stations. We might have a traditional English baker outside the station, baking away, producing Cornish pasties and the rest. Currently, those products are VAT-free, but they will now have the 20% applied, although the Government are still looking at how to define their new criteria. Inside the station we have a café; the baker passes the baked products on to the café, which sells them, and the Government might say, “Ah, hot product, it has got to be VAT-ed.” But how do we do that? It has been passed on and is no longer baked on the premises, so it must be zero-rated. We must make sure that there is no anomaly.
What about seats? If there are seats, we might apply VAT because it is a café. Yet it is in a railway station, and the railway station decides in this beautiful temperature to have some seats outside the café. The Government have their test of ambient temperature, so we have ambient temperatures inside and outside the café—I hope that hon. Members will go to Bakewell and see the on-street seating available for those who wish to purchase Bakewell puddings there. So, inside and outside, there are different ambient temperatures—ah, clever Government! We might therefore ensure that all the chairs are incorporated inside the café, but it is a railway station and Network Rail has put a couple of benches outside. Will we have different temperatures between the railway bench and the café seats, and between the café seats inside and outside? There is also the baker who serves inside and the baker who has a little hatch and serves outside. Such examples show precisely why since 1984 the concept of ambient temperature has been ducked, as Treasury officials have tried to persuade every single Chancellor since then to extend VAT. Of course, now that has happened, although things could get worse.
I know that the Chancellor likes his football, and the nation groaned during the Champions League final. People support their own team, but the Prime Minister, who is allegedly an Aston Villa fan, was cheering Chelsea. That is a contradiction. As the cup was lifted, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics was, rightly, in his place, and who was alongside him? The Chancellor, the new Chelsea supporter. When politicians are having problems, they pretend to support a football team that is winning. If it loses, they disappear into the hospitality room, but if it wins, they are there, beaming. I know what the nation said when it saw him on their telly screens. The Chancellor’s local team is Macclesfield Town, and I happened to be there for a match in January.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain the connection between hot baked food and football matches? I would be fascinated to hear it.
John Mann
I am about to do that. Macclesfield Town’s stadium, like every football stadium, has a pie shop, but the Chancellor does not know that. When he goes to a football match, he is in the corporate hospitality room, so VAT is not an issue because he does not pay, just as he does not pay for his ticket or his travel, but that is another issue. The Chancellor does not pay for corporate hospitality, so whether something is VAT-ed does not matter to him. But I was stood there, hungry, having gone to Macclesfield to watch a cup match between Macclesfield Town and Bolton. I went to the pie stall, where pies are heated up on the premises. Will they be VAT-ed or not? If I buy a takeaway, will it be VAT-ed or not? If I heat it up in a microwave in the corner, will it be VAT-ed or not? If the shop staff heat it up in the microwave, will it be VAT-ed or not? Will there be a fancy process to avoid the VAT? It is fairly obvious how that can be defined.
The Government could introduce criteria for seating, so that if I sit down in the nice seats—there are not many seats at Macclesfield Town—I might pay VAT, but not if I stand up, as I did. Those anomalies will arise whatever way the Government move. My appeal to this out-of-touch, anti-English, inept-on-detail Treasury team and Government is to do their friends the Liberals a favour. They are up 4% in the north of England, and 2% in recent elections in my area, but the Government should give them a fighting chance in the south-west, and do the decent thing for England: get rid of this nonsense, and introduce a system that the country wants, which is no VAT on pasties, and no VAT on Bakewell puddings. Keep things as they are.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
May I say “Well done” to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who I will call my hon. Friend, for securing this important debate? He has made an exceptionally intelligent contribution to a significant discussion.
I will speak only for a couple of minutes, but I want to register my concerns about the tax under discussion, and touch on the impact that it will have on the high street and hard-working families. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) pointed out, it is possible that 300 shops will close as a result of this proposal. The current rate of retail vacancies in shops across our high streets stands at around 14%, and I cannot help thinking that this proposal will have a further impact.
As has been said, we want more bakeries and a diverse range of shops across the high street, yet this proposal puts at risk retailers such as Greggs and Greenhalgh’s in my constituency, as well as independent shops such as Wells bakery on Oldham road in Rochdale, which is a fantastic bakery that makes the best meat and potato pie that people can get their hands on. We want a retail mix and vibrancy, but this proposal creates a real problem and puts a burden on those businesses. It comes on top of the 5.6% increase in business rates—the largest increase in 20 years—that retailers and other businesses have experienced since it was brought in last September and applied this financial year, and we are adding further taxes to that.
In the context of diversity, one point that has not yet been raised is the impact of this tax on other segments of the retail mix, in particular Asian sweet centres. A number of such places in my constituency, particularly on Milkstone road, sell not only Asian sweets but samosas and pakoras. Will the Minister say whether this tax burden will also apply to those products? I have no doubt that my constituents will be interested to hear whether this is also a samosa tax, as well as a pasty tax.
Finally, let me look at the impact of this tax on hard-working families, because I get the impression that the Government do not understand ordinary working people’s lives. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about snobbery in education, but I believe that snobbery is also attached to pies, pasties and samosas.
Members might be aware of a lady from Rochdale called Gillian Duffy who challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) during the last general election. Gillian is a very good friend of mine, she occasionally bakes me a cheese and onion pie, which I enjoy. For some unknown reason, The Guardian newspaper got hold of that information and ran a story about it, ridiculing me for eating Gillian Duffy’s cheese and onion pies, as though that was in some way inappropriate. People are snobbish about the fact that people, perhaps in northern towns or in Cornwall, like and enjoy pies and pasties.
Simon Danczuk
That’s right; absolutely. In reality, pies, pasties and samosas are part of the staple diet of ordinary people, and we should not forget that. The Government are placing an additional burden on hard-working families. People in Rochdale I speak to think that this tax is absolutely absurd. They laugh at the Government and find it peculiar that such a tax would be applied. It feeds the public perception that the Government just do not get it and are on a different planet, and I urge them to drop these proposals.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Mann Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
My hon. Friend raises an important question. There are a number of cases—Arch Cru is one of them—in which different parties are in different jurisdictions. It is important that regulators work together, along with the parties involved, to ensure that a good deal is put in place to help investors.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
T3. A listed building that is dismantled and rebuilt as a new dwelling will be zero rated, but people will not be able to renovate an empty barn for the same price if it is VAT-able at 20%. Is that or is that not a perverse incentive to demolish empty listed buildings?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
As financial advice, I am not sure it is necessarily wise to dismantle and then rebuild a listed building to make a saving, but there is an anomaly in the tax system: people pay VAT for a repair on a listed building, but they do not pay VAT for an alteration. That does not seem right.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Lord Mann Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
Let me make a point about the arguments surrounding ambient temperature. This test has been in place since 1984. We do not expect staff to take detailed temperature readings every time they sell a pasty. HMRC will take a pragmatic approach, and provide businesses with guidance, taking into account the responses of businesses on how to implement the change. I have to point out that existing simplification schemes are already available to allow businesses to calculate their VAT liability by reference to a fixed percentage of their turnover without requiring staff to consider the temperature of every product sold. This is a pragmatic approach, already in existence.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Lord Mann Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), who makes an important point about staycations. I recommend coming to Macclesfield for a staycation. Nestled beneath the Peak district, and enjoying tremendous views over the Cheshire plain, it is a great place to be. It even beats Retford; the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) will know that.
David Rutley
Let’s keep football out of this. Coming back to the Finance (No. 4) Bill, it is tremendous to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Now that we are nearly halfway through this Parliament, it is important to think about our direction of travel. It is clear that under this Government, Britain has returned to economic credibility, and is laying the foundation for private sector and business-led recovery. Despite views to the contrary among those on the Opposition Benches, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been proved right to chart the course that he did at the beginning of the Parliament. He was right not just to tackle the deficit head on, but to put the private sector at the heart of the growth agenda, where it needs to be. It is a consistent theme that came through loud and clear in the emergency Budget and the 2011 Budget. Now, in the 2012 Finance (No. 4) Bill, it continues to be pivotal, and at the centre of what the Government are trying to achieve.
There are a number of important proposed tax changes, which we have heard discussed by hon. Members, but I want to focus on the measures that have been designed to support British businesses, which are critical to economic recovery. First and foremost, I welcome the Government’s move to accelerate the commitment to having the lowest corporation tax in the G7. It is strange that no Opposition Members took any time to mention that, because that is where we will create new jobs. Having corporation tax at 22% by 2014 will give us real competitive advantage in attracting the investment that we need for sustainable economic growth. This Government’s plans are bold and ambitious, bringing the effective rate of corporation tax to a level below that of developed countries such as France, where it is currently 36.1%, Germany, where the rate is 30% to 33% and Canada, where the rate is 25% to 31%. I understand that even the Republican party in the United States proposes an effective rate of 25%. The measures set out in clause 5 will help us to increase business investment and will help us on our trajectory. I understand that the forecast by the Treasury suggests £3.4 billion of extra investment by British businesses, which is vital for the country.
Through the Finance Bill the Government have recognised the vital roles that innovation will play in helping to strengthen the economy. That is clearly demonstrated by the Government’s corporate tax road map, which came out in November 2010, with the introduction of the patent box, which features in clause 19 and schedule 2, and by the above the line research and development tax credit, both of which will come into effect in April 2012. Such tax measures complement the work that the Government are doing to support vital innovative businesses and industries, such as pharmaceuticals. The recently launched life science strategy will also help industry in the UK to tackle global challenges that are being faced in the pharmaceutical sector and will help us to keep this important skilled work force in the UK, just as I am working with AstraZeneca to do in Macclesfield.
The Budget sets out important steps to help the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. The SMEs will be the vital engines for growth in the sector, as many of us on the Government Benches are aware. The Budget’s £20 billion national loan guarantee scheme will help to reduce the cost of credit for SMEs, which 60% of small firms believe is unaffordable, and will provide an opportunity for small firms to motor ahead. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce have welcomed this important and ambitious scheme.
The reforms of corporation tax and of corporate tax more generally have been welcomed by business. The forecasts suggest that they will save business £6 billion a year by 2015. That is money that will be better invested by businesses in new initiatives, enabling them to get on with the job of creating the work that many of us on both sides of the House are keen to see come to fruition. That is why the Budget has been welcomed by so many business groups and by the business community.
The CBI says that
“by seizing the opportunity to make sure our corporate tax system is more internationally competitive, he”—
the Chancellor—
“has sent a powerful signal to companies to invest, do business and create jobs in the UK.”
The IOD goes further and says:
“The reduction of Corporation Tax faster than planned is a positive step in the right direction”.
These are important signals and key messages from the business community showing support for what the Government are doing in this important area.
Although the debate today is rightly focused primarily on the tax-related aspects of the Budget, I shall spend a few minutes considering the supply-side reforms which will also have important impacts on the economy. That is why it is right to acknowledge the work that is being done by the Government in reducing the regulatory burdens faced by our businesses. As Ronald Reagan once said:
“It’s hard when you’re up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp”,
but this Government have not forgotten, and are taking action to drain that swamp.
The UK has more than 21,000 regulations on its books, and the Institute of Directors has calculated that the cost of those regulations is approaching £112 billion a year. These figures clearly demonstrate that we will benefit from an approach to deregulation that is every bit as ambitious as the Government’s deficit reduction initiatives and their tax reform strategies that will create the optimal conditions for growth. That is far better and more constructive than the demands from the Opposition for yet more Government spending.
The size of the prize is huge. Cutting the regulatory burden on businesses by just 10% would save British businesses about £11 billion a year. That is the equivalent of cutting corporation tax and the small profit rate by a staggering eight percentage points. Even by the standards of the benefits provided by the Bill, that is a hugely positive contribution to business. That is why the Government are pressing ahead with their deregulatory agenda. The one-in, one-out rule has helped to stem the flow of new regulations, and the red tape challenge is tackling the stock of old regulations. Reforms of health and safety regulations will help to free British businesses from a culture that is damaging the well-being of our economy.
Churchill once said:
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law” ,
and, just as relevant today, destroy a nation’s competitiveness. Working together, the Government and the private sector should continue to seize the opportunity and put the deregulatory agenda in a higher gear. This approach will be critical to complement the important work set out for businesses in the Bill.
Representing the Ribble Valley, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that many of the pro-business policies in the Bill will help to rebalance the economy in the country and across the regions, including the north-west. We have become too dependent on the public sector to create jobs, and we must change that, as we are doing. Despite much grumbling from the Opposition, there is evidence of success. We see important progress at Jaguar Land Rover, where 1,000 jobs are being created at Halewood by a 24-hour production line, one of the few 24-hour facilities in Europe. BAE Systems has been named a key contractor for the F-35 joint strike fighter, which will bring about £30 billion to the UK economy and safeguard 25,000 jobs, many of which are based in the north-west, near Mr Deputy Speaker’s constituency.
We have seen other positive news in recent weeks. In Crewe, near Macclesfield, thanks to a £3 million regional growth fund investment, Bentley has announced that it will create 500 extra new jobs. All these steps show that private sector jobs are being created. As a result, more employers in the north-west are feeling more optimistic about job creation opportunities. According to a March 2012 Manpower survey, 6% more employers in the north-west say that they intend to hire this quarter than in the last quarter, which is welcome news for the region.
We have heard much from the Opposition about job creation. My concern as I look at their policies is that, yet again, they are calling for more jobs to be created by the public sector, which are not sustainable. The jobs that the Government seek to create are sustainable. They are based on a private sector-led recovery. As I listen to the arguments from the Opposition, it is ever more clear to me that the previous Government were overspent, overdrawn and over-awed by the challenge that they had helped to create. It has been left to this Government to clear up that mess.
As we approach the halfway point in this Parliament, we can take stock of the progress that is being made to back business. Important strides have been taken to tackle the deficit, to address supply-side constraints and in this, as in previous Finance Bills, to create a truly competitive corporate tax environment. Such changes are much needed. That is why I add my support to the Bill today.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
It is a real privilege to be called in such an important Second Reading debate and to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell).
As the coalition made clear upon its formation back in 2010, the overriding priority of the Government and the House must be the economy. We have heard many comments this afternoon about the difficult financial legacy inherited from the previous Administration, but as we consider this wide-ranging Finance Bill, the focus of my contribution will be on not the past but the future.
In such turbulent and difficult times, we must govern not only for today but, perhaps more crucially, for future generations. Failure to ensure economic recovery, encourage new technological industries and reduce the deficit while simultaneously promoting growth will consign not just one generation but multiple generations to long-term economic hardship and its consequences. The international economic waters make steering such a delicate course difficult, and we should appreciate that everything that the Government do, including in the Bill, is hugely shaped and constrained by international factors. A quick glance at Greece and the eurozone provides a daunting reminder of the long-term economic troubles awaiting our continent.
The general thrust of the Government’s financial policy to date has been entirely sensible—to reduce the deficit while promoting and freeing the private sector. Sadly, that careful approach has pleased few. For some, the idea of any reduction in public spending is completely unacceptable, while for others the Government have failed to front-load the cuts enough or cut deeply enough. Indeed, following the Budget a few weeks ago, a number of media outlets have portrayed their concern, frustration and anger. The focus has largely been on the Government’s proposals to reform child benefit and personal allowances, including those of pensioners, and on the politically questionable crackdown on Cornish pasties.
Lost in the wave of negative press cuttings were some of the positive steps that the Chancellor outlined, which should be highlighted and celebrated, particularly by pro-business Government Members. I truly believe that cutting the main rate of corporation tax to 24% from 1 April 2012, as outlined in clause 5, and then to 22% over the next three years, sends out a clear signal that Britain is open for business once again.
Throughout the new Labour years, Britain’s lead on corporation tax was sadly lost. In 1997, we had the 10th lowest main rate among the 27 EU nations. By the 2010 election, we had the 20th lowest. The Government’s corporation tax reforms and other measures will give us the most competitive tax system in the G20.
I will be completely honest: I have always been happy to nail my colours to the mast and declare, as I do again, that I passionately believe in a low tax economy. Low tax economies are attractive places in which to set up, relocate and expand a business. A competitive and vibrant private sector is essential for job creation, economic growth and, by extension, delivering a higher tax take. Ensuring that Britain can offer such incentives to businesses around the world will mean that we remain the No. 1 place in which to do business, and the Chancellor should receive a great deal of credit for putting us on such a pathway, despite the wider constraints of the budget deficit.
Thus far, I have focused on the wider economy and the creation of a private sector-led recovery through providing incentives and tax reliefs. However, I would also like to consider individual households, as the same principle can and should be applied to them. As several hon. Members have said, times are incredibly tough and households face real pressures. I confess that I would have liked some news in the Budget about fuel duty, particularly given the importance of fuel prices in rural areas such as my constituency of York Outer and across north Yorkshire. Yet I recognise that fuel duty will have been frozen for 16 months, thanks to the Government’s actions in the 2011 Budget and autumn statement, and that they also introduced the fuel stabiliser. We must be realistic. Under the current financial conditions, the Government can do only so much in each area. Altogether, we have done more in two years on fuel than the previous Government did in 13.
Julian Sturdy
I was going on to say that we must be realistic. However, if we had continued over the two years with the rises that the previous Government introduced, fuel would have cost between 9p and 11p a litre more than it does today. Having said that, I still hope that the 3p rise planned in August will be kept under review because we must not forget the impact of high fuel prices on rural areas and the wider rural economies.
John Mann
Some of my family originate from Copmanthorpe in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and petrol is sold there. Today, petrol in his constituency, mine and Mr Deputy Speaker’s is around 143p or 144p a litre, and it is going up. So, 119p and 143p or 144p—how much more is petrol since the Chancellor took office?
Julian Sturdy
I hope that some of the hon. Gentleman’s friends might support me in Copmanthorpe—you never know. He is right that many rural garages in my constituency and throughout north Yorkshire are struggling. Independent forecourts are struggling even more than the supermarket chains. Fuel prices have gone up, but that is due to the higher oil prices, which have escalated dramatically over the past two years. As I said, if we had not stopped the previous Government’s tax increases on fuel in the past 18 months, fuel prices would have been 9p to 11p higher than they are. The impact on rural areas and hard-working families across the country would have been huge.
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.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
What a shambles! What a catastrophe! I refer not to this debate, but to the career prospects of the Chancellor. He went into the Budget as the man destined, in his eyes and others’, to be the next leader of the Conservative party, and he departs from it with a shambles around him.
I thought a bit of sympathy would be in order and I wanted to demonstrate to the Chancellor the impact of his Budget, so the week before Easter, I offered him the opportunity to visit a caravan in Chapel St Leonards. I was prepared to bring in some cheap lagers—the type that I know he likes—from the supermarket, and to cook him one of his favourites: the sausage sandwich. There has been a lot of concentration on the pasty, but the humble sausage sandwich, never before taxed in this country, is now to attract VAT when provided at outlets across the country. The Minister is shaking his head—he does not know the proposals in the Budget. The sausage sandwich cooked hot by the bakers across the country and cooling down below the ambient temperature is VAT-able under the Government’s proposals.
John Mann
I awaited the Chancellor’s response to my offer. Was it the brown sauce, was it the red sauce or was it no sauce at all? That was taxed with VAT at the last Budget. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] The Chancellor had the opportunity. The caravans in Lincolnshire that people rely on for their English holidays are to be taxed as well, for the first time. The Chancellor chose not to respond.
John Mann
I suspect that the reason was that he had not worked out the cost of fuel since he has been Chancellor—the cost of filling up his own vehicle, like the rest of the country, rather than having a chauffeur-driven car taking him around. This is the point of the Budget. The point of any Budget is that it is about—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] There seem to be a few appendixes grumbling on the Government Benches. I recommend that hon. Members get those fixed before the next spending review, because the cuts that are coming to the health service and to local government have hardly begun. They are coming this year, and the Budget was the Chancellor’s opportunity to alleviate the situation with growth. According to him, growth was 2.5% last year, came down to 0.7% and this week came down further to 0.4%. We cannot grow our way out of a recession with growth figures like that.
That is the bit of economics that I could have explained to the Chancellor if he had chosen to come and use my bucket and spade and carry on digging. All that lot know that he is no longer fit to be leader of their party. Although they understand why, they are reluctant to say so. A Budget is about values. I do not care about the Chancellor’s background, where he comes from, what he eats or what car he has, but it is crucial that he understands, and he and his mate the Prime Minister do not get it. They are not in touch with the British people. That is what is fundamentally wrong with the Budget.
The leadership of the Government and of the Conservative party is out of touch with the British people, and that is undermining their confidence in the Chancellor. That is why this Budget has been such a catastrophe for him—picking on those with children, picking on pensioners, and failing to grow the economy. When the Chancellor took office, petrol was 119p a litre. He has already increased tax on petrol more than any other Chancellor in British history, and has seen the largest increase in petrol prices of any Chancellor in British history, and he has been in office only two years. There is more to come on tax. On top of that, there is doubtless more to come on prices. How is the normal, average British family struggling in this recession, trying to make ends meet, wanting to use their car—how are they to get on when they have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who do not understand the lives of the British people? That is their problem, and that is the damage that this Budget does to our people.
Amendment of the Law
Lord Mann Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vaizey
I have just spent two or three minutes talking about the success of the UK music, animation, film and television industries, and the right hon. Gentleman, who was meant to be the Labour leader, describes that as utter drivel. Let the message go out to the UK creative industries that one of the most senior members of the Labour party regards their success as drivel. And I make no apology for continuing to list some of those successes.
BBC Worldwide increased international sales by almost 10% last year. We are the European hub for the video games industry, with 35% of video games software sold in Europe being developed by UK studios, and almost half of the world’s top 100 development studios based in the UK, generating sales of almost £2 billion a year. The visual effects hub in Soho is home to four of the largest visual effects companies in the world. We have one of the most innovative and successful advertising industries in the world, and it is growing despite the recession. We have one of the most successful and creative fashion capitals anywhere in the world, with Burberry, a UK company, increasing its sales by a quarter. And, of course, our largest creative industry, the UK publishing sector, has a turnover of almost £20 billion.
We want to build on this success. We do not regard it as drivel. We regard it as vital to our economic success. That is why we will introduce a tax credit for our video games and animation industries and our high-end television production sector. We are confident that this will bring increased investment and growth in these sectors too.
John Mann
I thank the Minister for generously giving way. I would not regard his speech as drivel at all. It is a superb enunciation of the successes of the last Labour Government. Given the lead time required for investment and innovation, I look forward to hearing what he predicts his legacy will be in two, three and four years. Will it be as good as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) and her colleagues who worked in the Minister’s Department so assiduously over the past decade?
Mr Vaizey
They cannot make their minds up. On the one hand, the success of the UK’s creative industries is drivel; on the other, the success of Adele and her biggest-selling digital album in history is down to the Labour party. I would not claim that, but I would claim instead that we are putting in place the infrastructure for broadband investment to support high-tech innovation in this country. Through a series of initiatives, such as catapult centres, investment from the Technology Strategy Board, research and development tax credits and the patent box tax credit, we continue to support investment in our technology industries. Specifically through our tax break for video games, animation and high-end television production, we will support our creative industries and spur them on to greater success. I have already heard from some of the UK’s most successful animation companies. They are now planning to increase investment in their businesses, recruit more staff and make more programmes here in the UK. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a Labour Member standing next to you shouting at me. Could you encourage him to make a formal intervention at some point?
American studios are lining up to work with our talented production staff and amazing studios. British developers will be able to take advantage of the 8% growth in the worldwide video games industry.
John Mann
Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves on to the subject of digital infrastructure, may I ask whether she is as disgusted and shocked as I am by the news that in 12 minutes’ time the Bassetlaw Youth Theatre will give its last performance because it has been cut by the Tories on Nottinghamshire county council, who have failed to invest in young people and their future? People who could have had a vocational future in the creative industries have had it taken away tonight by the Tories.
Ms Harman
I am very sad indeed to hear that. Although the Government have squeezed councils, Labour councils up and down the country are determined to do what they can to protect the arts in the community against a Government who are cutting while telling them that philanthropy can step in and take the place of funding, which it will not.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, can you believe it? I do not mean the fact that the price of my petrol is going up and the price of my pasty is going up. No, I am asking whether you can believe how many or how few are here. Of course, SNP Members are not here yet again. We have a Budget only once a year and there are two Tory Back Benchers and two Liberal Back Benchers. They have probably come in a taxi. Looking at them, you might see Tories and Liberals, but I see Lincoln, Burnley, Redcar and Stafford—I see four Labour gains. Those four hon. Members are enjoying their last days on those green Benches. Why are the rest of them hidden away? I will tell you. It is because there are only two things that resonate in this Budget, and the first is growth.
Last year the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor told us that growth this year would be 2.5%, but they have reduced it to 0.8% in a year. Something tells me, therefore, that the policies are not working. They said last year that the national debt would come down—all the cuts were to bring the national debt down—but this year they say the national debt will go up next year, the year after and the year after that. That is the policy that they have put forward. It does not need any more complication. Growth is virtually not happening.
But there is something far worse for our communities. The cuts that we have heard about, the cuts that we have fought against, have hardly begun. The real cuts come next year. This is the Government’s Achilles heel, but it is also ours because it will hurt people across the country, including in my constituency. It will be the market towns, the traditional Tory areas, that take the brunt of the cuts because what that lot are doing, like most Governments, is make cuts and centralise. They are removing jobs from towns such as Retford in my constituency. For the first time those small market towns are taking a disproportionate number of the cuts, with jobs going and the relocation of people in order, allegedly, to save money by putting them in one office. Who is going to spend to support the small businesses that are trying to make a living, or for the potential new small businesses, in those market towns?
That is one Achilles heel, but the Government have another that they have hidden and that has not been exposed: draw-down pensions. Most of the 300,000 pensioners who will be affected do not realise that, because of quantitative easing and the failure to put a counterbalance in the Budget, and because gilts are at an all-time low, draw-down pensions are being hugely cut. Let me give an example from my constituency.
A fairly well-to-do couple who have worked hard over the years have been retired for 14 years on a good pension. Their private pension of £30,000 a year between them has been cut overnight in the past month to £13,000 by the Government Actuary’s Department. That is a 60% cut in their pension. That is what the Government have done, but they have failed to address the problem in the Budget. It is a nightmare for pensioners such as those. Most of the 300,000 draw-down pensioners do not know that this reduction is coming because they are informed of changes on a three-year cycle. I challenge the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on this point. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to sort it out, or are those people going to lose 60% of their pension because of your being in power this year?
Royal Bank of Scotland (FSA Report)
Lord Mann Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
I, too, commend the work of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee, along with the work done by Bill Knight and Sir David Walker in scrutinising the FSA’s report and making consequent improvements to it. One of the challenges we face is, as my hon. Friend said, to ensure that there is proper scrutiny. He commented on the fact that it took the pressure of his Committee to produce this report. The reality is that the existing powers in section 14 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to require a report to be produced where there is regulatory failure have never been exercised. One measure we have put in place in the Bill is to enable such reports to be produced on a more regular basis—not at a Minister’s request but in response to objective triggers to ensure that reports are published in a timely fashion so that we can learn the lessons from past mistakes. I think that is a helpful way of enabling Parliament to hold the regulators to account. We look forward shortly to responding not just to my hon. Friend’s Select Committee report, but to that of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Is the position of Hector Sants at the Bank of England still credible following the report, and does the Minister agree that it would not be tenable for anyone connected with the FSA to replace Sir Mervyn King as the next Governor of the Bank of England?
Mr Hoban
As the hon. Gentleman will know, RBS was regulated by the retail division of the FSA, while Hector Sants was managing director of the wholesale division. He took charge of the FSA about three months before the ABN AMRO acquisition, and one of the things on which he should be commended is the way in which he has led its implementation of a more intrusive and intense programme of supervision. I think that that has yielded dividends during the last two or three years, and that it is an important part of his record that we should recognise.
Eurozone Crisis
Lord Mann Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we are going to seek to rebalance those responsibilities. He also draws our attention to the fact that Greece and Spain are run by socialist Governments, but I do not want to intrude on their politics.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Having just taken credit for letting Greece off half its debt at the expense of, among others, British pensioners, what provisions would the Chancellor advise British institutions to make in regard to Italian debt?
Mr Osborne
I am not providing that advice across the Dispatch Box, but the Financial Services Authority, the Bank of England and the Treasury monitor British financial institutions to ensure that they are appropriately prepared for things that might happen. The European Banking Authority test that I have talked about takes into account a mark to market on the sovereign debt exposures of countries such as Italy and Spain.
Jobs and Growth
Lord Mann Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
My hon. Friend is being unfair. The hon. Member for West Suffolk campaigned to reverse the cuts in Building Schools for the Future, as we know. To be fair to the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), she has campaigned for fewer cuts in Norfolk. If only she did not take such a regional view.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I congratulate the shadow Chancellor on listening to what I said in this place a year ago and on the major change in Labour’s economic policy in the last three weeks, which has gone unnoticed. Last year’s policy of a permanent reduction in VAT has changed to the far more credible policy of a temporary reduction in VAT, which is precisely what I argued for in this place a year ago. Will the shadow Chancellor listen carefully if I have the chance to make a point about national insurance in this debate?
Ed Balls
My hon. Friend is a leading indicator, not a lagging indicator.
The fact is that the deficit plan is going too far and too fast. As I have said, we should stop putting party political advantage before the national interest. That is why the right thing to do to help struggling families and businesses in the constituencies of Members across the House is to adopt a plan now to get our deficit down by getting our economy moving. We should repeat the bank bonus tax; build 25,000 homes; guarantee a job for 100,000 young people; genuinely bring forward long-term investment projects in schools, transport and roads; temporarily reverse the damaging rise in VAT, which would mean £450 for a couple with children; have an immediate one-year cut in VAT to 5% on home improvement, repairs and maintenance; and introduce a one-year national insurance tax break for every small firm that takes on extra workers.
The Chancellor does not have to wait 46 days. He can bring forward emergency resolutions in this House next week and we will support them. He can call the plan what he likes. If he wants to appease The Spectator, he can call it plan A-plus. That is fine by us. Britain just needs a plan that works for jobs and growth, which is why he should adopt Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth.
Mr Osborne
In precisely the advice that the right hon. Gentleman reads out, the IMF, in its current forecasts for the UK economy, is very specific that the UK should not change its fiscal stance. It has consistently recommended that this country undertake credible deficit reduction. The Government have set out many proposals—controversial proposals—to get our budget deficit down, but in the 16 months that we have been in office we have heard not one single suggestion from the shadow Chancellor on how he would get the deficit down.
Mr Osborne
I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a second.
Last week, the Opposition tabled an amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill that would have cost this country £11 billion. That one amendment on one day in this House of Commons shows how completely incredible they are.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
This debate about growth contains three distinct components, although, of course, there are close connections between them: the strategy to stabilise the public finances, the strategy to secure recovery, and the strategy to raise the long-run growth rate. I want to say a little about each of those.
There has been a fair amount of partisan politics around today, and I do not intend to add to it unless severely provoked. As I have said in the House a number of times before, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) deserves considerable credit for his March 2010 Budget, with its plans for sharp cuts in spending and borrowing. Equally, the coalition deserves credit for its own plans. Our present low debt service costs speak for themselves. They reflect the credibility invested by markets in the deficit reduction strategy and the belief that the coalition will stick with it, and the country will be the beneficiary of that.
As for policies to secure recovery, we can all agree that, given the eurozone crisis, the international economic outlook is much worse than forecast either by the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget 18 months ago or by the Office for Budget Responsibility this spring, and I am sure more surprises will follow. However, it is not true that the Government are doing nothing in response, as the right hon. Gentleman implied. They have rightly adapted to the situation, and the recovery strategy has changed. The Bank of England has adapted by announcing the second tranche of quantitative easing, and the Chancellor will adapt by announcing credit easing in his autumn statement.
I strongly endorse the Chancellor’s decision to favour monetary policy as the short-term tool rather than tinkering with tax changes, which is what is proposed in the five-point plan. I am sure that the Treasury Committee will want to examine exactly how the Government have changed their policy on the recovery strategy and whether QE2 and credit easing are the best tools, but I think everybody can agree that it was timely to take action. We can also agree that British taxpayers should not be asked to contribute to any further eurozone bail-out.
John Mann
History shows that the use of monetary policy has invariably led to an increase in inflation, which has sometimes been a hidden deliberate policy aim. Regardless of whether it is a good or a bad policy, does the hon. Gentleman expect an upward drift of inflation as the conclusion to the way in which monetary policy is currently being used?
Mr Tyrie
I will not answer that at any length, except to say that I am of course making my points in a personal capacity, because as a Committee we may comment on growth after the autumn statement. Let me also point out that the Governor gave a comprehensive reply to the hon. Gentleman’s question when he introduced the second £75 billion tranche of measures. He pointed out that money demand was extremely low at present, and that therefore he thought that the risk of inflation over the next two to three years was extremely low.
Michael Fallon
Employers in my constituency tell me that they will do almost anything to avoid taking on any single additional member of staff. The hon. Lady has to recognise that the number of cases jumped to a quarter of a million in 2009-10. I welcome the change.
I hope that there might be agreement across the House on my next point. The two things that seem to be missing at the moment in our quest for growth are cash and confidence. I fully support what the Government are doing to encourage bank lending. It beggars belief that there was no agreement in place with the banks to stimulate lending to small businesses before the Merlin agreement was concluded this year. I support that agreement, but I also share the scepticism of the Chancellor and the former Chancellor about the stimulus that the first round of quantitative easing may or may not have given to bank lending. The jury seems to be out on that, but what it does seem to have stimulated is inflation. The Bank now admits, I think, that it may have added between 0.75% and 1.5% to consumer price inflation. Two years ago, consumer price inflation was 1.1%, whereas today it is four times that. I hope that the Bank will be mindful, if there is an inflationary effect, that inflation is already higher than we would like. If there is a squeezed middle, inflation is doing quite a bit of the squeezing, and I hope that the Bank will not forget its core task of getting inflation back on target.
In the end, confidence is the key. I hope that the Government will do everything that they can to back the companies that are successful, and to learn from their success.
Michael Fallon
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
I visited a small business in my constituency that I want to tell the House about. It is called Rotosound and—I say this for colleagues who play guitar or other stringed instruments—it is the prime maker of guitar strings. It sells them not only throughout the United Kingdom, but to 60 countries around the world, and it is one of our great success stories. It sold guitar strings that were used by Jimi Hendrix, The Who and many other bands. It sells them to China, which could quite easily make its own guitar strings, probably more cheaply. People in China choose to buy our guitar strings because they are associated with one of our most successful industries—popular music—and because they are British. We need to distil the essence of successful exporters such as that company. The Government need to find the secret of those companies and do everything possible to back more of them if we are to deliver the jobs that our young people need.
It is clear from the debate so far, and certainly from the Chancellor’s speech, that only this Government can help to deliver the growth that the economy needs by laying the proper foundations for our fiscal consolidation, so that we get the modern economy that we need growing successfully again.
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. They managed to come up with an excuse after 2008, following the collapse of the banks, but as I said earlier, I am yet to hear an answer on why they ran a deficit from 2001 to 2008. Perhaps we will get one later.
What I did hear from the shadow Chancellor was some rather mealy-mouthed insults directed towards my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who had a proper job outside politics and Government, as I did, which the shadow Chancellor seems to think is worth mocking him for. My right hon. Friend was not the man who was responsible for the £1 trillion-worth of debt, for selling gold at a fraction of the price, or for running up deficits in boom years. [Interruption.] I will not say anything about the euro at the moment, but there are many Labour Members who were urging us to the join the euro during those times and are now trying to give us a lesson in economics. I notice that they have all now gone very quiet.
The reality is that Labour Members never, ever learn their lesson. For them, it is not a case of plan A or plan B; there is only one plan: “Let’s tax people as highly as we can, and when we’ve finished squeezing every penny out of them, we’ll borrow more money.” They do not remember the words of one Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer during a Labour conference: “Comrades, you may think that we can tax and spend our way out of a recession, but I tell you that is no longer an option.” They still have not learned the lesson.
Clement Attlee failed in the 1940s when he tried to build his welfare state on the back of American war loans. There was Harold Wilson in the 1960s telling the public that the pound in their pocket was worth the same when he was rapidly devaluing it. Then there was Jim “Crisis, what crisis?” Callaghan, who, just like his successors, brought the country to the brink of utter bankruptcy, and did not even seem to think that he had done anything wrong. It was 18 years before they got another chance, and they have done exactly the same thing again: tax and spend, borrow and spend, just keep on doing it and do not worry about it.
I am glad that we have a Government who are not going to go for the easy option, which would be to borrow a whole load more money now in the hope of winning an election, which is exactly what Labour Members were doing for a couple of years. We are going to take some tough decisions, and that means getting our books in order. Unlike the shadow Chancellor, I know, having run a small family haulage business, that one cannot carry on spending more money than one gets indefinitely. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor is going to encourage real growth by making it easier for businesses to take people on and not have to worry about employment tribunals, which anyone who has run a small business does worry about all the time because of the number of spurious claims.
David T. C. Davies
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever had any experience of running a business or dealing with spurious employment tribunals—I very much doubt it.
I am also glad that the Chancellor has recognised that reducing our carbon emissions at a time when the economy is facing problems is not necessarily the wisest thing to do, particularly when the Government are now having to accept that our winters are getting colder, that more people are dying through cold than through heat, and that the link between carbon dioxide and global warming is not quite as clear-cut as many people say.
David T. C. Davies
I will not give way again, because I have done so twice and I do not want to cut myself off.
I congratulate the Chancellor and all his colleagues in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and urge them to stay the course, to ensure that we spend what we earn, and not to listen to Labour Members or take any notice of people such as the former Prime Minister. Even he did not seem to know the difference between debt and deficit, because anyone who looks at the YouTube video of him abusing Mrs Duffy and calling her a bigot will notice that halfway through he said, “We will cut the debt in half.” Did he not know the difference between debt and deficit, or was he planning much deeper cuts than the coalition Government? Perhaps someone will answer that question.
All Back Benchers on this side of the House are supportive of the Government because we recognise, as we always have, that it is not possible to carry on spending money that one does not have because that merely creates a bigger problem further down the line for our children. That is why I urge my colleagues to stay the course.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Having listened for an hour and a half to the two Front Benchers, I suggest that we put them in a ring in Westminster Hall the next time we debate the economy—we could charge the public a little fee, which would be a modest contribution to deficit reduction—and allow the rest of us a little more time to discuss the economy.
First, I want to make some points that might be of particular interest to Labour Front Benchers—I trust that they will be noted in detail. I congratulate Labour Front Benchers on two major changes in the past three weeks. I mentioned the first change earlier—the change of policy on VAT. The previous policy, which I disagreed with in the Chamber, was that the Labour party was in favour of a permanent VAT reduction. Now, the policy is for a temporary reduction—from what the shadow Chancellor said, it appears that there would be a 12-month temporary reduction.
The figures are huge. Just in the next Parliament, that change in policy will mean that £50 billion will be available to a new Labour Government from revenues to the Exchequer. In the context of a snap election, potentially £20 billion extra would go into the Exchequer in the next three years. Those are major sums, and I therefore congratulate Labour Front Benchers on that huge change in policy.
That is not the only change in policy—I would recommend the second policy change to the Government, and I should like to hear in the winding-up speeches whether they are prepared to adopt it. Labour’s policy now is that all moneys from the privatisation of the more recently part-nationalised banks will go 100% to offset the debt. That ought explicitly to be the policy of the Government. I trust that they are not thinking of creating youth unemployment now to delay for give-away Budgets just before the election. The electorate, as well as business, will not forgive them for that.
This Government have adopted an economic policy of Japanisation. They are adopting the Japan Government’s approach, and anyone who wants to see precisely where they are going needs to look at the economic history of Japan over the past 20 years.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is not the Japanese approach. The Japanese Government have enormously increased their national debt, while we are going to reduce it.
John Mann
On inflation and monetary policy, this is precisely the Japanese model, but it does not work, which is why there is already £46 billion in additional debt. The lesson from Japan is that we cannot deal with the debt without growth. That is the lesson that the Government are not listening to. I recommend that Members on both sides of the House read up on the economic history of Japan.
I say to the Labour Front-Bench team that we need to be more specific about the cuts that we would make. I realise that on welfare, for example, we cannot be specific. Like the Government, we are in favour of major change, but we do not know whether that will be successful. The fact is that the state will shrink over the next few Parliaments—there is no other way to pay for our deficit reduction plans or the Government’s less coherent plans. We have to pay back the debt. The Government want to pay it all back now, while we are saying, in essence, “No, we wouldn’t pay back as much now, but it would be paid back in future years.” That is the key difference. Either way, it means that the state will have to shrink in future years, and I can suggest some things that we should be stating.
What about Government Departments? Housing costs nine times as much in London as in Bassetlaw. I am not suggesting that a major Department should move to Bassetlaw—although we have the land—but there are Sheffield, Leeds, Nottingham and many other places. Let us see the Department for Culture, Media and Sport shifted to Manchester with the BBC. Let us see the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shifted. Let us see the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs shifted. Let us see huge Departments, in their entirety, shifted out to the regions of England. That would give a boost to economic growth and bring permanent savings to the Exchequer. That ought to be part of our policy.
There are other smaller things that we could do. What about the British Council? What a nonsense of an organisation to sustain! We could take some of that money and give it to British universities to do English-language training abroad and build their business base in emerging markets. At the same time, that would reduce costs. What about unitary authorities? Of course, many Members, being ex-councillors, do not want to get rid of unitary authorities. What nonsense! There are 27 press officers in Nottinghamshire and 10 chief executives, with head offices all over the place. Scrap them! Scrap large numbers of councils! What about the police? We cannot merge the police, but we can merge their headquarters. We could rationalise NHS buildings across the county. There is a vast array of things that we could do. There are the British Army bases in Germany. We could reduce the size of the base in Cyprus. We should be levying at least 5% on the UK Crown dependencies to which we provide security. We should offer a permanent reduction in national insurance for small businesses to get young people into apprenticeships and back into work.
Amendment of the Law
Lord Mann Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. We went into the downturn with a deficit that was low and covered our borrowing for investment. [Interruption.] It was low. We had low national debt—lower than France, Germany or Japan. We then had a global financial crisis, which hit the American and British economies hard. Our economy had a larger financial services sector than others—that was precisely why we did not join the single currency in 2003—so of course America and Britain were harder hit than other countries by the financially driven recession.
If we had not let the deficit go up, which some hon. Members now seem to think we should not have done, the result would have been unemployment above 3 million rather than it peaking at 2.5 million. The economy would have gone from recession into depression. That is the economics of the situation. The question is, who did a good job of getting the deficit down? We had the deficit coming down, unemployment coming down and growth going up, but a year later we have unemployment going up, inflation going up and the economy ground to a halt. As a result, borrowing will be £45 billion higher, not lower.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may be able to assist me with some statistics that are missing from the Government’s document “The Plan for Growth”. I can see nothing in it about what has happened in the past 15 years. The chart showing growth under the last Government is missing. Similarly, there are no international comparisons showing what is happening to our growth compared with other countries, and what was happening under the last Government.
Ed Balls
The reality was that we had a long period of sustained growth and low inflation, and we reversed the high unemployment of the 1980s and 1990s. We put behind us the instability of the Tory years by making—[Interruption.] If the Chancellor wants to make an intervention, we are still waiting.
Vince Cable
I would have thought that Opposition Members who want the economy to flourish and new jobs in their constituencies welcomed the fact that I and other Ministers spend a lot of our time talking to potential inward investors. That is good not only for them but for the British companies that then become part of their supply chain and whose confidence is reinforced.
Especially for small businesses, growth requires the Government not to put unnecessary obstacles in the way. When we searched the archives, we discovered that we had inherited a stock of 21,800 regulations and that the last Government were responsible for roughly 10,000 of them. Rather sad people like me who have spent some of the best years of our political lives in Statutory Instrument Committees will have seen all of that happening.
We have taken action to stop the gold-plating of EU regulations, to ensure that every new regulation is matched by the value of an “out”, and to mandate sunset clauses. We have launched a reform of the expensive and time-consuming tribunal system, and we have injected common sense into Health and Safety Executive inspections. The Budget confirmed the statement I made last week that there will be a three-year moratorium on new regulation affecting micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees.
Vince Cable
Not at all; we should be proud of lifting regulation from small companies that generate employment, which every Member should be concerned about.
Vince Cable
No, I have taken a lot of interventions, and the hon. Gentleman has already made his intervention from a sedentary position.
The role of government is not only to get out of the way when they are blocking growth, but to intervene when there is a genuine market failure. Training is one such area, and we are seeking to alleviate the problem by supporting apprenticeships. When we came into office, 150,000 apprenticeships were planned for 2010-11 to be part-funded by government. We have increased that number, even in an environment of cuts, by 75,000 over the spending review period and in this Budget we have added another 50,000. The problems of training are massive. Let us remind ourselves that we inherited a system in which 14% of the adult population have poor literacy skills—we are talking about the reading age of a 12-year-old—and 19% have grossly inadequate mathematical skills. That is the base from which we start. [Interruption.] A lot of people, both in this House and outside it, would take this issue of innumeracy among the public much more seriously than the Labour Front-Bench team.
In the Budget, the Government have also invested further in science, particularly in research infrastructure. Through a combination of policies—the protection of the ring-fencing of the science budget; the legislative action to protect scientists and others from libel action; and the launching of the technology and innovation centre and advanced manufacturing—we have made a very firm declaration of support for the science community and the commercial application of science.
Vince Cable
I probably was going to disappoint my right hon. Friend, because the Chancellor covered those issues very well yesterday. However, there is a lot more where that came from.
Vince Cable
I am not going to take any more interventions.
I return to the issue of fairness. When we first came into office, the major attack from the Opposition was that we were going to hit the poorest hardest. When it became clear that we were producing policies to protect the state pension, increase child tax credits, give preferential treatment to low-paid workers in the public sector and lift low-paid workers out of tax, attention shifted to the so-called “squeezed middle”, which has been variously defined to encompass 90% of the population.
The truth of the situation is that as a result of the financial crash and the recession that followed, Britain is a significantly poorer country than we were several years ago, so living standards have been squeezed. As the Governor of the Bank of England said,
“the real consequences of this crisis are only now beginning to be felt.”
What we have done in the Budget is take concrete action on fuel duty and on lifting the thresholds at which low earners pay tax. I shall dwell on that point a little—
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]
Lord Mann Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about flexibility. Where does he think the 2% inflation target, set for the Bank of England, should be, not least in the context of the Japanese economic crisis, with the pressures on US dollars and the insurance industry, and with the potential for rapidly growing inflation, which might require the 2% figure to be reconsidered imminently?
Chris Leslie
Of course, those issues are in the hands of the Chancellor. He has a Budget tomorrow, and I do not know whether he is thinking of revising his monetary policy mandate, but I would be very surprised if he were. My hon. Friend will notice, however, because I know he follows the small print of the Budget and of financial documents, that in the small print the Treasury has chosen for its GDP deflator, when it comes to public expenditure, an inflation rate of 1.9%, which is slightly at odds with the fact that the retail prices index is 5.5%. Again, the cynic in me would suggest that the Treasury has chosen that approach, because to do otherwise would blow a hole in the middle of the Government’s financial plans.
John Mann
I thank my hon. Friend for generously giving way a second time. The reason for exploring the issue is in this “charter”—this grandiose term—set out before Parliament. Chancellors might change their point of view, perhaps sensibly, if they look at the real economy, but how hamstrung will a Chancellor be in the future if some back-dated charter has been agreed but is itself too restrictive and requires change? Is not the measure before us rather a stranglehold—purely presentational—that could come to haunt this or future Chancellors?
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend suggests that the measure is phantom paraphernalia, enrobing the creation of the Office for Budget Responsibility simply to give it a sense of grand importance, and in fact it could have deleterious consequences. That is certainly one crucial reason why we felt it important to table the amendment, stating that at the very least there should be a broader set of mandates within the charter, and that a growth mandate would be especially important.
Chris Leslie
Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I just want to point out that in Committee we debated the remit of the Office for Budget Responsibility and whether it should be broader and take account of wider economic and social policies. So, for example, we tested out the notion of whether the OBR could have responsibility for assessing the impact of Treasury policy on child poverty, or whether it should have responsibility for assessing the impartiality of the local government finance settlement.
One promise in the Conservative party’s localism paper, which came out before the general election, was to have the Audit Commission undertake an independent test of whether there was impartiality in the settlement. That has been dropped subsequently.
Chris Leslie
It has been dropped, and that is indeed something that we should come back to at another point.
This time, on Report, we thought, “Let’s look as strategically as anybody could possibly want to,” and having a growth mandate—a responsibility for growth and employment—and assessing the impact of Treasury policy seemed quite unobjectionable, at least to me when tabling the amendment.
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
We debated that point in the Public Bill Committee. Having consulted the Treasury Committee Chair subsequently, I understand that it has to weigh up how much time it has for such matters versus other things. That may well be a matter for the Treasury Committee to revisit. I urge it to ask for the ability to appoint all five members, not least because the two non-executive members who will not have a pre-appointment hearing are essentially appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To ensure their impartiality beyond doubt, it would seem necessary for the Treasury Committee to have the right, if it saw fit, to scrutinise all five.
John Mann
As a member of the Treasury Committee, I wholeheartedly back the principle that all five members should be scrutinised appropriately, not least because of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made about ensuring that there is the maximum possible specialist input, including from the labour market, in the decision making. Let us scrutinise all five.
Chris Leslie
I look forward very much to those pre-appointment hearings and the reports of them. It is important to have people who understand the real economy. That is the gist of our amendments. We are worried about these matters.
Chris Leslie
I am quite sure that there are influences, but we tabled the amendment to draw out answers to some of these questions.
John Mann
One statistic that is not currently provided by the OBR is its projection of the number of new employees entering the country from abroad, including from within the EU. The amendment might mean that the OBR must provide that statistic, which is important in social and economic policy. At the moment, the OBR gives only a general figure from which we cannot deduce, without more detailed and hidden questioning, precisely how many new jobs come from abroad. My understanding is that currently, 700,000 to 800,000 of the new jobs being created will involve EU migrants. What does my hon. Friend say to that?
Ian Murray
I may just carry on, as I know you are trying to get through the speakers, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The coalition would have us believe that the previous Government were responsible for the economic crisis in, to name but a few countries, Germany, France, the US, Japan, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Iceland, and that member of the arc of prosperity, Ireland.
Finally, I want to give a human story and show why there is a need for a growth factor mandate at the OBR. On Sunday in my constituency I met a family who raised the spectre of what the Government’s changes mean for them and the problems that they face as a result. The OBR reflects these issues in the figures it produces, but not in terms of growth. That family gave me a list, which follows on from a list given to me by someone at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: they have listed the cost of all the changes to their family budget, which amount to a loss of £4,000 a year. One member of the family earns just into the upper tax bracket, and his partner works part-time and tends to look after the children. When the national insurance increase and the child benefit cut—because he is a higher tax bracket earner—are taken into account as well as the increase in VAT and pension contributions, the overall consumer prices index increase to pensions, his public sector pay freeze, the extra cost of fuel going into the car, the increase in utility bills, food inflation and general inflation in the economy, it all has a rather hard-hitting effect on the family budget. That is why I think the amendments are sensible, and why the OBR needs a growth mandate to get the Chancellor out of a hole—because he does not have a plan B, and it does not really look as if he has a plan A, either.
John Mann
I shall speak solely to the excellent amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) so eloquently put forward. In doing so, I shall argue why it is in the Government’s interests to accept the amendment. I am certain that by the end of my speech the Minister will wish to accept it and will accede by nodding that she will do so.
The amendment is a pro-Government amendment and would be pro-Government whoever was in government, because unlike the usual party-politicking that we tend to get on Report, particularly early on, the amendment is a highly pragmatic and practical amendment to a process that, as the Government stated when they set up the OBR, was itself meant to be independent, practical and pragmatic. The shame is that we could be in a Public Bill Committee given the paucity of the number of Members present to debate this rather important Bill and an area of the economy that is the most fundamental issue that we face, along with every other Parliament in the world. I know we will not have a green Budget tomorrow, but today the green Benches are largely empty of hon. Members ready to participate in and listen to the debate. That is an indictment of the confidence that Back Benchers from both halves of the coalition have in their Government's economic policies on the verge of the Chancellor’s second Budget.
We have an opportunity to shape the independent analysis that will sit alongside this and all future Budgets, including when, at some stage, the coalition parties are in opposition—although I appreciate that the Liberals are, in essence, already in opposition. It is extraordinary that so few of them are present. If I were a Liberal now—I never will be, but if I were—I would be thinking, “Here is an opportunity, with this amendment, to try to have a smidgen of influence over this tawdry Government.” That smidgen of influence is entirely lacking now, because the Liberals are nothing more than lapdogs to the Tories’ economic policies.
I shall illustrate my point with two examples, the first of which concerns the labour market and issues such as immigration and why it is so relevant to what the OBR is not doing and, I believe, will not do in its report that will be presented with the Budget tomorrow. When assessing job creation, it is essential from a Treasury and from a social policy point of view to ascertain precisely what new jobs there are. In doing so, work should not be broken down to the micro-level of particular kinds of jobs, as policy makers do not need to know that. However, they do need to know about the people who have entered the labour market and were not in it before. If it is projected that just over 1 million jobs will be created in this Parliament, it makes a world of difference if those jobs are taken by young people coming into our economy from the accession countries of eastern Europe, perhaps on a temporary basis, to participate in those elements of growth in our economy rather than being taken by the domestically resident, unemployed, underemployed, retired or partially retired population.
The economics of this issue are as important to decision making as the social policy side, which I am sure all hon. Members will recognise is very important. If the majority of jobs being created are semi-permanent, service sector-based jobs in the south-east, particularly in London, and if they are filled by people from overseas, there will be economic and social consequences. One economic consequence will be an overheating of the London and south-east economies.
The failure to take that into account in economic planning was by far the biggest fault line under the previous Labour Government. It is foolhardy of the current Government, with the cheering on the Conservative Back Benches that there has been, to do exactly the same thing given that a tool has been created that would allow that objective analysis—if it were allowed to do that job. If the OBR’s report tomorrow gives a breakdown of where jobs are coming from, how many are in the south-east and London, and how many are new jobs going to people coming into the country for the first time, that will give us far greater certainty about the economic and social consequences. Some of those economic consequences, as well as social consequences, will be an overheated housing market in London and the south-east, which has previously been an impediment to certain forms of growth and to those who have wished to get into the labour market but have not been able to do so.
Stewart Hosie
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the nature of employment, but I am not sure whether the growth mandate to which amendment 1 refers would help. There were years under Labour in which there was net growth, but the Labour Government still managed to lose 1 million manufacturing jobs in those years—this was before the recession—and I am not sure how the growth mandate would have helped to inform us that we had lost those jobs, given that net growth was being identified and, presumably, reported on, as it would be by the OBR.
John Mann
We, like other countries in the western world, are losing manufacturing jobs because of our refusal to deal with Chinese imports and the consumer myth of buying ever cheaper from China. The inherent trade imbalances and problems that accrue as a result will come back to haunt us, and while I know that the Government will want to allocate time to discuss that vital subject in the near future, it is slightly outside our present debate.
The hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly wrong. While it would be wrong to discuss policy issues relating to the economy now, if the statistics had been broken down at that time to allow his assessment to be made more accurately, it is rational to assume that the situation could have been debated more regularly and in a more informed way. That might have had a positive impact for Opposition Members such as him as well as Labour Back Benchers. Indeed, such information might also have informed the previous Government’s policy making, which explains why amendment 1 is in the Government’s favour.
We need to know about job creation and what jobs are available not only in London and the south-east, but in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have talked about immigration, but there is an equally vital factor for economic and social policy: the blurring, albeit for rational reasons, of retirement age. We have to consider early retirement, late retirement and the retirement age itself, as well as the vital question of pensions. Some employers in areas such as mine have deliberately targeted getting the over-60s back into employment. That is perfectly rational, and it is good for those people, for the social economy and, perhaps, for the economy overall. We need the information, however; not because that is a bad thing, but because we need to know whether the new jobs in our regions and constituencies are getting those people who are deemed to be retired into the labour market, as opposed to people who are not working—whether they want to work or not. If we are to crack the problem of those who choose not to work, or who are incapable of getting work—again, the rational employer goes for the person with work history—such understanding will be vital to our economic and social policy. I put it to hon. Members that the rational employer is far more likely to employ a 67-year-old with an excellent work history who is re-entering the labour market, perhaps in a part-time job, than a 57-year-old who has been unemployed for 10 years.
The decisions taken by employers and those individuals who wish to re-enter the labour market are not necessarily matters for us, but the consequences of their decisions are important to us, and especially to economic policy making. An understanding of the precise breakdown of new jobs and job losses is fundamental to economic policy making. Several of the economic assumptions that can be made about consumer behaviour, pensioners and wage demands flow from such analysis. That is why, as a slight aside, it would be foolhardy not to give the Treasury Committee a role in all five OBR appointments, because such a role would ensure that if a Chancellor were so foolish as to skew the appointment process towards people with a certain mindset or from a certain discipline in economics, as opposed to trying to achieve a balance, that Chancellor could be corrected through appropriate cross-party decision making. I am talking about any Chancellor—the present one, whoever replaces him in future reshuffles and our Chancellor, when we are in power. It is vital that there is an evidence base that stands independent of the Government so that we can all decide how to vote on the various measures that the Government bring forward. How can we possibly make an informed decision otherwise, except by political instinct, which is important but insufficient compared with having all the information?
I am therefore puzzled by why the Government are not leaping to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East for tabling the amendment. Labour Members might see the fact that his approach would help out such a Tory Government as somewhat treacherous, but this is clearly the new politics. It is coalition gone mad when a Labour Front Bencher is putting forward a proposal that would help Conservative Back Benchers, the handful—a tiny number—of Liberals who are anywhere near government and the Government themselves.
Let me give another example about policy making. Who knows what will be determined about petrol policy tomorrow, but that is a good example of something that should be covered by the OBR’s analysis. We need to know what has happened, including in the past, so that we can assess the impact of VAT on petrol, as well as on petrol duty, and the changes to petrol duty itself. The Chancellor might decide not to cut the price of petrol and yet not to increase it further, even though the price paid by drivers such as myself has gone up by ten quid since he became Chancellor. If he decides not to increase the price further, we will need to see a breakdown of the relevant information. We could go back through history, although I can guarantee that such a consideration will not be in the report that the OBR produces tomorrow. I could assist the office, however, because I have statistics that demonstrate that 70% of the existing tax on petrol was brought in by Conservative Chancellors since 1973. One might ask why Conservative Chancellors pick on the motorist to such an extent, but that is a debate for tomorrow rather than today, although I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and others in the rural community will want to know why that is the case.
The point, in the context of the amendment, is that we must know precisely what is going on. I imagine that Conservative Back Benchers would be shocked to find out that Conservative Chancellors are responsible, as of today, for 70% of the tax on petrol. If the OBR had the mandate, however, those statistics could be laid out for us at every Budget and the pressure would be on. The pressure would, of course, be on Labour if the reverse had been the case and Labour Chancellors such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) had been responsible for the rise.
Andrew Bridgen
I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s honesty in saying that Conservative Chancellors are responsible, because there is no doubt that Labour Chancellors have been extremely irresponsible. [Interruption.]
John Mann
I struggle with the humour, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The facts cannot be hidden. The facts about immigration cannot be hidden because they can be rooted out. My point is that the facts should be there and they should be presented. The facts on the semi-retired, part-retired, would-be-retired, past-retired and those back in the labour market are not there, but they would help with some of our social policy making and, I repeat, are vital to our economic policy making.
When it comes to the price of petrol and the level of tax on it, I imagine that some Greens and others—there are not many Green Members, of course—would see those statistics as important for social policy. As I have said, however, I am mainly interested in economic policy. I am interested in knowing about the impact in my area on small businesses as well as the larger businesses that rely on vehicles. I used to rely on vehicles when I had my own small family business, driving lorries across Europe. We know how much it costs to fill up, but as a new MP entering Parliament in 2001, I would have been interested in challenging Labour Chancellors over what they were going to do with the historic tax on fuel that had been imposed by their Conservative predecessors, particularly between 1979 when it was 6.6p and 1997 when it was about 45p—the biggest increase in petrol duty anywhere in the world. I appreciate that statistics can be embarrassing to Governments.
Stephen Williams
The hon. Gentleman objects to taxes on fuel—we hear a lot from many Labour Members about their objections to different tax rises by this and previous Governments—so where does he think that the tax burden should fall, given that billions of pounds are raised by fuel duties?
John Mann
I will have to resist—not because I am not keen to respond, but because I see immediately that Mr Deputy Speaker does not want me to stray into taxation policy. This is about the statistics, and the statistics are fascinating when we know that Labour Chancellors have put up petrol duty so little in comparison with Conservative Chancellors. We know why: it is because we are on the side of industry and of business. We have not said that enough; we have not been proud enough to say it, and we need to say it far more.
When it comes to economic decision making and the ability to have comparators, the statistics are vital. That is why I emphasise that, in essence, amendment 1 is a pro-Government amendment. I predict that, at tomorrow’s Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility will not provide such analysis. It is wrong that it will fail to do so, but its excuse will be that it does not have a mandate. We have an opportunity to put that right. I look to the Minister to nod to show that she is going to accept this excellent amendment in order to strengthen decision making and to be on the side of the motorist and those who want a proper debate on the labour market and jobs in this country. I commend the amendment to the House.
Geraint Davies
The amendment is essentially about making growth a centrepiece of the Office for Budget Responsibility—for very obvious reasons. The OBR’s remit, as set out in clause 4, is to
“report on the sustainability of the public finances”.
That sustainability consists of tax, expenditure and growth. We are not saying that the OBR makes no implicit consideration of growth, but that growth needs to be made a much more central part of the information available for our deliberations.
Justine Greening
I hope I can provide some clarification. The OBR has the freedom to consider the impact of policies on sustainable public finances, including employment policies. If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the forecasts the OBR has already made, he will see forecasts for employment, average earnings, ILO unemployment, the percentage of the claimant count and, of course, growth. Hon. Members talked about the OBR’s assessment of growth and what it will show over the coming years. The OBR is already producing an awful lot of the analysis that hon. Members want to see, but it is fair to say that today’s debate will—I hope—be of interest to the OBR in understanding what information and analysis it might feel it needs to provide to convey what it wants to, which is some assessment of the economic growth forecast for this country.
Let us be clear that the duty of the OBR is very clear and is set out in clause 4. It should examine and report on the sustainability of public finances but, as hon. Members have said, Government policy clearly impacts on that. By definition, the OBR will consider how policy impacts on the sustainability of public finances.
John Mann
From what the Minister is saying, I presume that if the OBR—or even the Treasury Committee, but the OBR in particular—were to say that it was unable to provide the analysis that it would like to because it was not sufficiently resourced, that would be seen as a serious question for the Government to address.
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman will be aware through his role as a member of the Treasury Committee that when the chair of the OBR, Robert Chote, was asked whether he felt it was sufficiently resourced he said he felt it was. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that one reason we have carved out sufficient money not just for this year but for the whole spending review period, which will be reported on separately, is to ensure that the OBR understands that it is sufficiently resourced not just for this year but for the years ahead, so that it has that certainty about its resource base to do the work it needs to do.
John Mann
That is a vital point, because Robert Chote was speaking as the first permanent employee. Others are now employed by the OBR who might have different perspectives and priorities. There is a critical question: if the OBR feels restrained by resources, will that become a politically contentious issue as regards objective statistics? Presumably, in such a case, if the OBR was kicking up about being unable to provide the detail in independent statistics, the Government would regard it as vital to address that resource need.
Justine Greening
I can go back to the reply I just gave the hon. Gentleman. The charter and the Bill clearly set out the OBR’s duties and Sir Alan Budd, as the interim chair, produced his report and talked about what he thought that the duties of the OBR should be, about its resourcing and about how it should be run. Of course, we reflected many of those comments as we introduced this Bill to set up the OBR. If we take that together with the fact that the permanent chair, Robert Chote, has said that he does not feel that there will be an issue with resourcing, we can be relatively confident that the OBR will be adequately resourced to fulfil the duties clearly set out in the Bill.
Let me turn briefly to the amendments. They all concern growth and the problem is that they start to stray into the OBR’s becoming bound up in policy rather than analysis. Amendment 1 would require the charter to include the Government’s economic policy objectives and the means by which that objective would be attained—what has been called a growth mandate. The charter, however, is a fiscal policy document that transparently sets out the fiscal policy framework. The purpose of the charter, the OBR and the Bill is to create the fiscal policy framework that supports the Government’s delivery of our fiscal policy objectives. Rightly, the charter focuses on fiscal policy issues, as was the case with the previous Government’s code for fiscal stability.