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.

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) and Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 General Committees

[Laura Trott]

Yes, absolutely. When I come back with the regulations, I can provide an update on the spending. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that part of what the reset is doing is looking at the expenditure to ensure that it is in hand. I will have more to say about that when we come back.

The shadow Minister mentioned NI numbers, and that is one of the things we need to look at again. It is really important. I have had representations from industry about this, and I had a meeting on it this week. It should potentially be incorporated, and that is part of what we are looking at as part of the reset programme.

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

I note from the explanatory memorandum that there was another set of regulations in 2021—the Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2021—which introduced some initial easements. Why do the Government think those were insufficient? It is not that long ago, so it seems quite soon to make changes again. Was there an oversight in not making the full change last time, or is it the case that we now have enough evidence to know that those regulations did not work?

[Laura Trott]

We are definitely taking this a step further now. In my time as pensions Minister, I have tried to really focus on the value for money, rather than the charges, and that is a shift. We are a step further into our automatic enrolment journey. We now see that we have the coverage, which is really positive, but we need to improve adequacy. In my time as pensions Minister, I will really focus on that and getting returns to savers so they can build up their pot. It can make a massive difference to how effective someone’s ultimate retirement pot is in giving them the retirement they want, and this is another step in that direction. It has been a journey, and this is additional to what we have done previously.

Remploy

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed. I have met the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as a collective group in the past, and I will certainly do so again.

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

One of the barriers to disabled people going into mainstream employment is a misconception among employers that it will somehow cause them difficulty, although the evidence shows that the employers who overcome their apprehension often find that the disabled person compensates for their disability by having much greater ability in other respects and therefore becomes a very valued member of their team. What more can be done to educate employers and persuade them to give disabled people a chance?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a terrific point. This is all about awareness, and it is important to understand that only 3% of people are born with disabilities but most of us will acquire one during our life, probably in our 40s and 50s, so we have to do what we can because we all have a vested interest. On my hon. Friend’s specific point, we will be holding a disability employment event in July, bringing together some of the biggest employers locally, nationally and internationally to ask them, “What are you doing, how do we spread best practice, and what can we do to support you?”

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I am sorry, but rather than leaving the country with the massive deficit that the hon. Gentleman’s party left us, the Government are putting practical programmes in place—if these had been done when his party was in government, the country would perhaps not be facing the current fiscal deficit.

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

14. What assessment he has made of the effect of employment trends on the operation of the Work programme.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We published adjusted projections of attachments to the Work programme in December. Those revised projections have been communicated to providers and published in the House of Commons Library. The revised projections take account of the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, observed trends in referrals since June, and policy changes.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful for that answer. The Work programme is a crucial element in helping the long-term unemployed back into work, and I particularly welcome the emphasis on payment by results. However, as our economy emerges from its current problems, there will be some regional variations in the job market. What is the Minister doing to monitor the situation? If necessary, might he consider a regional element to the pay structure?

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions for her question, as this matter has not been well understood. Statute provides a floor above which occupational pension schemes have to operate. In other words, we will not force occupational pension schemes to cut their increases; we simply provide a floor, which used to be linked to the RPI and is now linked to the CPI. Schemes remain entirely free to go beyond that if they wish.

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

4. What discussions he has had with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on industrial injuries linked to the mining industry.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Ministers have had no discussions with the IIAC about industrial injuries linked to the mining industry. However, my colleague Lord Freud is planning to meet the IIAC chairman and the council shortly to discuss their work.

[George Eustice]

In 2008 a report by the IIAC concluded that activities linked to the mining industry, such as kneeling under heavy loads, doubled the risk of suffering osteoarthritis of the knee. The activities described in the report apply as much to tin miners as to coal miners, but because the report made no specific reference to tin mining, former tin miners in Cornwall are being denied compensation. Will the Minister review the scope of that report to ensure that tin miners are treated fairly?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have visited his constituency and know what an important part the mining industry has played in his local economy over the years. We all very much hope that it will have the opportunity to do so again in future. I am very sympathetic to the points that he makes. I can give him an undertaking that I will discuss the matter with Lord Freud, and we will certainly make representations on his behalf to the IIAC to see whether the issue of the tin mining industry and those who have worked in it can be addressed again.