The Growth Plan

Debate between Clive Efford and Kwasi Kwarteng

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Let me reiterate that reversing the national insurance increase, which Labour supported—[Interruption.] Three months ago, Labour voted against the increase in national insurance. I reversed that: we reversed it. That helps people—the 1p cut in the basic rate helps people. That is not class war.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The income of the wealthiest has actually gone up over the last 12 years; so how come the Chancellor’s economic miracle has not been working for the last 12 years? Where does his mandate for this new era come from? It is worth our reminding ourselves that two thirds of Conservative Members did not vote for a candidate who supports the economic approach that the Chancellor has taken today, and 43% of Tory members voted against that candidate.

The choice today is clear: who pays the bill? Is it the taxpayers, or is it these high-earning energy companies with their excess profits? The choice is clear to the public, so why do we not put it to a general election, given that the Chancellor does not have a mandate for what he is doing today?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The choice is indeed clear: should we back growth driven by the private sector, or do we believe that the state can tax its way to prosperity? That is a very easy choice to make, because it is clear that taxing and spending towards prosperity is a failure.

Bulb Energy: Administration

Debate between Clive Efford and Kwasi Kwarteng

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that matters to do with taxation, VAT and all those things are subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s departmental policy. She will also know that there is urgency about this. I speak to Ofgem every day. We monitor the market extremely closely. We are looking at how the supplier of last resort process is working—it is working reasonably well. As I have said, we are looking at the special administration regime with regard to Bulb.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This is not happening in other countries. If this is evidence of the system working, I would hate to see it if it was not working. The Government have ruled out any bail-out from the Treasury. Will the Secretary of State give the same undertaking that customers will not be forced to pay huge bills in order to pay for the Government’s failure of regulation?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I would like to point out that an energy price cap such as we have does not occur in other countries, so consumers here are being protected. Many of those who are actually bearing the brunt of this crisis are the very firms that, for whatever reason, have had to leave the market. The structure is working. It is protecting consumers, and companies that have fallen foul of these very high prices have been forced out of the market.

UK Gas Market

Debate between Clive Efford and Kwasi Kwarteng

Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

An excellent question from my hon. Friend. All the conversations I have had over the weekend and today have stated clearly and unambiguously that security of supply is not an issue. That is thanks to the hard work that people in his constituency, in National Grid, in Ofgem and across the system have put in over many years.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said we have to wait for his plan to find out what he will do to retrofit buildings and reduce dependence on carbon fuels, but local authorities across the country are way ahead of the Government. My local authority in Greenwich is experimenting with air-source and ground-source heat pumps. When he produces his report, does he think local authorities will be front and centre in creating local plans so that we can drill down into local communities to bring about the change we need to achieve zero carbon?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman is right that I welcome local initiatives. Only a month ago, I spoke at a forum at which representatives of local government were enthusiastic about getting behind net zero. I welcome all initiatives where local leaders are driving the push to net zero.

Article 50 Extension Procedure

Debate between Clive Efford and Kwasi Kwarteng

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The Prime Minister has set out a reason as to what we were going to do in the event of her deal being voted down, and that is exactly what I have spent an hour in this House trying to explain.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister has made it clear that his understanding is that the House has voted that we will not leave with no deal. We are in this situation because of the mess the Government have made of the negotiations. So does it not follow that, if we do not get an extension from the EU this week, the Government have to bring a vote before this House to revoke article 50?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The best way to exit the EU is, dare I say it, to get a deal and to vote for that deal. In the event that does not happen, the SI is the means to enact what the House has voted for. The House has been clear that it does not want a no deal, and the way to avoid a no deal is to table an SI. That is as simple as it can be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Efford and Kwasi Kwarteng

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I do not think we recognise the way in which the hon. Lady has characterised the Government’s engagement with local authorities. We have recognised the need for much more localised planning. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has established a delivery board and chief executive-level advisory groups. We have held four national conferences, which have been attended by 350 senior local authority officers and 200 councils. There is much more engagement, and means and money, behind our commitment to ensuring that this country is prepared in the event of a no-deal scenario.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Is it the Government’s position that if we need additional time in which to agree a deal that will pass through the House, they will crash out on 29 March rather than extending article 50 and giving us time to negotiate that position?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I have said many times, the Government’s position is that we will land a deal and ensure that we leave with that deal on 29 March.

Finance Bill

Debate between Clive Efford and Kwasi Kwarteng

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), who made his maiden speech. Many of us remember his predecessor with great fondness, and we certainly notice the difference in appearance to which he referred. She was a popular Member here, as I suspect that she was in her constituency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do an able job in his time as Member of Parliament for Lincoln.

The thrust of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is that the House should be able to scrutinise the Government’s actions on enforcement of corporation tax to avert some of the severe and harsh cuts elsewhere in public expenditure. The Red Book refers to the need to reduce all sorts of evasion. Indeed, paragraph 1.96 mentions the Government’s measures on corporation tax, which a later group of amendments tackles, and states the need to alter the rate of corporation tax to reduce the avoidance of payment. A practice has been created of people avoiding other forms of tax and paying capital gains tax at a lower rate to minimise the amount that they pay in tax. I therefore agree with the thrust of the point that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made that there are times when we need to tweak the tax system to close down loopholes. In that sense, the tax system has historically been like turning a thermostat up and down. We introduce one set of regulations, that area overheats, the thermostat is turned down, another section of the tax system responds and people move in that direction to avoid paying tax.

With amendment 11, my hon. Friend is trying to ensure that the House can hold the Government to account for what they do to fulfil what they say in the Red Book, and thereby ensure that the Government maximise the amount of corporation tax that is paid.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his basic position? Does he believe that in principle corporations ought to pay more tax than they are paying already?

[Clive Efford]

The point, on which I believe we are all in agreement, is that everyone should pay the tax that they are due to pay. Amendment 11 proposes not that corporation tax should be raised or reduced, but that it should be paid, that the Government ought to take action to ensure that companies that are liable to pay it do so, and that the House should have the role of providing a check and balance to ensure that the Government are carrying out that function.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Clive Efford and Kwasi Kwarteng

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This is my first speech in the new Parliament, so let me take this opportunity to say what a pleasure it is to see you in your position, Mr Deputy Speaker.

One of the first things that we need to say about the Budget is that it is quite clear that the underlying narrative is an assault on the size of the state. It is not merely an attempt to deal with the deficit following what has been described as a profligate former Labour Government. It is an ideological assault on the state based on the belief that reducing the size of the public sector will create space and that the private sector will inevitably grow and fill the vacuum. Without question, this Budget is—apart, perhaps from the absence of the NHS from the cuts—the Budget that Margaret Thatcher always wanted to introduce. But who would have thought it would be the Liberal Democrats who would give the Conservatives the power to wield the axe?

The Deputy Prime Minister sat through the Budget nodding in support of every swing. We all remember the warnings that he gave during the election about what the Conservatives would do if they got into power—the VAT bombshell—but what changed? I think he is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, which is what happens when a hostage becomes emotionally attached to the people who are holding him captive. It is quite clear from his response to the Budget that there is something going on. He has now collaborated in the biggest robbery since Patty Hearst just went to the bank.

Perhaps I am being unfair. It could be that the Liberal Democrats just cannot help themselves. I am reminded of an experiment at Stanford university—the Stanford prison experiment—in which students were given the roles of prisoners and jailers. Very quickly, two thirds of the jailers became very sadistic, but the peculiar thing was that the prisoners, although they were free to leave at any time, decided to stay and take the sadistic treatment being dished out. I think that something is going on here. The Liberal Democrats who have taken the thirty pieces of silver and the Toyota Prius cars are clearly taking on the role of the sadistic jailers who have adopted the policies in the Budget. The Liberal Democrats who are left—I do not know what the collective term for them should be, but perhaps it could be dupes, as that is a term that someone has used recently—are unable to free themselves. They have internalised their grief and they are going along for the rollercoaster ride on the track that has been laid by the Conservatives in this Budget; they are hanging on for a white-knuckle ride.

There are endless quotes from the general election in which Liberals warned us about the Conservatives and what they would do in government, so there is no mandate for the Liberal Democrats to support the Budget. The majority of people who voted at the last general election voted for the parties that opposed the sort of cuts that are in the Budget.

The fact that we need to address the deficit is without doubt. If Labour were in government we would be cutting public services, and people would feel the consequences of those cuts; there is no doubt about that. However, the size and scale of what we have got from the coalition Government is beyond anything that anyone has attempted in the UK before. In one Budget, they are cutting back the size of the state, over six years, beyond what it was when Labour came into power 13 years ago. Under the guise of reducing the deficit they have set about reducing the size of the state, with an enthusiasm that Margaret Thatcher could only look on in wonder.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the deficit; who does he think was responsible for it?

[Clive Efford]

The hon. Gentleman will probably know the history of this matter. Until November 2008 there was an agreement in this House about how to deal with the deficit. The Conservatives supported what the Government of the time were doing, so I suggest that he go back and look at the facts of what was going on.

The Liberal Democrats conveniently forget the statements that they made expressing their fear of what the Tories would do. I remind the House of one that was made at the start of the general election campaign. In an interview with The Observer, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), said this about a new Conservative Government:

“They then turn around in the next week or two and say we’re going to chuck up VAT to 20%, we’re going to start cutting teachers, cutting police and the wage bill in the public sector. I think if you’re not careful in that situation…you’d get Greek-style unrest…be careful for what you wish for.”

I think that those are very wise words.

The Government have also prayed in aid what has gone on in Greece, Sweden and Canada, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pointed out at the Dispatch Box that comparisons with Greece are utterly ridiculous. In Sweden they cut back public expenditure by 20% over 15 years, an approach that bears no comparison with the scale of what is being attempted here. It is true that the Canadian Government carried out a consultation exercise, but that was confined to short-term measures to deal with the deficit, and the intention was always that there would be a return to expenditure.

What we are seeing is a permanent cut-back of the state, and a withdrawal from expenditure for ever. That is what the people of this country are being asked to participate in through this consultation.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is the only Liberal Democrat in the Chamber. I am not surprised that there no others participating in this Budget debate. I have quoted the party leader as saying

“be careful what you wish for”,

and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remind his friends of that, especially the ones who cheered this Thatcherite Budget. Supporting this Budget is a proclamation of an intent to reduce the size of the public sector in perpetuity. Liberal Democrat Members cannot support reducing the size of the state and say with any credibility that the axe will not swing against the NHS in the long term. This is an ideological change, and they cannot escape that fact.