Charter for Budget Responsibility

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The third year in the period is three years; that is 2017-18. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should use his piano fingers and count one, two, three.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend draw the conclusion from the Chancellor’s recent interventions—[Interruption.] I mean the shadow Chancellor’s interventions—he will wait a long time to become Chancellor. Does my right hon. Friend draw the conclusion from the shadow Chancellor’s interventions that he either does not understand the paper in front of him or is about to go through the Division Lobby to support something he describes as “baffling”?

[Mr Osborne]

I think the shadow Chancellor is trying to perpetrate a grand deceit on the British public. I think he has no intention of delivering the £30 billion of cuts. He does not want to do that: he wants to spend and borrow more, but he does not want to tell the British people the truth about that. We had independent confirmation from the IFS today that Labour would borrow £170 billion more. It confirms what we already know—that the Labour leader and the shadow Chancellor would do it all over again: tax, borrow and spend their way into an economic crisis, letting the British people pay the price in lost jobs, lost incomes and lost futures.

The shadow Chancellor faces a choice. He can either confirm by voting for this charter that he accepts the £30 billion of deficit reduction required to fulfil the objectives, in which case, since he does not approve of our spending plans, he admits that there will be major tax rises under a Labour Government; or he can reject the deficit reduction required, in which case he is confirming that voting for this charter today is nothing other than a grand deceit—pretending to the British people that Labour does not want to borrow more when that is exactly what it plans to do. With the Labour party, it is either a tax bombshell or a borrowing bombshell. The only question is which will it be. Either way, it leads to economic chaos for this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I am absolutely delighted that this motion is being put before the House today, not just for the reasons I will come to about the direction of Government policy, but because since I came to this place I have advocated stronger fiscal rules such as those which this charter seeks to introduce. This is part of a direction of travel that I hope will find us in a position whereby we can introduce proper legislation on fiscal rules in much the same way as the Swedish did some 15 years ago.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who is no longer in his seat, made a good analysis of the problems with fiscal rules, and I completely concur. If they are not drawn up properly, they can cause more problems than they help solve, not least because they allow some parties and politicians to pretend that they are doing things that are prudent when in fact they are not doing so. However, in a few circumstances they have been successful. The important thing about the rules that are being developed by the Treasury, the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor is that they are building a consistent basis on which we can create a decent fiscal framework for the future.

The history of fiscal rules in this country is not good. That is because of the mendacity of the golden rules dreamt up by the former Prime Minister and Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and by his adviser at the time, now the shadow Chancellor. Those rules were mendacious because they pretended to the British public that prudence was being pursued, when in fact it was not. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath spoke all the time of current budget balances, yet from 2002 onwards, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) pointed out so eloquently, a large and increasing deficit was being built up. What is so troubling about this debate is that it has proved that the right hon. Gentleman’s adviser at the time is now planning to do precisely the same thing again—to imagine a trend rate that is informed by his own desires and not by actuality, and informed by a mode of economics that suggests that if one somehow creates different living standards through the force of Government, one can create the economic weather that one wishes to see. That argument is pursued only in Venezuela and nowhere else in any developed country. It fails because it goes against all the economic laws that have been found to be consistent through this crisis and which proved the previous economic policy so very wrong.

This debate is so important—fiscal rules matter, even if they are not perfect—because it forces us to have this discussion. Here I differ, which I rarely do, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). He is a kind and generous soul, but on this I am not. I am afraid that the Opposition are introducing us not to some different policy agenda, but to a fraud. I do not think that they have any intention of consolidating the fiscal situation of this nation if they come to power. They are not promising to introduce a real surplus by the end of the next Parliament; they speak only of the current budget, and that is why we failed so magnificently last time. We were left high and dry when the water went out, leaving us in a position where we had no ability to fight the greatest threat to our economy since the second world war.

This is an important day, because it reaffirms the Government’s commitment to securing the future of the economy for our communities and our nations and because it exposes the fraud being put to the British people by the Opposition in advance of the next election. We can see today that the British people have a clear choice between chaos and competence. I am glad that it is such a clear choice that even the Opposition in their heart of hearts know they have to vote with the Government and with competence.

Autumn Statement

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Universal credit is a change to our welfare system that makes sure that it always pays to work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary because he is pioneering what I think are important far-reaching changes to the incentives in our country that encourage work and support people in work. We have introduced a welfare cap. That is a brand new mechanism for controlling welfare spending, including identifying pressures such as rising housing benefit bills that were completely ignored in the past by the Labour Government. If a Government are not prepared to address increases in one benefit with reductions or measures on other benefits, they are required to come before the House and ask for a vote because they have reached the cap. We have not done that because we are within the cap, as the OBR report confirms.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Last October, youth unemployment in Ipswich fell to the lowest point since records began—a fall directly attributable to the Chancellor’s policies. The future of young people in Ipswich is now much brighter because of his commitment to the Great Eastern main line and I thank him for that. Will he comment on the fact that the only way that scheme will not happen is if the Labour party stops the franchising process, which is precisely what it has promised to do?

[Mr Osborne]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I have been to Ipswich and seen what he has done to attract businesses and jobs, and to champion big infrastructure improvements, such as in relation to the A14 and the Ipswich in 60 campaign. Those things would be under threat under a Labour Government. The Labour party’s rail franchising policy would prevent the improvement in train services to East Anglia. Big infrastructure projects that never happened under a previous Labour Government would almost certainly never happen under a future Labour Government.

The Economy

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes the Government has failed to deliver rising living standards and a recovery that works for the many, with working people on average £1,600 a year worse off since 2010; notes that the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that stagnant wages and too many low-paid jobs are leading to lower tax revenues and more borrowing, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s pledge to balance the books by 2015 set to be broken; calls on the Government to bring forward a plan in the Autumn Statement to deliver a recovery for the many, not just a few at the top, with proposals for a minimum wage rising as a proportion of average earnings, an expansion of free childcare for working parents, a cut in business rates for small firms, an independent infrastructure commission, and the building of 200,000 new homes a year; believes that a tough and fair plan to deliver a current budget surplus and falling national debt as soon as possible in the next Parliament would include reversing the Government’s £3 billion a year tax cut for the top one per cent of earners and introducing tougher measures to tackle tax avoidance; and further believes that the Autumn Statement should use £1 billion of fines from the recent foreign exchange manipulation scandal for an immediate boost to health and care, and announce a £2.5 billion a year fund to help save and transform the NHS, including funding for an extra 20,000 nurses and 8,000 GPs.

The Government deputy Chief Whip will have spotted that, next week, the Chancellor is bringing forward his autumn statement, which gives the Chancellor a chance to reflect on his nearly five years in office and on the impact made over that period on the living standards of millions of our constituents who have, of course, been following so carefully the choices he has made. I have taken the liberty of digging out the 2010 autumn statement of 29 November because it is always worth reflecting on what the Chancellor was saying four years ago, and worth comparing his intentions back then with the reality we and our constituents now face.

Back in 2010, then, when the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) was knee-high to a grasshopper in political terms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government

“will meet our fiscal mandate to eliminate the structural current budget deficit one year early, in 2014-15.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 531-2.]

He said:

“Britain is on course…to…balance the books, something that some people repeatedly said could not happen.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 530.]

Well, I am afraid to say that it has not happened. In fact, last year the deficit was £102 billion and so far, during the first seven months of this year, it is heading even higher.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has put a motion before the House on the performance of the economy. I have read the motion carefully, and before he starts reflecting on previous speeches, I wonder whether he could explain why unemployment is not included in it and why we now have the lowest unemployment and the highest rate of employment in our history?

[Chris Leslie]

I have only just started my remarks. I shall come on to employment, the levels of under-employment in our economy and the changing nature of the employment market because that is crucial. It links in particular to the health of our public finances and I want to touch on some of those issues, but I wanted to make sure that the House was aware of the Chancellor’s promises made in the autumn statement of 29 November 2010, just so everybody can see the context in which we have to appraise the Chancellor’s performance.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The House can have confidence that this Government fight for Britain’s interests in Europe, because we have cut the EU budget, got us out of those disastrous eurozone bail-outs that the Labour Government put us into, and had the rebate applied—a rebate which, of course, the hon. Gentleman’s party wanted to get rid of.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Given the fact that the shadow Chancellor and almost everyone on the Opposition Front Bench with him has been completely absent from the airwaves in the past few days in support of their leader, one would have thought that they had ample opportunity to proffer advice on the rebate. I did not hear it. Did my right hon. Friend hear it privately from them?

[Mr Osborne]

I do not want to discourage members of the Opposition Front-Bench team from taking to the airwaves and criticising their leader, because it is very good. It is only after the event that we hear that they think he is useless. They did not tell us that beforehand. My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition did not raise the issue—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor calls me to the House of Commons, he has nothing to say for himself and he has no answer to the fact that his own article reveals that he thought we were going to be paying £1.7 billion. It just confirms that he is not up to the job.

Childcare Payments Bill

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

Indeed, the next sub-heading in my speech is “The Bill”, so thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point was that child poverty was the issue—the issue in front of us—with which I was dealing before I took a number of interventions. That issue is very pertinent, because we know that the provision of affordable child care is one of the key measures that will help children to be lifted out of poverty. We know that enabling parents to go to work and to be in stable, secure employment is the primary way of enabling them to bring their families out of poverty.

Let me reiterate—in the context of today’s debate and the Bill—that we support any Government action that will help families who are struggling with the child care crunch. However, as we know, this additional support does not do nearly enough to make up some of the ground that has been lost over the past four years. For a number of reasons, there is doubt about how effective it will be even when it arrives, in about a year’s time, and about how much better off families will be. The bottom line is this: the Bill confirms that there will be no help for parents who are facing a child care crunch until after the next election, which means that there will be virtually no help with child care for an entire Parliament under the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has now returned to the issue that is before the House. She has talked about lost ground. In every single year of the previous 13-year Labour Government, child care costs went up. Last year, for the first time, they went down. Where was the lost ground in those two Parliaments?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Of course child care costs will rise with inflation, but we have seen a spiralling increase. Child care costs have risen much faster than wages, and the increase has been much faster than previous increases in terms of the natural economic cycle. When I talk about lost ground, I am talking about the support that is available to families across the board, which we know has been reduced on a range of fronts—not to mention the reduction in the working tax credits and child care tax credits that are available to working parents. I think that, in introducing the Bill, the Government have recognised that they have a problem, namely that there is not enough support out there for working families. We need to ensure that this Government support, although welcome, goes further. We need to ensure that it goes far enough, and is implemented properly. That is the basis of the questions that I now wish to put to the Minister.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

No.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He chooses his words carefully, but he should know that youth unemployment is lower than it was in 2010, and not only that: it is lower than it was before the crisis partly caused by his Government.

[Ed Balls]

In the constituency of Ipswich there has been a 140% rise in long-term youth unemployment over 12 months, and long-term youth unemployment is a real problem. I am glad the hon. Gentleman intervened because I was reading his Hansard remarks from 2012 when he said that asking the Office for Budget Responsibility to audit the parties’ manifestos at the next election was the right thing to do. He said there was no reason why that could not be done. I will come back to him in a moment on that one.

We support the welfare cap. We will make different and fairer choices to keep the social security bill down and tackle the root causes of higher welfare spending. Let me explain—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

This is an important moment in the way that we run Budgets in this country, it is an important moment for the accountability of politics and it is an important moment for the way we deal with the welfare crisis we were left by the previous Government. It is an important moment in the way we run the Budget in this country because most people would be astounded by the notion that we do not already have a managed expenditure limit on welfare. What most people, even in this Chamber, will not be aware of is that last year, for the first time in the history of setting Budgets in this country, unmanaged expenditure rose above managed expenditure—51% of Government spending came within annually managed expenditure, or AME, and not within departmental limits. So for the first time we are, in effect, writing a larger portion of the Budget on a blank cheque, rather than on the basis of the limits set by the Chancellor at his Budget every year. That, in itself, is astounding, but in five and 10 years’ time people will look back and wonder why on earth we had not come to this point earlier.

The reason, as we have heard so often from Opposition Members—they prefer to pretend that it is not their position now, because the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary said in private a few days ago that they would prefer all the Government’s reforms on welfare to have been reversed—[Interruption.] It is down there in the transcript. She would prefer all the Government’s reforms to be reversed—not only that, she would prefer all existing benefits to be made universal. She is very welcome to intervene on me to deny in the House that she made those comments. I am open to have that discussion with her. She has been given that opportunity before, she is not doing it and the House will draw its own conclusions. The fact is that what the Opposition say in private is very different from what they say in public.

[Mr Burrowes]

Nothing to hide!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Burrowes, you have nothing to hide, and I certainly do not want to hear you shout again—I want to hear Mr Gummer. You may not. If you do, you know where to go. Mr Gummer, you have the Floor.

[Ben Gummer]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To return to the core of the matter, this is important because it will hold both Governments and Oppositions to account. The shadow Chancellor might have wished to misconstrue the purpose of my private Member’s Bill. It is a pity he does that when he claims he is trying to forge a cross-party consensus, because it is wrong—

[Ed Balls]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

I will give way, but does the right hon. Gentleman want to let me finish my point before he intervenes? [Interruption.] I will say merely that I was proposing a fiscal rule on the Swedish model in which, as the Swedes have, there would be an opportunity for all parties’ budgets to be judged. That clearly is not possible under the existing settlement, not least because the head of the OBR said it would not be.

[Ed Balls]

I most certainly would not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, so let me read out the quote from Hansard. He said:

“I…further suggest that the Office for Budget Responsibility be required to assess the major parties’ manifestos at election time, at the request of those parties…A similar role is performed by the Congressional Budget Office in the United States, and there is no reason why it cannot be so here.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 305.]

I agree, and so does the head of the OBR, and this can be done before the next election. In no way have I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman—the problem is that he disagrees with the Chancellor.

[Ben Gummer]

Actually, I do not. If the shadow Chancellor reads further, he will find the key point. There is an entire portion beforehand suggesting something, which his colleague, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), said that the Opposition disagreed with. Here we come to the crux of the matter. The fact is that people will not believe the Chancellor when he talks about sticking to a cap—[Interruption.] I mean the shadow Chancellor—[Interruption.] Yes, it is as close as he will get. He was the author of the golden rule, which claimed that there would be no excess debt over the economic cycle of his Government. None the less from 2002, the Government were running a deficit—[Interruption.] Will he deny that the Government were running a deficit from 2002?

[Ed Balls]

We said that we would balance the current Budget over the cycle, which is exactly what is in the mandate before us. It says that there will be

“a forward-looking target to achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period.”

That is the golden rule. If the hon. Gentleman is attacking the golden rule, it is the second thing on which he is attacking the Chancellor today.

[Ben Gummer]

The shadow Chancellor is again digging himself into a hole. He wrote a golden rule that claimed that there were would be no deficit over the cycle. He ran a deficit and he is now proposing that there should be a cap on welfare spending. I wish to pin him precisely on the terms of his agreement with the Government. What he has told his Back Benchers in private seems to be rather different from what he is saying in public. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] Let me list what we have within the frame of the welfare cap proposed by my right hon. Friend. If the shadow Chancellor disagrees with any one of these items, he should stand up and intervene, and his own Back Benchers can draw their own inferences. We have the attendance allowance, bereavement benefits, carer’s allowance, Christmas bonus, disability living allowance, employment and support allowance, financial assistance scheme, housing benefit, incapacity benefit, income support, industrial injuries benefit, in-work credit, maternity allowance, pension credit, personal independence payment, return to work credit, severe disablement allowance, social fund, cold weather payments, statutory adoption pay and statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, universal credit, winter fuel payments, personal tax credits, child benefit and tax-free child care. Is there any single element of that that he would change in the next five years?

[Ed Balls]

indicated dissent.

[Ben Gummer]

Not at all. Now his Back Benchers may wish to draw their own inference from that. In private, the shadow Chancellor has been going round saying that he would change it. He would put one in and take one out. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] Even in the House, he will say that he will supplement one benefit—withdrawing the winter fuel allowance from richer pensioners will raise £100 million and he would use it to pay for the reversal of the under-occupancy charge, which will cost £500 million. How does he make up that £400 million difference? He has been forced to come to this House to explain his maths. That is precisely why this cap is important. It forces a degree of accountability on the shadow Chancellor in making him explain to the British public how his sums add up, when it is clear that they do not. How does he account for the £400 million difference between the two? [Interruption.] I wish to know the answer as does the British public. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only 30 seconds remaining. Stop shouting him down. I want to hear him.

[Ben Gummer]

The cap is good for Government finances and it is good for accountability because it forces the Opposition to be honest, even though they are seemingly unwilling to be so. It is also important in terms of how we deal with this welfare crisis. It will force Governments to deal with the underlying causes of welfare dependency rather than just jacking up the bill every time they are faced with a difficult problem.

National Infrastructure Plan

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

That is a very good question. The Welsh Government’s capital budget is allocated to them through the Barnett formula, so they have complete freedom to determine how they use the money. I urge them to consider the principles laid down in the infrastructure plan as applicable to Wales. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to our decisions in responding to the Silk review, whereby the Welsh Government will now have borrowing powers, particularly to fund the M4 project, which is such an important investment not just for Wales but for the whole UK.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who led the campaign on the A14 well in advance of the point at which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) became pregnant on the matter. May I ask the Chief Secretary whether the diggers will arrive as promised in 2016?

[Danny Alexander]

Several hon. Members have been assiduous in their campaigning on this matter, but I can speak only for those who have come to lobby me personally. I am sure that a lot of remarks have been made by a lot of hon. Members, and I pay tribute to them all. The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes.

Living Standards

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell]

I would like to make a bit of progress first.

I want to talk about two things: how the problem arose, and what we can do to solve it. I would argue that there are four causes of the problem. The first was the deficit built up under the last Government, which was partly the fault of the collapse in the banking system, but partly the fault of Labour for having a deficit before the recession started. Let me quote from something written by the Institute for Fiscal Studies before the last election:

“With government borrowing at its highest level since the Second World War…the key domestic policy issue for the next parliament will be how best to implement a combination of spending cuts and tax raising measures to return it, over the medium-term, to appropriate levels.

This will be painful…families”

will be made

“directly worse off”.

That was the view of the IFS, no matter who was going to win the last election. That is the logical consequence of having the deficit, and voters understand that. I spent the summer knocking on more than 5,000 doors in Woodside and South Norwood in my constituency. The electorate understand that tough decisions have to be made.

The second cause is the international economic climate, which has led to lower than expected growth across the developed world. The third and fourth causes have nothing to do with Government: they are rising commodity prices and long-term changes in the labour market, which have led to a lower value being placed on low-skilled work. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred to a quotation from the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions identifying the problem back in 2004.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend said that the third reason, rising commodity prices, had nothing to do with Government. I would respectfully demur. One of the biggest pressures on families is energy prices, and the reason we have high energy prices in this country is because no one built anything in this country in the 13 years that Labour was in power.

[Gavin Barwell]

There are certainly some commodity prices that Government can influence—my hon. Friend is quite right to pick me up on that—but there are others, such as the prices of basic foodstuffs, that are beyond national domestic control.

How do we solve the problem? I would like to suggest five possible solutions. The first is economic growth. It is not a solution on its own, because part of the deficit is structural.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

rose—

[Alison McGovern]

As I am following the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon Central, I will give way to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point that divides us completely. Those of us on the Labour Benches believe in investing money in housing, for example. I have just mentioned the huge rents that people have to pay, and how difficult it is for people on average wages to live in London without relying on housing benefit. If we could build more houses in central London and the south-east, house prices would not be as high as they are now and people would not need to rely on benefits in the way that they do. That makes sense. If we build homes, we also provide jobs and infrastructure, lower our dependence on housing benefit and lower housing prices generally. We will offer hope and opportunity for the next generation. I have no idea why the Government will not do this, but they are refusing to invest properly. We will need a new Government before that happens.

[Ben Gummer]

There is absolutely no difference between us on whether there is pressure on living standards, as it is completely obvious to all Members that there is. Where there is a difference relates to prescriptions. The hon. Lady rightly talks about housing demand in the south-east, but she knows perfectly well that, even if we start building tens of thousands of houses in the south-east this year, it will take many years before it feeds into reductions in rent. What prescriptions—costed prescriptions —could the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench team bring forward now to ease living standards?

[Emily Thornberry]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes this issue very seriously, will have seen the policy development happening in the Labour party and the seriousness with which we are putting this issue as a front-and- centre policy for us as a future Government. We know the difference that that will make to the economy. When it comes to investing money, this is what we should invest it in. I fully support our Front-Bench team on this and I believe it is the right thing for this Government to do. In the end it would save us a great deal.

I do not believe that we can just build tens of thousands of homes. We need to get out there and start building seriously. We need to start building now and, frankly, I think it is disgraceful that, given the recession that we are having to endure, this Government have, I believe, the worst house building record of any Government since the 1920s. That is outrageous. This was not the original purpose of my speech but since the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) has touched this particular nerve—I apologise for giving it to him with both barrels—I simply cannot see the sense in the Government’s current policy of putting their fingers in their ears and saying “La, la, la, la, la, la, la.” and thinking that this problem will somehow go away. It will not go away. The only way to solve our housing crisis is to build more housing.

Returning to my original brief, those in part-time work do not earn enough money to be able to afford a good standard of living and that applies even to some of those in full-time work, so some have to rely on benefits. We have seen that 60% of new jobs since the last election are in the low-paid sectors of our economy—retail and residential. Between 1997 and 2010, 25% of the new jobs established were in those sectors. Why is this difference occurring? A Resolution Foundation study has shown that 4.8 million Britons—20% of all employees—earn below the living wage, which is a leap from 3.4 million, or 14%, at the height of the recession. Why is that happening? Why have those on average wages lost an average of £1,500 a year?

It is happening because our economy is unfair and unbalanced. What are the Government going to do about it? How are they going to address the problem? They cannot simply keep sailing on and hope that things are going to be all right. Things are not going to be all right. The evidence shows that there will continue to be people who just manage to grab on to work by their fingertips, but not by enough for them to be able to sustain themselves and their families. Even those in full-time work, particularly in areas such as London and the south-east, cannot afford to live without being supported by benefits. In the end, this is unsustainable; we must raise wages in real terms.

I hold a women’s listening panel every year. This year, it is on 13 September at St Mary’s hall in Upper street, and all my female constituents are welcome. I carried out a survey last year and 89% of the constituents who replied said that their income had gone down in the previous year; 32% said their rent had gone up and 70% said it was difficult for them to make ends meet because of their food and fuel bills. They particularly mentioned the expense of child care in Islington. The problem is not just the obvious and manifest cost of rent. The cost of child care—£164 a week—is so expensive as to make it impossible for someone on the minimum wage of £212 a week to put a child into full-time child care. These things do not make sense.

There are many single parents in my constituency who want to get into work, but who simply cannot make ends meet when it comes to getting to work, placing their children in child care, being able to pay the rent and being able to pay their way. This is the trap that so many people find themselves in, and there has to be an answer to it. Even getting someone to pick the children up after school and look after them for a few hours until the person finishes work can cost £92. How can that be all right for someone on the minimum wage of £212 a week? It does not make sense; it does not add up.

Those who live on benefits and do not work at all—those on jobseeker’s allowance—have, of course, seen a rise in their income of 70p a week. I do not know whether the Exchequer Secretary has ever spoken to anyone who lives on jobseeker’s allowance and gone through with them how they spend their £70.70 a week? If so, he would know how difficult it is for them to make ends meet at the moment. It seems to me that we have heard a great deal of political knockabout today when what we should be doing is listening to real people out there and how they live their real lives. I invite the Minister and his boss to come to my women’s listening panel. I will not tell the women that they are Tories, so they will be safe, and we will finesse the fact that they are the only men in the room. They should listen to what is said, listen to these women’s stories of how they are trying to make ends meet in these difficult times. Year in, year out, it gets worse and more difficult for them. The Minister may talk about the economy getting better, but he should listen to what is going on in real life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Again, we heard a ragbag of rubbish from the Financial Secretary, who gave us the Laurel and Hardy story about another fine mess from Labour. In fact, between 1997 and 2008 the economy grew by some 40%. It was only when the financial tsunami came that we saw difficulties, but with the fiscal stimulus from Obama and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), bang, we were back to shallow growth, albeit with a deficit two thirds of which was caused by the bankers and a third of which was caused by spending beyond earnings to pump-prime the economy. That was the right thing to do at the time.

[Ben Gummer]

Let us try to get the facts right. First, the Government were running a structural deficit between 2002 and 2010. Secondly, the private sector in Britain did not grow after 2003. All growth was down to credit and public sector increases. The hon. Gentleman’s contention that somehow the economy grew by 40% is therefore incorrect.

[Geraint Davies]

That is certainly not the case. GDP was up by 40%, and the history of the last three years is one of zero GDP growth. I admit that we have seen growth of 0.6% in the last quarter. However, according to the TUC, 80% of the new jobs that have been created—it has been claimed that there are 1.3 million, but that figure is contested by the director of the Office for National Statistics—are low-wage jobs. What we actually have is a low-wage, low-investment, falling-productivity economy, with living standards falling through the floor and prices rising at the same time. It is a complete disaster.

Government Members such as the hon. Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and other economic illiterates have said that interest rates might rise under Labour, but anyone who reads the financial press will know that the new Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has given undertakings that they will not rise until unemployment has fallen by 750,000, from 7.8% to 7%. So that argument too is a complete load of rubbish.

[Ben Gummer]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, he is confusing market rates with bank rates. Market rates will rise, because the cost of borrowing for the British Government on the international markets will rise under a Labour Government. That was shown at the time of the general election. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that bank rates will be fixed, but the two are not connected to the extent that he claims.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The point that I was making was that the Bank of England rate would be secure in the way that I described. The other rates depend on confidence. Whatever happened to the triple-A rating? Government Members said “Oh dear, it will be all over. We will lose the triple-A rating if Labour gets in.” Well, we have lost it, and why has that happened? It has happened because objective observers have seen that productivity is falling, not rising, that the jobs that are being created are low-grade jobs, and that the distribution of investment is skewed towards the next general election, with 80% of all infrastructure investment being made in London and the south-east—which needs the least investment—and most of the cuts being made in the north and in Wales: in places such as my constituency in Swansea, where 40% of people work in the public sector. Yes, we want investment in the private sector, but the way to boost local economies is not to cut people’s wages, jobs and services, which is the current prescription.

What is happening is not sustainable, and given the current economic capacity—the manufacturing and construction sectors are 10% smaller than they were in 2008—there is clearly some way to go before unemployment reaches the level at which interest rates will fall, so that point was a complete red herring.

In fact, mortgage rates are low now—as low as 1.5% for safe bets. The Government, alongside the Bank of England, should be thinking about providing more funding for firms so they have more cash flow and can invest in higher-value jobs and products. Household lending from the banks is about the same as it was—it is 0.3% less than in 2008—but lending to business is 32% down. It is massively down in all the major sectors. In January lending to business was 3% lower than a year ago. By June that figure had doubled; it was down 7%. So the Chancellor is a man looking to the future who is walking backwards. The reality is that Britain is 159th in terms of the ratio of investment to GDP, and is lagging around the bottom in terms of research and development.

One might ask why the banks are lending all this money for houses. Part of the reason is because we have a bubble, artificially generated by the Chancellor to get his votes in the south, through what The Economist calls the “daft policy” of subsidising new deposits on mortgages, which will inflate house prices and lead to sub-prime debt downstream.

The banks also now require four times more capital cover to lend to a business than to provide a mortgage. Turning to the question of the complexity of all this, I have run my own businesses and been involved in others, and have therefore looked at business plans. The banks need to look at the business plans too, as opposed to just having somebody in a call centre saying, “All right, fill in the box. You’re all right mate, you can have a mortgage.” The Government should be telling the banks that the funding for lending scheme should be specifically directed at firms to cover new and existing loans. In other words, they should be doing something positive to get the level of business investment up and create real jobs and get wages moving in the right direction. That is what is needed.

The current situation is that house prices are rising and household debt is growing, partly because the cost of housing is going up both in terms of rents and house prices. That is only sustainable if we have real wage growth. [Interruption.] The Exchequer Secretary is mumbling to his mates, but what are the policies for sustainable wage growth? How are we going to move away from this low-investment, low-wages, low-productivity trajectory that we have got? There is no point in blustering and denying it all; we have got this problem across Britain. We have also got inequality between north and south, and obviously between Wales and the south.

I am talking about SME support, but in contrast we have the corporate world, where Vodafone has just done the biggest share transaction of this century. It has taken £54 billion in cash, and it is not paying a penny in tax. What is the Exchequer Secretary doing about that? Nothing. Why does he not do something about procurement, too? We could use our muscle to buy from SMEs locally—companies that pay tax rather than avoid tax—so they can provide jobs locally. This is a complete disgrace. We should be doing something positive with the powers at our disposal, to create higher wages, higher business investment, more security and more focus on emerging markets.

That is not happening, however. This is a complete farce. It is a mess and I hope the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) will join the Labour party like his predecessor, Andrew Pelling, did, and stand up for what is right and what makes sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark. I am afraid that I have just been very unkind and tweeted that not only were there only three Government Members—I think it was—in the Chamber, but the Opposition Whip had fallen asleep. [Interruption.] I should have said that the person sitting in the place usually occupied by the Government Whip has fallen asleep—I say that for the benefit of Hansard.

Fuel bills are a huge problem for families, having risen by £300. The Prime Minister promised this country that he would do something about excessive rises in energy prices, and he has not made good on that promise. The Government parties ask what we did about the energy companies, and I am proud to share the fact that in my sock drawer at home I have a pledge card from the 1997 general election. One thing that Labour did was to use its windfall tax on the privatised utilities to invest in creating jobs. That is the difference between Government Members and Labour Members.

[Ben Gummer]

I am very happy to intervene on the hon. Lady, and I hope that she will have another minute in which to continue her thoughtful speech. On energy prices—I know the next debate will address this—the previous Government may have come to office in 1997 wishing to control energy prices, but in the end by building so few power stations, they have left us having to invest more than any other western European nation—£200 million—to renew our infrastructure. In the end, that money will have to come from somewhere. Part of it will come from those who pay for fuel. The hon. Lady, or at least the Labour Government, must bear some of the responsibility for that situation.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I am willing to take responsibility when that is due, but it seems as though for this Government the past three years have not happened. In my constituency, a coal-fired power station has closed down. That is good for the environment, but Scottish Power and the Spanish firm, Iberdrola, cannot invest the necessary money to convert that into a gas cylinder plant because the Government are not giving clarity on the charges for connecting to the grid. We should all share the responsibility. Unfortunately, in opposition, there is less that we can do about it, whereas the hon. Gentleman has the privilege of being in government. I wish the Government would use the little time that they have left in office to get on and make a difference to the lives of my constituents.

Yesterday’s debate makes me worry about who will stand up for those people in my constituency who are falling foul of payday lenders and who cannot afford to put food on the table. The whole debate about food banks is thoroughly depressing, and although I welcome the fact that they are there in so many communities, including my own—I am a trustee of my local food bank—I worry that we are propping up a system that is dismantling the welfare state in this country. We need to pause and think about that further. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who is no longer in his place, will be rather disappointed, because I cannot share his view that we have the best of all possible worlds. Perhaps his name is really Dr Pangloss. I hear an awful lot of Panglossian politics in Scotland, where it takes the form of, “If we were only independent and we waved our magic independence wand, everything would be wonderful,” but to get it here is astonishing.

The other surreal aspect of today’s debate, which would astonish anyone listening who cannot see the Chamber, is that we have heard from a grand total of three Government Back Benchers prepared to speak up for their own Government’s Budget. They were not so shy about coming forward last week to recall what were to them the glory days of Lady Thatcher’s Government. They were all very keen to come down here especially to talk about it. Many of my constituents thought we should have talked about that today, and perhaps we should have, since Government Back Benchers clearly did not think it worth debating the Finance Bill. Much effort and money could probably have been saved.

I was not one of those who came last week, because I spent most of the recess talking to my constituents. If this were the Government’s first Budget, not their fourth, we would be better placed to believe the words they keep using. We were told in 2010 that this would work—that we had a terrible financial crisis and that we all had to tighten our belts and get through it together, but that it would be worth it. Just how long do we have to wait? These Budgets and these Budget debates and debates on the Finance Bill are turning into groundhog day. The Government say all the same things and, I have to admit, they will no doubt say that Opposition Members all say the same things, but that is because the debate has not moved on. On this, the Government’s fourth Budget, we are indeed saying the same things. Perhaps that is why Government Back Benchers did not feel it worth coming—because they know perfectly well that there is no point in saying the same things because the Government’s approach is not working.

The Government’s answer to many of the criticisms of their policies—particularly their policies to reduce tax credits and benefits—is that people can get around those cuts by working more hours. In fact, they even defend a lot of their measures by saying that they will put a rod into people’s backs and get them out there working those extra hours. The assumption seems to be not just that unemployment is, as they allege, a lifestyle choice, but that under-employment is apparently a lifestyle choice too and that, really, people have to get up and go out there, and everything will be fine.

My constituent Joe—one of the many people I talked to in the recent recess—is affected by the bedroom tax because he was housed by the council in a two-bedroom house. It was not his choice; that is where he was given a house. He went to his supermarket employer to ask whether it would increase the 15 hours a week he works in his job to help to pay the extra amount. His employer said no. That might have been partly because, at 15 hours a week at the minimum wage, he is nicely underneath the threshold for paying national insurance. Doubtless his employer prefers to have another part-time employee at that level. However, even if his employer offered him more hours, at whose expense would that be? Would it mean that another employee got fewer hours or, if Joe was given full-time work, that somebody else would not have a job at all? Unless the supermarket wants to employ people to stand around doing nothing, one has to presume that it has calibrated its work force according to the work that needs to be done. It is not a charity. His employer is not there to give him a few extra hours so that he can pay his bedroom tax. It needs only the workers it needs. It is therefore a myth to assume that people such as Joe just have to get out there and everything will be fine. That sums up exactly what is wrong with this Government’s economic policy. Austerity reduces demand. Indeed, it has reduced demand all over Europe, which is one reason why we are not coming out of this recession through exports—one of the promises made to us in 2010—because everybody is in the same boat.

As Joe’s current employer will not give him the extra hours, he could, I suppose, find out whether there is another job out there. Perhaps he should see who else is hiring for his type of work in the city. I would stress that, compared with many other areas—such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain)—Edinburgh does not have high unemployment. In fact, the unemployment rate in my constituency is only 4.8%, which in a lot of people’s terms would be very low. I thought, “I’ll look at the Government’s great new innovation,” which is a website called Universal Jobmatch. I do not know whether any Member present has looked at Universal Jobmatch—I have, on several occasions—but I put in “shop assistant, Edinburgh area” to see what would come out the other end. If I had been Joe, things would have looked quite hopeful at first, because there appeared to be four pages of jobs. There were 25 on each page—I counted—so I thought, “Well that’s 100 jobs. That’s not bad.”

In fact, there turned out to be 76 job entries, because the last page had only one entry, so things were not quite as healthy as I thought, but when I looked, I saw that 57 of those 76 entries were for a firm offering jobs taking out catalogues and trying to sell things door to door—the archetypal job that people often have to take during a recession. In fact, we can read all about that from the 1930s, which is where we are again—it is not the 1980s; in fact, it is the 1930s. Most of those 57 entries were not even for jobs in Edinburgh, and in my view they were not proper jobs. Maybe Joe should see whether he can make the extra hours by selling whatever it is he would have to sell. It is absolutely extraordinary, however, that 57 of the 76 job vacancies advertised in the Edinburgh area—which, by the way, stretches to Fife and to Falkirk—were what most of us would probably describe as non-jobs. Of the others, only six were actually in the city. If Joe were to apply for a job just outside the city, he would have to take on board the fact that it would cost him money to get there, and that that might negate all or part of any extra income he might earn. So there were six jobs in retail in Edinburgh, a city in which, we are told, unemployment is really not too bad and we should not worry too much about the state of the economy. That is not a growing economy. It is not a healthy economy. It is, however, the reality for Joe and many others like him.

I also spoke yesterday to a constituent who clearly understood how economics should work. She told me that she and her husband had already lost £85 a month in tax credits; their income had gone down. Her husband is a self-employed taxi driver, and she told me that because people were pulling in their horns, spending less and having fewer nights out, he was getting less business. His earnings were dropping. He was out driving on Monday and Tuesday nights last week, for five or six hours each night, yet he took in only £55 a night, from which he would have to take off his costs. She reckoned that people were not spending because they did not have sufficient income, either because they had lost their jobs or because they were on shorter hours. That is what low demand means. It has a ripple effect through a local economy, and people like that taxi driver who are working and who want to earn more cannot do so. He cannot make people take his taxi if they do not want to.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has not been here through all these hours or taken part in this important debate.

We have heard a lot about extra jobs being created in the economy. The Economic Secretary, who I understand is going to respond to the debate, tweeted during the recess that job creation in the three years of this Government was running higher than during 10 years of the Labour Government by a factor of 2:1. Those figures just are not true. They seem to have been plucked from a work of fiction. People are being told over and over again that that is what is happening, yet their own personal experience is very different. Joe cannot get extra hours in his job, and if he looked on Universal Jobmatch, which is where people are told to go to find jobs, he would find only six jobs in his field in his city. The numbers simply do not add up.

We know that some of the so-called jobs are unpaid jobs, and that some are jobs that have been translated from the public sector to the private sector. The real world is one of no growth. All the commentators have clearly stated that this Budget will not create more growth, as has the Office for Budget Responsibility, the organisation that we were told would be totally independent and correct. A Conservative Member even said earlier that he no longer believed in it. Actually, it is telling the truth.

Income Tax

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his factual recall. Yes, the top rate of tax was lower, but—I do not know whether he is aware of this—we experienced something called the financial crash and the rules changed somewhat. That is the truth: things have changed. We live in a different world now, and that should be accepted. My argument, which I shall maintain throughout my speech, is that the people at the bottom are feeling the pain.

The increase in VAT is a tax on the low-paid, because everyone has to pay it; everyone has to buy goods. When I walk down Blackwood high street, I see that every retail business there has been affected by the VAT increase. VAT on food is zero-rated, but the haulier who delivers the food will pass on the increase in VAT on his petrol to the food shop, just as the increased price of cotton is passed on to the clothes shop. Not a single person has been helped. People in this country are suffering, and what do we see? We see a tax cut for those at the very top.

We hear much talk about rebalancing the economy. We are told that the economy is being built, but what this tax cut shows us is an economy that is being built not on people and products, but on perks and promises. That is the wrong message for us to be sending.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks with such passion, but I wonder whether he is as angry with the Labour Front Benchers who put their names to the motion and who refuse to promise to restore the 50p tax rate and to cut VAT should they win the election in 2015, as he is with the Government. Surely he should be as cross with his Front Benchers as he is with ours.

[Chris Evans]

I have a lot of admiration for the hon. Gentleman. We served on the Justice Committee together, and I admire the bit of mischief that he is trying to cause me. However, he will be aware that, as I have said before, we do not know what is around the corner. We will make judgments—I am sure that our Front Benchers will make judgments—when we win the next election; and we will win the next election.

I am also struck by the Government’s sheer stupidity. It is all very well to talk about polls and people feeling good about things. When people hear about welfare reform, they support it because it sounds wonderful—66% supported it in the polls—but let us consider housing benefit, for instance. It annoys me that because seven out of eight people who claim it are in work, they are being labelled scroungers. A cap on housing benefit will create ghettoes outside the major cities because people cannot afford to live there and it will make more and more people homeless.

The one thing that the Government need to learn is that someone, somewhere, will have to pick up the bill, whether it is the taxpayer or the hard-pressed charity. We do not live in a consequence-free society. It is not possible to go on cutting taxes and cutting spending without something going wrong. I am deeply concerned, because people out there are crying out for change and the Government are in the way. It is time that we started building a society and an economy in which hard work is rewarded and people can flourish once again.