Comprehensive Spending Review

Chuka Umunna Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

Whatever happened to old-fashioned courtesy? The hon. Gentleman should ask himself why I do not want to give way to him when he is so generous and lovely to me when I do.

Money spent on infrastructure investment kept the construction sector going. As we saw from the GDP figures on Wednesday, that is still having a positive effect. The deficit was unavoidable. It was vital to support people and businesses through tough times, but let us be clear about Labour’s spending before the crisis hit. Far from being too high, it was, as the Prime Minister said—I am quoting him directly—“really quite tough”, while the Chancellor was urging us to spend more.

The second myth is that the scale of the cuts is unavoidable. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has pointed out, Government propaganda has got it precisely the wrong way round. The fact is that the deficit was unavoidable; it is the June Budget and the Chancellor’s spending review that are a political choice. They are not only avoidable, they are downright dangerous. That is why there was no mention of these supposedly unavoidable cuts in the manifestos of either of the parties now in government when they went to the country. That is why they have no mandate for the cuts policy that they have embarked on since the general election.

Since the election, we have seen the contortions of the Deputy Prime Minister, along with his accomplice in what we now have to call the “quad”, to justify his volte-face. First he told us that he took a call from the Governor of the Bank of England as he stepped into the ministerial Jag, but the Governor begged to differ. Then the Deputy Prime Minister said that Britain was about to become Greece. That is about as close to a myth as you can get, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government have made their choice, and we on the Opposition Benches will hold them responsible for the social and economic consequences of those choices.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend noticed the tendency of those on the Government Benches, and in particular the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, when referring to the history of the economy this year, to say that we were on the brink of bankruptcy as a country? Did she, like me, notice Lord Turnbull’s appearance before the Treasury Committee this morning, when he clearly said that this country was not on the brink of bankruptcy and that there was no risk of a sovereign debt crisis?

[Ms Eagle]

It is quite extraordinary that we have a Chancellor who is prepared to make such alarmist statements from the Treasury. He does it for political, not economic, reasons, and it is a disgrace that he continues to do it.

Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to pay tribute to British business, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs since this Government started taking the tough decisions that she flunked?

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I shall focus specifically on child benefit, and start by sincerely congratulating the coalition Government. In 1945 the coalition Government, which involved Liberals, Conservatives and Labour, introduced family allowances—a coalition Government who got something right. It was in the mid to late 1970s that child tax allowances were amalgamated with the family allowance scheme to form child benefit.

Unfortunately, there is now a need to restate the case for family support and for child benefit. I want to explain why it is such an important scheme to maintain as a universal scheme. First, there is the societal interest in bringing up our children. No one spoke more clearly about that than Eleanor Rathbone when in 1940 she said that

“children are not simply a private luxury. They are an asset to the community, and the community can no longer afford to leave the provision for their welfare solely to the accident of individual income.”

That was Eleanor Rathbone, the heroine of family support, back in 1940.

A second reason for child benefit is what we might call horizontal equity. The welfare state is not simply about poverty. In terms of child benefit, it is about the fact that whatever people’s income level, if they have children, they are taking on financial responsibilities over and above those who are childless or the single. Horizontal equity is important, as we are finding out now.

Thirdly, there is the sheer cost of bringing up a child. No longer is a child someone who becomes independent at 14, 15 or 16, when they leave school and get a job. Once upon a time children might have been an economic asset on the land. Today our children, with higher and further education, are dependent on their families for longer and longer.

People have had a go at estimating the costs of a child. The most recent estimate that I have seen is from the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society, which said that the costs of a child could be as high as £200,000. We can add on to that other indirect costs when the mother, staying at home, loses her place on the career ladder, loses salary, loses income and loses pension rights. Our children are very expensive, as many of us who are parents know. It may be that for these economic reasons, the birth rate in societies such as the UK is below replacement level. These are significant issues.

The fourth reason is extremely important. The family allowance—now child benefit—was essentially an income for mothers. That is what Eleanor Rathbone was arguing for. Despite modern times, and despite the rise of the dual worker family and the rise of women’s rights, my guess would be that it is still mothers in most of our families who are responsible for juggling family budgets at different income levels. It is mums who make the judgment about whether the clothes and the shoes can be afforded, how to fund the school trips and the treats for children—[Interruption.] That obviously struck a chord with someone. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) could also laugh at any jokes I make, that would be helpful.

The income for mothers is particularly important for mothers who, often pejoratively, are referred to as the stay-at-home mums—those who make the judgment that for the first few years, they want to look after their own children. Choice is so important. I think that in future we will see more parents wanting to spend time with their children, especially when they are young. That is why the family allowance and the child benefit have been so important, and that is why, following the modern coalition Government’s announcement, we have seen so much concern from those mothers in so-called higher income families about the loss of their income. That is very important.

A fifth reason is that child benefit, alongside other benefits, is part of the universalist spine that is so crucial to a modern welfare state. Alongside free education, a free national health service, pensions and national insurance benefits, child benefit is universalism, and I believe that universalism is a major force for cohesion in our society. It is a “We’re all in this together” social policy, which we start to erode with perilous implications. Child benefit is simple, easily understood and easily administered.

[Mr Umunna]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Malcolm Wicks]

I am happy to give way to my constituency neighbour in Streatham.

[Mr Umunna]

Will my right hon. Friend also acknowledge that one of the good things about child benefit is that its take-up is so high? Take-up is one of the problems that we have with many benefits that are paid out.

[Malcolm Wicks]

I agree, of course, because child benefit is easily understood, simple and a universal benefit. I am very happy to agree with my parliamentary neighbour.

Child benefit is now being undermined, which is why it is so important to restate the basics in favour of family benefits. We are seeing something that will attack the very principle of women’s entitlement. It will essentially punish mothers if their husbands earn above the higher tax threshold; the mums will suffer because of the father’s income. As an aside, let us not assume that in the 21st century income is shared by all families; there are still families where the father keeps more than he gives to the mother and the children. That is not just about poverty, either; it happens at other income levels, too.

The measure is also a snub to those mothers who, as I said earlier, choose to stay at home to look after their own children. We need more choices—about whether people go to work and use child care or stay at home to look after their own children. What message are we sending out to those mothers who want to care for their children in that way?

The measure also introduces, as we know, the unfairness between the dual-earner family on £80,000, who keep the child benefit, and the family with one earner above the threshold, who lose it. The measure is a recipe for complexity, and it will disincentivise those who are just below the tax threshold to earn more money in the future.

This is a measure that needs to be rethought. It undermines family support, and it undermines our children. So much for the party of the family.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Yes, I certainly did address many student audiences during the election in Bristol West, and I made it quite clear that in an ideal world, and in ideal financial circumstances, the Liberal Democrats would have wished to abolish tuition fees from the outset. Financial circumstances did not allow us to do so, however, and that is why we had a phased plan. I spoke at the launch of the National Union of Students pledge on working with the Government for a fairer system of student finance, and I am still working with the Government and the NUS to produce such a fair system. If the Government come forward with a fair system, I will support them; if they do not, I will not.

We know that Labour planned to make billions of pounds’ worth of cuts whatever happened after the election; it has been confirmed in many memoirs. But Labour Members have since been in deficit denial. They have been in denial about the need to tackle the deficit itself, and, as today’s debate has shown, they have not been able to give us a single Government measure that they would support, or to put forward an alternative themselves. The coalition Government are taking the necessary steps to restore order and stability to our public finances. That will restore confidence among British businesses and confidence among countries abroad that Britain is serious about tackling its desperate situation. Confidence and low interest rates are the bedrock for ensuring that our businesses can grow.

[Mr Umunna]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is not a difference in views on the need to deal with the deficit per se but that the issue is rather the speed and the depth with which we do that? Labour Members think that we need to go for a different time scale of deficit reduction as compared with his party—or at least his party post-May of this year. Will he at least acknowledge that there is a view on deficit reduction among Labour Members, but that it may not be the same as his party’s?

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Gentleman is a thoughtful man who now sits on the Treasury Committee. Perhaps he thinks that this is a serious issue that needs to be tackled, but many of his hon. Friends seem to be in deficit denial. We have not heard thus far in the debate—although there are many hours to go—a single idea from the Opposition on how they would tackle the deficit, whether it is over four years or five years, which is a point of debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Although she is not in her place, I wish to associate myself with the comments, particularly those on welfare reform, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is also a south London MP. Her comments apply equally to my constituency as they do to hers.

I wish to say a little about the banking sector in the context of this comprehensive spending review, because it has not been addressed in great detail during this debate. During his speech to the CBI on Monday, the Business Secretary said that

“the British economy, two years ago, suffered the economic equivalent of a heart attack with the near collapse of the banking system. Death was averted by speedy intervention to shore up the banking system to prevent an economic slump.”

Although he has tended to peddle some of the myths we have heard in the Chamber today, at least there he acknowledged that the previous Government stepped in to prevent the recession caused by the financial sector from turning into a depression. For me, the real question is what contribution the Government are expecting the banking sector to make to clear up the mess it created.

In his emergency Budget statement, the Chancellor said:

“The failures of the banks imposed a huge cost on the rest of society, so I believe that it is fair and right that in future banks should make a more appropriate contribution, reflecting the many risks that they generate.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]

What was promised in that emergency Budget? First, the Government said that they would set up the Independent Commission on Banking. Secondly, they said that they would take action to tackle unacceptable bank bonuses, referring to the consultation that they would start on the remuneration disclosure scheme and talking about imposing more restrictions on remuneration arrangements for those working in the City. Of course, the centrepiece of the action that the Government said they were going to take on the banks was the banking levy.

So what did we see in the comprehensive spending review? Credit is due in respect of the Independent Commission on Banking. I, for one, am pleased to have seen that set up and its terms of reference are good. Beyond that, there are many questions to be asked about what the Government are doing to ensure that the financial services sector makes its fair contribution. We are constantly told that we will be consulted on the remuneration disclosure scheme in due course. I believe that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is no longer in his place, said that that would take place shortly. However, at the moment it is nowhere to be seen. There is a real risk that if we do not see this in the remuneration disclosure scheme, which would require the banks to exercise more transparency in their remuneration arrangements, things will not be implemented in time for the forthcoming bonus round, which is about to start in December.

We have not seen much movement on the measures to tackle irresponsible bank bonuses either. We have seen movement on this in Europe, but not on the domestic front. As has been said in the Chamber today, the banking levy is to bring in about £2.5 billion of revenue, and the Government are fond of saying that that is higher in net terms than the previous Government’s payroll tax. That is completely disingenuous, because I tabled a parliamentary question during the summer on the likely income from the banking levy and was told by the Treasury that it would raise £1.15 billion in 2011-12, rather than £2.5 billion. I was told that £2.32 billion was to be raised in 2013-14, not £2.5 billion. The income would finally reach £2.5 billion in 2013-14 before falling back again to £2.4 billion in 2014-15. So in 2014-15 the banks would be paying less than the amount that families will lose in child benefit.

What we were also not told in the CSR was that, under the paper issued by the Government, the day after, the banks will have a tax-free allowance—a levy-free allowance—of £20 billion, so they will not pay the banking levy on the first £20 billion of taxable liabilities. This is not a levy; it is a walk in the park for the financial services sector. The five biggest UK banks have already announced well over £15 billion of profits this year, so I ask the Government to spell out how those whom they said they would make pay for the crisis they caused are to be required to make a fair contribution, because we do not see it in the Green Book this week.