Autumn Statement

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, what is very striking, if one looks at the receipts revenue forecasts from the OBR, is that they are wildly different from those produced by the Scottish Government before the recent referendum. As he will see tomorrow, when his colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury sets out in Aberdeen what we are doing, the tax cuts we announced today, which will come into effect in the coming weeks, will have an immediate effect, but we are also going to try to set out a longer road map for the direction we want to head in. As he well knows, industry investment decisions are made over long cycles and people need predictability about the future of the British oil and gas tax regimes so that we get the maximum amount of oil out of the basin.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

With average wages still suffering the longest and biggest fall since Victorian times, productivity still one of the lowest in the OECD, business investment still flat and below pre-crisis levels, the deficit on traded goods now the biggest in British history and, to cap it all, the budget deficit is clearly beginning to rise because of the fall in tax receipts, how can the Chancellor, against that background, continue with austerity when its consequences are clearly now causing the deficit to rise?

[Mr Osborne]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is just wrong. Business investment is not flat; it is up 27% and is rising faster in the UK than in any other major advanced economy in the world. The deficit, according to the OBR document, was 10.2% under the previous Labour Government; it is now 5%. The idea that that is an increase is obviously nonsense. Indeed, it falls in every future year, just as it has fallen this year.

Autumn Statement

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for what she said. A central part of my Budgets has been to say to the next generation, “We are going to make sure you have the opportunities to succeed. If you have no skills, we will help you to get those skills. If you want vocational work and training, you will get that through apprenticeships. If you want to go on to higher education, you will get support from the lifting of the cap on student numbers, which is a huge reform”—and, as she mentioned, to say—“If you want to get into work, we will help you by abolishing the jobs tax on young people.” Dealing with the debts and deficits is also, of course, a huge part of saying to the next generation, “We will not leave you with the problems we weren’t prepared to tackle ourselves.”

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

How can the Chancellor conceivably claim that this recovery is sustainable when business investment is still 25% below the pre-crash level, when only 0.1% of the 0.8% growth in the last quarter came from business investment, when productivity is one of the lowest in the OECD, when real wages have fallen 7% and are still falling, and when exports have still not taken off, despite the 25% fall in the exchange rate, and the deficit on traded goods is still likely to be in excess of £100 billion this year?

[Mr Osborne]

As I said in my statement, we need productivity to pick up in order to sustain the economic plan. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want exports to increase. Exports were badly hit because our main export markets were in recession for much of last year. I agree with him about such things, but we disagree about the route to achieving them. His proposal is to put up a tax on business. I do not understand how that would possibly help either investment or exports. Tax increases on businesses would be regarded around the world as a bizarre move by the United Kingdom, and we are certainly not going to do that.

Spending Review

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

As the Chancellor’s private sector infrastructure proposals will take years to gain traction, if they ever do, why does he not use public investment to kick-start the economy now, as the only effective means to do so quickly, without any increase in public borrowing? He could do that through a further tranche of quantitative easing, specifically targeted on industrial investment; by instructing the state-owned banks to lend to industry at the scale required; or, most obviously, given that he talks about fairness, by taxing the super-rich, who have made massive gains since the crash, in the last five years.

[Mr Osborne]

First, we are committing to public investment as well as seeking to secure private investment. The first of the right hon. Gentleman’s ideas is about printing money to spend it on things. That has been tried by a number of countries but it does not always have a happy ending. Secondly, he has this plan to take over full control of the banks and run the banking system as a nationalised banking system. I do not think that would be a sensible approach; it would make the problems in our banking system worse rather than better.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman talks about taxes. I recall, as I was an MP on the Opposition Benches at the time, that he was a Minister when his Government had a 40% tax rate, whereas we have a 45% rate. I do not remember him getting up at this Dispatch Box and complaining all the time that his Government were not increasing taxes on the rich. I seem to remember his good friend Peter Mandelson saying that they were all

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

Under this Government—I hope the right hon. Gentleman would support this—the richest are paying a greater percentage of our tax than under his Government.

Autumn Statement

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

How can the Chancellor seriously pretend that he is cracking down on tax avoidance when the £7 billion he referred to today will take up to seven years to realise, at a rate of about £1 billion a year, against a rate of tax avoidance of £35 billion a year? The general anti-avoidance rule that he mentioned is far too narrowly drawn to be effective and—[Interruption.] I hope that he will listen to this. At the same time, he is introducing a tax cut from 23% to just 5% for multinationals in tax havens.

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has the right figures. We are increasing the amount recovered from taxes that should have been paid from £13 billion under the Labour Government to £20 billion. That £7 billion increase, plus the £2 billion that I have announced today, makes a £9 billion increase in the taxes that should have been collected and that we are now collecting. I hope he will welcome and support that. By the way, we have also got rid of the situation that happened when the current Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor were in the Treasury, in which people in the City were paying lower tax rates than the people who cleaned for them. We have dealt with that problem.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend. I say again that I came to the House just last Thursday and said that I would look to see what I could do on the fines. I have now come forward, a few days later, and said that we are going to take those fines—including the fines that Barclays will pay—and make sure that they are put to the public benefit, not to the benefit of the financial services industry. We are acting extremely swiftly on this. As I said, I would have thought that it was in everyone’s interests that we get on and deal with the matter in the coming months.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Since there is clear evidence of a conspiracy, going on for years, to defraud over LIBOR, will the Chancellor now transfer responsibility for the interest rate market away from the incestuous control of the British Bankers Association to the Financial Services Authority or the Bank of England, including the power to bring criminal charges on evidence of market abuse?

[Mr Osborne]

The right hon. Gentleman asks two very good questions, as did the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), about who should oversee the setting of LIBOR and what criminal sanctions should exist for the manipulation of that market. That is precisely what we are going to investigate over the next couple of months in Mr Wheatley’s inquiry. That will enable us in September and October to change the law; the Bill has been going through Parliament and can become law this autumn. I hope that I have the right hon. Gentleman’s support for getting on with this and getting the powers on the statute book.

Autumn Statement

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right. We are uprating out-of-work benefits and the basic state pension. The coalition Government are committed to the triple lock. People can see the benefit of that today. He is also right that we are committed to real increases in the personal income tax allowance. We have already had two of those. The coalition agreement is absolutely clear on that. I also support it as a tool of economic policy. We want to lift more people out of tax altogether.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

What is the right hon. Gentleman’s precise estimate of the overall growth, if any, that will arise from today’s package, given that there is no net increase in demand? Is not his core £5 billion infrastructure package—just 0.7% of current expenditure—merely tinkering at the edges and completely incapable of pulling Britain out of its deepening slump?

Independent Banking Commission Report

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee makes a sensible suggestion. It is likely—I do not want to say certain—that we will need a separate piece of legislation on some of these specific changes to banking. However, I hope that we can also use the Financial Services Bill to implement other key parts of the reform. That is the case because we want to get this right. The draft Bill is currently being discussed by the Joint Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), and we simply will not be able to produce all that detail in the next couple of months before the Bill is introduced. We have to get this right. As John Vickers said, short-termism got us into this mess, and we need a bit of long-termism to get it right. However, I hope that the commitment to legislate in this Parliament reassures people that it is going to happen in this Parliament. This bunch of Ministers, this Government, will be held accountable if we do not legislate in this Parliament. We have given a clear commitment, and I am sure that the work of the Treasury Committee, which my hon. Friend chairs, in looking at how this report can be put into practice will be very valuable.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Why effect a firewall between retail and investment banking—which is highly complex and which the banks will use every device to get round—rather than effecting a clean break, which provided 60 years of stable banking after the great depression? Why wait eight years to implement some of the changes, when that will continue to expose taxpayers to another financial crash and when the banks are still too big to fail?

[Mr Osborne]

One of the original purposes of creating the Banking Commission was to try to resolve the argument, which is held in this Chamber and elsewhere, about whether to split banks, ring-fence them or leave things as they are. In this report John Vickers goes through all the arguments for a complete separation of the banks and comes down on the side of saying that it would not be sensible. He thinks that the cost to the economy would be particularly high, and without any real stability benefits. He also thinks that there are circumstances where one would want a retail bank to be supported by the rest of the bank—the investment bank—and have money transferred into it, which would enhance stability. The third point, which will not be universally popular in this Chamber, is that such a separation would be almost unenforceable under European law, because other European banks—or, indeed, one of our banks that had moved to another European jurisdiction—could passport money in. For those three reasons, John Vickers does not think it sensible to split the banks up.

Global Economy

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We of course continue to monitor the situation at RBS and all the British banks very closely. There is a concern in the financial markets about the capitalisation and liquidity provisions of banks in many countries. I have to say that those concerns have not been expressed at the moment about the UK. We passed the stress tests well and we have a strong liquidity provision in place for the banks, including RBS, and the markets can therefore have confidence in British banks.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Is it not clear that the Chancellor’s whole strategy is failing, as it is now almost entirely dependent on achieving growth? As the economy has been flatlining for nine months, export markets are stymied, quantitative easing has already been tried with little or no effect and interest rates are already flat on the ground. Where exactly does he expect the growth to come from to get us out of prolonged stagnation?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, the British economy is growing and it is the assessment of the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility that it will continue to grow. The growth in the last six months has actually been stronger than in the United States, and half a million jobs have been created in the private sector in the last year—

Bank Bonuses

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The last Chancellor of the Exchequer has directly addressed the question of whether the bonus tax in the form in which he introduced it last year could be repeated this year. He thinks that it could not, because behaviour has changed. Indeed, we have seen base pay rise in response to the bonus tax. However, as I made clear in my statement, we are seeking a new settlement with the banks, and nothing is off the table if they cannot agree to that.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Why is the right hon. Gentleman not extending the existing tax on bankers’ bonuses, which has yielded £3.5 billion in the past year? Does that not prove that this is a Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, and does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this rancid stink about bankers’ bonuses simply will not go away?

[Mr Osborne]

The right hon. Gentleman may not know it, or perhaps he did not really believe it, but he fought the last election on a manifesto—written, incidentally, by the Leader of the Opposition—that committed the then Government to opposing a unilateral levy. We have introduced such a levy, and it will raise almost £10 billion in the current Parliament. We are extracting from the banks revenue that the last Government did not extract. Indeed, they opposed the method that we have introduced.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

In cutting the deficit, why did the Chancellor ignore the economic growth dividend, which could yield at least £60 billion in extra Government tax revenues over the next five years? Why did he not tax at all the 1% super-rich, whose wealth has quadrupled over the past decade? And why did he not introduce a major public sector, as well as private sector, jobs and growth programme, which could most effectively cut benefit payments and increase tax revenues?

[Mr Osborne]

The first thing I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we believe strongly, as do the major employers in this country and the people internationally who look at this economy, that dealing with the deficit is essential for sustainable growth. That is what this is all about: putting the British economy and our public finances on a sustainable footing so that we can create jobs in the future and so that the economy can grow.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about taxes on the top 1%. We introduced an increase in capital gains tax, and the truth is that not everyone in my party was particularly happy about it, but Labour had 13 years and all those Budgets in which to do that. The shadow Chancellor now rather lamely says that Labour supports the capital gains tax increase, but I would love to know, when the Cabinet minutes are published in 20 or 30 years’ time, whether he ever raised this matter in Cabinet. We took a decision to increase capital gains tax to the higher rate, and last week I published proposals for increasing tax on the very highest pension contributions. That is a £4 billion tax; it was not an easy thing to do, but we have done it. We have also accepted and lived with the previous Government’s decision to increase tax to 50%—of course, they introduced that in the last month they were in office. Again, that was not an easy decision. I am not instinctively in favour of higher marginal tax rates, but it is necessary at a time like this. I am determined that all parts of the income distribution should make a contribution, but that the people at the top of the income distribution should make the most.

Finally, on the disposal of the banks, at the moment we are not in a position to do that, but of course we monitor the situation the whole time and, as and when we can dispose of them, we will. I am very keen to create a more competitive banking sector at the end of this process, which is one of the reasons why we set up the independent commission.

Office for Budget Responsibility

Debate between George Osborne and Michael Meacher

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is also the conclusion of the G20, the European Union and most international observers of the UK situation.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

If the Chancellor accepts Sir Alan Budd’s estimate that around three quarters of the current deficit—about £120 billion—is structural, and if he intends to eradicate that entirely during this Parliament through public spending cuts and tax increases, where does he expect the growth to come from to prevent unemployment from increasing to 3 million and staying there for the next five years?

[Mr Osborne]

The fiscal mandate will be set out in the Budget. I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman was not elected as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but perhaps from his current position he will begin to propose cuts—as I said, cuts were even pencilled in to the previous Government’s plans—before concerning himself with our proposals.