Jobs and Growth
David T C Davies Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I confess that as I listened to the shadow Chancellor this afternoon, I almost felt a growing sense of admiration for the sheer effrontery of the man. This man who came to deliver a lesson to the Chancellor was personally responsible for much of the economic mess that the country now finds itself in. He, of course, is no longer in his place, but I wonder whether I might give a quick economic history lesson to those Members on the Opposition Front Bench who have hung around to listen to the debate.
In 1997 this country had a national debt of £350 billion and was basically spending what it earned. By May 2008, well before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the banking problems, the national debt had already increased to £629 billion and the Government, during the boom times, had run a deficit of around £30 billion a year. I am yet to hear any Opposition Member explain why, when the country was booming, they spent £30 billion a year more than the country was taking in taxes. Once we hit the banking problems, which the previous Government successfully blamed all the economic problems on, the debt skyrocketed to £1 trillion.
Of course, even that is not the full story, because many sensible economists claim that the national debt is at least twice as large, as the figures used do not take into account the PFI contracts used for all the schools and hospitals that the previous Government built but never paid for. It does not take account of the liabilities for organisations such as Railtrack and Metronet, and of course it takes no account of public sector pensions. The reality is that we must now deal with a debt of at least £1 trillion and the deficit of £160 billion that we inherited.
Opposition Members like to blame it all on the banks. “It was all the fault of the wicked bankers”, they say. I have done a little checking with the House of Commons Library, and as far as I can ascertain the banks received £100 billion. That money was given out not simply in cash, but in shares and the rest of it, so a lot of it might come back to us. If we take the best-case scenario for the national debt, which is £1 trillion, rather than the £2 trillion suggested by many economists, and the worst-case scenario for the £100 billion that was given to the banks, which is that nothing will come back, even then that money accounts for only 10% of the national debt. What about the other £900 billion? When will the Opposition start accounting for that?
One trillion pounds is a lot of money. I was thinking about it earlier and trying to put it in perspective. If we were to create a graph and used 1 cm to show £1 million, it would have to stretch all the way from here to Highgate cemetery to show the scale of the wanton spending for which Opposition Members are responsible—I do not know whether it is relevant, but that is the burial place of Karl Marx.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows what the public sector debt was in 1997 and in 2007 before the recession.
David T. C. Davies
Has the hon. Lady finished now, and may I continue? I am always fascinated by the fact that comparisons are made between levels of debt as a percentage of GDP. I will certainly give way again if someone can explain why we compare national debt with GDP. Why do we not do what any company would do and compare it with revenue? If we look at a comparison with 2010, when this Government took over and when the national debt was £1 trillion, we will see that the revenue coming in was £520 billion. The country had a national debt that was almost twice the revenue it was taking. Anyone who has run a company—most Opposition Members have not, but I have—will know that any company that found itself in such a situation would be declared bankrupt immediately.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Will my hon. Friend remind the House why the previous Labour Government ran a deficit for nine consecutive years from 2001 to 2010, despite having a boom?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. They managed to come up with an excuse after 2008, following the collapse of the banks, but as I said earlier, I am yet to hear an answer on why they ran a deficit from 2001 to 2008. Perhaps we will get one later.
What I did hear from the shadow Chancellor was some rather mealy-mouthed insults directed towards my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who had a proper job outside politics and Government, as I did, which the shadow Chancellor seems to think is worth mocking him for. My right hon. Friend was not the man who was responsible for the £1 trillion-worth of debt, for selling gold at a fraction of the price, or for running up deficits in boom years. [Interruption.] I will not say anything about the euro at the moment, but there are many Labour Members who were urging us to the join the euro during those times and are now trying to give us a lesson in economics. I notice that they have all now gone very quiet.
The reality is that Labour Members never, ever learn their lesson. For them, it is not a case of plan A or plan B; there is only one plan: “Let’s tax people as highly as we can, and when we’ve finished squeezing every penny out of them, we’ll borrow more money.” They do not remember the words of one Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer during a Labour conference: “Comrades, you may think that we can tax and spend our way out of a recession, but I tell you that is no longer an option.” They still have not learned the lesson.
Clement Attlee failed in the 1940s when he tried to build his welfare state on the back of American war loans. There was Harold Wilson in the 1960s telling the public that the pound in their pocket was worth the same when he was rapidly devaluing it. Then there was Jim “Crisis, what crisis?” Callaghan, who, just like his successors, brought the country to the brink of utter bankruptcy, and did not even seem to think that he had done anything wrong. It was 18 years before they got another chance, and they have done exactly the same thing again: tax and spend, borrow and spend, just keep on doing it and do not worry about it.
I am glad that we have a Government who are not going to go for the easy option, which would be to borrow a whole load more money now in the hope of winning an election, which is exactly what Labour Members were doing for a couple of years. We are going to take some tough decisions, and that means getting our books in order. Unlike the shadow Chancellor, I know, having run a small family haulage business, that one cannot carry on spending more money than one gets indefinitely. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor is going to encourage real growth by making it easier for businesses to take people on and not have to worry about employment tribunals, which anyone who has run a small business does worry about all the time because of the number of spurious claims.
David T. C. Davies
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever had any experience of running a business or dealing with spurious employment tribunals—I very much doubt it.
I am also glad that the Chancellor has recognised that reducing our carbon emissions at a time when the economy is facing problems is not necessarily the wisest thing to do, particularly when the Government are now having to accept that our winters are getting colder, that more people are dying through cold than through heat, and that the link between carbon dioxide and global warming is not quite as clear-cut as many people say.
David T. C. Davies
I will not give way again, because I have done so twice and I do not want to cut myself off.
I congratulate the Chancellor and all his colleagues in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and urge them to stay the course, to ensure that we spend what we earn, and not to listen to Labour Members or take any notice of people such as the former Prime Minister. Even he did not seem to know the difference between debt and deficit, because anyone who looks at the YouTube video of him abusing Mrs Duffy and calling her a bigot will notice that halfway through he said, “We will cut the debt in half.” Did he not know the difference between debt and deficit, or was he planning much deeper cuts than the coalition Government? Perhaps someone will answer that question.
All Back Benchers on this side of the House are supportive of the Government because we recognise, as we always have, that it is not possible to carry on spending money that one does not have because that merely creates a bigger problem further down the line for our children. That is why I urge my colleagues to stay the course.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker). As a history graduate, I have enjoyed the history lessons during this afternoon’s debate. I enjoyed the intervention from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), telling me all about the ’40s, ’60s and ’70s. I have heard many Members tell me what happened under a Labour Government long before I was born, but it seems to me that we have always bounced back to the same point: those on the Tory Benches say that it is all Labour’s fault, while we say that it is all the Tories’ fault. The truth is, where is that getting us?
In my constituency, 2,000 people are claiming jobseeker’s allowance. Some 40% of those are under the age of 24. Behind those figures, there are real human tragedies: kids leaving school believing that there is no hope for the future other than being driven—let us hope not—into the hands of drug dealers or becoming involved in crime; the hard-working father who comes home one night and says to his family, “I’ve been made redundant after 20 years,” and his wife who worries; the single parent who is bringing up children on her own and who has just lost her job. What does she do? It is all very well quoting statistics and figures, but what can we do for those people?
Unemployment is not a price worth paying. For me, anybody losing their job is a total tragedy. That is why the motion is so important: we should use bankers’ bonuses to create youth jobs and do something to help people, not after being out of work for six months, as the Prime Minister said in his speech, but from day one. I remember when I was a trade union official and jobs were going as, unfortunately, they were being offshored. A scheme was created so that when people were made redundant the company matched half their redundancy to be used for training. Some people decided to become driving instructors, whereas others in the Solent decided to become ship builders, and so on. It interested them and that was what they wanted to do. I want some incentive in the tax system for companies that make people redundant to use similar ideas.
Chris Evans
I am sorry, I cannot take an intervention because other people want to speak, although I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
As I was saying, when a person is unemployed—I do not know how many people in the Chamber have been unemployed—it is soul destroying. It reduces confidence and, in the worst cases, it brings about depression. If anybody wants to see a microcosm of the economy, they should walk down the local high street. There is nothing more sad and depressing than seeing the butcher, the baker and even the candlestick maker all boarded up. Nothing says more clearly that the economy is not working.
So what can we do? We could reduce VAT on a temporary basis to encourage people to come back to the high street, but we could do more than that. We could encourage local authorities to reduce their business rates so that people can stay in their businesses and we could encourage communities to come in so that these places are not boarded up. Above all, we could ask authorities to start providing free car parking. That might be a bit more simplistic than the credit swaps we have heard about, but I am concerned.
I am going to say something quite shocking which is not in vogue at the moment. This afternoon, I spoke to Lloyds TSB and I thought, “It's all very well to bash the banks”—and we should bash those who have been responsible—"but we have to make an assertion and realise that only one part of the banking industry failed." It was not the retail banker or the cashier in Blackwood High street or Newbridge, who serves their community; it was the bankers in the City, and that part should be reformed. However, we have to be very careful when we talk about reform. We cannot introduce regulation that hinders financial innovation. That would be impossible, and I am very concerned about that.
We have to ask ourselves how we are going to encourage manufacturing when we do not encourage banks. I will be honest: I have been one of the banks’ biggest critics, but at the moment we are asking them to do something that is almost impossible—we are asking them to save money and lend at the same time. How will they do that? I do not know, but tonight I will walk through the Lobby and support the motion, because I genuinely believe that we need to do something to promote growth.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
David T C Davies Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales
I am not aware of Airbus’s activity in detail, but I will support the hon. Gentleman’s point later by saying that such industries have a role to play in our future, and that they are not just of the past.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has mentioned the comments of the head of Tata Steel. He also said:
“European steelmakers already face the prospect of deteriorating international competitiveness because of”
EU emissions costs. On the provision in the Bill, he added:
“This is an exceptionally unhelpful and potentially damaging measure.”
As well as steel, other large sectors are at risk—including chemicals; oil and gas; cement; aluminium; glass, bricks and ceramics; tyres; and paper. There could be more. Those are broadly the sectors that are most affected, but the EU has gone further and drawn up a list of 164 industrial sectors and sub-sectors that are deemed to be exposed to what it calls carbon leakage. That means that the EU recognises that the EU emissions trading scheme and other measures could disadvantage European companies that compete internationally. The sectors and sub-sectors that are judged to be at risk of carbon leakage are estimated to account for around a quarter of the total emissions covered by the EU emissions trading scheme, but for around 77% of the total emissions from EU manufacturing industry.
The UK Government's proposing to add a further tax to those already in place is bound to have an effect. We have just witnessed fresh closures and 1,500 job losses from Tata in Scunthorpe and Teesside. I see a number of hon. Members in their places who are directly affected by that. Tata again mentioned UK energy prices as a factor in its recent decision, but in the fourth carbon budget statement, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said that
“we need to ensure that energy-intensive industries remain competitive and that we send a clear message that the UK is open for business.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 177.]
The announcement has been welcomed, but there is concern that, to date, there has been insufficient detailed consultation on, and impact assessment of, the proposals with respect to energy-intensive industries. Consequently, the fear is that the Government might underestimate the risk to those sectors.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I suppose I should call him that—for giving way on that point. Does he find it slightly ironic that Members of all parties in this House have for years called for all sorts of extra costs on any industry that generates carbon in any form, but that now, all of a sudden, when the consequences of that become clear, they begin to express their reservations?
Ian Swales
I thank my—yes—hon. Friend for his intervention. It seems that the issue is becoming more prominent. That is due partly to industry lobbying. Earlier this year we set up an all-party parliamentary group on energy-intensive industries. I have major concerns for my constituency and the Tees valley, and I am an officer of that group—at least one other officer is in the Chamber. The very high level of interest shown in the group by companies from all sectors indicates the potential gravity of the problem.
Those industries are looking not for special favours, but simply for a level playing field on which to compete internationally. Despite what some commentators claim, there is already a price issue. Even before the Bill, the increase in bulk electricity prices in the UK over the past 10 years was 22% more than in Germany, 29% more than in France and 64% more than in Spain.
The inconvenient truth about UK carbon reduction performance is that it is partly due to the rapid decline in manufacturing. As we have heard in this Chamber many times, under the previous Government manufacturing reduced from 22% to 11% of the economy. Our goal should not simply be to reduce our energy usage at the expense of those industries which, by their nature, are energy intensive. A tonne of steel cannot be melted, and chlorine cannot be made from brine, without using a huge amount of energy—it is simply not possible. Our goal should be to improve our energy efficiency for the same level of activity, not to reduce activity. Otherwise, the trend of the UK exporting jobs and importing carbon will continue.
To ensure that the UK makes a real contribution to climate change, we cannot look just at carbon production; we must also measure carbon consumption. I say that mainly to ensure that the effect of imports is recognised, but we must also acknowledge the contribution of export businesses to our economy. There is no better example than the restarted Redcar steelworks, which will contribute almost 1% to the UK’s carbon emissions, but whose output will go almost wholly to Thailand. Whose carbon is that?
The Government’s policy has far wider economic consequences. Energy-intensive industries play a vital economic role. For example, as the hon. Member for Bristol East said, the chemical industry is a vital exporter—in fact, I believe that it is our biggest exporter. That illustrates how important such industries are to our national economy as well as our local economies. Those sectors feed many other industries, such as automotive, aerospace and green technology, which needs materials for wind, wave and solar power.
We should also remember that the service economy does not exist in isolation—it partly depends on manufacturing, all the way from office cleaners to corporate lawyers and merchant bankers. Pricing those industries out of the UK would mean that tax revenues fell because of closures, and a lack of further investment. That will have the knock-on effect of higher unemployment and an increased burden in welfare costs. I therefore hope that the Minister considers the wider economic consequences of the effects of the Government’s policy on energy-intensive industry.
Energy-intensive industries are often capital intensive, which means that companies cannot just pick up their kit and move. The key thing for the UK is whether executives in boardrooms across the world are writing off the UK as a place to invest and reinvest. International businesses have options on where to put their money. I know from experience in the chemical industry that a business can take up to 20 years to die after an exit decision is effectively made by ceasing to reinvest.
Energy-intensive industry does and will continue to play its part in improving energy efficiently. It also produces a range of environmentally beneficial products, such as catalysts, insulation, lightweight plastics, and, as we have heard, energy-saving aerospace products. The all-party group recently heard how developments in tyre technology reduce fuel use in vehicles, how new types of glass reduce heat loss from buildings, and which industries are needed to make photovoltaic cells. To give another example, I am aware of a research project in my constituency between Tata, the steel producer, and the Centre for Process Innovation, to make construction-grade photovoltaic panels. Such developments are vital in moving the UK towards a low-carbon economy. We do not want that expertise to be lost to the UK. Energy-intensive industries are not sunset industries that stand in the way of our low-carbon goals, but crucial allies in delivering the necessary technology to make them a reality.
There is therefore an urgent need for simplicity in carbon taxes and for long-term certainty for the industry. Energy-intensive industries need such clarity before the carbon price support mechanism is introduced. Will the Minister assure me that she supports the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, who said—and I repeat—that
“we need to ensure that energy-intensive industries remain competitive and that we send a clear message that the UK is open for business”?—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 177.]
Will she ensure that the Government engage in comprehensive consultation, and take steps to ensure that a full package of mitigation measures is agreed and legislated for, ahead of the introduction of carbon price support?
Loans to Ireland Bill
David T C Davies Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
We are being repaid in sterling, so that answers the hon. Gentleman’s first point. I have already dealt with the second point on a number of occasions, but I shall just point out that the effect would be exactly the same. Whether I brought to the House legislation or used the affirmative procedure, I would have to get the support of Members, so materially the impact would be exactly the same: the House of Commons would be able to stop such action taking place. I should stress that I have absolutely no intention of doing so at the moment, and there is protection.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I do not pretend to be an economist, but does the Chancellor share my concern that, if the European Union forces Ireland to put up its corporation tax, that might hold greater danger for us, as Ireland could be in less of a position to pay us back the money? For that reason alone, we should resist any attempt by outside bodies to impose a tax regime on Ireland.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. A sudden flight of international investment from Ireland is not in anybody’s interest. All countries seek to compete against each other for such inward investment, but, as I say, it would set a poor precedent for the UK if one nation state or a collection of nation states started dictating to another nation state what its tax rate should be.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
We will support the Bill. The more I listen to the Chancellor, the more my admiration and respect grows for his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). On 8 May, my right hon. Friend negotiated arrangements under which the UK remained outside the €440 billion European financial stability facility and ensured that we did not contribute as much as a rusty old drachma to the bail-out of Greece.
Alan Johnson
I will take interventions later.
In his statement on 22 November—repeated today—the Chancellor said that he counselled his predecessor against joining the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which was a pre-existing fund involving all 27 member states and was worth only a seventh of the larger facility. As the Chancellor said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West is in his place and if he catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, he can give his recollection of that conversation.
However, given that the mechanism—the smaller amount—was decided by qualified majority voting, it seems that agreeing to ensure that we stay out of the €440 billion EFSF was a good deal for our country, particularly as my right hon. Friend ensured that none of the mechanism of which we were part was used to bail out Greece. That was a good deal all round, and a lesson for our inexperienced Chancellor in the art of negotiation. Indeed, the quip going round a couple of years ago, when the collapse of the banking industry in Iceland was closely followed by what happened in Ireland, was: what is the difference between Iceland and Ireland? Answer—one letter and six months. A modern variation could be to ask, what is the difference between Darling and Osborne? Answer—five letters, six months and £6.6 billion.
Alan Johnson
I believe that the hon. Gentleman will seek to address that in his amendment to clause 3, which we will discuss later. On the specific issue, there is no doubt that the mechanism was decided by qualified majority voting. All 27 European member states were part of that. I know from experience of negotiating in Europe over many years that it is a pretty turgid process and one has to be on one’s toes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West can speak for himself, but I think he got a very good deal for this country on Greece.
The Chancellor must take responsibility for the deal that he has negotiated and not try spuriously to blame his predecessor, as he did again in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on 8 December. He had a choice about whether the UK should contribute to the Irish rescue plan. In principle, he has made the right choice, but before us today is a hastily drawn-up Bill that does not set out the terms of the loan, the interest rate or the repayment schedule. Colleagues from all parties will want to explore and probe those matters in Committee, and we particularly want to get to our amendments on clause 2, so a goodly proportion of the time available to us this afternoon may be better spent on that. It is therefore not my intention to detain the House for long on Second Reading.
David T. C. Davies
Does the shadow Chancellor share my gratitude that the decision is being taken in this Chamber and not by a group of unelected bankers in Frankfurt? That is because we did not listen to Opposition Members—we have never supported joining the euro, which would have meant that the decision would not have been ours to make in the first place.
Alan Johnson
I always try to avoid sharing the hon. Gentleman’s pleasure. I shall come to the nature of the deal, because in debating the Bill we are discussing one element that constitutes a little more than half of the money that the UK taxpayer is putting into the deal.
The argument for treating Ireland as a special case is clear. I shall reiterate some of the points that the Chancellor made. Our two countries are intertwined in commerce, in trade, in banking, in culture and in sport. We share a language and a land border. Not only is Ireland one of our five largest export markets but, as the Chancellor said, one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—sends 40% of its exports across the border to the Republic. The situation in Ireland could cause significant damage to UK financial institutions and create instability in both sovereign and bank debt markets. The UK is Ireland’s largest creditor—we are talking about almost €112 billion—and I understand from a newspaper report last week that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds have Irish loan books worth 82% and 53% of net assets respectively.
In its report last month, the International Monetary Fund singled out Ireland to demonstrate what it called the “key underlying vulnerability” of UK banks’ exposure to foreign banks. The support programme assures the protection of senior bond holders in Irish banks from any losses, thus affording a greater level of protection to UK banks. For all of those reasons and many more, it is in this country’s interest to support this package.
I want to raise three concerns. The first, which was raised in a couple of interventions—including by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—is the open-ended nature of the commitment. There is a distinct possibility of more money being required for Ireland after 2013, given the tendency of Irish banks to downplay the severity of their situation and the tough conditionality being applied alongside concerns about European growth. In those circumstances, should we not make it clear to our European partners that the EFSF must be used for any further financial support, rather than giving the impression that this is a well into which further buckets can be dipped?
That is particularly relevant to my second concern about the balance between the contributions made by the various mechanisms. The €440 billion EFSF—the facility— for eurozone countries only is being tapped for 4% of the total resources that eurozone countries have agreed to make available for Ireland. The smaller EFSM—the mechanism—of which we are part and to which we contribute, was not used at all for the Greek bail-out. The EFSM is offering 37.5% of its available resources for the Irish bail-out. Why was that formulation chosen and why is the total amount we are contributing double the amount that we would have had to pay if we were a eurozone country?
Draft EU Budget 2011
David T C Davies Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
That is the sort of argument that I have been presenting to other European countries, including the French Minister who was in London a few weeks ago. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is simply untenable for the EU budget to remain unchallenged when across Europe we are making incredibly difficult decisions on our national budgets. The way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his argument is exactly the same as the way in which I have been pitching ours to our European partners. We are hopeful that, over time, there will continue to be a growing sense among them that we do indeed need to start challenging the European budget that is currently proposed.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is presenting a powerful argument to encourage us to support her. Does she accept that all the Members who have put their names to the amendments, however they vote tonight, are helping her and her colleagues in Europe by demonstrating the strength of feeling and the anger that exist throughout the House?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons why I welcome tonight’s debate. I believe that it underlines the concern that we feel, not just as a Government but as a Parliament. The value that we can gain from the debate is our ability to show that we are united as a Parliament in standing up to the rise in 2011, and in wanting to see it cut.
The Chancellor, Ministers and officials have been working with member states, the Commission and the European Parliament to make our case. As members of the European Scrutiny Committee will know, at a time of fiscal consolidation the EU simply cannot afford to budget for more than it can realistically spend. Therefore, we have also maintained a firm focus on realistic implementation rates, because implementation of the EU budget has long been a cause of concern with a combined surplus and underspend in 2009 of almost €5 billion.
As I have said, the Government will focus not only on the size of the EU budget. We also want to focus on its priorities for spending, because it is clear that certain areas of the EU budget simply do not offer the best possible value for money that we should be able to expect. The common agricultural policy, citizenship spending in some areas and spending on the EU’s own administration are foremost among them. There is also, of course, the perennial question of why the EU is based in both Brussels and Strasbourg. Critically, we want an EU budget that prioritises economic growth and recovery across the EU and worldwide, just as we are doing with our fiscal consolidation measures here in the UK. We want a budget that is focused on prioritising poverty reduction, promoting stability and addressing the challenges of climate change. The Government will therefore work to ensure that funding for activities is focused on areas that offer the best value for money and that offer the best deal for the British taxpayer.
Oral Answers to Questions
David T C Davies Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
The fact is that we had to raise VAT because there was no money left. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we should have cut spending by even more, but I do not think that that would have a lot of support on his Benches or on ours. After all, our predecessors looked very closely at raising VAT and would have done so had the previous Prime Minister not vetoed it.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
What would the people of Wales make of the fact that the previous Government were going to raise VAT to 19%? Would they not surely conclude that this was going to happen under any Government elected in May 2010 because of the mess made by the last one?