Budget Resolutions

Debate between Chris Philp and Iain Wright

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh); he made a thoughtful and forward-looking speech, although I have to say that I could not disagree with him more on the matters of insurance-based payments to fund our NHS and selective education; those are the wrong approaches for this country to take.

I want to mention three key points. The first is the position of the national debt. This year’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” document from the Office for Budget Responsibility states that

“the fiscal mandate has targeted different measures of the deficit at different horizons”,

which is a beautifully diplomatic way of saying that the Government keep moving the goalposts and still fail to score the goal. The OBR goes on to state that

“the Government does not appear to be on track to meet its stated fiscal objective to ‘return the public finances to balance at the earliest possible date in the next Parliament’.”

So the Government have failed on the deficit, but they are failing catastrophically on the debt.

In 2010, the Government expected public sector net debt to be falling as a share of GDP; it was forecast to reach a high of 70.3% in 2013-14, falling to 67.4% by 2015-16. However, in every single year that the Tories have been in No. 11 net debt has risen in actual and relative terms, reaching 83.7% of GDP last year, and it is going to rise through this Parliament, with the Red Book forecasting that it will reach 88.9% this year.

When the coalition took office, public sector net debt was £771 billion. This year it reached £1.6 trillion, and the Red Book forecasts it is to rise again throughout this Parliament to £1.9 trillion. This is my first key point: in little over a decade, the Tories will have increased public sector debt by 146%, with it rising by over £1 trillion.

In his statement, the Chancellor said that they

“will not saddle our children with ever-increasing debts.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 811.]

However, when Tory Chancellors have increased the public debt by almost 150% in a decade, saddling our children with ever-increasing debts seems to be precisely what this Government are doing.

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming the fact that the deficit has gone down from 11% of GDP when Labour left office to 3% of GDP today?

[Mr Wright]

But the public sector debt is almost touching £2 trillion. The hon. Gentleman cannot be satisfied with that situation when the whole nature of Tory Governments since 2010 has been not only to reduce the deficit, but also to get the debt down to manageable proportions.

On that point, having debt on a low and falling proportion of GDP provides some scope to absorb the impact of any future economic shock. That was the case with the Labour Government in the run-up to 2008, and in many respects it was the case with the Thatcher Government in 1988, ’89 and ’90, to hit the recession of the early 1990s. But this Government are failing to do the same thing: we will hit any economic turbulence or downturn with public sector debt being about 80% to 85% of GDP. That does not give us the flexibility to be able to respond and help firms and families in a robust and strong way.

The second point I want to make is about the nature of the economic recovery. Seven years ago a Tory Chancellor’s first Budget for 13 years stated that the British economy had become unbalanced, too reliant on growth and, as the 2010 Red Book said,

“driven by the accumulation of unsustainable levels of private sector debt and rising public sector debt.”

Growth was confined to a limited number of sectors and regions. I have mentioned public sector debt, and it is true to say that the British economy has performed well; the UK was the fastest-growing G7 economy last year. However, if we scratch beneath the surface, it is questionable precisely who is benefiting from that growth and what sort of growth we are having. Of course, growth is growth, and it has to be welcomed, but the British economy seems to be reverting to type, which could leave us vulnerable to long-term challenges and mean that we fail to take advantage of great opportunities.

Who is benefiting from the growth? The UK has been the only big advanced economy in which wages have contracted while the economy has expanded. Households are facing a period of 15 years in which average real wage growth simply does not happen. Average earnings in real terms are expected to be the same in 2022 as they were in 2007. Such a long period of wage stagnation is unprecedented since before the industrial revolution. Yet despite the lack of wage growth, household consumption is powering the economy, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) mentioned in his powerful contribution. This has led to an expansion in the dominant services sector, but if consumption growth is running faster than wage growth, it must mean that people are either reducing their savings or increasing their borrowing.

The Governor of the Bank of England said in a speech in January that

“the UK expansion is increasingly consumption-led. Evidence from the past quarter century across a range of countries suggests episodes of consumption-led growth tends to be both slower and less durable.”

The household debt-to-income ratio has increased from 140.8% to 143.9% this year alone. These are worrying trends, and we are not seeing an increase in investment or an export-led recovery. Business investment has constantly undershot expectations, and there was a year-on-year fall in business investment of 1.5% last year. Despite the drop in sterling’s value against the dollar by about a fifth since 23 June, we have not seen the boom in exports that we might have expected. In fact, the trade deficit widened to £13.6 billion in the third quarter of 2016. That was due predominantly to a trade in goods deficit getting larger by £8.5 billion.

My third point is that we need a new model for the economy. To be fair to the Prime Minister, she said when she first came into No. 10 that she wanted to see an economy that worked for everyone, and that she wanted to see private sector reform to ensure that growth was rebalanced and reached all parts of the UK. However, that is not what we saw in last week’s Budget. The Government have referred to an industrial strategy as the path by which such growth could be achieved, yet the Chancellor failed to mention the term “industrial strategy” once in his financial statement, which demonstrates the buy-in from the Treasury to the concept. We talk about rebalancing across the regions, but as a north-eastern MP, I could find no reference whatever to the north in the Budget statement, let alone an assurance that we could have an economy that worked for everyone.

In our recent Select Committee report following our inquiry into the industrial strategy, we noted that the Government tend to operate in silos, and this Budget sadly reveals business as usual and more of the same. The Government intervene in the economy every single day, through taxes and regulations, as the Red Book shows. They can do that in an ad hoc, piecemeal way, or they can do it as part of a co-ordinated, strategic purpose. Sadly, the Budget seems to stress the former. It is true that the industrial strategy talks about skills as being essential, and the Chancellor’s announcement on technical education is welcome, but we will not see the fruits of those proposals until 2020-21. The industrial strategy also talks about ensuring that we are one of the most competitive places in the world to start and grow a business, yet the national insurance contributions debacle will result in a tax on enterprise, on ambition and on personal risk-taking by entrepreneurs.

The Committee would have liked to see a more ambitious, mission-based approach in which the Government, working with business, set a long-term direction for the economy in the pursuit of tackling global and national challenges. Where in the Budget was the vision on decarbonisation? Where in the Budget was the ambition to be the leading economy to exploit the fourth industrial revolution? Sadly, we got the same short-term tinkering, which will not address issues such as low productivity, skills deficiencies and massive regional imbalances. If the Prime Minister is serious about an economy that works for everyone, we need to see a step change in the way the economy works. An industrial strategy could be the means by which we achieve that but, sadly, in this Budget we saw business as usual.

Productivity

Debate between Chris Philp and Iain Wright

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I seem to recall reading in the Financial Times three or four weeks ago an extremely perceptive article by him on productivity, so it is a real pleasure to follow him. He has given these issues careful thought.

I am pleased that we are discussing productivity so early in this Parliament. UK output per hour is about a fifth below that of the rest of the G7. It is the largest gap since 1991. In France, output per hour has increased by 2%. In the US, it has increased by 9%. Ours has not shifted. It has been said time and again that if we want rising living standards and a historically decent long-term economic growth trend of 2.5% or 3%, productivity needs to improve.

[Chris Philp]

In France, productivity figures may well have been achieved at the expense of extremely high unemployment. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would like to see very high unemployment here in exchange for fractionally better productivity?

[Mr Wright]

I represent a constituency in the north-east that has suffered and still bears the scars of long-term unemployment. I do not want to see unemployment at all. We need to address that. But in order to remain competitive in the global economy, we must address productivity.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that not all sectors of the economy had been affected by stagnating productivity. It is true. High-value manufacturing sectors such as aerospace and automotives have seen huge leaps in productivity in recent years. They have led to better, more innovative products that are more competitive than our rivals’ products, and which are sold in increasing numbers around the world. He mentioned Nissan in Sunderland, which produces a car every 61 seconds, to rival any other car plant on earth. This week we are seeing the Paris air show, where about £7.8 billion-worth of products from enterprises based in the UK have been sold around the world. We need to encourage this virtuous cycle, because that will lead to more well-paid jobs in these sectors. It is the model of the British economy that we should be encouraging.

To be fair, credit must be given to Vince Cable and David Willetts when they were in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for continuing the approach set out by the Labour Government. That long-term approach, a mature business policy transcending individual Parliaments and thinking about what is required for our economy for the next 20 or 30 years, gives business the confidence to invest for the long term. We have seen the dividends of such an approach in globally competitive sectors such as aerospace and automotives, but I worry that we have seen no endorsement of that approach from the new Business Secretary. It is concerning that in his interview in the Financial Times about two weeks ago, he seemed to draw a line under the industrial strategy that has helped competitive sectors succeed in Britain.

Great examples of business-Government collaboration, such as the Automotive Council, the Aerospace Growth Partnership and the Aerospace Technology Institute, which have brought billions of pounds of investment into Britain, no longer seem to have Ministers’ attention. Is the new Business Secretary going to adopt a new approach? Is that long-term business policy going to wither on the vine on his watch? That would be to the detriment of long-term, high-value economic success and improvements in productivity. I hope that when he responds, the Minister will provide clarity as to what the new Government’s industrial strategy will be.

A key way to improve our competitiveness and productivity is to invest in new technology and innovation. However, our long-term performance in that respect is woeful and has been for far too long. UK gross domestic research and development expenditure, as a percentage of our GDP, peaked in 1986 at 2.03%. In the past 15 years or so, R and D spend as a percentage of GDP has been in the range of 1.59% to 1.73%, well below the EU average and significantly below ambitiously innovative nations. South Korea spends five times as much on R and D—not as a percentage of its economy, but the actual amount—as the average European nation, and that relentless focus on innovation and moving up the value chain has reaped massive rewards. Half a century ago, South Korea was poorer than Bolivia and Mozambique; now, it is richer than Spain and New Zealand. That is the lesson we have to learn.

We are living in what could be the most significant era of challenge and innovation for humanity. Britain’s historic strengths in science and in areas such as pharmaceuticals, aerospace and motor vehicles should and could be harnessed much more and spread throughout the economy in a much more balanced way. We are complacent in the extreme if we think we can carry on as before and not provide more resources to R and D. So will the Government commit to prioritising science? What is the future of the catapult centres, which have seen Government and industry collaborate on a range of issues relating to technology and innovation? Will funding be secure in those areas?

A further way in which we will rise up the productivity chain and in competitiveness is by emphasising skills. The days 40 years ago when somebody in my constituency would leave school on a Friday at the age of 15, start work at the steelworks on the following Monday and stay there for 35 years have gone. That will never come back. The modern British workforce will need to adapt and retrain and, crucially, be given the opportunity to do so. Men and women in Hartlepool and elsewhere may be made redundant in their 30s and 40s, and will need the means to retrain for a new career—quite possibly several different careers. But BIS, supposedly the Department for growth, is cutting the adult skills budget by 11% in this financial year.

The total budget from the Department for adult further education and skills funding will fall not just in real terms, but by 5% in absolute terms. When the BIS cuts took place during this Parliament, announced by the Chancellor in the Queen’s Speech debate a couple of weeks ago, £450 million was stripped out of further and higher education. That will not give us a modern, innovative workforce.

Should we not be prioritising adult skills? We should have flexibility areas to ensure that we can maintain Britain’s future prosperity. As Neil Carberry, CBI director for employment and skills, said today:

“If we are to deliver sustainable higher wage growth, we need to see a rise in productivity. That means businesses investing in skills, and the Government helping firms innovate by supporting investment in next month’s Budget.”

I hope that for the sake of future prosperity, productivity gains and our competitiveness as a nation, the Government will respond to those concerns and make sure that we can be a high-value, innovative nation that can compete with the rest of the world.