The Economy

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Let us see what the rating agencies have to say in the new year. Of course we are on negative watch, but it was not we who said the rating agencies should be the be-all and end-all. Indeed, they were giving Lehman Brothers a triple A rating until that company crashed and almost took the global economy with it. It was the Chancellor who said that a triple A rating would be the watchword of his chancellorship, so if it were to go, it would be a damning indictment of what this Government have presided over.

What was the Government’s response to all the bad economic news last Wednesday? Let us give credit where it is due. The Chancellor now agrees with us that we should not go ahead with the fuel duty increase in January; he agrees with us that introducing regional pay in our public services would be costly and impractical; he agreed with us that we should reverse the relaxation of restrictions on pension tax relief for the very rich; he agreed with us that it was a mistake to implement deep cuts to capital programmes such as Building Schools for the Future; and he agreed with us that cutting investment allowances risked damaging incentives for long-term wealth creation. We propose the creation of a British investment bank to support small businesses, and the Chancellor has produced a pale imitation of that, but I am afraid that all these measures are too little, too late—robbing Peter to pay Paul. Smoke and mirrors will not hide the lack of a real, purposeful growth strategy.

The chief executive of British Airways summed it up yesterday when he said:

“I don’t see an agenda for growth.”

I agree, and so does the Office for Budget Responsibility. Taking into account all the Government’s measures from the autumn statement, the OBR has concluded that they will add just 0.1% to UK GDP over the next five years. The economy is shrinking this year. Growth next year—forecast at 2.9% just two years ago—is now forecast at just 1.2%. Indeed, we have seen downgrades not just this year and next, but the year after.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Why does the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that there would be £200 billion more borrowing under Labour’s plans?

[Rachel Reeves]

There is £212 billion more borrowing under this Government’s plans.

Families will continue to feel the Chancellor’s failure in their wallets and their homes. Average earnings will not outpace inflation until the second quarter of 2014. It will take even longer for families to recover the loss to their living standards that this Government’s economic failure has cost them.

The lack of growth and the increase in borrowing under this Chancellor have meant that he has had to come back and ask the country for more. And who are the Government asking to bear the brunt of the past two and a half years of failure? Luckily, Andrew Neil asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that question on BBC1 last Wednesday. He asked him whether

“those who are on ordinary incomes are suffering a lot more than most”.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied: “That is absolutely right.” That was the only sense he spoke all day. It is no surprise that he is increasingly described as the Conservatives’ favourite Liberal Democrat in the Cabinet. Apparently, they regard him as easier to deal with and more persuadable. The Chancellor’s favourite Liberal Democrat has finally told the country what we have known for a long time: that this Government are asking ordinary families to foot the bill for their economic mess.

The facts speak for themselves. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that a one-earner family on £20,000 with two children will lose £279 a year from next April. Slide 24 of the Institute for Fiscal Studies report shows that a two-income family with children will lose £534 as a result of the changes, including all the measures in the autumn statement. Slide 17 of the IFS assessment shows that middle and lower earners will lose most as a result of the autumn statement, with the poorest 40% losing more than the richest 10%. How can that be fair? And this is all to pay for the Government’s £212 billion of extra borrowing. They are hurting those who are trying to get on and do the best for themselves and their families. That cannot be fair.

Mothers across the country will be worried about the real-terms cut in maternity pay, worth £180, that the Chancellor announced last Wednesday. That comes on top of other deep cuts that will hit pregnant women on low incomes, such as the abolished Sure Start maternity allowance and the health in pregnancy grant. This is further proof that the Government are out of touch and simply do not understand the pressures families are facing, day in, day out.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right. It is a false economy to cut the incomes of the lowest paid, because they will have less money to spend in their communities. What really matters, however, is the real impact that the changes will have on their living standards and those of their children.

The Resolution Foundation has said that 60% of the cuts to benefits and tax credits will hit working households—that is, those who are trying to get on in life. Given that the welfare bill is forecast to be £13.6 billion higher in this Parliament than the Chancellor thought it would be—another target tossed aside—perhaps it is time for the Government to concentrate on getting people back to work in order to reduce the welfare bill. In February this year, the former employment Minister, now the Secretary of State for Justice, said:

“The Work Programme is doing a good job and is on track. It is helping long-term unemployed people into work.”

And only today the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the scheme was going well, but we now know that for every 100 people who are unemployed, the programme has seen only two people back into work. If that is the Government’s idea of a programme that is on track, I would hate to see one that is not.

It is not surprising that OBR documents released last week showed that the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance was set to rise from 1.58 million this year to 1.69 million in 2014, and that the number forecast for 2016 had been revised up by 340,000. That will be a third of a million more people receiving JSA compared with the number forecast in March this year.

Let us not forget that the Prime Minister dismissed the last Labour Government’s future jobs fund, which helped 120,000 young people back into work, yet an impact analysis for the Department for Work and Pensions found that we all gained £7,750 per participant through wages, increased tax receipts and reduced benefit payments. This Government ditched a plan that worked for one that has failed, so we will not be lectured by them on welfare or on job creation.

At the same time, one group of people continue to gain from the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary’s policies. If someone earns more than £1 million a year, next year they will receive an average tax cut worth £107,000. It beggars belief that while taking from families on low incomes with one hand, the Chancellor gives to millionaires with the other—there is one rule for the very richest, another for everyone else.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady talks about the Government favouring the richest, but if we look at the distributional impact of tax and benefit reforms on the IFS slides to which she has referred, we can see very clearly that the richest 10% lose £260 in net income whereas everyone else is far less disadvantaged. Does she not agree that the richest are shouldering more of the burden?

[Rachel Reeves]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those on average incomes being worse off by £534 year is not very much, it is up to him to justify that to the people of Dover and Deal. Page 17 of the IFS analysis shows that the poorest 10% are 1.6% worse off, the second decile are 1.7% worse off, the third 1.3%, the fourth 0.6% and the top only 0.5%. The four lowest deciles—those on the lowest and modest incomes—are being hit hardest by the changes in the autumn statement, while those at the top get off relatively unscathed. That is the reality and if he wants to put that slide in his leaflets in Dover and explain it to his constituents, I am sure that they would appreciate it.

As I have said, it is one rule for the richest and another for everyone else. The poor are expected to work harder or else they will be made poorer, but apparently the rich will work harder only if they are made richer. It is the same old out-of-touch Tories and their Liberal Democrat accomplices.

There are some who think that the Chancellor is a master of political strategy; his autumn statement was clearly delicately put together. He said that borrowing was down this year, but that is only by using money from the sale of 4G contracts, which has yet to happen. He said that his cuts were targeting the workshy, when in reality they hit working people. He said that austerity was necessary for us to compete with our global competitors when, after two years of austerity, we have fallen further behind. He lived up to his reputation as a part-time Chancellor, because it was a statement that worried more about tomorrow’s headlines than the economic reality. For all of the Chancellor’s cynical political games and for all the smoke and mirrors, the real story is being felt across the country. Living standards are being squeezed, long-term unemployment is rising, borrowing is up, growth is flatlining: it is a story of a failed Chancellor and his Lib Dem accomplice desperately trying to find a way out of the mess their economic failure has got them into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I hope that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) will forgive me if, in the time available to me, I do not follow him down the road of bulldozers or anything else. I should begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am sorry that the Chancellor is not present, partly because he used to kick up a real fuss whenever I did not appear in the House or was slightly delayed. It would have been nice if he had been here: I am sure that plenty of us would have liked to press him on the question of how on earth he can claim abject failure as success, which is what he was trying to do last week.

Two years ago, it was not meant to be like this. Two years ago, the new Government said that they would be able to balance the books by the end of the current Parliament, and that debt would be falling as a proportion of national income. In 2010, they said that all the problems we faced were entirely home-grown. They compared this country mendaciously with Greece, and said that we would lose our credit rating, which they may yet regret. In other words, they set about trashing confidence and blaming the last Government for everything. That is despite the fact that the Conservatives supported every single penny of our spending until December 2008, and the Liberals were doing exactly the same until the evening of 10 May 2010, when they changed their minds.

The new Government’s position was that it was all the fault of the previous Government. How much has that changed? Last week, they began saying that this was an international crisis. They said that it had been caused by the eurozone; by the United States fiscal cliff; by inflation. However, all three of those things were around in 2010, and were known about. The problem that we have at present is that we simply do not have the growth that we were expecting, with the result that the Government have missed their debt reduction target and are experiencing serious difficulties in relation to borrowing. I shall say more about that shortly.

The Chancellor’s problem is that the growth profile that is presented in the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which was published last week, is remarkably similar to the profile that was published two years ago, but it is now running at least between two and four years late. If we do not achieve the growth profile that is set out in the report, both our borrowing and our debt will be higher, because the two are completely interlinked. I see no evidence for believing that the figures will be any more right this time than they were two years ago.

It is interesting to note that the OBR assumes, just as the Treasury modelling used to assume, that somehow we will always return to a 2.5% trend rate of growth. That theology was being questioned when I was in the Treasury, and I think that we will have to look at it again now. The Japanese are apparently contemplating what would be the fifth recession in 15 years. I honestly do not think that those of us in the western world—and Japan is, economically, in the same position—can assume that everything will bounce back as if nothing had happened. This will have a profound implication for all the political parties in the House, as well as further afield.

However, it is in relation to borrowing that I would have taken the Chancellor to task had he been here. During his speech last week, he made great play of how transparent he was being in taking into account the money that he had managed to find as a result of quantitative easing at the Bank of England and from the Royal Mail’s pension funds. What he did not say was that he could claim that borrowing was falling this year only because he had banked the sale of the 4G auction, which will bring in a very handy £3.5 billion—and, furthermore, will have to bring it in before the end of March if it is to score properly. That is the only reason why he could claim that, because the figures show that although borrowing has a downward profile, we are in fact borrowing £212 billion more than the Chancellor intended to borrow. We are borrowing much more, therefore.

The OBR report contains a number of findings that ought to worry those on the Treasury Bench as well as the rest of us. For example, over the next few years a very handy cumulative total of £73 billion will come in from the asset purchase facility—quantitative easing by the Bank of England. That money is not being created because of increased revenues or increased economic activity, however. It is basically a financial transaction that the OBR has said is okay to put in the books in this way, as opposed to scoring things differently which would have left a large hole in the economic figures.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a typically thoughtful speech. If he were the Chancellor, would he pursue the five-point plan the shadow Chancellor has proposed, given that it would cost £20 billion? Does he think there is the capacity to do that, and does he think it would be a sensible policy to pursue?

[Mr Darling]

I will address that point later. It is an important point, and I do not believe we should just sit back and hope that growth returns. The shadow Chancellor and many others both inside and outside the House also do not believe that the Government’s approach is right.

We are heavily dependent on money that is coming in from a financial transaction. In addition, the OBR has now found that by 2016-17 our revenues will be £30 billion less than it forecast in March. That is a huge gap, which will have to be filled.

What should we do? Whenever the Opposition suggest that perhaps the Government could do a little more, the Government parties—the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—always say, “That’s all about borrowing more.” This Government are borrowing £212 billion more than they said they would not because we are spending money on projects and so forth, but because of failure—because our revenues are down. That is why we have got this gap.

When we eventually have a recovery, this country will need infrastructure. Over many years, we spent a lot of money on transport and energy. That was the sort of spending the Government say should not have been made, but we now know it was desperately needed, and we need to invest more in infrastructure, as well as get debt and borrowing down. We must invest in education, too.

On energy, the Government’s policy is completely contradictory. We are getting different signals every day of the week. On transport, I say again that it is not good enough to have no airport policy until halfway through the next Parliament, when we will not be able to do anything as another election will be coming up. That is not the right signal to send to our country, let alone the outside world.

Investing more in infrastructure projects would be one way to get confidence back. Confidence was trashed two years ago. If anyone were running a business now, would they hire more people or open a new production facility? No, they would not, because it appears that the economy will be bumping along the ground for another five years or so. I again remind Members of what has happened to Japan. People say, “We would never be like that,” but Japan has had non-existent growth for 15 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I can answer the hon. Gentleman very directly. With reference to our public finances, we have been borrowing money every year—every single year. It is likely that even if we are able to eliminate the structural deficit by 2018, this country will have seen nearly 20 years of continual deficits. This is an appalling legacy that Labour has left the country. Since the end of the second world war, we have never run 20 years of continual deficits, which we will do as a consequence of Labour mismanagement and old-fashioned incompetence.

[Charlie Elphicke]

In his praise for the former Chancellor, has my hon. Friend noticed that the right hon. Gentleman said in his memoirs not only that the Labour Government overspent, but that they ran a parallel Treasury operation while he was Chancellor trying to sort it all out as a night-watchman, undermining his work while he was trying to stabilise the ship?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is right. Many historians will be needed fully to plumb the depths of the goings-on of that Administration—the level of incompetence, the level of secrecy, the high spending, the culture of fear that prevailed in the Treasury for much of that time. It will need many people to investigate that.

It was always the function of the British Treasury, as my hon. Friend well knows, to have a very conservative approach to public finances. It was always the tradition that we in the British Treasury tried to match expenditure to income.