The Economy
Debate between Angela Eagle and Matt Hancock(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living
Debate between Angela Eagle and Matt Hancock(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]
Debate between Angela Eagle and Matt Hancock(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Bill makes changes to the responsibilities exercised by the Treasury in fiscal policy making, establishes the interim Office for Budget Responsibility on a permanent statutory footing and modernises the governance arrangements of the National Audit Office. I wish to make it clear at the outset that we support the sensible changes to the governance of the NAO which, as the Minister pointed out, are proposed in parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. We do so not least because they were our reforms. As she was good enough to observe, we set them out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill towards the end of the previous Parliament. As someone who has served three times as a member of the Public Accounts Committee—once in opposition, once in government and once as a Treasury Minister—I am glad to see the reforms getting on to the statute book, despite the extra obstacle presented by the intervention of a general election. I also wish to thank the Minister and the Government for the open mind that they showed to Labour amendments during the passage of the Bill in the Lords. I hope that she will show a similar approach to the amendments that we will table in Committee.
The creation of the OBR seeks to apply to one narrow part of the UK’s fiscal institutions some of the autonomy that Labour brought to monetary policy when we made the Bank of England independent—of course, we took steps to make the Office for National Statistics independent too. As the House of Commons Library has pointed out, there are examples of similar bodies in other countries. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Hungary, Holland, Slovenia, Sweden and the USA all have some arrangements for independence in forecasting and analysis of the national fiscal situation.
The reform was initially sold by the Chancellor, with much fanfare, as one that would take the politics out of economic forecasting. In doing that, he gave the entirely false implication that previous Ministers had somehow been instructing hapless officials in the Treasury to produce incorrect but politically convenient forecasts. The reality is that the previous Government published a range for gross domestic product growth, and in all the years before the crash on only two occasions did growth fall below the range that the Treasury published. In the other years, the figure fell either within the range or above it, thus showing that we were exercising caution. We were not fiddling the figures. That level of accuracy is about all that any of us can expect from economic forecasting, which is a notoriously unreliable art rather than an objective science. Let me share a quote with the House:
“Economic forecasting, by its very nature, is subject to uncertainty. Our judgement is that, at this stage of the economic cycle, the outlook is even more uncertain than usual.”
That was the OBR’s comment on its forecasts in June 2010.
However, I have found evidence of one occasion when a Chancellor overruled the Government’s forecasters, and the House may be interested to hear about it. In 1996, the then Chancellor, who is now the Secretary of State for Justice, was reported to have increased the growth forecast from 2.5% to 3% in order to make way for pre-election tax cuts. The chief forecaster he overruled was, by some odd coincidence, Sir Alan Budd, the curiously short-lived first head of the interim OBR.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am sure that the hon. Lady was not about to move on from talking about forecasts having spoken only about growth forecasts, not about the previous Government’s dreadful record on fiscal and deficit forecasts.
Ms Eagle
The important thing to note about forecasts, particularly those on the tax take, is that it is difficult to be accurate with them. When I served on the Treasury Committee prior to becoming a Treasury Minister, there was comment on how accurately the Treasury was able to forecast the tax take. Clearly, it is more art than science, so the House would be mistaken to believe that because something has been forecast, it is automatically an objective certainty. Those of us who deal with these issues, on both sides of the House, know that forecasting the economy can be as uncertain as forecasting the weather—Michael Fish found out how uncertain that can be one night. Forecasts are what they are; they can sometimes be wrong and sometimes they can be accurate. I honestly think that, in general—I am not making a party political point—the Treasury has a reasonably good record on forecasting.
Matthew Hancock
I enjoy debating with the hon. Lady, so I am extremely grateful to her for giving way. She has just prayed in aid the OBR, saying that it had forecast that the deficit would fall, but she has also said that under the Government’s plan the deficit will not fall. The OBR’s forecast is based on the Government’s plan, so does she agree with herself or not?
Ms Eagle
This is how we can get into difficulty with forecasts, which are static when they are made but apply to a dynamic situation. The hon. Gentleman knows, for example, that our debates in the House are, in part, about the effects on growth of a drastic fiscal consolidation. Our contention has always been that cutting too far too fast will suppress growth to such an extent that the deficit reductions that were hoped for will not come about. That is an essential part of the economic debate that, as far as I can see, we have been having since the Budget in June last year.
Forecasts can be affected by subsequent events and by Government policies. That demonstrates that what matters most is not forecasting for its own sake, but the judgment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, and the extreme fiscal choices that they have made.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Debate between Angela Eagle and Matt Hancock(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
Hon. Members
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.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Debate between Angela Eagle and Matt Hancock(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman has not been here all day, so I will not give way to him.
In the pre-Budget report, Sir Alan Budd was obliged to point out that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor was being too pessimistic—those who know him are not always surprised by that—and that on almost every measure, the public finances are in better, not worse, shape than we expected at the time of the March Budget. Unemployment, Sir Alan revealed, would be 200,000 lower than expected, and tax revenues would be much stronger than forecast. Thus the borrowing forecast was £8.4 billion lower this year than predicted in March, and £22 billion lower by 2014-15.
Ms Eagle
No.
No amount—[Interruption.] Conservative Members have had all day to peddle their view of what is happening to the economy. I am now responding to that, and they have to sit and listen whether they like it or not.
No amount of Orwellian double-speak emanating from No. 10 or No. 11 can cover up the basic fact that things are not worse as far as the deficit is concerned, but better. Shorn of the prearranged excuse for ratcheting up the pain levels in his austerity Budget, the Chancellor has been exposed as a small-state ideologue and a true child of the 1980s. He has imposed the most brutal cuts in public spending that the country has ever experienced in peacetime for reasons of dogmatic delusion, not economic necessity. The Tories are doing this not because they have to, but because they want to. They have made a political choice, not an economic choice, and we will see the results of their return to their Thatcherite roots.
There is no electoral mandate for the economically dubious dance with dogma that is at the Budget’s intellectual core. The majority of the electorate voted for parties that did not want to make immediate cuts at a time when the recovery was not locked in and our major EU trading partners were seeing their upturns falter. Those who voted Lib Dem did not expect their chosen party to experience a wholesale conversion to Tory fiscal hawkery after a quick cup of tea with the Governor of the Bank of England. They feel betrayed—and they have been.
Make no mistake: this is a very Tory Budget. It contains the largest spending cuts in our peacetime history, focused on the neediest areas of the country. It brings about a huge rise in the most regressive tax available, which will hit the poorest hardest. The decision to attempt to eliminate an 8% structural deficit in five years, and the choice of a ratio of 77% spending cuts to 23% tax rises, are more brutal than Mrs Thatcher ever dreamed of. The Chancellor has paraded Canada and Sweden as examples to follow, but as Will Hutton recently pointed out, the plans for fiscal consolidation in the Budget are three times tougher than those achieved in Sweden and twice as tough as the Canadian example. Sweden took 15 years to achieve 20% cuts in some departmental spending, but this Tory-led Government want to cut 25% in five years.
The lesson from Japan is that it is positively dangerous to attempt radical fiscal consolidation when the private sector is deleveraging, so why are the Government prepared to risk making the same mistake? Because of its error, Japan experienced a lost decade of growth and achieved the opposite of its intentions: not a shrinking deficit, but an increasing one. The Budget contains no strategy for growth beyond the usual tired old Tory refrain that the private sector will fill the gap. That is not a growth strategy, but a statement of blind economic faith that might or might not be fulfilled.
It has taken a mere two days for the pitifully thin Lib Dem veneer attached to the Budget to flake off completely. The Lib Dem leader promised us “progressive cuts”, but the devastating analysis of the IFS has put paid to that absurd and oxymoronic phrase. When we take out Labour’s remaining Budget changes, this Budget is deeply regressive, and it gets more regressive as the years go on and the huge cuts in welfare support and tax credits bite. It is now clear what the Deputy Prime Minister means by progressive cuts: he will cut this year, cut more next year, and cut even more the year after that. His phrase is true, when it is taken literally.
A Budget that targets £6 billion of cuts on the most vulnerable, including pensioners, by delinking benefit uprating from the retail prices index, yet hits banks with only a £2 billion levy that is being given back through corporation tax, is not sharing the pain. A huge hike in VAT that hits the poorest hardest is not sharing the pain. A deliberate decision to destroy large swathes of social support, and cutting support for the jobless and home owners when they are most under pressure, is not sharing the pain. The choices in the Budget make it abundantly clear that we are not all in this together.
Today’s Financial Times carries an article that states:
“Ministers warn that they may have to tear up some untargeted welfare promises—such as the £4bn spent on subsidising bus travel, winter fuel and television licences for older people…One minister said that such a move was ‘almost certain’”.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said today that he would not allow that to happen. Well, if he wants to stop that betrayal, he has to table those amendments and carry his Lib Dem colleagues through the Lobby with us to stop this Conservative-led Budget doing even more damage. We look forward to seeing him in there with us.