Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Ed Balls and Paul Flynn

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

The Government inherited a deficit reduction plan from the previous Government, but the Chancellor is wildly off track from our plan, which he used to call irresponsible. He is borrowing pretty much a quarter of a trillion pounds more. He said that he would get the deficit down, but the deficit reduction plan has stalled.

I have urged the Chancellor to change course, as in recent months have the International Monetary Fund, The Economist, the Mayor of London, the Business Secretary and the Home Secretary. They have all cast doubt on his plan. But yesterday we got more of the same. How did he describe the Budget? He described it as a “steady-as-she-goes Budget.” Steady as she goes? What kind of ship does he think he is on: the Titanic; the Mary Celeste?

There were some welcome measures. We have consistently called for a tax break for small firms taking on extra workers. The Government are now set to introduce a similar scheme, three years after the shadow Business Secretary and I urged them to. That is a welcome step forward. The Chancellor has finally joined Twitter, five years after I did. Maybe he will find out that his plan is going to fail five years after I worked it out, although by then he will be on the Opposition side of the House.

Yesterday there was no proper plan to kick-start our economy, no bank bonus tax to fund a youth jobs guarantee, no real action to get lending going to small firms, no proper investment in affordable homes and no return of the 10p starting rate to help millions of people, paid for by a mansions tax. Despite the welcome small change of 1p off a pint of beer—buy 320 pints and get one free, which might even be too much for the Foreign Secretary—and even after the increase in the personal allowance, an important point for the Liberal Democrats, families will still be worse off next year compared with this year because of the Chancellor’s tax and benefit changes.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

With all the voodoo economics and fiddles that have now been exposed, is not the Treasury exposed as the most disreputable massage parlour in Britain?

[Ed Balls]

I think it is a little unfair to tease this Chancellor about what goes on late at night in massage parlours. Perhaps he will correct me and tell me that it was not a massage parlour. I will take an intervention if he would like to clarify it; I cannot remember that chapter in the biography.

According to House of Commons Library figures, a one-earner family—[Interruption.] The Chancellor should listen to the reality of his plans and their impact on hard-working families in our country. According to the Library, a one-earner family on £20,000 a year with two children will be £381 a year worse off in 2013 compared with 2010, even with the personal allowance, because that is outweighed by the hit to tax credits for a working family. This is without taking into account the rise in VAT. By 2015, that family on £20,000 will be £600 a year worse off.

It is not just a case of being worse off under the Tories, but worse off under the Liberal Democrats too. In 16 days’ time, as the Chancellor, with the support of the Business Secretary, rams through the granny tax, the strivers tax and the bedroom tax, he is pressing ahead with a £3 billion tax cut for the very richest people in our country. In two weeks’ time, 13,000 millionaires will get an average tax cut of £100,000 each. Millions are paying more while millionaires get a tax cut.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Ed Balls and Paul Flynn

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

What concerns me is not the fall in expenditure over the past 10 or 20 years, which most people would consider sensible—notwithstanding the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—but the fact that we are set to see real-terms rises in the years ahead. That is where we should focus our scrutiny.

On the other hand—on the side of the ledger that does not feature efficiency savings—we are seeing rising pressures on the royal family. As I said a couple of weeks ago, the combination of the success of the wonderful royal wedding and the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and the USA, following Her Majesty’s historic visit to Ireland, has resulted in a rise in both the popularity of the royal family and the demands on them around the world, and that trend is set to continue. It is important that we scrutinise whether the resources that are in place are sufficient and right.

I raised in the last debate the fact that it has been reported that a number of members of the royal family have had their security reduced or removed over the past year. I accept the Chancellor’s assurances that there are no concerns in that regard, but it was right that we raised the issue. We have tabled amendments to clauses 2 and 4 that are designed to ensure both that there would be full and independent scrutiny of all the different aspects of royal expenditure, including the level of the grant and, more widely, value for money and the effective spending of resources across the piece, and that the National Audit Office would have sufficient powers and resources to do that job. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked about wider expenditure outside the sovereign grant. As I understand it, it should now properly come within the purview of the NAO to look across the piece. In our upcoming debate on those clauses, perhaps we could receive an assurance that the NAO will be able to look at all the budgets, not just this particular one. Clearly, the NAO will not be able to reach a judgment on value for money in terms of royal household expenditure under this grant unless it can do so in the context of the other expenditures by Government Departments for the royal household. It is important to maintain royal protection and security, but protecting value for money is also important. The NAO and the Public Accounts Committee will need to respond to the issue my hon. Friend has raised and make sure they can see the full picture. I say again that we seek assurances in the upcoming debate on those clauses that the NAO will be able to look right across the royal household’s expenditures, rather than only at the expenditure financed by the sovereign grant.

The Chancellor has moved very much in our direction on our second issue. I argued a couple of weeks ago that, given the historic importance of these reforms and the inevitable uncertainties at the beginning of a new financing regime, Parliament would need to keep a closer eye on the arrangements. I also said that that needed to be consistent with the Chancellor’s proper desire to give the royal household stability and certainty. In our judgment, waiting seven years for a review, and certainly seven years for the first review, was too long. In our amendments to clause 7, we propose that the first review should happen in the period up to April 2015—three years from now—with five-yearly reviews after that. The Chancellor has gone pretty much to where we would like to be on these matters. Therefore, we thank him for taking our concerns seriously and making sure Parliament will be able to take an early view on these arrangements.

On our third issue, however, I have a continuing concern, which has prompted our amendment 8 to clause 7. The issue is the level of profits from the Crown Estate. The Chancellor has told the House that

“we need a funding mechanism that prevents the sovereign coming to Parliament each year for resources, and that provides funding broadly in line with the growth of the economy…There will be a cash floor to protect the monarch from cash cuts, but basically the monarch will do as well as the economy is doing.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1146.]

We do not know that the figure of 15% of Crown revenues will prove to rise in line with the overall performance of the economy. That obviously depends on the performance of the Crown Estate and Crown revenues. As I pointed out, the Crown Estate income from renewables grew by 44% in the year 2009-10, and it is widely expected to increase again in future years because of the financial potential of the exploitation of wind and tidal energy on the foreshore around the country.

The Crown Estate’s annual report describes current growth as “exponential” and growth over the next 10 years as “significant”. Given the potentially significant changes in income from renewables and, perhaps, wider sources, as well as the prospect that this could lead to an unintended rise in either reserves or, as described in the Bill, simply the overall level of expenditure, it is important that the proposals are robust in meeting significant unintended rises in revenues.

Some have called for a cap on the overall level of the sovereign grant. Instead, we have tabled amendment 8, which would require the trustees to review the arrangements if the Crown Estate’s income were to rise faster in the previous financial year than the underlying trend growth rate of the economy. I think that the public would expect the trustees to review matters immediately if revenues were to rise much faster than had been expected. I also think that the amendment is fully consistent not only with the spirit of the Chancellor’s reforms, but with their detailed intention, as he set out in his spending review speech. Therefore, I ask him to look at the issue again over the next hour and a half. Our proposal is fully consistent with protecting stability for the monarchy and the proper role of Parliament in scrutinising the arrangements. In order to ensure that his reforms are implemented as he intended, we should agree to the amendment.

[Paul Flynn]

As I understand it, the royal trustees are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. Does my right hon. Friend not think that we would get a more balanced decision if Members of this House were represented among the trustees? They would give a much better opinion than the establishment one on this issue.

[Ed Balls]

It is obviously nostalgic for me to be back in Committee debating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the Dispatch Box, although I would remind my hon. Friend—these moments have been rare in my parliamentary career—that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are both Members of this House. Therefore, they are representatives of both the Government and the House of Commons in those discussions. The important thing is that the trustees should not be able to sit on their hands if there is an unexpected surge in revenues that is faster than the trend growth rate of the economy. When the trustees produce a report, Parliament should be able to scrutinise it properly, after a report of the NAO. The latter is clearly set out in the Bill, but at the moment, whether there is a review in the five-year period is at the discretion of the trustees. Parliament should legislate today to say, “If you see something happening to revenues that is outside the Chancellor’s intentions as clearly set out by him, then there should be an immediate review.” It would still be for the trustees to decide what recommendation to make. We are not imposing a cap, because although some would like that, it would be outside the Chancellor’s intentions. I said from the beginning that I would support his reforms, and our amendment 8 delivers his reforms in detail. Therefore, I hope that he will reconsider and support our amendment.

Civil List

Debate between Ed Balls and Paul Flynn

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I was in no way criticising the approach that has been taken. I was simply noting the rather odd situation that we are in: I am able to say some things that, potentially, nobody else fully understands because they have not had the briefing from the Chancellor that I had, but I totally understand the Chancellor’s position.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As this announcement has been described as “important”, a disappointingly small number of Members are in the Chamber. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when he first heard that this announcement would be made today?