Future Government Spending

Debate between Chris Leslie and Stephen Hammond

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I seem to have hit a nerve with Government Members. I give way to the good-looking one.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

That is one of the few points on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has been quoting selectively from various institutions. He has just quoted the IFS. The director general of the IFS has said that

“if the Conservatives win the election they will neither, despite what the opposition would have us believe, destroy the NHS nor return the welfare state . . . to 1930s level of provision.”

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, and will he now withdraw his previous comment?

[Chris Leslie]

With the greatest respect, I do not accept that. I will come to that shortly.

When we look at the effect on public finances of the plan that the hon. Gentleman has signed up to with the Free Enterprise Group and with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, the effect on our public services, not least the NHS, could be exceptionally difficult and potentially implausible.

Paul Johnson of the IFS asks:

“How will these cut be implemented? What will local government, the defence force, the transport system, look like in this world? Is this a fundamental reimagining of the role of the state? ... If we move in anything like this direction, whilst continuing to protect health and pensions, the role and shape of the state will have changed beyond recognition.”

Is it any wonder that UKIP has backed Conservative plans? No surprise there.

Be under no illusions—the Conservatives’ pathway for the next Parliament is a statement of intent to wage war on public services, and people need to understand the tremendous risks involved. It is a major threat to the viability of public services, which would wreak havoc especially in non-ring-fenced areas such as policing, border controls, child protection and social care. Such extreme plans would decimate skills, infrastructure, research and development and science, undermining the competitiveness of our economy. Devastation on that scale would not be tolerable, which is why we suspect that the Conservatives have secret plans to hit household finances in other ways.

The Economy

Debate between Chris Leslie and Stephen Hammond

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The previous Government did the right thing after that banking crisis by getting growth moving forward—growth that had the rug pulled from under it by the lack of confidence shown by the Chancellor and the measures he took in that autumn statement back in 2010 and in his emergency Budget.

The Government’s long-term plan is little more than trickle-down economics, which has failed in the past and will fail again in the future. The share of national income held by 90% of earners has shrunk since this Government came to power, whereas the share of the cake held by the wealthiest 1% has—surprise, surprise—gone up.

We need a plan that genuinely delivers a recovery for the many, not just for the few. We do not need the slogan-heavy, content-light, trickle-down plan of Treasury Ministers, but we need action on house building, which is at the lowest level since the 1920s, with a goal of building 200,000 new homes each year by 2020. We need a minimum wage rising as a proportion of average earnings and real incentives for the living wage. We need the expansion of free child care for working parents, paid for by the bank levy that the Government failed so spectacularly to collect. We need a cut in business rates for small firms, rather than a reliance and a focus only on corporation tax cuts for big businesses. We need an independent infrastructure commission to deliver the transport networks that our economy needs, rather than what suits the Government’s short-term political needs. We need to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts, we need to hear the Government argue for Britain to play a leading role in a reformed European Union, and we need a real economic plan that can enable us to earn our way towards rising living standards for all, not just for the few. Those are the priorities for next week’s autumn statement.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way one last time.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s words, but let us write some facts into the debate about living standards. Will he deny the statistic from the House of Commons Library which shows that real average weekly earnings were falling faster between 2008 and 2010 than they were after 2010? Will he deny the statistic which shows that the average earnings of those who had been in a job for over a year have risen by more than 4% in the last year? Will he deny the fact—this, too, is a statistic from the House of Commons Library—that 71% of all the jobs created in the last year have been full-time jobs?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but did he not see the headlines in all the newspapers about the results of the annual survey on hourly earnings that the Office for National Statistics published last week? According to the ONS, the average weekly pay of full-time workers went up by just £1 between 2012 and 2013. That is a rise of just 0.1%, far below the rate of inflation. Prices continue to rise, but pay, wages and earnings do not keep pace with them. Government Members may not realise that. In the world that they inhabit, life is sweet—everything is fine in the world that they inhabit—but for most of our constituents, times are tough and life is getting harder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate this afternoon. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). I listened carefully to his remarks, and feel sure that he would have wanted to put it on the record that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 32% over the past year and youth unemployment by 48%. That fact goes to the heart of what we are talking about today.

I read the Opposition motion extraordinarily carefully last night. I do not want to use unparliamentary language, so I will speak in economic terms. When we talk about being economical with the truth, we should look at the great speech from the Opposition Front Bench. We had not only deficit denial but fact denial. This motion shrinks away from reality. It is economically and historically inaccurate and, as those on the Opposition Front Bench know, economically inept. I am pleased that the motion has at least one virtue: it gives us the chance to remind everyone in this country that Labour left the largest ever budget deficit in peacetime. It caused the mess that this Government are clearing up. Of course, it is historically the job of Conservative Governments to clear up the mess that Labour Governments leave behind.

It was extraordinary that the speech made by hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) included not only deficit denial, but a denial of facts set out by the Office for National Statistics about the rise in living standards that is beginning due to this Government’s long-term economic policy. We heard no apology from him for the economic mess. No one says that there was not a financial crisis and a banking crisis, but had he listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois)—and responded to my hon. Friend’s point, rather than trying to deny the facts—he would have recognised that the previous Labour Government created a structural budget deficit over a full 10 years, which was why this country had a significantly worse budget deficit than any other European country.

[Chris Leslie]

indicated dissent.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head again. This is not only deficit denial, but fact denial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

At the end of the article, quite rightly, The Daily Telegraph points out all the facts that my lawyers have made available, and it now recognises those facts. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an apology, I shall happily accept it.

The motion refers to a

“tough and fair plan to deliver a current budget surplus and falling national debt”,

yet the Opposition’s spending plans involve £166 billion of extra spending. The hon. Member for Nottingham East talks about Labour’s tough and fair plan and its zero-based review of every pound spent, yet the shadow Chancellor’s article in last night’s Evening Standard said that Labour had so far identified £250 million of savings against that £166 billion of unfunded promises. We hear about unfunded spending promises from the hon. Member for Nottingham East, so will he clarify whether the zero-based review has identified any more savings than that £250 million?

[Chris Leslie]

Our zero-based review of all Government Departments is an ongoing process, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman about the £7 billion promised by the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is a man of integrity—he has been debating this with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—so surely he does not think that the Prime Minister can get away with saying that future growth will pay for that £7 billion. How should that £7 billion be paid for?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman’s word that I am a man of integrity and I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) will also make that clear in the Chamber. It is perfectly reasonable to say that we will implement the policy when the economy allows. That was exactly what the Prime Minister said, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East knows.

The hon. Gentleman also knows that growth in our economy is at 0.7%, in line with data from the past eight or nine quarters, and that the OECD forecasts that the UK will be the fastest-growing economy in the G8 this year and the second fastest next year. He also knows that the deficit has been cut and that our interest rates mean that mortgage rates remain low for many. There is long-term economic progress in an economy that is now 3.4% larger than when we went into recession. Under Labour, borrowing steadily rose throughout the period of economic activity, but this Government are starting to cut the deficit, which is benefiting the many. People have been taken out of tax and business investment is rising. It is clear that our long-term economic plan is delivering for the people of this country, and the only thing that would put that plan in danger would be the election of a Labour Government. The public see through Labour’s plans, as an opinion poll shows that on economic competence, the Conservative party’s rate is, understandably, 26% higher than Labour’s.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Stephen Hammond

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

On the Cliff Richard point, yes I will.

[Stephen Hammond]

Only last year I was a backing singer for Cliff Richard at the opening of the Wimbledon fair.

[Chris Leslie]

I am glad I was not there.

The Bank of England was established in about 1694, and we obviously must not rush these reforms. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for introducing this sensible proposition. If, as I hope, the Bill moves into Committee, we can refine some of the details of the accountability mechanisms. The Opposition are of the opinion that there is a need for stronger parliamentary accountability in respect of the appointment of the Governor. That ought to be done by the House of Commons as a whole, on the recommendation and advice of the Treasury Committee, rather than simply be delegated to the Treasury Committee to decide.

The arguments have already been enunciated. It is important that pre-confirmation hearings take place, that recommendations can be made by the Treasury Committee, and that then Parliament as a whole can decide. That would be the best way to proceed.

I do not want to speak for long because I want my hon. Friend to have the chance to secure his Bill’s Second Reading and to pass it on to Committee, where we can talk about these details. The Government’s proposals will vest the Bank of England with significant and radical new powers, particularly over what is known as macro-prudential policy making, through the new Financial Policy Committee and the Prudential Regulatory Authority. The Minister rather coyly suggests that the Financial Conduct Authority does not have a dotted line to the accountability process within the Bank. We all know that this is not just about a powerful bank, but about the immensely powerful Governor of the Bank of England. Some have described that person as a superhuman individual and the appointment will clearly be of major national significance to our economy and to the finances of our constituents and businesses up and down the country.

We debated the question of improving internal checks and balances for the Governor of the Bank of England when we considered the Financial Services Bill. The Opposition said at the time that the court of the Bank of England needed radical improvement and that its role should be more supervisory. That recommendation came from the Treasury Committee, yet there was resistance from the Government. It is now not unreasonable to want to improve and enhance the external checks and balances on the Bank of England and I do not think that would in any way compromise the independence of the operational monetary policy decisions over interest rates. I do not think that those things are at all incompatible.

It would have been nice if the Financial Services Bill could have been amended in the Lords in such a way, but the Government resisted that. We need to ask why they are so frightened of giving Parliament—in which, by the way, they have a majority—the opportunity to have that debate on pre-confirmation hearings and given to give the Treasury Committee the power to make a recommendation that the House of Commons could make on its own.

It is important to note that other central banks in other jurisdictions have similar arrangements. In the United States, for example, Congress has oversight over the appointments.

Eurozone Crisis

Debate between Chris Leslie and Stephen Hammond

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). I have learnt a lot, including Gerald Ford’s attitude to New York city and the history of the Ugandan shilling. At one point in the debate, I was almost feeling sorry for the Minister, given the heat that he is falling under and that he is simply following orders—it is not entirely his fault—but in the short time available, he needs to explain not only the answers to the questions asked, in particular by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who gave a thorough and refreshing contribution, but an area of policy that has not been touched on as much as it should have been and that is central to the debate, which is growth. How will we rejuvenate growth, not only in the UK but throughout the eurozone, as a way to solve the crisis?

The Office for Budget Responsibility continues its relentless drive to downgrade economic prospects, and the European Commission has forecast a massive change in our fortunes. Last year, gross domestic product growth was supposed to be 2.2% in 2011, but a couple of weeks ago, that prediction was downgraded to only 0.7%. We are now forecast to have the slowest growth in Europe, with only Greece, Italy, Portugal and Cyprus growing more slowly in 2011. The Office for National Statistics, however, shows that exports to the euro area were rising by 17.3% in the third quarter, so the eurozone alone cannot be an excuse for the UK’s lack of growth.

Given the fragility of our economy and our vulnerability, I accept that prolonged uncertainty in the eurozone could worsen our position, but it would be disingenuous of the Treasury to suggest that our woes are caused by the eurozone situation. I would be worried if it genuinely thought that to be the case.

[Stephen Hammond]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

Not in the short time that I have available. I prefer to hear the Minister and to deal with particular issues, some of them raised by a number of hon. Members. For example, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) discussed bond yields and the dangers of the Government giving the impression that we are a safe haven relative to the rest of the world. I am worried about the complacency shown by the Government. Bond yields are as much a function of our relative independence from the euro and the flexibility of having our own central bank. The director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Jonathan Portes, made it clear recently that our gilt yields declining to an all-time low was partly a result of the economy’s weakness, because safe-haven flows are typically accompanied by a rise in the value of the pound or rising stock prices. He could not have been more concise or clear:

“The reason people are marking down gilt yields is because the economy is weak”.

We should not see that entirely as the be-all and end-all of economic policy. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should see it not merely as a safe-haven function, but as a bubble that may burst at any point.

What should the Government be doing? The crisis is far from over, even though the markets have calmed somewhat this week. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out that the European summit—the G20 summit—finished prematurely, without adequately solving the difficulties with the EFSF and the permanent bail-out arrangements, and that a further European summit might be necessary to thrash out the issues properly. We also need a proper strategy for jobs and growth throughout Europe and concrete steps to support demand immediately. We have to end the prevarication about the role of the European Central Bank as lender of last resort and to give proper attention to what it takes to make that EFSF firewall stand behind eurozone members.

Hon. Members mentioned the IMF in some detail. In the summer, before the details of the permanent eurozone bail-out fund had been agreed, the Labour party urged the Government to pause before granting additional funding to the IMF. We called for the commencement of the larger eurozone-only bail-out fund to be brought forward and for the Government to negotiate an end to our liabilities via the temporary EFSM. The Minister at the time did not explain what the UK Government were doing to help to ensure that an adequate and permanent EFSF was put in place and, as I said, the European summits came and went, despite the Prime Minister’s attendance.

Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have repeatedly misrepresented our view of the IMF’s role. Today’s debate shows that our concerns are shared across the party divide. Tim Geithner in the United States and people in many other countries have also voiced their reservations. In principle, because of the IMF’s generally vital role in the global economy, we support an increase in its subscription, but I make no apologies for questioning the Government’s stewardship of our public funds. We have a duty to protect the best interests of the UK taxpayer.

We have consistently said that the IMF’s job is to support individual countries with solvency crises and not to solve a structural problem caused by eurozone countries unable to agree the necessary steps to support and maintain their own monetary union. The IMF does have a role around the world and should have the necessary resources, but there should be no IMF funding to plug the gap in the eurozone’s bail-out fund and to do the job that the ECB should be doing. The only way to ensure market confidence in the eurozone is for the ECB, alongside that permanent bail-out fund, to be given the political support that it needs to act as lender of last resort when liquidity problems arise. That is the logic of monetary union that the 17 eurozone countries are signed up to.

I want to hear the Minister’s answers, so I will curtail my remarks. It is vital for the Government to wake up and realise the role that a growth strategy must play in Europe and in the UK. Without that, there could be serious ramifications for the UK and our economy. If the Government fail to act as an honest broker, stepping up to show the leadership that many hon. Members have urged in today’s debate and so that the ECB becomes lender of last resort and that the EFSF has enough weight to become an effective firewall, the eurozone crisis may well deepen further. The Chancellor continuing to talk about Britain as a safe haven betrays a relaxed complacency in the Treasury that is not warranted. Such an approach is misinformed, neglectful and very dangerous in the situation that we face.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Chris Leslie and Stephen Hammond

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a correct point, and those are true facts. The causes of those facts may be in dispute. There is a clamour from the Labour party about the financial crisis. No one is suggesting that it did not happen, but equally the Labour party cannot escape the fact that this country had a structural deficit before the financial crisis or that Labour contributed at least partly to that crisis, because the regulatory regime that the previous Government put in place made no estimation of systemic risk.

There are risks to the Budget strategy—although I should say from the outset that I support it wholeheartedly. Those risks concern the lack of growth in places such as Brazil, India and China—which are slowing dramatically compared with previous levels—global inflation and the eurozone crisis, which the Prime Minister is talking about today. There are risks to the Budget strategy; it is just that the risks that the Opposition are talking about are not the risks that are real. Their strategy relies on their comment about the cuts being “too fast, too deep”. This is not just about the fact that no international economic body agrees with them, or about their plan to halve the deficit over the lifetime of this Parliament—which the shadow Chancellor reiterated again this afternoon, albeit without giving any detail. That deficit might or might not halve, but the total stock of debt would still rise, as would the cost of servicing it, even at this level.

The shadow Chancellor was wrong blindly to dismiss what is happening in the gilt markets. I read the yield curve this morning, just as he did, and it is clear that 10-year gilts yields are low at the moment. If the market believed that the Government’s debt reduction plan was going to change, those yields would undoubtedly rise and the cost of borrowing would rise substantially from £120 million a day, ruling out any prospect of more of the things that we really want to spend public money on. Labour Members shouted out, “Too fast, too deep,” yesterday, but they should remember that there are risks involved, and that theirs is an equally dogmatic strategy.

It has been interesting to observe the movement in the past year from the Opposition Benches to the Government Benches. Year after year, as we sat on the Opposition Benches, we listened to Chancellors changing their forecasts and changing the length of economic cycles. I would gently say to the Opposition that we have growth in the economy, and that there is growth for the next four years. Its overall level might be tinkered with slightly, but the forecasts often change—

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

Growth forecasts are going down.

[Stephen Hammond]

No, far from it. The hon. Gentleman was not in the last Parliament, when the Chancellor consistently got it all wrong. The Opposition say that the Government’s position is dogmatic, but my contention is that theirs is equally dogmatic.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Stephen Hammond

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Were those the only two relevant factors, that might be the case, but of course they are not. There are other tax changes through which the banks will more than benefit from the arrangements. If the Exchequer Secretary had had the patience to wait, I would have elaborated on that. I will come to that quicker.

It is important that the Exchequer Secretary listens to those experts who have talked about the benefit to the banks from the corporation tax change. Lloyds Banking Group plc could gain more from a cut in corporation tax than it loses under the new banking levy, according to analysts at Redburn Partners legal practice. Lloyds, 41% of which is owned by the British Government, might see a 3% rise in its earnings per share in 2012 as corporation tax begins to fall to 24% from 28% over those four years, according to Redburn analyst, Jon Kirk. There will therefore be a net positive for Lloyds. That is one example of a net gain for the banks.

Secondly, the banks have already found a way of minimising their corporation tax liabilities. A report published only last week by the TUC on the corporation tax gap showed a gap between the headline rate of corporation tax paid and the actual or effective rate of corporation tax paid. The TUC’s analysis of data on UK corporate returns showed that the larger a company is, the better it tends to be at reducing its effective rate of corporation tax, which fell from 28% in 2000, when the headline rate was 30%, to about 23% in 2009, when the headline rate was 28%. On that basis, the TUC’s economists predict that by 2014, the largest companies will be paying corporation tax at a rate of no more than 17% on average, while small companies will still be paying corporation tax at 20% or more.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are all sorts of reasons why the headline rate of corporation tax may not reflect the rate of corporation tax that is actually paid, which are to do with credits for R and D, and all sorts of things. He keeps quoting what the TUC report says about larger companies, but what does it say about the banking sector?

[Chris Leslie]

The TUC says that the effective rate of corporation tax for the banks will fall from 25% in 2000 to below 20% this year, which means that, in reality, they are already paying a rate that is below the headline rate that small firms pay. Those findings are certainly eye-catching. All I am saying in new clause 3 is that they merit further review and consideration, which would be a reasonable step to take. Indeed, those findings suggest that we could even be heading towards a regressive corporation tax system in the UK. Small businesses should be paying less in corporation tax than the banks, but the evidence suggests that that might not be the case.

The third wheeze that the banks might benefit from, in their navigation of the corporation tax system, is known as deferred tax, which can be defined as the tax liability that might be payable at some point in the future because of transactions that have already taken place, albeit where there is no certainty about when it will have to be paid. Deferring the payment of tax is not something that ordinary taxpayers can indulge in with great ease, yet it appears that the banks are playing that game on a gargantuan scale, according to the findings of Richard Murphy, the director of Tax Research LLP. He suggests in his recent report that the banks’ deferral of tax reserves are absolutely phenomenal. He calculates that a sum totalling nearly £19 billion, which is nearly half what this country spends on capital projects annually, might not be paid by the banks in corporation tax as a result. He describes that as

“an extraordinary double subsidy going on for these banks.”

Not only were the banks underpinned by the taxpayer in 2008—they are still underpinned in the form of the guarantees offered by the Treasury—but they may receive another fillip, he argues, from that deferred corporation tax gain.