Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. At the time of the spending review the Chancellor made it very clear that we want banks to pay the maximum sustainable tax. That is why on 1 January we will introduce a bank levy, which the Opposition rejected when they were in government. That levy will raise £2.5 billion more than the net amount raised by their bonus tax.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Minister now admit that the more noise the Government make about this issue, the less action they appear willing to take? Will he confirm today that amidst all the PR and bluster, the Chancellor has decided not to go ahead with Labour’s requirement that all bankers’ bonuses over £1 million be published? He may be willing to ignore the Business Secretary’s nuclear option, but the millions of Britons who are paying the real price of his austerity measures will never forgive him if he lets his friends in the banks off scot-free.
Mr Hoban
I am not going to be lectured by the hon. Lady about attitudes towards banks. Labour is the party that gave Fred Goodwin his knighthood, so I will not take any lessons from Labour politicians. They talk tough, but they did nothing when they were in government. This Government are taking real concrete measures to tackle bankers’ pay and to introduce the bank levy, which they refused to introduce. In Europe there will be a most stringent application of the Financial Stability Board principles on bankers’ remuneration.
Loans to Ireland Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
What the Chancellor is saying is particularly pertinent, given that the Post Office cash machine in Portcullis House was provided by the Irish banks.
May I ask a quick question?
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
Of course, the European Court of Auditors report, which fails to qualify the accounts for the 16th year in succession, is disappointing, as my hon. Friend observes. We will continue to champion reform through engagement with European institutions and other member states. It is worth him bearing in mind that the Government’s most important priority for the forthcoming budget negotiations is to reduce and to keep under control the EU budget, not just next year, but in subsequent years, in recognition of the fact that many EU countries are facing tough financial circumstances, as we are.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s reckless choice to cut deep and fast at home means that UK jobs and growth are now reliant on achieving booming exports on a scale not seen for more than 60 years. We know that Europe is our single largest export market. Will the Minister share with the House the latest evidence of the growth of demand in that market?
Danny Alexander
There is evidence of export growth in many sectors of the economy, and the Government have played a significant role in promoting exports, as the recent trade delegation to China showed. The hon. Lady has a poor record of predicting the economy. In April 2008, she was engaged in a debate that observed that there was an extreme bubble in the housing market. She described that as a “colourful and lurid fiction” that
“has no bearing on the macro-economic reality.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 825.]
I would rather take the forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility than hers.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The NAO has indeed criticised the effectiveness of the previous Government’s so-called efficiency programme. Many of those criticisms are well founded, and we will proceed on a very different basis. To give an example, the single indicator that they set out for local authorities to report on their own efficiencies had 66 pages of guidance for them to follow, thereby creating a huge industry in local authorities just to meet the reporting requirements.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about detail, and there is one detail that I am interested in. There was a leak from the Ministry of Justice demonstrating that it has set aside £230 million to pay for the redundancies that it has announced in its front-line staff. Can he tell the House, because he must have this figure, how much he has set aside to pay the redundancy bills for the job cuts that he has announced?
Danny Alexander
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I think that it is the first time we have had an exchange over the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate her on her appointment. Departments will set out their work force plans in due course. They are working on those things, and there are many things that they can do to avoid excessive redundancies. [Interruption.] I am not going to go into individual departmental figures.
Danny Alexander
I am not going to give way again. These figures will be for Departments to set out.
Danny Alexander
I am going to press on with this section of my speech, and then I will give way in a moment.
In June’s emergency Budget, we set out the road map to recovery and took the country out of the danger zone. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility examined our plans in June and forecast the economy growing and unemployment falling in every year. It also assessed that we were on course to eliminate the structural current deficit and see debt fall by the end of this Parliament, one year ahead of our mandate. The recovery will be choppy, but we are confident that our plan will see us through.
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. Over the course of the spending review period, our plans will save £5 billion in debt interest, which the Labour party was very happy to pay.
Ms Eagle
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. We know that he will know the answer to this question. He has set out a plan that will lead directly to 490,000 people losing their jobs in the public sector. We know that the Ministry of Justice has already made an allowance of £230 million to cover the cost of redundancies. He must have a figure for the rest of Whitehall put together, and he should now give it to us.
Danny Alexander
The hon. Lady is the shadow Chief Secretary, and we read in a memo directed to the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition had a plan for £44 billion of cuts, but she has not set out a single piece of detail on that. As I said, Departments will set out their work force plans in due course.
The previous Government’s plan was not a serious plan to deal with the deficit and support growth. It was not a fair approach. It would have led to more, not fewer, cuts in the end, because of higher debt and higher interest payments—more interest on the debt, and more interest on the interest. Compared with the plans that we inherited, we will save £5 billion in debt interest payments over the course of this Parliament.
The emergency Budget set out our plan to balance the books, and now we have shown how we will find £81 billion of savings by 2014-15. Let me put that in some context. Even at the end of that period, public spending as a share of gross domestic product will be 41%.
Danny Alexander
I shall give way at the end of the section on welfare because I know it is of interest to many hon. Members, but let me explain our position.
The welfare budget accounts for nearly £1 in every £3 spent by the Government. The cost of the welfare system has increased by 45% in the past decade. In some cases, those increases were necessary—it is right that the Government should help those who need it most—but in many cases the previous Administration’s over-complicated bureaucracy trapped people in a system in which it does not pay to work. Worse still, many were simply dumped on benefits by previous Administrations and left there. That is not fair on them or the taxpayer. No one can deny that reform is essential, but the question is how the right balance should be struck.
Our approach is to move to a universal credit system over the course of two Parliaments to do away with the complexity of the current system so that it always pays to work. We will introduce a new work programme to provide personalised support to those who need the greatest help with getting back into employment, with private and third-sector providers being paid for the additional benefit savings they secure. We will fund significant above-indexation increases for the child tax credit to ensure that the spending review has no measurable impact on child poverty over the next two years. Through the welfare reforms in the spending review, we will find £7 billion of net savings on top of those identified in the Budget. Some £2.5 billion comes from removing child benefit from households with a higher-rate taxpayer. That is the largest welfare measure in the spending review and the most progressive, but it is the one that the Opposition have most vocally opposed.
Ms Angela Eagle
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. There are press reports out on the wires that a source in Her Majesty’s Treasury is saying that the child benefit cut is “unenforceable” and will be dropped. The press report says that it is
“panic stations in the Treasury.”
Is that true?
Danny Alexander
I think it is panic stations on the Opposition Front Bench if they do not have a single answer to a single question about the action that they would take to reduce the deficit. The story that the measure is unenforceable is nonsense; it will be introduced as planned. The savings were signed off by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which considered the compliance risk involved as well. Higher-rate taxpayers are of course required to disclose all relevant information.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Last week’s comprehensive spending review statement has taken a huge and risky gamble with the jobs and future prosperity of millions of people in this country. This wholly unnecessary risk has been taken because this Conservative-led Government is in ideological thrall to the discredited economic mantra that shrinking the state is always the right answer. They do not state it as provocatively as Mrs Thatcher once did in the 1980s, but they believe it just as firmly. The Orange Book Liberal Democrats, led by the Deputy Prime Minister with the Chief Secretary in tow, believe it too.
Of course, the deficit has to be brought down—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] We said that before the election and we set out a plan to do so. We also said it at the election and we have said it since. The difference between us is how the deficit is brought down. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has made it clear that we favour a different balance between spending cuts and tax rises that brings the deficit down but also protects the recovery and boosts growth. None of us should forget the backdrop to this spending review, which is families up and down the country worried about their jobs and homes. That is why the cheers and mass waving of Order Papers on the Government Benches as the Chancellor announced the largest job cuts for generations demonstrate just how out of touch they are. At that very moment at the end of his speech, the masks slipped and we saw what really motivates them. As these cuts begin to bite, the British public will not forget.
Mr Redwood
Given that between 250,000 and 500,000 people leave the public service every year voluntarily, for retirement or other reasons, will the hon. Lady now withdraw her statement that half a million people will lose their jobs under this Government? It can be done by natural wastage.
Ms Eagle
That is not my statement: it is a statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It is also the figure that was revealed accidentally the day before the Chancellor’s statement by the Chief Secretary when he was filmed in the back of his car with open documents. It is not my figure. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) should remember that the Ministry of Justice is already planning 14,000 redundancies, as we know from a leak, and has set aside—
Ms Eagle
No, I shall finish answering the question. The hon. Gentleman can sit down and be patient, and we will see whether I give way to him a little later.
The Ministry of Justice is already planning cuts of 14,000 in front-line staffing. It has also set aside £230 million to pay for the costs of those redundancies. I asked the Chief Secretary what the figure was for the rest of Whitehall. He will know what that figure is, because he will have signed it off. Twice I asked him for that figure, and twice he avoided the question. It does him no credit if, knowing what that figure is, he comes to this House for a debate on the comprehensive spending review but avoids the question of the costs to the public purse of the redundancies that will be directly caused by the statement made by the Chancellor last week. He knows that figure and he should stand up now and give it to the House. Silence is sometimes far more revealing than an answer.
Ian Swales
The hon. Lady referred to the number of job losses mentioned in the comprehensive spending review. Can she tell us how many job losses were involved in her alternative plans?
Ms Eagle
The key point about our approach to the difficulties in the world economy was that we spent and invested money to keep people in work. We know that the cost of every 100,000 people on the dole is half a billion pounds. The difference between us and the Government is that we were keeping people in work whereas they are taking people out of work. We know from PricewaterhouseCoopers that half a million jobs in the private sector that are directly connected to public sector contracts will also be lost as a result of the Chancellor’s statement last week.
Angela Smith
Is it not the case that the stimulus put into the economy by the Labour Government saved more than 200,000 jobs?
Ms Eagle
Yes, according to the OBR. We saw the undisguised glee of Members opposite as they celebrated the hardship and misery that the Chancellor proposes to inflict on so many people in our society. These are not just numbers; they are police constables, care workers, teaching assistants and dinner ladies. In the private sector, they work in small businesses which rely on public sector contracts at a time when order books are empty. All those people are being asked by this Conservative-led Government to shoulder the burden of a crisis made in the banks and the dealing rooms.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will we hear anything concrete from the Opposition today about their alternative proposals?
Ms Eagle
Well, the hon. Gentleman could take a look at the March Budget, which was presented to the House before the general election, and the Red Book that was published subsequently. We went into the election with far more detail about what we would do had we been re-elected than either party opposite, and at least we did not flip-flop immediately afterwards so that we could get into government.
These are not just numbers; they are the people being asked by this Conservative-led Government to shoulder the burden of a crisis that was made in the banks. It is not those who caused the crisis who will now suffer as a result of the Chancellor’s reckless gamble with jobs and growth. It is the 490,000 ordinary men and women serving in the public sector whose jobs will go, and it is the 500,000 jobs in the private sector that PricewaterhouseCoopers has calculated will also be lost as a direct result of the spending review. Redundancies on the scale now threatened are not inevitable, but are the result of the Government’s choice to cut further and faster.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a basic principle that spending money we do not have does not create long-term jobs? It creates nothing but debt, which has to be paid back. That is what the Government are doing now. That is what we need to do.
Ms Eagle
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that in an advanced economy with a social security system, if there is a recession, deficits will rise. That is why the deficit rose. What he suggests, if taken to its logical extreme, means that he would not be in favour of paying unemployment benefit to those made unemployed. They tried that in the 1930s and it did not work.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
What does the hon. Lady think was the reason behind our deficit being worse than that of every other country in the G20?
Ms Eagle
We entered the crisis with the second-lowest deficit in the G7. We were affected by the credit crunch because we have a very large financial services sector, which is why both sides in the House are talking about how we can rebalance our economy. We are too exposed to the kind of risks that crystallised when the credit crunch struck. [Interruption.] The Chancellor, from a sedentary position, asks whose fault that was. If we are going to be sensible and have a proper, nuanced, balanced and grown-up debate on this issue, all of us—as members of political parties that are, or have been, in government and in charge of running the country over the past few years—need to take our fair share of responsibility for how the banking sector came to dominate too much. Both sides of the House have to learn those lessons. I hope that we all will.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it has been down to this Government to introduce the bank levy of £2.5 billion, and that the Labour party, when in government, failed to do so? Why did they fail to do so?
Mrs Moon
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is depressing to see the huge ranks of men opposite talking about cuts that will affect—[Interruption.] Yet again, there are very few Conservative women. The one or two ladies opposite waving and shaking their papers at me do not help. The majority of Conservative Members, as always, are men, but the majority of people to be affected by the cuts will be women. It is women who will lose their child benefit and the tax credits that help them get into work, and it is women, largely, who work in the public sector and rely on its excellent flexible working conditions. Is it women who will find it harder to get into work, thanks to the Government’s policies?
Ms Eagle
I do not suppose it is their fault they are men. I can blame them for some things, but not that. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point though. It is clear that 65% of those who work in public services are women, that 75% of those who work in local government are women and that there are even higher levels working in the health service and social care. Clearly, they are on the front line, and the Government have a legal duty, which it is not clear that they have fulfilled, to take reasonable account of that fact.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Has the hon. Lady met people trapped on benefits, many of whom, incidentally, are women? The failure to address the perverse incentives operating in our benefits system was utterly spineless and ignored the real misery affecting those who live trapped in our benefits system.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Lady’s intervention was extremely helpful. Of course I have. We have all done a great deal of work on social security reform, and I hope she will be the first to acknowledge some of the progress we made, particularly in helping lone parents into work. Tax credits and all the support we gave on child care were among the measures that were crucial in ensuring that we managed to increase significantly the number of lone parents in work when we were in office. I hope she will be the first to recognise our success in those areas. She should take a close look at the increasing rates of marginal tax that came about because of some of the changes, particularly for lone parents, and the savings made in tax credits, and she should also have a word with her party’s Front-Bench team about their priorities for cuts, given that they are taking away benefits that particularly help women go out to work.
In softening up the country for this age of austerity, Ministers have been anxious to establish some myths, the first of which is that the deficit was a Labour spending choice. We heard a lot of that today from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The second myth is that the cuts announced are unavoidable. We need to start with some facts. When the credit crunch struck in 2008, Britain had the second-lowest debt in the G7. We had low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment. There is nothing reckless about that. Now, however, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats are trying to rewrite history.
Ms Eagle
I said no.
When families have to work shorter hours, they pay less tax. We took a conscious decision to spend money to keep people in their jobs and homes, and I am proud that we did that. As a result of our action, unemployment was half what it had been in previous recessions and repossession levels were also half what they were in the Tory recession of the 1990s. Some of this help has been cut away in the CSR and, as a result, it is more likely that more people will lose their homes, as unemployment and the cuts begin to bite.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is fond of saying, “Let’s have a grown-up, sensible debate”, so it would be useful if she followed her own rules. Why is she refusing to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)?
Matthew Hancock
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for plucking up the courage to give way. She said that Britain went into the crisis with the second lowest deficit in the world, but she has now revised that to point out that, actually, it was the second lowest debt in the world. Does not the fact that she and her colleagues muddle up the debt and the deficit show just why we are in this mess?
Ms Eagle
Whatever happened to old-fashioned courtesy? The hon. Gentleman should ask himself why I do not want to give way to him when he is so generous and lovely to me when I do.
Money spent on infrastructure investment kept the construction sector going. As we saw from the GDP figures on Wednesday, that is still having a positive effect. The deficit was unavoidable. It was vital to support people and businesses through tough times, but let us be clear about Labour’s spending before the crisis hit. Far from being too high, it was, as the Prime Minister said—I am quoting him directly—“really quite tough”, while the Chancellor was urging us to spend more.
The second myth is that the scale of the cuts is unavoidable. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has pointed out, Government propaganda has got it precisely the wrong way round. The fact is that the deficit was unavoidable; it is the June Budget and the Chancellor’s spending review that are a political choice. They are not only avoidable, they are downright dangerous. That is why there was no mention of these supposedly unavoidable cuts in the manifestos of either of the parties now in government when they went to the country. That is why they have no mandate for the cuts policy that they have embarked on since the general election.
Since the election, we have seen the contortions of the Deputy Prime Minister, along with his accomplice in what we now have to call the “quad”, to justify his volte-face. First he told us that he took a call from the Governor of the Bank of England as he stepped into the ministerial Jag, but the Governor begged to differ. Then the Deputy Prime Minister said that Britain was about to become Greece. That is about as close to a myth as you can get, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government have made their choice, and we on the Opposition Benches will hold them responsible for the social and economic consequences of those choices.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend noticed the tendency of those on the Government Benches, and in particular the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, when referring to the history of the economy this year, to say that we were on the brink of bankruptcy as a country? Did she, like me, notice Lord Turnbull’s appearance before the Treasury Committee this morning, when he clearly said that this country was not on the brink of bankruptcy and that there was no risk of a sovereign debt crisis?
Ms Eagle
It is quite extraordinary that we have a Chancellor who is prepared to make such alarmist statements from the Treasury. He does it for political, not economic, reasons, and it is a disgrace that he continues to do it.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to pay tribute to British business, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs since this Government started taking the tough decisions that she flunked?
Ms Eagle
I am certainly more than happy to pay tribute to British business, but I do not connect the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question with the second.
Last week two more myths were added to the Chancellor’s own special edition of Grimm’s fairy tales. He now claims that the measures in the spending review are fair, and even that the scale of the cuts would have been greater under Labour. Let us start with fairness. Last Wednesday, the Chancellor told us that fairness was
“one of the guiding principles of this spending review”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 955.]
Not for the first time, this spin lasted barely 24 hours, before the Institute for Fiscal Studies comprehensively rejected it, proving that, far from the poorest being protected, it is the poorest who will bear the brunt of the cuts. It is families with children who will pay the most. We should not be surprised at that, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies was scathing of the Treasury’s analysis of who loses what.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
How is it fair that in the time that the hon. Lady has been on her feet at the Dispatch Box, we as a country have spent almost £2 million servicing the interest on the debt that has been created? That is £5 million an hour and £120 million a day. What plans do the Opposition have to bring that under control?
Ms Eagle
I have talked about the importance of getting the deficit down, but the hon. Gentleman is falling for the idea that the coalition have perpetrated that it is somehow not viable to have a bill that needs to be paid. People who have mortgages have to pay them off over time, and they have to pay interest on them. However, it is not sensible for anyone to deal with their mortgage by paying it off so early that they cannot afford to feed their kids in the meantime.
Mr Ruffley
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, although I am afraid that I will not be lovely and fluffy, or whatever it was she said she wished my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) was. Is she aware that on 18 October, 35 leading businessmen wrote a joint letter stating that delay would cost this country an extra £100 billion alone in the course of this Parliament? Are they all wrong?
Ms Eagle
I would not expect the hon. Gentleman to be fluffy—that is not a word that I would ever have associated with him—but it is still good to see him back, and I genuinely welcome his return.
It needs to be pointed out that that letter was organised by Lord Wolfson in the House of Lords, via Conservative central office. It is also interesting to note that some of the signatories of the letter have some kind of vested interest. First, quite a few are Conservatives. Secondly, BT, for example, has cut 20,000 jobs in the past year, which is not exactly helping us to replace public sector jobs with private sector jobs. Others are responsible for outsourcing and stand to make direct gains from the shrinking of the state. The hon. Gentleman can believe that guff if he wants; we do not.
The IFS has been scathing about the Treasury’s analysis on the fairness front, and on who loses what. It has noted that the Treasury analysis conveniently stops in 2012-13, thereby excluding £12 billion of the announced savings—by which I mean cuts to social security. For those who remain in any doubt, let me quote directly from the IFS:
“The tax and benefit changes are regressive rather than progressive across most of the income distribution.”
The Government’s immediate response to that report by the IFS was to try to shoot the messenger. The Deputy Prime Minister launched into an attack on the IFS that bordered on the hysterical. He described its analysis as “distorted” and “complete nonsense”. He neglected to mention the fact that before the election he had regularly lauded the IFS when the results of its analysis suited him. On 29 April, as he preened himself during the leaders’ debate, he told us that he was
“really delighted at the Institute of Fiscal Studies”
for its view of Liberal Democrat proposals. Now that he is in government, he does not seem to like the IFS for pointing out an inconvenient truth.
A flip-flop here, a U-turn there—it is all in a day’s work for the Liberal Democrats as they shoehorn themselves into their new and ill-fitting Tory ideology. It is now abundantly clear that, for the Deputy Prime Minister, the slight awkwardness of signing up to one of the most unfair decisions for generations will not get in his way, even if he occasionally has to struggle with his conscience on “Desert Island Discs”. I know that he has argued for a different, more convenient definition of fairness, but let me tell him that there are some things that are not fair, however we define them.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the sterling work she is doing here today. We have discussed the fact that this is not about fairness, and that women and children will be hit by these measures. Does she recognise this quote from Richard Hawkes, the chief executive of Scope? He says:
“Despite the continuing rhetoric that spending cuts will be fair, the Chancellor’s announcements today are anything but. This will hit disabled people and their families particularly hard.”
Does she believe him, or does she believe Gideon?
Ms Eagle
I think we know who to believe. There is a great deal of real worry out there about the effects of the draconian cuts in public expenditure that have been announced in the spending review.
I will tell the Deputy Prime Minister and anyone else on the Government Benches what they cannot hide about fairness. There is nothing fair about cutting 10% from housing benefit for those who are out of work for more than 12 months when there are already five people chasing every job vacancy—and that is before the Government add another million to the dole queue. There is nothing fair about expecting children to play a bigger part than the banks in getting the deficit down. There is nothing fair about failing to carry out a legally required equality assessment that would have shown that the Budget had a disproportionate impact on women, who often do the lowest paid jobs in the public sector. When it comes to the cuts under this Government, it really is women and children first. Let us have no more of these ludicrous claims of fairness from the Government.
As for the idea that the Government are cutting less than we had planned to do, there is something distasteful in a Chancellor who is prepared to skew his spending decisions, cutting an extra £7 billion from the social security budget, just to get a cheap one-liner at the end of his speech. There is nothing so cynical as a Chancellor who begins his speech by claiming that Britain has been saved from the brink of bankruptcy by his savage cuts, only to conclude it by claiming that Labour would have cut even more. He knows that he cannot have it both ways, and he knows that he has cut £30 billion more from public expenditure than we planned to do. He knows that, in doing this, he has totally failed in his pledge to protect the most essential front-line services. It is now clear that his promises are unravelling, and that there will be a major impact on our schools, our hospitals and the police.
Schools up and down the country are facing cuts in funding, thanks to a budget settlement that takes no account of rising pupil numbers; and before the Liberal Democrats start getting excited about the pupil premium, I am sorry to have to tell them that the Education Secretary has now admitted that it is simply a con. In June, the Prime Minister pledged:
“We will take money from outside the education budget to ensure that the pupil premium is well funded”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 432.]
But at the weekend, the Education Secretary finally came clean and admitted:
“Some of it comes from within the Department for Education budget, yes.”
It is not new funding after all; it is just money being moved around within the Department to disguise budget cuts.
The IFS calculates that 60% of primary school pupils and 87% of secondary school pupils will see a real-terms funding cut to their schools as a result of the new funding formula. We knew that the Liberal Democrats supported recycling, but we did not realise that this was what they meant. We were also repeatedly told that health spending was to be protected, yet £1 billion has been raided from the NHS to make up for some of the shortfall caused by the huge cuts in local government spending. With this settlement, the Prime Minister’s promise of real-terms increases in health spending will not be met.
There has been no commitment to front-line policing either. The Police Federation tells us that as many as 20,000 police will be sacked. The thin blue line has become a casualty of the thick red pen. For schools, the NHS and the police, there will be no protection for front-line services.
Ms Eagle
No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before.
No priority is to be given to the services that we rely on, day to day. That is the choice that the Government have made. Let us have a serious debate about the differences between us, and let us have no more nonsense from the Government about the four myths on which their entire defence of the scale of their cuts is based. Let us hear no more nonsense about the deficit being the result of the decision of one party or the fault of spending on our public services, rather than the inevitable result of a global economic crisis and the greed and recklessness of the banks.
Danny Alexander
The right hon. Lady has said that she is opposed to the welfare cuts that we have proposed, opposed to the pupil premium, opposed to the savings in the Ministry of Justice and opposed to the savings in the Home Office. Can she name one single saving that she would propose to help to tackle the deficit?
Ms Eagle
I have not said that I am opposed to all the changes in the social security budget. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor supported some of the changes in welfare spending. Indeed, it was we who developed them: the Government are putting our changes into effect. Let us hear no more of this nonsense about the scale of the Government’s cuts being unavoidable, rather than the result of a decision that they made on the balance between taxes and public spending cuts.
Danny Alexander
This really is quite a simple question. Can the hon. Lady name a single cut that she supports?
Ms Eagle
If the Chief Secretary had answered my questions, I might answer his. [Hon. Members: “Incredible!”] What I find incredible is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has the figures for redundancies and the costs of redundancies across Whitehall in his books. We know what the Ministry of Justice figure is, but he knows what the overall figure is, and he refuses to give it to the House. That is a disgrace.
Let us hear no more nonsense about how the spending cuts that the Government have announced were, as a result of some magical accounting trick, less than those that we planned when we were in government. The truth is that this country faced the gravest of economic challenges. The truth is that our party, in government, rose to meet that challenge, and averted a catastrophe for our country by making tough decisions to protect jobs and homes in our economy. The truth is that whatever party was in government, it would now be making decisions to pay down the deficit. Any party, including ours, would be having to make tough decisions.
It is also true that there is a clear choice in relation to what to cut, and the balance between cuts and measures to bring in revenue. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out the different approach that we would be taking, which would protect not only front-line services but jobs, growth and the recovery. The Government, for ideological reasons alone, have used the deficit as a fig leaf for an assault on our public services of a kind that they had previously only dreamt of. They can talk of fairness as much as they like; they can spread myths as much as they like; but we are not fooled, and, more important, the British public will not be fooled either.
The spending review document sets out the Government’s choices. Those choices were freely made. What the Government have presented is their vision of a future for our country. What we have seen is not the big society but the blueprint for a smaller, meaner and nastier society, and we reject it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
No, it is not too late for members of the shadow Cabinet to get involved with this process. They had an opportunity last night, as you remember Mr Speaker, on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, but they failed to take it. I think that that may be because they do not have the capacity or the courage to come up with their own suggestions.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm well-sourced reports that she has received Treasury advice to delay some of next year’s proposed spending cuts? How, if that is true, does it square with the harsh cuts rhetoric that we have heard from Treasury Ministers since the election? Will she take this opportunity to confirm that it is her decision, and that of the Front Benchers, to stick with the £23 billion of cuts that we know they are planning for next year?
Justine Greening
We are clear about what we need to do to sort out the last Labour Government’s terrible legacy—a Government, incidentally, who left unemployment higher than when they took office. We will stick to our economic plan, which, as we have heard, the IMF and the OECD think is the right one, and it is the plan that stands alone, because the Labour party simply has no alternative.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that there is too much cigarette smuggling, and this is a matter that we are keen to address. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already announced proposals to provide additional funding to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tackle cigarette smuggling, among other things. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention but, let us be honest, it would be unrealistic to say that we could prevent all cigarette smuggling. We can, however, take steps to reduce it. That would be to the benefit of the Exchequer, and I am pleased that the Government are moving ahead and doing that.
It is our determined actions that have restored confidence in the economy, stabilised the nation’s credit rating and halved interest rates on Government short-term borrowing. We are saving money today so that we can invest in tomorrow. Ours is the right approach for the country, and that has been widely recognised. Only a fortnight ago, the International Monetary Fund said that our deficit plan was essential to restoring confidence in the UK’s public finances and “supports a balanced recovery”. That is the approach that we will take forward, including in the spending review.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his kind remarks about me and the new shadow team. If he is so convinced that the actions that the Government took in June have stabilised the economy, can he explain why a survey reveals today that confidence among Britain’s financial chiefs has slumped to a fresh low, with 34% of finance directors polled by Deloitte believing that the economy will go back into reverse? Those findings demonstrate that optimism has dropped to its lowest level for 18 months.
Mr Gauke
The fact is that the measures that the Government have taken have had the support of the IMF, the OECD, the World Bank and the Governor of the Bank of England. We are getting widespread support for taking these tough measures. We also have the support of the director general of the CBI. There is an increasingly large consensus—it even includes Tony Blair—that if we simply deny the existence of the deficit and avoid taking these tough decisions, we shall face a worse problem later on. It is absolutely right that we should take these measures.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
As the Exchequer Secretary has said, the Bill before us is the third Finance Bill that we have had this calendar year. We normally expect two if a general election intervenes, when the usual Finance Bill timetables are inevitably interrupted. However, this year we have had three. That is because of the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stage a piece of political theatre—I might even call it crass melodrama—when he presented his self-styled emergency Budget to the House in June. Rather than one that included all the necessary legislative provisions that had to be enacted this financial year, we got a tiny Bill. Its purpose was to tie the Liberal Democrats into the huge cuts to come and to the VAT bombshell before any summer revolts could gather pace and menace the Government’s stitched-together majority.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new position. The emergency Budget to which she referred was absolutely necessary considering the train wreck of an economy that we inherited. The country’s debts were spiralling out of control. That Budget calmed the debt markets and allowed the country to look at its finances and to bring economic competence back into the Treasury.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is even more melodramatic in his rewriting of history—his historical revisionism of what was going on in the UK economy—than the Chancellor. I had thought, having watched that performance, that that was impossible, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman should try out pantomime this year as Christmas approaches.
I was about to say before I was so rudely interrupted that, rather than encumber himself with the tedious technical detail in this Budget, the Chancellor decided to start behaving like the Liberal Democrat student activists we all come across at university and to take it in parts. This is part two. As a result, we have in today’s Bill what can best be described as the technical innards of a Budget; I think that the Exchequer Secretary used other words. In fact, most of the clauses, as he pointed out, are the technical innards of the last Labour Budget, which was presented in March 2010. However, it is the duty of the Opposition to scrutinise the detail of all Budgets, and we certainly intend to fulfil that obligation tonight.
Measures included in the Bill are important to the workings of the taxation system—the Minister did the House a service by going through them in great detail—but they have failed to inspire much interest or controversy in the outside world, perhaps because they have been signalled for a long time. The measures were subject to consultation under the previous Government as well as the current one when they were in development. Some might even say that they were prototype proposals, because that is the way that things tend to be done in the Treasury. That is attested to by the lack of much comment on or reaction to the proposals even among the taxation professionals who usually pore over the technical details of Finance Bills with fine-toothed combs. In respect of this Finance Bill, those professionals have been strangely unmoved—I might even say indifferent.
Kelvin Hopkins
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front-Bench team and I am pleased to see her there. Is not the fact that this is a mouse of a Bill, given that we face a £120 billion tax gap that the Government are doing nothing to reduce, and that 1% of that sum would save more money than their cut in benefits?
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are two sides to the deficit reduction equation. Clearly, one side of that is collecting the taxes that are due in an appropriate fashion, and I shall say more about that later in my speech. He is right that we need constantly to keep that side of things in mind.
I was about to pay tribute to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which was one of the few organisations to submit comments on the Bill when many had fallen by the wayside. Perhaps it is up to the Opposition to be vigilant when others have taken their eyes off the ball.
As my hon. Friend said, it is odd that we are debating a seemingly uncontroversial and overwhelmingly technical Finance Bill in the midst of one of the most difficult and dangerous periods for the UK and world economies in many generations. We have lived through the largest banking and financial crisis in the global economy since the Wall street crash of 1929. It has caused a deep and painful global recession, and we are struggling with the aftermath of the rescue of the world financial system from the colossal market failure that was dramatised by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. That inevitably caused budget deficits to soar everywhere, but especially in the more advanced western economies.
The UK was particularly affected, in part because of the size of our banking and financial services sector. The concerted action co-ordinated at the London G20 conference averted a catastrophe, and we are now witnessing a tentative economic recovery. However, that recovery remains distinctly fragile.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
We have the biggest budget deficit in the G20. What does the hon. Lady believe contributed to that? Could the previous Labour Government, of whom she was a member, have done a bit more to try to avoid that?
Ms Eagle
The hon. Lady must recognise that the budget deficits being suffered in all the more advanced economies result directly from the need to rescue the world financial system by underpinning it, the effect of automatic stabilisers and the loss of revenue caused by the recession that followed the credit crunch. I thank her for giving me the chance once more to put that on the record.
Ms Eagle
I will be happy to give way when I have finished dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). I am pleased that she gave me the chance to put on the record again the plain fact that Budget deficits throughout the developed world were caused by the costs of the recession and the need to underpin our banking systems, rather than by profligacy in public spending. The problem was caused by a gigantic global market failure, not by the activities of Governments.
Claire Perry
It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Lady to her new role, as she is one of the more economically literate and articulate of the shadow Front-Bench team. I am therefore surprised that she continues to bring out the hoary chestnut that somehow this deficit was entirely a result of the collapse in the banking system and was nothing to do with the previous Government’s spending more than they raised in taxes since 2001.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Lady has also to recall and acknowledge that a lot of the investment spending since 2001 went on infrastructure, which will stand our country in good stead as we look to how we can rebuild our prosperity and continue to earn our way in what will be an increasingly competitive world.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I would point out to the hon. Lady that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that there is a structural deficit of £109 billion—I believe that is the figure—which has nothing to do with the banking crisis or the recession and will not be eliminated by growth. Does she not accept that the previous Government have some or full responsibility for that structural deficit?
Ms Eagle
I think we need to have a much more grown-up discussion about how we ended up facing these economic challenges. One of the more underhand approaches that the Government have taken to this narrative has been to say that the economic challenges facing us, which are formidable, are somehow all about the previous Labour Government wasting public money and spending profligately. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is simply is not true—
Ms Eagle
I will give way in a moment. If we reach the stage where we have an appropriate analysis of how our economy got to be in this situation, we will stand a far better chance of having a reasonable discourse about how we can best move forward, rather than having this gross caricature being made by those on the Government Benches.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The Government seem to forget that when they were in opposition they promised to match our spending. The Liberal Democrats have great cheek to say now that they did not support the increased level of borrowing—I recall that they certainly did.
Ms Eagle
That is true. Clearly, the Chancellor and Prime Minister are on record, up to and including in 2008, as doing precisely what my hon. Friend says and supporting our spending commitments as they were at the time.
Although the recovery remains distinctly fragile, the June Budget took a huge and risky gamble with it. Since then, confidence in the UK’s economic prospects has fallen off a cliff and business surveys, such as that by Deloitte which I asked the Exchequer Secretary about, demonstrate that economic sentiment is darkening. There are increasing signs that the tentative recovery is stalling and that the economic storm clouds are gathering once more.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend is saying. Is it not true that those who invest and those who are lacking confidence now are simply aware that cutting spending, cutting jobs and cutting benefits will drive the economy into recession, and that nobody will invest when we are diving into a recession? Does she agree that in the early part of this decade Britain had a relatively low level of public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product compared with, for example, Scandinavia?
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is right on both points, but he also raises an important issue about what Keynes called “animal spirits”. It is fair to say that all the signals are that the animal spirits are somewhat more depressed now than they were a few months ago and that the things that have depressed them are the decisions that were announced in the June Budget.
Ominous noises are coming out of the recent International Monetary Fund meeting about currency wars and competitive devaluations, and they offer worrying echoes of conditions that led to the great depression in the 1930s. Dominique Strauss-Kahn was not joking or exaggerating when he warned the IMF meeting about the dangers that the huge increases in unemployment will pose for our democratic institutions. Yet none of this is referenced in the measures before us today.
Ms Eagle
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before and I want to get on, because I know that other people wish to speak.
In many ways, we find ourselves in a kind of pre-spending review phoney war. We know that something truly awful is coming but it has not arrived yet, so we are whistling to keep up our spirits as the winter approaches and the long nights draw in. The Prime Minister himself has taken to using wartime phraseology. For some strange reason, in his conference speech he was moved to invoke the spirit of Lord Kitchener and his famous “Your country needs you” first world war Army recruitment slogan, not once but twice. Quite why he did that is beyond me, since Lord Kitchener was the general who created the world’s first concentration camps in the aftermath of the Boer war. They inflicted appalling suffering on innocent women and children in order to quell any Boer resistance. As Secretary of State for War, he supported the disastrous Dardanelles operation and was widely blamed for the shortage of shells in 1915, which, incidentally, precipitated the formation of a Tory-Liberal Government.
Of course, Kitchener has become best known for the famous Army recruitment campaign and its memorable slogan, which our Prime Minister saw fit to borrow the other day. In 1914, that plea resulted in the creation of what became known as “Kitchener’s Army”, and I suppose we should refer to the attempts to create a “big society army” to fill in the gaps that the cuts will create. Unfortunately, however, that Army was destined to go into action in the Somme, where 60,000 of them were slaughtered on the first day of the offensive. By its end, 600,000 had been lost to gain just 6 miles of territory, and overall casualties in the offensive as a whole reached an almost unbelievable 1.2 million men—
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is this rather long revisiting of first world war history directly related to the Finance Bill’s Second Reading?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Had I noticed anything out of order, I would have been sure to have pointed that out. As it is, I believe that the shadow Minister is now moving on.
Ms Eagle
I was just about to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but suffice it to say that Kitchener’s Army became a tragic symbol of a lost generation, pointlessly sacrificed because of the idiocy of those in charge. Perhaps, whether he realises it or not, the Prime Minister was on to something with his choice of exhortation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and add my congratulations on her elevation. It will be a great privilege to listen to more of her speeches, I hope often on Kitchener. I fear that she has maligned the late noble Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, the rescuer of what remained of Gordon’s body from Khartoum. Perhaps most relevantly, the death rates in the camps established in South Africa were exactly the same as—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. This would be a fascinating debate at another time and, perhaps, in another place.
Ms Eagle
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know whose side I would rather be on in any attempt to rehabilitate Lord Kitchener.
As the spending review approaches, we are beginning to see increasing signs of nervousness about the likely effects of the cuts, and that is just among Ministers. We already know that the Government have taken a decision in principle that a huge increase in unemployment is a price worth paying to get the deficit down. In an admission that the spending review will depress economic activity, the Chancellor recently made it clear that he will sanction the resumption of quantitative easing, or increasing the money supply, should the cuts in demand tip the country back towards recession. However, the extent to which monetary policy can be effective when interest rates are so low and demand is depressed is the subject of well-placed scepticism in very respectable economic circles.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position. Does she agree that there are lessons to be learned from the Republic of Ireland, where a centre-right coalition has made savage cuts quickly? That has not only affected its triple A rating—it has been downgraded—but created mass unemployment.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my support for my hon. Friend after her elevation to her new position. She mentioned quantitative easing, and she will no doubt have seen the widespread reports in the newspapers over the weekend that the Chancellor has given it a green light. Is that not his plan B, and his way of avoiding the so-called “difficult decisions” and passing them on to the Bank of England?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the main thing that we can learn from the economy of the Republic of Ireland is that we were right not to join the euro and should never do so?
Ms Eagle
I look forward to the debate that will take place within the Government on that, as I can see that Liberal Democrat Members are not exactly enamoured with the hon. Gentleman’s point.
At the weekend, the Cabinet seemed to send incoherent messages about the £83 billion cuts agenda that lies ahead. The Energy Secretary told The Daily Telegraph that spending cuts were not
“lashed to the mast with a particular set of numbers”
and could be scaled back if economic conditions deteriorated, but the Transport Secretary insisted that the Government would not deviate despite fears that the drastic cuts would damage the economy. The latter clearly regards himself as the real Chief Secretary—or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the Tory Chief Secretary—but which of the two is presenting the Cabinet’s real view? They both serve in it, so which of them is right? Perhaps when the Economic Secretary responds tonight, she would like to enlighten us about which of their positions is the real Government policy, at least for today.
Some things that I would have thought would be in the Bill, given the formidable economic challenge that now faces us, are conspicuously absent. Where is the plan for growth? We all know that growth is one of the most effective ways of dealing with a deficit. Thus, plans to get the deficit down need to be growth-friendly, but precious little in the Bill is intended to address that urgent requirement.
Since May there have been plenty of cuts that may well have a bad impact on our growth prospects, such as the abolition of regional development agencies and the savage cuts in the funding available to assist regional growth strategies. The decision to scrap the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters is another example. That company could have played a leading role in the developing global nuclear industry, but its chances of doing so have been set back significantly by that decision. The increase in VAT, which estimates suggest will cost each household in the country more than £500, will hardly boost demand, so where is the plan for growth? The Prime Minister claimed that his first Budget would be
“a Budget that goes for growth”,
but after the Chancellor’s theatrical efforts in June, the Government’s own forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility, downgraded its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 1.2%, and for next year from 2.6% to 2.3%. The CBI also decided to lower its growth forecast for next year from 2.5% to 2% to take account of the June Budget.
Alec Shelbrooke
I welcome the hon. Lady to her Front-Bench position. If the 2.5% rise in VAT is so wrong, why was it right for the previous Government to return it from 15% to 17.5%? Although there had been a reduction, that was still a 2.5% rise.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but the reduction in VAT was part of the fiscal stimulus that kept the economy afloat during the most dangerous parts of the credit crunch. The growth figures for the early part of this year show that that fiscal stimulus package was working.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The hon. Lady talks about the fiscal stimulus package working. It did work, of course, and I backed fiscal stimulus. Does she not now regret that the previous Government was one of only two in the G20 fully to withdraw the fiscal stimulus package in 2010?
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and welcome her to her new role. I am pleased to see one of my Wirral constituency neighbours at the Dispatch Box. I was not a Member of the House at the time, but I recall the temporary VAT reduction to 15% as being just that—a temporary improvement for consumers to build confidence. Will she assist me? Was that the case and how does that measure compare to the VAT proposals made by the Chancellor in his Budget?
Ms Eagle
Clearly, that measure was temporary and well signalled in advance—a cut to boost the economy in the short term in the most effective way. The interesting thing about what has been announced since June is that the VAT increase appears to be permanent. We are also seeing a range of other announcements, such as the shift from the retail prices index for benefit increases to the consumer prices index—not temporary to deal with a situation in front of us, but seemingly permanent.
John Mann
My hon. Friend may not be too happy to give way, but first I congratulate her on her appointment. She is an appropriate and excellent appointment to the Opposition Treasury team. However, she is making an argument about increasing taxation leading to a reduction in growth. Is that not a rather dangerous argument for a Labour Opposition to make when the choices between spending and taxation are precisely those that any Government would have to make? Is it not time that the Labour Opposition re-examined their opposition to the VAT increase? Should we not reverse that opposition and support the increase as an appropriate way to increase taxation at a time when we need to offset any cuts that would lead to job losses in the public sector?
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend should take account of the regressive nature of VAT and the fact that the Government have trumpeted from the beginning that their measures will be fair. They even used the word “progressive” during the June Budget discussions when the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and recent work by Age UK demonstrates that the effect of the Budget measures of which the Bill is a small part will be the exact opposite of progressive. It will be regressive; it will hit the poorest hardest, and VAT has a part to play in that.
Ms Eagle
I am anxious to get on. I have given way a lot and many other Members wish to speak.
The Irish example demonstrates the risks of focusing on getting the deficit down—too high a cost to the growth potential of the economy. The Irish have had deep and fast cuts as well as tax rises, but growth has been hit, which is making getting the deficit down harder rather than easier.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I am listening carefully to her somewhat gloom-laden speech. I can see why her military role model is not so much General Kitchener as Private Frazer. May I press her on one particular point? The position of her party at the general election was in favour of spending cuts of 20% over the Parliament and halving the structural deficit over four years. Does she still support that position?
Ms Eagle
That is our starting point as we move forward to judge what the Government will announce in a few days’ time. The issue here is the scale and speed of the deficit reduction, and how that impacts on our approach to being able to see some kind of economic recovery sustained, given what is happening in the rest of the world. The worry that we have always had about the Budget judgment implicit in the June announcements and soon to be reinforced in the forthcoming spending review is that the medicine being fed to the patient runs a higher risk of killing it off. We do not want the deficit reductions to be too soon and too deep to sustain a recovery. The Irish example demonstrates the risks of focusing on getting the deficit down at too high a cost to the growth potential of the economy. The Government have a particular view on those judgments, but we disagree with them on the necessity for speed and the ferociousness of the deficit reductions. We are not saying that deficit reductions will not be necessary. The Chancellor used to mention the Irish example all the time as the Irish Government made their extremely deep and fast cuts, but lately he appears to have stopped referring to it at all. I wonder why.
The Government are gambling on their outdated and dogmatic view that if only the state would get out of the way, the private sector would spontaneously move to fill the gap and quickly create the 2.5 million extra jobs that the Office for Budget Responsibility has calculated would have to be created to get the deficit down as forecast. Thus our economy is meant to perform better in job creation terms than it has ever done before, even in much more benign economic circumstances than those we face.
We have just lived through the most dramatic example of the limits of that market fundamentalism that any of us are likely to see in our lifetime. It was not the private sector that rescued the world financial system from meltdown in the credit crunch; it was the co-ordinated action of Governments. Governments have a crucial role to play in fostering economic growth and helping to encourage the emergence of a better, more balanced economy, yet the Bill does nothing to restore the support for industry that the Government have already cut. It does nothing to reverse the £3.6 billion tax hike that will hit our manufacturers in order to pay for the corporation tax cuts announced in the June Budget, £1 billion of which will go straight back to the banks.
Abolishing allowances and reliefs effectively hits businesses with a tax hike when they invest. It benefits investment-light industries such as financial services over investment-heavy industries or new sectors looking to grow. That change penalises companies that need to make sustained investment to establish themselves and grow. It is a strange way for the Government to signal that they wish to see a rebalanced economy and the creation of new industry. Little wonder, then, that the plans have been described as “a disaster” by the senior economist at the Engineering Employers Federation and that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
“Cutting investment allowances to fund a cut in the mainstream corporation tax rate would help companies which make large profits with little investment, at the expense of businesses that are investing heavily in the UK but making only marginal returns.”
There is no sign of a serious growth strategy.
Stewart Hosie
I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said. Would it not carry more weight, however, if her Labour Government had not abolished, for example, industrial buildings allowance and agricultural buildings allowance—the very sort of allowances that she described that would help investment now. Would not her argument carry more strength if her Government had not butchered those important allowances only a few years ago?
Ms Eagle
I remember the detailed discussions that we had on that issue in previous Finance Bill debates. The hon. Gentleman has probably been in more of them than I have. The issue is not the abolition of allowances that are 40-odd years old and increasingly do not recognise the changed shape of UK industry. It is about abolishing allowances completely to fund a cut in mainstream corporation tax, with the result that the incentives for investment are taken away at the point of investment.
One of the measures that the Bill ought to have contained but does not is the creation of a tax relief for the video games industry. We all know in the House that in the UK we have a particular expertise in creating video games, which was beginning to create high-value jobs in the UK in what has become a multi-billion-pound industry. We also know that our brightest software engineers are being tempted abroad by generous and possibly illegal tax breaks, and that we risk the decimation of our UK base if we do not respond. That is why, while we were in government, we developed the video games tax credit, which was to operate along the same lines as the film tax relief. In opposition, just before the election, the Conservative party supported that. On 13 April 2010 the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), now the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, said:
“We are committed to a tax break along the lines of the video games tax credit. We have been calling for tax breaks for the video game industry for the last three years.”
Like so many other things said during the general election campaign, that pledge was abandoned immediately after it. We will want to explore the issue further in Committee.
Before the Minister uses the standard Treasury line about how the video industry can always make use of the research and development tax credits that are available more generally, he might care to put all our minds at rest and deal with the nasty rumours swirling around that the entire R and D tax credit may be at risk in the cuts to come. Perhaps the Economic Secretary will reassure us on that point.
Another notable omission from today’s Bill is any reference to increasing the resources which will allow HMRC to build on its already excellent work to tackle the tax gap. Obviously, as was said earlier, the more that tax due is collected, the more effectively the deficit can be tackled and the less pain our society will be forced to endure during the adjustment ahead. During the conference season the Deputy Prime Minister made much of the need to close the gap between the taxes that are due and those that are actually collected. He made grand and welcome pronouncements that it is “ethically wrong” to avoid paying our taxes. He was followed by the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury who announced, interestingly, that he regarded both tax avoidance and tax evasion as “morally indefensible” in times like these.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend is saying. PCS, Richard Murphy and others have made the simple point that appointing more tax officers would solve the problem. They collect many times their own salary, and it would be highly beneficial to the Exchequer if that were done.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is well known for his views on the subject.
Neither of the Ministers whom I just quoted revealed just how successful HMRC has been in pursuing this work in the past three years. HMRC increased the yield from compliance interventions by 60% in the three years to 2008-09. However, we all know there is more to be done and we would all support sensible measures to make such work even more effective.
Following all the fuss about that and the headlines generated, I would have expected to see some extra action in the Bill. However, despite the dramatic headline- grabbing moral assertions, nothing has been added to the Bill to signal the Government’s determination to launch a further crackdown. The worry is that the 25% to 40% cuts in departmental staffing due to be announced in the forthcoming spending review will seriously damage HMRC’s ability to maintain its work on improving tax collection, let alone to launch a further successful crackdown on the tax cheats. Again, this is a topic to which we will return in Committee, but I would be grateful for any reassurances the Minister may be able to offer us tonight that the operational capacity of the HMRC in this crucial area will be enhanced rather than decimated in the cuts to come.
Perhaps the hon. Lady can also explain to the House precisely what signal on tax collection the Government intend to send by appointing Sir Philip Green to advise the Prime Minister on Government efficiency. His own tax arrangements include paying a £1.2 billion dividend to his wife, who just happens to be domiciled in Monaco for tax purposes. Although this is not illegal, the Business Secretary has gone on record as saying that he is unhappy about it, and the Energy Secretary has said that it sends the wrong message. Can the Minister explain how this example squares with the Chief Secretary’s grand pronouncement that both tax evasion and tax avoidance are immoral in times like these? Once more, we must look at this Government’s actions rather than their words. Their decisions will be far more eloquent than thousands of well-crafted press releases or any synthetic outrage.
As we await the spending review, it is abundantly clear that the centre of economic and political attention lies not with the Bill but elsewhere. We would have wanted this legislation to contain at least the beginnings of a plan for growth, but it does not. It should have contained some extra and concrete plans to back up with credible action the Deputy Prime Minister’s fine words on the immorality of avoiding taxes, but it does not. In choosing to cut the deficit further and faster than we proposed, the Government have taken a huge gamble with our economic prosperity. A synchronised deficit reduction throughout the developed economies risks plunging the world back into either recession or a Japanese-style jobless recovery. The Irish example should be a salutary lesson to the Government of the risks that they run with their economic approach.
In the meantime, we will look closely at the Bill and take a keen interest in it as it goes through Committee. We will see whether some of the issues that I have raised can appear as amendments during its passage through the House.
Finance Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
The fact is that the big risk to growth for this country would have been if we had done nothing about the deficit. If we had tried to ignore it, we would have found ourselves having our credit rating downgraded, as has happened to Greece, Portugal, Spain and now the Republic of Ireland, and we would have faced a contagion of sovereign debt. We have taken the necessary actions to ensure that growth is secure and the fact is that the OBR projections have far greater credibility than the previous Government’s—we have learned about how political they were in making their growth forecasts. Our growth forecasts have credibility. Our public finances have a credibility that they did not before. We can be proud of that.
As we have heard, the previous Treasury team believed that an increase in VAT was necessary and that was only blocked by the previous Prime Minister. One can hope that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), has seen the error of his ways. I noticed that he did not feature in the Division Lobby opposing the VAT increase—perhaps we have persuaded him, after all, that his views on VAT were unwise. We have succeeded where the shadow Chancellor failed.
We have heard legitimate concerns about how the most vulnerable in society will be protected, but we have sought to provide such protection in the Budget. For example, we have committed to the uprating of the basic state pension through a triple guarantee of earnings prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest, from April 2011. We have taken steps to increase the child tax credit.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. On this point about uprating pensions, will he take this opportunity to admit that the shift from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index as the definition for which all benefits and now all pensions will be indexed is scored as plus £6 billion in the Red Book, which means that he is taking that amount of money from some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in the country?
Mr Gauke
We have taken measures to secure the public finances for the longer term, but we have done so by protecting the poorest in society. We have provided a triple guarantee for pensioners and we have finally restored the earnings link that our predecessors did not succeed in restoring in 13 years. In addition, we have taken steps to increase the child tax credit by £150 next year and by £60 in the following year. As a result, levels of child poverty after the Budget will remain unaffected, taking into account all the measures of the next couple of years.
Ms Angela Eagle
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments very carefully. Will he tell us whether he is so disappointed that he will now finally consider not going into the Lobbies to support the Budget on Third Reading?
Andrew George
Perhaps the hon. Lady was not listening to my opening remarks when I said that on balance, because there are many measures that I approve of, even though I am disappointed by this particular measure, I will be supporting the Government. This is, of course, a Finance Bill and not the Budget as a whole.
I was reassured, but I seek further reassurance from Treasury Ministers, regarding the promise that the Government will not revisit the current list of zero-rated and 5%-limited VATable products and services and that they certainly have no intention of reducing those lists or in any way cutting the number of VAT-exempt, zero-rated or VAT-limited products and services such as those that we have been debating.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
We have had an interesting debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, although it has gone over a lot of old ground, with no surprising new positions taken on either side. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury claimed again that the Budget is progressive—a claim that I shall dispute soon. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is not in his place, set up a straw man to knock down and will come to realise that literature reviews do not translate into effective speeches. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) paraded his conscience around the Chamber again but told us, unsurprisingly, that he would be supporting the Budget after all, even though he admitted that it was regressive. People will note his crocodile tears. In the usual way, the speeches made by the hon. Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Stourbridge (Margot James) supported their side of the House.
I commend the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who put before the House the real cost increases for women—especially those with young children—under the Finance Bill. That seemed to prompt much hilarity among Government Members, which I thought revealed more about their attitudes than about her concerns. She also mentioned the housing benefit and disability benefit changes outlined in the Red Book, and many millions of vulnerable people will be worried about those as the spending review approaches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) made an extremely good speech and put some facts about recent economic history on the record and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) pointed out the fallacy of private sector see-saws suddenly moving in to take over the spaces that the public sector has vacated. Such things are such an important part of the ideology of the Government. The hon. Member for Stourbridge at least did the decent thing by recognising that there had been a global recession, but she said that we were not prepared for it, although she knows that net Government debt before the credit crunch was the second lowest in the G7.
The Finance Bill puts into place a Budget strategy that is a huge gamble with the future prosperity of Britain. The Chancellor began by telling us that it was an emergency—that it was the “unavoidable Budget”. He has tried throughout this process to persuade the country of two things: first, that Labour somehow created the deficit all on its own; and secondly, that the only solution is to cut it further and faster than our plan to halve it over the lifetime of this Parliament would have done.
Neither of those assertions is true, and here is why. Extraordinarily, Ministers and Government Members, from the Chancellor on down, have failed to let the words “credit crunch” so much as pass their lips during the entire proceedings on the Bill. The attempt to rewrite recent economic history is one that George Orwell’s Big Brother would have recognised and admired. The fact is that the banking crisis, which started in the American sub-prime mortgage market, caused the biggest global contraction that we have experienced in the real economy since the Wall street crash in 1929 turned into the great depression and led directly to the outbreak of the second world war. Since they will never say it, let me reiterate that this crisis was not caused by the irresponsible public spending of Governments but by the greed and criminal recklessness of the banking and financial sector. Any analysis of current conditions that ignores that basic and obvious fact, even if only for the purpose of generating convenient political propaganda, risks a dangerous miscalculation of the appropriate remedy.
Ms Eagle
I will not give way because the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the entire debate; if he had been, I would have done.
We see in this Finance Bill that the Tory-led Government have made precisely that error with their deliberate, ideologically driven choice to go for a much more aggressive and reckless slash-and-burn strategy for public spending than the objective economic conditions, or even the bond markets themselves, required. The decision to opt for a balanced budget in four years is driven not by the objective economic conditions but by an ideologically driven political belief in a small state, a belief which is now apparently shared by the Liberal Democrats. Similarly, the decision to cut the deficit by imposing a 77% to 23% ratio of public spending cuts to tax rises is a choice driven not by the objective economic conditions but by the same belief in a small state apparently shared by the Liberal Democrats. It is a ratio of pain never before achieved in the UK, and it was not shared with the voters before the election. No mandate for this was established in the general election. Ministers have admitted that the cuts will be painful, but they have failed to acknowledge the scale of the pain that they have chosen to inflict. The apparent relish with which they choose to announce huge and ongoing cuts does them no credit whatsoever, and it will be seared into the memories of the millions of victims of their sadistic fiscal policy for years to come.
The propaganda techniques are chilling. Carefully chosen, extreme examples of excess in public expenditure are leaked by the Government to sympathetic tabloids to be highlighted in screaming headlines and make the case for more cuts. Government websites coarsen the debate still further by parading a stream of ignorant vitriol whipped up by sensationalist reporting, so it is suggested that workhouses are to be reopened, benefit claimants sterilised, and immigrants deported. If this is the nice face of the Tory party, then God help us, and shame on the Liberal Democrats for going along with it. The apocalyptic and absurd scares that they have issued about the UK economy resembling that of Greece—we heard it again today—have been not only fundamentally wrong but deeply irresponsible, and they have risked precipitating the very loss of confidence they purport to avoid.
This Finance Bill signals the biggest and most sustained public spending cuts in UK peacetime history, coupled with increases in taxes such as VAT that will directly take demand out of the economy just when recovery is fragile and still needs nurturing. That is why it is such a gamble. Labour Members are not the only ones who are deeply worried about the choices that have been made in the Bill. Following the Chancellor’s “austerity Budget”, the International Monetary Fund has just cut its growth forecast for the UK for both this year and the next. The OECD has criticised the decision to abolish the future fobs fund and other employment support packages as short-sighted and warned that the scale of job cuts in the public sector will slow down the recovery.
As a direct result of the June Budget and this Finance Bill, the now notoriously named Office for Budget Responsibility has had to revise upwards its estimates of job losses in the public sector. At the same time, it has revised downwards its growth forecasts and hoped that no one would notice that it excluded 550,000 people who work in state-owned enterprises from being in public sector employment, even though the Office for National Statistics classifies them as such: thus public sector job losses are likely to be even higher. The OBR’s prediction that the anticipated “recovery” will generate 2 million extra jobs in the private sector in just five years has caused widespread incredulity, because that target has never been achieved in the modern era. It has certainly never been achieved at a time when huge public spending cuts are likely to dampen employment prospects in the private sector and austerity measures are being imposed simultaneously in almost every developed economy in the world.
Kelvin Hopkins
Exactly the same predictions were made about unemployment falling because of the 1979 Budget—in fact, it went up to 3 million.
Ms Eagle
People should learn from their economic history; I only wish that this Government would.
The OBR’s heroic assumptions about export growth and business investment also strain credibility, but Sir Alan Budd will not be around for much longer to defend his forecasts, whatever happens in the real world. One thing is clear: we cannot all export ourselves out of trouble at the same time. Because world trade has been so badly impacted by the global credit crunch, the UK has experienced a 25% devaluation of its currency without any noticeable upturn in export performance. Prime ministerial trips to China accompanied by huge cuts in Government support for new industrial activity in the UK do not seem to be the right response to this challenge.
The Finance Bill contains no strategy for growth, yet growth is the best way of dealing with any deficit. In place of a growth strategy, we see a pious, dogmatic belief—often restated today—that the private sector will miraculously spring to life and fill every space vacated by the Government. This is in the teeth of massive private sector deleveraging, damaged confidence and an ongoing lack of affordable bank lending. The huge hike in VAT will damage demand at a crucial moment. This is an example of blind economic faith—it is not a serious growth strategy. The Bill contains no hint of an alternative if this blind economic faith turns out to be misplaced. There is no fallback position if the economic gamble that the Chancellor has outlined starts to go wrong. How high will unemployment have to rise before the Chancellor looks again? Why, once more, is unemployment a price worth paying?
Finally, I want to look at who is paying for the measures contained in the Finance Bill. The Chancellor has repeatedly asserted, “We’re all in this together”, but we have to judge him by his actions rather than fine words, and his assertion of social solidarity turns out to be a cruel joke. The Finance Bill and Budget measures are regressive, not progressive. They hit the poorest hardest. The VAT hike is the regressive centrepiece of a regressive budget. The stealth move from retail prices indexation to consumer prices indexation for all benefits and all pensions takes £6 billion in savings from the poorest and most vulnerable and gives at least £50 billion, and possibly £100 billion, to employer pension schemes, at the risk of employee representatives. The losses mount year on year, for ever into the future.
Analysis has shown that the Budget takes a massive 21.7% of income from the bottom 10% of the income distribution and a mere 3.6% from the top 10%. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has shown that of the £8 billion net revenue raised by the measures before us, £6 billion will be raised from women and children, with only £2 billion being raised from men. Like Flashman in a tight spot, the Chancellor has chosen to put women and children first. He has put them first in the firing line, bearing the brunt of his tax rises and spending cuts.
This Finance Bill takes a huge gamble with our still fragile economic recovery. It gambles that a vicious bout of self-inflicted austerity will not tip us back into a recession or a long period of low growth, and that we will be able to export our way into growth at a time when a globally synchronised austerity signals otherwise. It is regressive, threatens social cohesion and hits the poorest hardest, and we cannot support it.
Finance Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
It is too late to object now, so let us proceed.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Power to repeal high income excess relief charge
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 60, page 3, line 9, at end add—
‘(4) An order under this section may only be made once the Treasury has published a report, including—
(a) the outline for the proposed replacement arrangement for the provisions contained in Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 2010;
(b) a distributional analysis showing the likely impact of the proposed replacement arrangement; and
(c) the revenue implications of the proposed replacement arrangement.’.
Ms Eagle
The amendment seeks to delay the making of any order under clause 5 until the Treasury has published a report that outlines the proposed replacement for the provisions in section 23 of, and schedule 2 to, the Finance Act 2010, a distributional analysis of the impact of the proposed arrangement and the revenue implications of the replacement provisions themselves. Clause 5 creates a power to remove the paving legislation that would have enabled the so-called high income excess relief charge to be levied in time to be collected in April 2011. That was legislated for in section 23 of, and schedule 2 to, what I suppose we must now call the first Finance Act of 2010, given that we look to be on course to pass three of them this year. I never thought that I would be comparing Finance Acts to buses—none come along for ages and then three come along at once—but it looks like 2010 is going to demonstrate the similarity. We are only in the middle of discussing Finance Bill issues in this Session, and obviously we will resume with part two later in the year.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend responds to my mention of instant gratification, but obviously it is in all our interests as a society to recognise that there is merit in assisting people to save for their retirement, so that they can avoid being reliant on benefits in their old age. As a result of the welcome increases in longevity, which have been a feature of our success as a society since the war, the average period of retirement is becoming longer and longer. Indeed, history recalls that when old-age pensions were first created 100 years ago, the life expectancy of those due to access them was a mere one year after they had been lucky enough to qualify. Clearly, by the time pension saving and old-age pensions became more widespread after the second world war, the time had gone up considerably to seven or eight years. It is now 20-odd years for men and—gratifyingly for females—even longer for women.
That shows that there are issues about longevity in society and about how to adapt our pensions arrangements to recognise that we live in what is often referred to as “an ageing society”. I believe that it is a great triumph of our organisation of society. Although it presents us with some difficult issues of policy and affordability, it should not be seen or ever portrayed as a problem; nor should the fact that these days many more pensioners reach retirement age and live longer be seen as representing some kind of burden on our society. After all, we all aspire—as I am sure you do, Mr Hoyle—to reaching retirement age and enjoying an extremely happy, long and hopefully prosperous retirement. That is what we are dealing with when we tackle the issue of pension tax relief.
I was pointing out that pension tax relief is more generous than the relief in many other areas of saving. That is because there are great benefits in encouraging people to save for their own pension, despite the fact that they are putting money away to which they often cannot gain access for many years; and also because it is more effectively and efficiently done if it can be done collectively. That is why Government incentives, in the form of tax reliefs, have always featured in the system.
This form of tax relief is often referred to as EET. This is not a stuttering, Steven Spielberg sci-fi film; it stands for exempt, exempt, taxed. That means that as savings are put away from income, they are exempt from tax. Any investment growth that comes from investment in those funds is also exempt from tax—that is the second E. The T, of course, is the thing that many people worry about—the fact that as these savings are taken as an income stream when retirement happens, taxation applies again at that stage.
I doubt whether any Member on either side of the House would quibble with the very generous tax incentives put in place over many years by Governments of all hues, colours and sorts—whether they be coalitions or otherwise—to privilege such tax savings. However, as that has developed, certain features have brought about unforeseen consequences and have not proved to be in the best interests of fairness or equity.
To establish the size of the issue and to put into perspective the amounts of money that we are dealing with under this clause, let me reveal—although I am sure that many Members will already know—that the gross annual cost of pension tax relief for the financial year 2008-09 was £28.4 billion, which at a full 2% of gross domestic product is a not insubstantial amount. Net of the tax on pension income—the T part of EET—and also of the national insurance contribution relief for employers, which are also granted by the Treasury, the figure was £18.9 billion. Therefore, the net cost of that tax relief for pension savings is close to £19 billion. Again, that is not an insubstantial amount of money or revenue forgone by the Treasury.
Another feature of the net figure is how it has been growing in the past few years, having doubled since 1998-99. From being reasonably stable, it has gone up very quickly in a relatively short space of time when we think about life spans and the development of pensions policy in this area. That change has been accompanied by a change in the distribution of the beneficiaries of the tax relief, so there was a very strong case for taking action to put it on a more sustainable and fairer footing, and that is what we were doing with the tax law that clause 5 seeks to repeal by order.
It is a feature of the system, which I am not sure could be avoided without putting huge restrictions on it, that tax relief for pension savings is granted at a marginal rate. By definition, that means that it is more valuable for higher rate taxpayers than for basic rate taxpayers. Analysis has shown that the relief was increasingly benefiting those on the very highest incomes rather than just those on higher rates. So, paradoxically, over time, the very reasonable and logical policy of granting tax exemptions on savings for pensions meant that the incentive to save for a pension was being provided, at a cost to all taxpayers, to those who needed it the least because they were the most well-off. That is the definition of “regressive” in terms of how tax relief might hit. The fact that the system was becoming even more distorted, benefiting those in the very top income brackets, was illustrated by a distributional analysis of the benefits, which revealed that higher rate taxpayers received 65% of the relief but constituted only 19% of pensions savers.
The real distortions were at the very, very top, as those on the very highest incomes were benefiting even more disproportionately. Analysis shows that about 2% of savers currently receive a quarter—25%—of all the tax relief available. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is unjustifiable. It means that if a person is privileged enough to be in the top 2% of earners by income, they are entitled to an average of £20,000 of tax relief per year per person on their pension savings, whereas the average relief available for those who are on the basic rate of tax is just £1,000.
The way in which the relief is granted, its connection to the income tax system—the fact that it is at the marginal rate—and the introduction of the 50p rate for income tax mean that if action were not taken, this massively and already grossly regressive relief would become even more distorted. That is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, in the pre-Budget report 2009 and the Budget 2009, decided that action had to be taken to deal with the relief, which had become unsustainable and extremely unfair. It was therefore necessary to have a policy response at the medium and low-earning end of the income scale as well as a policy for the very high end. It is the policy for the very high end that is being repealed in clause 5, but I want to spend a tiny amount of time dealing with the policy at the low and medium end.
The decision to create the national employment savings trust was an essential part of the rebalancing of pension tax reliefs to ensure that they could effectively stretch further down the income distribution. Members will recall that the creation of what is now known as NEST was the outcome of a great deal of work across party lines from 2004 to design a system of pension savings that would deal with the obvious market failure in the private sector of the ability to allow low and medium earners to save in a worthwhile way in a low-cost savings vehicle.
Geraint Davies
In terms of the public finances, £3.6 billion is a massive amount to be raised in a very tight period, so given that there is so much uncertainty and change around the Government’s proposals, does my hon. Friend accept that they present an enormous risk? From the viewpoint of the industry, it appears that the Government are playing fast and loose and are undermining the confidence of the financial markets and credit rating organisations in their capability to manage our economy or their finances.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point and I obviously look forward to the contribution that he will make to our debate in due course. If he looks at the amendment he will see that the point of it is to try to get more detail about what is in the Government’s mind. The time scale for putting the provisions in place is extremely short in relation to the beginning of the new financial year—a point to which I shall return.
The amendment would provide that an order that completely repealed all the paving legislation and all the work to put into effect the higher earnings charge would not be allowed until Parliament has more idea of at least the outline for the proposed replacement arrangements. There are some coy little hints in the Red Book but not much else to go on—certainly no detail—if we are to repeal an already organised charge that has been well consulted on. The amendment also provides for a distributional analysis to show
“the likely impact of the proposed replacement arrangement; and…the revenue implications of the proposed replacement arrangement.”
I accept that the Government have said that they want to replicate the yield, but as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, the yield is not an insubstantial amount and it rises quickly. In the tax year 2012-13, a yield of fully £3.6 billion for the replacement measure is already on the Budget scorecard.
The planned yield is a considerable sum and the Government need to reassure us that they are not putting it at risk by ripping up all the work that has been done to implement the original policy since it was announced in 2009. There are clear dangers in destroying all that work, wiping it off the statute book and starting again from scratch so close to when the change is meant to come in, not least because of the tight time scales as we approach the start of the financial year 2011-12, when collection of the revenue is meant to begin. The Red Book states:
“The Government wishes to engage employers, pension schemes, experts and other interested parties to determine the best design of a regime.”
That does not fill me with confidence that the Government have the first clue about how their policy intent can be changed into an actual tax change. It is a complex area and they have only a small period to get the measure right.
I assume that the powers will have to be legislated for in the September Finance Bill; perhaps the Economic Secretary can tell me when she replies to the debate. There is not much time—probably only the summer—so I hope she will have a holiday, but I am not sure quite how that will turn out if she is put in charge of sorting out the proposals in an appropriate time. Her officials could get no break at all. To be honest, as they contemplate their second or third Finance Bill of the year, her officials will probably need a break as much as she does. While there is not a lot of time left, there is an awful lot of yield at stake if the Government get this wrong, and that is what we are exploring through amendment 60.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is probably aware of many people’s anger at the size of the pension pots of bankers such as Sir Fred Goodwin. Does she agree that when many people are struggling as a result of the bankers’ decisions, it is outrageous that the Government wish to reward those very bankers by giving them such big pension breaks?
Ms Eagle
I certainly understand that anger, and I suspect that there will be even more anger if the Government do not address the unfair way in which the distribution of the pension tax relief has developed, especially since the simplification from A-day in 2006. We tried to address the problem by targeting the people at the very top who had benefited the most from the relief in particular.
We received representations from stakeholders who called for a simpler system, and it would be wrong of me to try to claim that the system for which we legislated was simple—it was clearly complex. However, when dealing with people on very high earnings who use complex financial arrangements, we often find that that complexity must be matched to ensure that a fair amount of tax is taken from them. In tax and benefit law, as the Economic Secretary will know—she probably struggles with this every day—there is always a trade-off between simplification and fairness, as well as yield. We took the view that despite the complexities of the system that we were introducing, it was right to target very high earners in particular. I state the distributional analysis again: the top 300,000 people receive 25% of £18.9 billion. No right-thinking person in this country with any kind of understanding of what the term “fairness” means would want us to tolerate that kind of distribution.
Simplification is always a popular cry, but there are trade-offs, and it causes different problems if we create a simpler system. We did consider other options, but the trade-offs are inescapable. We want to explore in debate today how the Government are working their way through the trade-offs, so that we can try to assess whether the solution that the Government have hinted at, but have not put before us, is fair, or whether its outcome is less fair than the outcome of the system that we decided on.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
I can see that the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members are following a particular train of inquiry, and that is perfectly right—it is the purpose of this debate. I just draw her attention to the fact that the clause gives the Government the power to repeal the previous measures if we can find a better alternative. If we cannot, I assure her that we will leave what is in place. However, does she agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which described the measures that the previous Government proposed as unfair?
Ms Eagle
It is up to the entire electorate to decide what is fair or unfair. I have set out some of the reasons why we approached what is a difficult problem in the way that we did, but I certainly welcome the Minister’s comment that if the Government cannot find a different way of doing things, they will leave the current structure in place. I was wondering about the reference in the clause to December this year. I suspected that that might be what we would call a backstop position. It is important that the hon. Lady has put her point on the record. Taking what she says at face value, I assume that the Government will do some work in the next period. I do not know whether a measure will be in the Finance Bill, or how quickly that work will be done, but certainly there is not very much time for a completely new system to be brought in.
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is very kind. Given that she raises the issue, perhaps it would be helpful for the rest of the debate if I set matters out. On the timelines, she is right; we clearly need to make progress quickly. The aim is to publish draft clauses in the autumn, and to legislate in the Finance Bill 2011.
Ms Eagle
I certainly appreciate the information that the Minister has put before us, and it helps us to get on with the debate. I suppose it means that she and her officials will have time for at least a little bit of a holiday this August. Under our plans, the yield begins to come in during the next financial year. I was under the impression that she would have had to ensure that she legislated for an entirely new system in the September 2010 Finance Bill. She now tells us that potential measures for an alternative system will be forced into next year’s Finance Bill, which means that an extra £0.2 billion of revenue that was scored for the next financial year will have to be raised. I assume that she will take account of that.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The new regime comes in in April 2011. If, as the Minister said, the Government will not bring legislation forward until April 2011, does it mean that we will use the system that we introduced? That will be a second system. There is the current system; the one that we introduced, which will apply from April 2011; and a third one, which will be introduced subsequent to the Government’s Bill. Or will the Government abandon our system, and will there be a period of time in which we get less revenue as a result of the complex process that has just been announced?
Ms Eagle
There are issues of process on which I would appreciate the hon. Lady’s enlightenment in her response to the debate.
There is also an issue about the backstop position. The hon. Lady says that draft clauses might be brought forward, and, although I am sorry to go on about process, it is important when it comes to tax changes. We gave ourselves close to two years to do all the work to introduce the higher rate relief charge, because it was such a difficult and complex area. We wanted to ensure that those who were liable to pay had plenty of time to plan, understand their liabilities—even if they did not like them, which they rarely do in my experience—and get to know the system, so that there was certainty about it. It now seems clear that there is a degree of uncertainty, which those who would have been particularly badly hit by the high charges, the very richest in our society, might welcome. However, we felt that they should shoulder a fairer burden of the necessary fiscal consolidation, because they had done so well during the good times.
If the Government are serious about protecting the yield, there has to be a trade-off with fairness. The Government have hinted at using the annual allowances as a way of raising that money, rather than our way, and if they introduce that change those on incomes of less than £130,000 will be dragged into the tax net. We wished to avoid that with our solution, so, if the reduction in annual allowances that the Government are considering turns out to be their final decision, in response to the debate will the hon. Lady tell us how many people it will affect? The Government have hinted that that is their preferred way, but our amendment would ensure a distributional analysis of the measure’s effect. Given that we legislated for a particular approach to raising that yield, and given that the Treasury did a great deal of work on developing that system, it would be entirely appropriate for the Treasury to produce some comparisons between that and the preferred approach at which the hon. Lady and, certainly, the Red Book have hinted. How great will the sudden tax liability be of people who earned less than £130,000 a year and would not have been affected had our approach to raising the yield gone ahead? How low down the income scale will the restrictions on tax relief go?
Geraint Davies
For clarity, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposal consists of a multi-billion-pound giveaway for the richest 2% of people in this country at a time when the rest of the country faces massive financial penalties due to the actions of international bankers? Those very bankers will be given the extra bonus by this Government, and that is an absolute disgrace.
Ms Eagle
Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point in his characteristically acerbic way. I was going to ask the Minister, in a slightly more polite way, how much of the income that the very richest would have paid will now be paid, under the new plans, by those on lower incomes. I hope she can give us that figure.
The key issue with annual investment allowances is that they drag people into paying the extra tax regardless of income. For example, a modest earner might receive a bequest from a deceased relative and make a big payment into a pension, and under our system they would have been able to pay in up to £225,000 without incurring tax. Alternatively, a modest earner might receive a redundancy payment and wish to put it away, and we clearly want to encourage that if they do not have a pension. If the hon. Lady’s system is to be of the sort hinted at in the Red Book, that person would be much more affected, regardless of their ordinary income; they would be deterred from putting anything other than the annual investment allowance into a pension fund because of the nature of the tax. I hope she will at least admit that that is an implication. Has she any numbers that relate to this issue?
Mr Jones
Let us not forget that one. However, the proposal in clause 5 will leave a big black hole in the deficit reduction strategy. The Economic Secretary hinted, “Well, we might not do it, or we might do something different.” I am sorry, but if we are to have a thought-out plan to reduce the deficit, that is not the way to approach the matter. What we need is firm figures that do not make the poorest in society pay, which the proposal clearly will. She needs to explain to the House why neither she nor the Liberal Democrats went into the election saying that they would make this change. A lot of pensioners will find it very difficult to stomach.
Ms Angela Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that neither partner in the coalition Government went into the general election telling pensioners that they would change the definition of indexation from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, either?
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)
Order. I hope that before the hon. Gentleman responds, he will reflect on the fact that the point that has just been made is not really relevant to the matter being discussed.
Justine Greening
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess?
We have had a wide-ranging debate today and I will do my best to answer a number of the issues that Opposition Members have raised. However, it would perhaps be best for me first to set out the background to this debate, as the shadow Minister did. This issue was first looked at by the previous Government, and we have returned to it as a new Government. The coalition Government inherited from their predecessor the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe, with the single exception of Ireland. One pound in every four that we spend is borrowed. The gap stands at £149 billion for this financial year alone.
The previous Government had planned to raise extra revenue through the restriction of pensions relief for higher-rate earners. As we have heard, that approach was due to raise £4 billion to £5 billion a year by 2014-15. Given the appalling state of the public finances that we have been left as a new Government, it is something that we cannot ignore.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary set out our commitment to fairness. This is a progressive Budget that ensures that every part of society makes a contribution to deficit reduction, while protecting the most vulnerable, especially children in poverty and pensioners. The Budget has a number of measures to support pensioners, not least the triple lock guaranteeing an annual increase in the state pension in line with earnings, prices or a 2.5% increase, whichever is the higher.
Justine Greening
Let me make some progress.
That will benefit 11 million pensioners across the country. Through clause 6, which we will debate next, the Budget will enable individuals to make more flexible use of their pension savings.
Returning to clause 5, the Government have considered pension tax relief issues and believe that reform is a necessary part of their commitment to tackling the fiscal deficit. It is worth citing the views of Robert Chote, who heads up the Institute for Fiscal Studies, following the Budget. He spoke about this measure on 23 June:
“Perhaps the most welcome change was the decision to rethink the last Government’s complex, unfair and inefficient plans to limit pension contributions relief for high earners.”
That was what he thought about it.
Justine Greening
Many people on the minimum wage will not view it as progressive for someone who can afford to pay upwards of £100,000 a year into a pension fund to be given a 20% marginal rate tax break. In fact, that was not the only problem. Having listened to the concerns of the pensions industry and employers, this Government have real reservations about the approach towards pensions tax relief that was adopted in the Finance Act 2010. We believe it could have unwelcome consequences for pension saving, bring significant complexity into the tax system and damage UK business and competitiveness. The director general of the CBI said of the previous Government’s measure, brought forward in the Finance Act 2010:
“This will have serious consequences—it will make it much harder for UK business to attract and retain global talent… In every way, it’s a bad move.”
In addition, a number of features of the approach adopted in the Finance Act 2010 were unfair. For example, it included a very complicated income test, which made it difficult for individuals and advisers to understand. It also made it difficult for individuals to plan, as they would not know their final income until the end of the tax year so they would not know until then whether or by how much they would be affected. The income test also created many perverse incentives, avoidance opportunities and anomalies. For example, different charges could arise, depending on whether an individual or their employer made the pension contributions.
Under the approach in the Finance Act 2010, individuals on the highest incomes, who are able to put in very large pension contributions—upwards of £100,000 to £200,000 in one year—would have continued to get pensions tax relief, as they would still have been able to get relief at the basic rate rather than the higher rate. That is worth up to £51,000 a year. Given our concern for fairness, we believe—
Justine Greening
We are proposing a different approach, which would address that very measure. The decision for the hon. Gentleman to take tonight is on whether people who are able to pay £100,000 to £200,000 a year into their pension fund should be able to get tax relief at the basic rate. That is the question for him to answer.
Ms Angela Eagle
There are hints in the Red Book about the annual allowance taking the strain, so will the Minister tell us whether that is the only approach that is going to be looked at, or is she considering a range of different approaches? She is comparing a system that was legislated for and consulted on with a replacement about which the House has no real information. As I say, there is a hint in the Red Book, but nothing else. Will she help us focus on the comparison by doing us the courtesy of telling us what her Government are going to develop as an alternative?
Justine Greening
I was just about to come to that. One thing that we know right now about the existing plans is that if they came in from April 2011, they would curtail, but still give, basic rate tax relief to people who can afford to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds into a pension every year. Our alternative approach looks principally at significantly reducing the annual allowance to curtail that effect. We think that the annual tax relief available will potentially be restricted to less than half that available under the previous Government’s plan, significantly curtailing the ability of the super-rich to benefit from pensions tax relief. That alternative approach is supported by the pensions industry, including the National Association of Pension Funds, as well as employers and their representatives, including the CBI. The Government are keen to continue to engage with the pensions industry, employers and other interested parties to specify the level of the annual allowance, and other relevant design features.
Let me leave no uncertainty about our fiscal objectives. The Government are clear that a reduced annual allowance approach would have to raise no less revenue than the existing plans to restrict pensions tax relief in order to enable us to meet our commitment to deficit reduction. That is why we are not repealing the existing regime at this point, while we are finding a better way of achieving our objectives.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked for more detail. Our provisional analysis suggests that the appropriate level for the annual allowance could be in the region of £30,000 to £45,000 in order to deliver the necessary yield to the Treasury. However, the level required would be influenced by a number of policy design features in the revised regime. Once those have been decided, we can repeal the measures in the previous Government’s Finance Act 2010. Clause 5 therefore gives the Treasury a power to make an order repealing section 23 and schedule 2 in that Act.
Those measures, which are known as the high income excess relief charge, restrict pensions tax relief to the basic rate for high-income individuals, with effect from 6 April 2011. Let us be clear, however, that they still give basic rate tax relief to high-income individuals. The Government want to consult on a new approach. We want to discuss how best to design an alternative approach to make sure that it can operate fairly and effectively. The power to repeal is time-limited, because we recognise the need to resolve the design of the restriction of pensions tax relief as quickly as possible. We have already begun discussions with groups, which will continue through the summer.
Amendment 60 proposes that we should publish a report outlining the new arrangements and details of the yield implications and distributional impacts. I have some sympathy with the thrust of the amendment, but it will ultimately be unnecessary, because there will clearly be a chance for people to look over the draft legislation, and we will not repeal the high income excess relief charge until details of the alternative regime have been finalised and set out in public.
Ms Angela Eagle
I thank the Minister for giving way on this important point. Will she undertake to provide a distributional analysis so that we can compare directly the effects of the system that she wants to repeal, with the system that the Government finally settle on if she can find an alternative? That is the essence of the amendment, so her answer to this question is quite important.
Justine Greening
A whole range of analyses and impact statements will come out with the legislation. I suspect that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) behind me is saying, any work that is done would give an answer that Opposition Members would not like, because it would show that we are no longer going to give basic rate tax relief to people who can afford to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds into a pension pot every year.
Let me address some of the issues that have been raised. I have set out the time frame within which we want to progress towards a better alternative to the current system. We all agree that, for pensions tax relief to remain affordable, we have to limit high levels of tax-privileged pensions saving, but we think that there is a better way of doing it than the one set out by the previous Government. We believe it is important to reduce the annual allowance to prevent people from saving £255,000 a year tax free.
The hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned instances of people suddenly being able to pay a large amount into a pension fund on a one-off basis. She was right to raise that matter, and we shall be looking at options for protecting basic rate taxpayers and supporting any hard cases caused by such one-off spikes in pension accruals. She also asked about the lifetime allowance being changed. We have not ruled that out, but it is obviously a key mechanism that sits alongside the annual allowance. We shall therefore have to look at it in the context of where we end up going with the annual allowance limit. I should say that all this is subject to being able to work with key stakeholders to get something that we believe we can rely on. That is why the provisions will give us the power to repeal that measure, if we can find a better way.
I particularly want to respond to the argument from Labour Members that our proposals would somehow give a tax break to the most well-off people in the country. Let us have a look at some of the figures involved. Of course, the minute I say that, I lose the relevant bit of paper. Ah, here it is. Under the terms of the Finance Act 2010, someone who is contributing £283,000 to their pension fund on an annual basis would have had a tax charge, net of pension relief, of £85,000. Someone making the same contribution to their pension pot under a potential annual allowance level of £35,000 would have a tax charge, net of relief, of £124,000. The reason for that is that they would get 20% tax relief on the income that they would otherwise have paid a much higher rate of tax on. That is why they would pay just under £40,000 a year more under our proposed scheme than they would have done under the previous Government’s arrangements.
I wonder whether those Labour MPs who are so concerned about the impact of tax policy on the better-off people in this country will go through the Lobby today and vote for a measure that means that people who can afford to pay £283,000 a year into their pension pot will pay £40,000 less tax than they would previously have done. I do not know what Labour Members think “good” looks like in relation to taxing better-off people, but I guess I will find out when we have a Division on this amendment shortly.
Justine Greening
I was asked for some figures and what the impact would be on the very richest. We can probably find in Hansard tomorrow that I have just provided the Committee with that information. That is probably the way in which debates are meant to work. Ministers have questions put to them and if they can answer them in some detail, they do. That is what I have done. I have set out in some detail why we are pursuing the clause. I hope that everyone realises that it is sensible and a pragmatic way to address the industry’s concerns. The industry faced a £1 billion bill for implementing excessively complicated and unfair tax changes on pensions tax relief. We hope that we can reach a conclusion with the industry and all stakeholders, but the key issue is to address the fiscal deficit, so any solution will have to bring in no less money than the mechanism intended by the previous Government.
Ms Angela Eagle
We have had a long discussion, so I will be brief. I appreciate the information, such as it was, that the Minister was able to put before us about the shape of the alternative scheme. It is a bit like shadow boxing when one tries to compare a scheme that has already been legislated for with one that has been only hinted at in the Red Book. That has been the problem with this debate.
I was candid about the issues and trade-offs that we had to go through to come up with the structure for which we legislated in the Finance Act 2010. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will be as candid as they try to develop this other method. She said that she was sympathetic, but she is still resisting the amendment to put a report before the House that will contain distributional analyses and much more information about this alternative system. That is a great pity. We shall divide the Committee on that amendment as the Minister has not given us an undertaking to provide that information. I also want a separate vote on clause 5.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stewart Hosie
I thank the Economic Secretary for her response. Clearly, the way forward for people reaching 75 is sensible. The two-year deferral until the consultation is complete is right. It recognises the problem and ensures that no one else falls through the cracks between now and the end of the consultation. I am slightly disappointed that no hope was offered that the consultation could allow a slightly retrospective element to those very few people who have become 75 in the past few years, did not take an annuity and are managing their own funds. I will not press the amendment, but I will have another think about it before we reach Report next week, when I may revert to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ms Angela Eagle
I beg to move amendment 61, page 3, line 12, at end add—
‘(2) Schedule 3 shall not have effect unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report on the implications of the abolition of compulsory annuitisation of pensions, including—
(a) the revenue implications of abolition; and
(b) a distributional analysis showing who would benefit from abolition.’.
The amendment would mean that the age at which compulsory annuitisation is required could not rise, as the Government announced in the Budget, from the current 75 to 77 until the Chancellor lays before the House a report setting out the implications of abolishing the compulsory annuitisation of pensions savings. That would include the revenue implications and a distributional analysis of who would benefit from the abolition, in the interests of transparency. It is important to explore in more detail the Government’s precise thinking and intentions.
Before I do that, I shall comment on the sudden appearance this morning of a written ministerial statement, to which the Economic Secretary referred, on the matter. It appeared without the courtesy of any warning before our debate on the subject.
I spent some time on the Treasury website trying to avoid the increasingly odious comments on the “spending challenge website”, which continues to publish offensive and outrageous suggestions for savings, such as sterilising the poor, reopening the workhouses and the forced repatriation of immigrants. It appears to be completely unmoderated by the Treasury, and I hope that the Economic Secretary will convey my strong view that something should be done about that thing on the Treasury website.
What I could not find on the Treasury website, right up to the point when I came into the Chamber for today’s debate, was a copy of the consultation document that the written ministerial statement said would be there. I have a copy of the complete list of Treasury consultation documents that was on the website at around 12.30 pm. It featured the bank levy consultation, but not the consultation alluded to in the written statement. I therefore had to go the Library and have it printed so that I had the chance to look at it before I dashed into the Chamber, but the Minister has been waving it about. Will it be the usual behaviour of those on the Treasury Bench to give Members of the House so little time to look at a 53-page document? There was no advance warning, and the document was unavailable on the Treasury website, even though the written ministerial statement said it would be there. The Minister should get her Department to do a lot better than it has done today. That the document was unavailable anywhere other than via a photocopying machine in the Library at the last minute is a discourtesy to the House.
When I had a look at the consultation as I sat on the Front Bench while other debates were going on, the first thing I noticed was that the consultation will be a mere eight weeks long. It starts today and will end on 10 September, which is four weeks shorter than is recommended as good practice in the code on consultation, the second criterion of which states:
“Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible”.
The consultation is an eight-week, rushed consultation that includes the entirety of the August holiday, when many of the people who have expertise on this matter will be sunning themselves in very much nicer climes than most of us could probably afford to visit, before they come back to pronounce. That is a very peculiar way to consult on such an important matter.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend also find it a little strange that there is such a short consultation period when we are talking about a two-year extension? That seems contradictory.
Ms Eagle
I too wanted to ask the Minister this: what on earth is the rush about? One thing about annuitising and pension rules is that she has a little run-in time to consider—at some length—the implications of her proposals. I do not understand why there was such short notice and why the consultation is so rushed. I am forming an impression that the Government have already decided what they are going to do and that the consultation is a sham. If it is, they ought to have the decency to tell us what they have decided and not to consult at all. I would not have thought that the many experts who will be sunning themselves over the August holidays will thank the Government very much for giving them such a short time to respond.
The foreword of the consultation document states:
“The Government wants to foster a new culture of saving in the UK.”
We would all agree with that, and that a rebalancing towards saving is necessary. Therefore, it is important to prioritise large numbers of people saving appropriately. I had a look to see what the Government have done so far to encourage saving, particularly in pensions, which is what annuities are all about. Will the Minister explain quite how reducing public and private pensions by changing their definitions from RPI to CPI helps to increase pension saving? Yesterday, the Daily Mail and various other experts said that that is a raid on people’s pension expectations of more than £100 billion in the private sector, an amount that will accumulate year after year. Can the Minister explain how that encourages pension saving? Will she confirm that the impact assessment in this consultation lets the cat out of the bag when it comes to changing annuitisation rules? We have no particular problem, and certainly no philosophical problem with shifting the age of annuitisation from 75 to 77. Longevity has increased and the last rules—and the age of 75—were set in 1956. Indeed, annuitisation was first made compulsory in the Finance Bill of 1921, which was slightly before my time and I know that it was also before the Minister’s time.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
At a time when we need to encourage more people to make pension provision, does my hon. Friend think that these proposals will help? My concern is that having a minimum might reduce the numbers of people providing for their retirement rather than increase them.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend raises a reasonable point. Changes in this area have to be made very carefully to avoid the law of unintended consequences, especially when large amounts of tax-privileged income are at stake. The Minister knows that, which is why she said that there would be no increase in tax-avoidance opportunities.
Mr Redwood
Can the hon. Lady remind the House how many private sector final salary pension schemes actually closed as a result of the taxes and regulations introduced by the last Government?
Ms Eagle
We would have to have a long debate about a range of issues to answer that, but I am happy to defend our record. The closure of defined-benefit schemes took place for a range of reasons and the closures began in earnest when I was still at school, so I do not take personal responsibility for that.
When we look at the impact assessment, we see that the changes will affect a tiny minority at the very top—a mere 8,000 people on the Government’s estimates, out of 445,000 people who annuitise every year. They will affect only those who can afford to live without touching their pension pot until fully 10 years after retiring. We know that two thirds of people take their annuity upon retirement and that only a much smaller number of people last beyond 70, so the flexibilities that the Government are looking for will be required by only a tiny number of very rich people. The Minister therefore needs to justify why this is a priority and why we need a rushed consultation of only eight weeks over the summer to bring it about.
Mr Redwood
I will be brief, Mr Evans, because I believe that some Members have other things to do later on. I also remind the House that in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests I have explained that I offer business advice to a couple of companies.
I would like to briefly praise the Minister and her team for their proposal. For many years, the Conservatives while in opposition urged the then Labour Government to allow people a bit more flexibility and freedom with their money in retirement. Even now, after the election defeat, the party does not get it. This was not the main reason it lost the election, but it was one of many things where it misread the public mood. People want more freedom and flexibility over their own resources and more control over their own lives, but Labour was always trying to stop them. This is a small but important move, and I think we might find that it affects rather more people than the hon. Lady says—
Mr Redwood
The hon. Lady is protesting. I know it is in the Government document, but I am suggesting that the Government might be wrong and might have underestimated the number—it is extremely difficult to know how many people might take advantage of the provision. I also think it will not necessarily be only rich people who are affected. I know that Labour never wants any successful people to make money and be able to spend their money sensibly.
Justine Greening
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. This provision is a step forward. As he said, it might be a small one, but it is an important one that will open up a flexibility that many whom we want to encourage to start saving for a pension will value, which is why it is important that we take the time to make an early start on this matter.
I want to respond to a couple of the shadow Minister’s points, including the one about the consultation document not being published in good time. This clause allows us to engage in a consultation. It was not necessary to launch the consultation today, but as it was it was launched at 12.30 pm, and by the time we got to the clause it was 5 o’clock—several hours after the document became available—which has meant that we have had a more informed debate today.
Justine Greening
We are getting into the same sort of argument that we had in the previous debate, where if we had put the consultation document up and had not had a sentence on an earlier webpage saying that it was there, we would have been accused of hiding it away. I am afraid that we have to do one before the other, and clearly in this case we decided to put out the statement that the consultation was going up on the website, and then we put it there, which is where it has been since 12.30 pm.
Whatever the bluster from the Opposition Benches, it cannot mask the fact that we are taking a positive step forward on pensions today. We have launched what I think will be a landmark consultation. Clause 6 and schedule 3 will give us the time to get that consultation right over the summer and then bring forward legislation in the forthcoming Finance Bill to ensure that people have more flexibility in dealing with their pensions, because ultimately it is their money, which they have put aside for their retirement. We want them to be able to deal with the pot that they have built up in a way that suits them, rather than in a way that suits the country.
Interestingly, we had a brief discussion about the fact that 75 has been the statutory age for some time. It was first agreed in 1976, which is ironic, given the obviously parallels between Britain then and now, with the Labour Government then having to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund and going on to leave a desolated economy. We are ensuring that we have sustainable finances in our country over the coming years, so hopefully we will reach a different end point from that of that Labour Government.
I very much welcome the fact that the shadow Minister nevertheless supports the consultation going ahead, and I can assure her that we are going to get on with it. We believe that eight weeks is plenty of time to get a response, given that the issue is one that people have been pressing Governments past—and now present—to address. We are a new Government, so we are getting on with adopting a new and improved approach to annuities and pensions, as we can see from today’s debate. I therefore very much hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, so that the clause and the consultation can improve the legislation, creating more flexibility in pension law for the people who so badly need it.
Ms Eagle
I am not really that satisfied with the answers that the hon. Lady has given, as she will not be surprised to hear, after that brief reprise of the 1970s. My information is that the Finance Act 1921 introduced compulsory annuitisation and that the current age of 75 was introduced in 1956, which was a Conservative time, not a Labour time.
Regardless of the Minister’s point scoring, however, it is important that we take an appropriate amount of time to see how any changes to the annuitisation regime might work in practice. The Opposition have no objection to the idea of having a higher age. However, there is some scepticism about the practicality of having a minimum retirement income and how it might be worked out, although that is part of the consultation, which no doubt we will now all be struggling with over August. It is a shame that the information was not available in a more timely fashion, so that we could have done more preparation for this debate. Because the amendment seeks more information and because the Government seem to be rushing ahead so precipitously, we would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
Businesses in rural areas will have the opportunity to benefit from the regional growth fund that we are establishing and which will help to support business growth in the regions of the country, particular those areas where dependence on public sector employment is greatest. Also, new businesses in rural areas will benefit from the cut we have announced in national insurance for new employees in new businesses.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Is the Chief Secretary aware that, as part of the growth drive, the Treasury has set up a spending challenge website asking for ideas and assistance for the future, and that it is currently featuring issues such as sterilising the poor; reopening the workhouses; asking single parents who cannot finance their children to terminate the pregnancy; benefit claimants to work in sweatshops; and immigrants to be moved out of cities? Is he happy that such racist and offensive drivel is being hosted by one of his websites, and will he give the House an undertaking that the site will be moderated and that this stuff will be removed immediately?
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, in answering the question, will focus his remarks on the June 2010 Budget.
Finance Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what is being discussed, which is no surprise, given the previous Government’s attitude to the idea, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) knows. We are not talking about a VAT derogation; the proposal relates to fuel duty.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I was involved when the Treasury last looked at that idea. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar knows, there are real hardships and we were very sympathetic. However, the Chief Secretary must admit that there are difficulties with developing such a policy, not least because of the potential for smuggling and fraud.
Danny Alexander
The hon. Lady says she was sympathetic—I attended a meeting where she expressed that sympathy—but no action by the previous Government resulted, despite the matter being pressed for a number of years. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will look at all the issues as the question is investigated.
Mr Jones
The increase is going to affect every single organisation that provides public services, including local councils––the increase will cost them a lot of money. As we saw earlier, certain commitments were given on VAT, and I have here the Liberal Democrat poster from 8 April—and I must say that it is very good. I am sorry if I am going to pour more scorn on to the Liberal Democrats, but I enjoy doing it, and I am sure that some of their Tory colleagues will enjoy it as well. The poster says:
“Tory VAT bombshell.
You’d pay £389 more a year in VAT under the Conservatives”.
The Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) made quite a few comments on VAT before the election. He referred to it on the “Today” programme on 7 April 2010, saying that VAT
“let’s remember, is a regressive tax”.
What has changed since then? What is being proposed will affect the poorest in our society.
The Deputy Prime Minister is not the only one who has form in this area. When the then Leader of the Opposition appeared in Exeter in something called Cameron Direct on 8 May 2009, he said:
“You could try as you say put it on VAT, sales tax, but again if you look at the effect of sales tax, it’s very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest. It does, I absolutely promise you.”
So what is different now? What has actually changed, apart from the fact that the Government now have their posteriors on the Treasury Bench and in their ministerial limousines?
Ms Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is making a perfectly good point and an extremely good speech. I should like to update the House about the website of the Deputy Prime Minister. The “Tory VAT bombshell” poster, which was on the website until very recently, has just been removed.
Helen Goodman
The Minister shakes his head. They clearly do not know the answer.
The Conservative-Liberal coalition cannot agree on its environmental policy either, which is presumably why, rather than acting on environmental taxes, we now have yet another commission to look into the climate change levy. Once again, therefore, a potentially progressive measure is being put on the backburner. We do not know when it will happen. We do not know when we will see progress on it.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the unfairness of VAT. The Government claim that they had no choice, but of course they had a choice, and they have made it. Their choice has been to change the national insurance regime and replace the increase in national insurance with an increase in VAT. However, one of the things that the Government will not admit is that VAT is also a tax on jobs. VAT also drives a wedge between the cost on employers for the goods and service that employees buy, and what they pay for them, so the notion that we can have an increase in VAT without seeing an impact on the number of jobs in the economy is yet another fantasy.
The Government have not explained what they are doing about the lower rate of VAT, on essentials, and many Opposition Members would like some clarification on that.
The third and final issue that I would like to discuss is fairness in the income tax and benefits system. The Liberal Democrats say that raising the personal allowance is their major attempt to be fair to poor people. The attempt is being made, but it has not produced the upshot that the Liberal Democrats are looking for. Rather, it has failed, because they have not taken account of the interaction with the tax credit reductions and the cuts in welfare benefits.
The distribution figures on page 66 of the Red Book purport to show what the position in the Budget is. However, a day or so later, we all discovered that chart A2, entitled “Impact of all measures as a per cent of net income by income distribution”, in fact included not just the measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in announcing his June Budget, but the measures taken previously by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, which were jumbled up with them. When those figures were stripped out and separated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we could see that the distributional impacts were totally different. Whereas my right hon. Friend’s Budget took less than 0.5% from the poorest and almost 7% from the richest, the June Budget took 2.5% from the poorest and 0.5% from the richest, so the claim of fairness is completely fraudulent.
Ms Angela Eagle
Has my hon. Friend also noticed that, mysteriously, the tables in the Red Book to which she has referred stop in the financial year 2012-13, which as it happens—I am sure that this is purely coincidental—is just before all the cuts in the public sector happen?
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The major cuts in benefits—in housing benefits, tax credits and benefits affecting families—come in the two final years.
The other thing that Members on the Government Benches simply do not seem to understand is the impact of the changes on work incentives. The Government say that they want to promote a climate for growth. One would think that if they were trying to promote a climate for growth, they would improve work incentives. The Government are about to test to destruction the theory that simply cutting benefits will improve work incentives. That is illustrated in another table in the Red Book—the Red Book is, I have to say, a rather useful document—which shows the changes in the marginal deduction rates. That table shows that almost 100,000 people will see increases in their marginal deduction rates as a result of the Budget—that is, a worsening of their incentives.
The level of transparency in the document is totally inadequate, and it has been extremely difficult to get information out of the Government. However, in conclusion, I would like to ask: what is the balance of risk that the British economy now faces? Is it spiralling inflation or is it deflation? The choice that the Government have made is far more likely to push us towards deflation.
Before he sat down, the Chancellor or the Exchequer said that the richest should pay the most and that the vulnerable would be protected in the Budget. The Government have failed every test. They have not been fair, they have not promoted growth, they are raising far too much money and this Budget will fail the nation.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is a real problem for clubs and small businesses that are not able to reclaim VAT back. It is yet another tax on business.
Ms Angela Eagle
Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that Members on the Government Front Bench seem to be ignorant of the fact that VAT has to be paid by charities?
Barry Gardiner
Not in the slightest. Why should I be surprised? It is what I would expect of Government Front Benchers.
The Child Poverty Action Group has passed its judgment on this “unavoidable” Finance Bill:
“This is a disappointing budget for child poverty and increases the risk of the government failing to meet its 2020 goal of ending child poverty.”
It says:
“The increase in VAT is a regressive measure which will impact hardest on poor families.”
Robert Caro, the great biographer, once wrote:
“It is said that power corrupts: what is more true is that power reveals.”
With the Liberal Democrats, power has certainly revealed. No longer can anyone be excused for thinking that the Lib Dems are progressive and principled. They are regressive, ruthless and prepared to sell out any policy for a whiff of office.
In the course of debate over the past week, Government Members have repeatedly asked Labour Members what we would do. They have suggested that they have taken the unavoidable and necessary action, whereas we would have taken none at all. So I refer them to the Red Book in March, where my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out the swiftest and most straightforward deficit reduction plan that then existed in the G7.
The plan proposed: £3.5 billion of savings by freezing public sector pay—but that of the better paid, rather than of the poorest public sector workers; £1 billion of savings from public sector pensions; £18 billion of savings to capital spending; £11 billion of savings from Whitehall reform; £19 billion in new tax rises; £14 billion of savings from reduced benefit payments as unemployment came down; and £5 billion of savings from programme cuts.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
We have had an interesting debate. We just heard from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) the most amazing reason why debate in the House should be curtailed that I think I have ever heard used in a democracy. I hope we are not going to hear more arguments that debate in the House should be curtailed because of the cost, as that seems rather odd.
I begin my response to a long and illuminating debate by adding my congratulations to those who made their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) gave an extremely entertaining speech about the history of his constituency. He told us that it was better known as the fens, which sounds a lot more exciting than its current name, which if I may say, is rather boring. He then spoke of the history of drainage in the fens and many of the issues that he is confronting as a newly elected Member. I wish him a long and happy membership of the House. He certainly made a good impression with his maiden speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) also made an extremely accomplished maiden speech this evening, paying suitable tribute to both his predecessors, Elliot Morley and Ian Cawsey. He displayed a passion for the constituency that it is now his privilege to represent. He lives there and clearly loves it, and I am sure that we will hear many more such contributions from him.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer)—a chip off the old block—made a characteristically good maiden speech, as did the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). The latter paid a tribute to his predecessor that Labour Members appreciated. I congratulate all hon. Members who made their maiden speeches tonight. I am not sure how many more maiden speeches there are to get through, but I have always enjoyed listening to Members’ first contributions to the House. After many years of listening to such speeches, I have not lost my enthusiasm for them.
The debate was initially joined enthusiastically and with a great deal of energy, but that energy petered out on the Government side of the House halfway through the evening. Instead of the usual to and fro of debate, there was no sign of anyone on the Government side willing to stand up to defend the Finance Bill. Government Members ran out of steam and stopped participating. As the Bill goes to Committee and Report in the next couple of weeks—unusually, that will take place completely on the Floor of the House—I hope they will show a little bit more stamina than they managed to show today, when the debate was somewhat one-sided.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), whom I no longer see in his place, is one of life’s optimists. He told us that we are all far too pessimistic about the state of the economy. To listen to him, one would not have thought that his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench had spent the past few weeks driving down confidence in the economy with the scaremongering tactics they have been using to justify the measures in the Budget.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) on behalf of the Scottish Nationalists, who is a long-standing and experienced contributor to Finance Bill debates. I have served on many Finance Bill Committees with him and, as always, he brought his astute experience and forcefully expressed opinions to the debate. He was especially exercised about the increase in VAT in the Bill which, he said—I have to say I agree with him—contradicts the fairness theme that is purported to run through the Budget. He described it as unforgivable and economically foolish.
We also heard from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) who gave us something of a history lesson and, like so many of his colleagues, foolishly raised the spectre of Greece. They really will have to stop doing that if they are to be reasonable and responsible.
One of the more interesting speeches from those on the Government Benches came from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), whose words we listened to with extreme care given his actions so far in tabling amendments to the Bill. Clearly, he is struggling with the VAT increase. It is worrying him. He said that he did not think the Red Book was accurate in its assessment of VAT as progressive and he raised the tantalising—for me, at any rate—possibility that he might consider amending the Budget in Committee or Report on the Floor of the House. We will certainly wait to see whether he does so, and we will look carefully at the issues that he wishes to raise.
We had a series of speeches from my side of the House, beginning with an extremely eloquent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who talked about how regressive the VAT increase will be. She also said that the banks were being treated softly while industry was being treated relatively badly by the proposals in the Finance Bill.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), both of whom had pertinent critiques of the Budget judgment and the strategy implied by the Bill. We heard a tour de force from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who understandably had a go at the Liberal Democrats for their twisting and turning on VAT. He had some words to say about the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I will come back to.
We heard a superb speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are too many private conversations going on and it is difficult to hear. We are getting near the end and I am sure that hon. Members can wait a little longer.
Ms Eagle
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just mentioning the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—I cannot pronounce the name of his constituency very well, but it is definitely in Scotland. He made a superb speech about the political nature of economics and the attempts that have been made to hide what are basically political choices by describing them as economic imperatives that are somehow objective. He exposed what he called superstitions and myths around that whole area and demolished a lot of the arguments that the Government have been making to justify the Budget judgment in the Finance Bill. In particular, he talked with great wisdom about the paradox of Government thrift, which he pointed out is completely unlike budgeting for households. I look forward to many more such contributions from him as the Bill goes through its stages on the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) also made a good contribution, which I particularly welcome because I enjoyed canvassing with her during her election campaign. She is already well-loved, liked and respected in her constituency. She asked an important question that the House would do well to bear in mind as we consider the policies and legislation before us: where is the justice in the Budget measures, which will hit the poorest hardest? My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) pointed out the perverse glee he perceived among Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members over the pain that will be inflicted through the Budget and this Bill. His speech demonstrated the human face of public sector workers, many of whom have found their reputations decried in the newspapers, and the jobs and the contribution that public sector workers make to our society belittled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) observed that the Budget judgments are very optimistic on jobs and, in particular, growth prospects, and she highlighted the impact on work incentives of some of the policies and Budget changes in the Red Book.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend talks about the judgments and forecasts. I remember, some 20 years ago, the Tories’ favourite forecasting organisation was the London Business School, which The Sunday Times gave 0 out of 10 for its forecasts because they were always completely wrong. Does she think they are wrong on this occasion as well?
Ms Eagle
Time will tell, although there is not widespread acknowledgment in the economic profession that some of the Budget forecasts are right—there is controversy about them. This will play out, however, so we will be able to see who is right in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) talked about the balance of risk in the Budget and the worries about problems with infrastructure investment, the fact that it is being cut in his constituency and the implications for employment incentives. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), with his characteristic ingenuity, managed to bring Harry Potter into our Budget deliberations, pointing out that our choices define who we are. I thought there was going to be a fight between him and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall), who has, I suspect, enjoyed rather a liquid evening. He was dragged off before anything more untoward happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) pointed out the wrong-headedness of the crowding out of private sector investment theory that underlies some of the judgments encompassed in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) made an extremely good speech about the seriousness of the Budget choices and made a good argument that they are wrong in this case.
Today has been quite an interesting day because of what has been happening in the Office for Budget Responsibility as we have been debating the Finance Bill. As we were coming into this debate, it was suddenly announced that Sir Alan Budd, who has become the oracle in the past six weeks, had decided to retire and leave the OBR after a mere three months in charge. That startling piece of information was played down by the Treasury, as one would expect, but it did prevent the Chief Secretary to the Treasury from praying in aid at every verse-end the forecasts that the OBR has produced to justify some of the policy decisions in the Budget.
The official line is that it was all planned in advance—that Sir Alan was always going to be away after he had set up the OBR—and that, somehow, nothing untoward has happened. However, I would be interested to know whether the Minister responding to the debate tonight can cast any further light—in the interests of transparency, of course—on what on earth has been happening with the OBR and, in particular, with Sir Alan Budd.
Chris Leslie
It would certainly be interesting if the Minister could cast some light on that, but would it not also jeopardise the so-called objectivity and independence of the OBR if the Chancellor simply chose Sir Alan Budd’s successor by himself?
Ms Eagle
These are issues to which I am sure we will return when the Bill establishing the OBR on a statutory basis comes before the House. However, following the farrago that we have seen, it is important that this House should establish the principle pretty quickly that the head of the OBR should be appointed by this House and be answerable to it. When the Bill establishing the OBR is published, I certainly hope that it contains that provision.
Kelvin Hopkins
I have a suggestion: might it not be a good idea to appoint Professor David Blanchflower as the head of the OBR?
Mr MacNeil
I am listening to the hon. Lady talking about transparency. In the spirit of transparency, will she honestly, openly and transparently tell the House whether she regrets allowing a rural fuel derogation to the islands of Scotland? Will she be transparent and honest on that simple point about her time in office?
Ms Eagle
I have—and had—a great deal of sympathy for the issues that the hon. Gentleman had raised, which are particularly relevant in the context of the islands that he represents. When one considers extending any potential fuel duty derogation for particular areas to the mainland—that is what was asked about in this case—there are other issues that arise and there are difficulties, as the Chief Secretary will know. We certainly look forward to seeing what he might come up with in his review.
However, I want to return briefly to the OBR and what on earth has been going on there. A great deal has been made of the independent forecasts that the Office for Budget Responsibility published before and after, and which appear in the Red Book. Today, the Treasury has been saying that Sir Alan was only ever going to stay for three months. However, at the event when he was appointed, the Chancellor said:
“Whether I thank him again in a couple of years’ time is another matter”.
The Chancellor clearly felt that Sir Alan was going to stick around for years, yet he is now running off and has resigned within three months. Why has he chosen to leave so quickly, right in the middle of our consideration of the Finance Bill, when so many of the judgments in the Bill are based on his forecasts? Even today, the Chief Secretary was making much of Sir Alan’s forecasts to justify some of the Government decisions that appear in the Bill.
Charlie Elphicke
May I ask the hon. Lady to which clause in the Bill she is referring?
Ms Eagle
Mr Deputy Speaker, it looks like someone is applying for your job. Every clause in the Bill hinges on the forecasts made by the Office for Budget Responsibility that appear in the Red Book. In fact, those forecasts run through every part of this Budget debate like the words in a stick of Blackpool rock. So the hon. Gentleman cannot, in all honesty, however late the hour, try to claim that the points I am making have nothing to do with the Bill before us.
Could it be that Sir Alan has decided to sling his hook because he was forced to become a kind of extension of the Conservative party spin machine last week, when he brought forward that highly contentious explanation—coincidentally just an hour ahead of Prime Minister’s Question Time—of the likely effects of the Budget on jobs? We can only speculate about whether that was the case, but I would be interested to hear whether the Exchequer Secretary is able to shed any light on this matter, in the interest of transparency, when he winds up the debate.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point that we can only speculate on this matter, but it is none the less a worrying one. Given the ham-fisted effort that we have just seen to silence our debate, does she think that it might be better if the Treasury Select Committee agreed to conduct a short inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Sir Alan’s departure?
Ms Eagle
I am sure that the newly elected Chair of the Treasury Select Committee will make up his own mind about that, but it would be interesting to see whether Sir Alan would actually appear before any such inquiry, whether or not he were still in his job.
We have seen a steady unravelling of the central claims contained in the Budget since it was first unveiled to the House just 15 days ago, on 22 June. It was billed as the unavoidable Budget, and this is the legislation that has come from it. The Budget strategy and judgments were presented by the Chancellor and his spin merchants as infallible. The choice that he made was to cut the deficit further and faster, and that was offered as the only possible option. That is why these measures are before us today in the Bill, particularly the VAT increase. The neo-liberal economic ideologues who have seized control of our economic policy are in the grip of their narrow-minded dogma, and they will contemplate no alternative.
In truth, a highly risky political gamble is encompassed in this Bill—and it is a gamble with our social and economic well-being. The Government have made a political choice to eliminate the entire structural deficit by 2014-15—hence the revenue-raising measures in this Bill. This goes further and faster than even the Tory party promised in its election manifesto, and it is certainly against the explicit judgment on the dangers of cutting spending too soon, which was a prominent part of the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos. This worry about the macro-economic risks of targeting the deficit above every other consideration by speeding up its elimination is well represented in the mainstream economic debate, even if it has not featured at all in the Government’s calculations.
The Budget judgment before us tonight is not just pre-Keynesian; it is actually Hooverite. It is not an economic, but a political and ideological, imperative being pursued in this Finance Bill. This is not an unavoidable Budget, but a huge and risky gamble with the recovery. According to the Chancellor, the overriding problem for our economy now is how the bond markets might react to insufficient austerity.
The fact that the deficit hawks have taken over in the European Union and in the G20 does not make their addiction to synchronised fiscal pain any more desirable than it was in the 1930s. It does make it fashionable, but it still may not work. The fact that these huge cuts in demand will be synchronised also increases the dangers of this policy from a macro-economic point of view. There is increasing evidence that the markets are now beginning to worry about the prospects for growth and the likelihood of a return to low or no growth, Japanese-style.
This was also billed as the emergency Budget. It had to take place immediately after the general election, according to our increasingly melodramatic Chancellor, to avoid catastrophic disruption in the bond markets, threatening the very future of our nation. Nothing matters, it seems, except the deficit. Jobs do not matter and unemployment is a price worth paying. The risk to our social fabric does not matter; it can be dismissed as long as the deficit is eliminated.
We all agree that the deficit has to be tackled, and we had set out a path to cut it by 68% by the end of this Parliament. This was prudent and was far less risky to the recovery than the hazardous path that Government parties have now chosen. How odd it is, then, that the result of all the hype about the economic emergency is a very tiny Bill. We have before us an 11-clause Finance Bill; it is just 26 pages long, and nine of them are superfluous because they are reprinted virtually word for word from the VAT section of the Finance Bill 2009.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to warn against the dangers of deflation, which are much more worrying than anything to do with inflation. Is it not even more worrying that the EU nations have collectively decided to cut their deficits, which will just make the problem even worse? Should we not follow the advice of President Obama, who suggested that we still need the fiscal stimulus?
Ms Eagle
There is certainly a respectable mainstream economic argument that synchronised austerity is worse for growth and could achieve the opposite of its intended effects on the deficit by increasing rather than decreasing it. My hon. Friend is exactly right.
Here we have this tiny Bill of 11 clauses. After all the hysteria surrounding its creation, why is it that size? I think there is only one plausible explanation. The Bill before us contains just those measures that the Chancellor must be worrying that the Liberal Democrats will wobble on over the summer recess. I would be the first to admit that size is not everything, but we might reasonably have expected that a more complete set of measures would have been forthcoming if we really were in the emergency economic crisis about which the Chancellor has spent the last few weeks irresponsibly stoking up hysteria. Instead, we have a first instalment of the Finance Bill that has been especially designed to padlock the Liberal Democrats into the coalition so that they cannot get out and cause a mess over the summer. Looking at those on the Government Benches, I have to say that some of them seem to be more willing hostages than the others. The twitching has definitely begun somewhere over there, and we intend to encourage that as the Bill continues its passage through the House.
Other differences between the Government’s rhetoric and the grim reality have become clearer in recent days. We were promised a fair Budget: the Chancellor insisted that we would all be in this together. The Budget, we were told, would be progressive, not regressive, with tax rises evenly distributed among income groups. There would be progressive cuts. The pain of spending cuts would somehow be fairly spread, with the rich bearing their fair share as we all marched together towards the establishment of a zero deficit. One by one, those loud assertions have proved to be utterly false.
In an interview in the News of the World on 13 March, before the election, the Chancellor said:
“We are all in this together. I am not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor”.
Then, on Budget day, he made great play of calculations about the effects of his measures which purported to show that he had delivered on that promise. On closer inspection, however, those assurances dissolved into empty Budget spin. [Interruption.]
Stephen Pound
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would never presume to teach you your job, but some of us on this side of the Chamber are having great difficulty in hearing the priceless words that the shadow Minister is enunciating because of the well-refreshed ejaculations that are coming from those on the Benches opposite.
Ms Eagle
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to put the idea of well-refreshed ejaculations firmly out of my mind.
I was about to discuss the analysis by Howard Reed of Landman Economics and Tim Horton of the Fabian Society of the progressive or regressive nature of the Budget. They calculated the effect of the entire package, not just the tax changes. They included the distribution of the billions of pounds of extra spending cuts that had been announced, and then added an assumption of 25% cuts in departmental budgets. Their calculation showed that the combination of all the measures announced in the Budget that this Bill begins to enact will take £1,514 from the bottom 10% of households, which is fully 21.7% of their income. In sharp contrast, the richest 10% will experience an annual loss in income and services of £2,685, which is the equivalent of just 3.6% of their income. If there were 40% cuts in departmental budgets, as was briefed by the Chancellor and Chief Secretary at the weekend, the figures would be grimmer still.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, commissioned the House of Commons Library to conduct a gender audit of the plans. It revealed that women would bear a disproportionate amount of the pain in the Budget. Of the nearly £8 billion net revenue to be raised by the financial year 2014-15, £6 billion will come from women and just £2 billion from men, despite the fact that women have considerably lower levels of income and wealth than men. The analysis does not include the impact of the savage cuts in public expenditure that the Deputy Prime Minister believes are necessary, and that are now being planned and announced. As women make up more of the public sector work force and rely more on public services, they will be hit harder by the pay freeze, hit harder by the job losses, and hit harder by the decimation of public provision for the needy, especially in their role as carers.
The Chief Secretary purported to rebut that earlier today by reading out a suggestion that the figures were not accurate because they assumed that all the family support is paid to women. It is not true that that assumption was made by the House of Commons Library. However, there are a couple of measures where the House of Commons Library has assumed 100% female receipt of benefits. That is the health in pregnancy grant and the Sure Start maternity grant.
The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats will have to learn that merely asserting as loudly as possible that the measures in the Bill are “progressive” does not make it true. Producing a distributional table on page 67 of the Red Book which appears to show that it is progressive does not make their assertion true either, especially when the Institute for Fiscal Studies demolishes it the next day by pointing out that it included all Labour's key progressive measures enacted before the election to safeguard lower-income groups, and that it conveniently stops in financial year 2012-13, just before all the cuts to family support announced in the Budget are due to be implemented. If the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were so confident that these measures are indeed progressive, they would commit the Government to carry on publishing those tables—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The House must come to order. Members are obviously coming near to the end. If we have a bit more patience, I am sure that we can move on.
Ms Eagle
If those two parties were so confident that these measures are progressive, they would commit the Government to carry on publishing those tables when the cuts really start to bite.
The huge hike in VAT is the regressive centrepiece of this regressive Budget and it features in the Bill. That is despite the fact that before the election the Prime Minister said on 23 April to Jeremy Paxman:
“We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT”,
and the Deputy Prime Minister fronted a huge VAT tax bombshell poster campaign warning about the dangers of electing a Tory Government, which still featured on his website until 9 o’clock this evening: when alerted to its continued presence by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary, someone in the Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency finally did the decent thing and took it down.
Some Liberal Democrat Cabinet Ministers are even now trying to argue that VAT is not as regressive as they thought it was before the election. It seems that there is no limit to the depths that they are prepared to sink to justify the betrayal of their pre-election promises. VAT is regressive. It hits pensioners and those who are too poor to pay any income tax the hardest. Why then have the Government chosen to raise the bulk of their new tax revenue, nearly £13 billion, by using that tax?
We were assured that the cuts would be fairly distributed in a progressive way, but our early experience of the decisions coming out of the Treasury has confirmed our worst fears. The poorest areas have been hardest hit by cuts to discretionary programmes, which were intentionally aimed at areas in the most need.
One of the first cuts that the Government made was to the future jobs fund. That is at a time when we know, thanks to a leaked Treasury document, that the Budget measures alone will destroy 1.3 million jobs in both the public and private sectors and there are 69 students chasing every job. The prediction by the OBR that 2 million private sector jobs will be created in a mere five years is highly suspect, as an analysis by Adam Lent has pointed out. It took seven years after the 1980s recession and nine and a half years after the 1990s recession to create 2 million jobs, and we are expected to believe that the 2 million mark will be surpassed in record quick time despite the global shock of the credit crunch.
What about the sneaky little move from the retail prices index to the much lower consumer prices index as the definition used for benefit indexation? That cuts £6 billion from the benefits bill at the expense of pensioners and the poorest, the most vulnerable in our society. The delay in implementing the VAT increase will ensure that the price inflation it causes—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36), but the Deputy Speaker withheld his assent and declined to put that Question
Mr Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Member is quite entitled to move the closure motion. It is the decision of the Chair whether to accept it, so what I would say is, Angela Eagle, I am sure you must be very near the end of your speech now.
Ms Eagle
I was talking about the sneaky little move from the retail prices index to the much lower consumer prices index as the definition used for benefit indexes. The delay in implementing the VAT increase will ensure that the price inflation it causes is not reflected in this year’s indexation cost, which is another sneaky saving from the poorest that the Government hope no one will notice.
This Finance Bill is a risky ideological experiment that will inflict real pain and suffering on those who did not cause the credit crunch. The Bill is regressive not progressive, it is deeply unfair and it is taking a huge gamble with an economic recovery that is not yet assured—we intend to oppose it.