Chris Philp
Main Page: Chris Philp (Conservative - Croydon South)Department Debates - View all Chris Philp's debates with the HM Treasury
Monday 12th November 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend characteristically makes an important and insightful point. The national living wage, which this Government brought into being, was raised by 4.4% last year and will be raised by a full 4.9% in the coming year. That is well ahead of inflation, which is why in respect of net income those in the lower deciles of the income distribution have benefited disproportionately compared with those at the top end. I remind the House that the wealthiest 1% pay some 28% of all income tax that the Exchequer receives.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Perhaps I can amplify the Financial Secretary’s point about the minimum wage. Since 2010, the national minimum wage, or living wage, has gone up by 38%. When that is combined with the increase in the personal allowance, somebody who works full time on the minimum wage is 44% better off post tax, and inflation over that period was around 25%. Is that not delivering for those on the lowest incomes?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party will tax and tax, borrow and borrow and spend and spend. The Conservative party is reducing the tax burden. Collectively, we have now taken more than 4 million people out of tax altogether, which has disproportionately helped those on lower incomes.
Kirsty Blackman
Not just now. In terms of the economic growth forecasts that the OBR has apparently made—
Kirsty Blackman
I am not taking any more interventions.
The OBR has made economic growth forecasts on the basis of a smooth and orderly Brexit. It has not made economic growth forecasts on the basis of us crashing out in a no-deal scenario, so its forecasts are only worth anything if the Government can strike a deal, as the Chancellor knows, which is why he has spoken about another fiscal event coming.
Frictionless trade is not frictionless just because the Government call it frictionless. If a good has to be stopped at the border, if somebody has to fill in an additional form or if there is any delay, that is not frictionless trade. Just because the Government say, “This is frictionless trade,” it does not mean that it is actually frictionless trade.
The Government need to improve their processes around the Finance Bill. This year has been the worst in terms of those processes, and they have to improve. The Government could do that by ensuring that we take evidence at the Public Bill Committee.
The Government have to actually do the things they say they are doing. If they say they are going to give Scotland the Barnett consequentials for health, they should give it the Barnett consequentials for health. If they say they are ending austerity, they should end austerity. If they say they are putting in place a living wage, they should put in place a living wage.
Lastly, if the Government are talking about tax cuts, they need to look at the situation in Scotland. The figures I have from the Library say that around half of taxpayers in England pay more than they would if they lived in Scotland, and that half of taxpayers are the people who earn the least, not the most. The UK Government should look at what the Scottish Government are doing and learn some lessons.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury got it right in his introduction—I can see he agrees with that—when he set the financial scene and reminded us of the history of the past eight or so years. When this Government came into office in 2010, we faced an economic crisis of almost unprecedented scale. At around 10% of GDP, the deficit was running out of control and unemployment was at a record high. Over the past eight years, the coalition and then the Conservative Government have worked hard and tirelessly to get our public finances back under control. It has not been an easy task. Had we listened to Labour Members, who frequently challenge our agenda, the deficit would still be extremely high and the debt would be a great deal higher than it is now—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister says from a sedentary position, “You’re joking”, but I have lost count of the number of measures of fiscal responsibility that the Opposition have voted against over the past eight years. Had Labour’s programme been adopted, the deficit and the debt would both be far higher than they are today.
Next year, borrowing is going to be down to about 1.4% of GDP, and it will be down to 0.8% by 2023. Critically, the debt as a proportion of GDP has been falling since 2016. The consequence of not getting our deficit and debt under control is that we pay far more in interest payments. Even today, we are paying around £45 billion a year in interest payments, but if the debt were any higher, as it would have been under Labour’s programme, those debt payments would be higher and the interest rates on that Government debt would be a great deal higher as well. That would mean having much less money to fund vital public services.
Hand in hand with the deficit reduction programme goes the Government’s track record on jobs. The unemployment rate has decreased from around 8% in 2010 to around 4% today, and it is now at a 43-year record low. It has never been lower in my lifetime. To those who say that the jobs that are being created are not high-quality jobs, I would say that 80% of them are full time, and I would remind those who say that they are all zero-hours jobs that only 3% of the jobs in the UK economy involve zero-hours contracts.
This track record of financial responsibility over the past eight years has now enabled a certain amount of fiscal loosening, providing extra money to be spent on public services. Both Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen said that austerity was continuing, but let us look at the Red Book. The cumulative effect of all the Budget measures being announced will result, in 2023 alone—the final year of the forecast period—in a £27 billion fiscal loosening relative to the measures that were in place before. There is no way that anyone can describe a £27 billion a year fiscal loosening as a continuation of austerity. In any case, it is not austerity. Austerity implies that it was a choice. It was not a choice; it was a necessity—
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman says that it was a choice, but it was not. We simply cannot go on spending way more every year than we raise in tax revenue, because we would eventually lose the confidence of the bond market, as this country did in 1976. At best, we would end up saddling the next generation with a gigantic bill that they would have to pay off. There is nothing noble, ethical or moral about spending more than we can afford and sending the bill to the next generation.
If we look at the fiscal loosening in the Budget, we can see that the NHS is the principal beneficiary, to the tune of £20 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. More immediately, the Ministry of Defence gets an extra £1 billion and the universal credit system gets an extra £1.7 billion. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury specifically mentioned universal credit in his characteristically lively speech earlier. I remind him that the universal credit system massively strengthens work incentives. Before, we had a system in which effective marginal tax rates were often running at 90% and in which there were cliff edges at 16 and 32 hours, after which people would actually get less money for working more hours.
The Resolution Foundation has carried out research on this. I understand that its chief executive is the former economic adviser to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and even he says that the total fiscal cost of the universal credit system, with these changes, will be higher than the cost of the old benefits system that it is replacing. So it is going to cost more public money than was being spent before. Universal credit’s track record of getting people off benefits and into work is better than the track record of the benefits system it is replacing. I think that universal credit has been properly funded. It might need a bit of fine tuning in some areas to do with the way in which some of the dates work, and I have spoken to Ministers about some technical changes that could be made. As a whole, however, I believe that the system is fully funded and that it will work.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman believes that universal credit is fully funded, but has he seen the evidence from DWP staff who are saying that they are spending so much time answering telephone calls that they cannot go through and answer the online journals from claimants? Does he not think that there is a problem there?
Chris Philp
When we introduce any new system that involves 5 million recipients, there will inevitably be some level of operational teething problems. These teething problems are on nothing like the scale of those we saw in the early 2000s when Gordon Brown rolled out tax credits and there was unmitigated chaos for some years.
I have had direct experience of universal credit in my own constituency. Croydon South is the joint highest constituency in the country—with Great Yarmouth, I think—for universal credit roll-out, with 43% of claimants now on universal credit. I estimate that around 4,000 Croydon South constituents are now in receipt of universal credit, and in the past six months I have had 21 complaints or problems raised by constituents. That is obviously 21 too many, but viewed in the context of about 4,000 recipients, it would appear that the teething problems are limited in their extent.
Chris Philp
The growth in the use of food banks is of course a phenomenon that we have seen across western Europe. After the Budget, people on universal credit will be £630 a year better off than they were before—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is a simple fact: the allowance has been increased. As I was saying a moment ago, the Resolution Foundation has found that the Government will be spending more money on universal credit following the Budget changes than would have been the case under the old benefits system. I would further point out that the track record of getting people off benefits and into work is better under universal credit than it was under the old benefits system. The way to combat poverty and create prosperity is to get people into work.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he does not seem to be aware that many of the people on universal credit are working.
Chris Philp
I realise that many people on universal credit are working. It is, by definition, an in-work benefit. The point I am making is that it is encouraging more people to take more hours, and it is encouraging people who are not working at all—[Interruption.] I would be happy to take another intervention from the hon. Lady, but perhaps she would like to listen to the answer to her first one. Universal credit is encouraging people who are not working at all to get into work, which is why unemployment is at a 43-year low. A legitimate question that she might ask is whether work is paying enough. This Government have successively increased the level of the minimum wage. This Budget increases it to £8.21 as of next April. That is up from £5.93 in 2010, which is a 38% increase. As I said in my intervention on the Financial Secretary, when we combine that with the increase in the personal allowance, from some £6,500 to £12,500 from next April, the post-tax income of someone on the minimum wage working full time—40 hours a week—has gone up by 44% over that eight-year period. Over the same time, inflation was 25%. So the personal allowance changes and the minimum wage increase have helped people on low incomes more than any other group. That is why income inequality is at a significantly lower level today than it was in 2010.
I turn for a moment to Labour’s plans. Inevitably, they involve spending a great deal of money—more money than contemplated even in the Budget. There is no great merit in spending more than we can afford today if we send the bill to our children and our grandchildren, saddling them with debt and burdening the Exchequer with very high interest charges, which are already high, at some £45 billion a year. As for Labour’s mass nationalisation programme, which it says is fiscally neutral, I point out that the last time we had mass nationalised industries—up to the 1980s—they tended to be grossly loss-making and required taxpayer subsidy, rather than generating revenue for the Exchequer. To assume that a mass nationalisation programme would be fiscally neutral is a dangerous assumption.
It seems to be assumed that the only measure of a Government’s effectiveness—or compassion—is the total amount that they spend. Of course it is important to fund public services properly, but it is the outcomes that matter, rather than the amount of money spent. Gordon Brown’s mistake was always to confuse spending money with success, when what actually matters is outcomes.
In education, for example, 86% of pupils are now in schools rated good or outstanding, compared with 68% in 2010. Notwithstanding any points that may be made about the funding levels in schools—and finding room to spend more is always welcome—the fact is that children are getting a better education today than they were eight years ago, according to Ofsted, which we can agree is an impartial observer. To the extent that the opportunity to loosen fiscally allows us to spend a little more, especially on services such as the police, it will of course be extremely welcome.
When the SNP leader replied to the Budget, he made some points about Brexit and the risks it poses. Some 61% of Scotland’s exports go to the rest of the UK, and only 17% go to the European Union. The single market that is of the most importance to Scotland, by a factor of about 4, is the United Kingdom single market—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I see that view has support from my colleagues. That is the single market that the SNP should focus on most, because it is the one on which their prosperity most depends.
As many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall conclude shortly—[Interruption.] However, I would not want to disappoint Opposition Front Benchers by concluding too soon, so before doing so I wish to thank the Chancellor for the business rate change that he announced in the Budget. Cutting business rates for 90% of the high street—any business with a rateable value of less than £52,000—is a welcome move, and will do something to level the tax playing field. High street stores, which use real estate intensively, suffer a tax disadvantage relative to online companies. Online multinational companies also use lawful, but creative mechanisms so that they do not pay as much corporation tax as our high street shops. The business rate cut for smaller shops will really help them and I strongly welcome it.
One measure on entrepreneurship that I commend to the Chancellor for future Budgets is something that is close to my heart. Before being elected, I set up and ran businesses for 15 years. I set up the first one when I was 24 and floated it on AIM four years later—[Interruption.] I thank Opposition Front Benchers for promoting my career, but I am happy where I am. In setting up and growing that business and others, we benefited from all kinds of relief, including the enterprise investment scheme and entrepreneurs relief. I particularly commend the seed enterprise investment scheme, which is very effective in getting money into complete start-ups—companies being started from scratch. It is a very effective tax break for getting individuals to invest in greenfield start-up companies. I should declare an interest as my wife recently set up a company that used SEIS to raise capital. The limit is low—£150,000 per company—but it is very effective in getting individuals to make investments. The fiscal cost is quite low: according to Treasury figures it is about £110 million a year. I suggest that future Budgets may have scope to increase the £150,000 per company limit to encourage further significant investment in start-ups at relatively low fiscal costs—I can see the shadow Chief Secretary getting his pen out to write this down. I commend that idea to the Chancellor for future budgets.
I thank the Chancellor for the welcome business rate cut. I commend him and the Financial Secretary for delivering record high employment, record low unemployment and getting our public finances firmly back under control. Had we listened to the Opposition Front-Bench team, we would still be facing financially ruinous debt bills. It will be my pleasure to vote for the Second Reading later tonight.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment in my name, about the economic context and specifically on some of the tax measures. Everything we are talking about, whether on the tax side or the spending side, depends on the overall performance of the economy and economic growth. This year, we have had fluctuations from one quarter to another, but the assumption is that growth is about 1.5%. According to the independent OBR, it will continue at about that rate for the next five years. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) reminded us, that not terribly optimistic picture is based on optimistic assumptions about the outturn of the Brexit negotiations that may of course not be realised.
There are two underlying reasons why the British economy is growing at just over what it was for the whole of the post-war period up to the financial crisis. One is the serious problem of productivity—a problem that has existed since the financial crisis. A paper was published this morning by analysts from Stanford and Nottingham who looked at why productivity performance is so poor at the moment. After an exhaustive survey, they found that the problem was that high-performing companies in the UK, in productivity terms, had fallen back very badly. The main reason is that those high-performing companies do a lot of a trade, in particular with the single market, and uncertainty has caused their performance to deteriorate. That is reinforced by the second element in the slowing of growth, which is poor business investment—less than half of 1% in terms of fixed business investment last year, and that is clearly a function of the uncertainty that is hanging over the economy because of the Brexit exercise.
I suspect that quite a lot of Members thought that the Finance Bill would be some light relief from the Brexit debate, but unfortunately it hangs over everything. It is the elephant in the room and it explains the economic problems that we face. There was an interesting debate between Conservative Members that, because of the adversarial way we discuss things, was rather glossed over. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and, in the Budget debate, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) expressed the strong view that the Chancellor was taking too many risks and the Budget should have been a good deal tighter than it was. Today we heard the exact opposite argument from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)—that it was far too tight and should have been more relaxed. It was an important debate, and it would be interesting to know how Ministers will combat the arguments from those formidable people.
I will highlight one particular aspect of that debate. This is not a party political point—it happened in the coalition—but the Government continue to refer to the deficit as if it is the same as Government borrowing. Well, of course it is not. The Government borrow for different reasons. They borrow to cover the current deficit and they borrow for investment. Just as companies borrow to invest, the Government sensibly do so. The problem with the current trajectory, as I understand from the Red Book, is that we are potentially heading for yet another squeeze in capital spending. Perhaps the Paymaster General can correct this, but my understanding is that CDEL, which is awful Treasury speak for capital spending, is due to fall next year, 2019-20, as a consequence of the attempt to maintain borrowing at moderate levels while at the same time expanding the current Budget. Perhaps he will enlighten us, because if it is true we are doing potentially serious damage to infrastructure that has been starved of capital for many years, as well as to public sector housing and much else.
I would also like clarification on the overall tax burden of the economy. There is a sleight of hand in this Budget. On the one hand, the Government have given tax cuts, but on the other hand—as a consequence of the squeeze on local government spending, which continues unabated and is having a severe impact on local services—council tax will almost certainly have to rise because councils are severely stretched and are providing inadequate services. In some cases, they are approaching bankruptcy and cannot meet their legal obligations. It is not restricted to any one party but, by and large, Conservative county councils are in this position.
Council tax will have to rise, and, in some cases, it probably should have risen earlier. There is nothing in the Red Book that tells us how much revenue local authorities actually get from council tax. That is rather an important figure, and it is important that we see a future projection, which would give us a much clearer picture of what is happening to taxation. On the one hand, the Government are offering direct tax cuts, and on the other they are offering increases in council tax, which at least in income terms is one of the most regressive taxes of all.
The Government have provided substantial additional funding for the national health service for several years ahead, and rightly so, but there is no such guarantee for personal care beyond next year. That matters, because the shortfall in care will fall on the NHS.
Several Conservative Members have been bobbing up and down to ask why we do not take a cross-party approach to this problem. Of course we should—this is a long-term problem—but memories are short, or maybe they are recent Conservative Members, because there have been repeated attempts at cross-party agreement on personal care financing. There was an attempt before 2010, which the then Conservative spokesman, Andrew Lansley, pulled out of on the grounds that it constituted a death tax. We then had another attempt in the coalition, when Andrew Dilnot did an authoritative piece of work for us. We reached a consensus and both sides of the coalition agreed to it, and then, come 2015, the key implementation measures were not introduced, so we are back where we were before. Ten years later, and after several attempts at cross-party consultation, there has been no progress, which is why care funding is in such terrible difficulty.
Chris Philp
I have been looking at the Red Book while the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking. He asked two questions. First, he asked about council tax receipts, which will be £34 billion this year and are forecast to rise to £40 billion in 2023-24. Secondly, he asked about CDEL, which is £50.2 billion in the current financial year and is forecast to rise to £65.5 billion by 2020-21.
Sir Vince Cable
I think there are separate sets of figures, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. His first point is particularly interesting, and I thank him for his rapid desktop research. His figures suggest there is potentially a very big tax increase in the pipeline, which is one of the assumptions in the Budget that was not spelled out on Budget day.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, thank you for letting me close today’s debate on the Finance Bill. The Bill represents a significant moment for this country. We have been told that austerity is over. It should be a time to rejoice. As Labour Members who have warned for eight years that austerity was the wrong choice, we should surely welcome the Bill. But the problem is, on examining the Government’s plans, you can claim that austerity is over only if you are willing to ignore the Prison Service, local government, schools, social care for vulnerable young people, social care for vulnerable older people, the police, the armed forces, those on low incomes, young people and women. I could go on, but I will not. It is enough to say that any economic policy that continues cuts to Government Departments and the squeezing of those on low incomes is not offering something new; it is simply offering more of the same.
The tragedy—the real, genuine tragedy—for those of us who were here in 2010 to listen to the emergency Budget that began austerity is that it simply has not worked. The British public have had all the pain, only to find out that there is no gain. I urge anyone who has participated in this debate to reread George Osborne’s speech in that 2010 Budget, because we know that the deficit was not eradicated by 2015 and that the retention of the triple A rating, said in that debate to be sacrosanct, does not even get a mention in a ministerial speech these days. Instead, economic growth is now the lowest in the post-war era and UK business investment the lowest in the G7. We have had eight years not even of stagnant wages, but of falling wages.
With respect, are these not the fundamentals? When we discuss a Finance Bill, should these factors—the ones that impact directly on our constituents—not be the ones we focus on? Eight years of austerity have left too many people in this country poorer, unsafe and too uncertain of their futures. It was a reckless policy that in my view directly contributed to the result of the Brexit referendum and the further chaos the Government now find themselves in. I want a Finance Bill that properly addresses these things and puts them right, but instead we have a Finance Bill that does none of these things, a Bill that offers the country nothing new—and in some areas nothing at all.
I second the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) about the way the Government have gone about the whole process of presenting the Bill. It might sound like parliamentary chicanery, but it is important. In an unprecedented move the Government did not allow us to table real amendments to the Finance Bill. By failing to move an amendment to the law resolution, they have limited the scope of amendments and new clauses only to the subject matter of the resolutions already tabled by the Government. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) referenced this in her speech. In doing so, they have restricted the rights of every Member, Conservative Back-Bench Members included.
This procedure has only been used by Chancellors six times in the last century and only when a Finance Bill was tabled close to an election: Churchill in 1929, Healey in 1974, Brown in 1997, Osborne in 2010 and the current Chancellor last year in 2017—probably the only time the Chancellor has been mentioned in the same breath as Churchill. We know why these restrictions have been applied. The Government are running scared of the House of Commons and, most of all, their own Back Benchers and perhaps their allies in the Democratic Unionist party.
Time and again, the Government have used the Brexit process as a pretext for a power grab, transferring powers to the Executive without any thought for constitutional checks and balances. I ask hon. Members to have a look at clause 89, rather innocently named, “Minor amendments in consequence of EU withdrawal”. In that clause, Ministers are giving themselves the power to amend tax law outside any normal due process. That will go on the statute book with no sunset clause or limitation of any kind. It is reckless, unprecedented and unnecessary, but it is indicative of the Government’s whole approach to Brexit: grab powers first, make decisions later.
That said, I have, as ever, enjoyed listening to today’s debate. We have had some good speeches and the usual mix of slightly spurious claims and downright incorrect statements from the Government Benches. It seems we will never get Government Members to listen to the IFS on the cost of their corporation tax cuts, but it also seems that the Financial Secretary, whom we are all tremendously fond of, has chosen today to repeat his claim that unemployment rose under every Labour Government. I am afraid that, unfortunately for him, that is just not true.
While listening to the debate, I have taken the liberty of doing some research for the Financial Secretary. I can tell him that he need look no further than the very first Labour Government, who took office in January 1924. There was a general election in December of that year, something we are not in favour of. The very first Labour Government reduced unemployment from 11.9% to 10.9%: those figures are widely available. It is true that the Labour Government of 1945 had to deal with demobilisation following the end of the second world war, but they did found the national health service, build a million homes and still satisfy the legal definition of full employment, so I think we can say that they were the greatest Government in British history.
I must also place on record that the claim made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty)—I am not sure whether he is still in the Chamber—about the book edited by the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is simply not correct. I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to quote the economist Simon Wren-Lewis, who accused the Prime Minister of lying when she gave a similar quote in the House of Commons. I ask for that to be recognised and I ask Members to reflect on its incorrect use.
Several Conservative Members referred to the increase in NHS spending. I felt that there was a slight lack of recognition of the fact that it is predicated purely on an improved forecast for the tax revenues. It is not money in the bank and, remarkably, the Chancellor chose to blow most of it in one go. That may not have been prudent.
I listened intently to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). He said many things that I thought were fundamentally wrong about Brexit and tax policy, but he did make some interesting comments about monetary policy. There has, I feel, been insufficient recognition that austerity has been accompanied by an unprecedented period of ultra-loose monetary policy. The Bank of England cut interest rates to record lows, and then introduced quantitative easing as a form of “life support” when they could not go any lower. We have not discussed that enough, and we have certainly not discussed enough the distributional impact that it implies.
The Bank has essentially compensated for Government austerity by pumping money into the economy to increase consumption and investment, while the Government have done the opposite. We would say that the lack of sustained growth under the Government’s stewardship has meant that we have not yet been able to unwind that policy, so that, at present, if we need it again it is not available to us. That is why, today, we are even more badly placed to deal with the next recession, when it comes.
As ever, I was slightly frustrated by the speeches of the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and others who made no distinction between Government borrowing for investment and Government borrowing to pay for day-to-day spending. As the International Monetary Fund itself has pointed out, if debt is accrued to finance investment, and if that investment will generate stronger tax revenues than the cost of borrowing, it is entirely sustainable. Debt as a percentage of GDP does not tell us much without reference to when that debt needs to be serviced, and at what cost, relative to the growth of taxes that have to pay for it. The public finances are not like a household’s finances, and every Member needs to remember that. The worst legacy for the next generation is a failure to grow the economy as we could. It is nonsense to talk about burdening future generations with debt when they are exactly the ones who would benefit from that long-term investment.
Some excellent speeches were made by Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) made an important speech about housing and homelessness. She emphasised that, apart from increasing first-time buyers relief, the Bill does little to encourage house building or to tackle the UK’s housing crisis. As she said, many of the Government’s initiatives, such as Help to Buy, cause substantial problems in themselves. She also updated the House on the Grenfell situation, and I pay tribute to her for all her work on behalf of her constituents and the nation in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) spoke with passion about what austerity has done to living standards in this country. There is no better example of that than the impact of universal credit. Let us not forget that the £1.7 billion promised for universal credit is only a third of the £7 billion cuts in the social security system that were already scheduled. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) made that point well. Let me tell Conservative Members, with complete sincerity, that I am kept awake at night by the casework that I receive on universal credit, and I do not believe that I am the only one.
Chris Philp
Does the shadow Minister accept the Resolution Foundation’s analysis, published after the Budget, that said that the total fiscal cost of the amended universal credit will exceed that of the preceding benefits? That is, more money is going into universal credit now than even was the case before.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have seen that analysis. The Resolution Foundation said that the cost is greater, so the question for the hon. Gentleman is this: if more money is going in and so many people are still losing out, what terrible choices have the Government made to produce a situation as bad as that?
My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned the Government’s shameful delay in limiting the maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals. Many Members, including me, see the damage done in our constituencies by these machines every week. They both gave forceful and persuasive speeches, but I am hopeful that the will of the House on this matter is clear and that the Government will be forced to do the right thing, especially given several speeches by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) gave a powerful testimony about what austerity has meant in his borough. I only hope that his school governors’ meeting was quorate without him.
There was a lively exchange on the environment. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that, given the potential catastrophe we face—as outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published in October—this Finance Bill is unsatisfactory. I sat in Mansion House in June, listening to the Chancellor promise that the UK would be leading the way on green finance, but we have yet to see any tangible evidence of the Government’s intentions on the statute book. We are lagging behind our European counterparts, which already have mandatory climate disclosure laws, and those that have issued their own sovereign green bonds. This just does not seem to be a priority for the Government.
The good news for all my colleagues is that they can join me tonight in voting for Labour’s reasoned amendment, which declines to give this Bill its Second Reading on the basis that it continues the austerity policies that have caused so much damage, and instead proposes a progressive taxation system, real funding for public services, greater public investment and a halt to the roll-out of universal credit.
I say to colleagues across the whole House, is it really unreasonable in Britain today for people to want to take their children into a city centre without having to explain to them why so many people are now sleeping on the streets? Is it really unreasonable to believe that, if we really had a strong economy, thousands of our fellow citizens would not be dependent on food banks to get by? And is it really unreasonable to believe that, when a Government present a Finance Bill, their priorities should be those most in need, not those who are already better off? We do not think that any of those things are unreasonable, so we will vote against the Finance Bill tonight. We know that this country does not just need new ideas; it needs new hope for the future. The Bill sadly offers neither and it does not deserve the endorsement of the House tonight.