Public Accounts Committee

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge). She is the first woman—indeed, the first elected—Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and that is a unique combination. She is also one of the bravest politicians in the House, and anybody who has seen the magnificent election battle that she undertook in her constituency against the British National party may well understand why permanent secretaries might be worried about appearing before her at the Committee.

It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), but he needs to remind me to give him a lecture on Scottish geography. He always tells me that he knows a bit about Scotland, but I must tell him that, although Edinburgh and Stirling have castles, Stirling has by far the best, and it, as opposed to Edinburgh, has me as its MP. I forgive him, however, because I admire the skill and tenacity that he brings to the Committee, and he is a role model for us all.

I am not a new Member, but as someone who has been here since 1957—[Interruption.] It sometimes feels like that. As someone who has been here since 1997, I am asked by some colleagues, “Why do you want to go on to the PAC?” The Committee has an image deficit, and, although in various analyses of our work we are called the “queen of Committees”, we are still a bit of a mystery to the majority of our colleagues. Indeed, today’s attendance shows that we will remain a mystery for another few months at least.

On the PAC, one walks in the footsteps of history. I learned more about William Ewart Gladstone in my first few weeks on the Committee than I ever did taking an honours degree in history at Glasgow university, and all sorts of historical anecdotes add to, if not the glamour, then the attraction of being a member. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking mentioned Harold Wilson. One of the anecdotes that delights me most was the fact that, when he was shadow Chancellor, he decided that he also wanted to be Chair—he would have been a Chairman in those days, of course—of the Public Accounts Committee. In some ways, that was breaking new ground. Such a decision tuned in with Harold Wilson’s desire to consolidate his portfolio, so that he could ensure he was in control of all the strategic decisions that had to be made within the Labour party at that time. Ben Pimlott, his biographer, states that such a decision also had a practical benefit because, at a time when accommodation at the Palace of Westminster was not available for senior Opposition Front Benchers, the PAC Chairman was provided with his own room—a citadel of great importance in Westminster’s psychological battleground. My right hon. Friend has maintained the image of that citadel in the Upper Committee corridor.

Of course, the Committee does not consider the formulation or the merits of policy; it focuses very much on value-for-money criteria that are based on economy, efficiency and effectiveness, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk mentioned. Those are the three by-words that should determine how we judge the reports that come before us. In many respects, such an approach is almost counter-intuitive for politicians because we spend most of our time discussing and developing policy. However, as at least one previous Labour Prime Minister has commented, it is no use throwing money at something unless it guarantees the delivery of the objectives. I fully understood that cry of frustration in relation to one report we considered in the Committee. I shall come on to that in a moment.

We have gelled reasonably well as a Committee. There is a mixture of people who have longevity in the House, people who have longevity in membership of the Committee and people who have more recently joined this place. We bring to the Committee a range of external work experience, which allows us to question things in a way rooted in some sort of credibility in managing finances. As a Committee, we have a breadth of experience that allows us to challenge even the most eloquent of the accounting officers who appear before us. Although the subject is sometimes considered to be rather dry, we have developed a passion for our discussions with witnesses. Certainly, anyone present at our sittings this week would have noted that both energy and passion are in abundance in Room 15—anyone who follows our deliberations will have that confirmed.

In my brief contribution, I want to highlight three things that I have drawn from my short experience as a Committee member. The first relates to the lessons that we can learn from discussions on the reports and the Committee’s conclusions. Some of these issues have been the subject of previous debates—indeed, I think the hon. Member for South Norfolk has probably raised them—but they do need repeating. There is still a concern, which I hope is shared by most of my colleagues on the Committee, that the recruitment and training of civil servants has not kept pace with some of the issues, particularly that of financial responsibility. There has been an increase in training and personal development, which is welcome, but it astonished me to find out that, for example, it was only a couple of years ago when a financially qualified senior civil servant was recruited by the Ministry of Defence.

Sir Gus O’Donnell stated at a recent hearing that the British civil service has always prided itself on recruiting,

“the brightest and the best”

and on making people skilled generalists. I am not suggesting in any way that we stop recruiting those exceptionally bright people, but we also need to recognise that, in delivering projects efficiently, effectively and economically, they need to be managed properly. Will the Minister address that issue in his comments at the end of the debate and tell us what Departments are doing to enhance the training opportunities for those who undertake project management? It is not fair to the taxpayer or, indeed, to the individual civil servant for us to assume that people can manage complex and expensive projects without having the appropriate skills from the very day on which they assume responsibility for that work. With complex financial projects, learning on the job is simply not good enough.

Another point that has emerged from our discussions is how lessons are disseminated—or not, whichever is the case—across Government Departments. How does this happen currently? I get the feeling that permanent secretaries talk about it when they meet, and I understand that they meet on a regular basis. But is it a structured discussion? Is it then cascaded down to other colleagues in their Departments? Is it a learning experience only for them and their senior officials, or is it used as a corporate opportunity to change the way in which the service as a whole develops? I would like to get a feel for how we spread the word of good practice across all Departments.

Before I leave this part of my speech, I want to comment on one Department where people have tended to get it right—not always, but probably in the majority of cases—and that is the Department for Work and Pensions. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, I have a special interest in that Department having been a Minister there for more than three years. I was delighted to hear from the retiring permanent secretary about the implementation of the new employment and support allowance IT platforms. I remember this particularly because as a Minister, when we had discussions on that project in undertaking the development work that led to the Welfare Reform Act 2007, we were told that, yes, it was “stretching”, but those officials immediately started to look at ways in which they could deliver it.

I know that there are good officials in all Whitehall Departments, but the one distinguishing feature of the DWP and its senior management team is that they tend to “grow” their own people. Officials at the DWP have come through the ranks. They understand the business, and they have had to deal with real people and solve real problems throughout their civil service career. I was pleased to note that the permanent secretary who was retiring indicated that the new perm sec, Terry Moran, follows in that tradition as someone who joined the Department as a 16-year-old in Blackpool, as I remember. That is an indication of how Departments can get it right. The DWP is not perfect, by any manner of means, but on average it tends to be a bit better in delivering some of its projects.

I want briefly to mention two specific reports and Committee sessions: first, on the academies programme, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking also mentioned; and, secondly, on tackling health inequalities. On the first, it was a joy to be present at that discussion. Unlike the current proposals, about which I have grave misgivings on a political level, this programme was intended to improve the performance of so-called failing schools still within the state system and directly managed by the Department of Education. The NAO report clearly indicates that most academies are achieving increased academic success and that Ofsted reports are, in the main, good. There are, of course, imperfections—the report did not say that things were perfect—but in delivering effectively, economically and efficiently, the Department is doing reasonably well.

It was no surprise to discover that one of the reasons that happened was that one person, in the shape of Lord Adonis, was there at the inception of the idea and through to the delivery of the project. Consistent and persistent political overview obviously helped. In the same vein, we need to look to consistent and persistent senior responsible officials to deliver some of these complicated reports.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady may be aware that a previous NAO report seen by the previous PAC established that Excellence in Cities, which was a predecessor programme, achieved equally good results at far less cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

I am speaking purely of the report that was in front of us, but I accept that there may have been other approaches. I was using the point as an illustration, not a comparison.

[Mr Bacon]

I fully accept the right hon. Lady’s point, whether it was meant as an illustration or a comparison. Another interesting facet of the academies programme, which Lord Adonis pointed out to the Committee in a seminar, was that after a relatively short period it was he, as the Minister, who held the collective memory in the Department. All the civil servants who advised him on the programme had been there for less time than him. What does that tell us about how the civil service manages its people?

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Gentleman highlights a recurring concern among Committee members, which is that the tendency to move civil servants around the system so often means that the collective memory is not built up. That was illustrated beautifully in yesterday’s discussions with the people from the MOD. Even in a programme of intermediate length, there had been God knows how many senior responsible officers. That leaves no opportunity to build up the collective memory.

I will take your comments to heart, Mr Deputy Speaker, and will not speak for too much time. However, I wish to highlight one other report that I found outrageous, which was on health inequalities and life expectancy. As the Committee said, the issue of health inequalities is not new. A J Cronin wrote about it in his stories about Dr Finlay and Dr Cameron. We all know about these issues. Although it was officially identified in 1997, our progress in dealing with this problem, which has been staring us in the face, is depressing. There are issues with the approach of general practitioners to those who suffer health disadvantages.

I hope that the new Government will look at the report carefully, because as they reform and change the NHS, they must consider whether they can deal with the inequalities in health across the country, or whether they will reinforce them. For the record, that is one report on which I received positive feedback from people outside this House who are in public health. A colleague in the Scottish Parliament said that it was one of the best reports he had read on the issue.

I will conclude by looking briefly to the future. Parliamentary scrutiny of the taxpayer’s pound will be more challenging. As more services are devolved to commissioning GP practices and thousands of schools, the scale of the audit trail will be breathtaking and value-for-money analyses will be even more complex. I hope that the Minister gives us an understanding of who will be responsible for the spend. Can we expect it to still be the departmental accounting officer, when he or she will have no control once the money leaves the Department? Will we invite school governors and managers, partners in general practices, and chief executives of voluntary organisations to appear before us? This is a question for us all: who carries the can when public money is involved and who pays the price if it all goes wrong? It is bad enough at the moment, when few heads appear to roll even when things go spectacularly wrong. What will it be like when thousands of people are ostensibly responsible for signing taxpayers’ cheques? A taxpayer’s pound is a taxpayer’s pound, whoever spends it. The PAC, along with the NAO and the Government, will have to consider quickly how we will manage our work to ensure that there is still public accountability and that value for money is still identified.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Proposed Public Expenditure Cuts

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. People will remember that, in the mid-1990s, a central part of the then new Labour party’s claim to office was that it was going to reduce the bills for social failure. No doubt that was in all the election addresses that it delivered at the time. It did not do that, however; the welfare bill went up by 45%, and its former leaders are now telling us candidly that they completely failed. We are going to succeed where they failed.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I am always astonished that when Members move over to the Government side of the House, they ask for less spending on welfare than they did when they were on the Opposition side. I was visited on Friday by a severely disabled constituent who was seriously worried about her future. Why has the Chancellor promoted the legitimate debate on welfare reform by contextualising it with reference to those who abuse the system—for whom there is no support on either side of the House—thereby sowing great seeds of concern among many disabled people and their families in the UK today?

[Mr Osborne]

It is difficult to see how we can have a debate on out-of-work benefits and how to reform them without at least addressing the issue of some people who should perhaps be doing more to get into work. Let me stress that we are doing everything we can to make sure that the poorest and the most vulnerable are helped, while rewarding work. If the right hon. Lady or any other Labour Member wants to make a positive contribution or propose a positive plan, we will listen to it.

Finance Bill

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

I will in a moment.

If Members go to the Deputy Prime Minister’s website—for those who do not have the address, let me be helpful, it is nickclegg.co.uk; it is not a site that I visit quite as much as I used to—they will see that that famous poster saying, “Tory VAT bombshell” is still on the website, available to download. The Liberal Democrats cannot kick the habit of saying one thing and doing another.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share the astonishment of the 87% of the electorate in the Chief Secretary’s constituency who did not vote Tory at the last election but see him fronting up a VAT rise to 20%?

[Mr Byrne]

Yes, and the electorate will hold the Chief Secretary to account at the next election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to make a little progress first. [Interruption.] I am not giving way now, but I promise that I will do so. I might even say something that he likes; one never knows. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, I do not think that anyone on either the Conservative Benches or the Liberal Democrat Benches is filled with any enthusiasm for increasing VAT. However, I am not going to rehearse all those arguments, because we know that Labour left the finances in a far worse state than we originally anticipated. The structural deficit is £12 billion greater than we were led to believe, so whichever way we look at it, the options are invidious. A VAT increase has therefore had to be the least worst option, as my hon. Friend has said. There are mitigating factors, because the VAT rise will not come into effect until 2011. Therefore there will be a short-term boost; consumers who want to spend money, particularly on large items, will be able to do so before that increase comes into effect.

[Mrs McGuire]

Is the hon. Lady seriously recommending that to mitigate the impact of the VAT increase to 20%, consumers should wander round Currys and all sorts of other places before Christmas buying up all the washing machines, tumble dryers, fridges and all the rest of it, just to salve her conscience?

[Lorely Burt]

The right hon. Lady answers her own question, although I was just coming on to this subject. When I had lunch with the manager of my local branch of John Lewis last week I asked him what difference the VAT increase would make to purchases at his store. He said, “Well, when it went down it didn’t make a whole lot of difference to sales. When it goes up we don’t necessarily think it’ll make a whole lot of difference, either.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

rose—

[Lorely Burt]

I have given way to the right hon. Lady already, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. It is often forgotten in the discussion on VAT that much of the spending of the richest households is discretionary, while the spending of the poorest households is necessary. That is what the Government propose to tax.

[Mrs McGuire]

Given what my hon. Friend has said, and what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said about the Library note, was she not as surprised as I was that when I asked something similar of the Prime Minister, he tried to suggest that somehow the increase in VAT would not disadvantage the poorest 10% and that the top 10% spent more not only in real terms but as a proportion of their income in VAT? That has obviously been discredited by the Library note.

[Helen Jones]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That serves to show us the ignorance on the Government Benches of the lives of some of the poorest people in this country. I could forgive them if their Budget and Finance Bill were simply the product of ignorance, but they are the product of ideology. It is the Government’s decision to take £40 billion out of the economy, to raise VAT and to cut investment allowances for business, and it is a purely ideological decision. They pin their hopes on an increase in growth, yet even their own leaked Treasury figures tell us that we will lose 1.3 million jobs as a result of these measures, not only in the public sector but in the private sector.

We know already the plans of the Government parties for jobs. They began early on by cutting the future jobs fund—118,000 jobs for young people, 18,000 in a region such as mine, wiped out. I want to quote what the Liberal Democrat candidate in my constituency, described on his leaflet as the strong local candidate, said before the election. He was so strong that he managed to come third in the parliamentary election and third in what was previously a Liberal Democrat council seat. He said:

“Lib Dems believe that if you are unlucky enough to lose your job you should be helped there and then to get another one.”

Yet the measures in the Bill and the Budget will destroy jobs and introduce no measures to create them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is right, but in Canada people fell for the trick, because they cut back and did not reinvest.

The Budget is ideologically driven. It is not about deficit reduction, but about driving down the state and ensuring that we can somehow con the British public into accepting the unthinkable.

We must always have someone with whom to compare ourselves and say, “We could be like that.” The current tendency is to compare us with Greece, whereas in Canada in the 1990s, New Zealand was used an example. The process followed the same pattern as today. The starting point is to convince the public that the debt is so horrendous that there is no alternative to ideologically driven debt reduction; some hon. Members have claimed that today. The next step is to whip up the media and get a friendly think-tank or other supportive organisation to put forward selective facts about the size of the deficit. To crank up the national debt as high as possible, everything is added in, including future private finance initiative funding. Revenue accounting is added to capital costs, without explaining to people that capital investment is investment in this country’s economy. That is how to try to scare the public.

As happened in Canada, the next step is to say that if the cuts are not made, the consequences will be dire. Guess what the Canadian Liberals did? They threatened, “If we don’t do this, the IMF will come in tomorrow.” We heard that during the election campaign. There is nothing new about what is happening here. The Conservative party has clearly copied the Canadian model, and even adopted the playbook. Unfortunately, it has been able to con the Liberal Democrats into being its human shield.

[Mrs McGuire]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the leaks that apparently came out of the Government in the past two or three days concerning 40% cuts are designed to set the context of fear that he is describing? When interviewed at the weekend, one senior Government Minister said that nobody would be asked for 40% cuts, and that that was only scenario planning. Are the Government trying to set the context so that people might be relieved that the cuts are less severe than those paraded in the media?

[Mr Jones]

As a former trade union negotiator, I can tell my right hon. Friend that that is an old trick. People go into negotiations asking for 50% knowing that they will come out with 5%. It is exactly as she portrays.

If anybody wants to read about the Government’s game plan, or war plan, I recommend an excellent book—someone sent me a copy from Canada—called “Shooting the Hippo” by Linda McQuaig. It is nothing to do with wildlife, and I say to the more delicate individuals in the Chamber that it is not actually about murdering hippos, but where the title comes from is interesting. Part of the media hype in Canada centred on the example of the baby hippo that would have to be shot because the zoo could no longer afford the size of compound it needed. We thereby get into a self-fulfilling prophesy, in which there is somehow no alternative.

Hon. Members have mentioned the comparison with Greece; the Canadians used the example of New Zealand. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats have justified the emergency Budget by talking about our “sovereign debt crisis” as though it were the same as Greece’s, or that of some other southern European country. That has been the entire justification for the proposals. The hon. Member for North East Somerset referred to gilts and other investments as though they would be at risk if nothing were done, and actually claimed credit for the Government for the change in the gilt yield. However, the 10-year bond yield in the UK today is around 4.5%, but it actually dropped to 3.5% in February, way before the election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Yes, we did, and that was the responsible thing to do. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out what our Government reductions were going to be.

On the recession, if anyone says we are out of the woods, they should look at the provisional gross domestic product figures: 0.3% growth in the first quarter of this year, and 0.4% growth in the final quarter of 2009. The new Office for Budget Responsibility thinks that the economy will grow by 1.2% in 2010, and by 2.3% in 2011. So the Budget is a great gamble. However, this is not just about what is in the Budget and the Finance Bill, which will take money out of the economy at this crucial time when we need to put money in; the Government are also gambling on the complete and utter nonsense that there are two different economies in the country—the private sector, which is good and which we look up to and say, “It’s a wonderful thing,” and the public sector, which is bad and which we boo whenever we talk about it—and that somehow we can separate the two. I shall return to that point in a minute.

On the proposed deficit reduction, the Government’s fox has been shot by their own Office for Budget Responsibility. Its independent analysis is that Labour’s deficit reduction plan would have more than achieved the target of halving the deficit over four years, from 11.1% in 2009-10 to 5% in 2013-14. The OBR also said that the Labour plan would reduce the structural deficit by nearly three quarters, from 5.2% of GDP in 2010-11 to 1.6% in 2014. The plan as outlined to halve the budget deficit within four years would have met the timetable set out at the recent G20 summit on 27 June 2010. Government Members and commentators say that the previous Government did not have a plan, but they did, and even the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility recognise that. That plan, however, is now being crammed into two years, which cannot be done without a cost to jobs.

[Mrs McGuire]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the scenario he has painted and the fact that the previous Government’s budget deficit plan would meet the international criteria, one would suspect that the current plan is more about ideology than economics?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I will come to that in a moment. Let me be honest—I have never considered shopping a leisure activity, and I think people are quite strange if they do. Unfortunately, my family and large numbers of my constituents think that it is. The VAT increase will have an effect on that leisure activity, which will have a direct effect on jobs that occupy a large proportion of the local economy in many areas. My hon. Friend’s constituency has been affected by events at the Corus steelworks, and one possible result of that is that people will be looking for other jobs, including in retail, but those jobs simply will not be there.

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend said that we needed to look at the whole package. Will he reflect on the fact, linked to some of the cuts in maternity benefits, that new parents will have to pay 20% VAT when they buy a pram, for example? The VAT increase will apply not only to the big common items such as fridges, washing machines and cars but to basic goods that families have to buy daily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). If I pick my way through the hyperbole and the political points that he sought to make, I find that there were a number of very telling and important facts and figures. Indeed, it was a thoughtful and constructive contribution in many ways, if a rather encyclopaedic one. When he opened his remarks, he described it as his first speech—his maiden speech—since the general election, but next time he is about to speak, I must remind myself not to be the next speaker.

This debate about the Finance Bill—and I accept your strictures, Mr Speaker—can probably be characterised by the to-ing and fro-ing between Members on the Treasury Bench and Opposition Members. Members on the Treasury Bench have characterised the emergency Budget and the Finance Bill that underlies it as an unavoidable and regrettable necessity, given the public finances and the circumstances in which the country finds itself. On the other hand, Opposition Members have predictably and quite understandably characterised it as entirely ideologically driven and an example of political opportunism.

In my brief contribution, I want to try to acknowledge that, first, as Members on the Treasury Bench have said, we are all in this together. The nature of today’s debate is that we are all in a political mire of tribal point-scoring and translucent evidence, and that has not shown the House or this debate in a good light. We should be trying to get to the nub of the evidence that drives us towards the correct answers; we, as politicians across the political spectrum, are seeking to assist the country. People witnessing the debate will not have been enlightened by many of the contributions because of the tribalism into which the House has fallen. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may well not like that comment.

Having said all that, I should add that there were four beacons of hope in the maiden speeches this evening, made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and my hon. Friends the Members for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans).

I suppose that I have been implying that I oppose any ideologically driven contribution, but I actually want to make one myself.

[Mrs McGuire]

rose—

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

rose—

[Andrew George]

I shall give way to the right hon. Lady, but I want my contribution to be short.

[Mrs McGuire]

I fully understand some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments about matters of judgment. I also understand that he thought that the £1,000 increase in the personal tax allowance was important. I have observed him for many years in the House, and he is an honourable person. Will he help Opposition Members to understand why since April and early May, when he was so violently against any increase in value added tax, he has started supporting a regressive increase in that tax? It would help break down some of the barriers that he senses if we could understand the thought process involved and the discussions that drew him into the VAT spider’s web.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that intervention. She has come to the nub of the dilemma in which a number of other hon. Members and I find ourselves. Yes, the VAT increase was not part of the coalition agreement. I presupposed that it would inevitably be regressive and that I would automatically oppose it. The right hon. Lady will be aware that last Monday, I tabled an amendment on the Order Paper that sought to get the Treasury to provide the necessary impact assessment of the 2.5% VAT rise as it applied to families across the income spectrums, to charities and to businesses. There was mention of the rural travelling public as well.

Economic Affairs and Work and Pensions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

This is my first opportunity to make a contribution in this Parliament, and it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), although I will not go down the same route as him. I wish to say a little about the work and pensions side of this debate, but before I do so may I deal with a subject that is somewhat associated with it: the proposal in the Gracious Speech for a limit on economic migration from outside the European Union? I warmly welcome that sensible proposal. Strangely, it was part of the Opposition amendment to yesterday’s motion, although it was not mentioned in the speech of any Opposition Member, including the Front Benchers. One can only speculate as to the internal problems in the Opposition on that matter.

Although I welcome the proposal, I note that the coalition agreement says that it is to be subject to consultation on the “mechanism” by which the limit is achieved. I urge my hon. colleagues to bear in mind that an important consultation has just taken place; call me old-fashioned, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that the most important consultation takes place when the voter goes into the voting booth and puts his or her cross on the ballot paper. Therefore, I respectfully invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to take account of the considerable concern expressed about immigration during the campaign.

It is right to engage in some consultation about implementation and, doubtless, the Government will have a queue of employers come before them. When I served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs we examined this very question. We heard from restaurant owners, farmers and people involved in the IT industry, and they seemed to be under the impression that the resident working population of this country was incapable of working on a farm, in a restaurant or in the IT industry. I suggest to my hon. Friends that when they hear such submissions from employers they gently point those employers towards the unemployment statistics, particularly those relating to young people in this country.

Those statistics show one of the most baleful inheritances from the previous Government. Given the speeches that we have heard today, Labour Members seem totally oblivious of the plight that they have left so many young people facing. We have heard a lot about child trust funds, but we have not heard so much about the lack of opportunities for young people who are about to enter their working lives and find themselves facing the prospect of the dole queue. After 13 years of a Labour Government, almost 1 million young people are out of work and there is a structural problem of youth unemployment. I say that because the level of youth unemployment was rising long before the recession took hold. All that has occurred under a Government who had promised at their outset to reduce unemployment among young people by 250,000.

A further 1.5 million older workers are out of work, and standing behind them, although not of course recorded in the formal unemployment statistics, are the many millions of people of working age who languish on out-of-work benefits. We cannot expect some of them to work because of the nature of their condition, but many of them are capable of work and indeed want to work but under the current system they are not receiving the help that they need, be it medical help, encouragement or training, to enable them to work.

In many cases—this is an important part of the problem—such people also lack the incentives to work. We talk a lot about providing incentives for better-off people to work—I am all in favour of that, because I support enterprise and hard work, seeing it as the way forward, unlike some Labour Members, whose view is to rely on the state for everything. However, we must consider also providing incentives for poorer people on benefits to get into and remain in work. All too often, the poorer person on out-of-work benefits, who may not have many skills and may have a patchy previous employment record, can find only low-paid employment. Under the current system, a large part of their money—their housing benefit and council tax benefit—is withdrawn from them the moment they start work. The moment a poor person who has been on out-of-work benefits gets into work they, in effect, face a marginal tax rate of 80% or 90%. They then find that out of the meagre proceeds left for them they have to pay the normal costs involved in getting to work, being prepared for work, dressing for work and so on. In addition, they have the fear of not being able to rely on the benefits system in the future for housing and all their other needs.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the previous Government implemented a proposal that meant that people could move into work from receiving benefits and still retain for two years their right to move back to receiving benefits? He is misrepresenting the current situation.

[Mr Clappison]

I am not misrepresenting it in any way. Labour Members were prepared to have a system in which 80% or 90% of income was withdrawn from people who went into work, through the withdrawal of council tax and housing benefit, and not very much has been done about that. I recognise that some Labour Members were aware of the problem, including the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and some who have now left the House such as James Purnell and John Hutton. They were aware of the problem, but I suspect that they were blocked when they wanted to do something about it. The result is that 2 million people now say that they want to work but are on out-of-work benefits and are not included in the formal unemployment statistics, which amount to 2.5 million.

Labour Members have presided over a welfare system that is incredibly effective at trapping people on benefits once they get on to them, and it is a challenge for my hon. and right hon. Friends to devise a better system that will get people off welfare and into work. They are having to undertake radical action on this front at a very unpropitious time, when we are facing, as we all know, the appalling deficit that has been inherited. I urge them to turn their hands to this task, because it is too important to fail or to put in the drawer marked “too difficult to undertake”. It has to be undertaken, particularly for the sake of the younger people who are languishing on out-of-work benefits and are formally recorded as unemployed. This is a challenge for the future for my right hon. and hon. Friends; it is a challenge that has been neglected by the Labour party and so left for us to take up. It will contribute to solving the problem of the deficit, but we have to take the bold action that has not been taken for far too long—for 13 years of wasted opportunities, which have led to wasted lives and people who have been left, after a Labour Government, languishing on unemployment and out-of-work benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I hope that the clock has not yet started, Mr Deputy Speaker; as the last person whom you will call to speak in your current role, I want to pay tribute to you. You have always been extraordinarily kind and generous to those on my party’s Benches.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow two totally different maiden speeches, one from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and the other from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). They are different people from different constituencies and different backgrounds, but they have a shared determination to see an end to the blockade of Gaza. Many in the House share that determination, and I hope that we will see proper progress in the middle east during this Parliament.

Today’s debate is fundamentally about the economy and I am delighted to take part in the debate on the Gracious Speech today. I should like to comment on much of what the Chancellor said. His description of the economy left to the new coalition Government is well known and the numbers that back it up are equally well known. The deficit was forecast last year to be £173 billion, but this year it is forecast to be £156 billion—still 11%-plus of gross domestic product. UK national debt is sitting at £1.2 trillion on the treaty calculation and is forecast to rise to £1.6 trillion, approaching 90% of GDP by 2014-15.

We know the last Labour Government’s response to this recession—to make real-terms cuts of £500 million for this year to the Scottish budget, before recovery was secured. Against everything that they professed in public, they began cutting the budgets early and weakening the ability of the Scottish Government and others to secure the recovery.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the current Administration’s budget in Scotland is double what Donald Dewar’s was when he became First Minister of the Scottish Parliament in 1999?

[Stewart Hosie]

I am delighted to confirm to the right hon. Lady that she seems again to fail to understand what real-terms increases and real-terms inflationary costs mean over the period of the Scottish Parliament. There have been real-terms cuts to the Scottish budget this year.

The Chancellor also confirmed that tackling the deficit and debt was the most urgent issue facing this Government, and they have started with £6 billion of in-year cuts. I am delighted that the Scottish Government have taken the opportunity to defer those cuts this year to avoid in-year cuts, which are extraordinarily damaging as they require budgets to be ripped up and jobs to be shed. What have worried me, however, are the comments and criticisms from Labour’s Scottish Parliament finance spokesman, who criticised the decision to postpone the cuts. Clearly, Labour will condemn the Tory Government here while its finance spokesman in the Scottish Parliament seems to want the Tory cuts this year in Scotland. That is wholly wrong.

The new coalition Government said in their programme that they would

“significantly accelerate the reduction of the structural deficit”

in this Parliament and that the main burden of deficit reduction will be borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes. I question the logic of that whole approach. The previous Government promised cuts that were deeper and tougher than Margaret Thatcher’s. They promised to take £57 billion out of the economy in a single year—2013-14. They also promised £20 billion or so of tax rises and £40 billion or so of cuts. The accelerated attack on the structural deficit and the smaller contribution made by tax increases clearly indicate further public sector cuts—cuts well in excess of the £40 billion that the Labour Government planned to take out by the time we reached 2013-14.

Labour’s plans for taking £57 billion out of the economy represented approximately 3% of GDP, but this Government’s plans are likely to go very much further. I was concerned that reducing consumption in the economy in a single year to the tune of 3% of GDP would tip the economy back into recession, but I am more concerned that stripping yet more consumption out of the economy and doing it more quickly—before we have properly secured the recovery—would be even more damaging than Labour’s plans.

Remember that at the time of the last Budget, it was only Government consumption, up 2% on the year, that kept the economy afloat. Household consumption was down by 1.9%, business investment was down by 24% and gross fixed capital formation was down by 14%. Even now, following the statement today, we know that household consumption is down by only 0.5% on the year, but business investment is still down by 11% and gross fixed capital formation is down by half that, at 5.7%. This is not the time to cut Government consumption, given that it was up by 3% over the last 12 months and kept the economy afloat.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I was a critic of the deficit and the debt before the recession. I am arguing about how we tackle it now and I believe that we should not go down the route of the Canadian model, which involved 20% cuts in public services over three years. We should look again at the New Zealand model, which gave the flexibility to tackle the deficit and the debt over the medium term. That way we could at least benefit from the huge £50 billion-plus medium-term savings from scrapping Trident and its replacement. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has allowed our amendment covering that matter to be put to a vote later today.

There were, of course, a number of other matters economic in the Gracious Speech—the financial services regulation Bill and the plan to introduce a bank levy, for example. Although it is self-evident that there must be depositor protection and that we must protect against systemic risk from bank failure, not least through the application of proper capital ratios, that is what pillar 1 of the Basel II accord was meant to do. Given that the banking crisis commenced in summer 2007 and that Basel II is not meant to be fully implemented until October-November 2012, I would have thought that it would have made more sense for the incoming Government to push for the early international implementation of Basel II rather than unilaterally implementing a domestic banking levy now. The consequences of such a levy are not at all clear.

The coalition’s programme also said that they would reform the regulatory system and give the Bank of England control over macro-prudential regulation. But that would leave the Financial Services Authority fundamentally in place, and I remember many criticisms from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers about the FSA. Surely the Government will continue to recognise that failure of supervision by the FSA was as important as the weakness of the underlying regulation.

There were many other matters economic in the Queen’s Speech and the programme for government, and we will come back to them. I have one final question, and it is about the decision to scrap the child trust fund. Between 2004 and 2008, savings ratios were half those when Labour came to power in 1997. Why are this Government planning to scrap a savings scheme with a 71% voluntary take-up rate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert). My family has spent many holidays in his constituency, and I think VisitBritain could do worse than collect together all the maiden speeches of the past few days and use them to promote some of the most wonderful parts of our country—indeed, there are bits of our country I would not have recognised at all from the descriptions. I congratulate all Members who have delivered their maiden speeches. I was going to say that my contribution would be an older maiden speech, but one of those adjectives would not quite be appropriate. I shall now launch forward while leaving Members to work out the meaning of that remark.

First, I want to welcome the comments of the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the principles that will underpin his approach to welfare reform. He said in a recent article:

“Tattooed across my heart is that I didn’t come here in any shape or form simply as a cheeseparer.”

That is a robust comment to make, certainly for a Conservative Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—and, frankly, it would not be at odds with many of the comments of previous Labour Secretaries of State.

I am also delighted that the new Secretary of State had his road-to-Damascus moment on the road to Easterhouse in Glasgow. I know the area well as I grew up there and my father represented it as a councillor during some of the worst periods of the Thatcher era, when a large community that was essentially made up of aspirational working-class people found itself in an economic desert. It was a period in which intergenerational unemployment and the poverty that the Secretary of State saw took root, and the aspirations of individuals and communities alike were crushed by the lack of jobs. There are similar examples to that in my constituency, where the mining industry was destroyed. Frankly, these communities started on the road to recovery only as a result of the massive investment in economic renewal by Labour Governments in both Westminster and Holyrood.

The absence of any detail in the Secretary of State’s programme so far—apart from the loss of the future jobs fund, which has already been dealt with by others—means that I could refer only to the coalition programme for government to see if any further light could be shed on the new approach. We should have some sort of cross-House consensus on how we move forward on welfare reform. Indeed, one of the new Ministers has strongly promoted a consensual approach, and I will be interested to learn whether he sees that consensus being continued now that he sits on the Government Benches.

The coalition wants to have a single work programme, and I think there is some room for rationalisation, subject to the demands, which have changed over a matter of years. I am not yet convinced, however, that a single work programme is necessarily the way forward. We have also heard much from the coalition about “decentralisation” of decisions and “individualisation” of provision. How will a leviathan single work programme respond to the specific needs of individual unemployed people? How will such a programme respond to someone who has a fluctuating mental health condition or a physical disability, or who is a carer or a recently unemployed bank worker? Some may require minimum support for a short time between jobs, but others will require a significant amount of longer-term help. There is no detail of how the initial assessment for support will be made. I assume that the programme will be cash-limited in spite of the Secretary of State’s ambitions, so how will the initial financial decisions about who needs more support and who needs less be made? Will Jobcentre Plus continue to have a significant role to play in this, or will people have to refer themselves to some other local or national organisation? If someone is disabled and needs additional help, will they have to compete with others on the programme?

Where does the access to work programme, which daily supports thousands of disabled workers in employment, fit into the new uniform approach? I know that the coalition has said it will reform access to work and I welcome that, but will the coalition Government commit themselves to doubling the access to work programme as the previous Government did, or will this just be rolled into a single approach that is not ring-fenced and that becomes a victim of cuts? On realigning contracts, will that be 100% output-based? In short, how is the whole thing going to work?

Perhaps the Secretary of State can provide answers to questions on his own sanctions policy. What will the level of sanctions be? Who will enforce them? What will happen to children if benefits are taken away from their parents? Where are the safeguards? Will people be forced to take any job, or will there be flexibility within the programme? Will the unemployed people in my constituency be taken off benefit if there are no jobs, or no valid opportunities?

May I briefly comment on the “work doesn’t pay” issue, which the Secretary of State repeatedly mentions? I understand and appreciate his sentiments. The coalition document says that it supports the national minimum wage, but I have to ask this question: in terms of the “work doesn’t pay” issue, is the Secretary of State proposing to increase individuals’ incomes through a mixture of benefits, credits and earnings or, as many of my hon. Friends and constituents fear, to go back to the old tried and tested Tory solution of salami-slicing benefits?

The two Ministers currently sitting on the Government Front Bench—the Exchequer Secretary and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—can smile knowingly to each other if they want to. However, given the history of welfare reform, which causes a shudder through many communities, certainly in Scotland but also in many other parts of the country, these are serious questions and the coalition must answer them before its welfare reform programme will have any credibility among Opposition Members.