Finance (No. 2) Bill

David Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I notice that the hon. Lady does not answer questions. I am glad we finally got some clarification on that point, but as I say, I do not think the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) will ever have the opportunity to answer Prime Minister’s questions.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that VAT is a regressive tax in principle? Can he tell us why the Government chose to use an increase in VAT as a tool for bringing down the deficit?

[Mr Gauke]

I will turn to that question in a moment, but before I do so, I shall say a little about this Government’s record.

High public debt can lead to a loss of market confidence and higher market interest rates, raising the cost of borrowing for families and businesses and discouraging investment and consumer spending. So what has our long-term economic plan delivered? Today public sector net borrowing as a percentage of GDP is forecast to have halved between 2009-10 and 2014-15. Latest data from the IMF show that this Government also reduced the structural deficit by more than half between 2010 and 2013. In fact, the UK’s structural deficit fell by 4.6% of GDP over 2010 to 2013—a larger reduction than any other country in the G7.

Since the autumn statement last year, the UK’s fiscal position has improved right across the forecast period, with higher receipts and lower debt interest. This Government have restored stability, put the public finances on a sustainable path and are about to put public sector net debt on to a declining path as a share of GDP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Mr Hood. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, during which he did not rule out a rise in VAT under the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps we will have to wait for others to comment on that.

[David Wright]

Will my hon. Friend give us a bit more detail about new clause 1? I would like the study to look at the impact of VAT on the poorest people in our community, who are hit disproportionately by increases in VAT. The Conservative party has form on VAT, so the poorest people will be very concerned that it will rise again after the election.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what people across the country will be concerned about. The Conservative party has form, about which I will go into in detail during my speech. History proves that what the Prime Minister said at Question Time today should not be believed, because it has all been said before and VAT has always gone up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the only conclusion we can draw from what the Minister and the Prime Minister have been saying today. If the Minister really wanted to back up the Prime Minister’s claims, and to give us a hint that he might be believed, he should have just accepted our new clause. It is straightforward, and adding it to the Bill would shine some light on the impact of VAT. We are very clear that we will not raise VAT. It may be that the Government do not want the facts out in the public domain because they plan to do so.

[David Wright]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am going to finish now, because I want to give time to everybody else who wishes to speak in the debate.

We all know what is coming if the Conservatives are elected at the next general election: VAT will go up. That is what their record tells us and that is what their plans require. If the Minister wants to be even a little bit believable—even 1% believable—he should at the very least accept new clause 1 and set the cat among the pigeons, but I do not think he will take that opportunity today.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

It is pleasure to speak in this debate—I hope it will have been worth the wait—and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I hope that we both have the opportunity to repeat the experience after 7 May.

I rise to support this excellent improvement to the Bill proposed by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, because I would like to better understand the impact of the VAT increase in my constituency. The Tory long-term economic plan is a marketing con and a rebranding of a five-year failed economic plan—five years of broken promises on borrowing, the deficit and VAT. I do not know if Government Members have been watching a new programme—on ITV down here, but on STV in my constituency—in which hypnosis is used to shift people’s perception of reality. I am not sure if that is what they are doing, although there does not seem to be anyone asleep in the Chamber. We all seem to be wide awake—certainly Labour Members are wide awake to the impact of the Government’s failure to deliver on their economic promises. Simply saying, “We’ll now call it a long-term economic plan, because it has not quite worked out in the short term”, is not going to fool anyone.

On the increase in VAT, I remember meeting my local chamber of commerce. In East Lothian, we do not have large-scale manufacturing or large employers, apart from in the public sector, so the private sector is largely made up of small and medium-sized enterprises. When I asked them how they were coping with the changes in the economy they said that the single-biggest factor for them was the VAT increase. It had done the most damage to their businesses. Other Members have spoken about its impact on the poorest in our communities, but in East Lothian it has also had an adverse impact on entrepreneurs and businesses—the people who should be creating the jobs that could eradicate unemployment in my constituency.

[David Wright]

As my hon. Friend will have noted, the new clause states that the Chancellor should produce a report within three months of the passing of the Act. I suspect that the Treasury already have these figures and could probably move more quickly. If her point about businesses is right and businesses are complaining to Members, they must also be feeding this information back to the Treasury, so I suspect that it already has these figures and could publish the report any time it wanted.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

My hon. Friend has been doing this job much longer than me, so I suppose he has earned the right to be more cynical. I am still flush with the newness of this change of role in my life, and I would like to think that that was not the Government’s intention, but I shall bow to his longer service in this place and more expert analysis.

It was interesting to hear the Financial Secretary speak about the role that VAT had played in the Government’s short-term failed economic plan over the last five years. He talked about the mess the previous Labour Government had left, but the economy was growing when we left office, and, as other hon. Members have said, part of the reason it reversed was the increase in VAT, which stifled confidence and the spending power of many in our communities. I would also like to hear from a Government Member whether a great deal of the deficit resulted from the decision by the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), to bail out the banks. Would Government Members have bailed out the banks, or do they think we should have left them to fail? Is anyone going to jump up? Anyone? No, they are all hypnotised, it would appear, and unable to respond. Bailing out the banks was the responsible thing to do. It might have seemed unfair, but it was important to people in my constituency that when they went to the ATMs the next day they could still draw out their wages.

The Financial Secretary talked about the Government’s sustained economic growth agenda. I do not remember sustained economic growth following the increase in VAT. I seem to remember the worst recession that this country has ever had, following that intervention by the Government. That has hurt people in my communities and, I am sure, in communities right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I want to say first how much my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), who is no longer in his place, has been valued in our economic debates. His contribution will be missed, and we all wish him well for the future.

The new clause is eminently reasonable, and it should not be a matter of dispute between the parties in the House that such a report would make a valuable contribution to any decision the Government take on VAT. We have had an interesting day on VAT because it was raised in Prime Minister’s questions. As hon. Members know—certainly the Minister will know—VAT is a subject in which I have an interest. Throughout this Parliament, I have pressed not just the Government Front-Bench team but the Labour Front-Bench team on the issue of VAT.

The Prime Minister is an honourable man. He has made a commitment from the Dispatch Box today that is different from the position outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Treasury Select Committee only yesterday. I am interested to see the Treasury Minister nodding to confirm that there has, in fact, been a change in Government policy since yesterday. When I woke up this morning, I heard on the “Today” programme my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) questioning the Chancellor on the issue of VAT. I heard the Chancellor set out the same mantra that there were no plans to extend VAT or increase its rate. My understanding of what the Prime Minister said today is that he has given a cast-iron guarantee—to use a phrase that the Prime Minister has used before—not to extend or increase the rate of VAT.

So the position has changed today, and it is a change that I welcome. For that reason, I think that the information requested under the new clause would be valuable. It is always better for us all to have more information about the impact of tax changes. We know, of course, that this Government introduced this tax change in June 2010 when they said that they would eliminate the deficit by 2015. The plan—the “long-term economic plan” then—was to eliminate it by 2015, and part of the plan was to increase the rate of VAT. It would be valuable to know what happened as a result of the raising of VAT in January 2011. In my constituency, people are under real financial pressure, and VAT affects all of us.

[David Wright]

When the Chancellor decided to increase VAT, he must have asked Treasury officials to produce projections on its likely impact on the economy at that point. It would be interesting, would it not, to compare the projections given to him by Treasury officials with an official report, which this new clause suggests should be commissioned, to see whether the two tally up?

[Ian Lucas]

Indeed. My hon. Friend has made a very valid point. I think that we should all be interested to know what was the impact of the last Tory-Liberal Democrat increase in VAT, which was introduced in January 2011, because it should inform future policy. It seems extraordinary to me that that should be resisted.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the median salary in my constituency, Wrexham, has fallen by 7.4% in the last year. The town centre is, unfortunately, populated—like many other town centres throughout the country—by too many empty shops, and part of the reason for the emptying of those shops over the past few years has been a decrease in consumer activity. What VAT does—and this is why I am passionate about VAT—is take money out of the pockets of consumers on the high street and send it straight to the Treasury. It has a massive impact on local businesses. Those of us who run local businesses and employ people want to ensure that we have the best and fairest type of tax system to develop local economies.

That is why I want to know the impact of the 2011 VAT increase. I think that the Minister is a reasonable man. I cannot for the life of me understand why he does not want to have that information, or, if he has that information, why he does not want to share it with the House.

We have made a lot of progress today. The Prime Minister has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to a point at which he has ruled out a VAT increase by the Conservatives in the next Parliament—if he is ever in a position to make such a decision. That is major progress. It is certainly a change, not just from the Prime Minister’s position earlier in the current Parliament, but from the position that the Chancellor outlined in his Budget statement last Wednesday, when he set out the spending and taxation plans that he expected to be implemented. Why did he not tell us that the Tories were going to rule out a VAT increase in the next Parliament? That is what amazes me. What has happened between last week and this week? What happened yesterday?

What has happened, in my view, is that because the Labour party, in opposition, made a commitment not to increase VAT in the next Parliament, Lynton has been on the blower. He has said. “We are under pressure, Dave. We are under pressure, Prime Minister. We have to match the commitment that the Labour party has made. You have to rule out a VAT increase in the next Parliament.” So that is why the Prime Minister made his statement at the Dispatch Box today—a statement that I welcomed.

History will judge whether that promise will be kept. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) about the history of Conservative commitments on VAT: about what happens before elections, and about what happens after them. When I speak to my constituents over the next six weeks, I shall remind them of that record. I shall remind them of what the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats said before 2010 and what they did afterwards, and I shall remind them of what this Chancellor tried to do in 2012 with the pasty tax and the caravan tax.

The tax of choice for the Conservative party is VAT. History tells us that. If the Conservatives want to increase taxes, they increase VAT. The country will have to judge whether the commitment that the Prime Minister has given today is one that will stand the test of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was coming on to exactly that point. This is a question about living standards: what is happening to the poorest in our society and where the burden should ultimately rest for sorting out the nation’s finances after the global financial crisis.

At the Budget last week, the Chancellor would have had us believe that people are on average £900 better off as well as more secure as the result of his policies. I have to hand it to him—he has been highly innovative in using a new measure of living standards to try to back up his claim, but it includes income to universities and charities. I do not blame him for trying, but he knows the truth, as do Members and the public, which is that people say time and again that they are worse off. A poll of 5,000 consumers’ responses to the Budget showed that three quarters of people have seen no improvement in their living standards. A Populus poll before Christmas found that only one in seven adults said they were feeling the benefit of recent economic growth.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has said, wages after inflation are down by £1,600, and the combined impact of tax and benefit changes has left families on average £1,127 a year worse off. That was the context in which it was decided to reduce the additional rate of tax to 45p, giving millionaires a tax cut worth an average of £100,000, which is a huge sum of money by any standards. As I have just said, wages are down by £1,600 a year, tax and benefit changes have left people £1,127 worse off, and, as we heard in the previous debate, higher VAT has left people £1,800 worse off over four years. For people at the bottom end of the income spectrum, such sums are the difference between being able to put food on the table and to put clothes on their children’s back or not, while the choices for those at the other end of the income spectrum, who are benefiting from a tax cut to the tune of £100,000, are probably about the poshness of the car on the forecourt of their home, not the basic necessities of life and of survival. That is the important point for struggling families across our country.

[David Wright]

Is my hon. Friend interested, as I am, in the line developed by the Liberal Democrats that the 50p rate was in place only at the end of the previous Labour Government for a very short time?

[Ian Swales]

One day.

[David Wright]

Indeed. This is all about the choices made to bring down the deficit. We made a choice—a forward offer or plan—to use a higher top rate of income tax to bring down the deficit, and the Liberal Democrats decided to vote against that strategy.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) always takes part in Finance Bill debates, and he always makes one point in exactly the same way. I sometimes wish that he would listen to the answer he gets when he does so. The answer is that the top rate was increased as a specific response to get down the deficit after the global financial crisis. It was the fair and right thing to do then. It was unfair and wrong to decrease the rate from 50p to 45p, which he, as a member of one of the parties of government, supported. It will be right for the next Labour Government to raise it to 50p again.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

David Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to deal in a bit more detail with the interesting point that has been raised. What is clear not just from the Chancellor’s speech, but from his whole chancellorship, is that—unlike the former Chancellor—he has never really gripped the actual economics of what happens in our economy. He understands slogans, but he does not understand how the economy actually works. Let me explain it.

We all know that the Chancellor flatlined the economy for two or three years after 2010. Now, although the economy has recovered, growth has returned and unemployment has come down, the fact is jobs have been created in low-paid, often insecure work. There is lower productivity in our economy, many people are trapped in part-time employment and zero-hours contracts, and, as a result, tax revenues have not come in.

According to the OBR, income tax receipts are a cumulative £68 billion lower than the Chancellor’s 2010 forecast, and national insurance contributions are a cumulative £27 billion lower than he planned. His fiscal failure in this Parliament—which he could not deny when we asked him about it earlier—has occurred not because he has failed to deliver spending cuts or because he has not raised VAT, but because of the underlying way in which the economy works. Because more people are in low-paid work and wages are stagnating, the tax revenues have not come in. It is clear from the Chancellor’s speech that he does not understand the economics of the matter, but that is the truth. I know that the former Chancellor understands it.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Is it not also the case that many people who are in work are receiving benefits, and is that not a symptom of the low-wage economy? Given that we are discussing budget responsibility, is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the fact that the Chancellor promised an unfunded tax cut at the Conservative party conference, but is talking about consolidation today?

[Ed Balls]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said

“Of the main parties, Labour has…been the most cautious of the three”

because ours is the only party that has not made unfunded, uncosted commitments to more spending or lower taxes.

Finance Bill

David Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We do indeed have a regular debate about the facts and figures—I will come to the detailed data on the yield from the 50p rate later—but if the Government accepted our new clause, much of that debate could be put to bed, especially as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs now has much more data with which to produce an analysis that is less flawed than the one in 2012.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Our hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) makes a good point. When the Government abolished the 50p rate, they made great play of studies they said they had done on the revenue raised. Would it not be perfectly acceptable for them to accept the amendment, so that we could see exactly the impact of their unfair tax changes, because they are clearly showing their colours in terms of supporting the wealthiest in our country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful point. As I said, I will explore the details in relation to data and the argument over the yield from the 50p rate, but he is right: we cannot continue to rely on a report produced when the rate had been in place for only one year. The Government should accept the new clause and produce a much more comprehensive analysis.

It was the Labour Government who introduced the 50p rate, which came into effect in 2010-11, a decision made after the financial crisis, as we sought to get the deficit down. When this Government came to power they did not say anything in the coalition agreement about abolishing the 50p rate, but in 2011 the Chancellor said that he would ask HMRC to look at the yields from the 50p rate, which was the warning signal that he was looking to cut it. In 2012, with HMRC’s report “The Exchequer effect of the 50 per cent additional rate of income tax” to back him up, the Chancellor cut the rate to 45p.

Why go through the process of looking at yield and getting HMRC to produce a report? Everyone knew that there were not enough data to come to an accurate view about yield because the rate had not been in place for long enough—a point about which I shall say more later. Well, the Chancellor knew that he needed cover for that deeply ideological decision so he was desperate to claim that a 50p rate raised very little money. If he could stand before the House and say that it raised hardly any money at all, never mind the uncertainty and the incompleteness of the data, he calculated that he could justify giving a tax cut to the richest in our country, knowing that on his watch ordinary people—those on middle and lower incomes—would pay the price for his economic plan, which has failed on the terms that he set for himself when he came to power in 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

VAT is not as regressive as the hon. Lady suggests, because I am pleased to say that important items, such as food and children’s clothes, are VAT exempt, which makes it a little less unpalatable. I agree with her that all tax rises are bad news, but they are a necessity given the large deficit that we inherited, and when some important public services need financing. I also entirely agree with Labour that, given that we have a large deficit and need to spend money on important benefits and public services, we need to get that money from the rich and the better off. They are the people with money, and we have to find the best way to get the money off them.

[David Wright]

Why is the right hon. Gentleman so scared of the new clause? All it does is request a report. Surely he supports the idea of having a report on these issues so that we can get to the bottom of the matter.

[Mr Redwood]

If I am given a chance to develop my argument, I hope I will satisfy any independent-minded people on the Labour Benches that we already have the evidence. We have had a long-term experiment on this very subject, which satisfies some Conservative Members that the way to get more money off the rich is to set a rate that they are prepared to pay and will stay and pay. If the rate is set too high, they leave. If the rate is set too high, their clever lawyers and accountants find entirely legal ways to pay rather less tax than we would like.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) did not answer my intervention when I asked her to confirm that the Red Book has made it clear that after the cut in the rate, the amount that the better off and the rich paid went up—of course it did. That is the experience we would expect. The hon. Lady is left trying to say that there are special reasons. I will give her this point: it is probably best to judge these things over a longer period than a year or two. One can get odd variations, which is why I want to give the evidence to the House that it has clearly forgotten, which relates to the big reductions in top rate tax that were put through in the 1980s. The Conservative Government reduced the top rate of tax in two stages, from 83% to 60% and then from 60% to 40%, and the Labour Government kept that rate right up until they knew that they would lose office. They were wise to do so, because over those years the amount of cash paid by the rich went up, the real-terms amount of tax paid by the rich went up and the proportion of total income tax revenue paid by the rich went up. What is not to like about that treble win?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

It is worth considering some of the context of our debate today on the Finance Bill. Almost 15 years ago, the then Labour Government introduced the national minimum wage. That historic measure increased the value of work for around 2 million people across the UK. At its heart was fairness and dignity for all at work. Yet today we are debating the impact of a substantial tax cut for 13,000 millionaires introduced by this Government. At a time when more than four out of five people surveyed in a recent Ipsos MORI poll said that they faced a cost of living crisis, the contrast cannot be overstated. It would be almost impossible to find so clear a contrast between the ambitions and motivations of two Governments. The bottom line in this debate is that the Government’s proposals in the Finance Bill do almost nothing to address the cost of living crisis.

[David Wright]

My hon. Friend mentioned Ipsos MORI. If we look at public attitude surveys, we see that one of the reasons why there is a breakdown of trust in politics is the very approach that she is discussing. People on low incomes—indeed, those on middle incomes—are facing a cost of living crisis, while the wealthiest are getting a tax cut. That is why people switch off from politics; they see the double standards being pursued by the Government.

[Rushanara Ali]

I could not agree more. I heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), but it is clear that there are major divisions in our society. We should all be concerned about that. Tax breaks are given to those who do not need them—to millionaires; responsible millionaires will admit that the stance being adopted is divisive. We should protect those who are struggling the most as well as ordinary middle-income families in this cost of living crisis. I hope that the Government will take on board some of the points made about the social consequences of the tax inequalities that the Government are introducing and making worse.

Let us take my constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow as an example. Families there are significantly worse off than they have ever been. Child poverty is at 42% and there is still high unemployment. There are still major problems of worklessness and young people who are not in training or education. That is a major problem around the country: 870,000 young people remain unemployed.

Changes in taxes and benefits made since 2010 make one-parent families working to support children an average of £3,720 a year poorer. That staggering fall in living standards will affect the most vulnerable. The issue is not envy, but the fact that my constituents are struggling. They will rightly continue to ask why millionaires in the City are receiving a tax cut from the Government of about £100,000 a year. My constituents are working hard to make ends meet and their children are living in poverty. While they continue the battle to survive, they ask why the Chancellor is giving £3 billion a year in tax breaks to millionaires. How is that fair? How are we all in this together if that is the Government’s priority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would call me out of order if I responded to that point.

Labour’s Chancellors were not slow to raise taxes—in fact, there is a long list of almost 100 taxes that they raised in 13 years—but strangely enough, they did not raise this one. Again, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham eloquently said, they knew that it was dubious that raising the top rate of income tax would lead to actual benefits. He mentioned the experiments of the 1980s in this country; François Hollande is conducting a live experiment right now across the channel and is getting very much the same results, with one prominent French citizen, Gérard Depardieu, moving all the way to Russia to avoid penal tax rates.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood)talked about the need for analysis. I make two suggestions. First, I presume that during the 13 years of the previous Labour Government a great deal of analysis was carried out on whether raising the top rate was the right thing to do—as I said, they were not slow to look at new ways of raising money and clearly kept on rejecting it as an option. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has now studied Labour’s proposal to raise the top rate back to 50p and has said that it is of dubious benefit. In fact, I think the hon. Lady herself said that it could cost money and would not be drawn on whether that would make her change the policy.

We ought to take what the Labour party says with a pinch of salt. It cut taxes every single year for millionaires.

[David Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Is he making the commitment today that the Liberal Democrats will not have this proposal in their manifesto for the next election?

[Ian Swales]

I am not sure which proposal the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

[David Wright]

The 50p tax rate.

[Ian Swales]

I am not committing anything for our next manifesto, just as the hon. Gentleman’s party is not as yet. Our manifesto is being discussed now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Someone says most of it, but in the time available, I ought to turn to the new clause.

The new clause calls for the Chancellor to publish a report within three months of passing the Act to set out the impact of setting the additional rate at 50% for the tax year 2015-16. In addition, it asks for an assessment of the impact of reducing the additional rate to 45% for 2013-14 on the amount of income tax paid by those with a taxable income of more than £250,000 a year and those with a taxable income of more than £1 million a year, as well as on all those who are liable for the additional rate. It also proposes that the report set out the impact of reducing the additional rate on the level of bonuses awarded in April 2013 to employees in the financial sector. I hope that there will be no controversy when I say that, in order to be credible, any such analysis would need to take into account behavioural impacts, as did the HMRC report on the additional rate that was published at Budget 2012. It is clearly inadequate to look simply at theoretical income tax liabilities when increasing taxes.

Let me use this opportunity to assure hon. Members once more that the Government already consider the impact of any policy decisions taken. The HMRC report on the additional rate concluded that the underlying yield from the introduction of the 50p rate was much lower than originally forecast, due to large behavioural effects.

[David Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I want to make this point, then I will give way.

Let me address the matter of behavioural effects. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) conflated the issue of behavioural effects with tax avoidance, and seemed to suggest that the two were synonymous. That is simply not the case. What does the term “behavioural effects” include? If someone decides to retire earlier than they would otherwise do, that is a behavioural effect. If someone decides to leave the country and go to work elsewhere, that is a behavioural effect. If a multinational company, when deciding where to locate a new team, decides to go to another country rather than the UK, that too is a behavioural effect. If someone decides to put more money into their pension—making use of pension tax relief as Parliament has intended—that is also a behavioural effect.

In the eyes of the Opposition, all of that constitutes tax avoidance, and we have been asked why we do nothing about it. I do not know whether they are suggesting that we should take away people’s passports so that they cannot emigrate, or that we should somehow force companies to locate their staff here. Those decisions are behavioural effects over which we have no control, and we have to respond to the reality of the world as it is, rather than as some people might like it to be.

[David Wright]

Does the Minister accept that the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility have said that, after the Chancellor made his Budget announcement about the tax rate, people delayed and deferred bonuses and shuffled their cash around to avoid the system? Is this not actually about very rich people shuffling their money around in order to avoid tax? We need a simple system with a 50p rate, and we need to study it over a long time to determine its impact.

[Mr Gauke]

The important point here is that the HMRC analysis explicitly dealt with that issue. Yes, there will be instances in which sums are shifted from one year to another, just as happened when the previous Government announced the introduction of the 50p rate. People brought forward income at that point. The analysis took those behavioural changes into account and excluded them, and still concluded that the 50p rate was ineffective in raising money. Given that HMRC has already carried out that analysis and reached that conclusion, which is consistent with the academic research in this area, and given that the IFS has said that no substantial sums were involved, would the Opposition be determined to go ahead with a 50p rate even though the evidence suggested that it would not raise money? That seems to be their ideological position. It would be illogical and unfair to reintroduce a tax rate that was ineffective at raising revenue from high earners, that made ordinary taxpayers pay more and that risked damaging growth.

Finance Bill

David Wright Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I am not sure how many elderly people would find themselves in that predicament, but such circumstances ought to be dealt with in the design of a mansion tax. The hon. Gentleman will therefore see the logic of our new clause, which seeks to encourage the Chancellor to introduce proposals within six months. Let us look at the design of them, and think about those rare circumstances in which someone might be living in a £2 million property but have no means by which to pay an annual levy. I imagine that that would be quite rare—it is perhaps quite difficult to believe—but such circumstances might exist. I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman’s Liberal Democrat colleagues have thought through all those points when they drew up their carefully crafted proposals. Perhaps there are channels between the coalition parties that we are not party to, and perhaps they exchange information on these matters. I am sure that such a tax could be designed correctly, if not by the Chancellor then by the Office for Budget Responsibility, if that would be a better way of doing it.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am by the Government’s opposition to this proposal? During the previous debate on the top rate of tax, the Minister and Government Back Benchers were suggesting that our proposal would not deliver revenue because people would avoid the tax system. They suggested that a higher rate system would not generate income, but they now seem to be opposed to a proposal for a tax on a fixed asset, which presumably would not move. My hon. Friend is making a valuable contribution and I hope that some Members on the Government Benches will join us in the Lobby later.

[Chris Leslie]

It is the oft-trotted-out claim of the Liberal Democrats that they are there to temper the worst excesses of the Conservative party, and perhaps they do exercise such influence. We all know that the Conservatives are there to defend the wealth of the very wealthiest in society—that is a given—but we want to see whether the Liberal Democrats in the coalition have managed to bend that ideology a little more towards the centre ground of politics and towards the space in which most people would agree that those with the greatest assets and wealth should make a fairer contribution. That would be a good thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

I feel as though this is part two of my speech. I listen to Government Members, and I hear the sound of the creation of two Britains. We have the Britain of the elite who are protected by the Government, who bring about tax cuts for the most affluent in our society. Then we have the other Britain—people who are playing by the rules but have seen their benefits squeezed, their tax credits cut and their council tax benefits cut. When they go shopping, their bills have increased because of the VAT increase. Nor is this society encouraging work, because work does not pay. Those people in work can be reliant on the benefits system, but the policies of the coalition Government are skewed against them—the vast majority of people in this country who are playing by the rules and want something better from their lives.

I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton), who has not been a Member for very long. He is in his place alone as we challenge the Liberal Democrats on their approach to the mansion tax. As on tuition fees, VAT, tax avoidance and the tax cut for the most affluent, what they said in opposition, when they sat on this side of the House with no hope of being in government, was a different kettle of fish from what they say in government.

I can never clear my mind of the image of the Deputy Prime Minister, in a party political broadcast, implying—I do not wish to use unparliamentary language—that anyone who was not a Liberal Democrat was a teller of mistruths. Students remember that party political broadcast saying that tuition fees would not go up under any Liberal Democrat Government. It was a different matter when they found themselves in government.

In February, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“I continue to believe we should ask for what would be a modest contribution from the very wealthy, either in the form of a Mansion tax—a 1% levy on properties worth more than £2m—applied just to the value over and above £2m; my preferred option. Or, alternatively, we could introduce new council tax bands at the top end, again, affecting properties worth over £2m…Nothing could do more to demonstrate a commitment to greater fairness in our tax system. I will continue to make this argument, in this Coalition and beyond. My approach is simple: taxes on mansions; tax cuts for millions.”

What did the Deputy Prime Minister do in the coalition? Did he sit there and fight for a mansion tax? No, the evidence—and we have to go on the evidence—is against it. In every major decision that the coalition has made, many of them unpopular, the Deputy Prime Minister has been found wanting. Let me explain something to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who, in fairness, is the only Liberal Democrat Member who has sat through this entire debate. If that is who his leader is—if that is what his leader is about—he should ask whether the Deputy Prime Minister is equipped to lead the Liberal Democrats into the next election.

[David Wright]

It gets even worse for the Liberal Democrats. Not only did the Deputy Prime Minister say in that discussion point that he was a supporter of the mansion tax, but the Business Secretary went on to say to the BBC in March this year:

“Nick Clegg and I are very strong supporters of the mansion tax”.

I am really pleased to hear that, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be, too. I await to see how they will vote in the Lobby this evening.

[Chris Evans]

I, too, hope to see them in the Lobby, but I am sure that they will not be there. That is the wonderful thing about the Liberal Democrats: it is the only party that can support something—have the bare-faced cheek to stand up in favour of something—and then vote for the exact opposite in the Division Lobby. That is what the Liberal Democrats should remember: in the marginal seats that they need to hold on to, they will be judged on their priorities—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Eastleigh want me to give way to him, or is he happy to listen? [Interruption.] Indeed, we do not usually hear from a Liberal Democrat.

The Liberal Democrats will be judged on their priorities, and their priorities have not been what they said they would be. They are not for the students; they are not for the elderly; they are not for the poorest paid in society: they are simply there to prop up this coalition Government. They are becoming nothing but voting fodder for this Tory Administration. I notice that the Tory Members were nodding when I said that. If any further proof were required about who is in the senior part of—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

Yes, I do. I think this is a win-win situation for everyone. Yes, I have said that we got the 10p tax wrong, but I think a lot of employers would welcome a 10p tax rate. As I have said here before, Opposition Members agree that work is the only way out of poverty, and a mansion tax could provide a way forward on that.

The new clause deals with a mansion tax. Labour has often been accused of having no policies and of not setting out our policies or of not being forthcoming enough, but we have said that we need to introduce a mansion tax to bring about a 10p tax cut and bring some fairness into society. Fair taxation should not be a Labour issue, a Tory issue or a Lib Dem issue; it should be across party. Fair taxation should interest us all, but without a fairer and less complex system, we cannot hope to achieve what we want, which is to see more people in work, paying their taxes and bringing down the deficit that way. With that, and after a number of interventions from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall sit down.

[David Wright]

I was in the Chamber at the opening of the debate, and I would like to make a brief contribution on this subject. I am keen to see us move the debate forward a little on the issue of progressive taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was right to say that the Labour party was wrong to abandon the 10p tax rate before the last election, as it caused a good deal of concern in constituencies right across the country. It is important that we reassess that policy position now.

It is useful that we are matching the commitment to reintroduce the 10p band with a proposal for a mansion tax, linking the two objectives, and I am particularly supportive of the mansion tax. As we heard in an earlier segment of the debate, one of the key issues is tax avoidance, and Government Members made great play of the fact that the higher rate of income tax introduced at the end of the last Labour Government was not going to deliver much revenue because people would attempt to avoid it. I can understand that argument, but I think they are wrong, because we did not have a long enough period to see it work though, and not enough time was given to allow the new top rate we brought in to bed down.

One thing that can be said of the mansion tax is that one can with certainty ensure that income is being delivered for the Exchequer. Clearly, by their very nature, properties do not move. Some Members have referred to the possibility of revaluation of the council tax base. I do not think that there should be a broad revaluation in England at this stage, but I do think that it would be logical to apply a mansion tax to the largest properties in the country, given the need to generate a tax system that is fair and progressive.

amendment of the law

David Wright Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I will certainly have a look at the particular circumstances to which the hon. Lady refers. I have been pleased to see the growth in neighbourhood plans, which are analogous to what she is suggesting. Indeed, I visited a village in my constituency that is looking forward to introducing them. They give people and businesses a much bigger say.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course I will give way to my favourite Labour MP.

[David Wright]

I am grateful. City deals offer real flexibility for local communities, and we would like to work with the Department to secure a city deal for Telford. There is Homes and Communities Agency land on the ledger that could be shifted off, through a profit-sharing agreement with the Department, to make sure we get housing land and business development land. Is the Secretary of State willing to meet to talk about a city deal for Telford?

[Mr Pickles]

This is the second time the hon. Gentleman has asked whether I am willing to see him. I am; indeed, only this morning I sent out, at my own expense, for some high-quality tea and better biscuits for him. We are looking forward to seeing him.

Seven out of 10 councils have published a local plan, and the figure continues to rise. Nearly nine in 10 planning applications are approved—a 10-year high. Indications are that there are fewer planning appeals, meaning that local decision making is to the fore. The latest data from Glenigan show that planning approvals for new homes are up 62% year on year, and 33% up on the previous quarter.

However, brushing the cobwebs off the planning system is only part of the plan. As a result of Labour’s inaction, this country is crying out for more homes to meet that desperate demand, so this Government are helping to get development off the ground. Locally supported, once-mothballed large-scale sites—such as in Cranbrook, in Milton Keynes, in Eastern Quarry and in Wokingham—are now being kick-started. We should contrast that with Labour’s top-down eco-towns, which delivered not a single home.

Our programme is set to deliver 170,000 new affordable homes, almost 63,000 of which are already completed, by 2015. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors says that home sales have reached their highest level in more than two and a half years, while builders from Barratt to Bovis say that Government schemes are driving increased sales, putting people back on the property path.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Wright]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will; I am getting a lot of extra time, here.

[David Wright]

Does my hon. Friend recall that the Conservatives were wedded to our spending plans right up until the global recession hit? They have never explained which action they would not have taken to save the banks.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just last week, when listening to the Chancellor deliver his fourth Budget and its dreadful assessment of the state of the British economy, it was hard to believe that if everything had gone to plan for him and we had managed to pull off what he proposed in the emergency Budget, we would be well down the road to balancing the books and debt would be peaking this year as a percentage of GDP. Such a plan now seems nothing more than a fantasy.

Larry Summers, the distinguished American economist and Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, told a conference I attended last year about the response he gives when asked what one event would make him completely reassess everything he believes to be true about modern economics. He said that since 2010, his answer has been, “If the UK Government manage to bring about a rapid recovery through their deficit reduction plan.” I thought that was quite a bold statement when I first heard it, but of course, Mr Summers knew what he was talking about.

When the Chancellor took office in 2010 and first came to the House, he said we would have five years of pain to eradicate the deficit, but then we would have done it. Last week, he came back to the House to say that there will be another five years of pain, and then we will have eradicated the deficit—maybe. There has been almost no progress, but the pain for our constituents has been very real.

Stripping away all the partisanship in this Chamber, there are surely Government Members who thought last week, “What if we had done things slightly differently?” The truth behind all that misplaced rhetoric in 2010 about the UK being on the verge of bankruptcy or that we would be the next Greece, all but destroyed business and consumer confidence, before the measures in the emergency Budget were even on the statute book. When the Government’s agenda did bite, the combination of that, the collapse of confidence they had already fostered and the worsening eurozone produced an economic disaster. We all see the casualties of that every day in our constituencies. We needed more from this Budget.

There are three issues I would like to address in the brief time available to me, the first of which is manufacturing. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that this Government have done some good things in that regard. I am pleased that there are Members on both sides of the House who, like me, are passionate about manufacturing, a sector in which a fifth of my constituents still work. However, the Budget speech made no mention of the “march of the makers”, and it did not address the two main issues that still remain: that such businesses cannot borrow money when they need to; and that they feel that the Government do not give them sufficient strategic direction, be it on renewable energy, High Speed 2, aviation policy or anything else. I hope the Chancellor has had time to read the excellent report by the former director of the Institute of Directors, Sir George Cox, on short-termism in the UK economy. I hope he will take on board its main recommendation: that we need to develop a coherent and workable modern industrial strategy if we are to remain competitive. I agree with Government Members when they say we are in a global race, but at the moment we do not even have a map of the course.

Secondly, despite the job creation record that Government Members like to emphasise, unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is still a major problem. We know enough about the Work programme to know that it has not been a success. Due to the combination of a lack of jobs generally and an inadequate payments system, it has not had the impact it should have had. We had on the statute book a range of measures that were getting people back into work; the future jobs fund, for example, should never have been dropped. Much of the Government’s borrowing—they announced £245 billion on top of their 2010 figure—is paying for the costs of failure. It is not unreasonable to wonder what might have happened if we had invested a fraction of that sum in putting people back into work.

My third point is about the equity of the Government’s agenda and how things have been shared, because the lower down the income scale people are, the harder they have been hit. The contrast between the tax cut for millionaires in the next few days and the bedroom tax is startling. The latter is a tax on people struggling with their child’s disability, struggling with their own or their partner’s ill health, or struggling to be a good parent in the event of the breakdown of their relationship. The fact that it may lead to higher costs for the Exchequer, as families are forced to move into higher-cost private accommodation, flies in the face of all reason. On this measure, more than any other, we need another famous Budget U-turn.

Let me deal with some specific Budget measures. I welcome the concessions on fuel duty, which does have a real impact on household income, and the scrapping of the beer tax escalator, which will benefit real ale towns such as Stalybridge. The nod towards the Heseltine report is also good, but it could have gone so much further. Had the Government pursued the previous Government’s Total Place community budgeting reforms, they could have improved public services while saving billions of pounds. However, Lord Heseltine’s logic that regional leaders are best placed to determine spending which will lever in private sector investment is surely correct.

I also welcome the commitment to spend 0.7% of our GDP on international aid, and here I have the opportunity to qualify remarks that got me on to page 2 of The Sun a few weeks ago. I am a supporter of international aid, but we have to acknowledge that it is contentious to increase it when our constituents are facing hardship. I just want the focus to be on what aid will achieve, rather than simply patting ourselves on the back for what goes into it. That is a reasonable way to build support for aid among the British people.

There is no doubt that whoever was in charge right now would face difficult choices about where the pain that the British people face should lie. However, the deal we have to offer them is that the pain will be worth it, and that the distribution of that pain will be equitable and will show empathy with people’s lives. On all those criteria the Chancellor has failed, and it is surely time for a new approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Last week’s Budget was a successful one politically. It worked because it identified that the cost of living affects all our constituents. I particularly welcome the fact that the Chancellor, by getting rid of the beer duty escalator and checking the fuel duty escalator put in by the previous Government, for example, recognised the rising cost of living for many of our constituents.

Before proceeding, I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who, as we all know, was a prominent member of the previous Labour Government. He mentioned the fact that the OBR had consistently failed in its forecasts over the course of this Parliament. He also mentioned the fact that we are borrowing at record levels. That is all true. But what he did not mention, or make any apology for, was the share of responsibility that he and the previous Government must admit to in the creation of our largest peacetime deficit. People will look back on the period between 2001 and 2007 in this country as one of the most, if not the most, profligate and irresponsible periods in the management of our public finances.

[David Wright]

If that is the case, why did the Conservative party support the Labour Government’s spending plans throughout that period? The Conservatives stopped supporting the spending plans only just before the global financial crisis. Can the hon. Gentleman explain what action he would not have taken to save the banks?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I happen to be a balanced budget Conservative. Even at the time, before I was elected to this House, I completely disavowed any move to stick to Labour’s spending. I thought that it was a big mistake at the time and I am quite happy to say that in this House. I think that it was entirely a mistake to do what the Labour Government did and run deficits at a time when the economy was growing at 3%. It was absolute madness to run deficits at 3% of GDP when the economy itself was growing at 3%. Not even the most starry-eyed Keynesian has ever suggested that we should be running deficits while the economy was expanding. As a direct consequence of this irresponsible period, in 2010 we were left with the largest peacetime deficit and the highest deficit-to-GDP ratio of any of the OECD countries. That period of stewardship marks the ultimate disgrace of the Labour party in terms of managing the national economy. We have now reached the point where we are borrowing £100 billion a year and the national debt is going up, as people have mentioned. As a consequence of this high level of deficit financing, we are going to leave a national debt in years to come that is higher than it has been for generations.

What serious proposals have Labour Members come up with during this four-day debate? Their answer is simply to borrow more money and to spend more money. They would accelerate our downward path and we would end up, as one economic commentator has said, with Club Med levels of debt similar to those of Portugal and Greece—without, unfortunately, the good weather. That is what Labour Members are leading this country towards. Members of the public will be absolutely astounded that Labour Members have expressed not one shred of remorse, regret or acknowledgement. They live in a world in which they did nothing wrong. Everything has been blamed on the coalition Government, who have tried to clear up the appalling mess—[Interruption.] Labour Members are chuntering from sedentary positions. They do not like to hear the facts.

People up and down the country realise and acknowledge that the Labour Government were entirely irresponsible. What solutions have the Labour Members come up with? Absolutely none. It is embarrassing to listen to some of their speeches. They talk about more growth despite the fact that the eurozone is flat on its back. They talk about more investment despite the fact that we are borrowing more money than we ever have before. When one asks them where this money is going to come from, they repeat, “The bankers’ bonus tax”, as though that would pay for absolutely everything they wish for, although it has already been spent about 100 times. It is depressing to see Labour Members, who fancy themselves as the next Government—they are very confident, I notice—offering such poor, ill-thought-through and pathetic solutions to a grave national crisis. People watching this debate at home will be appalled, frankly, by the level of argument, contribution and solutions that Labour Members have contributed.

I welcome this Budget. In very difficult times, the Chancellor has identified weaknesses and has managed to alleviate some of the distress that we suffer.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

David Wright Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

Falling living standards for families in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, rising child poverty and families in work seeing their tax credits cut—that is not theatre; that is the real world. As for the national insurance cut for small businesses, that is point 5 of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth. That is the reality.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Talking about theatre and the movement of money between financial years, is it not interesting that hospitals in Shropshire have been cancelling operations? One of the chief nurses says that is because of funding cuts in the NHS. I wonder whether it is because of the Chancellor’s fiddle.

[Ed Balls]

The OBR document is very interesting. It sets out the unusual underspend Department by Department. I do not think that we have yet heard the full truth about what has been going on in the Treasury: the pressure applied in one year to cut spending or to move it to the next year just to fiddle the borrowing figures. I think that we will discover the truth in the coming weeks. For a Government who attack businesses and make late payments to small business, they are the late payment Government.

Has the Chancellor learned nothing over the past 12 months? He used to say that he was sticking to his plan in order to secure the recovery, but then we had the double-dip recession. He used to say that he was sticking to his plan to get the deficit down, but his spending cuts and tax rises have choked off the recovery. As the OBR revealed yesterday, the deficit was basically unchanged last year and will remain unchanged this year and next. Then all he could say was that he had to stick to his plan in order to keep his treasured triple A credit rating, but he has even lost that. The only reason he will not now change course is to avoid his own political humiliation, and that is no reason to stick to a failing plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Business Secretary. He is of course right that there is demand in the economy: it is demand for change. It is significant that last year we had the omnishambles Budget and this year we have had a Budget from a Chancellor imprisoned by his own rhetoric and his own record. What we needed this year was a bold Budget to break us free from the Chancellor’s record of nearly three years of a flatlining economy. We heard a lot about fuel yesterday, and slogans about driving the economy forward. In 2010, the Chancellor said that the economy would grow by more than 2% every year up to 2015, a steady drive on the road to recovery. Well, he has failed. He has not got the UK economy into gear. This debate is about growth. He has failed on growth, and the triple A rating fell off the roof rack on the way.

Budgets tend to unravel as the details are revealed, and we have seen that this afternoon. It is less than a day since the Chancellor sat down, and we have already seen cracks appearing in the second homes subsidy and the Budget as a whole, and I have no doubt that will continue in the coming days. He could have kept it simple. The fact is that for most people the standard of living is under severe pressure. Energy and other everyday household bills are rising, wages are stagnant, real wages have fallen since the Government came to power, and those on the lowest incomes and on benefits are seeing their incomes falling. That is bad for them, obviously, but it also sucks demand out of the economy and creates a crisis of confidence.

The priority of this Budget should have been a dash for growth to instil confidence in the UK economy. We have already heard the Business Secretary admit this afternoon that there was a split in the Government on this strategy; a split that still has not been resolved. The Chancellor has never admitted that he got his economic strategy wrong in the way that the Business Secretary did this afternoon. The problem is that the Chancellor is lashed to the mast of austerity. To break free would be a significant admission of his own failure, so the only cry we hear from the Chancellor is “O Canada!” He is hoping that the new Governor of the Bank of England will adopt a pro-growth strategy to dig him out of this hole with a new monetary approach, because the Chancellor cannot come to this Chamber and admit that he got it wrong.

We should dwell for a few moments on the geographical perspective to the health of the UK economy. Within the M25 ring, the London economy is pretty successful. It is patchy in areas, but it is a major engine for our economy. Outside of the M25, the situation is particularly patchy. As a whole the economy is flatlining, but there are significant regional and sub-regional problems that the Budget did not address at all. Basically, the Government have binned their regional economic development strategy—a comprehensive approach to renewing our towns and cities and ensuring growth. Centre for Cities produced its “Cities Outlook 2013” report recently. It said:

“The 64 cities that Outlook assesses account for 53 per cent of businesses, 58 per cent of jobs and 60 per cent of UK economic output. As such, policy that can help to stimulate urban growth by making the most of cities’ distinctive strengths and weaknesses will help stimulate growth of the national economy.”

Telford is one of those 64 cities, and we need help. Unemployment in Telford is stubbornly high at 7%, and a large proportion of the unemployed are aged between 16 and 24. Median rates of gross weekly pay are lower than elsewhere in the west midlands and England. The Budget did nothing at all to help young people. I did not hear the Chancellor talk about the problems faced by young people; it certainly was not a major element of his Budget.

We are not sitting back and doing nothing in Telford. We are trying to make a difference. The Labour council is leading a major drive on apprenticeships, and Telford College of Arts and Technology is working hard to offer training and development in local companies. We are delivering new schools across the borough through the Building Schools for the Future programme—the last great legacy of the previous Labour Government—and providing new learning environments. We are regenerating estates such as Brookside, and are making a significant investment, in partnership with the private sector, in the town centre as part of the Southwater scheme.

What we need now is a Government who are as keen as our Labour council in Telford and Wrekin to make a difference. We need a city deal for Telford. Twenty cities have been asked to bid in the second round of “city deal”, in addition to the major cities that have already secured it. We need the flexibility to work with Government to bring in investment. In Telford, Homes and Communities Agency land has been sitting idle since the new town corporation was wound down, and it is ready for development. We could be developing a profit-sharing deal with the Government for those land sites, working together to shift them off the Government ledger, getting investment for housing and infrastructure into our town, and profit-sharing with the Treasury. That would be good for the local community, good for the Treasury and would get the economy moving. I call on the Business Secretary to think about that. I hope he is willing to meet representatives, along with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

We need a flexible approach to the regional strategy. The Government have totally destroyed their regional approach to economic development. They need to think again about the existence and structure of regional development agencies. I spoke to the business community in Telford after the Budget via a phone-in conference. They told me that they are extremely worried that the local enterprise partnerships are not dynamic or effective enough, and do not knit together different elements across the region.

Telford needs to be driving for growth. We have the capacity to do that, and the Government need to help us. I see nothing in yesterday’s Budget that will help us, and I hope they change course. They could have done a lot things, but a major measure would have been to cut VAT. VAT is sucking demand out of the economy, and they could have moved on that yesterday.

Jobs and Growth

David Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

It will be on top of the £75 billion. I have not gone through the QE and credit easing policies in detail today because I went through them in the House on Monday, but I would be happy to do so if Members like. QE is an operation undertaken by the Bank of England under the procedures established by my predecessor. The credit easing options that we are looking at involve the Treasury—or rather the Government—using its balance sheet to get money to small businesses either by purchasing securitised small loans, purchasing mid-cap company bonds in the bond market or issuing guarantees through the banking system. All those things currently happen in Britain, but on a very small scale. Our intention is greatly to increase them, and I will set out the proposals in November.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Chancellor for letting me intervene. Would he be willing to release all the information relating to meetings and discussions that he had with the Governor of the Bank of England on introducing the latest phase of QE, and does he anticipate that we may need more?

[Mr Osborne]

No, and not even in my memoirs, because the conversations between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England should be confidential. However, let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about an entirely independent decision by the Monetary Policy Committee—not just the Governor of the Bank—and that I followed exactly the procedures established by my predecessor.

Amendment of the Law

David Wright Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

It is very important to understand that the enterprise zones will be allotted on the basis of innovation and ideas, not on the basis of Buggins’ turn. Having seen some of the industry leaders in the Coventry area, I am confident that their innovation and skills will make them a high priority in obtaining these zones; after all, Coventry and Warwickshire is one of the leading local enterprise partnerships in the country.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that several new towns still have areas of land that are, in essence, controlled by Government. Would he be willing to put some of those land holdings into the pot if local enterprise partnerships come up with schemes to promote growth in their areas?

[Mr Pickles]

It is certainly our intention to release an awful lot of Government land.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Last week’s Budget was delivered by a Chancellor who was quite frankly in denial about the impact of his Budget last year. He used to accuse the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), of being in a bunker, but the current Chancellor has not only gone into the bunker but has had it sound-proofed and cut off the phone lines. He is not listening to what is going on in the economy at all.

In my speech in last year’s Budget debate, I cited the example of Japan and the problems that the Japanese economy has had over the past 10 to 15 years. Of course our hearts go out to the people of Japan after what has happened to them over the past few weeks, but it is interesting to see how their economy has behaved over the past 10 to 15 years. We have seen a series of growth figures that just bump along the bottom. There has been no significant stimulus in the economy there, and this country is in real danger of following Japan’s example.

It is clear that the Chancellor has not taken into account the impact of last year’s Budget on confidence in the economy, on the housing market and on the jobs situation in constituencies such as mine. He has gone on to build on the problems that he has already created in the UK economy.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Wright]

I will not.

In the Budget, we have seen that growth estimates have gone down for last year, this year and next year. Borrowing is up by £43.4 billion, and debt interest will be £17.6 billion higher. According to the Chancellor’s forecast, unemployment will go up by up to 200,000 every single year until 2015. That is a significant price for people to have to pay for what I believe are the sado-monetarist views of this Chancellor.

We have seen a massive squeeze on living standards right across the board. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) rightly spoke of the impact of inflation on the economy. People see it every time they go to their local supermarket as the costs of the core products that they buy rise significantly. There is an impact on the cost of food, as well as significant rises in the cost of fuel. It is interesting that the Chancellor’s much-heralded policy for cutting fuel costs was destroyed within two days of the Budget, when I saw a gentleman arguing with the staff in my local Sainsbury’s filling station. He said, “Hasn’t the price of petrol gone down?” and they said, “Yes, it went down on Budget day, but we put it back up again the day after.” That policy was blown out of the water as soon as it was announced, and, anyway, the Chancellor had already put a 3p a litre rise in the price of petrol into the system through the VAT increase.

It was interesting to listen to the Chancellor’s speech. It contained a complicated segment at the beginning on tax thresholds, which he went through very quickly. That was because it contained all the clawbacks relating to the changes in tax thresholds, following the debate on the consumer prices index and the retail prices index and the announcements of all the cash that he was giving out—actually, he did not give out that much cash; he gave out a bit. All the cash that went out had already been clawed back in the measures announced at the start of his speech. The impact of his decisions in last year’s Budget was that the average family with a child would be paying about £450 a year more in VAT anyway, so he had already wiped out any goodies to be given away in this year’s Budget by the approach he took last year.

There has been much debate about youth unemployment. The corporation tax cut from the Chancellor is one way of proceeding for a Budget strategy, but I believe he could have done something far more radical: instead of giving away that corporation tax cut, he could have spent the cash on a massive programme of employment, training and support for young people in the economy. He could have made that choice and, as I say, invested the money in training and skills for young people.

The Red Book is useful for looking at the Government’s overall strategy. The table on page 12 is headed “International consensus on fiscal consolidation”. It shows that we are up there as consolidators-in-chief with France, Turkey, Canada and Spain. There is, however, a significant outlier on this table—it is the United States. The table suggests that the US is going to move its fiscal consolidation position significantly next year, but I have my doubts. Let me explain what I think is going on.

I believe that the US is looking more carefully at where its economy is and is planning significant investment to lift its people out of recession. Obama’s programme on public spending and expenditure right across the board shows that he is not pursuing a strategy of significant fiscal consolidation, and I doubt whether he will next year either. He is trying to ensure that his economy recovers throughout this period of downturn and that it does not go into significant levels of depression.

Finally, the enterprise zones are positive, but infrastructure investment has to be put in place alongside them; otherwise, they will not work and local economies will be blighted. This is a Chancellor who has got it generally wrong in the Budget. He needs to change his strategy and adopt a plan B very—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Comprehensive Spending Review

David Wright Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

How could I miss the hon. Gentleman? I will explain the answer to his question as I make progress in my speech. He will just have to listen carefully.

Our priorities—growth, fairness and reform—guide every choice that we make. We are a pro-growth Government, focusing our capital resources on key infrastructure projects in transport and green energy.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

rose—

Finance Bill

David Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones]

Indeed—that is correct. What is more worrying is that linked with that is the Government’s failure to provide in the Bill any hope or assistance for British firms that want to compete in the global market and create jobs in the long term. It is a tale of two cities: on the one hand, there is the City of London; on the other, there is Sheffield—what the Deputy Prime Minister called throughout the election, “my city of Sheffield”. Well, we have seen what he plans for Sheffield—absolutely nothing. The Government’s attitude can be summed up in two words: Sheffield Forgemasters. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Budget that helps manufacturing industry in the long term.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

The problem with the Bill is that it is coupled with the total destruction of regional economic policy. It is not just Sheffield and the north-east that will suffer; every region will suffer because of the virtual destruction of the regional agencies that provide business support and advice and grants to businesses in communities such as Telford.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. The Bill goes with the destruction of the regional development agencies, which were vital to regions such as mine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said earlier, it goes with huge cuts in programmes such as Building Schools for the Future, which were vital to the construction industry in our area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I remain agnostic about the process whereby the goal is achieved, but I wish him well with the aim and share his view, because the issue affects the very rural communities of west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in the same way as it affects the Scottish islands.

[David Wright]

rose—

[Andrew George]

I am going to draw my remarks to a close, so I will take no further interventions. My proposal was purely for VAT impact assessments, and through questions to Ministers, I am seeking further information on the impact of the VAT increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

The hon. Gentleman is new to the House—and he might well be new to politics—but I am sure that, if he looks in his history books and reads all the quotes, he will find that most parties going into an election do not rule out such an increase, unlike in the foolish statements made on “Newsnight” by the now Prime Minister and during the general election by the Liberal Democrats.

Now there is trouble at’ mill—we have some problems here—because Sir Alan Budd has resigned. Can anyone tell me how a man who only a short while ago described his job as

“the most exciting challenge of my professional life”

can have given up so quickly? This man must have the most exciting job coming up to give up such a prospect already. How have we lost the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility so quickly? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) can tell me whether there is a revolving door at the Treasury. We lost the first Chief Secretary to the Treasury and now we have lost the head of the OBR. They are going in and out so quickly that, if they have not got a revolving door, they should put one in pretty quick. It would make it much more efficient for people when leaving their posts so quickly.

What has changed Sir Alan Budd’s mind? Has he changed his mind? The Treasury is assuming that growth in the private sector will create 2.5 million jobs in the next five years to compensate for the spending squeeze. Can the Minister tell me when since the second world war the private sector has ever grown that quickly? When has it ever created that many jobs? We have had unprecedented growth over the past 13 years, and it only just created that many jobs in that period. How can these projections point towards the creation of 2.5 million jobs? Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are going to tell us, because they had a cup of tea with the Governor of the Bank of England, after which we saw a miraculous turnaround—perhaps there was something in the tea. Perhaps they can now explain to us what was said that convinced them that miraculous growth in the private sector was going to solve this country’s economic problems, as we undergo the most unprecedented assault on the state ever attempted in peacetime.

We have also seen figures leaked from the Treasury. The Government expect between 500,000 and 600,000 jobs to go in the public sector and between 600,000 and 700,000 to disappear in the private sector up to 2015, but how is it that the figures leaked from the Treasury contradicted the figures from the OBR? I am wondering about that, so perhaps someone can give me an answer, because the figures are compiled by the very same people. Treasury officials compile the figures for the OBR, and the leaked figures are from the Treasury. I am therefore a little bit confused, but perhaps somebody can explain that one for me—perhaps the Liberal Democrats have an answer for us, as they are so enthusiastic about the Budget.

The Chancellor has said that some have suggested that there is a choice between dealing with our debts and going for growth, but that this is a false choice, and I agree with him. There is indeed a choice, as Sir Alan Budd also agrees. However, the OBR actually agreed with the figures for growth based on our March Budget and the figures for unemployment; in fact, it considered our figures to be conservative. The March Budget statement was also able to announce that debt had been reduced by £11 billion, which is an important point. The debt had been reduced because there was more income tax, more national insurance, more VAT income and more tax from businesses. A further announcement was made subsequent to the general election, with a further reduction of £5 billion, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill referred in his opening speech for the Opposition.

[David Wright]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, on the basis of the growth figures and cutbacks in public spending that he has outlined, the real danger in the Budget is not that we will see a double-dip recession—none of us wants that to happen—but that we will end up repeating the Japanese model, bumping along the bottom in terms of growth and inflation, without seeing a significant improvement in the position of the economy? That is particularly dangerous at a time when we are making savage cuts in public spending.

[Clive Efford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There are plenty of eminent economists saying that this is not the time to draw back the fiscal stimulus.

However, the point that I want to make is that the reduction in the debt that the then Chancellor was able to announce in the March Budget was due to the intervention of the Government. There was less unemployment, we were paying out less in unemployment benefit, and there were more people in work and more businesses; therefore, the tax income was higher than had been predicted, indicating that the way through the recession is not this austere Budget, but continuing with the stimulus until growth is stronger.

However, the worrying thing now is that, following the emergency Budget, businesses are starting to question whether growth is on its way. As the Financial Times has said:

“Britain’s…services sector expanded in June…at the slowest rate in 10 months…The Markit/CIPS UK services Purchasing Managers Index…for June was weaker than consensus forecasts among economists, showing a 54.4 headline reading, down from 55.4 in May. Economists had expected a more modest decline…of 55…It was the weakest reading since August 2009…Business expectations went from a reading of 72.1…to 64…The Services PMI is particularly closely watched because it accounts for the greatest share of private sector business output…‘Worrying signs for the UK service sector appeared in June as growth slowed in response to another below par increase in new business…Confidence declined to the greatest extent in 14 years of data collection in reaction to the government’s austere emergency budget, with concern expressed that the fiscal tightening could push the country back into recession.’”

According to the Financial Times:

“The Purchasing Managers’ Index figures came in amid signs that global manufacturing took a hit in June, with China, the US and the eurozone all seeing weaker growth in the sector. The report on exports came as a survey of credit conditions by the UK Bank of England underlined the concern at the prospects for demand in the UK. Credit conditions were expected to deteriorate by the most since the first quarter of 2009, when the recession was at its deepest.”

What we are seeing there is the extreme concern in the business sector since the Budget was announced—[Interruption.] I hope the Liberal Democrats are listening to this. The construction sector in particular accounts for 10% of our GDP, and public sector expenditure accounts for 40% of the construction industry. The announcement yesterday—such as it was—from the Secretary of State for Education that he was drastically cutting back on schemes such as Building Schools for the Future will make it even more difficult for the Government to deliver growth in employment and growth in the private sector, because they are rowing in completely the opposite direction.