Finance Bill (First sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

We fought the last general election saying that we would introduce this legislation. We won that general election, which suggests that the British people had confidence in the overall package of our fiscal policies. If Labour Members are worried about fiscal confidence, perhaps they should look somewhat closer to home.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing any Government should be able to do is give some sort of confidence to households that their tax rates will not go up, providing them with the opportunity to plan for the future with more security than they would have if this measure were not in place?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A striking point made by a number of my hon. Friends on Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week was that the introduction of the tax lock in the context of employers’ national insurance contributions gives employers much greater confidence. Providing economic stability and security is an important part of the Government’s long-term economic plan. A credible party needs to present to the British people how it will provide economic security and stability. That is what this Government are doing. I look forward to the day when there is cross-party consensus that economic security and stability are important to this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think it is. In fact, if it is seen in the same way, someone needs to have a word with the Prime Minister. He constantly refers to the 0.7% commitment as a matter of huge pride and has quoted it a great deal in our debates about the refugee crisis over the past week or two. The difference with financial matters—this is probably why the current Chancellor was so critical of things in 2009—is that there are many opportunities to legislate. This is the third Finance Bill this year, so things could change. The 0.7% international aid commitment was a very long-term commitment. It came up a great deal in international discussions and still does, so there is a difference.

I was talking about the insurance premium tax and the fact that people are not protected from those sorts of tax increase. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:

“The tax and welfare changes between them mean that poorer households have lost quite significantly and as a result of yesterday’s Budget, much more significantly than anything that has happened to richer households.”

He also said:

“Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.”

Let us bear in mind that many of the households that benefit from this tax lock have been adversely impacted by other tax changes. In fact, the summer Budget did not cut the overall tax bill; it raised it.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady makes a lot about feeling it unnecessary that the Government have to promise to legislate not to change tax rates and about the importance of not affecting working households, particularly those at the bottom end. Is it not the case that when her party was in government, there was an understanding that people at the bottom end would be protected, yet at that time the 10p tax rate was removed, causing huge problems for working households? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Barbara Keeley]

There is a great deal of looking back, but let us look at what is happening this year and what will happen in the years following this Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts net taxes to rise by more than £47 billion over the next four years, with much of the money coming from increases in dividend tax, insurance premium tax, vehicle excise duty and cuts in pension tax relief. Of course, welfare cuts will also raise almost £35 billion. It is one thing saying that families will benefit from the tax lock, but all of those measures will hit many families and individuals in the UK hard.

The combination of changes needs to be seen in the context of the cut to tax credits that Government Members voted through this week, which are likely to leave millions of families worse off. I was asked the other day, “What else would you do?” It is our contention that the welfare reform we need is to things such as overpayments and the error and fraud in the welfare system, because things are not properly checked at the point of application. Error and fraud cost £3 billion a year. The cut to tax credits will hit working people on middle and lower incomes, which undermines the Government’s argument that this is a Budget for working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I am mindful of the fact that we have got another 48 clauses, so I will try to be brief—which is difficult for me. There are particular issues about the VAT lock that have to be put to the Minister.

VAT income to the Treasury is notoriously variable because VAT is a tax on consumption. It varies with the business cycle because it is a consumption tax. Unfortunately, in clauses 1 and 2 the Government are introducing the new doctrine that major taxes, including VAT, will be set once every five years at the start of each Parliament. I presume that in the Government’s mind the tax lock will exist in perpetuity and will be set at a different level every time we elect a Government. They are decoupling the raising of revenue—the revenue function of the Government and the Treasury—from the business cycle. As the business cycle goes up and down, income to the Treasury will go up and down independently of when we set tax rates—particularly VAT.

[Mark Garnier]

I am acutely aware of the fact that we have got a lot to get on with, but I find the hon. Gentleman’s argument utterly preposterous. He is arguing that, should the business cycle slow down, he would increase VAT—were he in a position to do so—which would have the effect of stifling consumption and thereby amplifying the problem, rather than negating it. This measure is quite clearly a cap, not a floor, so we can reduce VAT should we want to stimulate the business cycle.

[George Kerevan]

My good friend from the Treasury Committee anticipates what I was not going to say. All I am arguing is that we require flexibility in setting taxes to respond to events in the real economy. The doctrine that the Government are introducing of a tax lock in perpetuity removes such flexibly. That in itself creates uncertainty in the minds of business and the financial community, which the Government will have to address.

I accept the principle that we should try to set taxes in a way that is not destabilising. That should lead us to consult with the business community and community interest groups before we change taxes. That is perfectly possible and it is done in other countries. In Germany, for instance, there is mandatory consultation between the federal and regional Parliaments before income tax levels are changed. There are other ways to do that. The Chancellor accepted that principle in relation to North sea oil taxes when he gave an undertaking that any major changes would come only after consultation with the industry. Unfortunately, he did not extend that doctrine to the renewables industry, which would have been sensible.

To put a tax lock on VAT in perpetuity decouples revenue setting from the business cycle and, in the end, that is not tenable, because the taxes would be varied in an emergency. It is not tenable to decouple them, so the Government will live to rue the day that they put the lock in. That explains the reason for the lock. It is not for economic reasons; they are playing a political game. It is a gimmick.

Tax Credits

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am not going to pretend that it is easy to stand up and speak in favour of something that is, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has said, going to be tough on families, but this is none the less the right thing to do. We have heard a great many estimates of how families are going to be affected, with a variety being produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The one that I have seen gives a figure of £750.

This measure will affect families, but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that there are mitigating factors that will make a difference for those families. We have heard about the tax threshold increases, and it is also worth bearing it in mind that many of those families are also small and micro-business owners who have benefited from reliefs on business taxes and small business rate relief. The economy is also a lot better, with very low inflation rates at the moment.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that someone working full time and earning £17,000 a year will lose close to £2,000 as a result of these measures? Why do the Government want to punish hard-working families in this way, at the same time as they are increasing the inheritance tax threshold? This is vindictive and nasty.

[Mark Garnier]

I am not sure I recognise the figure of £2,000 on a £17,000 income, and I do not accept that this Government are punishing hard-working people. I see a Government who are doing an enormous amount by reducing the threshold tax rates and by helping small businesses. We have seen more people come into work than there have ever been before. This Government have had a huge number of successes, so I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is describing.

There are two particular reasons why I support this measure, the first of which was highlighted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) in talking about the effect that tax credits have on employers. We do not know exactly the extent to which this has been the case, but without a shadow of a doubt some employers will have been not paying the right salary or pay, given that the Government are subsidising not necessarily those people on low incomes but the employers employing people on low incomes. We also know that if that did happen early on, it is much more difficult to unravel it now, which is why it is very important that we have the new national minimum living wage. It is there to ensure that wages do start going up, although I concede that this does not necessarily cover it all.

[Helen Goodman]

How can employers take account of the tax credits, given that the tax credits are paid according to family circumstance and the wage is not?

[Mark Garnier]

Because employees will work for a wage that they can afford to work at, and if the Government are subsiding those household incomes the employers can take advantage of that. It is difficult—I completely concede that—to unravel this.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Conservative Members are clear that the macro picture is absolutely right and we have to reduce the welfare bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could do one specific thing that would help enormously? The BBC has withdrawn its online calculator for people who want to know how much they will be affected by this, and online forums suggest that different calculations are produced by different newspapers. Could the Government produce their own calculator so that our constituents can find out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Graham, you know you are pushing your luck. The hon. Gentleman has already given way twice and you are taking up your colleague’s time.

[Mark Garnier]

A very wise idea.

The second reason I am very supportive of these changes goes back to the old argument about reducing the deficit. Conservatives made it perfectly clear at the last election that we would seek to find £12 billion through benefit changes, and that was a manifesto pledge. We were elected with an increase in our number of Members of Parliament and a rise in the sitting MPs’ majorities. We have been asked by the country to deliver on our manifesto pledges, and this is part of that delivery.

We still have a budget deficit, and the tax credits system costs the taxpayer about £30 billion a year. The IFS this morning said that it expects these changes potentially to deliver £6 billion in savings. It is worth remembering that, as has been said, tax credits cost just £1.1 billion when they were first introduced, but that has now ballooned to the current level and that is simply not acceptable. It is also worth remembering that they ballooned in a period of so-called “high economic growth”. The then Chancellor, famous for many things but in particular for claiming to have ended boom and bust, was running a bizarre programme of increasing benefits at the same time as telling us that the economy was fine and growing steadily. Perhaps he knew something that he was not telling us, increasing benefits in anticipation of the collapse caused by the crisis—perhaps he knew it was coming. By 2010, 90% of families with children were receiving tax benefits. Do 90% of families actually need these tax credits, even after all those years of the Labour Government, when we would have thought that the families would be doing better? Apparently, they are not. These tax changes take us back to the real levels in 2007 and 2008.

I wish to finish by discussing one point. I was very struck, as were many Members, by the election whose result we saw on Saturday. I was particularly struck by the number of young people who were voting in that leadership election. They were voting in the name of voting against austerity. They were objecting to what they see as cuts being delivered to them today. In 20 or 30 years’ time, they will have to take responsibility for the mess that they find—we have to do something now. If we hand over the shop to them as we found it five years ago, austerity would not mean some managed cuts; it would mean devastating cuts that would be unbelievably painful. We have to take responsibility for the way things are now. I am not in the business of mortgaging the next generation’s future. I want to take responsibility for the problems we have today and not kick the can down the road. This is not austerity-heavy; it is common sense.

Finance Bill

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

However, the Government have undermined sustainability by creating perverse incentives and reducing the long-term tax base. They have undermined fairness by giving a big tax cut to a small number of global banks while increasing taxes for new challengers. Most importantly, they have undermined competition by choking off the growth of building societies and smaller banks. This is not a long-term plan to build a better banking sector; it looks like a quick fix to appease the likes of HSBC and Standard Chartered. It is a plan that has been criticised by the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association, the IFS, the Chair of the Treasury Committee and the Government’s own Back Benchers. The Minister does not have to take it from me, the Opposition spokesperson; she should take it from her own Back Benchers. The Government must take this opportunity to think again. I urge all parts of the Committee to support our new clause.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who mentioned me several times in her speech. In the broadest sense, I agree entirely with what the Government are doing, but I have one or two reservations, to which she alluded.

It is worth looking back to why the bank levy was brought in and to what it was a response. It was, of course, a response to the bank bonus tax introduced by the previous Government, which was brought in, in turn, to try to get some money back for taxpayers from when the banks were bailed out. I think that it is the right thing to do. Banks should help to pay back the taxpayer, but the bonus tax was never going to work. The banks were always going to get around it one way or another. Many suggestions were put out by newspapers and banks, but the one that summed up the banks’ approach best for me was a Matt cartoon in The Daily Telegraph. A trader was pictured sitting in front of his boss in a bank; the boss turned around and said, “I’m afraid you are not going to get a bonus this year, but we are going to buy your tie off you for three million quid.” That was the sort of approach that the banks were going to take.

It was therefore right for the Government to bring in a levy that could not be got around. Of course that was the right thing to do, and the intention was to raise enough money from the levy to make up the shortfall that would follow from getting rid of the bonus tax, which was around £2.1 billion to £2.2 billion. The levy was an unavoidable tax. It started out at nine basis points, rising on nine occasions to 25 basis points. That resulted from the reduction of balance sheets and from the slight change in the shape of the deposits profile—moving away from the deposits profile that would attract the levy.

It is worth bearing in mind what Douglas Flint said when he came before the Treasury Select Committee in January 2011. I asked him for his view about the future of HSBC in the UK and whether it would keep its domicile. The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned Standard Chartered and HSBC in her speech. Douglas Flint said that the domicile was reviewed once every three years and that 2011 would be the year in which that happened. When he came before us again in January 2012 and I asked him what he was going to do, he said he was going to defer it.

It became apparent that the shareholders at HSBC, one of the best and biggest banks in the world—and, indeed, one of the most stable—were very upset about paying quite a hefty levy, which only got bigger, on their international earnings. The same applied to Standard Chartered, which had very little earnings within the UK. None the less, in responding to shareholder pressure—the shareholders were asking, of course, for an opportunity to get more return for their money—those chief executives were saying, “Don’t worry; we will ride this out and the bank levy will eventually disappear at some point.”

After five years of that, the pressure from shareholders was becoming very intense. If Standard Chartered and HSBC had left the country, the bank levy would have had to rise from 24 basis points to more like 35 basis points in order to maintain the £2 billion or so in revenue. Paying 50 basis points would be a very significant taxation on deposit levels within banks. Inevitably, then, if Standard Chartered and HSBC had left, the whole bank levy would have spun out of control and eventually wound itself into a knot that would have been completely unsustainable. That is why the Government had to do something about it.

Before I move on, it is worth looking at what the banks were getting as a result of paying the levy. The first thing—in justifying the levy to shareholders this is an important point—is that the banks were paying back the taxpayer who had bailed them out with a lot of money. The taxpayer required some sort of levy to get some of the revenue back. The second important point is that the bank levy could almost be seen as a type of insurance premium charged against the banks for having what is known as “the implicit guarantee”—the guarantee that, should the banks fall over as two of them did in 2007-08, the Government would stand behind them and pick them up.

However, the provisions of the Financial Sector (Banking Reform) Act 2013 were introduced in order to try to get to the stage where the banks would no longer need to be supported in the event of a collapse—that there would be an elegant collapse; there would be bail-in bonds and ring-fences around the important parts of the banks, so that never again would the Government step behind the banks. The banks would be allowed to collapse without causing contagion through the banking system. That is an incredibly important change.

The argument about the bank levy being an insurance premium would eventually diminish to nothing with the finalisation of the fairly expensive Banking Reform Act in 2019. As for paying money back to the taxpayer, we are in the process of doing so by means of the sales of RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock Asset Management, and the various other assets that were bought. At some point, we shall be able to draw up a final P&L to establish whether we—the UK taxpayers who bailed those banks out—have got our money back.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, we would resist such a move. It would be a fundamental change to the nature of our relationship with the European Union, and one that would go in entirely the wrong direction for the United Kingdom. There were calls in the negotiations for such a step to be taken. There were calls, for example, for a financial transaction tax to be introduced to finance EU spending. We resisted that. The Prime Minister was very clear in ruling it out from any deal.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about the financial transaction tax, but the City is an incredibly important contributor to the UK economy and it has a significant turnover. Will he assure us that the Government will not allow the European Union to attack the City from a different direction as it looks for alternative sources of revenue from the jewel in our economic crown?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly give that assurance. There was a strong push for a financial transaction tax, which would have had a particular impact on the United Kingdom, given that we have the pre-eminent financial centre not just in the European Union, but in the world. That could have been damaging for the City of London. We resisted it and we will continue to take that approach.

To make a broader point—although I will not go too far down this route, Mr Streeter—it would be more helpful if there was an acceptance in the European Union that the City of London is a jewel in the crown, to use my hon. Friend’s phrase, not just of the United Kingdom, but of Europe as a whole. We should have the pre-eminent financial centre in the United Kingdom, and trying to damage it would be disadvantageous to all within the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have consistently argued the case for money being spent more wisely and for greater European Union public spending restraint. We have already made progress with that argument—we made progress in 2013 and the Bill relates to the negotiation, although it is on the revenue rather than the expenditure side. We will consistently argue that case.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is giving us a lot of his time. He mentions fiscal prudence and spending taxpayers’ money wisely. Two things that epitomise the wastefulness of the European Union are the Strasbourg circus—the waste of money moving the whole Parliament to Strasbourg—and the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for some two decades. The Prime Minister is working very hard to achieve fiscal prudence, but does the Minister agree that the mood around the whole EU is behind him in dealing with that? The problem is not unique to the UK. The Prime Minister has the wind in his sails and support from the rest of the EU to deal with those problems.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would perhaps go further: it is not just member states that recognise that things need to change and that there needs to be better value for money. Vice-President Georgieva, who has responsibility for the budget, also recognises the need to ensure that money is spent in a better way. The Prime Minister has consistently set out the fact that there are two sensible objectives: to cut the whole budget and to protect the rebate. We will continue to make that case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

It is a great pleasure to follow what must be the briefest speech I have ever heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on this subject—it is wonderful to see him able once again to stand in his place today.

Let me turn to the question of EU finance and agriculture. I know that agriculture is not a subject that much concerns the Conservative party; the Tory party these days is much more likely to be concerned with asset stripping, rather than agricultural production, and with financial derivatives, rather than agricultural crops—that is what gets its pulse moving.

I was concerned when the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said that far too much of the European Union budget was consumed by the common agricultural policy. The fundamental reason for that—we did not hear this simple point from the Government Benches—is that the common agricultural policy is one of the few policies that financially is effectively under the competence of the European Union. If the European Union had competence over health, for example—I doubt that there is much support for that, from me or anyone else in the House—its agricultural budget would be totally dwarfed by what it spent on health. The dominance of the agricultural budget is a factor of its being one of the European Union’s relatively few common policies.

Of course, it is possible to argue that there should not be direct farm payments. Indeed, that was the argument that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) took into the CAP negotiations. He started from the position that the UK Government, without much opposition from Members from rural constituencies in the Conservative interest, thought that there should not be direct farm payments, and he found himself in a minority of one in the negotiations; his position was not supported by any other member state. It was therefore decided that we were to continue with farm payments. Therefore, if we have a common agricultural policy, and it is a substantial part of the European Union’s budget, it is reasonably important to ensure that our share of the agricultural budget as component nations in these islands is fair and competitive, because our agricultural production has to compete in that common market with that in other member states.

Does the Minister really think that the share allocated to UK agriculture, and to Scottish agriculture in particular, can be counted as a considerable achievement, as he claimed in his opening remarks? Let us remind ourselves of some of the facts. Under pillar one of the CAP budget, it was agreed that the lowest that any member state should receive in support was €196 per hectare. It was agreed in negotiations that each country in the original 15 would work to that minimum. Scotland receives substantially less than that—just over half of that payment per hectare. That is going to cost Scottish agriculture about £1 billion in the period to 2019.

[Mark Garnier]

The right hon. Gentleman said from a sedentary position during the Minister’s speech that that was because Scottish farms are the biggest in the UK. It would be helpful if he could give a little flavour of the size of Scottish farms compared with English, Welsh and Irish farms, and how the numbers break down.

[Alex Salmond]

I was going to move on to that very point, because the Minister’s reply to my intervention inspired me to go to the Library in search of some figures. I will answer that point in a moment.

Let me move on to pillar two, the second major aspect of agricultural support. I have been doing some comparisons and looked at what would have happened if in negotiations Scotland had achieved from pillar two the same amount of agricultural support as the Republic of Ireland, which in many ways is a comparable country with regard to land area and agriculture as a share of the overall economy. The answer is that Ireland has achieved a budget four times the size of Scotland’s budget under pillar two—€2.19 billion compared with €478 million—in the years to 2019.

Given that it has been decided that the common agricultural policy should continue and that farm payments should continue to be made, how will it be possible for Scottish agriculture to compete effectively when it gets such a dramatically lower share than the minimum allocated to any other EU country? Far from getting an excellent deal on pillar two to compensate for the poor deal on pillar one, Scotland gets a miserable share in comparison with comparable countries.

Productivity

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

That is why I think it is so appalling that the Chancellor could not be bothered to mention it in the Budget speech in March. It should be at the top of the agenda of all Treasury teams and all Departments—

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way in a moment to the hon. Gentleman, who will, I know, have plenty to contribute on the subject.

Our economic prosperity depends on maximising the output from the efforts of working people and the resources available to business. The amount of output per hour worked is a useful way for us to measure whether our economy is advancing and adding value, or whether we are just treading water. Creating a more productive economy means creating a virtuous circle of higher growth, higher living standards and, as a consequence, more effective deficit reduction. When working people can produce more and they have the tools and the skills to create output more efficiently, employers can afford to pay them more, tax revenues become more buoyant and our GDP can grow in a more sustainable way.

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to my hon. Friend after I have given way to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier).

[Mark Garnier]

The shadow Chancellor is absolutely right: productivity is incredibly important. The Treasury Committee and The Economist have been banging on ad nauseam about it, certainly during my five years as a Member of Parliament. Why has he picked up on it only in the past six months?

Royal Bank of Scotland

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

What can I say? It is extraordinary. I do not suppose we heard that kind of rant when the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath was intervening in the banking sector. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that, in the single vote on legislation on Second Reading we have had in this Parliament, the Government won by a majority of 491. [Interruption.]

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

When the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has finished, may I welcome the Minister to her place? She brings with her a great wealth of experience from the City. Part of that wealth of experience is a full knowledge of the sunk cost fallacy. Does she agree that it is completely ludicrous to say that an investment decision made in 2015 should be based solely on the information known in 2008, and that that view betrays a staggering lack of knowledge about the investment process among those opposed to selling the stake in RBS at potentially a loss?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question, which shows his depth of knowledge. He is right. In my years of managing portfolios, what I paid for investments in the first place was a fact, but managers also have to factor in the future. None of us has a crystal ball. My hon. Friend’s words are wisely taken.

The Economy

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

We have heard those arguments. I was asking the Government whether they plan to cut the top rate of tax of earnings of £150,000 from 45p, and perhaps down to 40p, and there is silence from the Government Benches and from the Chancellor. Perhaps he will come to that later in his speech.

The Queen’s Speech was high on rhetoric but was in reality the usual combination of diversion and distraction. As ever with this Chancellor, there is more than meets the eye. All the rhetoric is just the tip of a Tory iceberg, with 90% of their real agenda hidden below the surface, still invisible from public view. That agenda will not even be partly revealed until the emergency Budget on 8 July. Until then, serious questions remain unanswered about what drives the Government, and in what direction.

The trajectory of overall cuts set out in the March Budget goes beyond what is needed to eradicate the deficit by the end of the Parliament. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Queen’s Speech still leaves us totally in the dark about more than 85% of the Chancellor’s planned £12 billion of welfare cuts. Just this morning, the IFS criticised the Government for giving a

“misleading impression of what departmental spending in many areas will look like”.

Frankly, there is growing disbelief across the country that the Chancellor can protect those in greatest need while keeping his promises to the electorate on child benefit and disability benefits. My hon. Friends will not have failed to spot during Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday how the Prime Minister, when challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on the question of disability benefits, digressed into all sorts of reminiscences about the campaign trail and how much fun it was going to various meetings. The Prime Minister promised that

“the most disabled should always be protected”

and I will be looking to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to keep the Prime Minister’s promises. The Government might have secured a majority, but they did not secure a mandate for specific cuts to departments or services because those were never explained or set out before the election. Nor have we ever had an explanation of how they will pay for their multi-billion pound pledges on tax and services or, crucially, for the NHS.

The Opposition agree with yesterday’s OECD assessment that a fair approach is the right one to take—sensible savings and protection for those on middle and lower incomes. Cuts that decimate public services would be too big a price to pay, especially as they may even result in higher costs in the longer term. We also heard how 8,000 nurse training places were cut in 2010. The use of agency nurses then proliferated to fill the gap. Is it any wonder, therefore, that NHS trusts now face a deficit of about £2 billion? Part of the reason the deficit is so big is that productivity has been so poor. Britain has the second lowest productivity in the G7, and output per worker is still lower than in 2010. This should have been at the top of the Chancellor’s agenda throughout the last Parliament, but he did not even mention it in his last Budget speech. For the Tories, it seems that productivity just springs magically if the Government just get out of the way, unrelated to any fiscal or policy choices that they make.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor will know that many pundits have been looking at that productivity puzzle. The Treasury Committee has examined it for the past five years. If the Governor of the Bank of England, economists and everyone else does not understand that productivity conundrum, will he share with us where he thinks the lack of productivity comes from?

[Chris Leslie]

I will come to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman must also be staggered that the Chancellor did not even mention it in his Budget speech. That was an omission that the Chancellor needs to correct. We take a different view of where productivity comes from because, for us, it depends in part on having decent infrastructure and public services—motorways that flow freely and trains that commuters can actually get on, tax offices answering business queries efficiently rather than keeping companies’ staff waiting on hold, employees who are off sick able to get treated swiftly in a decent NHS, an education system that supports a work force and provides training in high-quality skills. Each of these is crucial for our future economic productivity, and each depends on the Chancellor making the right fiscal choices for this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

I think I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mark Garnier]

The subject of debt is incredibly important, but debt is not just national; there is household debt as well. Does the Chancellor agree that the £1 trillion rise in household debt between 1997 and 2008, taking it up to £1.47 trillion, was one of the most pernicious acts of the Labour Government? It damaged households immeasurably and is the biggest crisis that we have to deal with.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was no institution looking at overall debt levels in our country.