Oral Answers to Questions
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The price gouging that we see is totally unacceptable, which is why we have already asked the Competition and Markets Authority to look at this. Whether we are talking about petrol at the pumps or heating oil, there is no excuse for any business to use this as an opportunity to rip off customers.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
One of the things that makes our economy less resilient is high levels of debt. The Chancellor and I have both followed fiscal rules that allowed us to claim that debt was falling, when in fact it continued to rise, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP. Does she think it is time to consider a new fiscal rule that actually reduces debt—for example, a rule that public spending will not increase faster than economic growth?
Rachel Reeves
Debt is lower in every year of the forecast that I published last week than it was in the plans that I set out in the Budget just back in November. The fiscal rules that I introduced in the October after I became Chancellor said, first of all, that we had to balance day-to-day spending with tax receipts, and that is important. They also stated that, subject to getting debt down as a share of GDP, we could invest in the things that can actually grow the economy. The right hon. Gentleman and I both know that growth is the best way to ensure that our public finances are sustainable, and that we improve living standards for working people.
Middle East: Economic Update
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We have already signed off commitments to both Sizewell C—a publicly funded nuclear power station—and small modular reactors, which we will build with Rolls-Royce in north Wales. The purpose of the Fingleton review is to ensure that we can build those quickly and cheaply, as—more than ever—the current situation demands.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
When I was doing the Chancellor’s job, the Treasury rule of thumb was that a 20% increase in energy prices meant 1% more on inflation and 0.5% less on growth. The truth is that it is much too early to know whether the Chancellor will have to find £78 billion to help households with energy bills, as I had to do in 2022, but we do know that the world is much more dangerous and that there are big problems in our defence budget. I welcome the fact that the Government are now committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but nearly two years on from when the previous Government made the same commitment, it is clear that that is not enough. Will she unblock the arguments between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence and outline a timetable whereby defence spending increases to 3% of GDP and we are able to defend our interests in the middle east and our allies in Europe, as the whole House would wish?
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman’s point about it being too early to tell the impact is really important. Of course we will take the necessary actions to protect consumers and businesses, but the most important thing we can do at the moment is to de-escalate the conflict and work with Lloyd’s of London and countries around the world to get those vessels flowing through the strait of Hormuz. That is absolutely key for containing the rises in energy prices.
On defence spending, the Conservative manifesto committed to getting to 2.5% by the end of the Parliament. We are going to get to 2.6% by April next year, and we have made further commitments to 3% and then 3.5%. Obviously, we have a spending review coming up next year where these decisions will be taken in the round.
Spring Forecast
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
The Bank of England forecast that the actions that I took in the Budget last year would reduce inflation by around 0.4 percentage points, and that inflation will be back close to target from April. That reflects not just taking £150 off energy bills, but freezing prescription charges and rail fares. The events unfolding in Iran and the middle east have resulted, over the last couple of days, in gas prices going up by more than 60% and oil prices by more than 10%. That shows why our plan to take money off energy bills and ensure that our public finances are in a stronger place mean that we are in a better place than we would have been 18 months ago, after the mess left by the Conservatives.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Given what the Chancellor has just said about gas prices going up by nearly 50% in the past week, her Budget promise to reduce household energy bills by £150 will ring hollow for many people. If the cost of living is the real concern, is the biggest mistake not to increase taxes by £66 billion, which is the equivalent of nearly £2,300 per household? If that money is needed for public services, nearly all of that—£54 billion, in fact—could be got by reducing the welfare bill to 2019 levels. Is it sustainable to keep raising taxes on people in work in order to pay ever more benefits to people not in work?
Rachel Reeves
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he left a massive black hole in the public finances. There had not been a spending review for years, and during that time inflation went through the roof because the Conservatives lost control of the public finances. We had to find the money to properly fund our national health service. It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to say that we should bring welfare spending down when it presided over a huge increase in welfare spending.
On the burden of taxation, our choices ensured that those with the broadest shoulders pay higher taxes. We got rid of the non-dom tax status and we are introducing the higher value council tax, VAT on private school fees and the energy profits levy. We are ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders pay the higher prices, rather than allowing the increases in inflation and interest rates in the last Parliament, which hit working people.
Taxes
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to stand up for everybody—even our toolmakers.
Let us be frank: we have had to table this motion today, which seeks to do nothing other than reaffirm the commitments that the Labour party has already made, because of the litany of broken promises that I have just shared with the House.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Does the shadow Chancellor agree that, following the welfare U-turns, public finances today are in a far worse state than they were a year ago when the Government came into office? There is a crucial difference: a year ago, the Conservative Government were taking difficult decisions to bring taxes down in order to grow the economy; because this Labour Government are failing to take those decisions, there is only one way taxes can go, and that is up.
Sir Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and under his stewardship, things were so much better. As he points out, the Government have resiled from any attempt to control the welfare bill—an unfunded tax commitment of £5 billion. That, plus the U-turn on the winter fuel payment, is more than £6 billion of unfunded commitments that the Government are responsible for—unfunded commitments that they said they would never see themselves making. He is absolutely right: the legacy that he left when he was Chancellor in the previous Government was the highest growth in the G7 for our economy. We had near record levels of employment, and near record low levels of unemployment. We had had 13 consecutive months of real wage growth, and inflation had been brought down from over 11% due to the Ukraine war, to bang on 2% on the day of the general election. Where is inflation now? It is almost double what the Government inherited.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
As this is his farewell question time, let us now come to the shadow Chancellor.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
This are indeed our final exchanges in the House, so before tomorrow’s fireworks I wish the Chancellor well for the future in her role. There has been a lot of common ground between us. For example, before the election she said that raising employers’ national insurance was a jobs tax that would take money out of people’s pockets. I very much agree with her on that; does she agree with herself?
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman knows better than almost anyone else that there a was £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That will require difficult decisions, but even in those circumstances we will do everything in our power to protect the incomes of ordinary working people, so we are committed to ensuring that no working people will see higher taxes in their payslips after the Budget.
Jeremy Hunt
We all know why the Chancellor is inventing this fictitious black hole. Thirty times this year, before the election, she promised not to raise tax, and now she is planning to present the biggest tax-raising Budget in history. More consensually, however, as this is our final exchange, I welcome her announcement last week of a £2.3 billion loan for Ukraine. Does she agree that the strongest signal of resolve that we can send to Putin is a commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and does she understand why so many people are worried by the fact that she has yet to do so?
Rachel Reeves
I have always respected the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it is important for us not to deny the seriousness of the situation that we face with the black hole in the public finances. Combined with the lashing out at independent economic institutions, it suggests that he has more in common with Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng than perhaps we thought. I watched my party lurch towards an ideological extreme and deny reality, and we spent years in opposition as a result. The shadow Chancellor risks taking his party down the same path.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
When the Chancellor was sitting on the Opposition Benches she repeatedly attacked cronyism, so will she tell the House whether she told the Treasury permanent secretary that Ian Corfield had made a donation to her before she got him appointed as a director in the Treasury—yes or no?
Rachel Reeves
All Governments appoint people to the civil service. The donation from Ian Corfield was declared over a year ago in the proper way, and we answered all the questions in the right way that the civil service asked when we made that appointment. Ian Corfield is supporting this Government in hosting the international investment summit, which will bring hundreds of global investors to the UK next month.
Jeremy Hunt
I think that means the answer is no. The ministerial code states:
“Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise”.
That did not happen. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why cronyism is wrong under the Conservatives but acceptable under Labour?
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman has a bit of a brass neck criticising this Government, after the appointments and the partying at Downing Street that we saw under the last Conservative Government, and the billions of pounds’ worth of contracts handed out to friends and donors of the Conservative party. That is why this Government are appointing a covid corruption commissioner to get that money back for taxpayers; because unlike the last Government, we are determined that taxpayers’ money is treated with respect, and not handed out to donors of the party.
Public Spending: Inheritance
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement, and I echo her thoughts for the people and emergency services of Southport.
Today, she will fool absolutely no one with a shameless attempt to lay the grounds for tax rises that she did not have the courage to tell us about—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want the Cabinet to act like a Cabinet, not like a rabble that is trying to shout at the shadow Chancellor.
Jeremy Hunt
The Chancellor says that the information is new, but she told the Financial Times:
“You don’t need to win an election to find”
out the state of public finances, as
“We’ve got the OBR now.”
Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
“The state of public finances were apparent pre-election to anyone who cared to look”
which is why he and other independent figures say that her argument is not credible and will not wash.
Those public finances were audited by the OBR just 10 weeks before the election was called. We are now expected to believe that, in that short period, a £20 billion black hole has magically emerged, but for every single day in that period—in fact, since January, in line with constitutional convention—the right hon. Lady had privileged access to the Treasury permanent secretary. She could have found out absolutely anything she needed. Will she confirm to the House that she did have meetings with the permanent secretary of the Treasury before the election? Will she tell the House whether they discussed public finances? Will she tell the House whether they discussed any of the pressures that she is talking about today? If so, why are we only hearing today what she wants to do about them? That is why today’s exercise is not economic—it is political.
The Chancellor wants to blame the last Conservative Government for tax rises and project cancellations that she has been planning all along. The trouble is, even her own published numbers expose the fiction behind today’s announcement. Just four days ago, she presented to the House the Government’s estimates of spending plans for the year. Those estimates are a legal requirement. The official guidance manual is clear that Departments are responsible for ensuring that estimates are consistent with their “best forecast of requirements”. They are signed off by the most senior civil servants—the accounting officers—in every Department. Yet, four days on, she is saying that those estimates are wrong. Who is right: politically neutral civil servants or a political Chancellor? If she is right, will she ask the cabinet secretary to investigate those civil servants and apologise to the House for laying misleading estimates? Of course not, because she knows that those civil servants are right and today’s black hole is spurious, just like when she says that she inherited the
“worst set of economic circumstances”
since the second world war. When BBC Verify asked a professor at the London School of Economics about that claim, he responded:
“I struggle to find a metric that would make that statement correct.”
The metrics speak for themselves. Inflation is 2% today —nearly half what it was in 2010 when we had to clear up the mess inherited from a Labour Government. Unemployment is nearly half what it was then, with more new jobs than nearly anywhere else in Europe. So far this year, we are the fastest growing G7 economy. Over the next six years, the IMF says that we will grow faster than France, Italy, Germany and Japan.
Just two days before the election was called, the managing director of the IMF praised the previous Government’s handling of the economy, and said it was in a good place. This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that it was
“not a bad situation to take charge of”
and certainly not comparable to the 1940s or 1970s. If the right hon. Lady is in charge of the economy, it is time to stop trash talking it. What is the point of going to New York or Brazil to bang the drum for more investment if she comes home with a cock and bull story about how bad everything is? She should stop playing politics with Britain’s reputation and get on with running the economy.
When it comes to public finances, will the Chancellor confirm to the House that, far from being broke and broken, as Downing Street briefed the media, the forecast deficit today is 4.4%, compared with 10.3% when Labour left office in 2010? In other words, when Labour was last in office, we were borrowing double the current levels. Will she confirm another difference between today and 2010? The Conservatives came to office then, honest about our plans and saying straightforwardly that we needed to cut the deficit. She has just won an election telling us repeatedly that taxes will not go up. How many seats were won on the back of commitments not to raise tax, while she is quietly planning to do the exact opposite?
On the details that the Chancellor has announced today, will she confirm that around half of today’s fictitious black hole comes from discretionary public sector pay awards—in other words, not something that she has to do, but something where she has a choice? Will she confirm to the House that, apart from the teachers recommendation, none of the other pay review body recommendations was seen by the last Government, as they arrived after the election was called? Today she has chosen to accept those recommendations, but before doing so, was she advised by officials to ask unions for productivity enhancements before accepting above-inflation pay awards, to help to pay for those awards, as the last Government did? If she was advised to do that, why did she reject that advice and simply tell the unions, “Here’s your money, thanks for your support”? Will she confirm—[Interruption.] I know Labour Members do not like the truth, but here it is. Will she confirm that one of the reasons for her funding gap is that she has chosen to backdate a 22% pay award to junior doctors, to cover the time when they were striking?
We are just three months into the financial year, so why did the Chancellor not mention today that, at the start of the year, the Treasury had a reserve of £14 billion for unexpected revenue costs, and £4 billion for unexpected capital costs? Additionally, why has she not accounted for the Treasury’s ability to manage down in-year pressures on the reserve—last year alone by £9 billion? Why has she apparently not accounted for underspends—typically £12 billion a year? Has she totally abandoned the £12 billion of welfare savings planned by the last Government? If so, will she confirm that to the House? Has she also abandoned £20 billion of annual productivity savings planned by the last Government? If not, why are they not in her numbers? Finally, for someone who claims continuously the mantle of fiscal rectitude, will she confirm that in order to pay for her public spending plans, she will not change her fiscal rules to target a different debt measure, so she can increase borrowing and debt by the back door?
Every Chancellor faces pressures on public finances. After a pandemic and an energy crisis, those pressures are particularly challenging, which is why in autumn 2022, the previous Government took painful but necessary decisions on tax and spend. But we knew that, if we continued to take difficult decisions on pay, productivity and welfare reform, we could live within our means and start to bring taxes down. She, on the other hand, knew perfectly well that a Labour Government would duck those difficult decisions. She has caved in to the unions on pay, left welfare reform out of the King’s Speech and soft-pedalled on our productivity programme. That is a choice, not a necessity.
That choice means that taxes will have to go up and the right hon. Lady chose not to tell us before the election. Instead, in 24 days—just 24 days—she has announced £7.3 billion for GB Energy, £8.3 billion for the national wealth fund and around £10 billion for public sector pay awards. That is £24 billion in 24 days: around £1 billion for every day she has been in office, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab for her profligacy.
Doing it this way, she makes the first major misstep of her time as Chancellor, because that great office of state depends more than any on trust—[Interruption.] In her first big moment, she breaks that trust with an utterly bogus attempt to hoodwink the public about the choices she has. Over 50 times in the election, Labour told us it had no plans to raise taxes. Now, in a U-turn that will forever shame this Labour Government, she is laying the ground to break her word. When she does, her first Budget will become the biggest betrayal in history by a new Chancellor. Working families will never forgive her.
Rachel Reeves
The shadow Chancellor had an opportunity this afternoon to admit what he had done, the legacy he had left. Instead, he takes no responsibility. The word the country was looking for today was sorry. He could not find those words; no wonder the Conservative party so definitively lost the trust of the British people at the election three and a half weeks ago. We say never again. [Interruption.] Never again should a party that plays fast and loose with the public finances be in charge of the public finances—[Interruption.]
Economy, Welfare and Public Services
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
“but humbly regret that there is no mention in the Gracious Speech of the improved economic conditions the Government is inheriting, with the fastest recorded growth in the G7, inflation at the Bank of England’s target for the second month in a row, and unemployment at half the rate that it was in 2010; further regret that there is no mention of how to make necessary savings on welfare; urge the Government to meet the commitment set out in the Labour Party’s manifesto not to raise taxes on working people; regret that the Gracious Speech fails to make a commitment not to use changes to reliefs to raise taxes; and call on the Government to increase income tax thresholds to prevent income tax from being charged on the State Pension.”
It is an important and rather painful part of our democracy that today I am a shadow Chancellor, responding to the King’s Speech in exactly the same way that the new Chancellor responded to me just a few months ago, so I start by congratulating her, as well as Mr and Mrs Reeves. As the father of two girls, one of whom has her 10th birthday today, I warmly welcome the smashing of a glass ceiling by Britain’s first female Chancellor. As I said on election night, she has led the Labour party on a difficult journey, which has changed it for the better. Her stated commitment to fiscal responsibility, stability and economic growth has been consistent and, I am sure, not always easy. Unfortunately for us, her success in holding the line means that we face rather a lot of Labour MPs on the Government Benches, but I wish her well in her new role.
I also commend to the right hon. Lady the superb Treasury officials she now inherits, and put on record my gratitude to them the excellent work they did for me, staying up in the middle of the night ahead of fiscal events, engaging in tense negotiations with spending Departments—and occasionally, it has to be said, with No. 10—bringing me endless flat whites and Pret lunches to keep me going and, most of all, making my family feel welcome in the goldfish bowl that is Downing Street. It is part of the magic of democracy that those same officials have seamlessly transferred their allegiance from me to her, and I know that they will serve her extremely well.
In opposition, we will not oppose for its own sake, and there are a number of Bills in the King’s Speech that we welcome. The right hon. Lady is right to focus on growth, and the improvements on planning will build on many reforms introduced by the last Government, including the 110 growth measures I introduced in last year’s autumn statement. Any boost to house building is also welcome. We delivered 1 million homes in the last Parliament, and she will soon find out that if she is to deliver 1.5 million, she will not be able to duck reforming environmental regulations—a change that Labour blocked in the last Parliament but will deliver an extra 100,000 homes. I caution her not to over-rely on bringing back top-down targets. In the end, we will build more houses only if we change attitudes to new housing, and that is unlikely to happen if unpopular targets are steamrollered through local communities.
We will also look carefully at the right hon. Lady’s Budget Responsibility Bill. We are proud that a Conservative Government set up the Office for Budget Responsibility, and I commend the work of Richard Hughes and his team. We did not always agree, but in the end, that is the point of an independent watchdog. We all understand the politics of a Bill that allows the Government to make endless references to the mini Budget, but if the right hon. Lady is really committed to fiscal responsibility alongside growth, I hope that she will today confirm that she will not fiddle with the five-year debt rule to allow increased debt through the back door. We—and, it has to be said, markets—will be monitoring the overall level of debt very carefully to make sure that that does not happen. I also hope that she will commission the OBR to do 10-year forecasts of our long-term growth rate rather than five-year forecasts, as at present, in order to bake long-term decision making into Treasury thinking.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The shadow Chancellor was talking just now about fiscal responsibility. During the election campaign, he committed to a series of tax cuts, but I noticed that yesterday on Laura Kuenssberg’s show he said that it would not have been possible for him to proceed with those tax cuts. What has changed, and why did he make that commitment during the election campaign, knowing full well that he could not afford to carry it out?
Jeremy Hunt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it allows me to explain why he is completely mistaken in what he is saying. We offered a set of carefully and fully funded tax cuts—unlike the £38.5 billion of unfunded spending commitments that came from the Labour party—but we always said that they would be brought in over time over the next Parliament. We did not make a commitment that they would come in immediately, and indeed they would not have. We would have done it in a responsible way.
When it comes to dubious claims, the new Chancellor herself has been making some that do not withstand scrutiny. She said, for example, that the economy would have been £140 billion bigger if we had matched the average OECD growth rate, but she knows that the OECD is a diverse group of 38 countries, including many with economies very different from our own, such as Turkey, Mexico or Luxembourg. A much more meaningful comparison is with other similar G7 economies, which shows that since 2010 we have grown faster than France, Italy, Germany and Japan. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund says that thanks to difficult measures taken by the last Conservative Government, we will grow faster than any of those four countries, not just in the short term but over the next six years. One reason for that is our record on attracting investment.
Since 2010, greenfield foreign direct investment has been higher in the UK than anywhere in the world except the United States and China. In the last year alone, Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, Tata, BMW Mini, Google and Microsoft have all voted for the UK with their dollars, not least because of cuts in business taxation, such as full expensing, introduced by the last Government. If the Chancellor now looks for back-door ways to increase business taxation, as many fear, she will risk the UK’s attractiveness to foreign investors, of which she is now the beneficiary.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
That investment is very important to my constituents in Stockton North, where many companies are poised to make billions of pounds of industrial investment. They tell me that they prize economic stability above all else, so will the right hon. Gentleman now commit to supporting the Budget Responsibility Bill to give those investors the security they need?
Jeremy Hunt
Yes, we are minded to support the Bill, subject to having had a close look at it, because we think it is perfectly sensible. Whether it is completely necessary is a different question, but it is perfectly sensible.
We have grave concerns about some elements of the King’s Speech, with a Times editorial this week describing some of its Bills as
“a dose of traditional socialist dogma”.
Tony Blair came to office having removed the old clause IV of the Labour party constitution, because he knew that state-run businesses are rarely successful and usually end up being bailed out by the taxpayer. Last week, with their railway and energy plans, the Government brought forward more nationalisation than Blair ever did—indeed, more than any Government in modern times.
If the Chancellor really cares about fiscal responsibility, she should beware. The reason why unions like publicly owned utilities is that they give them more leverage on pay and more ability to demand bail-outs. Unlearning the lessons of history will mean more strikes and bigger bills for the taxpayer.
An even bigger concern for business is the impact on jobs of Labour’s new deal for workers. We have seen the creation of almost 4 million jobs since 2010, which is nearly 800 jobs for every single day that Conservative Governments were in office. The president of the Confederation of British Industry described the UK as a “job-creation factory” but, like many others, he expressed concern that the Deputy Prime Minister’s new labour laws could put that at risk.
Day one rights sound attractive, but employers fear they will mean a flood of tribunal claims, meaning it is safer not to offer a job at all. That is why the Federation of Small Businesses responded to the King’s Speech by saying that companies are worried about increased costs and risks. In the end, French-style labour laws will lead to French levels of unemployment, which are nearly double our own—indeed, they are close to what they were when the last Labour Government were in office. By contrast, the Conservatives nearly halved unemployment over the last 14 years, and it would be a tragedy for working families up and down the country if the new Government turned the clock back.
Finally, the most dubious claim of all is this nonsense about the Government having the worst economic inheritance since the second world war, which everybody knows is just a pretext for long-planned tax rises. People can see what nonsense this is by simply comparing it with the last time we had a change of Government in 2010. Inflation was 3.4%, compared with 2% today. Unemployment was 8%, compared with 4.4% today. Growth was forecast then to be among the slowest in the G7, compared with the fastest today. Instead of an economy in which markets and the pound were facing meltdown, the Chancellor has inherited an economy in which the Office for National Statistics has said that growth is “going gangbusters.”
That has been backed up by even more data since the election. May’s GDP figures show that Britain’s growth was double the rate predicted by economists, and the fastest in more than two years. New figures from S&P show that, in February, British businesses were among the most optimistic in the world—top of the league again, according to the ONS. Inflation has remained at its 2% target level.
In her BBC interview yesterday, the Chancellor glossed over those figures, putting on the most shocked expression she could muster, to pretend that public finances are worse than she expected. But the root cause of the pressure on public finances—£400 billion in pandemic support and £94 billion in cost of living support—was never a secret. Indeed, the Labour party supported those measures and, in some cases, called for us to go further. Nor were the difficult decisions we had to take to pay for them a secret either. When we had to increase borrowing, increase tax and reduce spending plans in the autumn statement of 2022, Labour did not oppose us.
Like all Chancellors, she faces fiscal challenges: welcome to the job. But that job is a whole lot easier because, faced with an economic crisis two years ago, Conservatives took decisions that her predecessor Labour Government ducked completely after the financial crisis. That is why she has a deficit of 4.4% this year compared with 10.3% left behind for the Conservatives in 2010. She did not just compare her inheritance to 2010; she claimed to have the worst inheritance since the second world war. Is she really saying that she faces conditions worse than Geoffrey Howe in 1979, with a winter of discontent, stagflation, an 83% top rate of tax and a Labour Government who went with a begging bowl to be bailed out by the IMF? The Chancellor knows perfectly well that that claim is nonsense, otherwise why, in her first week, would she announce £7.3 billion of spending on her national wealth fund, without a spending review, a budget or any external validation from the OBR? As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says, thanks to the OBR the nation’s books are “wide open” and “fully transparent”, so pretending things are worse than expected “really won’t wash.” As she establishes her reputation, it is surely unwise to base her big central argument on a claim so patently ridiculous.
But we all know exactly why the Chancellor is doing it. She wants to lay the ground for tax rises she has been planning all along, which leads to two major concerns. First, she says her No. 1 mission is growth, but all around the world, evidence suggests countries with higher taxes tend to grow more slowly. Lower taxes, when funded properly, boost growth, as we saw with full expensing and the national insurance cuts last year, both of which the OBR confirmed add to our GDP. However, keeping taxes down is hard work.
I saw the numbers the Chancellor has seen just a few weeks ago, and the official advice was clear: with public sector pay restraint, productivity plans such as those we announced in the Budget, and welfare reform, it is perfectly possible to balance the books without tax rises. It is not easy—government never is—but not impossible. Yet all those three things—pay restraint, productivity improvements and welfare reform—were glaringly omitted from the King’s Speech. Instead, she has chosen an easier path: what Labour party sources told The Guardian was a “doctor’s mandate” to raise taxes.
The Chancellor has ruled out raising income tax, national insurance and VAT, but she should not think for one second that other tax rises will not impact working people. Capital gains tax destroys the pensions people build up over their lifetimes; business tax rises are passed on to customers, leading to higher bills; and taxes on banks and energy companies lead to fewer companies operating in the UK, a lower tax take and less money for public services such as the NHS.
That is the biggest contradiction in the new programme —a Government who say they want the fastest growth in the G7 but, in the very same breath, plan tax rises that will make that growth harder, if not impossible, to achieve. Even if such an approach were misconceived, it is none the less a legitimate choice for a governing party. What is not acceptable is, just 18 days after the election, to be laying the ground for tax rises after the Chancellor promised us 50 times in the election campaign that she had no plans to raise them. Every Labour Government in history have raised taxes and raised spending. If she wanted to do the same, she should have had the courage to make the case for that before the election. Instead, she is softening us up for a colossal U-turn that will lead to lower growth, less money for public services and massive public anger, which is why I commend to the House the amendment in the Opposition’s name.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Improving public sector productivity is a major focus for this Government, which is why I announced £4.2 billion of funding to make our public services more efficient in the Budget.
John Penrose
As a former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend will know that evidence-based medicine transformed health productivity, systematically cutting out ineffectual treatments and replacing them with ones that worked better. Using the evaluation task force and the What Works centres to do the same for other public services, including back to work programmes, prisoner rehabilitation and early interventions for supported families, could be the productivity-improving silver bullet that he needs, so can I urge him to beat a path to their door?
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the What Works programme, which has delivered more than 500 trials and is recognised internationally. There are some very good example in the NHS of what is working, including the NHS app. That is now used by 75% of NHS patients—including 17,000 over-90s, so let no one assume that older people are not internet savvy.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Some £8.7 billion was wasted on defective personal protective equipment during the covid crisis, much of it paid to people associated with the Conservative party. People did not have to be Conservative party members to benefit from the fast track, but it did not half help. What is the Chancellor doing to get public money back from those people who sold that defective equipment to the NHS, and does it not just show that we cannot trust the Tories with public money?
Jeremy Hunt
What it shows is that we took very difficult decisions in the pandemic to speed up access to PPE for frontline workers, who were literally dying at the time—but there should be no hiding place whatsoever for anyone who commits fraud on taxpayers, which is why there have been over 100 arrests.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The only productivity improvement we have seen from this Government is the awarding of wasteful contracts. On top of all the PPE waste that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to, there are still £1 billion-worth of unresolved PPE contracts that this Government awarded, but that have not been delivered on. Only one company, PPE Medpro, is facing legal action. Why are the Government not taking legal action against the other companies that have not delivered on their contract with members of the public?
Jeremy Hunt
Let me be clear: there is absolutely no hiding place for anyone, whether they are connected to the Conservative party, the Labour Party or any other party. If they have defrauded the taxpayer, we will go after them.
Darren Jones
The Chancellor says that he is making progress, and that there is no hiding place, but that money belongs to our public services. The Government know that the contracts have not been delivered on, but they will not reveal the names of the companies and the contracts that have not been delivered on. If there is no hiding place, why would the Chancellor not name them today?
Jeremy Hunt
Because we are taking legal action, and as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, when we take legal action, that information belongs to the police.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The spring Budget delivered personal tax cuts, including cuts to national insurance, for 29 million workers. That means that someone on the average salary has the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975, and that is the lowest effective tax rate of any G7 country.
Maggie Throup
While responsible tax cuts, such as the £900 cut to national insurance contributions, are welcome, can my right hon. Friend update the House on when we can expect VAT to be abolished on high-factor sunscreen? That would not only help to protect more people from one of the leading causes of preventable cancer, but could save the NHS approximately £55 billion.
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend and I have talked about this issue on many occasions. She will know that high-factor sunscreen is on NHS prescription for certain conditions and is VAT-free when dispensed by a chemist. With my Chancellor hat on, I should say that we have had £50 billion of requests for VAT relief since Brexit. It is great to have the freedom to make those changes, but we have to be honest about the trade-offs. In particular, we must ensure that if we do apply reliefs, the benefits are fed through to consumers.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This weekend, I spoke to a constituent who has invested heavily in a restaurant in my constituency over the last 15 years. He was in desperation because his business, like two other businesses that have already closed in the town, is being crushed by VAT, business rates and increases in corporate taxes. He finds that he can no longer sustain a business that has become the love of his life. Does the Chancellor realise that the tax burden he is imposing on small and medium-sized businesses is crushing this economy?
Jeremy Hunt
We are doing everything we can to support small businesses. Businesses like the one that the right hon. Gentleman mentions have received, for two years in a row, a 75% discount on their business rates. That is a massive leg up for businesses recovering from the pandemic. We have also made sure that any increases in corporation tax apply only to larger businesses. There is only one major party in British politics that wants to bring down the tax burden for businesses, and it is the Conservative party.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Over the last two years, cost of living support has totalled £96 billion, or an average of £3,400 per household. As a result, living standards, which were predicted to fall 2% last year, rose by nearly 1%, and we are on track to reach pre-pandemic living standards two years early.
Mrs Drummond
I welcome the support that the Government have provided throughout covid and the recent energy crisis for my constituents in Meon Valley—I thank the Government. It has made a huge difference to people’s domestic budgets, but now inflation is falling and the economy is improving, can we look forward to the Government’s continued support with a range of fiscal steps, including cutting taxes?
Jeremy Hunt
We can absolutely do that. I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that the biggest single thing we can do to help people with cost of living pressures is to bring down inflation. That seems to be something that escaped the shadow Chancellor this morning, when she said it was not a big deal to get inflation down to its target. It is a very big deal for families facing a cost of living crisis, and she needs to know that inflation falls by design, not by accident.
Nadia Whittome
The Chancellor can talk all he wants about inflation falling, but this is little comfort to my constituents who are still struggling to make ends meet. Even with the national insurance cut, annual post-tax earnings for the average family remain on course to be £380 lower at the start of 2025 than they were in 2021—a gap not predicted to close until 2029. This means yet more years of lost wage growth, so when will the Government get serious about tackling the low-wage, insecure work that they have allowed to become the norm in this country?
Jeremy Hunt
Could I suggest, if the hon. Member really thinks that inflation falling from 11% to 3.2% is little comfort to her constituents, that she might want to talk to a few more of them, because actually it is the biggest single thing that we can do to deal with cost of living pressures. If she says, “What are we doing to tackle the scourge of low pay?” we have abolished it by raising the national living wage to £11.44 this year alone. For someone working full-time, that will mean an increase in their pay of £1,800.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The shadow Chancellor often likes to ask what has improved over the past 14 years, so I thought I would update the House on some of the latest statistics about the British economy. According to UN conference data, we have now overtaken France, the Netherlands and Japan to become the world’s fourth largest exporter. The International Monetary Fund says that we will grow faster over the next six years than France, Italy, Germany or Japan, and there are 200,000 more people in work compared with a year ago, which means that, for every single day Conservative Governments have been in office since 2010, there are 800 more people in work, many of whom will be very pleased that we are sticking to our plan.
Debbie Abrahams
We should add to the Chancellor’s statistics that we have the widest economic inequalities in Europe. Last week, Professor Sir Michael Marmot published new analysis showing significant increases in health inequalities—how long we live, and how long we live in good health—and that is particularly the case between the north and south-east England. That is of course driven by the economic inequalities that I have just referred to. What assessment has the Chancellor undertaken on the loss in productivity directly as a result of that increase in health inequalities?
Jeremy Hunt
If the hon. Lady is concerned about economic inequalities, she will be horrified to know that they were even worse under the last Labour Government. They have been reduced under this Government. When it comes to health inequalities, it is this Government who are phasing out smoking for everyone under the age of 14—one of the biggest single things in a generation that will reduce health inequalities and mean that poorer people live longer.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Jeremy Hunt
I can confirm that we are very alive to cost of living pressures caused by fuel duty. In fact, we spent £6.4 billion freezing the duties on fuel, which will save the average motorist £50 over the coming year.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
At the Budget, the Chancellor set out his intention to abolish national insurance—a £46 billion annual commitment with no clear plan as to how it would be paid for. One way to do it would be to merge income tax and national insurance. Does the Chancellor agree with analysis from the House of Commons Library that shows that merging those two would increase income tax by 8p in the pound?
Rachel Reeves
That is strange, because the day after the Budget, the Chancellor told Sky News that
“you can end that unfairness of taxing work: you can merge income tax and national insurance.”
The late Chancellor, Nigel Lawson—the Prime Minister’s hero—warned that merging them would
“destroy the contributory principle and create many losers, especially among the elderly.”
In fact, a retired pensioner with an average occupational pension income of £198 a week would pay an additional £738 a year in tax. Is the reason that the Conservatives will not come clean not that they are planning to pick pensioners’ pockets to fund the abolition of national insurance?
Jeremy Hunt
If the right hon. Lady listened to my comments carefully, and I do not always give her credit for that, she would know that our policy is to abolish employees’ national insurance, and that means we want to bring it down to zero. If Labour’s strategy is to win the election by frightening pensioners with fake news stories, I would just say that Britain deserves better.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
What I would say to those families is that the most damaging thing of all is to have inflation at 11%. Now we have reduced it to 3.2%, and indeed we expect it to go lower. Interest rates are also starting to fall. If the hon. Member is worried about families in her constituency, she might be extremely worried by the shadow Chancellor saying that if interest rates fall, it is somehow not a big deal. It really is.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I encourage my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to revisit his decision to change the tax arrangements of furnished holiday lets in rural constituencies such as my own? Those businesses make an important contribution to the local economy, provide jobs and enhance the tourism offering. Indeed, they stop depopulation rather than adding to it. His decision is creating much concern among those who operate such businesses.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I place on record my thanks to the Chancellor, who in his Budget devoted funds to Bournemouth for a police violence reduction unit? Does he agree that these units have a track record up and down the country of tackling knife crime by not just seeing extra police on the frontline, but engaging with schools to ensure that youths and students understand the folly of carrying a knife in the first place?
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: violence reduction units reduce crime and save lives. I want to thank him, because he was one of the first colleagues who, ahead of the Budget, brought to my attention how impressive the results are. As a result, I was able to make it a national policy in the Budget.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the Government are taking this issue very seriously, and we completely understand that speed is of the essence. It is now only a matter of days before the report will be published; we have always said that we want to publish our response very quickly after that and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not hang around.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The best way for a business to thrive and for customers to receive a great service is for companies to employ individuals on merit. Does the Chancellor agree that the recent overreach by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority regarding their equality, diversity and inclusion policies is a step too far, and that it is inevitable that those policies will have a negative effect on us all?
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he has taken my comments out of context. I will tell him what is really out of touch: the shadow Chancellor saying it is not a big deal if inflation falls.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Cramlington has a world-leading pharmaceutical company, Organon, which employs 700 people and produces medicine for the UK market as well as abroad, with a particular focus on women’s health. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor please meet me to discuss the impact on pharmaceutical investment?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Soaring rent costs are the biggest reason why my constituents in Bath are struggling. The average monthly rent in Bath and north-east Somerset has risen by more than £200 in the past three years. What support will the Government give to people who rent in the private sector?
Jeremy Hunt
That is why we need to build more houses. The hon. Lady will be reassured to know that we are building record numbers of houses—in fact, more in the last year than in any single year under the previous Labour Government.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know that high business rates are having a devastating effect on small and medium-sized businesses in historic market towns, such as Romford, that are large retail centres. As the Government are business friendly, will he please look at ways to reduce the burden of business rates on local businesses in constituencies like mine?
Jeremy Hunt
May I say what a pleasure it is to be asked a question by my hon. Friend? I think this is the first time it has happened since he has been back. There is no more formidable a champion for Romford. He speaks about business rates, and we have indeed been doing what we can to bring them down at every fiscal event.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What steps have been taken to support pensioners to know what benefits they are possibly entitled to? I understand that 1.4 million people access pension credit, but a great many more are entitled to it.
Jeremy Hunt
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady may have misunderstood me. What I said was that economic inequality had fallen since the last Labour Government.
Notification of Contingent Liability
Jeremy Hunt Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the Asset Purchase Facility by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and commenced sales of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022, and sales of gilts acquired for monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022. The sales of corporate bonds ceased on 6 June 2023, with the majority of the portfolio sold. A small number of remaining short maturity corporate bonds were held through to maturity and these have since all fully matured on 5 April 2024. Therefore, the APF is now comprised solely of gilts.
The Chancellor at the time agreed a joint approach with the Governor of the Bank of England in an exchange of letters on 3 February 2022 to reduce the maximum authorised size of the APF for asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces.
Since 3 November 2023 when I last reduced the maximum authorised size of the APF, the total stock of assets held by the APF for monetary policy purposes has fallen further from £750.9 billion to £704.2 billion. In line with the approach agreed with the Governor, the authorised maximum total size of the APF has therefore been reduced to £704.2 billion, which is now comprised entirely of gilts.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. Provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in Parliament providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS435]