Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

Is the right hon. Lady really saying that I am misleading the House? I spoke to the head of the OBR last Friday, and he said to me that if the Government agree by the end of June, we can proceed and these obstacles can be overcome. In his view, the issues that the Minister is raising about resourcing and independence can all be resolved if she chooses to do so. Is she really saying that I am misleading—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Interventions must be brief; the point has been made. I call the Minister.

The Economy and Living Standards

Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Ellwood, that is not a point of order; that is continuing the debate. You have had three chances at it: three strikes and you’re out—no more.

[Ed Balls]

It is also completely pathetic. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the number of young people aged between 18 and 24 claiming JSA who have been out of work for more than 12 months has gone up by 700%. As I said a moment ago, you either bury your head in the sand, or you face up to these big issues. We are facing up to them, but Government Members are incapable of doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Sit down, Mr Ellwood. [Laughter.] This is a serious debate. Mr Ellwood, I am sure that you have very broad shoulders, and you will give your all when you get your turn to speak, perhaps in interventions on the Chancellor.

[Ed Balls]

I am trying to respond to serious issues. The reality is that, yes, after three years of flatlining, our economy is finally growing again, but net lending to small business is still falling, youth unemployment is still at record highs, wages are not keeping pace with prices and people are worse off. What I want to say is that unless we face up to that reality, we will not make progress. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Ellwood, I can hear what you are saying. Actually, I agree that the way in which the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) referred to you was uncalled for. You are an honourable Member of this House, and I am sure that Mr Austin wants to make it clear that that is his view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No. I am not going to take a point of order; I am going to listen to what Mr Balls has to say. This is getting ridiculous.

[Ed Balls]

As I said, the first wrongheaded thing to do is to bury one’s head in the sand and not to face up to the reality. We can debate the Chancellor’s record. In 2010, he said that he would balance the Budget in 2015, but the deficit will be £75 million. He said that he would make people better off, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010. He said that we would all be in this together, but he has imposed the bedroom tax on the most vulnerable, seen record numbers go to food banks and cut the top rate of income tax for those earning more than £150,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Speaker was very clear in his guidance earlier that we should speak to the amendment. I am struggling to find in the amendment any mention of a European referendum.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Fortunately, that is a matter for me, and not the hon. Lady. The clear argument that is being advanced is about the importance of that matter to the economy. As long as the right hon. Gentleman stays on that point, he is in order.

[Ed Balls]

The argument that I am making is that if we as a House—those of us on the left and on the right—are to face up to the challenge of delivering more and better jobs for working people and if we are to see off the pressures for isolation and withdrawal, we cannot take the wrong-headed approach either of denying that there is a problem or of appeasing those who would try to walk away. We need a Queen’s Speech that rises to that challenge. My point is that, in putting all its energy into Europe and the referendum, the Conservative party has the wrong strategy to deal with the challenge that we face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

Will the Chancellor like to tell the House how many people went into negative equity after 2007, and how that compares with the number of people—the tens of thousands—who were put into negative equity after the Conservative housing crash of 1989? If he is going to make these statements he ought to be able to make them stand up. While we are here, will he tell us—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

No, no, no. Mr Balls, sit down. Not “While we are here.” One point at a time.

[Mr Osborne]

The right hon. Gentleman’s argument seems to be, “My crash was better than your crash.” That is a brilliant argument. I will tell him the answer. He was going to remove a temporary scheme that protects people from mortgage costs when they become unemployed. I extended it year after year after year. I have extended it again in the Budget to make sure that people do not find themselves having their homes repossessed. Can I also tell him that the housing market fell by almost 20%? The price of houses fell and there were people at Northern Rock—[Interruption.] His argument is literally, “I’m sorry we messed it up, but you messed it up in the past as well.” That is an absolutely hopeless argument. I have learned the lesson from the terrible mistake—

Economic Growth

Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

For precisely the reason that I gave in an earlier answer—and I have to say that I am not sure that the public like to hear us repeating ourselves.

Let me quote the words of another business organisation, London First. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] I will answer the question. London First—[Interruption.] London First—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We have a long afternoon ahead of us. It would be good to hear everyone’s views on this subject, which means not shouting over speakers.

[Ed Balls]

No wonder the Prime Minister has gone to America, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is what he has to put up with.

Let me quote the words of London First—[Interruption]—which is my answer.

“The announcement that a referendum on our membership of the EU may be held in a few years’ time, dependent on the result of the next General Election, risks condemning the UK economy to several years of further uncertainty.”

London First is completely right. We can see why the Prime Minister is so worried. If that is the kind of support he has, no wonder he is in trouble.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order, Mr Balls.

Order means order for Front Benchers on the Government side as well. I understand that the Attorney-General is trying to be helpful to the House, but he has made several interventions, they have all been too long and I hope that we can move on now with the debate.

[Ed Balls]

rose—

Banking Reform

Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me begin by thanking the Minister for notice of today’s Treasury statement on the vital issue of banking reform. The reforms are so important that—we read in the newspapers—they are to be the subject of the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech tonight.

The Minister said the statement was serious, and I am sure Opposition Members and Government Members will all be thinking: “Why is the Chancellor not making it?” Should I call him the part-time Chancellor? He was able to spend the afternoon on the Government Bench yesterday to support the embattled Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, but he is seemingly unwilling, despite media trails, to come to the House today. What is the Chancellor running scared of? Is he too busy this week on his other duties to be the Chancellor, or is the truth that he is ducking answering the questions because—once again—he is not on top of the details of his brief?

There are questions to answer. Last September, the Opposition welcomed the report by Sir John Vickers and the Independent Commission on Banking, which sets out radically to reshape our banking industry. We urged the Government to implement the reforms without foot-dragging or watering them down, but I fear that watering down is where we are heading. Is not the truth that, having failed to secure international agreement in Brussels and Basel on tougher international banking standards, the Chancellor is now being forced to water down and fudge the Vickers reforms?

That is one area in which the Opposition would not welcome a U-turn from the Chancellor. The Minister will say in his response that I am wrong, and that there is no U-turn, just as Ministers said we were wrong to spot U-turns on pasties, caravans, churches, charities and skips, but a pattern is emerging with this Chancellor. He declares, “This Chancellor is not for turning,” and then sends along a hapless junior Minister to do the job for him. We can ask the Exchequer Secretary all about that.

If the Chancellor is not watering down Vickers, why will he not agree to the Opposition’s request to ask the Vickers commission to come back this autumn and publish an independent report on progress in implementing its reforms in the past 12 months? The Chancellor could publish that report alongside the autumn statement, when he will have to come to the House to explain why his failing economic plan has plunged our economy back into recession. That is one area where a U-turn would be warmly welcome.

On progress against the three tests for banking reform, first, to protect taxpayers, the Opposition support the Vickers conclusion that banking services should be safeguarded and ring-fenced. In November 2006, the Minister told the House that

“light-touch…regulation is in the interests of the”

financial

“sector globally.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 995.]

May I ask this champion of light-touch regulation to explain why, contrary to Vickers, it is right to allow retail banks inside the ring fence to trade in derivatives and hedging products, which are among the controversial interest rate swap products that many small firms complain they were mis-sold in recent years? I have said many times that the previous Government got bank regulation wrong. Those on the Government Front Bench also got it wrong, but they are getting it wrong again. The Chancellor should be careful about leaving the door too wide open.

The Opposition agree with the Vickers view that we need a minimum leverage ratio and higher equity requirements for larger ring-fenced banks, but will the Minister confirm that the Chancellor is setting a lower minimum leverage ratio than the Vickers commission recommended, and that he is departing from the recommendation that larger banks should have tougher rules?

The Chancellor implied in December that he would mandate those services specifically within the ring fence to provide clarity and certainty. Can the Minister explain why the Chancellor is now delegating that detailed task to the Bank of England—the regulator—and not putting it in primary legislation? Will the Chancellor—or, on his behalf, the Minister—commit to inserting in the Bill the requirement that large UK retail banks should have equity capital of at least 10%? Is not the real problem that the Chancellor is not in the driving seat on this agenda?

That takes me to our second test, on international agreements. In December, I asked the Chancellor whether he was confident that he would get the necessary international and EU-wide agreements to implement Vickers. The answer is that he has not succeeded in delivering that. The Chancellor himself said at last month’s ECOFIN, when he refused to agree to an EU statement on capital requirements, that they would

“make me look like an idiot”—

a muttering idiot perhaps! Two weeks later, though, he signed up to exactly the same deal. The problem is that there remains the risk that he will be overruled by the EU.

There is a wider problem. We agree with the Chancellor that the UK should not contribute to a eurozone-wide deposit insurance scheme, but the Commission’s proposals go much wider and are said to be intended to apply to the 27. The Chancellor gives the impression that he has a veto on the plans, so that they would apply only to the 17. Will the Minister tell us, then, whether the proposals for Europe-wide banking supervision will be subject to qualified majority voting under existing treaties, and will he tell us how the Chancellor is doing in building alliances across the EU to ensure that British interests are properly protected and that Vickers is implemented?

That brings me to my final test: the impact on growth and the wider economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I hope that the shadow Chancellor will be brief, given how much of the time allocation he has already taken.

[Ed Balls]

I shall put my questions briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only regret that I cannot put these questions to the Chancellor because he has not turned up.

We have consistently urged the Chancellor to take a swifter approach to competition and to have a growth objective for the new Financial Policy Committee. We and the CBI agree on that, but the Chancellor will not listen. The problem is that in those circumstances Vickers implementation could lead to a continuing impact on business lending at the expense of small businesses.

To conclude, we set three tests for Vickers, but on each one the Government are failing, causing uncertainty where we need confidence, lending and growth. They are failing to take the lead on reforms in the EU, and fudging and watering down proper taxpayer protection. We need a Chancellor who can do the economics, grip the detail and work full time on the job—someone who at least turns up in the House and answers questions on this vital issue.

Police Funding

Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I will happily take this opportunity to say that I wrote to Sir Denis O’Connor yesterday on the matter, and I copied the letter to the Policing Minister. In that letter I say that I have not criticised—and will not criticise—the 11% statistic, which was drawn up by HMIC. What I have consistently criticised is the way in which that statistic has been used, in a misleading and smearing way, by Ministers—the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Policing Minister—to do down the important work of the police. The Minister says that 11% of the time is spent on visible policing, with the other 89% wasted on bureaucracy. That excludes people working on organised crime, in CID, on domestic violence, or on child abuse. That is the smear.

Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I just read out the HMIC report, which says:

“A re-design of the system…has the potential”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he was making an intervention. I think that he has made his point, and the intervention was getting a little long. It would be very helpful if when putting forcefully the arguments on either side of the House, all Members could avoid casting any aspersions on the correctness of another person’s view.

[Nick Herbert]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly agree with that. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has been caught out—