Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Greg Hands and Chris Leslie(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands
Yes, we are very open-minded about doing events on either a county or a constituency basis. I am open-minded about how that might best be pursued. We have regional teams in the Department for International Trade, but if my hon. Friend and I were to have a discussion, particularly about what we may be able to do in Chippenham, I would be all ears.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister look at the trading opportunities we need for sectors that play to our comparative advantage already? As he knows, financial services amount to 12% of our output, yet the sector faces not a 10% or 20% tariff after April 2019 if we get this wrong, but a ban on selling and trading in many financial products altogether. What about some transitional arrangements? Will he talk to the Treasury about that?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman and I used to spar regularly on Treasury matters. I congratulate him on his election to the International Trade Committee. I look forward to appearing before him in due course. He will know that our priority is to maintain the maximum possible access to the single market across all these sectors.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Debate between Greg Hands and Chris Leslie(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Chancellor’s steps today to discourage child sugar consumption. As there is a cross-party consensus on the need to take measures to prevent ill health, it is important that we welcome those steps.
As the stir in the media begins to dissolve over the next few hours, I suspect that many members of the public will spot some of the uglier measures and scarier facts in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis and in the Red Book. The Chancellor clouded many of his announcements in jargon—he goes a little bit faster over some passages in his Budgets. It is the downgrading of economic growth, though, that will be of the most profound importance to many of those commenting on the Budget today. To downgrade expected growth this year from 2.4% to just 2% is a real blow to the Chancellor’s credibility when it comes to delivering economic performance. He has downgraded those figures not only for this year, but for every single year of this Parliament, which has a major effect on a whole series of Budget assumptions.
We already know that the Chancellor took a gamble in the spending review before Christmas. He found £27 billion down the back of a sofa through a series of ONS reclassifications, and he banked on that money, spent a lot of it and committed it in a number of different ways. Now that the money has not materialised, he has had to make a series of adjustments, which we are only just managing to spot in the fine print of the Red Book. I have not had a chance to go through the full details, but it is interesting to make a note of those adjustments.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
I thank the former shadow Chancellor for giving way. I wonder whether he is remembering his days as a senior adviser to Gordon Brown. Surely he must know that the forecasts are now all done independently by the OBR. It is only sensible for the Treasury and the Chancellor to react to those independent forecasts, but to try to shoot the forecaster is fundamentally to misunderstand the nature of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Chris Leslie
Oh dear, oh dear—a bad workman always blames his tools. It is interesting that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not fess up to the big changes that have been made with the raids on public sector pensions. Some £2 billion will be taken from public service workers across this country—that was not really emphasised in the Chancellor’s speech. A whopping £6 billion, or 60% of the £10 billion surplus that the Chancellor is still claiming will be achieved, will go on all sorts of shuffles in when corporation tax is paid. That will potentially be very disruptive to businesses and firms across the country.
On the economic forecast, there is a problem not just with growth but with productivity. Despite the fact that the Chancellor has published productivity plans, it is stark to see how productivity has been significantly downgraded in the OBR document. On page 46, we see that, whereas in 2010 real productivity had 21.9% of potential, it has now fallen to 14.4% of potential—a massive faltering of Britain’s performance on productivity. Although the Chancellor has paid lip service to that issue, he has consistently failed to orientate his Budget measures around those economic necessities.
We also need to look at what has been happening to earnings in this country. Again, the growth in average earnings is downgraded not just this year but for every year of this Parliament. Page 91 of the OBR document paints a gory picture of what is happening to average earnings. Of course, that economic outlook has an effect on the numbers in the tax and spending decisions that the Chancellor has to make.
Let us look at what the Chancellor has had to do to try to keep his promises. He is trying his best to stay on course to deliver a surplus at end of this Parliament, but he has already had to admit that he has broken his promise on the welfare cap, and today he has admitted that he is breaking his promise on the national debt. Public sector net debt is up every year in the forecast for this Parliament—a theme that runs through the whole Budget statement. The heroic assumption that the Chancellor is still going to get that £10 billion surplus at the end of the Parliament feels implausible not just to me but to many of the economic commentators who are analysing the Budget statement. As I have said, that surplus is predicated on a £2 billion raid on public service pensions and the £6 billion shuffle in when corporation tax will be realised.
Then we get to some of the other changes that the Chancellor has decided to make. He did not really dwell on this very much, but cutting capital gains tax from 28% to 20% is a phenomenal giveaway to the very wealthiest people in this country. It applies not to residential properties but to those who have an accretion of capital wealth. Their tax will come down significantly, with a giveaway next year of £630 million. In the same year, he will take £590 million—from where? From the disabled—from the personal independence payment section of the social security budget. That is a straight transfer from those in most need to the very wealthiest in society—a tycoon tax cut, as I think it will be known as the days go by and people realise what has been announced in the Budget.
There are other spending cuts in the small print of the Red Book. Poor old local government services, particularly in areas where not a lot of Conservative party members reside—you might be surprised at my cynicism, Madam Deputy Speaker. Local government services received £10.8 billion of funding this year, but that will be cut by a third to just £6.2 billion in the last year of this Parliament. Just imagine the effect on libraries, leisure services, housing, social services and social care. Of course the Government will say that local councils can put up council tax, but they should not think that local residents will not place that council tax increase entirely on the Chancellor’s shoulders. They are the ones who have to pay the price for the cut in local services.
The transport budget will be cut from £2 billion to £1.8 billion by the end of this Parliament. How on earth will that help with the productivity issues we have to address? I have talked about the clear problems that emerge from the OBR Blue Book, and transport is one of the most important areas of infrastructure spend, ensuring that people can get from A to B and that goods and services can flow to markets. All those obstacles and impediments to business will be made worse by the Chancellor’s attitude to transport.
The OBR goes on to say that this era of cuts and Tory austerity will continue not only for this Parliament—never mind the previous Parliament—but will bleed well into the next Parliament. The OBR says that to achieve the surplus they want, the Government need a much bigger cut in current departmental spending of £8.1 billion in 2020-21, compared with the £1.8 billion that they have to cut in 2019-20. There are all sorts of statistical shifts and shuffles going on, all revolving around the Chancellor’s target, and what is that about? Not just the Chancellor’s European referendum anxieties but the leadership challenge from the Mayor of London. Everything in this Budget has revolved around the Chancellor’s political predicament.
We have a Budget that exposes many of the anxieties people have had about this Chancellor’s attitude. It is eminently political, with all sorts of shuffles that do not really have anything to do with the best interests of the economy. With growth down, debt up, productivity faltering, implausible surplus forecasts and a tycoon tax cut—a capital gains tax giveaway paid for by disability independence payments—it is not a Budget of which Government Members should be proud.
Productivity
Debate between Greg Hands and Chris Leslie(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that UK economic productivity has been stagnating for several years with productivity growth the second worst of the G7 countries; recognises that supporting business to improve output efficiency and enhanced productivity is the best route to higher living standards and in turn is crucial for the health of the public finances; regrets that the Chancellor failed to address productivity in his March Budget speech; urges the Government to ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to report on the impact on productivity of the options likely to be considered in the forthcoming Spending Review; and believes that decisions on reducing public service expenditure must take into account their impact on productivity performance.
The productivity of our economy and of businesses, the workforce and the resources of our country is critical for our recovery and for our future prosperity. There should be a cross-party consensus that productivity is the key challenge facing Britain today, which is why I was very disappointed by the Chancellor’s attitude at Treasury questions yesterday and at his point-blank refusal to engage with this crucial debate in the House of Commons today. We have learned that when it comes to dealing with issues that he does not want to attend to, the Chancellor either blames someone else or sends someone else. In that growing tradition, I welcome the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury to his new role.
Greg Hands
Surely the hon. Gentleman must admit that, given that the Chancellor was here yesterday at Treasury questions, and able to answer questions on productivity, and that he was here again today as First Secretary for Prime Minister’s questions, and able to answer questions on productivity, he has been available in this House to answer questions.
Chris Leslie
I am sure the Chancellor is very much focused on being the Prime Minister in waiting. He is, of course, the eminent First Secretary of State, and I hope his junior Ministers occasionally manage to peek round his door and get the odd minute of his very busy time on these matters.
The mark of a Chancellor focused on our economic challenges would have been to engage a bit more thoughtfully in considering how best we can tackle Britain’s productivity problems, but he could not bring himself to mention productivity once during his 8,000-word Budget speech three months ago.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
I am delighted to respond to this debate on productivity, because it is absolutely central to our long-term plan to fix the economy. My ministerial colleagues at the Treasury have been candid about the scale of the productivity challenge, so in some ways I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has said, but this is a challenge that the UK has faced for decades, not “several years” as the motion suggests.
We have been very clear that increasing productivity is a key challenge in this Parliament for this Government: it will be a key focus of ours over the next five years. Indeed, the Chancellor noted as early as August 2010—very early on in the last Government—that our relatively low productivity was a drag to economic recovery, when he spoke at Bloomberg about the economy of the future.
The hon. Gentleman has said that productivity was not mentioned in the Budget, but I refer him to page 1—the very first page—of the Budget document.
Greg Hands
No, first of all I am going to tell the hon. Gentleman what it says:
“The deficit remains too high and productivity too low, there are still long-standing structural weaknesses in the economy, and the gap between the economic performance of London and the rest of the UK remains too wide.”
Chris Leslie
The key thing is the difference between the Budget document and the Budget speech. The Budget speech was more than an hour long, so why did the Chancellor not mention that very paragraph?
Greg Hands
Surely the most important thing is the delivery of the Budget, not just the speech. The delivery of the Budget was all about things such as digital communications infrastructure, housing, science, innovation, freezing fuel duty, doing something for the oil and gas regime, the sharing economy and backing business by launching a comprehensive review of business rates. The most important thing in government is what is delivered.
The Chancellor announced four weeks ago—way before the hon. Gentleman tabled a motion or wrote an article—that we will publish a productivity plan: a plan to make Britain work better. I will remind the hon. Gentleman of that speech, because he was there with various Labour leadership contenders, minus the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Curiously, he seemed to have been missed off the CBI invitation list, but he may be up for an invitation in the future. The Chancellor said:
“Let me be clear”—
perhaps he was not clear enough for the hon. Member for Nottingham East—
“improving the productivity of our country is the route to raising standards of living for everyone in this country.”
I am sure the shadow Chancellor will recall that, because he was there.
It speaks volumes that the Treasury ministerial team announced in May by the Prime Minister includes Jim O’Neill, one of the most respected economists in the country and an authority on productivity. His input is more about deeds than words and it will be vital as we put in place the policies that will turbo-charge our economy.
Our productivity plan will build on the significant supply-side reforms we have put in place over the past five years. It will be wide-ranging and ambitious. It will look to the long term. It will help rebalance the economy and build the northern powerhouse. It will improve our infrastructure and reduce burdens on businesses; increase our support for childcare; ensure that many more affordable homes are built; expand apprenticeships and equip us with the skills we need for the 21st century; and make a bold next step in this country’s remarkable economic recovery.
Greg Hands
Yes, my hon. Friend is here, unlike half the shadow Treasury team who went into the election and were wiped out by either the Conservatives or the Scottish National party—and that includes the hon. Gentleman’s former leader.
Greg Hands
Okay, I hear the hon. Gentleman.
To answer the point raised by hon. Member for Nottingham East about the OBR, the OBR already produces forecasts and commentary on productivity, and will continue to do so independently and impartially as it always has done.
Chris Leslie
We are looking for the right hon. Gentleman’s support in commissioning the OBR to look at the spending choices the Chancellor has before him. He will have to acknowledge that certain decisions on reducing public expenditure could have more of an adverse effect on productivity than others. We want to make sure that we have a proper analysis of the impact of those decisions. That would be a better, more sensible way to think about how we spend. It is not just a debate about how much we spend.
Greg Hands
The OBR remit is pretty clear on this kind of thing. Let me just say that I have listened to the hon. Gentleman a great deal in the past five years. Coming from a party that never set up the OBR, or any equivalent to it, he seems now to be rather over-fascinated in what its operations should be. He might have thought of some of those questions during the 13 years of the Labour Government.
The hon. Gentleman said that employment growth had been of poor quality. I would dispute that. I think we will find that in the five years since the first quarter of 2010, more than 60% of the increase in employment has been in high skilled occupations. Some 75% of the increase has been in full-time employment and, after the excellent results this week, wages growth now exceeds inflation for the eighth consecutive month.
I am going now to make a bit of progress, because I am conscious that we have one or two maiden speeches coming up and a highly subscribed debate. Let us look at what we did in the previous Parliament. In 2010, the priority clearly for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor was to put in place a jobs-based recovery. We all know the result: 1,000 jobs created every day, with three quarters of them full time. The employment rate is now at its highest on record at 73.5% and around the highest level on record at 31.1 million. We make no apology for prioritising job growth in the past five years. It is the best way to make people’s lives better, as the nearly 12,000 people who found employment in the shadow Chancellor’s constituency will surely agree.
At the same time, we put in place important supply side measures to improve our national productivity. We increased average public and private infrastructure investment to about £47 billion a year between 2011 and 2014, which is more than a sixth higher than it was in the previous Parliament. We have completed 15 major schemes on the strategic road network, worth £3.4 billion, with a further 17 schemes, worth £2.5 billion, under way. We have completed more than 2,650 infrastructure projects and extended access to superfast broadband to more than 2.5 million more premises. We have accelerated the academies programme, with more than 4,600 academies now opened, and we have set the path for high-speed rail to unleash the full potential of our northern cities. We have protected the science budget in cash terms and set out a long-term capital commitment on the science budget as well, ensuring that it will rise in line with inflation for the duration of the Parliament.
Greg Hands
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to this place and thank him for his intervention. I do not necessarily disagree with anything he says. Equally, I am sure that he would welcome what has been done in Hove in the past five years. Unemployment has fallen by, I think, almost 1,200 in his constituency—a 53% fall in joblessness. We will consider what he proposes, but he must recognise what has been delivered for his constituency.
We have raised the annual budget of Innovate UK, the core innovation support mechanism for businesses in the UK, from £360 million in 2011 to more than £500 million in 2015-16. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will also be delighted to learn that we have put a premium on apprenticeships, of which more than 2.2 million have been created, and that we have pledged to deliver 3 million this Parliament.
As I said, productivity began to rise last year, although we are still below our pre-crisis peak. We agree on the extent of the problem. The OBR expects productivity to pick up in 2015 and to grow at a reasonable rate afterwards in every year of the forecast period, which is good news for businesses and individuals and has undoubtedly contributed to our economic recovery.
I want to say a few words about the next five years, because, although a lot has been done, now is the time to redouble our efforts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the CBI last month that we had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to find an extra gear for the British economy. Our productivity plan will set out how we will do that, and I will not, and cannot be expected to, pre-empt that plan. Let me remind hon. Members, however, of our manifesto commitments to boost productivity. We said we would invest in infrastructure, on which previous Governments failed to take the decisions that other countries did, meaning we fell behind in the ’90s and in the time of the last Labour Government.
Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in 2010 we did not even have a national infrastructure plan? I appreciate that the hon. Member for Nottingham East was not here between 2005 and 2010, having lost his seat in Shipley, but he was a Minister for part of the time Labour was in government, so he could have raised some of these points when he was sitting around the table. We have caught up a lot since, but our historical stop-start approach has meant that our physical infrastructure is not nearly as good as it should be. Now is our opportunity to fix that.
Greg Hands
No, I am going to make a bit more progress.
We will invest more than £100 billion in infrastructure over the next Parliament, including more than £70 billion in transport alone, of which £15 billion will be spent on our roads.
Greg Hands
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
We are investing in broadband and home building, with a commitment to build 200,000 starter homes to be sold at a 20% discount exclusively to first-time buyers under the age of 40.
Greg Hands
I have allowed the shadow Chancellor quite a bit of time already, so I will give way to the Member for Washington.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that series of questions, but his use of statistics was highly selective. I am sure he will join me in celebrating the fact that the two regions in which employment is rising the fastest are the north-west and the north-east. Of all regions, the north-east leads the way in export growth. I am sure he will also join me in welcoming the fall of 1,518 in unemployment in his constituency under the last Government—again, just shy of a 50% fall.
Chris Leslie
I thank the Member for Fulham for giving way. Would he be so good as to look at the point he was making on transport infrastructure? I asked about the Davies commission on airport capacity, which he knows is an issue affecting Britain’s productivity as a whole. Will he give us an assurance that the Government will make a swift decision when presented with the final conclusions of the commission’s report, and not kick it into the long grass until the end of the year or beyond?
Greg Hands
The position is unchanged. It is as set out in our manifesto. We await the publication of the Davies report, and we will act accordingly. However, we recognise that airport capacity is an issue, which is why we commissioned the report in the first place.
European Budgets 2014 to 2020
Debate between Greg Hands and Chris Leslie(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister started the debate by referring to today’s news about the eurozone crisis. Despite the failures of all leaders at the G20 summit, including the Prime Minister, and the continued failure of the eurozone to put flesh on the bones with regard to the dimensions of the European financial stability facility and the role of the European Central Bank, we hope that some leadership will eventually emerge across the European stage to get to grips with the problem. I am sure that the Minister will want to take back the message from both sides of the House that far sturdier action is needed on these issues.
It is important that the House recognise the difference between the issues we would like to discuss today and the specific issue addressed by the motion. The Minister referred to the Council of Ministers’ proposal in the summer for a real-terms freeze in the EU’s annual budget for 2012—in other words, a cash rise of over 2%—yet the European Parliament voted on 26 October to back a package even higher than the Commission’s proposal for a 4.9% increase. Labour Members of the European Parliament voted against the package, which would have amounted to an increase of more than 5%. We were prepared to support only a real-terms freeze in the budget.
I am told that there will now be a 21-day negotiation period among the three EU institutions. If the 2012 budget is not passed by December, it will be worked out on a monthly basis, based on 2011 levels. We believe that the proposal to increase the budget by more than 5% will strike most people as unjustified and wrong-headed. The last time we saw the Government negotiate an annual budget, the Prime Minister started by promising a freeze but ended up claiming that an increase was a victory. This time he needs to do better and must not support another inflation-busting rise in the EU budget.
Chris Leslie
I will come to that in a moment.
If that means the Government need to stand firm for the full 21-day negotiating period, so be it. The UK should not allow the 2012 budget to rise beyond a real-terms freeze.
With regard to the snappily titled “Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020”, we rarely have an opportunity to debate a subject while the Chancellor is talking about it at an ECOFIN meeting, so this is a useful sign that Parliament is in tune with the issues of the day. Defining the main budget priorities over the seven-year period is a process that began in 1986 but was changed in the Lisbon treaty so that there was greater involvement for the European Parliament. It is important to explore the detail, but in our view the notion that there should be any significant overall increase in expenditure is perverse, given the strictures being placed on mainstream public investment projects at home. The Government must ensure that they deliver on their rhetoric in the motion and secure a much better deal than the one currently on the table.
There are two crucial areas on which the Government need to focus: the Commission’s proposal for new revenue powers and the UK rebate. With regard to the Commission’s proposals to change what it calls its “own resources” method of calculating the income it received from each member state, it is suggesting two new direct revenue streams. The first is a top-slice process for domestic VAT revenues, which I would like to ask the Minister about specifically. I am very sceptical about the proposal and would be grateful if he addressed it when summing up, because I do not think he touched on it adequately in his opening comments. Will he tell the House what proportion of our domestic VAT would be diverted to EU institutions if the change was proceeded with? The Commission seemed to suggest that it is a replacement for the VAT element of the funding formula used to calculate contributions from each member state, but how would the existing arrangements and the new arrangements compare?
With regard to the Commission’s proposal for a new EU financial transaction tax, can we at least be clear that it twists the notion of a Robin Hood tax so wide of the mark that it is barely recognisable from the global FTT, which has received so much support from charities, campaigners and leading economists worldwide? Revenues from any FTT must surely be destined for jobs, growth and carbon reduction at home and in the developing world. Pouring those revenues into the EU budget or EU bail-out funds instead would be the wrong thing to do and totally contrary to the spirit of a genuine Robin Hood tax. Instead, the starting point ought to be the proposal that Labour put forward at the 2009 G20 summit, which is that all countries should agree to work together to establish a tax, set at a fraction of 1%, that could be levied on financial transactions, millions of which happen in the City everyday. We want to see a financial transaction tax—but one that is implemented with the widest possible international agreement.