Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

James Cleverly Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I am sure that there will always be people who are opposed to what I am trying to do. That is the nature of society—we live in an open society in which people have different points of view on many issues. The fourth money laundering directive should be about capturing bad people in its scope, not capturing all people. If everyone is thought of as bad, it is very difficult to identify who is actually breaking the law. We want to go after the law breakers, not those people who, by accident, are described or identified as PEPs by banks in this country.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the rush to implement these actions ahead of the directive indicates a desire by the banks to take what seems to be decisive action against a group of people who are quite easy to target, and that the banks will be less keen to take that action against people who are harder to track down? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the fondness of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for live music, and it is a fondness that I share, but there are limits.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

indicated assent.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will he give way? [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. Leave me to deal with this. Mr Cleverly, I have known you for years and you have always struck me as a very polite fellow. You are getting over-excited, young man. You will have an opportunity to intervene, perhaps in due course, but you don’t do it like that. Learn from a few old hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s interview on the Marr programme on Sunday expressed a profound concern that he had about the unfairness of the Budget, and we agreed with this. As I said, I have not agreed with a single policy he has pursued, but I do not doubt his sincerity. The right hon. Gentleman saw—

[James Cleverly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will in a minute. There is no need to shout out so loud again.

The right hon. Gentleman saw the unfairness of the PIP cuts to disabled people in the Budget. As he said, it is a Budget that benefits high earners. He also saw himself being set up by his own Cabinet colleague.

[John McDonnell]

I fully concur. The same week that this was being discussed, ESA was being cut by £30 a week.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He has been speaking now for 14 minutes. He has criticised Conservative Members for making this about politics and people, but I was just wondering when he will actually get around to talking about any of the Budget proposals.

[John McDonnell]

The role of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account. We are holding this Chancellor to account for a potential attack on disabled people that I believe would have devastated their lives.

What I find most disgraceful through all of this is that there has been no word of apology from the Chancellor or any Conservative Member. Apologise, I say. I say apologise for the pain and anguish he has caused disabled people and their families in the past two weeks. We all make mistakes. I understand that. But when you make a mistake and correct it, you should at least apologise.

Small Businesses: Tax Reporting

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Dowden]

I hope that all that will be considered in the consultation that the Government have committed to undertake.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Much of the correspondence I have received on this from small businesses and those who write about small business is based on what seems to be a misunderstanding, but concern may go a long way to either hampering or aiding implementation. Do not the Government need to give almost as much thought to the communication about implementation as to the implementation itself to give small businesses confidence that they have thought through the regulatory burden that this requirement might be perceived to bring?

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I alluded to earlier, a lot of press coverage has suggested that this requirement amounts to quarterly tax returns. Whatever reservations we may have, it is pretty clear that it does not amount to that. I would welcome the Minister’s explicit assurance about that.

Another concern raised by petitioners was that they would not have the software or skills to produce the required information. I would welcome a commitment to proper availability of information, software and, where necessary, training for small businesses. We all know the difficulties of getting in contact with HMRC by telephone, so I ask the Government to look at ways to ensure that such information is readily and easily available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. We have both been involved in local government issues and campaigned on national issues. Every moment that a self-employed person spends on the phone to the local council, HMRC or any other Government Department is a moment they are not spending getting new business, delivering new contracts and earning the money that will give them the security they need in the long term.

We know that HMRC has a lamentable record on customer service, which the Minister graciously acknowledged in answering questions in the main Chamber recently. I know that he will focus on that issue, and people such as myself and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will continue campaigning on it, because it is extremely important. In the interests of fairness, I will also carry on campaigning against my council in Brighton and Hove, which is a Labour-run council, to ensure that it offers better services for, and better contact with, its local businesses and self-employed people.

I am well aware that people who run big businesses in the city that I represent, whether American Express in Brighton, Kemptown or EDF in my constituency of Hove, have a named contact in the local authority. That contact is called the chief executive. If the chief executive of one of those big businesses wants to get the council on the phone, they call the council’s chief executive. However, the drivers of our local economy—people who run companies that employ fewer than eight people, which make up 90% of the businesses in our city—do not have a named contact in the local authority. There are no consequences if a phone is not picked up, or if a message is not returned. That symbolises how power is distributed in the wrong direction.

It would be wrong if we designed and implemented policies that put people off wanting to become self-employed. The calls that Members from all parties have made in this debate, imploring the Minister to ensure that there is a period of consultation, have been extremely well put.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing his experiences as an entrepreneur. As someone who has run a small business, I completely understand the point that he is making about fear of change. Does he therefore agree that if the Government showed that the new policy could be intuitive and easy to understand and implement, many of the potential hurdles that he has highlighted could be put to one side? If some of the tech entrepreneurs who I know are prevalent in his constituency could be involved in designing the implementation and roll-out of the measure with the Government, that would go a long way to addressing the issues that he has raised.

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful for that thoughtful intervention, and I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s points. However, when policies are thoughtful, intuitive and in the interests of business, businesses usually flock to take them up. In this case something has clearly gone wrong in one of two ways: either it is being communicated in the wrong way, but it is a great policy; or it is a poor policy that is being communicated in the right way but is not managing to hit home. The purpose of the debate is to decide which it is.

The policy needs to be tested and communicated better. We need to ensure that people who run businesses—smart people who want to do the right thing by paying their taxes and ensuring that their businesses are not disproportionately burdened—are fully involved as the policy is implemented in the long run. In my view it certainly should happen in the long run, because at the moment, people are being put off going into self-employment or setting up their own business.

Interestingly, on the train up here today, when I was speaking to my brother, who works as a postman in the Brighton, Pavilion constituency, he told me that one of his colleagues had seen on the news that this debate was coming up and had talked about self-employment. His colleague was self-employed for a number of years—more than a decade—but moved away from it because of the fear of the accounting, bureaucracy and regulation that was being heaped on to self-employed people.

The freedom that is associated with self-employment has diminished. As well as the burden of regulation, people fear not having the skills that they need, and they fear the unknown. Because they are not a trained accountant or an experienced administrator—rather, they are a skilled labourer—they fear that they might step outside regulatory measures without being aware of it. That was enough to drive my brother’s colleague away from self-employment and back into paid employment. We should be wary of that, because it would be a huge shame if entrepreneurship were to become the preserve of the middle classes. I do not believe that entrepreneurial spirit is class-based or education-based; it is evenly distributed, even though it is not evenly expressed in our economy.

Public policy on the self-employed needs to be got right, particularly for people who run small businesses or microbusinesses. At the moment, I do not believe that Government policy across the board is on their side. Let us take one example—the much vaunted, much hyped productivity plan, which I know the Minister is keen to refer to often in the Chamber and in the media. It is interesting that in the Government’s flagship productivity plan there is not one single mention of the self-employed, who make up 15% of the workforce and number 4.5 million people. The fastest-growing employment trend in our country does not warrant a single mention in the productivity plan.

In my constituency there is a fantastic business called Crunch, which has been set up specifically to supply accountancy services to people who are self-employed or running microbusinesses. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, went to visit a couple of weeks ago, which was absolutely fantastic. It now provides services not only right across our city but right across the south of England, and it is great that people are starting to notice just how fantastic the business is and how important its services are. It provides light-touch, fast, responsive support to people setting up businesses. The great thing about being able to visit it is that because it has thousands of customers, it can harness insight into real-time trends in self-employment and see the impact of public policy on the small business and self-employed sector. I know that quite often, HMRC and Government Departments struggle to get real-time data on the impact of Government policy.

One prediction that Crunch makes about the negative impacts of policy is that the leap from 0% to 7.5% in basic rate dividend tax will hit lower-earning company directors the hardest. Those are probably self-employed people who are moving their company to limited status, have a very small number of employees and pay themselves through dividends. Everyone wants to make sure that the right people are paying tax, but the proposal could have the most negative impact on people on lower incomes who run microbusinesses. For example, a limited company director paying themselves primarily through dividends would pay £1,528 more tax a year on pre-tax profits of £48,000, whereas a director with £78,000 of pre-tax profits would pay only £1,343 more.

We can also see from the statistics that the change in income tax for a microbusiness from 2015-16 to 2016-17 will have a negative impact of 21% on somebody earning about £40,000. The equivalent impact on somebody earning £58,000 will be minus 1%. There is something regressive, not progressive, about the changes to dividend tax, and we need to shift the tax burden so that it is progressive, not regressive. If the Minister does so, I know that he will be met with support from both sides of the House. I would very much welcome his comments on that point.

European Union Referendum Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman is not of course the only person who is delighted to see so many new SNP Members bringing their wisdom to this Chamber. We refer to the independence referendum because we have the facts and the evidence to show that if we include 16 and 17-year-olds in the process, they get involved. To make the argument that Westminster elections did not inspire people to get involved in elections in the past is more of a reflection on Westminster politicians than on the public at large. We have the evidence that 16-year-olds got involved. It was good that they campaigned—good for those who got involved on the no side as well as for those who did so on the yes side. It was a positive thing all round, and I pay tribute to those people.

Just as with the rest of the population, if we give young people a genuine opportunity to get involved in a meaningful democratic process, they will do so, and the European Union referendum provides us with such an opportunity. To give the Minister and the Prime Minister more of an incentive, I suspect that 16-year-olds will be better informed and give their Government a fairer hearing on the deal they are negotiating with Brussels than will their own Back Benchers.

This House has been left behind on votes for 16-year-olds. It is happening in Scotland, the Isle of Man and elsewhere. Let us not be left behind again. Let us back votes for 16-year-olds.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I rise to support the Government on Lords amendment 1. A number of arguments have been deployed for extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in the European referendum. I have listened to them in this and other debates, and they can be distilled into two broad camps. The first argument—we have just heard an example of it from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins)—is that what has been done in Scotland should be done across the rest of the UK. The other argument is that this is about their future and, because this is a one-off referendum, they should be allowed to have a say in their future. I will address each point in turn.

I lived for a year on Deeside—in the Dee valley between Ballater and Aboyne—which is a truly beautiful and wonderful part of the world. From living there, I discovered that lots of things in Scotland are done differently from how we do them in England and Wales, but vive la difference: we do not necessarily want to create complete homogeneity across the whole of the UK. I suspect that one reason why SNP Members are so passionate about independence is that they want to do things differently from how they are done in England and Wales, so I find it slightly strange that, in their collective desire to be independent and different, they are suggesting we should all be the same.

[Geraint Davies]

The SNP spokesman’s point was that if we give 16-year-olds the right to vote, they become more valued and engaged, and there is increased representation. They become part of the fabric of democratic society and adopt responsibilities, which enriches our whole community. We should go ahead with it.

[James Cleverly]

Part of my speech will address the very point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If he will indulge me, I will not concertina in that part of my speech in response to his intervention. However, I will come back to it, and if he is not satisfied by the rest of my speech, I invite him to intervene again later.

I want to return to what happens in Scotland. There is one long-standing difference between what 16-year-olds can do in Scotland and what they can do in the rest of the United Kingdom. Gretna Green is famous because it is the first place where runaway lovers can take advantage of the different attitude towards the age of marriage. To say that because something happens in Scotland it must therefore happen in the rest of the United Kingdom is a hollow argument.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cleverly]

I will give way in a moment.

I advise SNP Members to be a little careful about what they wish for. If their position is that any devolved power they exercise must then, by extension, be absorbed by the rest of the UK, that will create a lot of friction and disharmony as people in rest of the United Kingdom—

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

At least let me get to the end of my point.

Those people will feel aggrieved at the automatic assumption that devolved decisions made in Scotland are therefore going to wash across to the rest of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Carol Monaghan]

The hon. Gentleman is somewhat missing the point. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) talked about the engagement of 16 and 17-year-olds. We have found in Scotland—the evidence backs this up—that by giving the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, they remain engaged in the political process beyond the age of 16 or 17. Although the rest of the UK may have had low numbers voting in Westminster elections, we have had much higher numbers—above 70%—in Scotland.

[James Cleverly]

I assume that the hon. Lady misunderstood the type of engagement I was talking about when I referred to Gretna Green. I will come on to her point later.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made a very important point about the natural implication of extending the voting rights in the European referendum to other elections. In a previous life, I was the youth ambassador for the Mayor of London. I spent a huge amount of time dealing with young people across London, so I know that there are many very well-informed, engaged, articulate, thoughtful people aged 16 and 17. There are also some very well-informed, articulate, engaged 15-year-olds. Frankly, there are some 40-year-olds I would not trust to tie their own shoelaces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know that I certainly do not support votes at 16. Over some years as the Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, what worried me was the increasing pressure on childhood in our country. It worries me that people will be adults at 16. The implications of that have never been seriously looked at by my party. There has never been any investigation of the impact of bringing down the voting age to 16 on children and childhood. The Opposition, including the SNP, have never done a proper evaluation of the impact on children and on the protection of children, which should be our top priority.

[James Cleverly]

That leads me neatly on to my closing remarks.

There is a natural extension of this proposal. People say that this is a one-off and that there will be no extension, but we have just heard a number of speeches and interventions from SNP Members saying that they gave votes to 16-year-olds in the Scottish referendum and that they then gave votes to 16-year-olds at Holyrood elections. They suggest that this is the most natural evolution of the democratic process. They are making exactly the point that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) warns against. This proposal will unlock the floodgates for the change of the mandate to 16 at many other elections.

By mandating that 16 and 17-year-olds are to remain in education, society has made an explicit comment that we do not feel that they are fully formed. If we did, we would not suggest that they had to stay in education, we would not suggest that they could not book their own sunbed and we would not suggest that they should not even be allowed to buy their own sparklers on Guy Fawkes night.

It is a ridiculous notion that in a one-hour debate, tagged on to the European Union Referendum Bill, we should make a decision as fundamental as changing the electoral mandate. I strongly urge all Members of the House across the parties to support the Government’s position and reject the Lords amendment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Tax Credits

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I will make a little progress, but then I will happily give way again.

The House of Commons document also states:

“There is no transitional protection for existing families on tax credits.”

Let us just dwell on that statement. The harsh winds of a winter chill are brought to you by Her Majesty’s Government—or, as we might put it, Ebenezer Cameron. I do not believe that any of us came into this place to put our hands on our hearts and say that we want to do this to hard-working families. We have it in our power to stop it today. Just imagine the letters dropping through constituents’ letter boxes, telling them about the massive cuts that are about to afflict them, and for what purpose! We must pause, reflect, and change course. Today is the opportunity that the House needs to recognise that we have got this one wrong. We need to be brave, be bold, and collectively do the right thing.

Let us stop and think about this for a minute. Low-income families, on average, will lose £1,300 a year. Let us now look more specifically at a single-earner couple with two children, working a 35-hour week on the minimum wage. That couple will see their tax credit award fall by £1,853 in 2016-17. The impact of the so-called national living wage will only modestly offset the impact of a fall in tax credit income, and the net family income will fall by £1,525.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the parties represented on his side of the House have made a series of apocalyptic predictions about the British economy since the 2010 general election, and that, one after another, those apocalyptic predictions have been proved wrong? Why should we believe your predictions now?

[Ian Blackford]

We are not making any apocalyptic predictions about the economy. What we are talking about is the impact on hard-working families. We want to see investment in our economy. We want to see investment in innovation and skills, improving productivity and improving the living standards of all, in Scotland and elsewhere. We want to work with you so that we can improve those things.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

In the Labour party, we have a democratic process involving the shadow Cabinet and the parliamentary Labour party. In fact, it is so democratic that it is reported in the press virtually daily.

This charter will be used time and again as an excuse for the Government’s refusal to intervene and invest, but the more we know about its potential use, the more my view is strengthened—it has to be vigorously opposed. It will be used to justify cutting services and support to families across the UK, including the cuts to tax credits, which are the working families’ penalty. I cannot support the cuts to tax credits for working families. These are people who have done everything asked of them: they have gone to work and looked after their children, yet because of the policy direction in this charter they are going to be hit with a £1,300 cut. Neither can I support the continuing attack on disabled people, which is inherent in this fiscal mandate.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will in a minute.

Disabled people are already harassed—some to death—by the brutal work capability assessment and often by benefit sanctions, yet they are to lose over £30 a week. Disabled people under this Government and under the coalition have been hit 18 times harder than other citizens by the impact of cuts. I do not want the Labour party to be associated in any way with these policies, and to dissociate ourselves clearly we need to vote against them tonight.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening. It was professional advice. It was watching the economic headwinds grow. But, in addition to that, it was meeting families who had lost their futures in Redcar that made me decide that we need a Government who would invest and would not leave them adrift.

[James Cleverly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will discover the answer. He is renowned for his patience.

[James Cleverly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

And when that expenditure was being determined in the House, the Opposition supported it, and never objected. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well have rejected it, but I remember his Budgets. His Budgets balanced, but when they balanced, there were 40,000 homeless families in London. People were dying on waiting lists before they got their operations. Those were the consequences of his economic policies.

Focusing on the deficit continues to mask the underlying weaknesses and failures of our unreformed economic system. We are witnessing a recovery based on rising house prices, growing consumer credit, a ballooning current account deficit and still inadequate reform of the finance sector. I worry that some of the warning signs are reappearing. But the Conservatives have adhered to their dictum: never let a crisis go to waste. They have skilfully used their narrative of the deficit to enable them to cut public services, slash benefits, and give tax cuts to the rich and corporations. Successive charters and fiscal mandates brought before this House have been cynically used as a weapon in that cause.

The purpose of the original Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, brought in by Labour, was to bolster the then Government’s economic credibility. I recall what the current Chancellor said. He described it as little more than a political stunt. But he soon learned what a useful tool charters and mandates can be, and immediately upon the coalition’s election, he introduced his own. The fact that he missed most of his targets was irrelevant to him; what was more valuable was that charters could be picked up whenever needed and prayed in aid to excuse any attack on the welfare state and any cut in benefits, and provide a means to redistribute wealth upwards.

The charter before us today also has little basis in economics. Let me quote Dr Ha-Joon Chang, Professor Thomas Piketty, Professor David Blanchflower, Mariana Mazzucato and Simon Wren-Lewis. Those eminent economists in our society said that it has

“no basis in economics. Osborne’s proposals are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy and, as such, they risk a liquidity crisis that could also trigger banking problems, a fall in GDP, a crash, or all three.”

They go on to say that if the Government

“chooses to try to inflexibly run surpluses…Households, consumers and businesses may have to borrow more overall, and the risk of a personal debt crisis to rival 2008 could be very real indeed.”

[James Cleverly]

The wording of this charter has not changed in the past two weeks, and I am therefore curious: what happened two weeks ago? Did the hon. Gentleman read the charter and not understand it, or had he not read the charter when he advised his colleagues to vote on it?

[John McDonnell]

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it is always best before making an intervention to have listened to the debate so far and it is always best to make a calculation as to whether he is going to add to the sum of human knowledge by the intervention? [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] All right, I was a bit harsh. Sorry about that. Mr Speaker, I am not usually so undiplomatic, am I? May I press on? The Chancellor may not appreciate the economic points that have been made, but—

Tax Credits

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

What we have just heard is a Government in denial about the impact these changes will have on what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has described as “wrecking family finances”. We are here today only because of the efforts of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who wrote to the Prime Minister in July to insist on a full debate on these cuts to tax credits, which were not included in the Tory manifesto. The original intention had been to implement these changes with the scantiest possible parliamentary scrutiny—through a statutory instrument not debated by the whole House, but considered by a short Committee session of no more than 15 MPs and without scrutiny in the House of Lords.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. Does she not recognise that rebalancing the financial relationship between the state, employers and employees was in the Conservative party manifesto, which was voted on and led to the return of a Conservative Government?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

We gather here today to conclude the Budget debates, but before I dive in, I want to put the Budget in a long-term, global context.

All political parties in advanced economies face the challenge of translating their values into action in an era of change and globalisation. In some circles “globalisation” is seen as a dirty word, but in my view it is wrong to view it as such. We cannot ignore the fact that it has lifted millions of people out of poverty and destitution in developing economies around the world: that is something that we should celebrate. It has also expanded opportunities in advanced economies for some particularly highly skilled, internationally mobile workers. However, globalisation, powered by technological forces, is also displacing and reshaping industry after industry in economies like ours. It has failed to deliver for nearly enough people in middle and lower-income jobs, often destroying jobs that families and whole communities have done for generations.

The nature of work is also changing. More people are becoming self-employed, and more people need to work around caring and family responsibilities. That is not a bad thing, but our systems are not set up to serve those new work patterns so well. Anyone who speaks to a self-employed person about how difficult it is to take out a mortgage, or to a working family about the rising cost of childcare or the challenge of working while also caring for an elderly relative, will see what I mean. Economic policy is about nothing if it is not about the job that people do, from which so much else flows: self-esteem, a sense of security, and the ability to support a family.

The job of Governments, in addition to providing a safety net for those who cannot work, is to decide what policy responses can transform the challenges posed by technology, globalisation, and other changes from obstacles to solutions—solutions to problems related to jobs, growth and competitiveness—today and in the coming decades. That, ultimately, is the yardstick against which we must measure the Government’s Budgets during this Parliament. Do they empower people to get on in an era of globalisation? Do they promote growth and prosperity, at the same time as reducing our debt and deficit in a fair way?

Let me now turn specifically to this Parliament’s first Budget, and the projections for the economy and public finances in the short term. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s growth forecasts for the forecast period are relatively unchanged compared to those in March, although growth has been revised down for this year. The current recovery is real, but it is the slowest on record. The economy is still fragile. If that were not the case, the foot would not be firmly on the floor when it comes to monetary policy levers: the base rate has sat at 0.5% for more than six years. So there can be no complacency on growth. At the same time, we still need to reduce public sector borrowing and the national debt in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-09. That crash was triggered by grossly irresponsible behaviour in the banking sector. It caused a recession that precipitated a fall in tax receipts and the debt and the deficit to substantially increase. I will deal with the debt and deficit issues first, because I want to deal in more detail with matters of growth. Ultimately, the best way to reduce our debts is by people earning more and for the economy to grow in a sustainable way.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman sticks rigidly to the Labour party’s script that it was all the fault of the banking sector, but does he concede that his Government—whether through too little, too much or the wrong regulation—had any part to play in the economic downturn we are now coming out of?

[Mr Umunna]

First, undoubtedly we should have better regulated the banks during our time in office, but it is worth Conservative Members remembering that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 that put in place a tripartite system for banking regulation was not opposed by them at the time—[Interruption.] No, it was not; I have read the Hansard myself. It is also worth noting that, to the extent that we were criticised by Conservative Members, they were saying we were regulating the banking sector too much.

Secondly, I will happily acknowledge that after 15 years of economic expansion we should not have been running a deficit—albeit an historically small and unremarkable one—going into the crash, but again I remind Conservative Members that the average deficit during our time in office before the crash hit was 1.3% of GDP, whereas in the 18 previous years it was 3.2%. It was not that small deficit that caused the increase in the wake of the crash; it was the fall in tax receipts precipitated by the recession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

The truth is—I say this to the Chief Secretary—the Government borrowed over £200 billion more than they planned in the last five years. That is more in five years than the last Labour Government borrowed in 13 years. Now they want us to pat them on the back for their failure. I will not do it.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman bemoans rushed asset sales. Does that include the significant sale of our gold reserves under a former Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer?

[Mr Umunna]

Oh dear; I think I will move on.

Why does all this matter? It matters because reducing the deficit is a progressive endeavour. We seek to balance the books because it is the right thing to do. We will not stand by while the state spends more paying interest every year to City speculators and investors holding Government debt than on people’s housing, skills or transport. It follows that aiming to reduce the national debt in the long term, and running surpluses when the economic circumstances allow and the economy is robust, is the right approach. It means we can free resources to invest in people to help them succeed in an era of globalisation. I would much rather invest in people than spend the £36 billion the Red Book tells us we will be spending on debt interest this financial year.

By the way, I say to Conservative Members that this is in keeping with the history of our party. In our 1964 election-winning manifesto we criticised, as we did in the lead-in to the last general election, “an ever-increasing burden” of debt payment on the country. I note that the Chancellor wants to legislate to make surpluses a legal requirement in “normal times”. In 2010, when the then Chancellor Alistair Darling sought to enshrine in law, in the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, a deficit reduction target, the Chancellor said that it was “vacuous and irrelevant.” to enshrine such things in law. The Conservatives now need to explain what has brought about this change of mind.

This recognition that we need to reduce the national debt is why we said before the last general election that there would be efficiency savings and cuts under a future Labour Government. However, we were clear we would achieve this in a fair way—not by balancing the books of the nation off the backs of the poor and the vulnerable. The centrepiece of this Budget was to proceed with further fiscal consolidation, principally by slashing the support which helps—[Interruption.] I ask the Minister for Skills to wait for me to finish my paragraph, and then perhaps he can comment on the national living wage.

As I was saying, the centrepiece of this Budget was to proceed with further fiscal consolidation, principally by slashing the support that, for lower and middle income earners, helps to make work pay, and then by supposedly compensating them with an increase in the national minimum wage, which people such as the Skills Minister have sought to re-badge as a living wage, even though it is anything but. Let me say a few things about that. No one will ever forget how the Conservatives opposed the very establishment of the national minimum wage in the first place. They can say what they like about it now, but no one will ever forget that.

In the lead-up to the election, I received sustained criticism from the Conservatives’ supporters in business about our plans to increase the national minimum wage in this Parliament. People say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and in some senses that is what this is, but there are important differences between what we were proposing to do and what the Government are now doing. First, our national minimum wage increase would have applied to all adults on the main rate. This Government, however, do not believe that anyone aged between 21 and 24 deserves an increase. Having abolished their education maintenance allowance and trebled their tuition fees, they are now saying that when those young people get into work, they do not deserve to earn what everyone else does when they reach adulthood.

Secondly, we would not have punished any adult benefiting from the increase we were proposing by subsequently withdrawing their tax credits. The Government have called this a new deal, but it is a gigantic con-trick. Thirteen million families will be affected by the changes, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies could not have been clearer when it said that it was “arithmetically impossible” for the increase in the minimum wage to make up for the withdrawal of the credits that help people to work.

Let us take as an example a couple, both aged over 25, with two children. Both adults work full time and earn the minimum wage. Yes, they will gain £1,560 from the increase in the minimum wage, but they will lose more than £2,200 next year as a result of the change to tax credits. [Interruption.] I say to the Conservative Members who are chuntering that I totally accept that it would be better for people to be in receipt of a salary that did not necessitate the payment of tax credits to make ends meet, but reforming our economy so that it delivers more highly paid jobs must come first; otherwise, it is the working poor who will suffer.

Let me remind Conservative Members that nearly half the people in poverty in this country are in work. The Government seem to forget that. That is why it is unsurprising that the IFS calls this a “regressive” budget and says that the tax and welfare changes between them will result in poorer households losing out quite significantly, and much more significantly than richer households.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

According to figures published by the Office for National Statistics in 2014, there are 4,155 businesses in my constituency, but that is almost certainly a considerable underestimate. Many businesses will have started up since the figures were compiled, and many others are not captured by official statistics because they fall below the VAT threshold. Of those businesses, 90% are defined as micro-businesses, having between zero and nine employees. That, too, is almost certainly an underestimate, because it is in the micro-business sector—the back-bedroom business, the converted garage business, the former farm outbuilding business—that we see the most expansion. Those businesses form the cornerstone of the British economy. Other members have rightly spoken with pride about the number of businesses in their constituencies, but it is at that end of the business spectrum, the small and micro-business end, that the largest opportunity for employment growth presents itself.

I was deeply disappointed, saddened and shocked by how infrequently the shadow Secretary of State used the words “business”, “firm” or “company” during the half hour that he spent at the Dispatch Box. The simple truth is that, eloquent as the hon. Gentleman is, and good as he is at using words, the words that he used today were fundamentally flawed. This country is, has been and always will be built on a business foundation, and when the Labour party loses sight of that fact, we are in trouble. I am very proud that my party has presented a Budget with business at its heart.

[Paul Scully]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Chancellor has done is help set businesses free from regulation and lower taxes, whereas Labour tends to add regulation and layers of bureaucracy, which makes it far harder to start and grow a business?

[James Cleverly]

As is often the case, I am in considerable agreement with my hon. Friend, who I know shares my passion for, and understanding of, small business.

I feel guilty that I have not yet congratulated my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches who have just made their maiden speeches. I will now set that right. Both of them have strong business backgrounds and credentials—my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies). I almost said “Brecon and Renfrewshire”.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Renfrewshire is in another country.

[James Cleverly]

That would be a big constituency.

I also wish to put on record my huge admiration for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for her excellent and punchy delivery of what was an impassioned and very well thought-through maiden speech—I have already written a personal note to her. Her maiden speech was more political than I would perhaps have delivered, but it was none the weaker for that.

An understanding of small business is essential if the British economy is to succeed and I am proud that my Government have recognised the significant part small businesses play not just in the economic prosperity of this country, but in its social prosperity. Employment does not just give people the opportunity to pay the bills; it gives them a sense of worth and place, and it is a foundation stone in their lives that enables them to blossom and flourish in so many other areas.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses are often not just the backbone of the local economy, but are at the heart of the local community?

[James Cleverly]

The word “community” is key, because businesses are as much a part of any geographical community as the people who live in it. We lose sight of that at our peril.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I feel the need to defend my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary, who is being unfairly attacked by Conservative Members. It is being said that he did not even mention business in his opening speech. [Interruption.] I am one of the people on this side of the House who does have a business background; I have a very substantial background in the IT sector, supporting manufacturing industry up and down the country. An extensive section of my hon. Friend’s speech addressed the need to do something about business rates, but there was no answer from the Secretary of State on that point. I think—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must have briefer interventions.

[James Cleverly]

I will take it that the hon. Lady misheard the opening of my speech. I did not say that the shadow Business Secretary failed to mention business; I said I was horrified by how seldom he used the words “business” and “firm” in his speech.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The broader point my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right: in the run-up to the election the Labour party gave absolutely no indication whatever that it had the faintest interest in the wealth-creating business part of this country. There was—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech; I do not need to hear a repeat of it.

[James Cleverly]

It does not matter what my hon. Friend or I think, or what Labour Members think; what matters is what businesspeople think, and the feedback I had—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

I am running short of time and have been very generous in taking interventions, so if the hon. Lady forgives me I will continue.

The message that came through loud and clear on the doorsteps when I visited businesses in my constituency during the election campaign was that they did not feel that the Labour party understood them or was sympathetic to their plight. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked me specifically about business rates. We are going to have a business rates review—

[Barbara Keeley]

When?

[James Cleverly]

I am not a member of the Government. The hon. Lady needs to take that up with a member of the Government. If anyone wants to make me a member of the Government, however, my door is always open.

Small businesses need a tax and regulatory framework that is sympathetic to their needs, but they also need interventions that will unlock their potential. I am unapologetic that I am now going to mention the need for broadband in rural Britain, and I shall continue to mention it almost every time I get to my feet in the Chamber. I recently visited a business in my constituency, ESco Business Services Ltd. It provides services to the magazine industry, dealing with magazine subscriptions and prizes and so on. It is a digitally enabled business, and much of its work is done online. It is in a building in the middle of the countryside, near the picturesque village of Finchingfield. It provides good quality, well-paid local employment, and it relies absolutely on good quality digital connectivity, without which it would be unable to locate where it is. Instead, it would be forced to locate in a nearby city such as Cambridge, or even in London. If we are to spread economic activity in this country away from London, it is really important that we open the door to businesses such as ESco to allow them to locate where the potential employees are, rather than where the broadband is.

I echo the point made about road investment, and I make no apology for once again mentioning the A120, which is sorely in need of attention. My Government understand the needs of small businesses—I am far from convinced that the Labour party does—which is why I welcome the Budget and will be supporting it in the Lobby later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

The people who die leaving property worth £1 million. In the past, some of that would have been taxed and now it will not be. Instead, the Government will tax poor working people, people who are on the dole and people who have more than two kids—they can have two kids, but no more.

Let us also consider the deliberate misuse of language by this Government over the past five years. They have replaced the notion of social security with the idea of welfare, yet they pretend to be the workers party. The concept of social security is crucial to the notion of how civilised we are in this country. Social security underpins the lives of working people and is based on the real concept of people being in this together, with a national insurance scheme that we all pay into if and when we can work and a security net that will support us when we cannot work for whatever reason. I know that the Conservative party has spent the past 10 years trying to paint everybody who uses public services or needs social security as a skiver and not a striver, or a shirker and not a worker, to further its own political narrative. That despicable tactic has to be challenged as the poor, the vulnerable, the ill, the young, the women and the disabled people of this country struggle to make ends meet in desperate times. They are the people the Tories are making pay for the economic mess that their friends in the City, the banks and the hedge funds got us into.

At the same time, the Tories are attacking the millions of public sector workers in this country who take care of the nation by freezing their pay for what will become a decade. We have to stop making nurses, careworkers, firefighters, police and other public sector workers pay the price for the failure of the Tories’ friends. Let us acknowledge in the debate about productivity the productivity gains that have been made in the public sector, where far fewer people are doing a lot more.

[James Cleverly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Anderson]

Yes, because I am going to mention the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

[James Cleverly]

If the hon. Gentleman is so proud of his party’s credentials in relation to working people, perhaps he would like to explain why the working voter has deserted his party for mine and even for the United Kingdom Independence party?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It might help if I remind people that this is a Budget debate, not an election debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not at this stage, simply because other Members want to speak and I am conscious of time.

Over a generation, we have seen a shift of between 5% and 7% of GDP from wages to profits, and from profits to shareholders’ dividends. That has widened inequality and reversed a century of progress towards a more equal society, and it started with deliberate decisions in the 1980s to weaken the bargaining power of working people and the trade unions that represent them. A sensible policy response to low pay would be to strengthen the negotiating hand of working people, but instead the Government made it clear in the Queen’s Speech that they want to weaken their position further with more attacks on the trade union movement.

[James Cleverly]

Would the hon. Gentleman concede that when tube drivers, for example, go on strike, the people who are hurt the most are not those who can fire up their laptops and work from home but those who, if they cannot get to work, do not get paid for work, such as contract cleaners and those who work in the care sector? Is it not the case that when people go on strike it is the low-paid who get hit the hardest?

[Paul Blomfield]

It is absolutely true that when people go on strike, everybody gets hit, including those on strike. Trade unionists go on strike only with enormous reluctance, because of the impact on services and their wages. The uncomfortable truth for Conservative Members is that improvements in living conditions, health and safety and other workplace situations have been won through the struggle by trade unions.

The campaign for a living wage was a great response to the challenge of low pay. Members on both sides of the House have rightly praised the work of the Living Wage Foundation, but that work has been made more difficult by the Chancellor’s attempt to steal its clothes. We need to be clear. The increase that he proposes to take the wage floor up to £9 for many workers is welcome, but let us not pretend that it is a living wage. Let us call it the over-25s rate or the national minimum wage supplement, or we could just call it the national minimum wage, but he should not damage the brand of the living wage by associating his proposal with it.

We should continue to work to encourage employers to adopt the living wage and to incentivise them to do so. We need to recognise, as the Living Wage Foundation has pointed out, that the rate will need to rise to take account of the cut in tax credits. Here is the rub: although the new rate of the national minimum wage might benefit up to 5 million workers, more than half of them will be worse off—an estimated 3 million families, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—by an average of £1,000 a year because of the changes in tax credits. It could not be any other way: an estimated wage uplift of £4 billion is being offset by welfare cuts of £12 billion.

The Chancellor will argue that raising the tax threshold will benefit low-paid workers by taking them out of tax, but he knows that that is not true. He knows that lifting the tax threshold is a regressive tax measure, because it benefits everybody equally except the lowest paid. Six million workers who are already paid too little to pay tax in the first place will not benefit at all from raising the threshold, whereas Members of Parliament will get a tax break. Frankly, in comparison with low-paid workers, we do not deserve one.

Greece

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly fair question. We have thought about this quite carefully. Clearly, it is a very uncertain situation. As things stand, the Greek Government have gone to considerable lengths to try to make sure that tourists can continue to access cash through ATMs and that the payments that they make with credit cards and the like are accepted by Greek businesses. It is an uncertain situation that is changing rapidly, and of course people could be on holiday when it does change, so we are suggesting to them that they be prepared. That advice will be updated whenever it needs to change; we keep it under constant review.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I welcome the mitigations that my right hon. Friend has put in place to protect British citizens and the British economy, but I cannot see an outcome to the current Greek situation that will not have a detrimental effect on the British economy. Will he therefore assure this House that as part of the long-term economic plan he will include a commitment to expand and extend our trading relationships globally, particularly to fast-growth Commonwealth economies, to help spread our risk?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Britain is overly dependent on its exports to the rest of the EU. About 50% of our exports go to the EU. We have been working very hard to expand our exports to fast-growing economies in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Although, in general, UK export performance has been quite disappointing in recent years, that is principally because of the weakness of the European economy. Our export performance to many of these emerging economies has been very much better, and we want to build on that—particularly, of course, our links with the Commonwealth countries.

European Union Referendum Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

What I am saying is that the Government will need to be able to say why they have come to the conclusion and recommendation that they have reached.

As the Foreign Secretary said and as I repeated on Second Reading last week, the Government will exercise restraint during that period. We have listened to what colleagues in all parts of the House have said and are therefore committing ourselves to table amendments on Report to write into the Bill measures that will provide reassurance on that point. I accept completely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that it is vital that the British public and both sides in the referendum debate accept that the referendum is being conducted fairly and therefore feel able to accept the result.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I have had concerns about the implications of the complete removal of section 125. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the sustainability of the result of the referendum, whatever it may be, will depend on whether the public has confidence in it, and that the assurances that we have all received from the Foreign Secretary and from him today must be delivered in full?

[Mr Lidington]

I completely understand that concern. I repeat that we will not ask the House to rely only on the words of Ministers from the Dispatch Box. We have made a commitment to introduce into the Bill changes that give expression to the assurances that we have given.