Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

First, the right hon. Gentleman has misquoted the IMF. Perhaps he will give the House the full quotation. The IMF did not say “at present”, which the right hon. Gentleman slipped into the quotation. [Interruption.] Perhaps he will take the opportunity to correct the record later. Secondly, the IMF said:

“Strong fiscal consolidation is underway and remains essential”.

The managing director of the IMF could not have been stronger in his endorsement through article IV.

I note that three Opposition Front Benchers have asked questions, and that not one has mentioned the new policy of the shadow Chancellor.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of trends in the rate of inflation.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of trends in the rate of inflation.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government consider a range of factors when making their assessment of the United Kingdom economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility is responsible for producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts. The OBR published a full analysis of recent developments and the prospects for growth and inflation in its forecast at the time of the Budget.

[Angela Smith]

Do the Minister and the rest of the Front-Bench team now regret raising VAT at a time of rising commodity prices, which has helped to push inflation up to double the Government’s target rate and has added to the squeeze on pensioners and families?

[Mr Gauke]

First, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said that he would have done the same. Secondly, a cut in VAT would do nothing to reverse the rise in global commodity prices, but would do a lot to reverse the Government’s hard-won credibility for getting the deficit down.

Amendment of the Law

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful with boastful interventions. Let me read out a quotation:

“The measures we have taken have been commended by international bodies such as the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the IMF and the OECD. They have also won the approval of the international markets.”

That is the financial statement of 9 December 2009 from the Irish Finance Minister. He is no longer in office, because he had OECD and IMF approval for a policy that drove unemployment up, growth down, confidence down and the deficit up. Does that not sound somewhat familiar? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a third intervention, I shall happily take it, but perhaps he should reflect a little further before he puts out his next press release.

The Chancellor said yesterday that this was not a tax-raising Budget and he did not need to ask for a penny more. However, when we study the details of the Red Book—in table 2.1 on personal tax, the tax cuts from the personal allowance and the tax increases from the switch to the consumer prices index, and changes to national insurance contributions—we find that the tax increases are bigger than the tax cuts. That is the fact. The increase in the personal allowance, which the Liberal Democrats boasted about with such enthusiasm yesterday, is completely crushed by the CPI increase: that is there in the Red Book. The Chancellor said that he would not come along and mislead the House in his Budget, but that is exactly what he did.

We also found out that because the Government changed the indexation of national insurance and the personal allowance, and because many people in our country—disproportionately women—are in part-time work and on low wages, and pay national insurance but not income tax, yesterday was a tax rise for 400,000 of the lowest-paid workers in our country, disproportionately women and part-time workers. That never made it into the Chancellor’s speech, nor did he say that the personal allowance changes were worth £48 a year, but the VAT rise will cost the average family with children £450; that never cropped up in the speech either. Nor did he point out that the upgrading of the GDP deflator—the inflation measure—means that despite the Prime Minister’s promises last year that NHS spending would rise in real terms year by year, it will actually fall year by year. That is another broken promise from the Prime Minister.

Many business people will be asking, “Why didn’t we have a Budget that did a bit more for growth?” It looks as if I was right in Treasury questions on Tuesday when I suggested to the Chancellor that his growth strategy was so flimsy he needed to beef it up, because he has now cut corporation tax by 1p, which is welcome, and is paying for it through measures on tax avoidance, which is also welcome. However, paragraph B.13 of the OBR’s Budget document reads:

“The OBR was notified of the change to corporation tax and the 1p cut in fuel duty…too late to incorporate any indirect effect of these measures in the economy forecast.”

I do not think he told the OBR until the afternoon before. However, it was able to give some clarity. It said that it believed that

“any such effects would have been minimal.”

This growth strategy has been produced with fanfare and much delay, but since publication his own independent auditor, the OBR, has said that it will have no impact on growth and jobs in our economy. Is that not the reality?

An alternative was open to the Chancellor, and it was one that I have set down. He could have decided to follow the American example and cut the deficit at a steadier pace in order to strengthen growth and lower unemployment.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Moody’s credit rating agency warned today that the UK’s triple A credit rating could be affected by slower growth. Does that not undermine entirely the Conservative party’s too-fast, too-deep cuts strategy and show that growth is the important aspect of this country’s economic policy?

[Ed Balls]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point. I was tempted earlier to go down that road, because the fact is that in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the credit rating agencies entirely failed to spot the financial crisis in the first place. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats are keen to quote credit agencies when they support their case, but not when they do not support their case. The truth is that the credit agencies failed in the crisis, and quoting them at all is very risky indeed.

As I said, the Chancellor should have adopted our plan for deficit reduction, growth and jobs. He also ought to have adopted our plan to repeat the bank bonus tax for a second year, and used it to give immediate help to young people and jobs, rather than cancelling—in fact abolishing—the future jobs fund. As I have also argued, he should have cut VAT on fuel. That would have been a fairer and more substantial approach. However, the fact is that this year, as a result of the Chancellor’s tax decisions in the Budget, fuel tax will not fall; it will rise by 2p per litre. That is the reality.

The Chancellor should have reversed the VAT rise. That was a big mistake. Two years ago, when we proposed a cut in VAT, which got growth moving and unemployment down, he said, “People won’t notice the VAT cuts.” I am sure that he did not notice them himself, and he probably thinks that people will not notice the VAT rise either. The fact is, however, that with consumer confidence and growth down, and unemployment up, people are noticing what is happening and what he is doing. That is why they are so worried.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

The claim to be the greenest Government ever has been vindicated in significant part by some of the key announcements in the Budget—of, for instance, the establishment of the carbon floor price, which is the first effective carbon tax system in the world, and the green investment bank, to which the hon. Lady referred. It has been made clear for the first time that it will be a proper bank—a borrowing bank—although, as a public sector institution, it will have to reflect the position of the public finances.

[Angela Smith]

The carbon floor price, which the Secretary of State has just mentioned, could threaten the international competitiveness of key intensive energy users such as the steel, glass, paper and ceramics industries. How will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that growth does not suffer as a result of the policy?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I have already spoken to representatives of the steel industry about precisely that issue.

The Budget referred to the climate change agreements and to more extensive relief. Energy-intensive industries are an issue, but any Government who are serious about carbon reduction will have to deal with such industries in a balanced way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

All I can say about the contribution from the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) is that it is a bit rich to hear her talk about the stance and policies of the Opposition when she represents a party that, over the years, has perfected and polished the art of opposition based on opportunism.

Some Budgets are remembered for decades to come. Some are instantly forgotten, and some are seen as a missed opportunity. I suppose that only time will tell how this Budget will be remembered. However, my best guess is that it will be seen as a missed opportunity to turn on to a different road that would lead to jobs, growth and long-term sustainable investment in our future.

Yesterday, we needed to see a change of direction, but what we got was more of the same from the Tories. Unemployment is now at its highest level for 17 years, and even more worrying is the latest youth unemployment figure, which now stands at 1 million. That is not only a tragedy for the individuals involved but a national catastrophe. The promise to help 100,000 youngsters is welcome, but it goes nowhere near far enough. It also raises the question of why the Chancellor abolished the future jobs fund last summer, condemning many of our young people to a bleak future. The real fear is that this Government are creating another lost generation, to go with the one that they created in the 1980s. That is my generation, and it has never recovered from the years of Thatcherism. If that happens, the Government will deserve all the scorn that will be directed at them.

Yesterday, we needed to hear how the Government were going to help to get people back to work, but, unfortunately, we heard very little of that. What is being offered pales into insignificance when compared with what the Chancellor has already done to damage our prospects for growth. The fact is that £80 billion is being taken out of the economy over the next four years as a result of the comprehensive spending review. That is twice the amount that we believe to be sustainable.

The 1.2% growth in the economy experienced in the spring of last year vanished in the cold of winter, to the extent that the economy contracted by 0.6% in the last quarter. With the first quarter figures for this year not expected to be much better, there is a real possibility of the country slipping back into the danger zone. Consumer confidence is at its lowest level ever, unemployment is on the up, living costs are squeezing people’s incomes hard, and the full ferocity of the spending cuts will start to bite in April, which is just a few days away.

All these factors have led the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to revise downwards its growth forecast for 2011, from 2.3% when this Government took power, to 2.1% after the emergency Budget, and now to 1.7%. Many people expect even that figure to prove optimistic, with the possibility of growth being even lower over the next couple of years. Even if the OBR is right, the lower growth figures will have dire consequences for people’s jobs and living standards. It is already being said that lower growth figures will add £10 billion a year to Government spending, because of increases in unemployment and welfare benefit costs. To me, that is the economics of the madhouse.

It does not have to be like this. In countries such as America, growth estimates are being revised upwards, not downwards. However, according to Mervyn King himself, we are now seeing the longest fall in disposable income since the 1920s as a result of this Chancellor’s policies, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies is saying that households will be 6% worse off than they would have expected to be for the period from 2008 to 2011.

There is more to come, with cuts in housing benefit and tax credits in April. Tax credits played an important role in cushioning people during the recession. They provided a cushion for many people who were put on short working hours and had their incomes cut following the financial crisis. I saw men at Corus being put on short time to save the company, and Corus was able to do that successfully, with the co-operation of the union, because tax credits helped to keep those men’s incomes at a high enough level to prevent them from hitting the poverty line.

On top of those cuts, many people are being badly affected by inflation, which is now running at 5.5% on the retail prices index, which is more indicative of the situation. That is much higher than the Chancellor’s initial forecast. We know that one of the reasons for that is the rise in VAT to 20% in January. When they were in opposition, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats promised that they would not raise VAT. It is no wonder that consumer confidence has fallen to record low levels over the last few months, yet this Budget does not offer any help for hard-pressed people who are struggling to cope.

While the increase in personal allowances is to be welcomed, it in no way fully compensates for the previous increases in VAT and other tax rises being implemented. In a sleight of hand, the Chancellor has moved the uprating of tax allowances, as we now know, from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, which will cost every taxpayer dearly and bring in an extra £l billion to the Treasury by the end of the Parliament—more than covering the increase in personal allowances.

Even the Institute of Directors, not generally given to rigorous criticism of the Conservatives, commented recently that average earnings were falling and that household disposable income faced a big squeeze. It concluded that this was, at best,

“the jobless and joyless recovery”—

not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Chancellor’s policies.

This Budget gave the Government the chance to alter course, to reflect on a vastly changing global situation, to calmly look at the evidence and to realise that the country is not recovering. They talk about rebalancing the economy, and they could have changed their minds and invested in Sheffield Forgemasters rather than leave it hanging in the wind, but that is what they did.

What we have had instead from this Budget is the same old Tories making the same old mistakes and it is the ordinary people who will suffer with their jobs. We have a politically motivated Chancellor who is making cuts now to offer tax cuts at the next election. This is a Chancellor who puts his party and his politics first and the economic situation and prospects for the country last. The Chancellor said this Budget was all about growth, but independent growth forecasts have downgraded the prospects for it. In my opinion, this Budget is a missed opportunity to invest in the UK, to rebalance the economy and to help hard-pressed families all around the country to make ends meet. There is no doubt that the Chancellor’s policies are hurting, but in the end, just as under Thatcher, we will not see them working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Before I make my substantive point, let me make two observations, on growth and employment and on business confidence.

I do not think there is any disagreement between the two sides of the House on the need to reduce our debts. The controversial issue is the time frame within which we should do that. If we want to reduce the deficit, we will obviously need to produce growth and jobs, because people who are out of work do not pay income tax and we have to pay benefit. I believe that the cost of every 100,000 people out of work is about £500 million in benefit payments. According to the latest figures, 4,000 people in my constituency are claiming jobseeker’s allowance. I hope that we can get them back to work very soon.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s downgrading of the growth forecast has been widely reported, but its revision of its autumn estimate of the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants has not been commented on. The OBR revised upwards its forecast of the number of JSA claimants in this year and the following four years. For this year, unemployment has been revised upwards, and the number of people claiming JSA has been revised up by 50,000 compared with the autumn forecast. For next year, the forecast has been revised up by 120,000, and for 2013 it has been revised up by 130,000.

[Angela Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that such statistics say nothing about the tragedy that unemployment visits on the lives of individuals, and especially on the lives of our young people and on their prospects for the future?

[Mr Umunna]

I absolutely agree. As a former employment lawyer, I am well aware of the huge impact that loss of work has on individuals and their families.

We are entitled to ask why the unemployment forecasts have been revised upwards. That has happened because of sluggish growth, and the OBR’s autumn forecast clearly states that the sluggish growth has been caused in no small part by the extreme fiscal consolidation embarked on by the Government. Therefore, there are more people out of work, claiming benefit and not paying income tax due to the policies of this Government. The OBR has said that.

The Chancellor’s strategy on business confidence and investment is clear. As the Government hack off chunks of the public sector—causing, of course, mass public sector job losses—he says that the private sector will automatically step in to fill the gap, and he foresees private sector growth fuelled by a boom in exports and business investment. Business confidence is key, and since this Government took office confidence has fallen. The latest Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and Grant Thornton UK business confidence monitor shows a continuing downward trend in business confidence in this country for the fourth consecutive quarter. I sincerely hope that that confidence returns, because the people in the communities I represent in Streatham and parts of Clapham, Balham, Tulse Hill and Brixton will be among those who suffer.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

In 2007-08, the UK debt stood at 36.5% of GDP. In 1997, at the end of the last Tory Government, it was 42%. Does that fact not expose as meaningless spin the Government’s line on the record of the Labour Government?

[Danny Alexander]

I think that that is a classic statement of deficit denial. The hon. Lady has to recognise that we are spending £150 billion more than we raise in tax—the largest budget deficit in the European Union and the largest in our country’s history.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Chief Secretary give way?

[Danny Alexander]

I will not.

We also have the largest budget deficit in the G20. Those are the facts that the hon. Lady should understand.

[Angela Smith]

Will the Chief Secretary give way?

[Danny Alexander]

I will not give way again, I am going to press on.

The Chancellor’s statement set out the level of departmental spending for the next four years. I will not repeat every decision now, but of course I am happy to take interventions. [Hon. Members: “You’re not!”] I have taken a great deal of interventions, and I will take a few more later. Instead, I want to focus on our priorities: growth, fairness and reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Last Wednesday, the Chancellor took a huge gamble on the future of the UK economy. The CSR statement, coupled with the June Budget, will take a staggering £80 billion out of our economy over the review period. Never before has any Chancellor cut so deeply and so quickly.

The people who will pay the price for that squeeze on the state will not be the 18 or so millionaires who sit around the Cabinet table. No, the price for the Chancellor’s gamble will be paid by people on council estates who will see rents rise dramatically, civil servants in my constituency who will lose their jobs and students who will see their debts treble.

We all agree that the deficit needs to be reduced to a sustainable level, but that should not be at the risk of weakening an already fragile economic position, and it must be based on a strategy for growth and jobs—a strategy absent from the Chancellor’s statement. The facts are that the Chancellor is hoping that export volumes will rise significantly over the period covered by the review. At the same time, according to the Chancellor’s own figures, the economy will have to find an extra 2.5 million private sector jobs in the next five years.

To put that into perspective, during the last recession the UK managed to create 1.2 million jobs between 1993 and 1999. To get anywhere near the target that the Government have set themselves will require investment and an export boom on a scale that has never been achieved before—a point underlined recently by many political and economic commentators, including the well respected Will Hutton.

Although the £200 million to establish the elite research centres is certainly welcome and nothing new to us in south Yorkshire, where we already have the advanced manufacturing research centre, this investment is nowhere near enough, in the context of the sheer scale of the growth required, to rebalance the economy.

It is also important to remember at this point that the Government have already failed a key test on the support that they are prepared to give the private sector. In June they withdrew a Government commitment to fund the £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters. Although I will not go into the stupidity of that decision now, it is clear, as the Business Secretary said in the Select Committee recently, that the nuclear reactor components at the heart of the proposed investment will now have to be manufactured abroad, and the UK will lose millions of pounds of exports to our international competitors. Surely that is not the way to go about rebalancing our economy.

How will 40% of cuts in funding to the higher education sector help to rebalance the economy? All that will do is damage our economic future. Also in further education, the Government are abolishing the education maintenance allowance, which has been recognised by many as a success. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is so obviously a thorn in the side of the Deputy Prime Minister, said that since the allowance was introduced, attainment at GCSE and A-level by recipients of EMA has risen by five to seven percentage points, and by even more for those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods.

That evidence is reinforced by college principals, who believe that many young people will not be able to stay in education and training without EMA, so why have the Government withdrawn a scheme which, in the great scale of things, costs relatively little and helps to give so many young people the skills desperately needed, if the Government are genuine about rebalancing the economy?

It is clear that the Government believe that private sector growth will, over the period, pull our economy on an upwards trajectory. I hope the Government have got that right, but I fear not. I fear that in a few months they will come back to the Chamber to revise the figures as the economy goes into a death spiral, and they will tell us that they cannot deliver the £17 billion savings and the cuts that they announced last week. That will not be achievable because unemployment will rise. The CSR is bad for Britain and bad for our economy. They should think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

We have had a very good debate on the Government’s spending review, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed.

Last week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stood in the House and set out a clear plan to pull Britain back from the brink, to deal with our debts and to put our nation’s finances back on a sustainable path. When we came to power, we inherited an economy that was on its knees and took over from a Government with no clear plan for getting it up and running. There was no strategy for recovery and no ideas for reform, and not a single penny of savings had been identified. If Opposition Members would like to intervene to tell me which of our spending cuts they would like to support, I would be very happy to take the intervention right now.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) talked about the March Budget, but it was a Budget and a plan that the British people rejected at the ballot box. While the Opposition are in denial, they will have no prospect of coming up with a plan to solve the grave problems that this country faces following 13 years of their being in government.

We took over when our country was borrowing £1 for every £4 it spent. We were running the highest deficit in our peacetime history and the highest in the G20. Britain was not living within her means, and the world knew it, as my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for Central Devon (Mel Stride) pointed out. In fact, the previous year, the International Monetary Fund warned that we needed to accelerate deficit reduction. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, that was critical to getting our country’s finances back on track.

In May we announced immediate reductions in in-year spending, avoiding the sovereign debt crisis that was engulfing the eurozone. In June, we set out our emergency Budget, returning credibility to the nation’s finances, and this October we have had the spending review, bringing years of irresponsible borrowing to an end and giving our country the best chance of keeping interest rates low, stimulating business investment and keeping mortgage rates low, and so helping families.

We have had to tackle the deficit—it has been unavoidable. However, we have chosen to spend the money that we have on the areas that matter most to Britain, which are the education of our children, the health care of our people and the infrastructure that sustains a prosperous economy. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, underpinning all our decisions have been three guiding principles: first, the need to support growth; secondly, that our choices are fair; and thirdly, that we deliver reforms to our public services, making them fit for the 21st century. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) pointed out, those principles were entirely missing in the last Government’s comprehensive spending review of 2007.

[Angela Smith]

Can the Economic Secretary give us any indication of the evidence that the Government have used to rely on the creation of 2.5 million new jobs in the private sector over the next five years?

[Justine Greening]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have set up the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is an independent office. It is the OBR that is predicting year-on-year falling unemployment and rising employment. I hear Opposition Members talking about 480,000 or 490,000 public sector job losses, but I am afraid they have to consider that the same report assesses that 1.6 million jobs will be created in the private sector. They cannot have it both ways.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

This is the first opportunity that I have had to debate with the shadow Chancellor from this side of the Dispatch Box. May I start by paying tribute to him? I have always said publicly, and am happy to continue to do so, that in many respects he was one of the people who emerged from the wreckage of the previous Government with an enhanced reputation. He did so for two reasons. First, he inherited an enormous banking crisis that was in part the result of the naivety and negligence of the treatment of banking before he became Chancellor. He dealt with it decisively in the autumn of 2008, through liquidity and part nationalisation, and I reassert that he deserves credit for that. Secondly, he has at his core a strong element of honesty and integrity, which occasionally involves him blurting out the truth. There was the famous occasion when he came back from a holiday in the Hebrides and uttered the blasphemous four-letter word “cuts” for the first time, much to the annoyance of his next-door neighbour in Downing street.

The question to which the Government have wanted an answer is this: why were we left £50 billion of cut commitments without any explanation of what they were going to be? On 12 June, the shadow Chancellor gave us an insight into what had been going on. He said:

“I wanted to show more examples of what we could cut, and more examples of what we could switch. But there was a more limited appetite for that than you might think.”

It was not just the appetite of his then next-door neighbour, who is now being blamed for everything, that was limited. I think that there was a limited appetite here and there, and as a result we have been left with the responsibility of spelling out what those painful cuts are.

There is another comment which is not a direct quote of the shadow Chancellor, and he might not even have said it, but let me give it to the House, as I think it reflects quite well on him. He is said to have made an insightful observation on the nature of sovereign debt crises. Apparently, he told the Cabinet, “The ice seems solid the moment before it cracks.” That captures beautifully the dilemma that the Government now face with a sovereign debt crisis in the background. I wish to return to that issue, but first I will briefly answer the technical points that he threw in at the end of his speech.

As I understand it, the French-German proposal is a balance sheet levy similar to what is happening here. The proposals relating to regional rebalancing, which are an important part of the Government’s proposals, have two elements: £5,000 relief from employer national insurance contributions for new companies with up to 10 employees outside the east, the south-east and London, and a fund that will be distributed on the basis of bids received for good projects, especially those with a high-technology and environmental component. The details on that will emerge in due course.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Why, if the Government are so keen on rebalancing the economy regionally, did they turn down the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Lady knows the reason; it has been explained several times. A lot of questions had to be asked about the affordability, value for money and risk of that project. What was a very highly geared project promised extraordinary rates of return to the private promoter. We looked carefully at all the evidence, and the project clearly had positive aspects, but we decided that in the circumstances of a Government with highly constrained public finances, we could not support it.

[Angela Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vince Cable]

I have answered the question; I do not want to pursue it.

Were the private promoters able to take the project forward, we would be delighted, because as a commercial project it has many attractions. However, the Government could not commit large amounts of money to such a project.

The shadow Chancellor made a series of challenges, which I will take systematically. He asked why we, and I personally, have endorsed austerity policies and especially quick cuts; he asked about the issues around fairness and value added tax, with which I will deal; and he asked about the important economic question of how we get growth emerging from a period of austerity, and I will try to answer that. First, however, let me explain why I changed my mind—for I did change my mind—about the necessity for early action on the budget deficit. Let me describe the sequence of events, because I think that it is quite important.

As the shadow Chancellor knows, because he was still Chancellor then, when the election took place there was, in the background, a major sovereign debt crisis in Europe. The day after the election, when there was a hung Parliament, the then Prime Minister suggested to me, I think for reasons for courtesy, that I talk to some senior officials in the Government and the governor of the central bank about the existing situation, in order to obtain their assessments of what was going on. I did so. The leader of my party talked to the governor, and I have talked to him since.

The advice that I received, uncompromising and unequivocal, was that the incoming Government, whoever they were—we did not know who they would be at the time—would have to act immediately and decisively on the budget deficit, because there was a serious threat to this country. I took that advice, but was left with a nagging question. The former Chancellor was presumably receiving the same advice. What would he have done? Was he proposing to disregard it? The line of policy that he is developing now suggests that he would have liked to disregard it, but was he going to do so, or was he going to be responsible, accept the advice and act on it? Because he is a responsible and serious man, I think he would have accepted it.

We now know, because the figures are becoming clear, that in the current financial year, when, as the shadow Chancellor said, the economy was fragile, he was introducing a fiscal tightening of £23 billion. The new Government have introduced a tightening of £6 billion. The last Government did not announce that fiscal tightening—it emerged in the small print from the Institute for Fiscal Studies—but the shadow Chancellor did it, and he clearly did it with good reason. The problem was that it was never clear what the Government were doing, it was done in a very chaotic way, and some Ministers—including Lord Mandelson, my predecessor—plainly wanted to support the Chancellor and to act in the public interest, and got on with those cuts. When I entered the Department, people such as further education lecturers and scientists were being made redundant as a result of the measures that had already been initiated by the Government in response to the crisis that they knew existed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana R. Johnson]

If the hon. Gentleman talks to the electorate in Yorkshire, he will find they express a different view. He might also find that the views of his electorate have changed considerably since they heard the Budget.

[Angela Smith]

To underline that point, I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the feelings of the people of Sheffield. They write to the local newspaper every day to say that the Deputy Prime Minister will pay the price.

[Diana R. Johnson]

That is absolutely right. We have seen a political blind date, but we should not worry because it is clear that Dave agrees with Nick, and that Nick agrees with Dave, so perhaps it will be okay in the end.

There are a few measures in the Budget that I can support, such as the change to capital gains tax and the bankers levy, although I am surprised that the levy will raise only about £2 billion because I think we could raise much more. However, the broad thrust of the Budget is very bad news for my constituents. Hull North will see more individuals out of work, with people’s opportunities wrecked and a decline in their quality of life. The programme of fighting child poverty and inequality will go backwards, not forwards, and there will be big problems in health and housing. Most importantly, wealth creation and enterprise will suffer in Yorkshire.

I want to talk about four things in particular: the rewriting of the history of the economic situation by the Conservatives and Lib Dems; the dogma that drives the Budget; my constituency, and Yorkshire and the Humber; and Labour’s approach to dealing with the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

I am worried by the rewriting of the economic history of the recession and the falsification of the cause of the deficit. We know that the Prime Minister is familiar with airbrushing, and his deputy routinely airbrushes away more than 100 years of his party’s history when it suits him. The deficit was caused not by big government, but by big greed. Bankers and international speculators are at its root.

In 2006 and 2007, I was fortunate to be the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), whom I was pleased to see back in the Chamber today. During that time, early work was being carried out on the current 2008 to 2011 public spending period. We had enjoyed a decade of low inflation, steady growth and falling unemployment, and there was no serious deficit problem. At that time, the present Prime Minister and Chancellor used a soundbite about sharing the proceeds of growth. They also said that they wanted to match the Labour Government’s spending plans up to 2011, as they kept saying until the end of 2008.

We all realised at that time that the spending round would need to be tighter than the one immediately after the millennium, but the adjustment was not remotely on the scale of the deficit in the public finances that opened up from 2008. The events of the two years that followed came about because of the greed-fuelled banking crisis that tipped the world into the worst recession since the 1930s. It is wrong to airbrush out what happened, to blame the problem on big government, and to be oblivious to the fact that public services are important not just for fighting poverty and inequality, and for providing opportunity, but for an efficient, growing, modern economy. Since the middle of 2007, taxpayers have had to pay to rescue the banking system—and not just in Britain—but now hard-working families and public service workers are being asked to pay again because of the greed of the bankers and the speculators.

The Budget is driven by dogma, not good housekeeping. It cuts too early and too deep, and it will hold back growth, which my party saw as the main engine for cutting the deficit. We know that further cuts will follow, including departmental cuts of up to 25%, but I think that the coalition Government will make further cuts again and again, meaning that we have a spiral of cuts and debt.

When Labour was in office, the Chancellor berated our Government for not mending the roof while the sun was shining, but it now seems that he is up the ladder removing the slates as the storm clouds of a double-dip recession gather on the horizon. In Hull, we need public services and investment. They are important to the local economy. The coalition cuts, however, will harm our quality of life. The Tories said in the past—I think that they still say this—that mass unemployment is a price worth paying. The market zealots on the Government Benches who said for years that they wanted less regulation of the markets and smaller government are now getting their way.

[Diana R. Johnson]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members vociferously argued in the House year after year that there should be less regulation of the financial markets. They criticised the Labour Chancellor and Government for the regulations that they introduced. The hon. Gentleman has a rather selective memory of his party’s position in the late 1990s.

I fear that Yorkshire and the Humber will bear the brunt of the majority of cuts that come out of the Budget. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is in the Chamber. She has been a powerful advocate for her city of Sheffield and wanted to ensure that the sensible arrangements that the Labour Government put in place for Sheffield Forgemasters went ahead. It is shocking that the coalition Government have refused to continue the process. Sheffield Members are making a strong case for the assistance, so it is a shame that the Deputy Prime Minister is out of step with his city colleagues.

[Angela Smith]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the investment offered by the previous Government was covered by an equity stake from Westinghouse, one of the world’s largest nuclear industry companies? Given that that stake reduced the financial risk to the Government, the earlier comments made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills were entirely incorrect.

[Diana R. Johnson]

I am sure that that is absolutely right. I must give credit to our civil service. Civil servants advise Ministers and respect the decisions that they make, but the civil service would have been clear if it thought that the assistance should not go ahead because public money would not be protected as fully as it should be.

I was surprised by the vague way in which the Business Secretary talked about the opportunities that his Department will make available in the regions. He cited just two examples: an incentive on national insurance contributions for small businesses and a proposed fund to be distributed in the regions. There were no details of the fund, however, and it is unsatisfactory that businesses and enterprises in Yorkshire and the Humber have to wait to find out what money might be available to them. That is not good government.

I am sorry that the Business Secretary is not in his place, but perhaps I will get some answers to my questions. First, in view of the cuts to Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency, and the demise of Hull Forward, and given that the Liberal Democrat-controlled council in Hull does not have a great record on regeneration and moving quickly and effectively, how will we be able to promote investment in my city, which still needs public investment to go in, year on year?

Secondly, what will happen to opportunities for those not in education, employment or training with the end of the future jobs fund and cuts to university places? I have the great pleasure of the university of Hull being slap-bang in the middle of my constituency. I am worried about local youngsters in particular not being able to access their local university.

How will the region’s construction sector fare, with council house building schemes being cancelled, road schemes threatened and questions still to be answered about flood defence and protection work? Despite the promised good news on port ratings, will the Humber actually get the investment that the Labour Government had identified for the Hull port area and the use of the site for wind turbine manufacturing? That is under review by the coalition, which is worrying, because it might well put off businesses coming to Hull. With the Typhoon fighter project’s future uncertain, what will happen to the skilled jobs at BAE Systems at Brough?

I see other hon. Members from the Yorkshire and the Humber region in the Chamber. What about the reduction or elimination of the Humber bridge tolls, which we were so close to achieving under the previous Government? Those are all questions that will affect the economic viability of Yorkshire and the Humber, and I want some answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I congratulate you on your election, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have spoken with you in the Chair.

First, let me respond to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson). The thrust of her speech was almost entirely, “It’s the banks wot done it,” whereas her party, although in government, did not have a great deal of responsibility. She is right in that the major part of the crisis was brought to a head by the irresponsibility of the banking community throughout the world, especially in the UK, but she is not right to ascribe the whole crisis to that one cause, because there are two more that must be taken into account. Probably the most important—it has driven many of the problems in the economy—is the imbalances in the world economy. I served on the Treasury Committee in the last Parliament, and even before Northern Rock, that was something to which Members from all parties were drawing attention. There is a major structural problem in the world economy, and because of our particular weakness in relation to the financial sector, we suffered more than others.

The second thing that has to be taken into account is the amount of debt in the economy. The point is extremely well made by the chart on page 7, which sets out that relationship, so that one can see the inexorable rise of debt in the financial sector in comparison with debt in non-financial companies and households. If I remember the figures correctly, over the past 50 years or so, the consolidated balance sheet of the financial industry has gone from roughly half of GDP to five times GDP. That is the core of the problem: at every level in society we have been living beyond our means, and it is necessary to deal with that.

I want to focus mainly on enterprise, growth and rebalancing the economy, but I should like to make one or two general points about the Budget as a whole. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) is not in the Chamber now, but having shadowed him as a Minister in several Departments in the last two Parliaments, and having dealt with him in the Treasury Committee, I have great respect for him, and I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about his integrity. He was given a hospital pass when he accepted the keys to No. 11, and it is to his credit that he managed to stay on his feet. None the less there have been some significant mistakes, to which I shall allude.

Looking at the Budget as a whole, I ask myself two questions. First, how would I feel about the Budget if I were sitting in my old home on the Opposition Benches? Secondly, how would I feel about the Budget if I were sitting on the Government Benches supporting a wholly Liberal Democrat Government? We can all have aspirations. Let me answer the first question. I would feel extremely cross, deeply angry and irritated, because I would see a Budget that contained a mass of things for which I had just campaigned and which I had proposed to my constituents as things I wanted to do in government—so I would have been sitting on the Opposition Benches powerless, while whoever was in government was introducing all the measures for which I had fought. I would say to myself, “How on earth do I oppose that?” but I would not be able to come up with much of an answer.

[Angela Smith]

I wonder therefore whether the hon. Gentleman campaigned against Lib Dem policy in the election, and campaigned for massive cuts to the economy now rather than later.

[John Thurso]

As a matter of fact, given my experience on the Treasury Committee, I was extremely careful about what I said. I stated my preferences, but I also stated the principles underlying them; I shall come on to that in a moment. First, however, let me answer my second rhetorical question, which requires a little more consideration. The first thing that I would look at—this pertains to what the hon. Lady was asking—would be whether the deficit needs to be dealt with now in depth. I shall draw guidance from my experience as a member of the Treasury Committee and from my own experience of rescuing nearly bankrupt companies in the past.

In past three years or so on the Select Committee, I observed how often Members in all parts of the House were behind the curve in estimating the scale of the problem. When we looked at Northern Rock in our report “The run on the Rock”, it took time to perceive not only the scale of what happened at that institution but the fact that it was a precursor or early symptom of what was to come later in 2008. I remember the Governor telling us quite late in 2008 how this was a financial crisis that he hoped would not get into the real economy. Looking back, one has to say that that was a false hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I rather wish that I had not given way for that intervention, but, frankly, it says more about the hon. Gentleman than about the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whom I regard as having the greater stature because of what he has done.

I am amazed that the shadow Chancellor can conclude that severe action did not need to be taken to deal with our deficit. If we had not begun to take such action, the international markets would have taken the lead. Spot interest rates and bond rates would rise sharply. The cost of financing the huge deficit that we inherited would rise substantially. Business failures would accelerate. Unemployment would rise. Ultimately, by not taking the action that we have taken, we would return to recession. I completely take the opposite view from that of Opposition Members, who have said that we do not need to deal with deficit in the way we have now done.

Those siren voices of the Opposition would have led us into greater trouble than we are in now. What we see from the Opposition is a legacy where the gap between the rich and the poor grew in their 13 years in government. I would be bitterly disappointed if the Government’s actions do not lead to the economy being immeasurably stronger in five years’ time. We can then start to reduce that gap and put money into poor communities, exactly as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) wants us to do, so that we can start to benefit some of the poorest people in society.

It was a huge tribute to the Chancellor that he said time after time yesterday that he wanted to bring the bottom of this country nearer to the top, with some of the measures that underlie the Budget—for example, how he will deal with the state pension. Opposition Members had 13 years to deal with the state pension. More than 1 million pensioners had to go grovelling to the Government and to fill in huge forms to get pension credit. We have now promised that everyone will receive a pension increase linked to earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is higher. That is real promise. Pensioners can now look forward to receiving at least a 2.5% increase from 2011.

[Angela Smith]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government legislated to make the link between pensions and earnings possible in 2008, and that we were timetabled to introduce that in 2012. Will he confirm his Government’s intention to pay the winter fuel allowance next year at the same level as we paid it to our pensioners last year?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I remind the hon. Lady that the Labour party won the election in 1997. The Labour Government had between 1997 and 2008 to do something about that, but meanwhile more than 1 million pensioners had to go through means-testing and fill out huge forms to get pension credit. A considerable number did not want to claim the credit, because they were too proud to do so, and they therefore lived in poverty. In the first few weeks of this new Government, pensioners have got a better deal than at any point under the 13 years of the previous Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she was upbraided by Mr Deputy Speaker a little while ago—it takes a long time to sort out parliamentary language, and references to “you” and the “hon. Gentleman”. She is absolutely right. I was modelling my remarks exactly on Digby Jones, who did a huge amount of work for this country, and spent an enormous amount of time travelling around the world. He had great, in-depth knowledge of huge sections of industry, having served as chairman of the CBI. We need to appoint someone of that calibre, who has the time, energy and availability to be able to do precisely that job.

As I said, the notion that RDAs should have offices around the world competing with one another led to a huge dilution of the UK brand. It caused confusion in the country in which they were located, and it did not serve our interests of attracting foreign direct investment to this country. I have no doubt that Ministers will abolish that structure rapidly, thereby producing much better results. I welcome the proposals for local enterprise partnerships, which are a huge step forward. We can help the private sector by not having a stratified structure of RDAs across the country. We need different structures in different parts of the country, to deal with the problems in each area. We must concentrate Government advice on business sectors, rather than on regions. It was complete nonsense that the Government’s car adviser was based in the north-east, unable to give advice to car manufacturers and component suppliers in Birmingham. We must concentrate on sectors, so that the automotive sector, for example, has a proper advice team in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

We must try to support those sectors that the UK is good at, and see how we can improve their export structure. I say this with hesitation at the moment, but our oil sector was respected throughout the world. Our pharmaceuticals, defence and financial services sectors were respected throughout the world, too, and in line with Sir James Dyson’s recommendations, we must aim to become the No.1 high-tech exporter in Europe. We will do that by concentrating on the new, high-growth market sectors, such as those involving low-carbon and green technologies. Those are the industries of the future, and we ought to concentrate on them. We must also ensure that our universities and their basic research are world-beating, and that companies have the incentive to develop those world-beating ideas into products and services that we can sell in greater and greater quantities throughout the world.

[Angela Smith]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the potential of our export and manufacturing sectors, but does he support nuclear power, nuclear energy and the supply of components to the nuclear energy industry as one of those sectors that are important for our future?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am very grateful for that intervention. I have always been a supporter of nuclear power, and I am one of the very few Members who have been to Chernobyl and survived, so I can see what goes wrong in the nuclear sector. However, with modern technology—I say this carefully—I can see that the nuclear sector has an important role to play in the range and mix of our power generation.

The Labour Government left us with another really dire legacy, however, because if we do not introduce nuclear power generation to this country I do not see how we can keep the lights going in the next 20 years—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats had different views, but they have looked at the problem and signed up to a nuclear power programme, and I congratulate them on that, because it is the right thing to do. We in this House should not come up with ideological dogma; we should all look at the facts and see what is the correct thing to do, which is—[Interruption.] It is all very well the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointing at the Liberal Democrats, but we in the Conservative party have had to swallow things that we do not like. We have looked at the facts and seen the correct thing to do. Therefore, I support nuclear power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

May I join those who have congratulated you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker? If I may give the House an update on the score in the England match, it is still 1-0. I think it is no coincidence that I am surrounded by an unusually large number of Welsh and Scottish colleagues. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important Budget debate—the most important in more than 30 years.

Thirty years ago, in 1979, I was a young slip of a thing—only 17 or 18 years old—and I remember what I saw in the following years. I am not going to have a go at the record of the previous Tory Government, so those on the Government Benches can settle down. In areas such as South Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, we saw huge devastation of our economies. Those of us who know the Don valley—I know that the Economic Secretary knows it very well—from its origins up in the north of Sheffield and in Barnsley through to Doncaster will remember the devastation of that lunar landscape: that is the only term that could have been used at one point to describe the lower Don valley. We saw the flattening of Hatfield, where now we have the Meadowhall shopping centre, and the devastation—as in the valleys of Wales—caused to other south Yorkshire valleys such as the Dearne valley. Where there were the pits of Manvers, Wath and Cortonwood, we now have a Morrisons supermarket and a retail centre.

I well remember all that. I remember, too, the work that we have done since then to try to repair the damage. We have tried to diversify our economies in the north of England—in places such as south Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire. To some extent we have succeeded. We have biosciences, sport and leisure, and retail—and we still have advanced manufacturing.

We were making progress, albeit very slowly, on reducing the gap in economic growth and prosperity between London and the south-east and places such as Yorkshire and the Humber, but what is happening now poses a new threat to our economy in the north. If we suffer significant damage yet again because of a return to recession, the fear is that that damage will be permanent and irreparable, and that we will be unable to move forward as we had previously hoped without even more funding—significant funding—from Government and Europe. That is the context to today’s debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that the impact of the Budget on individuals and communities must be at the forefront of our minds.

Unfortunately, the Budget is a wasted opportunity to help the British economy on the road to recovery. Instead of investment and the promise of future jobs, we have a Budget of cuts for the poorest and regressive tax increases—a Budget that risks our future. The race to austerity that the Government seem determined to follow belongs to a lesser-known branch of economics called ignorance economics, as Leslie Budd of the Open university calls it. As he correctly points out, although it is sensible to cut waste, the slashing of spending can do much more harm than good. That is what the Budget, with its massive cuts to public spending, will do.

Unprotected Departments could have real-terms cuts of 25% over the next four years. The key question is this: how many nurses, police officers, teachers and other civil servants will be thrown on to the scrap heap in the years and months to come? How fair is it that one of the significant cuts in the local government budget will be in the area-based grant? Sheffield Hallam is one of the richest constituencies in the country, and Sheffield Brightside one of the poorest. The gap has decreased in the past 13 years, but there is still a 14-year difference in life expectancy between those constituencies. The abolition of the area-based grant will hit Brightside, but it will not hit Hallam in any way at all. How can that be fair?

The pupil premium has been promised, but we are hearing that it will be based on the abolition of additional educational needs funding and vulnerable children’s grants. If we roll that funding up into a pupil premium, will it be distributed fairly, or will more of it go to the south of England at the expense of the north?

Although I welcome, and offer my support for, the increase in personal allowances from next April, it will be more than wiped out by the regressive increase in VAT to 20% from January next year. There is no rise in the personal allowances for over-65s, which will disappoint many of my older constituents—indeed, I received an e-mail on that subject just this morning. That gives the lie to the argument that the Budget is all about fairness. Although the confirmation of Labour’s policy of linking the state pension to average earnings is welcome—it builds on policies developed by the Labour Government—not increasing the personal allowance for pensioners in line with those for everyone else is just wrong.

It is obvious that the Prime Minister’s words before the election—never mind the Deputy Prime Minister’s words—that he had no plans for an increase in VAT were as worthless as similar words spoken back in 1979. I remember very clearly that in 1979 the Conservatives said they would not double VAT. The first thing they did on coming into office was increasing VAT from 8% to 15%. That was not quite double, but it might as well have been.

When there is a need to maintain demand in the economy, the Budget risks squeezing demand and creating a double-dip recession, which could be worse than the one that we recently experienced. Let us get rid of the myth that the public sector is bad and that only the private sector can get the economy growing again. The balance has to be right, as we in south Yorkshire know better than others; we know it all too well. However, the two sectors are interlinked. Private companies benefit from Government investment, which is why we brought forward the capital projects—to keep the economy moving and to keep construction workers in work. Ensuring that the private sector works with the public sector can give us growth.

Let us also demolish the myth that only by putting forward austerity measures will we see growth in the economy. The lessons of the 1930s show that not to be true. Although the 1929 crash dealt a massive blow to the global economy, it was the neo-liberal austerity budgets that followed that led to a vicious decline in international economic activity, leading to protectionism, a collapse in world trade and depression. My fear—it is shared, I think, by every Opposition Member—is that that is exactly where we will go. We have seen austerity measures introduced not just by the UK, but by Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain. The House ought to think carefully before going down that path. It was only after the new deal in America that growth started to return in the 1930s. Sadly, Government Members do not seem able to learn the lessons of that period in our history.

The current rhetoric from Government Members is, “Look at what Canada did!” It has been mentioned already by Labour Members that Canada’s actions in the 1990s to wipe out its sovereign debt were taken in a completely different context. Canada was able to reduce interest rates quickly, and had a route for its exports in a booming US economy, because the value of the Canadian dollar was allowed to fall. Interestingly, Canada once again has a large public debt and is not considering the reckless action that the Government are pursuing. Those options are not sensible or credible in the current situation.

Let us also bury the myth about Greece. The UK is not in the same position as Greece. In 300 years of national debt, the UK has never defaulted on its sovereign debt. The UK’s debt has a long time to run, with an average of 14 years to maturity—twice as long as most other European countries—which means that the UK needs to finance much less of its debt in any given year and, therefore, is much less sensitive to rising interest rates.

We hear from the Liberal Democrats that fairness is important, and yet they now say that it is right that public sector workers should see real cuts in wages, while capital gains tax rises by only 10% for higher rate taxpayers. They also say now that VAT should rise to 20%, which they once said would be totally unfair on the poor. The Liberal Democrat way now is that it is right to cut benefits by £11 billion for the poorest in our society. Where is the fairness in that? Members can use as many words as they like and whatever sophistry they like, but they will not persuade the British people of the credibility of their position if they say one thing one minute, and another thing the next, just because they have taken the reins of power.

Where is the fairness in freezing child benefit for the next three years—a benefit that is often the only one paid directly to women and mothers? When that is coupled with the reduction in tax credits, many of my constituents will see that this is not a fair Budget. It is a regressive Budget that I believe will get the reception is deserves.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if the interest payments on our existing loans, which are approaching £40 billion a year, were half that amount, we would not be in our present situation, and we would be able to spend the money on the things that she is now suggesting?

[Angela Smith]

As I think I said earlier, equating the national economy to a household budget has already been declared by many respected economists to be ignorance economics. It has been discredited by respected economists throughout the world, including economists of the centre right in the United States who recognise the lessons of the 1930s and recognise that we need investment and public spending to bring back growth and jobs.

However, the question is whether the Budget is needed. According to the new body set up by the Government—the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I think we all support—the economy is in growth. OBR statements make it clear that the previous Government’s spending plans were credible and would have reduced the deficit gradually, over a four-year period. I believe, as I think everyone on the Labour Benches believes, that that was a sensible course forward. Therefore, it has to be said that the reason why the Government are pursuing this path is ideological dogma. They are cutting for the sake of cutting, in an ideological drive towards the small state. The language of the TaxPayers Alliance is alive and well in the corridors of power, but it is cloaked in the language of “Needs must”.

The prospect of a race to austerity is so worrying that President Obama’s Administration in the US have felt it necessary to write to the leaders of the G20 countries urging them to continue with the economic stimulus—something with which, as I have mentioned, many economists agree. Although the help for new start-up companies in the regions and the creation of regional development funds are welcome, those measures will be more than offset by the run-down of the regional development agencies, such as Yorkshire Forward, and the loss of no doubt thousands of public sector jobs. It has been said today in the Financial Times, but let me put it on the record, that the overall impact of the Budget, contrary to statements made yesterday, will be a 60% reduction in capital investment by the Government by 2016.

Let us not think for a minute that this is a Budget for investment. The Government have fallen at the first hurdle on that idea. With the £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, they had the chance to show that they were interested in investing in growth and exports, in state-of-the-art technologies and in UK manufacturing. However, they chose not to do that. The loan would have earned a 3.5% interest rate, and would have involved Westinghouse taking a stake in the company and giving a guarantee of forward orders. It would also have transformed Forgemasters into a major player in the nuclear castings sector. The loan was secured against the company and would have been part of a total package worth around £140 million, with £80 million from the Government on a loan basis.

That would have meant £140 million for Sheffield and UK manufacturing, allowing for the purchase of a 15,000-tonne press capable of making the pressure vessels at the centre of a nuclear power plant. To put things into perspective, the only other company in the world currently making forgings of a sufficient size for the international market is Japan Steel Works, which has recently tripled its capacity in order to make 10 pressure vessels a year. However, 11 new nuclear power stations were commissioned around the world last year, and the pace is accelerating, with 55 reactors in planning at the end of 2009 and more than 30 licence applications under active discussion in the US. Not only that, but with only one company in South Korea and two companies in China now intending to enter the business of making such forgings, any future project for building new nuclear power stations in the UK will have to import pressure vessels.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) said last week on hearing the announcements, the champagne corks will indeed be popping in Japan and South Korea. The investment was not, as the Deputy Prime Minister would have us believe, set up in the dying days of the previous Government. I would testify anywhere, in any court in the land, that those negotiations had been going on for more than two and a half years, and they went through the most rigorous scrutiny possible. The scheme would not only have given value for money; it would have been of major strategic importance to the economic future of advanced manufacturing in the UK. Again as my right hon. Friend said, pulling the plug on that loan is a piece of gratuitous economic vandalism—but then again, what should one expect from a Tory party that almost completely destroyed steel making in south Yorkshire in the 1980s?

We heard a lot in the previous speech, by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), about the importance to the economy of an export-led recovery. I completely agree with what he said, so why did his Government not put the money into Sheffield Forgemasters, as that was all about exports, the future of UK manufacturing and the rebalancing of the UK economy? They turned down the chance to help this economy to recover. They failed the challenge on grounds of—[Interruption.] Well, tell me what the grounds were—ideology, dogma, pressure from Sheffield Forgemasters’ competitors to say no? We would like to hear about them.

If this is an example of the Government’s investment strategy, we should all be worried. For a relatively small loan that carried a commercial rate of interest, the UK would have had a company capable of being at the forefront of the supply chain for the nuclear power industry. It would have created jobs not only in south Yorkshire, but throughout the country. It would have led to high-value exports and secured the future of high-value steelmaking in the UK. Crucially, I know from working with Corus, Forgemasters and Fox Wire in my constituency how important it is for UK steel to stay ahead of the game when it comes to skills and advanced technologies. We cannot compete with China and the rest of the Asian economy on low-value steel casting and steel forging, yet we are giving that advantage to our foreign competitors.

It is also of interest to note that on the day the plug was pulled on the Forgemasters loan, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills confirmed the building of a research ship for £75 million. There is nothing wrong with that investment, and I will support it, but the ship will be built in Spain because there are no longer any British yards capable of building it. The Tory Government of the 1980s decided that investment in shipbuilding was a waste of resources.

We should add to all this the fact that this Government have pulled the future jobs fund and slashed university places by 10,000. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned earlier that he had a relatively elderly constituency. Well, I have a lot of young people in my constituency, and they are worried about whether they will get the places they are looking for in the university system over the next five years or so.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

We are having a history lesson in here, but I think you would agree with me that every time there have been cuts like those in yesterday’s Budget, they have always been on the back of a Labour Government who have brought the country to its knees. I originate from an area similar to your constituency, and I lived in a community that was depleted by the miners’ strike. I saw exactly what it did to my community, but what has to be addressed here is the fact that that was then, but this is now. This country is on its knees as a result of the Labour Administration. You are in complete denial that this has happened. It has taken a coalition Government with a Conservative Prime Minister to try to put some equilibrium back into the country and into the politics of this House.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I want to be helpful to the Chamber by explaining that when hon. Members make their contributions, they address the Chair. When hon. Members say “you”, they mean the occupant of Chair—and according to parliamentary convention, the Chair should not be blamed for everything. Also, interventions should be brief.

[Angela Smith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. All that I would say about the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is that the recession was caused by the collapse of the global economy, and principally by the bankers. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come and have a look at the ex-mining and ex-steelworking areas of my constituency, I could show him how much progress was being made in repairing the damage and how much that repair is now at risk because of the policies pursued by this Government.

I fear the worst for the young of our country. The 1980s saw the creation of a lost generation, and we are still feeling the effects. I believe this coalition will create yet another lost generation. I fear for the poor, the sick, the unemployed, the elderly and the hard-working public sector. Now we are getting to know just what the “big society” is all about. It is about an ideological drive towards a US-style small state; it is about people being left on their own; it is about the poor and the disadvantaged being left to help themselves; it is a return to the days we thought had been left far behind when the previous Tory Government left office. The only surprise is that this time they are being aided and abetted by the Lib Dems. That just goes to show that, as we have always suspected in south Yorkshire, the Lib Dems are yellow Tories at heart.

Increasingly, when I look at the Lib Dems in government, I am reminded of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. The pigs, led by Napoleon, campaign for an overthrow of the old politics on the farm. Gradually, however, the pigs morph into the humans they once despised, and their slogan of “Four legs good, two legs bad” changes to “Four legs good, two legs better”. In Sheffield, we are all aware that our Napoleon has started walking on two legs. The Deputy Prime Minister is a Tory in all but name, and we fear the consequences of his betrayal for our economy, both regionally and nationally. He should hang his head in shame.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Evennett]

Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is history repeating, is it not? I am sure that pensioners in my constituency and across the country will be pleased by the triple lock, whereby the basic state pension will rise by whichever is the higher out of earnings, prices measured by consumer price inflation or 2.5%. That is good news. One would not believe on listening to the Opposition that there was any good news at all in the Budget, but there is. We will never have pensioners getting a meagre increase of 75p on the basic pension, as happened one year under Labour. That was an insult and the pensioners knew it. We will not allow that to be repeated.

[Angela Smith]

I will be one of the first to admit that the 75p increase was a mistake. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, under the Budget, the means of raising the money to bring in the link to earnings a year early might be raising the age at which women can claim the state pension?

[Mr Evennett]

It is nice to hear the hon. Lady admit that the Labour Government did something wrong. I do not think we have had one word like that today, and I have sat through the whole debate. One would think that Labour Members thought that everything they did was wonderful, but in their heart of hearts they know the truth: there were mistakes. We are endeavouring to rectify those mistakes to make sure that those who are vulnerable, such as the elderly, have the dignity in old age that they deserve, and we passionately support and believe in that.

Fairness is key in the tax changes. Far too many people on low incomes pay too much tax. When I was in this place under the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, people on low incomes paid low tax, but in the past 13 years, because of the policies of the last Prime Minister, including when he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Labour managed to push more people into tax than ever before—people on low incomes who should never have been paying the level of tax they were. Five or six weeks into office, this Government are already taking action in the Budget to deal with the awful situation of people on low incomes having to pay tax.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The best thing that we can do to increase growth and create jobs in this country is tackle the enormous budget deficit that we inherited from the previous Government. By taking firm action to reduce the deficit, we can restore confidence in the economy and help the private sector to create jobs. That is what we need to do.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters was an investment designed to encourage the growth of the advanced manufacturing sector of the economy, not just across south Yorkshire but across the UK as a whole. Will the Government bear in mind that investment, and the long-term context, when they make a decision on the future of that loan?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, and I have certainly heard what she said. Obviously, we are reassessing carefully projects approved by the previous Government between 1 January and the election, and we will make an announcement in the near future.