Oral Answers to Questions
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
I anticipate that there will be a need to fund UK Government gilt issuance for the foreseeable future, but I understand my hon. Friend’s point and I would be happy to discuss it with him.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I am sure you will allow me to extend my congratulations to the Chancellor. He will remember that I welcomed him as a very fresh-faced Back Bencher to the 1997 Budget, when he already showed great promise, which he has more than fulfilled now. Does he agree that the major current threat—there are many—from Brexit is in fact the interruption to investment in British industry and in Britain, and therefore that the purchase by SoftBank of ARM is to be welcomed? In view of the undertakings that ARM has given, that is the best antidote to the prevailing doubts.
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is right and I thank him for his kind words. We need to remind ourselves that we are running a 6.9% of GDP external account deficit, and that has to be funded somehow. It has been funded by an extraordinarily successful run of foreign direct investment into the UK—more than into any other country in the European Union. That has slowed as uncertainty around the referendum has been created. We now need to generate the confidence to allow it to resume.
Equitable Life
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman
I do not normally agree with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), but he has said:
“They were not like the people who put their savings into outfits offering dubious and extraordinary returns, such as those who decided to chance their savings with the Icelandic banks. The Equitable policyholders are in their current position through absolutely no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 781.]
He went on to say that those at fault were Equitable Life, the Government and the regulator.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on keeping this very important issue live. He must be aware that there will never be a right time in the Government finances to put this matter right. The Treasury may have made a small budgetary surplus over and above what it expected in January, but the fact is that the Treasury debt is still huge. It is as simple as that.
The only way round this problem is to say that there will never be a financially right time, only a morally right time. That time is now, given the long lag, which has been characterised by denials and evasions. They also occurred in the contaminated blood scandal, which was perhaps even worse. The only way to deal with this is to pay the £115 million that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, and to have a clear statement about future year-by-year reductions in the outstanding £2.8 billion, which the Equitable Life policyholders have wholly earned and wholly deserve. They should be awarded the whole amount, because that is the only way in which this dreadful ill can be rectified.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) was almost the sole individual on the Labour Benches during the Labour Government who promoted a compensation scheme. I commend him for his efforts to get his Government to introduce one. I wish that other Labour Members had promoted such schemes.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I shall confine myself to the reduced speaking time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and in doing so, I shall pay only short tributes to those who have secured this timely and necessary debate. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has followed this issue—as I have followed similar issues—through several Parliaments, and that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has, in a very determined and concentrated fashion, made it a priority since his election on the basis of a very strong campaign on the subject.
Several aspects of this issue must make us uncomfortable. We can all respond, in a way, to the emotive interjection of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who called for immediate full payment and said that there was no alternative. That makes us all feel very good. However, I wonder what impact the debate will have on the many pension holders who are wondering whether we can improve on the present situation. We must not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made clear, give false hope. We are dealing with recalcitrance in the machinery of government and although we are entirely rightly approaching this on an all-party basis, which it is important for us to maintain, it is clear that for some reason, although there is a will to do this among Ministers it is held up because the machinery of government initially does not want to admit guilt, and at a later stage has to constrain things and uses the grounds of the public purse to do so. That will happen whatever state the public purse is in: other priorities will rank higher and there will be other things we need to do. We will be told we must look to the future and, above all, we must not create precedents. I say to the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who was a Minister, that they will find that the roadblocks put up by the machinery of government are almost insuperable. However, I believe that there is a way through in this case.
Many Members have referred to the Penrose committee and to the ombudsman’s report. There was a very clear statement, the like of which I do not think I have seen in my time in the House, about a total and comprehensive failure of regulation. There are no ifs, no buts and no extenuating circumstances, just an admission of failure and of incompetence on the part of Government that should be put right. I believe that it can be put right and think that there is a measure for doing so.
The great thing about this debate is that there is no doubt about the figures. I cannot see anybody disputing the figures, not even the Treasury. The total is £4.3 billion and the Government have pledged £1.5 billion. Without damaging the present deficit, £115 million would enable us to deal with the most chronic, the most aged and the least well-off of the pension holders. They could be dealt with straight from the contingency of about £100 million that is committed in the Government deficit, as is the total £1.5 billion. That is all in the deficit—it has to be for the Government to commit it. In my day, a commitment to spend counted as expenditure in the year it was committed, not in the year it was paid out. That might have changed, but it is a commitment and it will have been taken into account in the Budget this year. In my opinion, the whole amount could have been taken into the year in which it was committed and future Government projections will certainly all have it in.
Without any effect on the Government deficit, we could pay off the clearly identified with £115 million straight away and we could look at the as yet unspent £500 million. That would make a big start, although it would not go all the way. I share the emotion expressed by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds and could speak about it with the same intensity as he did, but the fact is that £500 million is there. There is £115 million to deal with the worst cases. Let us get that paid out. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East—this seems very much to be his idea—that we should have it in the party manifestos. There might not be great hope of that, but why not try? I will certainly support it with my party and I am sure that he will with his. I am not sure what success we will have, but we should support that.
Beyond that, we are dealing with a further £2.3 billion. I do not think that we should consider a time period of any more than three years. We must be precise, so that unlike with the contaminated blood scandal, when the Government could sit back and say that having caused those people’s deaths they would die sooner or later, this does not become a terminal problem. We cannot wait that long. That money should be timetabled, committed and spent within three years of the new Government taking office. That is a proposal on which I think we can unite. We could bring most policy holders into it and it is doable.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Members who secured the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), I have signed the pledge. This is not a phrase that often falls from my lips, but that was the right thing to do under those circumstances and it is right for Governments to keep their pledges. I know that there are constraints in Government and having served as a member of this Government I am conscious of the economic pressures, and I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) about the fact that periodically civil servants come to Ministers with rather convenient escape clauses, but the job of Ministers is sometimes not to accept such escape clauses.
I am speaking on the basis that this is a Government who are committed to markets and to stability and confidence in our markets. I believe in that. The financial services sector and insurance sector are a critical part of our markets. I speak as secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on wholesale financial markets and services. For the markets to work efficiently, there must be proper and secure regulation and when there is a failure in regulation there must be genuine certainty of recompense to those who have done no wrong, because otherwise honest and sensible investment is deterred. That is the risk if we do not do justice to the Equitable Life policyholders. What message would that send? We all say that it is right to invest prudently and wisely for one’s future and any such message would be against the philosophy of my Government and, I hope, against the philosophy of any responsible Government. In the long-term, it is in the interests of good economics and good financial planning that we do justice to the Equitable Life policyholders.
The motion is sensibly and moderately phrased. We are not saying that everything can be done at once, but that in the course of the Parliament this ought to be done. It might be that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Coventry North West is part of that. I will not be tied to an exact time frame, but it is particularly important that the oldest—the pre-1992 people—are given priority. It is also important to recognise that although the Government are picking up something that did not happen on their watch, part of being in government is that one has to deal with the consequences of what one inherits and has to do so fairly. Happily, thanks to the policies of this Government, the economy is improving. It is not unreasonable against that background to expect those people who have made a sacrifice, in that their fair recompense has been delayed, to share some of the fruits of that economic recovery.
Mr Robinson
I know that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to interject any sort of difference between party or Government, but what he said was not right. The lack of regulation and the failure of the policies happened under a Conservative Government’s watch. We must get away from mentioning Governments, as this affects all parties and all Governments over the period of the failure.
Robert Neill
I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but he misunderstands what I was saying. Regardless of party, there is an obligation on Government, and I must say that the 13 years for which there was a Government of which he was a distinguished member cannot be entirely ignored. We all must pick up what we inherit from our predecessors, of whatever party, and we must put them right. That is the key and that is why I agree that having done the history we need to move on and find a sensible way forward.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Will the hon. Gentleman, who has experience at the Treasury, confirm that Labour’s economic policy is to borrow more?
Mr Robinson
The Chancellor is asking us to be honest and state our position. Will he tell us what he said today? A few moments ago, he clearly said—we can all check Hansard tomorrow—that he had not gone any slower on reducing the deficit. He said that word for word. We are simply inviting him to clarify his remark—to tell us it is not correct, that we must have misheard, or that he will correct Hansard. Whatever he does, will he clarify his position? He is clearly totally out of order.
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman can check Hansard now if he likes. I was clear that we stuck to our spending plans—we did not go faster, we did not go slower—and reduced the deficit by a half, and we are going to carry on with the job.
Ed Balls
He is. As my hon. Friend says, not only has the Chancellor overspent in this Parliament, but he is promising £12 billion of further cuts in the next Parliament, and as the IFS made clear in December, his party has been totally unspecific about where any of those will fall, beyond the fact that they will be hitting the tax credits of working people.
Mr Robinson
If the Chancellor wanted to say 2017-18, why did he not say 2017-18, instead of using this convoluted third year of a five-year rolling average? By definition, we never get to it—that is probably what his policy really is.
Ed Balls
It is either a three-year rolling five-year target to avoid ever getting to be judged on it, or it is because he could not get his quad partners to agree with it before the autumn statement. We know from the letter from the OBR that the quad signed up to the spending cuts, but perhaps the quad did not quite sign up to the fiscal charter the Chancellor wanted.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and to see him so loyally supporting the present Chancellor. He does so against all the evidence, because I cannot think of a single target of any significance—apart from on unemployment, which we will come to in a moment—that this Government have achieved from what they set out to do in 2010. I think the shadow Chancellor wanted to set this proposal up—
Mr Robinson
I beg his pardon—the Chancellor, soon to be shadow Chancellor.
It is worth thinking briefly about why we are having this debate at all. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), I do not often agree with the TaxPayers Alliance, but on this I think the TPA has got it dead right. Mr Jonathan Isaby, the chief executive, says:
“This is a meaningless political gimmick of the most transparent kind, and one that serves only to remind taxpayers”—
of this Government’s failure. We will come to that in a minute, along with what happened under the Labour Government all those years ago. What the Chancellor always fails to mention is what happened on black Friday, when the Prime Minister, no less, was a senior adviser to the Treasury. That was only a few years before the period on which the Chancellor dwells with such delight, thinking it indicative of future events. What he is doing is meaningless.
The TaxPayers Alliance statement continues:
“This…serves only to remind taxpayers how dramatically the Chancellor has missed his own original targets.”
I could not agree more. The TPA says that
“Mr Osborne was right to call this legislative pantomime ‘vacuous’”—
and that is about what it is. Today, the right hon. Gentleman tried to turn this into a political, general election-type of debate—way ahead of the date of course—and to step up the temperature, but, quite simply, it backfired. The shadow Chancellor—and some of the Chancellor’s own Back Benchers—turned the tables on him. Much though the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, the former Chancellor, might try to make a case for the Government’s policy, the case simply does not stack up.
We will deal with unemployment in a moment, because that is very important. What single major target in the Government’s 2010 plan have they actually met? I know targets or aims—whatever one calls them—are difficult. The bigger the entity one tries to budget for and forecast, the bigger the difficulties get; we all know that. Some are hit and some are missed, but this Chancellor has missed every single target since 2010. Growth—apart from unemployment, which we will come back to—[Interruption.] All right, let us deal with it.
Why is it that, the unemployment target having been hit, tax receipts are so low? It is because all other parts of economic policy have failed and the Chancellor does not want to face up to it. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor gave the figures. Why are tax receipts so below what the Chancellor forecast, despite doing well on employment? It is because we have, despite what he says, a low-skill, low-wage economy. That is why tax receipts are much less than we would expect at this stage in the economic cycle. That is his failure, yet again.
Exports have failed. Growth has failed. The budget deficit has failed. Borrowing has failed. It is staggering: the Chancellor is borrowing £220 billion more than he forecast. He said he would eliminate the deficit, but what has he actually achieved? The deficit is still running at almost £100 billion a year. These are mind-boggling sums and it is a mind-boggling failure by the Chancellor that he has given us the opportunity today to debate. I hope he is regretting it. We are certainly enjoying it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, which chimes with my economic critique, but can he explain why this evening Labour Members will be voting with the Tories in favour of the motion and wedding themselves to more Tory austerity?
Mr Robinson
I have told the hon. Gentleman exactly why:
“This is a political gimmick of the most transparent kind”.
The Chancellor wants us to fall for his political gimmick. We are voting for it because we are not going to fall into the silly trap that he has tried to lay for us. It is pathetic. He could do much better and has done in the past. Today, he has done very badly and been caught out, and he should regret it.
There is a serious point, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the former Chancellor alluded when he talked about the underlying rate of growth of the economy. That has been with us for as long as I have been in the House, and indeed way before, when I was a researcher with the Labour party back in the 1960s. [Interruption.] We are not going there; the Chancellor can relax. The whole ill-fated national plan was based on the idea of upping the underlying rate of growth—the productive rate of growth—of the economy. That is still with us, even now, and this Chancellor has done nothing, but nothing, about it. That is what we are debating today: his failure as Chancellor, not that of any past failure of any previous Government. If he wants to go back, let us go back to his own Prime Minister and the black Friday disaster on which his own Prime Minister advised.
For us, this is about the future. We are fighting the next election and we will fight it on our plans. Why will the Chancellor not have them costed by the OBR? We do not need him to cost them at the Treasury. We have an independent body, which we set up and we supported, as we support the charter motion today. Why will the Chancellor not have our plans vetted? Why is he scared? It is because he knows they will be proven to be well costed, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has already said.
Taxation of Pensions Bill
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope the Minister will provide a clear steer to people about what would be acceptable both to employers and employees. I would also be interested to learn what he plans to do if the system turns out not to be fair and proportionate, and what form the monitoring will take. That is why we have proposed new clause 1. We did debate the matter in Committee, but we are still concerned that we have not heard exactly how the monitoring will take place and what the Minister intends to do.
Essentially, new clause 1 asks the Government to commit to doing something that the Minister has already said that they would do—to monitor and review the reforms to ensure that they are not used for the purpose of tax avoidance. We simply want that commitment in the Bill, to ensure that there are reports back to the House.
When we first debated the issue, concerns were raised about the time scale in which we were asking for the review. We had not, at that stage, fully anticipated how long it would be before patterns were established and problems had manifested themselves, which is why the new clause includes a two-year-time frame.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Did I hear my hon. Friend correctly when she said that the Minister was minded to carry out a review of precisely the areas that we have suggested in new clauses 1 and 2? If so, will the Minister make that clear in his reply to my hon. Friend, because then we could avoid a vote on the new clause?
Cathy Jamieson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said, we did have some of this debate in Committee. I know that the Minister, at various stages, has said that everything is under review and that all things are reviewed. What we seek to do is to put some structure around that so that all reports are brought back before the House.
I think I have made my point in previous Bill Committees and probably at the Dispatch Box as well. Even in my relatively short time in this place and on the Front Bench, I have seen Ministers come and go before my very eyes. I have no doubt that the Minister is concerned to ensure that he does the right thing and monitors what is happening, but it is important to have that commitment on behalf of the Government, which is why I have tabled the new clause.
New clause 2 would provide for a Treasury review of the Bill’s operation within 18 months of 6 April 2015. Such a review would include an analysis of its distributional impact by income decile, an analysis of the impact on Government revenues of changes to the taxation of pensions on death, a behavioural analysis and an analysis of the impact on the purchase of annuities. Any Bill that will have a significant impact on not only people’s lives, but the broader industry and the economy, must be based on evidence, engagement and analysis. We know from our probing in Committee why the Government announced the reforms without consultation, and the Minister explained his position on concerns about the impact on the market. However, it would be helpful to have some idea of whether the Government had carried out the behavioural analysis and impact assessment that we are requesting, and indeed of not only the extent to which that had been done, but what information they could set out. Those points have also been pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who worked tirelessly on the Pension Schemes Bill. That Bill includes provisions on the guidance guarantee, which is crucial to the Bill.
Mr Robinson
I am pleased to take part in the Report stage of a Bill that we discussed at some length in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) will know. She has led for us throughout with such conscientiousness and command of detail that we probably do not need to labour further the points that we have pressed on the Minister. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) has added to our thinking on new clause 2 by suggesting that the effect on the housing market, in particular, should be kept under strict review.
I fear that the Minister is not going to accept either new clause, so I ask him to make a clear statement on the areas where the Bill is likely to have an impact, with potentially severe economic consequences. In the light of the Chancellor’s autumn statement earlier today, we see just how severe the problems on the deficit and Government borrowing are. If the Bill is going to have a further major impact in terms of tax receipts—which are already disappointingly low, as the Minister himself must recognise, being very well acquainted with that area of the Treasury’s affairs—it needs to be regularly reviewed.
In pushing for the changes we propose, we are merely doing what any responsible Opposition may do. I am surprised that the Minister is so reticent about sharing these important matters with the House. As the hon. Member for Arfon said, the consequences in the housing market could be quite severe, particularly in the buy-to-rent sector. In Committee, I mentioned to him anecdotal information that I had received from the housing market in strongly Conservative areas such as Buckinghamshire. House prices are already rising, and this aspect needs to be reviewed.
The point that we made very strongly throughout the Committee stage is that this is an unknown area where there is a fear of scams and abuses emerging—mis-selling and such things that have characterised so much of the industry in the past. Even now, we are still clearing up some of the mess from those previous schemes that went so horribly wrong. Not only that, but looking at this from the point of view of economic management, big sums are involved. I have talked to pension fund and investment fund managers, and they are looking forward to it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has made clear, we welcome the Bill. We are not opposed to it in principle, but we want to make sure that it has the effects that are foreseen as regards flexibility and making greater independence available to very many people throughout the country. It is in the spirit of not just avoiding abuses, but ensuring that the Bill does not become counter-productive or have exactly the detrimental consequences that other Bills of this kind have had that we urge the Minister to accept, even at this late stage, both new clause 1 and new clause 2. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to repeat that point on Report.
Toby Perkins
I do not intend to detain the House unduly, but I want to speak briefly in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). I also do not intend to give too much advance notice of my Adjournment debate, which I will have the pleasure of holding later and to which I know that the House is looking forward with considerable interest.
My hon. Friend made an important point about the haste with which some of the changes have been introduced and the impact that that can have. The Government may be entirely well meaning, but such changes can have unintended consequences, and I shall refer to some of them in more detail later.
If I had been contacted by my constituents and had a response from the Minister a few weeks or months earlier, there might have been an appropriate opportunity to propose that the issue was looked into in relation to the Bill, but perhaps there will be an opportunity to consider such issues in the other place.
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who speaks with tremendous knowledge on these issues. He was absolutely right to focus on the way in which some industries operated in the past, and the extent to which the financial services industry had some very negative selling practices back in the deregulatory period of the 1980s. I am pleased that the industry, with Government assistance, has very much got its house in order.
We would be well advised to think about the impact of the changes on the professionalism of very important industries such as financial services. If decisions are not taken in professional enough a way, they can have massive effects on people at the time in their life when they take their pension. Back in the 1980s, there was a huge explosion of private pensions, with people—mineworkers or teachers—advised to give up their pensions. They were told, “No, if you give up your pension, you can opt in to one of these private schemes, with 15% growth every year.” There was a huge mis-selling scandal.
I previously worked—briefly, and largely unheralded—in the financial services industry. I was not necessarily particularly suited for the job, which highlights a point about people being invited into the industry. They were dragged into it on the basis of knowing friends that they could go and sell pensions to. People with very little knowledge came into the industry. Their business plan was based on phoning all their friends and relatives to encourage them to give up their pensions in reliable public sector or other schemes and to go in to private schemes. There was of course a huge explosion, and many of the people in the schemes were seen to have been given very poor advice.
We recognise what the Government are attempting to achieve, and we support their aims of having greater flexibility for the industry, allowing people to be put back in charge of their investment and ensuring that they have the freedom to decide what to do with the money that they have saved. However, we are also aware of why the annuities method of accessing pensions that people had invested in was introduced. We as a society decided that, in an age when people were living longer and longer, we wanted people to make provision for themselves and, having done so, to buy something that provided a regular income that they could rely on.
If we have a scheme in which people decide what to invest their pension funds in, but, with the best of intentions, those investments go wrong, the people who we thought had provided for themselves in later life will come back to the state and say, “Unfortunately, the investments that I made with my pension pot have gone wrong and I have run out of money.” That will have an impact on the Government. We recognise what the Government are attempting to achieve, but it would be sensible to have a review of how it is working, the impact of the changes on the behaviour of investors, the impact on Government revenues, the impact on the broader economy, and what behaviours are being encouraged and introduced by the changes.
EU Budget (Surcharge)
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the quality of the statistics. It was raised by the European Court of Auditors last week; it was also made forcefully by the Dutch Finance Minister at ECOFIN. The key point is that we can examine the numbers, and if there are errors we will get money repaid to us at the end of next year.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor explain why the EU Commissioner said on 27 October that the UK would benefit in any event from the rebate that was due? Also—this is at the heart of the problem—what evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have to suggest to the House, other than in a gross act of deception worthy more of Goebbels than of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing any member of the Government of engaging in deception. If he is, he must withdraw that term.
Mr Robinson
I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker; it was meant in a light-hearted manner.
Oral Answers to Questions
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Why are the Financial Secretary, the Chancellor and the whole Treasury scared of having such an audit? It is the most appropriate thing for the OBR to do. The OBR is one of their better creations; we have complimented them on it and supported it all the way. Perhaps we should have set it up ourselves but we have got it now. I will tell the Minister why they will not arrange for such an audit. It is because they are frit. The whole Government know that the OBR would endorse and give a clear bill of health to our plans.
Mr Gauke
My memory is that the Labour party did not support the OBR all the way. There is a debate to be had about the future of the organisation, but we do believe that, in its infancy, an organisation of this sort needs to be secure. That argument was used by the Labour party when the relevant Bill was passed in the House of Lords.
Finance Bill
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke
Will the hon. Lady rule out an increase in corporation tax under the next Labour Government, should one ever be elected—yes or no?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes a fair point: that is not what we are discussing. However, I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman will rule out slashing the annual investment allowance with no notice if the Conservatives are re-elected in 2015. Will he confirm that—yes or no?
Catherine McKinnell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your sage guidance. I agree that the Minister appears to be diverting the discussion away from the issue of concern: the Government’s approach to the annual investment allowance, which is the subject of the new clause. It calls for a review of the impact of the Government’s decisions on the allowance. He seems very reluctant to address that issue.
Mr Robinson
Strictly on the annual investment allowance, is my hon. Friend not absolutely on the button when she says that the question under discussion is not corporation tax or anything of the kind, but rather the AIA and the strictly temporary nature of the Government’s increase and extension of it? Will the Government commit to extending the AIA beyond the election, or is this just another election ploy?
Mr Robinson
I am very pleased to be able to contribute to a debate whose purpose we seem to lose sight of from time to time. The purpose of the new clause is to review the reforms of the annual investment allowance that have taken place since the Government came to power, and to see what lessons—in very simple terms—can be learnt from them. I do not see why the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) should not see fit to join us in the Lobby when we vote on the new clause, as I understand we shall do in due course.
No doubt the Exchequer Secretary will recall our Committee discussions in 2010, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). In 2010 we were discussing measures to be introduced in 2012, and while we considered that to be an appropriate period in which the Government could introduce the changes that they wanted to make, we strongly opposed those changes. I think that we were sensible to do so, and I think that we have been proved right.
It has proved to be a long road to Damascus for the Government. Many arguments can be made for a broadly neutral approach to taxation matters, and I believe that that is a long-standing aim of the Treasury. Indeed, we were very much on that tack ourselves when we came to office. However, the realities of government, and the realities of the Government’s own Budget of 2010, should have informed them that they could not be so purist in their theory as to ignore the fact that, during the five or so years to which the Budget looked ahead, they would require a massive increase in investment in order to sustain the increased levels of growth that they wanted and the whole country needed, and that to secure that increased investment it would be necessary, in turn, to generate a massive, unprecedented level of exports. We made that case ourselves, but it did not carry the day.
I believe that it was the then Exchequer Secretary who said, “We do not really see what is wrong with companies just investing their depreciation levels.” I pointed out to him that that would barely replace the assets in real terms, and that it was not the way in which to generate an increase in growth, far less the increase in productivity on which the exports could be based. Heaven knows, we need the productivity now more than ever, given that sterling is relatively high. In certain markets we are up against considerable competitive pressures, which we can only fight with real productivity, which is dependent on investment.
We made the case for some element of discrimination in relation to investment, and that remains the Labour party’s preference. While, as the hon. Member for Dover said, there may have been—and may still be, for all we know—massive cash hoards among the bigger companies in the economy, much of the investment that we need must come from the small and medium-sized enterprises, which I do not think are so rich in cash, especially the small-company element. Although the relatively small sum of £100,000 was not to be sneezed at, we welcome the Government’s conversion to £500,000. Why that is to last only until the election I cannot imagine, unless it is due to some very short-term electoral consideration on the Government’s part, which I do not think is realistic even in my wildest dreams. I am slightly reminded—although I must not digress—of our recent debate on the Office for Budget Responsibility, when, for purely party-political reasons, the Government refused to extend the OBR’s remit to an audit.
Be that as it may, we are discussing something else now, namely the fact that the Government will not tell us whether they will maintain the same level of AIA beyond the election—which ought to be possible—and for how long it could be maintained beyond the election. After all, the Government have plans. They have a forward look, and in that forward look must feature the proposed level of AIA. They might have to disentangle it from the accounts in due course, but a simple statement from the Exchequer Secretary would set a lot of minds at rest, and provide the element of forward certainty that is so important to small and medium-sized companies, whose investment programmes often run over several years. Smaller companies in particular may not be able to afford a massive investment all at once. As I am sure we shall hear later from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), one advantage of the annual investment allowance relates to the setting off of past losses against future profits, and there are other instances in which they can be most helpful. I will not go into them, however, because I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to do so.
Let me return to the question of why the Government’s approach is still so short-term. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) that my only reservation about the review is that the Government have chopped and changed so much, so quickly and, in fact, so excessively over the past four years that I wonder whether anyone would get any meaningful information out of it. I fear not. However, we should be happy about the Government’s apparent damascene conversion. At least they have come round to the idea of annual investment allowances in principle, particularly for smaller companies.
Mr Robinson
I will in a moment.
We may well see some element of discrimination in favour of smaller companies in the pattern. We do not want too much discrimination, because it could lead to complication, but I nevertheless feel that the Government should be thinking along those lines, which they probably are. No doubt the Exchequer Secretary will tell us when he winds up the debate. However, at present we have a short-term view of what is essentially a long-term problem. It is not that the level of investment has fallen under this Government or the last Government, or that manufacturing has declined under this Government as a proportion of GDP—which it probably has not, because GDP has still not reached the level at which it stood back in 2007. Generally speaking, however, manufacturing has been on a long-term slide, arguably since 1870 and certainly from the 1960s onwards, irrespective of which party has been in power.
Mr Robinson
I will come to the hon. Gentleman, if he will just be patient.
Inherent in the problem is the disinclination of the British economy as a whole to invest. Germany can be taken as a paragon of virtue in this respect. The Germans save more than us, and they generally invest more. They have better plant and equipment and higher productivity. They invest more in plant and equipment, but also in industrial relations. Their industrial work force is better equipped technically, from the top to the bottom, and better equipped physically with modern plant and machinery and computers.
Why is that? No one knows. There is a deep-lying cultural factor. However, it seems to me that if we are to offset it, the more we can afford to encourage investment the better, as long as that is intelligently done. I think that the dangers of misapplication can be much exaggerated, and that the loss of potential output through increased productivity can be underestimated.
If the hon. Member for Redcar still wants me to give way to him, I will do so.
Ian Swales
I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman’s experience in this regard. He has spoken of the importance of long-term certainty. I struggled in vain to find in the major speech made by his leader yesterday any mention of this issue, or indeed any mention of manufacturing. I wonder what he is saying to businesses that may be concerned about the potential for a future Labour Government.
Mr Robinson
I wish I had not given way, because when I do we always get into this tiresome point. The Government seek to find refuge by going back nearly five years. The Minister has been at the Treasury for four and a half years now, and his party has been in government for that long. They own the situation now, although I know they do not want to, as all they want to do is airbrush the last four and a half years out of existence—they did that again today—and concentrate on where they are now as if they took power just six months ago. When we are having a narrow debate on the question of our having a review of a particular failed policy of the Government that is relevant to this issue, the hon. Gentleman wants to bring in the whole of Labour party policy. That is tiresome and irrelevant and a waste of this House’s time. I am sure that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will not get into that.
We are discussing a very important point. If there is genuine change introducing some element of discrimination in favour of investment for the reasons I have given, we will welcome that. Indeed, we welcome the commitment on £250,000 and £500,000. We will welcome it doubly if the Minister will extend that commitment beyond the election, to put it bluntly to him. I do not know what our policy on that will be—or whether we will go into such detail in the manifesto—but I will certainly support such a proposal, both in principle now and as party policy if it finds such favour. The Government, however, can do something about this now. Will the Minister tell us whether there is a change of policy and a change of principle on their part? If so, why will they not maintain the amount of the allowance and achieve the levels of investment, productivity and exports on which our future depends?
Gordon Birtwistle
As a business man, I had an engineering company that required a lot of investment. We had to invest heavily to ensure that we were competitive in the markets of the late 1990s and early 2000s. To me, the most important things for investment are confidence and cash. If companies have the confidence to invest, and the cash to invest from the profits they are making, they will invest. The capital allowances that the Government allow them to have against their profits is very helpful and it does persuade—it persuaded me on a number of occasions to buy some very expensive computer-controlled engineering machines. But when there is no confidence and when there is very little cash around, not many companies think about how much capital allowance they will get if they invest.
The country was in a mess in 2007. There was a reduction of over 7% in GDP in 2007-08, so nobody was confident enough to take the step to invest. The confidence had to be put back into the industries to persuade managing directors to invest. We know that billions of pounds were stored in banks waiting to be invested, but the confidence was not there to invest.
If Members look at Hansard, they will see that the Chancellor complimented me for putting pressure on him to bring back capital allowances, and my hon. Friend the Minister will remember the meetings I had when I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. At every meeting we had I was constantly on to him about the need to try to give confidence to companies, to persuade them to invest in the future of manufacturing in the UK. The answer came back, “There is no confidence at the moment, but we hope there will be soon, but we have all this money stashed away in banks, which is moderately safe.” It was not totally safe, because the banks were not out of the mess they were in, but companies felt it was safer there, rather than invested in capital plant in manufacturing industry.
Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The shadow Chancellor has informed the House how long he has been working on obtaining consensus on this policy with the Government. Did I hear him say that he wrote to the Chancellor back in October asking for a meeting and consultation and the Chancellor has still not replied?
Ed Balls
That is correct. I sent him draft clauses with an offer to reach a cross-party agreement around those. There are two ways in which we can approach these things. We can try to see off each other, or we can try to forge that consensus, and it is not too late. So let us give it another go.
The timetable issue has been raised by several hon. Members. The head of the OBR has told me that if we can reach cross-party agreement on the details of how we can take forward this role for the OBR during the summer, he would be content for the underpinning legislation to be put in place in the autumn. It is commonplace for Governments to move forward on a policy, to agree the details and modalities, while putting the legislation in place. He would be content with that, which brings me to the key timetabling issue.
A number of detailed procedural issues will clearly need to be worked through if the reform is to go ahead this year. When we met in February, following his discussions with the Select Committee, the head of the OBR told me that in his view we would need to have the discussions on the details concluded by the end of the summer. He said that that would be possible only if we could achieve in-principle agreement to proceed by the early summer, by the end of June.
I know that the head of the OBR is pessimistic that it will be possible to get that in-principle agreement, as we heard from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) a moment ago. If there is no in-principle agreement to do this, it will not be possible to proceed in this Parliament. But I told the head of the OBR that we were having this debate today and that we still sought to achieve that consensus, and I asked for his view. He confirmed to me last Friday that his view at the beginning of the year is still his view today: that if we can reach agreement in principle to proceed by the end of June—in the next few days—we can work out the details over the summer, complete those discussions by the end of the summer, and put in place the legislation in the autumn, during which time the work of the OBR could commence.
I understand the view of the Institute for Government, which says that perhaps we should give up and do this in the next Parliament, but I do not want to do that because we owe it to the public to do the right thing. The head of the OBR’s view is that if the Chancellor and those on the Treasury Front Bench are willing to come along today and agree in principle to proceed, we can go ahead. There is no issue of timing and timetable to get in the way.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
May I get to heart of the point about timing and consensus? We have already heard some quotes from Robert Chote. This is what he said when he gave oral evidence to the Select Committee and was asked whether this could be done by the next election: “It would be difficult but by no means impossible. The key thing that you would need to have is agreement in principle across the parties that it was a good idea to do it. At the end of the day, if Parliament wants us to try this, we will do it to the best of our ability given the resources and the time we have available.” Given that those statements are on the record, does my right hon. Friend agree that if this does not happen, it is because there is not a political consensus? I hope that the Minister will not say that this is about timing but will be up front about why the consensus is not there, and admit that she and her colleagues are blocking it.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Perhaps it would be correct for me to state at the outset that, in view of the six-minute limit, I do not intend to take any interventions. I hope to confine myself to fewer than six minutes. I will not take an intervention, even from the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), whose interventions so far have been a waste of time. Time is at a premium. On that basis, I will make some progress.
I do not think that I have heard a more blatant party political set of arguments, electorally inspired, from any Government since I have been in the House. The Government are going against the grain—
Mr Robinson
No, I am not giving way. I have made that clear already, although not out of any fear of what the hon. Gentleman might say. The Government are afraid, though. They are afraid that, if our proposals before the election were properly and independently costed, as they will be—we will probably try to get it done independently in some other way if we have to—it would give them the credibility that the Government seek to deny them by being misleading and by obfuscating, at which they are experts—the Chancellor in particular, who is not here.
When we look at what individuals have said about the proposal, it is clear that it is possible—no one has tried harder to secure this than my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the shadow Chancellor—to achieve consensus across the House if right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches want it. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who chairs the Treasury Committee, said on 15 October 2013, around the time that my right hon. Friend was writing to the Chancellor on these points:
“I made clear in the Commons that this should include examining, at their request, the fiscal policies of opposition parties at election time.”
The whole point is that election time and the run-up to the election is the appropriate time to do this. That is why my right hon. Friend started this in October—nine months ago. It is a complicated, difficult process, but why have we had nothing from the Chancellor since? Why has he refused to engage in that?
Mr Robinson
I did mention the hon. Gentleman. For that reason, I will take this one intervention.
Mr Tyrie
Curiously for an Opposition day debate, a bit of consensus seems to be emerging that at least in principle this work should be done, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although of course the work needs to be done at election time, the preparatory discussions to discover what the ground rules should be need to take place in a quiet political climate, not in the run-up to a general election? Therefore, given that for three years both parties have objected to this, the time to get that done would be immediately after a general election.
Mr Robinson
The most useful thing I can do for the hon. Gentleman and the House is to read out in full, to get it on the record, what the head of the OBR has said. In March, just a couple of months ago, he said:
“I think the key thing that you would need to do would be to ensure that by, say, the early summer”—
exactly where we are now—
“you were in a position”—
he is speaking to Members who are involved in the decision—
“where even if you did not have the full legislative framework for this sort of thing in place”—
I think we have that, largely—
“you would need to have, first, agreement in principle across the parties”,
which we are striving for, and it is only because the Government perceive it to be against their electoral interests that they are resisting it. It is the most blatant, obvious Government ploy that I have seen since—well, I will not say since when. He said
“that it was a good idea to do it and, secondly, fairly detailed agreement on what you might think of as the rules of the game: which parties should be involved”—
my right hon. Friend dealt with that—
“what scope of policies should you look at; what is the timetable; what would be the involvement of civil servants, and so on.”
The quotation continues:
“I think you would need to get that sort of thing in place in the early summer in order for us, for example, to be able to set out and recruit the necessary people over the course of the summer and have all that in place ready to be welcoming customers, so to speak, maybe after the party conferences in the autumn.”
There is the timetable, therefore, but Government Back Benchers are trying to deny it, and they are not playing their role at all. Why are they doing it? There is only one reason, and I shall come back to it in a moment.
Mr Robinson
I am not giving way.
I was quoting comments made by Robert Chote on 12 March this year. It is quite clear that this can be done. There is only one obstacle standing in the way: the Government do not want it to happen. It is not that they want it to happen but find it difficult; it is that they do not want it to happen.
Why do the Government not want it to happen? Let me read what the Chancellor said a couple of years ago when he first set out on this path:
“I propose to have discussions with Opposition party leaders about whether that is the appropriate thing to do”—
to have the parties’ election proposals vetted by the OBR—
“and it would be a legitimate matter for the House to debate”,
which we are doing today,
“and decide.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 142.]
I say, with no disrespect to the two distinguished Ministers on the Treasury Bench, the Exchequer Secretary and the Financial Secretary, that it is a matter of great regret that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary are absent because, having promised that, the Chancellor has refused to engage with my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. He has refused to come to the House and debate this with us on the one occasion when we can decide on it, and decide on doing it in the run-up to the election, which is the appropriate time, as Robert Chote himself said: I am reciting his words not in the quotation that I read out, but in another one.
It is quite clear that this can be done, therefore; Robert Chote has said that it can be done. It is quite clear that the only art left to the Government is sophistry to try to create problems that just do not exist. If they can answer any one of the charges—any of the points made by Robert Chote or my right hon. Friend—then let us hear them, because I say, with great respect to the Financial Secretary who opened the debate, that she did not tackle any of that. She said, “Let me put on the record what we inherited.” This is not about that at all, and it is not about the fact we were not satisfied with the OBR in the early years. I was the Member who was most critical of its ability in those years.
The fact is that the OBR is established now, however, and it is clear from Robert Chote’s comments that he wants to do this. He believes he can do it and he thinks it would be good. It would be good for public debate, for transparency and for politics in this country, yet the Government are denying the public that right and that opportunity to submit parties’ proposals, which are always in the centre of the election debate, for scrutiny. They are denying the public that, and the public will ask why the Government are doing that and they will read between the lines and see that it is a blatant, deliberate attempt to hide from the public the fact that the Labour party’s proposals are coherent, costed and convincing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
But 2025 is a long way away for a plan. Is the Minister not aware that on this Government’s watch infrastructure output in the whole economy, public and private, is 13% down? Is it not about time they got their finger out and did something about it?
Mr Gauke
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is criticising the long-term approach of our economic plan, but it is important that we think about the long term. Infrastructure spending, both private and public, will on average be higher in this Parliament than it was in the previous Parliament.
Amendment of the Law
Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
Yes, I will address the issue of youth unemployment and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. This is an issue that has, of course, been with us for many years, including under the previous Government when economic conditions were much more benign. Youth unemployment is currently at about 20%, but of course that includes many full-time students. The key trend is that youth unemployment is now declining rapidly. It is certainly less now than the level we inherited, and we have a whole set of policies designed to deal with it in a systematic way.
The shadow Chancellor put forward the idea of a youth guarantee. The problem that that presents is this: how can a job be guaranteed other than through the public sector? Of course guaranteeing a public sector job takes people off the dole, but it also creates a permanent need for subsidy and support. What we have done is create a route that allows people who are not going into full-time higher education to develop the preconditions for proper apprenticeships through traineeships, basic academic requirements and work experience, and then find their way into true apprenticeship training, which has been an enormous success: it has doubled since we came to office. The measures announced in the Budget statement yesterday will enable a further 100,000 people under 24 to be given apprenticeship training, and the quality improvements that we have made are driving up demand and supply at the same time. This is a much better way of dealing with young people who are out of work than creating artificial jobs.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Many Labour Members are very pleased about the improvement in the employment situation that has taken place over the last six months or so—indeed, over the last year or so. However, is not the big issue—apart from the caveats relating to short-time working and zero-hours contracts—the fact that the productive capacity of the economy seems to have shrunk, and productivity per worker has certainly shrunk? That is casting a very grave shadow over the length of the recovery that we might have expected. What are the Government planning to do about it?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman’s analysis is spot on. Of course that is what has happened. We have managed to avoid mass unemployment, but the average productivity level has fallen. If we are to grow, and if living standards are to grow—that seems to be the focus of the debate—productivity must rise, which prompts the question of how we do it. We are currently doing it in an environment that is severely constrained. We must remember—and I think that the shadow Chancellor often forgets this—that one of the massive legacies of the crisis was the structural deficit. A deficit of that kind does not go away when growth increases; it is there, it is structural, and it will have to be dealt with. The structural deficit, defined as we defined it when we formed the coalition, has fallen from about 5.4% of GDP to 2.7%. We are nearly halfway, but we have to continue the job, and the next Government will have to continue the job. In that context, we must proceed with an agenda of raising productivity and growth.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), both of whom spoke about the minimum wage and those on low wages. What the hon. Member for Norwich North forgot to say is that this Budget does absolutely nothing for the millions who are paying no tax at all, and that is our principal criticism of it.
Before I deal with that, may I just say a few words about the speech by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who reminded us that he has seen 18 Budgets? I have seen nearly all of them with him and I remember many of his trenchant criticisms in the past, particularly in the first decade of this century. He seems, as the Tory party wishes to do, to have airbrushed out of his history—and certainly out of his memory—exactly what this Government’s so-called economic plan has achieved over the past four years. It is no good saying that the plan worked, because the plan did not work on any of the measures it set out to measure itself by.
Let us discuss these things one by one: we have had three and a half years of flatlining; we have had growth which has achieved less than 50% of the Government’s plan; we have had investment that is below 50% of what they set out to achieve; and on exports—exports investment was at the heart of the plan—they have achieved less than 50% of the plan, as Members well know. That is some plan, given what has happened on all the key indices.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman address the issue of 1.3 million private sector jobs created?
Mr Robinson
I will come to that in a moment, although the hon. Gentleman may have been here when I intervened on the Secretary of State on that precise point.
Let us examine the borrowing record, as borrowing should have been central to all this. Because we have been able to have more investment and more exports—capital investment and exports—we should have growth, which would reduce the borrowing. In fact, over the four-year period, with us now entering the five-year period, we are going to borrow nearly £200 billion—the figure is £190 billion—more than we projected. We were to reduce borrowing as a percentage of GDP, but even in the next two years—years 5 and 6—it is projected to go up as a percentage of GDP. As for balancing the budget, that has been pushed out by a further two years. This is not a plan that has succeeded; it is a plan that has failed in almost every respect.
There is one exception—the hon. Gentleman referred to it and I also challenged the Secretary of State precisely on it during his speech: the employment record, particularly in the private sector, is remarkably and surprisingly good. I do not want to get into how many jobs are part-time, zero-hours contracts and so on. The fact is that the labour market has shown itself to be much more retentive of labour and productive of labour than we expected. For anybody in this House or in the Government, or on any of the other projections indicated from any sector, the performance is quite encouraging, except in one crucial respect: it suggests that, given where output is relative to employment, we have suffered a dramatic loss—probably for the long term, for all we know—in the productive capacity of the economy and in the productivity of our labour force. Unless that can somehow be rebuilt—there is nothing at all in the Budget to address that point—we are in for a much longer and slower recovery than we could have achieved. That is a big disappointment. The Secretary of State analysed it willingly, but the Office for Budget Responsibility itself says, “There’s nothing here that’s going to make any difference to the forecast we made a year or so ago.”
In other words, we have done nothing and are proposing to do nothing, to address the central issue of the productive capacity of the economy, which would underpin, sustain and increase our recovery rather than hold it back. There is nothing in the Budget that will improve that. Of course there are a couple of measures that we welcome, including the increase in capital allowances. I never understood why they were cut in the first year. We viciously opposed it at the time. We also approve of the improvement in export financing. However, there again, the Chancellor and the Government have form on those issues. They introduced two similar export financing schemes, one of which was strangled at birth and the other helped just five firms. I hope the Government are serious this time. We do not want to see imaginative and quite substantial measures being choked off by the bureaucrats.
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman has been making many predictions. The shadow Chancellor said that our policies would mean 1 million fewer jobs, and yet we have created 1 million more jobs. Will he comment on that 2 million credibility gap?
Mr Robinson
We are very pleased to see employment increasing. What the hon. Gentleman needs to understand is that there is a problem of productive capacity in the economy, and we have done nothing to address it. Labour was challenged to spell out its criticisms of the Budget. The central point is that we are opposing the Government by saying what they have not done. We are in a cost of living crisis—probably the worst that any of us will witness in our lifetimes—and yet the Government have done nothing to alleviate the position of the worst off in this country. That is our principal criticism of this Budget. The Government show no indication of wanting to address that matter, which is why we will oppose the motion when it comes to a vote. It is a pity because there is an opportunity for the Government now, with a relatively stable economy—our outlook is better now than before—to show that they can get their priorities right. It should not be just those on £150,000 a year or more who benefit, or those who can save £15,000 a year—some families have to live on £15,000 a year, let alone save it. The priorities are wrong. We welcome and support the boost to the manufacturing sector, and hope that it will be carried through.