Small Charitable Donations Bill
Ben Gummer Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I have been following the Bill with great interest, as have my constituents. It is a pleasure to be here for the Third Reading of one of Her Majesty’s Government’s most progressive measures. I look forward to its being passed from this House imminently.
The most generous people are often those with the least means. If we look at the income distribution of people who give charitable donations, we see that those who give the largest proportion of their income are the poorest. It is unfair that those who are the richest should get the biggest tax break, as it were, in the Government top-up on their donation through gift aid and by the myriad other schemes that we have discussed in this Chamber in the past year, and that people who might give £20 or £15, which would be much more than £50,000 to a rich person, should receive less of an advantage. The Bill, therefore, is a progressive and forward-looking reform of tax legislation, which will help give the same benefit to people who give little amounts of money, which for them is a great deal, as to those who might give a lot and not think so greatly about it.
The Bill is not just good for small donors; it is also good for small charities. In all our constituencies, the people who really pull our communities together are those in the small charities, whether they be churches or charitable groups looking after the disabled, the sick or children. The Bill will make a real difference to those charities, not only because they will get more money from the Government but because it will help bind them to their donors and, importantly, facilitate the sense of community that arises when people give what they can both in time and small amounts of money. It will help to build communities and make them better places. For that reason, I support the Third Reading of this fantastic Bill put forward by Her Majesty’s Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Fuel Duty
Ben Gummer Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has shown the merit of consistency over many years, but that is not a quality shared by the first two signatories to the Opposition motion—the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)—who, in proposing the motion, have shown that they are a very long way from being ready to form a Government. As my hon. Friend the Minister has shown so eloquently, the motion is riddled with contradictions and hypocritical, and shows that the Opposition do not understand in any way the appalling legacy with which the coalition Government have been charged with dealing by the British people.
I hope Opposition Members, and especially Opposition Front Benchers, have read the motion—at least one of them will be a little embarrassed by it—which states:
“That this House believes that, at a time when the cost of living is rising and our economic recovery is fragile”.
At least we have a begrudging admission from them that there is an economic recovery. That there is a recovery has taken a while to come out.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the Opposition motion openly states that there is a fragile economic recovery. Will he do likewise and acknowledge that there was a fragile economic recovery in June 2010?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, I remind hon. Members that, if they intervene, and if they drop down the speaking list, they will understand why—they keep adding minutes to the debate.
Ben Gummer
I thank the hon. Lady for her comment, because it helps me to remind her that, when Britain was in recession at the back end of 2008, fuel duty went up by 2p. When it was in recession at the beginning of 2009, fuel duty went up by 2p. When it was in recession in September 2009, fuel duty went up by 2p. When there was a faltering recovery—which was probably credit fuelled—in March 2010, on the eve of an election, at the point when the figures showed that the economy was recovering, fuel duty went up by 1p. So much for the correlation between recession and fuel duty increases.
Bill Esterson
Thank you. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is aware of the research by FairFuelUK that points out that a 3p increase in duty would deliver a 0.1% drop in GDP and the loss of 35,000 jobs. Does he accept those figures?
Ben Gummer
At least FairFuelUK sticks to its position. My point is that Labour put up fuel duty in government when the country was in a deep recession and increased it by marginally less when the country was showing signs of a credit-fuelled recovery—coincidentally, on the eve of an election—yet now, when there has been 1% growth in GDP, Labour objects to an increase in fuel duty that was programmed at that point by the previous Government. What Labour lacks in consistency it also lacks in remembrance of what it did previously, faced with the worst recession this country has ever suffered, when the Labour Government put duel duty up by 6p over 18 months.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman speaks of remembrance, yet he seems to have forgotten the rise in VAT. Will he say how that impacted on fuel duty and how it affected his constituents?
Ben Gummer
I shall turn to disposable incomes and the cost of living in the round now, as it is mentioned in the motion. Of course times are incredibly difficult, for my constituents and most of our constituents. The cost of living and disposable incomes have come under considerable pressure, but a large part of that has resulted from the need to balance the books. We were left the largest deficit in peacetime history, which—as the Minister reminded us—we now understand was £71 billion before the recession came. Yet the inheritance was not just one of deficit in 2008, but one where real wages fell in the period from 2003 to 2008, when GDP figures showed at least nominal growth—of 11% perhaps —in the economy. Real wages for anyone who happened to be a middle-income earner stagnated in that period, while real wages for those in the bottom quartile fell by 0.4%. Therefore, when the country was growing under the previous Administration, incomes were falling for the vast majority of people in real terms.
The reason we now have to take painful steps to rebalance the economy is to address the fundamental problems that the previous Government not only failed to address, but in many instances laid the foundations for. This country cannot survive on the economic model built by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of this nation. It was that model which broke so spectacularly in 2008, and it is this model which we are trying, little by little, to repair. The least the Opposition could do is recognise the problems that they gave this new coalition Government to sort out, yet we have before us a motion that is a consummate exploration of inconsistency and hypocrisy. What I would say to those on the Government Front Bench is this: do not listen to the Opposition when they give lectures on tax avoidance or fuel duty, because they have none to give.
I suggest that we have a system that will not work in the long term. The problem with fuel taxation is that—as the Office for Budget Responsibility has probably underestimated—it will cost the Exchequer some £13 billion by 2026. Fuel taxation is a system that has been modified so many times to allow for low-emission vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and rural drivers that it is becoming a sieve for the Exchequer, and it needs fundamental reform. I would push Ministers to think seriously again about road tolling, so that we can stop this silly exercise, which we now have year in, year out, of deciding whether to put up taxes—decisions that are often completely countermanded the next day or within a week by volatile rises and drops in the price of oil—and moreover allow ourselves to manage the vast assets that we have in the road infrastructure in this country. At the moment, there is no demand management and complete resource misallocation in maintenance and investment, all of which could be remedied by a sensible road tolling system, which would help us to target help specifically at those constituents whom many in this Chamber will talk about this evening.
We have before us an inconsistent and hypocritical motion—a motion that tells us nothing, apart from the fact that Her Majesty’s Opposition are a long way from forming Her Majesty’s Government. I therefore commend the amendment, which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has moved, and, in so doing, hope that he will look again at road tolling, so that we can stop this perennial debate once and for all.
Multiannual Financial Framework
Ben Gummer Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
To be honest, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. If I take her back to the last debate I had with her on this issue, I do not think that that is the position she was advocating then. In her heart of hearts, she would prefer Parliament to give a strong single voice today, so that the Government have a negotiating position whereby they can go to Brussels, Strasbourg or wherever and say, “Look, we have the whole of Parliament behind us saying, ‘We’ve got to cut’.” That is why I hope she will vote for the amendment today.
I know that some hon. Members do not like structural funds at all—perhaps this was the issue that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who has already left the Chamber, wanted to raise—but I believe structural funds have a role to play in trying to make the whole European Union far more competitive in the world economy. That is certainly true for places like the valleys in south Wales. Sometimes the money is not particularly well spent, but if we did not have structural funds and cohesion funds, the danger is that each individual country would end up abusing state aid to protect specific businesses in their own country, thereby undermining countries like our own that choose not to go down that route.
I ask Government Members this: how could we possibly go back to our constituents and say to teachers, fire officers, police officers and all the rest, “We want to give more money to the European Union, but you’ve got to live with a pay freeze, and you’ve got to live with less money, with 19% cuts year on year to local authority funding for the building of hospitals, homes and so forth.”? I just do not see how I could possibly argue that.
Chris Bryant
I am not giving way, as I know that many other Members want to speak.
I resent the Minister’s answer to my earlier question, as I think he simply misunderstood it. When the Government increased VAT in this country to 20%, it increased the amount of money we would have to pay to—[Interruption.] The Minister has probably been inspired by officials at this point, so he may know the answer.
LIBOR (FSA Investigation)
Ben Gummer Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right that the compliance regime is absolutely the first line of defence in the financial services industry. To be fair, Barclays did raise concerns about the LIBOR market operation in late 2007 and early 2008. I think that we can draw a distinction, as the FSA does, between what was going on in 2005-06 and early 2007 and what happened once the crisis hit. He is absolutely right that the compliance regime is vital, and if there are any banks listening to what has happened today that are not looking carefully at their compliance regimes and ensuring they are up to scratch, I think that they are being pretty foolish.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
The Chancellor will know that concerns about the setting of LIBOR go back some time. A paper circulated by New York university’s Stern business school in 2008 raised the issue of the manipulation of LIBOR. Indeed, in that year the panel changed the criteria for and composition of the setting of LIBOR because of concerns about the fairness of the rate. What investigation will he undertake about the concerns raised at the time, whether they were picked up by the FSA, whether the American authorities passed any concerns to the Treasury and the FSA and, if so, what was done about them?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right that concerns were raised in late 2007 and in 2008 once the markets had frozen and become very illiquid. Barclays raised its concerns with the FSA, which is why the report draws a distinction between the situation before the summer of 2007 and the situation after, because different things were going on. In 2007-08 Barclays, and potentially other banks, were concerned about their reputation and the high cost of funding they were being charged, so he is right to draw that distinction. The FSA began investigating the complaints in 2009, as set out in the report. He asks a good question on whether any evidence was passed to the authorities by international bodies or other Governments. That is not in the report, so I am happy to get back to him on whether there was anything specific.
Green Economy
Ben Gummer Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Sandys
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. I do not see the issue as a positive for one sector or another, but we must have transparency across all the energy sources that we as a country decide to—let us say—invest in or to support in any way.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
Without wanting to get tied up in the argument about subsidy, whether it existed or the lack of it, I note the certain truth that there was significant state investment in the oil and gas sector in the 1960s and ’70s, which was repaid only when the gas and oil started flowing. An analogy could be drawn now with the green technology industry, where we hope that such development might happen, too.
Joan Walley
I, too, want everybody in the Chamber to get into the debate.
Let me bring to the attention of the House the two reports that the Environmental Audit Committee has produced, and which for the benefit of Members we have tagged on the Order Paper: the Committee’s twelfth report on “A Green Economy” and its sixth report on “Budget 2011 and Environmental Taxes”, which shows how we have examined the Treasury’s role in the matter.
We intended the two reports to be a starting point and an overarching basis on which the discussions that now need to take place throughout business, local government, the private sector and international development might be brought together, so that our policies—including what we do, and how we keep scrutinising what happens, in Parliament—can be tied to that agenda. We found that two years after making the commitment to increase the proportion of tax revenues accounted for by environmental taxes, the Government still have no strategy for achieving this commitment. In addition, they have not published their definition of an environmental tax. In our further follow-up inquiries, we will do what we can to obtain that definition and to scrutinise what is happening so that we get some real progress.
A further relevant aspect is the Rio+20 summit that took place last week. Its outcome was extremely disappointing given the lack of a highly ambitious outcome and follow-up action plan. However, all the different parties who were there, from business people, to legislators, to parliamentarians, to members of civil society were in absolute agreement that if the high-level leaders cannot come up with significant outcomes, everybody else has to raise their game. So it is with our Parliaments. I urge the Economic Secretary to demonstrate that she understands this issue by saying what she is doing through Treasury policy and in making sure in Cabinet meetings that there is a joined-up approach towards environmental taxes.
I want to raise issues relating to my own constituency, because we will not deal with this situation nationally or internationally unless we can deal with it locally as well. It is a matter of great concern to me that a large number of people in Stoke-on-Trent are living in fuel poverty. Indeed, of the 40,678 households in Stoke-on-Trent North, 10,120 are in fuel poverty, which is absolutely outrageous. It is a rate of 24.9%, which compares with the UK average of 18.6%—and even that is shocking. If ever there was a reason we should be getting support from the Treasury to address these environmental issues, it is that. We have a commitment to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016, and we will not achieve that unless we scale up everything that is done and look at how revenues can be reinvested so that whole communities see the importance of moving towards the renewables future that is so urgently needed.
I say this as someone who represents a constituency where the industrial revolution started because of our reliance on carbon.
Ben Gummer
Will the hon. Lady comment on the fact that the Labour Government spent almost £5 billion on trying to eradicate fuel poverty through various measures, with the consequence that fuel poverty went up in their 13 years in power?
Joan Walley
I am not going to get involved in any kind of partisan debate. Unless we can bring in measures that deal with fuel poverty in the short term and the long term, and get people’s commitment to work on this agenda instead of making political capital at the expense of everybody else, we will not deal with the problem.
In Stoke-on-Trent, we want to work with the coal authority to extract geothermal heat, which we see as one part of the solution in the context of all the other things that need to be done, to provide the jobs that are required, to provide training for people in the skills that will be needed for the new investment in renewables, and to see what we can do to bring about district heating schemes for city centre developments. We want to use the water that is underneath our city—albeit in what is, to date, an innovative way—to do what other countries, such as the Netherlands, have done to get the investment that is needed. We cannot do that without fiscal changes and incentives, and ways of getting innovation and new technology on board very quickly.
On fuel poverty, yes, we have had investment, but we have seen that piecemeal investments do not deal with the whole issue. That is why the previous Government invented the CERT—carbon emissions reduction target—scheme. If we deal with whole communities, often in areas of Victorian housing where there are huge issues with energy efficiency, it is possible to get the investment that is needed in one fell swoop. That is the kind of scaling up that is now so urgently needed.
We have aspirations to decarbonise our city. We have an untapped renewable resource, but at the same time we recognise the need for investment across a wide range of different industries and sectors. If this debate helps to take that agenda further forward, and if our Select Committees can examine and scrutinise every single action that the Treasury is taking to make these aspirations a reality, given the urgency of the need for greater energy efficiency, it will have been worth while.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Ben Gummer Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
Winston Churchill was right in 1925 when he introduced that measure. People who are retired have fixed incomes, as a result of which there are more pressures on them and they cannot make up the additional changes. That is why the Opposition will vote against the Government’s change. We do not think it is the right priority or the right thing to do at this time, especially because the money is not being used to help young people to get back to work, to help the poorest pensioners or to help families of children who are struggling with the rise in the cost of living. Instead, the money is being used to give a tax cut of £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what my principle is: we should prioritise ordinary families, ordinary pensioners and young people who are out of work, not those on multi-million pound salaries. That is my principle and those are my priorities. I am sorry that Government Members do not share them.
That is the second reason why the Opposition are opposing the tax increase on millions of modest-income pensioners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) so eloquently expressed on Monday, the measure is unfair and unnecessary when the Government are spending £3 billion on a tax give-away for the richest 1%. Hon. Members will remember that, originally, the Government said that the 50p tax cut would be paid for by a mansion tax and a crackdown on tax avoidance. However, the cut costs 10 times as much as is raised by the new measure on stamp duty—the Chief Secretary’s sorry substitute for a mansion tax—and more than three times as much as is raised in the Budget by reductions in tax avoidance. In fact, cutting tax avoidance should be part of every Budget anyway, and the money raised by measures to tackle tax avoidance in this Budget is less than the average reductions in tax avoidance achieved by Labour’s Budgets. In addition, we have since discovered that the Government’s definition of tax avoidance includes donations to UNICEF, Macmillan, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities that do fantastic work in our communities. That the Government cannot see the difference between tax avoidance and giving money to worthwhile causes again shows how out of touch they are.
Meanwhile, the single biggest revenue raiser in the Budget is the measure before us. More than £3 billion over the next five years will be raised from the pockets of pensioners with modest incomes. Where does it all go to? Does it go towards paying down the deficit? No. Does it help young people to get back to work? No. Does it help poorer pensioners? No—they have been hit too by VAT rises and service cuts. Instead, the money, which is being taken from those with pensions of just a few thousand pounds a year, is being spent on a tax cut for people for whom this tax grab would have counted as mere small change.
The Government were said to have been surprised by the anger that the measure has aroused, but that again goes to show how out of touch they are with the reality faced by most people, and how far they have strayed from the values and priorities of the British people. It goes to the heart of the problems that the Government face and the problem with their conception of fairness, and the callous arrogance with which they have abandoned the pretence that we are all in it together.
Age UK responded to the Government’s measures by stating:
“we feel it is disappointing that the Budget offered a tax break of at least £10,000 to the very wealthy while penalising many pensioners on fairly modest incomes who are already being squeezed”.
The chief executive of Saga said:
“Over the next five years, pensioners with an income of between £10,500 and £24,000 will be paying an extra £3 billion in tax while richer pensioners are left unaffected.”
The National Pensioners Convention, which I met earlier today, stated:
“We have been inundated by pensioners who are disgusted that those on around £11,000 a year will no longer get additional reductions in their tax…whilst those earning £150,000 or more will see their tax bills reduced. This is seen by many as the last straw…Pensioners feel they are being asked to bail out the super rich…and it’s simply not fair.”
Age UK, Saga, and the National Pensioners Convention have hit the nail on the head. It is just a shame that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are so blinded by the demands of the super-rich that they fail to see it.
Finally, it is worth recognising that the measure is not the only reason why people are so angry. It is not just the blatant unfairness that has offended people, but the way in which the change was announced. Most people believe that our older generation deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, yet this Government and the Chancellor tried to get away with going back on a previous promise by dressing up a tax grab as a “simplification”. Just one year ago, on page 35 of the 2011 Budget Red Book, people were told:
“For the duration of this Parliament…the age related allowance will be over-indexed”
according to
“CPI and will increase by the equivalent of the…RPI”.
What the Chancellor said then was clear and unmistakeable, but that is another broken promise by the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat friends. The Institute for Fiscal Studies agrees. It says that the Chancellor
“should have avoided dressing up what is clearly a tax increase as merely a simplification”.
In the same letter from Age UK to the Chancellor that I have quoted, it also states:
“We are concerned that you announced the change to age allowances as a way to simplify the tax system and indeed the Budget Report lists the change under…‘Simplification’... rather than under ‘Personal and Property taxes’”.
The Chancellor also attempted to hide behind the Office of Tax Simplification, but its director has told the Treasury that attempts to use its recommendations as a cover for his tax grab are “not 100% accurate”. The relevant report by the Office of Tax Simplification states clearly:
“we would stress…that the Office of Tax Simplification has not reached any conclusions as to the best way forward with age-related allowances, nor have we formulated detailed recommendations”.
It is all too clear why the Chancellor did not bother to wait for the final OTS report: he was not really interested in simplifying taxation for older people. Rather, his single-minded focus and overriding priority was getting his millionaires’ tax break through, and he was willing to fund it by cutting the incomes of pensioners.
In conclusion, we all know what an embarrassment this Budget has become to Government Members. We know how it has shaken their confidence in the strategic genius of the Chancellor and that many of them have heard from constituents who are anxious about the impact that the measure will have and angry about how the Government have treated people who deserve better.
Therefore, today, the Opposition are glad to be giving Government Members an opportunity to make amends and a chance to dissociate themselves with this disreputable raid on the incomes of older people. They have a choice. Do they stand with the millions of people who have worked hard and saved what they can? Or do they stand with the Chancellor and his friend, the Chief Secretary, who see pensioners as a soft touch ripe for a sneaky tax grab? The Opposition know whose side we are on. We are about to find out whose side Government Members are on.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) in this important debate. It is important because it touches on perhaps the greatest challenge facing politicians and representatives in this Chamber. She is a luminary of the new Labour party and one of the stars of her intake, and it is always a pleasure to hear her in the Chamber and on the television. No doubt, at some point, she aspires to high office not only in her party but in government. [Interruption.] There is no punch line. The hon. Lady is no joke. It is important to remember that, at some point, Labour will form a Government. I hope it is not too soon, but it is in the nature of our democracy, and a fine thing, that we swap sides now and again.
Richard Harrington
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about Labour’s prospects of forming a Government. I listened to the comments about pensions from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). Does he think I will be a pensioner by the time Labour forms another Government?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is full of vigour and will be going a long time, so I hope not.
The key challenge facing us is the extraordinary rate of demographic change in this country. Between now and 11 minutes past 3, the average age at which people are expected to die in this country will increase by 15 minutes. As a consequence, by 2041, the amount we spend on old-age pensions will have increased from about £80 billion now to £250 billion, even with the changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues. Even with the reforms that the Government have initiated, we will deliver to our successors in this place—including the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury—a formidable challenge, and not only have we not properly faced up to the challenge but we are not talking properly to the public about it.
I can understand why Labour Members have tabled amendments on VAT and other matters—they can make their political points about the balance in the Budget and the Finance Bill with complete justice—but I am seriously disappointed that they have tabled amendments on this issue, because it is the most modest start to trying to deal with what is a really big and fundamental problem for us all.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a sensible and thoughtful speech and some important points. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) prayed in aid changes made by Sir Winston Churchill 87 years ago. However, the numbers qualifying then for any sort of pension, let alone an age-related one, were minuscule compared with the numbers qualifying today and in decades to come.
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is entirely right. When Sir Winston Churchill served in Lloyd George’s Cabinet and the Liberals introduced the universal pension—one of that Government’s great achievements—a quarter of people never reached pension age. They never got to the point where they could draw down their pension. We are in a completely different place now.
I am not proposing to the Committee that we start now to think about the wholesale and widespread pension reform that is required, but surely we should start by trying to change some of the anomalies, and this anomaly is such a glaringly obvious one. At the moment, Members on both sides of the House, including those of us who represent constituencies with many low-earners—low-earners with families struggling desperately—are telling our constituents to pay a different rate of tax from pensioners, who, only because of their age, qualify for a different allowance.
Katy Clark
If the hon. Gentleman believes that the allowance is such a glaring anomaly, why was there not something about it in his party’s manifesto?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady asks about the party manifesto. I had hoped to discuss the broader issues and great challenges facing us. Manifestos are, by their nature, broad brush, and this is such a tiny change to the tax system in the grand scheme of what the Treasury has to deal with. It is entirely right that the Government are, bravely, addressing it now. In all honesty, would either party go down to such detail in any future manifesto? It is entirely right that the Government are saying, “This is an anomaly. It is incorrect and unfair, and what is more, it is one of the many anomalies that are unaffordable in the long term.”
Kelvin Hopkins
I hear time and again the Government saying that things are unaffordable and raising spectres of vast pensions bills in the future. This is a simple matter of transferring money from one group of people to another—namely, from the rich to the less rich. Were the abolition of the 83p rate by Mrs Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe and of the 60p rate by Nigel Lawson and getting rid of the 15% surcharge on unearned income all anomalies?
Ben Gummer
I profoundly respect the hon. Gentleman. He is a torchbearer for a former age in the Labour party, and he should raise that point with his own Front-Bench team. We are clearly not going to agree on it. However, at some point, someone needs to face up to the fact that we will almost double spending on old-age pensions between now and 2040. I shall put that in context: the number of people retiring this year who will be alive in 2041 will be more significant than now. I cannot give the precise figure, but hundreds of thousands of people retiring in the next few years will be alive in 20 or 30 years. We are not only dealing with an intergenerational problem, with a problem between this generation and a generation in two or three generations’ time or with a problem between people in their 20s and those in their 60s or 70s; we are dealing with a problem of those retiring now and to whom we must promise pensions and a decent standard of living in 30 years’ time. The ability to afford that is at the crux of the Government’s reforms, and this proposal is just the start of it.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) asked why, if this was such a wonderful proposal, it was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto. My question is this: if this is such a wonderful proposal, why was it the only one not leaked before the Chancellor’s statement?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case. [Interruption.] Well, it isn’t. I was endeavouring to have a wider debate about the importance of the reform in the context of the massive pensions challenge and of trying to pay for the pensions of vulnerable people not just this year but in 10 and 15 years.
Nadhim Zahawi
I take my hon. Friend back to Labour’s chances of forming a Government. Does he agree that that requires credibility, and that credibility is built on taking debates such as this one as seriously as he is taking them and addressing these important issues, rather than just jumping on bandwagons, being opportunistic and misleading the nation at the precise time when the nation requires real leadership?
Ben Gummer
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his compliment, because I, too, could be critical of the Government in one respect—[Hon. Members: “ Ah!”] It is not a criticism of the policy. None of us in this place has yet started to be completely straight with people about the enormous scale of the challenge that faces us.
Sheila Gilmore
The hon. Gentleman’s discussion about the issue of old people is interesting, but is it not the purpose of this provision not to provide greater pensions—or, perhaps, better social care—but to balance the cut to the 50% tax rate?
Ben Gummer
I wish we could deal with this canard. I did not want to be political about this—[Interruption.] No, I tell the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) that I did not. Five times more revenue is being taken from the wealthiest people in this country as a result of the Budget than from reducing the top rate of tax. That argument has been dealt with and, although it is pity, I suspect that that is why the hon. Member for Leeds West, who is a serious-minded and intellectual member of the Opposition Front-Bench team, realises that the only way she can make an argument about this issue is by trying to shackle it to a false argument about the top rate of tax, to which it has no relation whatever. This is about beginning to reform provision for people who are retiring in our country. If we do not begin to make these small changes, we will not even be in a position to make the changes that will be necessary in future.
Mark Field
My hon. Friend was absolutely right when he said earlier that we have collectively been living well beyond our means. That over-consumption by today’s Britons, including today’s pensioners, will have to be paid for by generations to come, and that cannot be justifiable. Given the interventions on him from the Opposition, does he agree that we made it clear before the election in our manifesto that we would maintain intact all the universal benefits—in particular, TV licences, the winter fuel costs and a lot of the travel allowances, along with a significant number of other pension-related benefits—that we have been true to our word and that we will remain so for the rest of this Parliament?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend represents a seat with a huge personal vote. I was not lucky enough to take over from a Conservative Member of Parliament with a huge personal vote such as his. I was therefore targeted in the last few weeks of the campaign by the Labour party and its union friends, who issued a series of postcards claiming that we would abolish the winter fuel allowance, free TV licences and all those other things. It is a matter of great pride to me that even in coalition, when compromises must be made, those promises, made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, were kept.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Anna Soubry
I am sorry that I had to leave the Chamber for a short period, but I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an important and thoughtful speech. However, I am sure that, like me, he will have received e-mails and letters from pensioners in his constituency who are worried that their real incomes are in some way being cut by this Government. What would he say, not only to the pensioners in his constituency, but to those in mine—and no doubt in many other constituencies—who are worried about their futures?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is right in two senses. Everyone is concerned about their standard of living. That is the nature of recovering from this terrible recession, which has many causes. As a Government, we are in the position of having to make very difficult decisions. Again, it is a point of great pride to me that we are being brave enough to make those decisions and to spread the load throughout the entire taxpayer base. It is a matter of extraordinary difficulty, but the group that has been hit least so far by the savings, efficiencies and cuts that the Government have had to make has been pensioners, because they have benefited from the triple lock and a whole series of other interventions by the Government, and because they are not recipients of other benefits. As a result, this measure is probably the most modest incursion into pensioner income.
Ben Gummer
I will, but before I do, let me say in response to that intervention that there are many pensioners in my constituency who are on very low incomes. They are suffering considerably at the moment. Most of them do not have incomes anywhere close to the current allowance. What we are trying to do—in improving their lot through the triple lock guarantee, as well as protecting the pension credit, the winter fuel payments, the cold weather payments and the free TV licences—is protect the benefits of those who are least able to look after themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is right in another sense. It is not just today’s vulnerable pensioners whom we must look after and seek to help, but the vulnerable pensioners in 20 and 30 years’ time. If we do not make changes now and try to protect the state’s income to some degree, we will not be in a position even to afford the benefits and pensions that we promise people now, let alone to anything like that degree in 20 or 30 years’ time, and that will be a problem for both parties.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Obviously the proposals that we are talking about today do not apply to the very poorest pensioners or the better-off pensioners. However, let me ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question: what incentive will there be for people to save for their retirement?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady is entirely right. One of the terrifying things that comes out of all public opinion surveys is the lack of savings and even the lack of people expecting to save for their old age. I hope that the reforms brought in by the Minister responsible for pensions—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—for auto-enrolment and encouraging savings will be the beginning of a fully funded pensions system.
However, that is for another debate. I am aware of the strictures regarding Committee time and the fact that other Members wish to speak. I would therefore like to make one final comment. Lord Turner’s 2005 report, which was commissioned by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said that
“unless new government initiatives can make a major difference to behaviour, the present voluntary system of pension savings, combined with the present state system, is unlikely to deliver adequate pension provision.”
Moreover, he went on to say that the only means of achieving that would be through cross-party consensus. If we are to be serious about providing decent pensions, not only to people today, but to people in five, 10 and 15 years’ time—that includes people retiring this year and next year, who will be in their 80s and 90s when we will really be starting to pick up the bill—all parties must, between us, come to some sort of consensus about the difficult decisions that need to be made.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to encourage confidence among people out there that they can commit to planning and saving for their pensions, no Government should ever engage in an easy drive-by hit on pensioners?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman would be right, were the changes in the Bill modest to that degree. They represent a freeze for those who are already receiving the allowance, which will be merged into the basic rate allowance which will then move up towards it. In that regard, the taper could not be more gentle.
It is entirely right to say that the Government need to sketch out a very long-term plan for pensions, and I know that the Pensions Minister is beginning that process, but it will need the support, input and intellectual vigour of Members such as the hon. Member for Leeds West if it is to be a success in the long term. Otherwise, we and our successors will be unable to pay the bill, and pensioners will be freezing and starving as a result. The bill will be unaffordable and we will be fighting to pay it against a global economy in which we are unable to compete. That is a terrifying prospect, and I hope that we can begin to deal with it now by supporting the Government in what I hope is the first of many of the changes that need to be made in order to protect the living standards, the decency and the dignity of those people who have worked hard all the way through their lives.
Alison McGovern
I shall make a few remarks about an important impact of the changes, which is at risk of going unrecognised. I think of that as the cluster impact of the changes. Our country does not have the same kind of people distributed uniformly across the United Kingdom. People of different ages cluster in different areas.
I am deeply proud to represent the Wirral, not least because the area has a higher proportion of older people. It is a great strength of our area. They bring a large amount of expertise and stability, and we should not talk about people living longer as though it was a negative thing. I benefited from having grandparents who lived longer than they might have expected, and I cherished each of those relationships.
With that clustering of older people comes a responsibility to pay attention to the issues that affect them. Even if that was not the right thing to do in and of itself, our local economy in Wirral is highly dependent on the income of pensioners. We have many small independent businesses whose relationship with their customers is important. They have regulars of many years’ standing, and many of those people are retired and on a fixed income, so even if it was not the case that we should care about the needs of older people, the employment of the rest of us in the Wirral and the vitality of some of the local shops is related to the income of older people.
Before I deal with the clustering of the local economy and the attention that Ministers must pay to how our economy works in practice, I want to make a few points about longevity and the increase in life expectancy that we are seeing. We must recognise that this is not a uniform phenomenon. Not everybody in our country is living longer in the same way. There is a social justice element. Poverty is still a pretty strong determinant of the length of people’s life. People such as those in my constituency who have worked in manufacturing might not expect to live as long as those in relatively more affluent parts of the country. My constituency is very mixed, and there are people there who may not be able to expect to live longer as the average increases. That average masks different expectations.
When Treasury Ministers make decisions about, for example, age-related allowances, I ask them to find out how those will impact on different parts of the country and different groups of people. The impact will not be uniform. We are not all uniformly living longer in exactly the same way. The NHS is a wonderful thing, but we still have a heck of a long way to go on public health to make sure that poverty does not limit people’s life expectancy, as it has done in the past and still does.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady makes a sensible point. One of the big challenges that faces us in increasing the state pension age and the point at which people retire is trying to understand the different requirements of people who have done heavy manual labour throughout their life or for any part of their life and have had different physical pressures put upon them, and those who have not. But that does not remove the point that most people who are affected by the tax allowance freeze are relatively wealthy pensioners—most of them. Therefore, although this is not a precise instrument, I am not sure that her point addresses exactly what the Minister seeks to do.
Alison McGovern
I shall return to my constituents and tell them that a moment of cross-party agreement broke out over the problem that the hon. Gentleman and I agree exists, where we must rightly consider the state pension age, but that that decision will affect certain people in a completely different way from that suggested by any average figure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to respond to his second point by saying that I will remark later on whom the proposals affect and their relative position.
Before making my substantive point about how the economy clusters and how these proposals will affect us, I want to answer the point about inflation made by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has unfortunately just left the Chamber. She sought to make a case against my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), saying that the Government were doing pensioners a great service by increasing their pension on inflation, which has come about because of events beyond our shores, and the Government are just trying to respond to the oil price, and so on. I have no doubt that world events have had an impact on inflation in this country. Thankfully, I do not have to work out which events have an impact on inflation and report that to the Chancellor. That is the job of the Governor of the Bank of England. I have read the Governor’s letters on inflation and he remarks on the impact of the Government’s VAT rise on inflation. If the hon. Lady were here, I would tell her that it is not entirely true to say that the inflation that we face that has caused the Government to be so proud of their cost of living rise for pensioners is entirely beyond our control. It is in part at least down to the Government’s action.
I want now to think about the cumulative impact of this policy and a couple of others on the part of the world that I represent, but also on similar local economies. Some of the Government’s decisions have resulted in a kind of conflagration that means that particular localities face a really difficult economic future.
Alison McGovern
Is the hon. Lady therefore saying that the proportion is not 40%? She indicates that she does not know—that is fine.
Ben Gummer
Whatever the proportion of pensioners affected, whether it is 10%, 20%, 30% or 40%, does the hon. Lady think it is right that they currently get a different tax rate from low-earning families who are struggling hard but for some reason seem to be discriminated against just because they are not over 65?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman, too, is welcome to intervene on me again and say what he thinks the proportion is if he thinks the BBC is wrong. He said it might be 10% or 20%. No? Okay.
Banking (Responsibility and Reform)
Ben Gummer Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McCann
There must be responsibility across every business, whether it is private or public. I am not a communist—the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that. I do not suggest that we move to the Cuban model and are all paid the same for doing different jobs, as I recognise that people have different contributions to make and should be paid different salaries for doing so. Often, examples that go to the extreme, such as those about footballers, and that go into other systems of capitalism in the country in which they work do not take the debate much further forward. My analogy is between the civil service and the Royal Bank of Scotland, as the civil service is in the public sector as is the Royal Bank of Scotland, because we own the largest share in it. The difficulty we had in defining performance-related pay in the civil service reads across, it strikes me, to the difficulty we have in defining performance-related pay in the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Mr McCann
I think I have been generous enough in giving way, and other Members want to speak.
On bankers’ bonuses, it appears that when the behaviour being rewarded is non-productive—the Royal Bank of Scotland and other banks have not met their Merlin targets and, in each of the past 12 months, they have not met their targets for lending to SMEs—it is surely a case of the emperor’s new clothes. Bankers’ bonuses cannot be based on an opaque set of rules. They are a travesty, a charade and the practice should be outlawed not only in RBS but in other organisations that cannot properly define a performance-related pay system. The era of these unacceptable bankers’ bonuses must come to an end, as we need a direct relationship between reward and performance. Most importantly, the Royal Bank of Scotland has an economic duty to lend to small and medium-sized enterprises to ensure that the economy of our country starts to improve. On that note, I commend the motion and I will support it tonight.
Finance Bill
Ben Gummer Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economy
Ben Gummer Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
I will give way in a second.
The fact is that the scale of the fiscal hit to demand and growth in Britain this year and next is unprecedented. It is happening when interest rates are already low, so they cannot be cut, and when other countries are trying to reduce their deficits at the same time. Confidence is also hit by the public debate about when mortgage rates will have to go up because of the Chancellor’s own-goal on inflation through the rise in VAT. That is why there is a problem. Instead, all we get from the Chancellor and the Conservative party is excuse after excuse.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the OBR, the IMF, the EU, the OECD and the CBI, each of which supports the Government’s policy and says that any deviation would be a mistake. What is his answer to them?
Ed Balls
It is good to see the IMF supporting the Government of the day. The IMF not supporting the Government of the day would be a catastrophe, and exactly the same has always been true, historically, for the OECD. There is no doubt that business has a growing worry about what is going on. There is also a growing worry in Ipswich, not least shown by a Labour local election victory there just a few weeks ago. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman’s colleague the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is not in the Chamber, but obviously this local campaign is catching on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) on his campaign to save school crossings, to get more funding for them from schools or parent-teacher associations, and his lobbying of the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that education in Ipswich gets the extra money it needs. “Save Sure Start from Cuts”—it is obviously all catching on.
Ed Balls
I have plenty more; we will come to them in a second. Just think, “Good publicity, good publicity, it’s all good publicity.” It did not do the hon. Member for West Suffolk any harm; it did not do him any good either.
We do not hear much from the Chancellor these days about snow being the explanation for the contraction of the economy at the end of the year, because as he knew at the time, it also snowed in America, Germany and France, and they all posted stronger growth. In fact, Denmark, Ireland, Greece and Portugal were the only other countries with falling output in the last quarter of 2010. The Chancellor of all people, a regular skier on Europe’s slopes, should have known that even in winter it does not snow in Greece and Portugal. Instead we hear a new weather-related line. He blames the global headwinds, factors outside his control—rising oil prices, food prices, the eurozone, the Japanese earthquake, all reasons why prudent Chancellors should always be vigilant and choose caution over complacency. It is ironic to hear the Chancellor and the Prime Minister blame the rest of the world for Britain’s economic difficulties, as they did the opposite for their last four years in opposition.
Compared with other countries facing the same global headwinds, we are doing worse. We have gone from being in the top half of the EU economic league, to fourth from bottom in the past few months. It is no wonder that the OECD Deputy Secretary-General said a few weeks ago that
“we see merit in slowing the pace of fiscal consolidation if there is not so good news on the growth front”.
Even the IMF has said that
“there are significant risks to inflation, growth and unemployment”.
The excuses are not working, and the Chancellor is starting to be rumbled.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is encouraging to see so many Members wearing “Yes to High-Speed Rail” badges. That is a much-needed programme to encourage growth, but it absolutely flies in the face of the argument that the Chancellor has made today. The campaign is contrary to his supposed economic growth strategy because it supports a public finance-led project that aims to encourage follow-up investment by private sector capital. There are very few examples of that now, unlike under the previous Administration, when public sector capital was used to encourage and attract private sector investment.
We have heard today that, 12 months after the decision to cut further and faster than any other major economy, the recovery has been choked off, with zero growth over the past six months. The VAT rise has helped push inflation up to more than double the target rate, consumer confidence has fallen and both manufacturing output and retail sales fell last month. There was a welcome fall in unemployment in the last two months, mainly in part-time working, which the Government have started to refer to as “mini-jobs”. Vacancies are down, job creation has slowed in the six months since the spending review and unemployment is set to increase over the coming years to 200,000 higher than was expected in the past few months.
Ben Gummer
Will the hon. Gentleman state the precise source of the 200,000 figure that he has given for the increase in unemployment?
Tom Blenkinsop
The estimate will be from the OBR, so it is from a Government-sponsored body that assesses the Government’s own figures.
Tom Blenkinsop
I am sorry, but I want to continue. I will give way to someone else later.
The Tories are creating a vicious circle in our economy by cutting too far and too fast, hitting families and costing jobs. In fact, they are set to borrow £46 billion more than they had planned last autumn because of slower growth, higher inflation and higher unemployment, which are the consequences of the decision, announced in the Chancellor’s first Budget, to cut too far and too fast.
In the 12 months since the emergency Budget, all the key economic forecasts have worsened. On borrowing, for example, the OBR has steadily increased its forecasts for Government borrowing over the next five years, which means that the Chancellor is now forecast to borrow £46 billion more than he expected to last November.
Stephen Twigg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but it is the only one that I will take. I want to give other colleagues on both sides a chance to speak. We have heard a lot about Labour’s legacy, and about where Labour stands, and we get severely misrepresented by the Government parties opposite. We are not denying the deficit. We adopted a plan to halve it over the four years of a Parliament. We have been very clear that we would have made cuts in public spending, that we support some of the cuts that are now being made, and that certain tax increases would have happened under a Labour Government.
The real challenge in this debate is to address the questions of growth and employment. There is no value in cutting public spending as the Government are doing if it damages the prospects for growth. The impact on the economy is that tax revenues go down, unemployment goes up, benefit costs therefore rise and the deficit position gets even worse. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor reminded the House earlier about what both the parties that are now in government said when they were in opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) has pointed out that the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said in July 2008 that
“we are sticking to Labour’s spending totals.”
That was the view on the Conservative Front Bench in July 2008. In fact, my hon. Friend did not quote him in full; the right hon. Gentleman went on to describe those Labour spending totals as “tight”. The views that the current Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer are now expressing are not the ones that they held at that time.
A year ago, in the emergency Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
“In this Budget, everyone will be asked to contribute…everyone will share in the rewards when we succeed. When we say that we are all in this together, we mean it.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
Our motion today welcomes the recent fall in unemployment, and I have heard hon. Members on the Government Benches talk about falls in unemployment in their constituencies, but are we really all in it together? Let us look at the figures.
Stephen Twigg
I will not take any more interventions, for reasons of time.
We have seen a small increase over the past year in the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants. I want to compare two different constituencies in the north-west: my own, and another one just down the road, called Tatton. In Liverpool, West Derby, we have seen the number of JSA claimants rise over the past year by almost 5%. In Tatton, the number has fallen by 4%. [Interruption.] Well, I would love to know who the MP is who can make that much difference in a year. Somehow I doubt that that is possible. There are 4,000 JSA claimants in my constituency, and 1,000 in that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I sometimes think that Government Members underestimate the scale of anger in constituencies such as mine, which went through the experience of living through a Tory Government in the 1980s and have a sense that they are going through exactly the same experience again now.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). He spoke after my maiden speech, and he is a man whom I respect greatly for his integrity, honesty and the consistency with which he has held his views over the years. However, he has also been consistent in his economic views, and over 30 years he has been consistently wrong—in his judgment of Mrs Thatcher’s economy, John Major’s economy and Tony Blair’s economy. The fact that his views now come into the same alliance as that of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us all that we need to know about where the Opposition’s economic policy has gone.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Will my hon. Friend remind the House about the consequences of the 1981 Budget and what happened at the subsequent general election?
Ben Gummer
I do not know what position my hon. Friend took against the 1981 Budget, but all that I can say is that that Budget, which was opposed by Labour Members, started the rebuilding of the British economy, much as we are doing now.
I was not planning to speak today, but I entered the Members’ Lobby and looked at the Opposition’s motion on the Order Paper, which is entitled, “The economy one year since the Government’s first Budget”. I thought, “That’s brave of them, to pick a fight on this, but I’ll give them a chance.” I read on and thought, “This will be amusing.” The motions says:
“That this House notes that on 22 June 2010”—
there is a preamble, and we agree with that bit, because there was an excellent Budget this time last year—and it continues:
“further notes that over the last six months”.
I thought, “Hang on a minute. I thought we were talking about after a year,” but they have chosen six months for the economic growth figures. Why six months? It is because over a year the economy has grown, has it not? Already, in the terms of their own motion, the Opposition are failing, because they have to pick a six-month figure. Do hon. Members know why they pick that period?
My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked earlier about businesses. Her parents run a business in my constituency. She understands businesses. She understands that, with a difficult start-up, some weeks are not as good as others and that things are rocky and choppy. Not many Opposition Members have ever seen a balance sheet or a profit-and-loss account in their lives, and that is why they might not understand what she explained earlier. That is why, after a year, the economy is growing—but after six months, it was flat, because we are having a choppy recovery, as the Chancellor said.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ben Gummer
I have taken one intervention; I will not take any more.
I am afraid that the Opposition are falling down already with their motion, but let us go on to the next phrase:
“in the last month retail sales fell by 1.4 per cent.”
[Interruption.] If hon. Members listen carefully, they might find that their interventions are prefigured. Not content with six months’ worth, the Opposition have to go to the last month, but let us go back to the motion and what has happened over the past year. In the past year, retail sales have grown by 4.5%. I congratulate the Opposition on their motion, as we are seeing growth in the two key figures—GDP and retail sales—that we have considered so far.
The next thing in the Opposition’s motion is manufacturing output, which, it says, “fell by 1.5%” over the last month; but actually, over the year, it has risen by 1.3%.
Alison McGovern
I am going to skate briefly over the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Labour Members never having seen a balance sheet. I hope that he will discuss economic variables and lag times and say whether, in fact, what happened in the previous six months might have been attributable to the last Government and that we need to allow time to feel the impact of this Government’s policies. Will he cover that?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady makes a perfectly reasonable point, but it is not one that she has conveyed to Opposition Front Benchers, because they chose as the subject of the motion, “The economy one year since the Government’s first Budget”. I am merely commenting on that, not on the rather crass detail in the motion. So far, we have growth in manufacturing, growth in retail sales and growth in the economy. Let us go on to the next thing that they are talking about.
The motion refers to
“a welcome recent fall in unemployment”.
The Opposition concede that. It was not just welcome; it was the largest fall in unemployment for 10 years—88,000—and larger than that achieved at any point when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), whose Parliamentary Private Secretary questioned me a moment ago, was Prime Minister.
Andrew Griffiths
Returning to the point about manufacturing, is my hon. Friend aware that under the premiership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, we saw a sharp—
Andrew Griffiths
Does my hon. Friend agree that manufacturing declined more sharply under the previous Government than it did under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher? Under the Labour Government, we saw an unprecedented decline in manufacturing.
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is entirely right. In my constituency manufacturing fell more quickly in the 1970s than it did in the 1980s. The last bit that was left in the 1980s was stolen by Robert Maxwell, a previous Member of Parliament for the Labour party, though happily not in my constituency.
Let us move on and go through the motion, which says that
“the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that future unemployment will be up”
by 200,000. The Opposition Front-Bench team fail to be able to read a fan chart. That is the upper part of the forecast, but there is also a 200,000 dip at the bottom end of the fan chart. The OBR has said that unemployment is performing much as it had predicted. The forecasts are not changing and unemployment is going down more quickly than the OBR estimated in March.
A series of suggestions from the Opposition Front-Bench team follows. I wonder if I can prompt an intervention from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). The announcement on VAT mentioned in the motion was mentioned to her before it was mentioned to the shadow Cabinet or to the London School of Economics. She tuts me away. It is, according to the Financial Times, the biggest change in Opposition economic policy since the general election. I wondered whether the hon. Lady could comment on when it was announced to her colleagues, so we must take it that it was not.
We then come to the gravamen of the motion. It refers to the
“long-term damage to the economy”
caused by the Government’s policies. Let us look at underlying trends, which are probably the best indication of how the economy is performing. The savings ratio is higher now than it was at any point, apart from one quarter, in the whole of the previous Government’s time in office. The investment intention of the private sector from the CBI industrial trend survey is also higher than at any point in the 13 years of the previous Government. It reached that level previously only in the first quarter of 1997. Export orders are at a 15-year high, and CPIY—underlying inflation, excluding tax rises—is within the Bank of England remit.
We know that tax increases are coming through into inflation, and that there was a massive injection of cash into the economy through quantitative easing by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the combination of those and the necessary tax increases to deal with the appalling deficit which is causing the unfortunate inflation figures now, but the underlying figure is at about 2.4% or 2.5%, and I hope that in time it will return to that, as the OBR predicts.
The last part of the increasingly risible motion refers to
“temporarily cutting VAT to 17.5 per cent.”
When VAT was put up in the emergency Budget, I remember hearing from those on the Opposition Front Bench that that was an iniquitous rise that should never happen, but now it is to be temporary. Can the shadow Minister tell us why she is proposing a temporary cut rather than a permanent one, as she was proposing this time last year?
The motion mentions the bank bonus tax, a canard put out constantly by the Opposition. The bank bonus tax raised £2.4 billion on the best estimate, but £2.6 billion has been raised by our bank levy, which will be set every year in this Parliament, unlike the bonus tax which, by the previous Chancellor’s own admission, was a one-off event.
Finally, we come to the two most egregious statements in the entire motion. First, there is the reference to the need for “25,000 affordable homes” from the party that built fewer affordable homes in every single one of its years in office than were built in every single year of the Major and Thatcher Governments—but Labour does not admit to that shocking record in its motion. Secondly, we return to the issue of jobs. The motion calls for the creation of
“100,000 jobs for young people”
just days after we have heard of the greatest fall in youth unemployment in 10 years.
So the Opposition have come to this House with a motion judging the Government on the economy one year after our first Budget, yet they cannot choose one single figure by which to judge the Government’s record, and in the end they put forward a series of disingenuous statements by which their own record would look very poor.
Toby Perkins
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I am grateful for the fact that he has turned up, but I do not want to give him any further encouragement.
The scale of the deterioration in the OBR’s forecasts is stark. The OBR, which was set up to provide an independent view of the state of Government finances, has downgraded its forecasts three times. The Chancellor told us of all the steps he is taking to stimulate growth, but even taking those into account, the forecast is that public sector net borrowing will increase by £46 billion over the next five years, which demonstrates the failure of those policies.
The Chancellor might be failing to get our economy growing, but the same cannot be said of unemployment. Government Members are celebrating, as we all do, the fact that unemployment is down in the last month, but unemployment over the course of the Conservative-Lib Dem Government will go up. Youth unemployment is up. The OBR forecast is that unemployment will rise––[Interruption.] Going forward, the OBR is now predicting that in every year over the next five years unemployment will be higher than in its prediction of a year ago.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The OBR says that unemployment will peak at the end of this year and the beginning of next year, and that it will fall in every successive year.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Lady will know that long-term interest rates hit an all-time low shortly after we made the Bank of England independent. We experienced the biggest period of ongoing growth ever seen under the Labour Government, despite a number of crises in the world economy. Now the world economy is growing healthily, but in Britain we are stagnating. We have seen no net growth for the last six months. The evidence shows that there was growth and deficit reduction under Labour, and that we are now at a standstill.
Geraint Davies
No, I will not.
In March, the forecasts for growth over the next five years were increased by £46 billion, nearly £1,000 per person, which is a complete disaster. Obviously Government Members have commented on the IMF, saying “The IMF really loves us,” but they should put themselves in the position of the IMF. While it is concerned about a prolonged period of growth stagnation and is suggesting that there may be a case for temporary tax cuts such as in VAT, its focus is naturally on ensuring that Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain implement structural changes to keep them on track. They are in danger of kicking the euro out of bed, so the last thing the IMF is going to do is get involved in a debate about the rate of change, in terms of deficit reduction, and the balance between cuts and growth, which we are here to determine. That is the debate we are having today.
Finally, let me say one thing about the future economic strategy being considered by the Tories—whether to allow private sector entrepreneurs into public sector service delivery. On that, I would say that the reason why the Germans are so successful is that the focus of their entrepreneurial activity is on export-driven growth. If we suck all our small business capability into delivering cheaper and worse public services, we will be poorer for it.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about Germany and the involvement of the private sector. How can he reconcile that with the fact that the private sector plays a larger part in the German health system than does the public sector?
Geraint Davies
The situation there is that the Germans are very focused on ensuring that their economy is focused on the growth of the developing economies of China and India. Obviously, there is a difference in the complexion of the German health service. The real focus is on generating export-driven growth, and that is what has happened.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Ben Gummer Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those examples can be seen up and down the country.
Given the amounts of money that some of the directors of Barclays are being paid, they could lend money to those small businesses themselves. The two highest-paid managers, Jerry del Missier and Rich Ricci—great name!— were handed more than £40 million each after share deals awarded over the previous five years. Bob Diamond, the chief executive, took the helm in January this year and, in that period of remorse, has received £27 million, including £6.5 million in bonuses for 2010 and £2.525 million awarded in shares, which could be paid out in the future. The share deal for the past five years paid out £40 million, and the one for 2007 paid out £5 million.
We know about those amounts because of the Government’s great deal under Project Merlin to force banks to expose what their directors are being paid. If that was supposed to act as a threat to them, they seem to be ignoring us and doing it all anyway. They seem to have very tough hides, because rather than being remorseful for the mess that they got us into, they are still taking the money.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking of remorse. He was one of the more eminent members of the previous Government; is he remorseful about the pay-off given to Sir Fred Goodwin, who broke the Royal Bank of Scotland and who was given a knighthood by the previous Government and was a member of the council of “wise men” who advised the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister?
Mr Jones
I had only a small walk-on part in the previous Government. However, when asked whether we can justify some of the bonuses that were paid, I would say no, we cannot. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
When our constituents vote this Thursday, they should be aware of the lack of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members present for this debate today. I note, however, that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on finance, has referred to the Barclays bankers’ pay deal as “obscene”. As part of the coalition, the Liberal Democrats need to speak out loudly to ensure that something is done about the bonuses.
The levy is supposed to curb behaviour, but I agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) that the greatest scandal is the bankers’ bonuses being paid by banks controlled mainly by the Government. For example, the Royal Bank of Scotland is 87% owned by ourselves as taxpayers, yet more than 100 of its bankers were paid a bonus of more than £1 million last year, totalling more than £1 billion. We are talking about the bank levy raising more than £2 billion a year, but the banks are paying out £1 billion in bonuses. That raises the question of whether the levy is high enough. If it is not going to change the behaviour of the banks it clearly is not high enough, and we should look in greater detail at the idea of raising the levy.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric on the regulation of the banks, but we have seen very little action. The bankers’ bonus tax raised £3.5 billion for the taxpayer, but the levy that we are now discussing will raise only just over £2 billion a year. The new levy will add about £800 million to that. The banks have got off pretty lightly. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said earlier, they will gain about £100 million from the reduction in corporation tax from 28% to 24%.
The danger that was threatened by the banking sector to Labour when we were in power, and is still threatened today, is that if we do not allow these large bonuses to be paid, or if we charge the banks too high a levy, they will move offshore or elsewhere. The example of Sweden has been mentioned as the only example of that, however. I have looked into whether the lack of such bankers’ bonuses elsewhere affects where people live. An interesting survey has been carried out by eFinancialCareers, which looked at 2,511 bankers, 654 of whom were in the UK. It showed that bonuses rose by about 5% in this country, whereas in the United States they decreased by the same amount.