Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I give my advance apologies to the Minister and to Opposition Front Benchers for the fact that I will not be able to stay for the wind-ups due to a family commitment.

I believe there is much to welcome in this Budget. In particular, the availability of capital allowances will be very important for our manufacturing sector. I believe that manufacturing in this country has been undervalued for far too long. Allowing full offsetting of capital investment is going to be particularly important to those manufacturers, who in turn have a crucial role to play in the levelling-up agenda, since they are the ones out there in the country who will offer the high-paid jobs and do the research and development. But today, I want to focus on a different matter, which is the Government’s announcement on childcare. It is undoubtedly the case that this announcement will be welcomed by some, but for me it is only half a policy, because as the Chancellor said yesterday, its aim is to help those who want to return to work to do so. The operative words there are “those who want to”.

The Chancellor cited a poll that showed that 50% of mothers would return to work if they could afford it. A couple of things come out of that: first, half of mothers do not want to return to work, even if they could afford to. We should support them too, and we should value that choice. Secondly, if we did a different poll of mothers who had returned to work and put their children in childcare, and asked them a different, converse question—“Would you choose to spend more time with your child in those precious first few years if you could afford to?”—I think a very large number of those mothers would say yes. If we went further still and did a poll of mothers who now have teenage children, and asked them whether they regret not being able to spend more time with their children when they were under the age of five, in those precious pre-school years, I think many of them would say that they regretted not being able to do so, and often would have done if they were able to afford to.

The truth is that many mothers—many parents—return to work because they cannot afford not to, because there is a relentless cultural pressure that suggests that they must, and because they have concerns about losing their footing on the career ladder. It is a sorry state of affairs that our society does not value motherhood more than it does, and that the term “stay-at-home mother” is today almost a derogatory one. I also believe that the Treasury economists have got their numbers wrong on this. At the heart of the problem is the fundamental flaw in the way that GDP is measured. Let me give an illustrative example of two mothers with young children who are neighbours, if each of those mothers chooses to stay at home to look after their toddler, they are deemed economically inactive. However, if those same two mothers were to come out of their front door in the morning, swap toddlers and look after one another’s children for the day, and invoice one another at the end of the day, they would suddenly become economically active. The economists in the Treasury have something they can measure: something they can express in GDP, something they can value in the only way they know how to value things, which is money that can be measured. But has the economy actually grown as a result, or have we simply captured the social capital that is inherent in motherhood, monetised it, and forced it into a box where it can be measured? If we step back and look at what we have actually done in such a scenario, we can see that all we have really done is needlessly separate two mothers from their children for no better reason than to accommodate an inadequate economists’ formula. Current Government policy, one-sided as it is, is carrying on in that way. I think it is doubtful that it will create the growth that the Treasury hopes for, but what it will definitely do is enable Treasury bean counters to double-count the economic activity of two mothers looking after their children.

At the heart of this is something we have always known, particularly on the Government Benches, which is that GDP is not an accurate measure of the wealth of a nation. The Conservative party has always recognised that. Indeed, when David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010, he said that

“it’s time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB—general wellbeing.”

He went on:

“Wellbeing can’t be measured by money or traded in markets. It’s about...above all, the strength of our relationships.”

Behind that central Conservative belief were a string of creative policies. Chief among them was the idea of a transferable tax allowance to support families, so that a partner who chose to stay at home and care for their child could have their tax allowance transferred to the working member of the household, and they could afford to have one of the parents stay at home and look after the child. I think it is an absolute tragedy that David Cameron never got to introduce that policy, because the family and a belief in the family was probably what defined him more than anything else. I do not know why he did not do it—I suspect he was ground down by bean counters in the Treasury—but my challenge to the Government today is to pick up the baton. They should reject the shallow and inaccurate mentality of economists, recognise the value of the family, recognise that GDP is not the only measure of a nation’s wealth, and bring forward proposals for a transferable tax allowance.

If a transferable tax allowance is deemed unattractive, the Government should look at what other countries have done. I understand that in France there is a slightly different system, in which tax allowances are linked to the number of children in a household. It achieves the same objective in a more targeted way, and perhaps we could consider pursuing that.

I know there is an obsession in the Treasury that taxation should be done on an individual basis, but that is entirely inconsistent with the approach we take to the benefit system, in which benefits are allocated on a household and family basis. The Treasury needs to make up its mind about whether it believes that benefits or tax should be done individually, or on a family or household basis, but it makes no sense whatsoever to have two different systems.

During the pandemic and during lockdown, I think some people reappraised their work-life balance, and perhaps some of the economic inactivity we obsess about today is because some people decided they wanted to spend a bit more time with their family. The Government could recognise and understand that, and try to accommodate it, rather than dishing up a menu of rhetoric around boot camps, productivity and so forth.

I hope the Government will pick up some of the proposals to recognise the family through the tax system. The Conservative party has been asking the Government to do this and, in particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for her groundbreaking work in this area. I urge Ministers to recognise that the failure to recognise the family in this way in the Budget must be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.