The Economy

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

If the hon. Lady is talking about benefit sanctions, I think that it is perfectly reasonable to ask people who are capable of work to turn up to job interviews and to make sure that they are doing everything possible to look for work. We support them while they are doing that, but the taxpayers of this country expect them to search for work.

The economic situation at the beginning of this Parliament is vastly better than the one we inherited at the start of the last Parliament. Back then, debt was soaring; today, it is projected this year to fall as a share of our national income. Back then, millions were looking for work; today, 2 million new jobs have been created. Back then, we were in the grip of an economic crisis; this week, the latest forecast is that the UK will be the fastest growing of any of the G7 economies—not just in 2014, but now in 2015 as well. That we have come so far in five years is a testament to the effort of the working people of Britain.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

One of the myths that the Conservatives have been very successful with—I credit them for it—is the suggestion that debt soared under the last Labour Government from 1997 onwards. However, according to the House of Commons Library, debt in 1997 was higher than it was in 2007-08, just before the banking crisis hit. Yes or no?

[Mr Osborne]

The idea that the last Labour Government did not leave the country with a debt crisis is laughable. The fact that the Labour party is starting this Parliament making the same argument that it made in the last one shows how much it needs to learn and listen.

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Mr Osborne]

I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[Mr Osborne]

The point I make to the hon. Gentleman is that national debt started rising in the very first years of the beginning of this century—in 2001 and 2002. It rose through the boom years, when the Labour Government should have been paying down the debt and should not have been running a deficit. One of the things on which the various leaders of the Labour party all seem to agree at the moment is that the deficit was too high going into the crash.

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Mr Osborne]

I do not know who the hon. Gentleman is going to vote for in the Labour leadership contest; the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) may be the one person still sticking with the line that he is pursuing.

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Mr Osborne]

I think I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was no institution looking at overall debt levels in our country.

[Clive Efford]

Make it up as you go along!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the Chancellor wants to give way, he will, and if he does not, he will not. A Member should not continue to stand in an attempt to intimidate a Minister or anybody else into giving way. [Interruption.] Order. A Member should not continue to stand as if their intervention was inevitable. Seriously, that is an established point of parliamentary procedure. The hon. Member for Eltham can have a go, but if the intervention is not accepted, he will have to resume his seat.

[Clive Efford]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the record, I want to apologise—I did not want to intimidate the Chancellor.

[Mr Speaker]

Whether the hon. Gentleman wanted to or not, I am happy to concede that he was not doing so.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am not going to discuss an individual’s tax affairs, but I would say this: the hypocrisy of the Labour party on this issue is simply breathtaking. Labour Members complain about Conservative party donors and then we hear all these revelations about Labour party donors; they complain about individual accountancy firms and then it turns out that Labour collects hundreds of thousands of pounds of donations from those accountancy firms; and they complain about the alleged tax evasion at HSBC Swiss and every single one of those offences happened when Labour was in government. It is time Labour Members got up and apologised.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

No one on the Labour Benches is complaining that the Chancellor met people from HSBC 56 times—we are not surprised by that. The question is: was evasion or tax avoidance discussed at those meetings and what was the outcome of those discussions? [Interruption.]

[Mr Osborne]

I have already answered that question. [Interruption.] I have; I said it is not surprising that Ministers meet one of the largest companies in this country, which employs close to 50,000 people in Britain and, as I understand it, a quarter of a million people around the world. As I also said earlier, I am happy to write about any of the content of those meetings, which were not just with me, but across the government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is right to make that point. We need to go on and run an overall surplus, to ensure that our public finances are sustainable over the longer term.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Is the Office for Budget Responsibility not right to say that stagnant wages have led to more borrowing? Is that not the key reason why the Government have missed their borrowing targets by more than £200 billion?

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I do not want to discourage members of the Opposition Front-Bench team from taking to the airwaves and criticising their leader, because it is very good. It is only after the event that we hear that they think he is useless. They did not tell us that beforehand. My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition did not raise the issue—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor calls me to the House of Commons, he has nothing to say for himself and he has no answer to the fact that his own article reveals that he thought we were going to be paying £1.7 billion. It just confirms that he is not up to the job.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I think the Chancellor should calm down when it comes to leadership and loyalty. Why did we have a by-election last month that his party lost to the UK Independence party and why do we have another one this month? Will he confirm that the ECOFIN Ministers he discussed the rebate with are of the opinion that we will pay no less than we would have done if we had paid the full £1.7 billion on 1 December and then received our rebate?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have already said, it was not clear that the rebate would apply, which is why the shadow Chancellor, in his article in The Guardian, uses a number that assumes that we are going to pay £1.7 billion. That is what he thought we were going to pay, but we negotiated hard and had intensive discussions, and as a result we have got this result for Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know, as will other hon. Members, that last year inbound tourism hit a new record high of 33 million visitors spending a record amount of £21 billion in the UK. He rightly points out the importance of improving skills, and we are working with the Tourism Council on that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Despite recent sporting setbacks, our enthusiasm remains at fever pitch. Will the Minister, like me, be among the 3 million people it is anticipated will go to watch the start of the Tour de France this weekend? The Grand Départ will showcase some of Britain’s most beautiful countryside. Will he join me in wishing Yorkshire every success in hosting this event and wish every participant well, and, of course, success to our British riders? What is he doing to ensure that the event goes smoothly and that the region continues to benefit from the boost to tourism that it will get from hosting this event?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the Grand Départ taking place in Yorkshire. It is a very important sporting moment for the UK. I will be visiting on day one, on Saturday, and I look forward to seeing him there. The Prime Minister will also be visiting, and the sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), will be helping as well.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

It would be a bit unfair to ask Lord Eatwell, who has returned to academic life and is no longer on our Front Bench in the Lords, for ex-post agreement, although if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that he could join a strong consensus in this House that included a number of Conservative Members, as we have sort of heard today and read elsewhere.

Coalition is an important issue. Going into the last election there was no OBR, but there were costed proposals in manifestos, and, after the coalition was formed, costings for proposals put before this House through the Budget process were audited by the OBR. I do not think the OBR should be drawn into coalition negotiations after elections and manifestos, because it would probably be a mistake to draw it into the political process in that way. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not think it is an obstacle to proceeding.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In his letter to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the chair of the OBR referred to this process facilitating coalition discussions, if needed, after an election.

[Ed Balls]

In that case, the head of the OBR is even more supportive of the proposal than I had thought. My hon. Friend makes a helpful contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who, as usual, talks complete economic sense, unlike the Labour party.

As academic evidence noted at the time of the OBR’s creation, it is vital that there should not

“even be a scintilla of doubt…about the OBR’s independence and impartiality, as negative perceptions may undermine the OBR’s reputation, requiring a major effort at changing such perceptions”.

Unfortunately, the Opposition’s proposal not only presents a risk to that impartiality, but raises several difficult practical questions, which I shall go through briefly.

[Clive Efford]

The right hon. Lady will be aware that the shadow Chancellor wrote to the Chancellor last October. How many meetings have Ministers had with the chair of the OBR to discuss this issue in the intervening period?

[Nicky Morgan]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, meetings held by Ministers are published in the normal way. I cannot give him a specific number, but a list of meetings is published in the usual way.

[Clive Efford]

In that case, the right hon. Lady is indicating that these discussions have taken place and that there have been meetings at which this issue has been discussed. If so, did the chair of the OBR indicate whether, if a consensus could be reached before the end of June, he could deliver these budget assessments before the general election?

[Nicky Morgan]

I certainly did not indicate that. It is to be expected that Treasury Ministers will meet the head of the OBR and that various matters will be discussed, and we received a clear letter from him about the motion and the proposals before us today.

I want about to talk about the practical questions that would require much greater scrutiny in the future. First, as I mentioned, the Opposition do not seem to have assessed how their proposal might compromise the OBR’s ability to avoid being drawn into political debate or the real danger that such a change could undermine its perceived independence and, by extension, the credibility of the UK’s official forecasts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I have been listening to the debate and I really do wonder what the Government are afraid of. We are talking about the democratic process. The most important people in this debate are the general public: the people who vote. What can possibly be wrong with making them better informed about the economic policies of the parties that would be in government? Opposition Members hear a lot from the Government about economic policy and the “long-term economic plan”. The Minister mentioned it four times in her speech—she may be reprimanded for not mentioning it enough. That is more than a hint about what is going to be at the heart of the debate at the next general election; we know that the economy is going to feature prominently. We also know that many people find the economic arguments put forward during an election period very complex. Some people like bits from one side and bits from the other side of the argument. They may like the idea of tax cuts but prefer their public services to be kept intact. They may like the idea of a national insurance reduction but they love their national health service. So how do they decide who is telling the truth and whose sums add up?

The Tories have been making outrageous claims about Labour’s spending commitments. We say that they are misleading people, and to prove it we are prepared to put our proposals to an independent audit by the OBR in order to say whether or not the sums add up. That is the simple element of this argument. The crux of it is: are the Government prepared to put their economic policies to an independent audit so that they can be put before the public at an election and the public can be better informed when they make up their minds? The time has come for the major parties, particularly those that might wish to take part in television debates and be taken seriously, to have their proposals independently audited by the OBR.

The OBR scrutinises Government tax policies and expenditure policies on behalf of the public, so why would we not do this for would-be Governments when there is a general election? Surely the public have a right to be as well informed as possible. The chair of the OBR agrees with that. In his letter to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, he said:

“As we have discussed, I believe that independent scrutiny of pre-election policy proposals could contribute to better policy making, to a more informed public debate, and could help facilitate coalition formation when party programmes need to be reconciled.”

So he is clear that considerable benefits would come from going through this process.

I do not think that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor would mislead the House—I know he would not. He has had discussions with the chair—

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Efford]

No, I am trying to be disciplined because I have been in here too many times when people have taken loads of interventions and others have not had a chance to speak.

The Government have had plenty of time to have meetings about this issue over a long period of time. We have challenged Ministers about this, asking whether they have discussed it during any meetings. They have said in the past that they are committed to audits, so it is extraordinary that the Government cannot refer to any meeting where they have discussed this issue with the chairman of the OBR. That is an absolute disgrace; this is about having a better informed debate at a general election and they should be ashamed of themselves. Clearly, they have completely ignored this issue because they do not want to go through the process. As for the arguments about specialist skills, the chairman of the OBR is saying that he can deliver on this if we can get an agreement in principle now and if we can start to go through the details by the end of the summer. He is the first person we would go to if we were trying to set this up, so if he is saying—

[David Rutley]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

I will not give way, and I have explained why. If the chair of the OBR is saying, “I can do this if you make this decision now”, who is to question that? It should not be the Government, who have an ulterior motive in not having their economic policies and, more importantly, the misinformation they put out about their opponents scrutinised. If the Opposition’s budgets were examined, the Government would no longer be able to misinform people about those budgets. That is the truth of why the Government are ducking out of this. It is incredible for the Minister to stand there as an elected Member in this House and question the veracity of evidence that has been given to the Select Committee. The chairman of the OBR has been before the Select Committee and clearly indicated that he is favour of the proposal, and that has been questioned in this House. I find that absolutely incredible. It just shows us how much the Tory Government are wriggling on a hook to try to weasel out of this proposal.

The public will make up their own minds from a better informed position if we were to take this proposal forward. Only a Government who are up to no good could oppose the proposal. The time has come for this proposal to be taken forward, the OBR should be given the legal power to audit our plans, and the Government should get out of the way and allow it to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I would suggest that it is not clear what Labour’s economic policy is. The shadow Chancellor wants to tax, borrow and spend more, but he is keeping his head down because he can see the car crash—he has experience of those—looming with the Labour leader, while the Labour leader is talking about prices and incomes policies and an anti-business agenda. It is totally muddled and means that if Labour ever got the chance again, it would put Britain back into crisis.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Chancellor talks about credibility in economic policy, yet he consistently sets his face against having his economic policies, along with those of the other major parties—certainly those that would take part in television debates before the next general election—put before the Office for Budget Responsibility so that the electorate can understand what parties are saying about economic policy and be better informed when they vote.

[Mr Osborne]

As Robert Chote has set out, there would be very serious implications if the OBR, a new institution which, of course, the Labour party did not support when in government—[Interruption.] I remember proposing it time and again as shadow Chancellor and hearing Ministers say at this Dispatch Box that it was not a good idea. The proposal would make big changes to the role of the civil service as well as that of the OBR. Robert Chote is right to say that, while we can consider it in the next Parliament:

“To embark on this exercise in a rush, or with insufficient resources, could be…very damaging to the OBR.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The proposals put forward yesterday were a very sensible response from a responsible Government who want to assist local communities and protect highly vulnerable people. I believe that nothing more nor less would have been appropriate.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Minister carried out a U-turn on online gambling and FOBT machines. She has accepted our call for councils to be given planning powers to restrict the clustering of betting shops, but she has done nothing for those who want to respond to local concerns about the numbers of FOBT machines they already have. We welcome the fact that after more than two years of refusing to act, the Government have finally accepted our proposals. She also announced a £50 limit on stakes on FOBT machines, which she relies on the betting industry to impose. What evidence has she seen that convinces her that a £50 limit will deal with problem gambling? She is aware of research being conducted by NatCen. If that says that the £50 limit should be lowered, will she act?

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Gentleman raises a lot of issues and I will do my best to deal with them in the time available. The measures will certainly put an end to unsupervised easy cash-based staking above £50, allowing continued use of machines while ensuring greater opportunities for supervision and protection. The measures are targeted, reasonable and proportionate, and completely justified on a precautionary basis. We have made no change to the stake and prize. The U-turn is absolute nonsense. The shadow Minister knows that I have declared continually that there is no green light for FOBTs, and our package of reforms has been carefully considered. In my opinion, our proposals are targeted and proportionate; his proposals were knee-jerk and impractical.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

1. What comparative assessment he has made of trends in the annual rates of inflation and growth in average earnings since May 2010.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of average earnings.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

Real average weekly earnings have fallen since 2010, owing to the previous Government’s financial legacy left to us. However, last year real household disposable income grew at its fastest pace since 2009. In its latest forecast, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects the growth of real household disposable income to accelerate in every year of the forecast period, reaching 2.6% in 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

If the hon. Lady wants to talk about the largest anything, perhaps she would agree with Paul Johnson, who said that wages have increased much less quickly than inflation. As I say, that is not surprising. We have had a great big recession. We had the biggest recession in 100 years. It would be astonishing if household incomes and earnings had not fallen.

[Clive Efford]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs liabilities table published in May shows that the number of people earning more than £1 million jumped from 13,000 in January to 18,000 after the Budget. Their combined income rose from £27 billion to more than £47 billion. Is that why April was the only month in which earnings rose above inflation?

[Nicky Morgan]

That is a very interesting question. The hon. Gentleman will know that the OBR last week said that the only thing that would raise wages was increased productivity in the economy. That means more people creating more jobs and more growth in our economy. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman welcomed the fact that 2.7 million people have been taken out of income tax completely as a result of our changes and 25 million people are paying less income tax.

Interest Rate Swap Derivatives

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Natascha Engel]

Indeed, and I am going to finish on both those points.

One way to make sure the banks cannot drag their feet in the way that they have is to impose a moratorium on the payments. That would really focus their minds. If the money is not coming in, I am sure they would try to settle this matter once and for all much more quickly. The number of suspensions of payments—and only in those cases where people are suffering significant hardship—is an absolute scandal. The fact that 30,000 businesses or individuals are waiting for some kind of redress and only 32 have had redress is also an absolute scandal. Something must be done.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My constituency also has a business that has been affected by this. When we wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority, the response was really an apology for the banks, as though this is just some sort of error that has been made. Does that not underline the fact that there has been a lack of urgency by the regulators, on whom we rely to act on behalf of our constituents when they are wronged in this way? We need more urgency from the regulators; they must get on with their job.

[Natascha Engel]

That is right and this whole scandal has shown how it has been possible to pass the blame between banks, the FCA and the Treasury, and nobody will take any responsibility for what has been an absolute scandal.

I have seen this in my casework. Mr and Mrs Chadwick buy and sell homes and their business has been very successful. These small and medium-sized companies are not just viable; they are successful. It is only because of this mis-selling scandal that they are going bust. I cannot understand the logic of this: what interest does a bank have in a business going bust and losing all its money? The logic of that is beyond me.

I am also concerned about banks that have taxpayer funding, such as RBS, which has a lot of these cases. We must look much more carefully at the link between the regulator, the banks and the Treasury.

I agree that proper criminal penalties must be imposed on those banks, individuals and organisations that have been proven to have been part of this injustice, and I also agree with the call for a moratorium.