Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are investing in transport infrastructure in the Southampton area and along the south coast, as I was just saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak). We understand that all parts of the country can benefit from additional investment in transport infrastructure, and that is why we are increasing the transport budget even at a time when public budgets are tight. None of these things would be affordable if we crashed the economy.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The introduction of quarterly reporting and tax returns has been described by the Institute of Chartered Accountants as an additional burden for business. Does the Chancellor understand the very real anger among businesses in my constituency and around the country that they are being penalised while many of the largest corporations are allowed to avoid tax altogether?

[Mr Osborne]

We have increased our action against large-scale corporate tax avoidance and evasion, and the new diverted profits tax is designed to deal with the very real anger that people feel, particularly in the small business community, when they see large businesses not paying tax. We are also dealing with the burdens of tax administration, and we are consulting small businesses. I would just make the point that we would be crazy as a country not to make use of new digital technology and the internet to update and modernise our tax collection system, and we would regret not taking those steps today and letting other countries power ahead in reducing the burdens on business.

The Economy

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Let me begin by responding to what was said about the deficit by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). We should judge the Conservatives by their own record. In 2010, the Chancellor said that he would get rid of the deficit in one term; that target rapidly disappeared. He then said that he would halve the deficit in one term, a plan that was clearly shown to have failed when it was down by only a third at the time of the election. He then moved the target to 2019, and then to 2020. When it suits him, the Chancellor changes his mind and his measure as much as he can on the deficit, so it is clearly not as important as Conservative Members claim.

[Jeremy Quin]

Surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes the flexibility shown by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. After all, Opposition Members are always asking him to show flexibility. He makes certain that he stays on course and we get to the right place. The deficit has been halved to date, and that will continue, but it is happening in a measured and effective way.

[Bill Esterson]

Of course we need to get rid of the deficit so that we can start reducing the debt, but it must be done in a way that is sustainable, and that can only happen if we grow the economy.

The Government have presided over the slowest recovery on record. Tax receipts are an indicator of the health and productivity—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. A conversation is taking place across the two Front Benches while a Member is speaking. Let us listen to him.

[Bill Esterson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, the Government have presided over the slowest recovery on record. Tax receipts are an indicator of the health and productivity of the economy, and they fell as a result of the financial crisis. In the United States, Germany, France and Canada, they had returned to pre-crisis levels by 2013, while in the United Kingdom they remained 15% below those levels.

Meanwhile, the Tories have claimed that the financial crisis was the result of public spending—the result of recruiting nurses and doctors, and building new schools and hospitals. In fact, spending in this country was below the average among similar advanced western economies. The crisis was caused by an actual financial crisis, not by Government spending. The fact that the current Chancellor supported Labour spending plans before the crisis says what needs to be said about the claims that have been made ever since. Conservative Members know that the crisis was a financial one, not a Government one. They also know that the Chancellor was calling for less regulation of the banks, not more, in the run-up to that same crisis.

The fact is that in 2010 we had half the level of unemployment, half the number of home repossessions, and half the number of business bankruptcies that we saw during the Tory recessions of the 1980s and 1990s, precisely because the Labour Government intervened to support and protect people, businesses and jobs. The economy was recovering strongly in 2010 as a result of the stimulus injected by that Government, but it came to a juddering halt with the emergency Budget of June 2010, when investment in capital infrastructure projects was stopped. In 2010, other countries continued their stimulus package for far longer, and businesses, jobs and the wider economies of those countries saw the benefits.

So what should happen now? Let us look at what businesses say. They say that they want to see investment in infrastructure, energy, transport, broadband and, especially, skills. They say that they need those skills so that they can grow and pay good wages. That is what the CBI says, it is what the EEF says, and it is what the Federation of Small Businesses says. When businesses want to grow, they invest. They understand the need to invest in new equipment, property and skills. They develop a business plan. They invest capital and pay it back from the proceeds of growth. Households do something similar, whether through student loans to invest in skills or borrowing money to buy a house; they invest for the future. We take out a mortgage typically over about 25 years and the bank or building society works out whether we can afford the interest payments and the capital repayment over the term of the mortgage. Government should invest in the future, just as business does, and just as homeowners do.

The lack of an industrial strategy is clear in how the steel industry has been abandoned. The Government do not seem to believe in having a business plan for the economy at all. They do not believe in investing for the long term or in following the good practice of businesses in seeking a return on investment in the form of growth and increased tax receipts as the way to higher living standards and deficit reduction. The Government say that they will not borrow money at all and won a vote in this House to confirm their view. The Chancellor used to say that fiscal responsibility charters were the mark of a lack of confidence in a Government’s own policies; not any more, however, because they forced that through the House. The “fiscal irresponsibility charter”, as it is better known, is the equivalent of the Government saying that if they were a householder they would not take out a mortgage to buy a home and they would have to buy a house out of their annual salary. If this Government ran a business, they would not take out a loan to buy a new van or a new piece of machinery.

The Government have signed deals with the Chinese Government to build and run our new nuclear industry. They are happy for foreign Governments to invest in this country, but not for our own to do so. That is a strange way to do business, because in the end these sums of money will have to be repaid, it seems, through much higher energy prices paid by those very same people the Government say they worry about in terms of the deficit. This is a Chinese form of private finance initiative by any other name.

Let us have a debate about borrowing, the best value for money and the best way of investing in the future of this country. Let us not rely on a charter that is economically illiterate and undermines economic success and prosperity.

Tax Credits

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman continues to miss the point. We cannot remove tax credits in that way without ensuring first that there is an increase in wages for families so that they can support themselves and not see an increase in household debt.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

On that point, the Institute for Fiscal Studies figures that were given to the Treasury Committee show that the average gain is only £200 for the 8.4 million working age households who are estimated to lose £750 through this measure. Does that not show that the Conservatives’ claim of being the party of working people is a complete fraud?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend has made his point incredibly well. I now wish to make some progress.

The IFS has also shown that those on the lowest incomes are being hit the hardest by the Government’s tax and benefits changes. It is also of great concern that many tax credit claimants will not be aware of the cuts and will suffer additional hardship from April without any time to adjust their budgets. Cuts in families’ income will have wider economic impacts. For example, the changes will hit local businesses, and less will be spent in our local shops.

It is staggering that the Budget document did not include a distributional analysis of the impact of the Chancellor’s spending decisions. It is no wonder that people believe that that was deliberate and part of the intent to hide the impact of these changes. That pattern has continued today.

Greece

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I know my hon. Friend has consistently held that view since he put it in his maiden speech, as I remember from listening to him many years ago. He identifies two challenges. One, fiddling the figures, we have addressed in this country by creating the Office for Budget Responsibility. When it comes to ever-closer union, that is precisely one of the issues that we are seeking to address in the renegotiation that we are conducting with the European Union.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has been asked a number of times about the worst-case scenario for this country as a result of the crisis. Can he spell out what that would look like for the people of this country?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, Britain is not immune to the problems in the European economy. Some 50% of our exports go to the European Union, even if only a very small proportion of that goes to Greece, and we are a very large financial centre, so there would be an impact on our economy if the Greek crisis continued to deteriorate. That is why it is absolutely in our interests that there is a solution.

Productivity

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

I agree, but only if we have ineffective or over-the-top regulation. Removing it can give more people access to the market and provide a greater competitive challenge, but we need some regulation, because we need rules and certain guarantees in the market.

Let us take a sector that I asked the shadow Chancellor about. It was a problem that, in the Labour years, we had a long period of practically no growth in public sector productivity. I am the first to admit that the concept of productivity is more difficult in parts of the public sector. People actually like more teachers relative to the number of pupils, because they hope that that will create better teaching and a better system in classes, but it means that productivity falls. That means that we need other parts of the public sector, where the productivity issue is more straightforward or more like the private sector, to be even better, so that the overall performance of the public sector does not lag behind and cause difficulties. As we have quite a big public sector in this economy, the performance of the public sector is very important. It also happens to be the area where Ministers have most control and most direct influence, so it is the area that this House should spend more time on, because we are collectively responsible for the performance of the public sector. I think most parties now agree that we want to get more for less in the public sector, so that we can control public spending. There are disagreements about how much control we should exert on public spending, but I hope there is agreement that if it is possible to do more for less while improving—or not damaging—quality, that is a good thing to do.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[John Redwood]

I am afraid I need to move on because many people wish to speak. Time is limited.

I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the issue that I raised with him in my intervention. One very important industry that is almost completely nationalised—the tracks, signals and stations are completely nationalised and the train operating companies are very strongly regulated and controlled by franchises, so they are almost nationalised—is the railway industry. It is a growing industry, and this Government are committing a lot of money to it. It is an industry which, I believe, all the main parties in the House wish to commit money to and wish to grow and invest in.

However, an independent study in 2011, the McNulty report, showed that our railway does less for more cost than comparable railways on the continent. It should be a matter of great concern, and I hope it will be a matter for review by those dealing with the railways and with public spending, because as we channel those huge sums of money into our railway to try to get expansion and improvement, we need to pull off the trick that the best private sector companies manage—of driving quality up and costs down at the same time. A myth in some public sector managers’ minds is that a cut in the amount spent is bound to lead to worse quality or impaired service, whereas every day in a good private sector company they go to work saying, “How can I spend less and serve the customer better? How can I apply new technology so that I get more for less? How can I have a better skilled and better motivated workforce?”—I hope it is not done by unpleasant management, because that usually leads to the wrong results—and “How can I motivate the workforce more so that they are empowered to achieve more and do less?”

That is the spirit that we need in the public sector, and if we began with the railways, it would make a very important contribution to improving our overall productivity rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I think that business will take a rather different view if Conservative Members take us out of the EU, as some of them are hellbent on doing.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham) on their excellent maiden speeches, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election. This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship.

Government Members talk about the difficulties in oil and gas as though they are the only reason for the low productivity in our economy, but they are not the only cause. Since the crash, we have seen weak investment in new equipment; a lack of bank lending, despite the attempts of the Treasury to boost it—or perhaps because of those failed attempts; problems in infrastructure; and challenges and difficulties in respect of skills. All those factors have played a part in the low productivity and weak recovery that we have seen, alongside a fall in living standards, since the crash.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Another issue for small businesses is late payments. Businesses spend hundreds of thousands of hours a year chasing late payments, but the Government did little about it in the last Parliament. I hope that they improve their record in this Parliament.

[Bill Esterson]

That is an excellent point. The uncertainty for business, which has contributed to a lack of investment and the other problems that I have touched on, is not helped by the treatment of small and medium-sized businesses by some larger businesses in the supply chain.

[Andrew Bridgen]

It is certainly true that business hates uncertainty. There was a drop-off in business investment in the run-up to the general election, but that was because of the uncertainty over who would be in government and the fear of business that there would be a hard-left Labour Government.

[Bill Esterson]

I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s intervention that he will support, with every fibre of his being, the yes campaign in the EU referendum to avoid the damage that would be done if this country left the EU. I welcome his conversion to the cause.

Government Members have talked about the jobs that were created under the coalition over the past five years. Let us be clear that those jobs were created by private businesses, not by the Government. I think that the Government have shown a worrying complacency, given that we have had the weakest recovery since the war and that productivity has been so low over the past seven years, decreasing by 0.5%. It has been pointed out that that productivity has gradually started to inch up, which is welcome.

In the analysis by Government Members, I see little evidence of skills development for workers in predominantly low-paid jobs. In my constituency, a third of people in work now are paid less than a living wage. That is not a recipe for high living standards or an improvement in their day-to-day lives. We need an increase in productivity. That will help to lead to higher paid jobs, and that comes from skills and from the kind of investment I have talked about.

We heard from another colleague that the scale of the problem with productivity in this country is that output per hour is 17% below the G7 average and 31% below that of the United States. Unless that picks up, the sorts of problems I have mentioned with the very high number of low-paid jobs will continue. We will end up with an economy that relies on low-skill, low-wage employment and see a continued fall in living standards. Let us remember that since 2010, people in work are on average worse off by £2,000 a year. There is a very long way to go to make up that shortfall.

I want to talk about one particular skill that historically we have really struggled with: management. I want to talk about the role of managers and leaders in motivating and getting the best out of staff and organisations, whether in the public or private sectors, and the role that that has to play in raising productivity. Some 85% of people in a professional occupation have a higher education qualification, but only 44% of people in management roles have a higher education qualification. We just do not regard management and leadership in this country as high-quality roles. We do not treat them with the importance they deserve. There is not an automatic understanding that management and leadership are skills in their own right, and that leads to a number of problems. We need to regard them far more highly.

Before I came to this place five years ago, I worked in training and development and went into a lot of large organisations. Typically, the problem was with middle-ranking management—or that was the analysis given by senior managers. We often discovered that in fact the real difficulty lay with the senior management and leadership as well. That is a real problem. The importance of having good management and good leadership should not be understated in any discussion of productivity. Employee performance is linked to how well people are looked after. Yes, remuneration is important, but often it is the motivation, the way they are treated and the way that management behaves that are critical. [Interruption.]My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) behind me uses the right word: respect. That is absolutely crucial. If we want to improve productivity and compete internationally, we have to look at management as a skill, along with all the other factors that hon. Members have mentioned.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I certainly do not presume to tell the yet-to-be-formed Treasury Committee how to go about its business, but I would be very surprised if it did not want to have sessions on this vital issue of Britain’s future membership of the European Union. It is of course within its power to ask the Bank’s Governor and indeed other members of the Bank of England to attend; they do attend regularly. It would be very surprising if the Bank of England was not engaged in these crucial economic and financial issues. That is part of its statutory responsibilities, and I think we would all be disappointed if it was not engaged.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Thirty-one per cent. of businesses surveyed by Ernst and Young have said that they will either freeze or cut investment until the result of the EU referendum is known. Does the Chancellor accept that that uncertainty will cripple our economy until this is sorted out once and for all? Does he accept that that is a reason for bringing forward the date of the referendum as fast as possible?

[Mr Osborne]

If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the effect of the EU referendum, why did he vote to have one? We have heard the argument over the past couple of years that the fact of having a referendum would put a dampener on investment. In fact, we have attracted the lion’s share of investment in the European Union since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our policy, and he has now won public support for that policy. Of course we now want to resolve the uncertainty, but the way to do that is to achieve a good deal in the European Union and put that deal to the British people at the referendum, and we will have the referendum when we have the deal.

The Economy

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There was a very good intervention which pointed out that there was a 40p rate for almost the entire period of Labour government. But let me say this. My tax priorities are clear: to raise the tax-free personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000. Those are my priorities and they will be reflected in the Budgets presented from this Dispatch Box.

The shadow Chancellor is a thoughtful man. Last weekend, he gave an interview to The Guardian, in which he tried to pinpoint what went wrong. This was his conclusion:

“It’s the Which? magazine strata of society that somehow we just didn’t understand”.

To be honest, I would stop worrying about Which? magazine and start focusing on which leader. There are four members of the Labour Treasury team. Three have backed different potential Labour leaders and the shadow Chancellor has led from the front by deciding that he is not going to back anyone at all. The truth is that it does not matter which of the leaders they pick—none of them understands the aspirations of working people because, in the devastating words of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), Labour has become the “anti-worker” party. That is what she said. That is a quote that I suspect we will hear again in this Chamber in the coming years.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Osborne]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour party is the anti-worker party?

[Bill Esterson]

The Chancellor has talked about his priorities. May I ask him about his priorities for the £12 billion of unfunded spending cuts? Will he confirm today what the Prime Minister refused to confirm yesterday? Will he be cutting benefits for people with disabilities—yes or no?

[Mr Osborne]

As the Prime Minister made very clear yesterday, we will follow the principles that we followed in the previous Parliament, when we protected the most vulnerable in our society and actually increased the amount we were able to give to the most disabled in our country. In every single intervention about economic policy today, in the different debates we have had since the Queen’s Speech, and at Prime Minister’s questions, Labour Members have demanded more public spending, complained about a public expenditure cut, or implied that there should be higher welfare bills. That is what we have heard about over the past few days—more spending and higher welfare bills that can be paid for only by more borrowing and higher taxes on the working people of this country. That would undermine the security that we have restored to our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is very disorderly for Members to yell at the Minister from a sedentary position, and I remind you, Mr Lucas, that you have still got to complete your apprenticeship to become a statesman. I keep updating the House on progress, but there is still a little distance to travel.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Many people in work are relying on benefits just to survive, and they are not paying tax, all of which contributes to the reason why the deficit has gone up more than the Minister, and her Government when they came in, promised. Today’s OECD report says countries that promote equality will grow and prosper. Will she accept that her Government have got it disastrously wrong for so many people and adopt the policies suggested by the OECD, including a higher rate of top tax?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I find it absolutely extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman can talk about the under- achievement of this Government. It is not by chance that our economy is the fastest growing in the G7; it is not by chance that there are 2 million more people in work in the private sector; and it is not by chance that there are now 2 million apprentices, as of today. It is extraordinary that the Opposition do not see that it is all about economic recovery, not interfering and borrowing more.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend underestimates what the previous Labour Government cost us. They actually cost us billions of pounds a year in the rebate that they gave away. That is yet another reason why the idea that they could fight for our interests in Europe is obviously false: we saw what they did when they were in office.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My constituents want a Chancellor who will work with our European partners to create well-paid jobs for ordinary people to reverse the decline in living standards over which he has presided. What they do not want is a Chancellor who tries to pull the wool over their eyes after failing to negotiate with our partners, while making false promises and claims about a budget rebate that was always going to happen.

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, we worked with the other member states to achieve the deal at ECOFIN. We needed the agreement of the other member states on the delay, paying no interest and the permanent change in the rules. It is always good to get lectures from Labour Members about working with and supporting colleagues, so we look forward to the shadow Chancellor’s speech supporting his leader in the next couple of weeks. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman nods, and I know that he is a man true to his word.

Finance Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful point. As I said, I will explore the details in relation to data and the argument over the yield from the 50p rate, but he is right: we cannot continue to rely on a report produced when the rate had been in place for only one year. The Government should accept the new clause and produce a much more comprehensive analysis.

It was the Labour Government who introduced the 50p rate, which came into effect in 2010-11, a decision made after the financial crisis, as we sought to get the deficit down. When this Government came to power they did not say anything in the coalition agreement about abolishing the 50p rate, but in 2011 the Chancellor said that he would ask HMRC to look at the yields from the 50p rate, which was the warning signal that he was looking to cut it. In 2012, with HMRC’s report “The Exchequer effect of the 50 per cent additional rate of income tax” to back him up, the Chancellor cut the rate to 45p.

Why go through the process of looking at yield and getting HMRC to produce a report? Everyone knew that there were not enough data to come to an accurate view about yield because the rate had not been in place for long enough—a point about which I shall say more later. Well, the Chancellor knew that he needed cover for that deeply ideological decision so he was desperate to claim that a 50p rate raised very little money. If he could stand before the House and say that it raised hardly any money at all, never mind the uncertainty and the incompleteness of the data, he calculated that he could justify giving a tax cut to the richest in our country, knowing that on his watch ordinary people—those on middle and lower incomes—would pay the price for his economic plan, which has failed on the terms that he set for himself when he came to power in 2010.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

There are 15,300 people in work in my constituency who earn less than the living wage. They have lost out, as have many others, by £1,600 a year since this Government came to power. To them, accepting the new clause would indicate that the Government recognise that tax changes should be to the benefit of everybody in our society, not just a few. Does my hon. Friend think the Government appreciate that, or can she think of another reason why they will not accept it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I fear that on previous form the Government will not listen today and accept our new clause. Nothing that has been said in previous debates gives me any confidence that they understand the message that they have sent to my hon. Friend’s constituents, mine and those of Members across the House that a tax cut for the wealthiest is prioritised, while ordinary working people at the lower end of the income scale are worse off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I was about to come to the topic of tax avoidance, which I hope will answer his question.

Another weakness in the Government’s argument is the proposition that behavioural change, or tax avoidance, means it is not worth while maintaining the rate at 50p. This must be the only example of tax avoidance resulting in a huge tax cut, rather than in Government crackdowns to tackle and fight tax avoidance, which they are normally so quick to say they are doing. The Chancellor is on record as saying that he considers tax avoidance to be “morally repugnant”, but in the case of the 50p rate he rewarded a particular form of avoidance with a tax cut. I wonder if that has ever happened for people on middle and lower incomes. I think not.

The message that this Government have sent out is that if people are sufficiently well off to pay for advisers who can tell them how to avoid paying the 50p rate, and are organised enough and can lobby the Government, they are up for a tax cut, but everyone else, sorry, is simply worse off.

[Bill Esterson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government also send the message that a tax cut incentivises the wealthy to work harder, but that if everybody else is given benefits that does not work?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right.

The Government always tell us how proud they are of their record on tax avoidance, but how much effort did they put into thinking of ways in which they could protect revenue from the 50p rate? The Government have introduced the general anti-abuse rule, the so-called GAAR, which may have helped. They could have thought about a targeted anti-avoidance rule, a so-called TAAR. They could also have looked to HMRC to do more. I understand that no specific resources are allocated within HMRC to protect revenue from the 50p rate. A range of measures could have been taken to protect revenue. Before rushing to abolish the rate, the Government could and should have looked at protecting that revenue first. They were quick enough to publish an analysis saying that on their evidence it was not raising much money because of behavioural change, but their instinct was not to say, “Let’s look at how we might see off that behavioural change.” They did not commission a report or publish anything on that; they jumped straight to cutting it at the earliest opportunity: more evidence that this is an ideological and political choice made because they wanted to prioritise the tax cuts for the richest, while ordinary working people are worse off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I thought that I had dealt with that point. As far as I am concerned, it was proven conclusively in the ’80s that taking the rate down from 83% to 40% increased the revenue very substantially and on a sustainable basis. That was sufficient to persuade the official Labour party—perhaps not some Labour colleagues here today—not to increase the tax rate from 40% throughout its long years in government until the very end.

[Bill Esterson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the economic circumstances are now rather different from those he is talking about. Surely we need a study, as the new clause proposes, to enable us to look at what is happening now.

[Mr Redwood]

I do not think that the economic circumstances were as different as the hon. Gentleman thinks. In the early ’80s the Conservative Government inherited an economic crisis from Labour, just as this Government did. There was a lot of unemployment and a big task in getting people back to work and getting the economy growing again, rather like today. The Government at the time managed to do that, just as this Government are, so I do not accept his point.

However, I find the fact that Labour is going backwards on these issues rather perturbing. Why can the modern Labour party not understand the basic points that the Labour party that was victorious between 1997 and 2010 understood fully? Why can it not understand that it is possible to take the tax rate too high and get less revenue? The Treasury has now accepted the doctrine of the Laffer curve and understands that putting the tax rate above the optimising rate would surely be a very foolish thing to do. It knows that that applies to capital gains tax, as it clearly does to income tax. I submit that 50% was well above the optimum rate, because we collected rather less revenue than many people would have liked. I welcome the fact that the Government have started to put that right.

I do not think that we need the study that the Labour party is recommending today, and I advise it to think again about what it learnt in the ’80s and ’90s but appears now to have forgotten. It shows that the former Labour Chancellor was clearly not crowd-pleasing when he refused to increase the rate from 40%—he was clearly antagonising many of his Back-Bench colleagues by not doing so—so there must have been a good reason for it. I think that reason was a sensible one: it would have raised less revenue, rather than more. I urge the Government to reject new clause 14.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I shall be brief. The new clause would force the Chancellor to publish a report that made it clear how the Government were balancing the books on the backs of the poor. [Interruption.] Ministers may laugh, but that is why they are afraid to make the information available. The benefits of rising prosperity and productivity are increasingly concentrated on a small group at the top.

At the same time, there is growing evidence that economic inequality is a drag on the economy. Business profits, literally, from being part of a better functioning and more equal society. Businesses can function only when people form a society that is structured around the principles of trust, responsibility and fairness.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chi Onwurah]

I will not give way because other Members want to speak.

From the “The Spirit Level” by Wilkinson and Pickett through “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by the current economic rock star Thomas Piketty to “The Entrepreneurial State” by Mariana Mazzucato, economists and social scientists are raising their voices against the claims from Government Members that inequality is good for growth. Recent analysis concluded that

“inequality is bad for both the magnitude and sustainability of growth”.

Before Government Members jump in, that is the view not of some left-leaning sociologist but of the International Monetary Fund.

Equally, President Obama’s chief economic adviser has said that reducing inequality is good for growth. In other words, we must not balance the efforts to reduce the deficit unfairly on the poor, as they are less likely to be in a position to reap the benefits of any growth that follows. None the less, that is exactly what the Government are seeking to do.

The new clause would make the impact of the Government’s policies absolutely clear. I know what the impact of their policies is from my Newcastle surgeries. One constituent who is on a low income uses his so-called second bedroom to store his wheelchair and oxygen bottles. The result is rent arrears and constant anxiety. The threat of eviction hangs over his head. He is only hanging on because he believes that the next Labour Government will abolish the hated bedroom tax. And yet, at the other end of the income scale, taxes are being cut. If the rest of the House does not join Labour in voting for the new clause, people will know what to think.

The next Labour Government will reverse the £3 billion tax cut for the top 1% of earners to ensure that the books are balanced in a fairer way. We will cut taxes for 24 million working people on middle and low incomes with a lower 10p starting rate of income tax. At the next election, the Labour party will put an alternative vision to this Government’s classic 1980s trickle-down economics to the British people. Our vision is to build a new kind of economy that works for communities and ordinary people, and that does not put a premium on social and economic inequality.

[Ian Murray]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). New clause 14 is simple, and I cannot understand why the Government would not want to produce figures showing whether the 50p tax rate raises more or less money. When the Budget was announced, the Red Book stated that the tax cut would cost £3 billion. If politics is the art of the possible, it is also about priorities, and if we consider the priorities of this Government, we see clearly why that cut was unfair and should be reversed, and why the Government should accept new clause 14 and state why they think that lowering taxes for millionaires is the right thing to do.

We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central about the bedroom tax—that was a priority introduced by this Government. The bedroom tax raises only 10%, if not less, of the £3 billion that the 50p tax rate cost. The use of food banks has exploded across the country in all our constituencies, which is a disgrace in a modern society, and people on welfare are waiting for their personal independence payment applications to be processed—at the current rate it will take perhaps 42 years. Tuition fees have trebled, which is hitting young people and aspiration in this country, and we have seen the NHS privatised, with money spent on a top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for. Those are the priorities that the Government have introduced, which is why it is important to get from them in black and white as part of the Finance Bill the implications of what a tax rate does, what it raises, what it does not raise, and how much other levels of tax could raise. It may be that some of the pernicious policies introduced by the Government could be reversed if they realised that they could raise more money from different levels of taxation.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am afraid we do not have much time, but if there is time at the end I will take an intervention.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the wages crisis in this country, which is of course connected to taxation. We also have a cost of living crisis: people will be £1,600 a year worse off by 2015. We have a youth unemployment crisis, and we are in danger of writing off another generation of young people, as happened in the 1980s when all those wonderful top rate reductions in tax were being made; and we have the lowest rate of house building since the 1920s. All these are priorities that the Government could put to the top of their policy agenda instead of concentrating on a tax cut for the wealthiest.

On the back of all this, we have a Chancellor who has set golden rules for the economic cycle but who has failed on pretty much all of them, while taking £3 billion from the Treasury’s coffers with this tax cut. The UK has lost its triple A rating, and not only will the Government not balance the books by the end of this Parliament, but they will borrow £75 billion this year alone— £190 billion more than planned. They have missed their targets for the deficit and for debt, and they broke every fiscal rule that they set themselves. What is their answer to the conundrum? It is to cut the top rate of income tax for the very richest in the country. Everyone has seen an increase in VAT, which is the most regressive tax; and we have had the granny tax—the list is endless. If politics is about priorities, the Government should come forward with a report, as suggested in new clause 14, and say how much the tax would raise or not raise. We can then decide whether it was the right idea and priority to lower that tax, alongside the long list of this Government’s failures, including social policy failures.

I was interested to hear the intervention from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is no longer in his place. He wanted to talk about the 50p tax rate. I am very surprised that our Scottish nationalists have not mentioned it—they refuse to confirm whether or not an independent Scotland would back a 50p tax rate because the answer is no.