Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Why did the Labour party not do that when it was in government? Why was its first proposal for stabilising the budget to cut capital spending, including on affordable housing? If the hon. Gentleman had read the Budget, he would have discovered that, in addition to the housing policies that will affect private mortgages, it included a significant increase in support for affordable housing in the social sector.

The second long-term change relates to money and banking. One of the big features of the post-crisis economies has been the way in which Governments have had to pursue fiscal consolidation—because of the inheritance they received, and ours was worse than most—alongside supportive monetary policy. I made my maiden speech in 1997 in support of the then Chancellor when he made the Bank of England operationally independent. That was an important and good reform. But we have realised over the years that the world has changed. Inflation took no account of the massive asset bubbles that grew up, and the regime was not prepared for the collapse of the financial system and the difficulties we have had rectifying it. That is why it is right that, following on from the very successful, improvised monetary policies that we have experienced, the Chancellor is now consulting on a changed regime, which will be more flexible and take account of the level of unemployment, the level of nominal GDP and other variables that are crucial to long-term growth.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

In the past, the Secretary of State has rightly criticised the banks and bankers for their contribution to the serious financial difficulties we are in. Can he therefore clarify whether he agrees with the Chancellor that bankers’ bonuses should be capped?

[Vince Cable]

There already are regulations that affect bankers’ bonuses, which we introduced long before the European Parliament and which firmly cap the amount of bonuses that can be paid out in cash, as opposed to stock, which is not redeemable in the short run. That reform has already been made in order to stabilise the banking system.

I agree that the banking crisis did enormous damage. As someone who has probably spent more time thinking and writing about it than most people in the House, I acknowledge that I have underestimated the damage that was done by the collapse of the banking system, especially the crippled, semi-state owned banks—to such an extent that even if we now ordered those banks to lend more, they would be institutionally incapable of doing so. What we have realised is that there are two problems. The first is the problem that has arisen from the banking collapse itself and the de-leveraging that followed it. The other is the fact that over a decade ago the bankers stripped out their capacity for local relationship banking. Effectively, they looted their banks and denuded them of the capacity to engage in sensible business lending. Of course, that was anticipated in the Cruickshank report, which the Labour Government ignored, but it has done serious damage that makes it difficult to revive conventional business lending. We are trying a series of initiatives to do that.

On Friday, a new tranche of money will be made available for non-bank lending. Today, we had the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which is helping to fund our supply chains. I put in the Library this morning a written ministerial reply on the business bank, which gives a time profile for how that new institution will support challenger banks and new forms of wholesale financing in the banking sector. The Chancellor’s speech yesterday included a positive initiative on equity capital and helping to relieve some of the burdens on companies going to the alternative investment market on the equity side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

There is a demand in the economy. When the Government come forward with proposals to stimulate demand, as they did in the housing sector, the Opposition jump up and criticise them.

[Jim Sheridan]

If press reports are to be believed, a banker is about to receive a £17.5 million bonus. If that is correct, what has the cap been set at?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I want to raise an issue that is close to my heart—the Scotch whisky industry—not just because it is an excellent tipple when taken responsibly and because I am chair of the all-party group on Scotch whisky, but, more importantly, because that industry provides hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in this country.

The Chancellor suggested yesterday that he was cutting beer duty to help boost pubs, yet as 40% of pub sales come from spirits and wine, his duty increases on Scotch whisky and other drinks mean that when it comes to pubs, he has given with one hand and taken back with the other.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Sheridan]

No, I do not have time.

Like the Chancellor, I wish to see British businesses succeed to help to secure British jobs. The Chancellor talked about the opportunity for UK business that a successful free trade agreement would bring. He talked about backing businesses that are a global success. For the Government and the European Commission, improved market access and reduced discrimination are priorities for the Indian free trade agreement talks. In a spectacular lack of joined-up government, in one speech the Chancellor has attacked Scotch whisky—the one industry that is currently investing for international growth to India and elsewhere—by increasing discrimination against it here at home.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Sheridan]

No.

What sort of signal does that send to overseas markets? British ambassadors around the world who are trying to help Scotch gain fairer trading conditions will be shaking their heads at the example set by our own Chancellor here in this country. This industry accounts for 25% of UK food and drink exports, generating some £134 a second for the UK balance of trade, yet the Chancellor’s only action is to penalise it in its home market. The UK is the third largest market for Scotch whisky in the world, and some companies depend on the UK market for success.

[Andrew Griffiths]

rose—

[Jim Sheridan]

As I have said, this industry employs people in areas where few alternative jobs exist. The Chancellor threatens jobs in such areas, as the Chief Secretary presumably told him. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Griffiths, you have already spoken. The Member does not want to give way and we do not need a running commentary from the Back Benches.

[Jim Sheridan]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been heckled by better.

Perhaps the Chancellor will explain to pensioners enjoying a dram why they should have to pay 48% more duty for the alcohol they enjoy than their neighbours who prefer a beer. Only three countries in the EU penalise Scotch whisky more than the UK does. It is time to halt the duty escalator for all and to start backing, not penalising, our successful industries.

Let me deal briefly with pensions. Like many of my colleagues here, I have a large number of pensioners in my constituency, and I am concerned that this Budget will do nothing to reduce pensioner poverty, currently standing at 1.7 million people nationally. There are no proposals to help pensioners who are struggling with rising living costs.

Moving on to growth, in a written answer I received on 17 January, the Economic Secretary told me:

“The OBR forecast that real household disposable income will grow in each year from 2013 to 2017.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 866W.]

In December 2010, the Chancellor was equally confident, telling CNBC:

“Britain is on the mend. We got pretty steady and sustainable economic growth forecasts, pretty sustainable increases in employment, a steady decline in the deficit.”

Well, how wrong could this Government be? Real wages are set to fall by 2.4% over this Parliament. The OBR has also halved the growth forecast for this year and downgraded it for next year, too. I ask the Chancellor to see some sense and stop relying on the private sector to provide the boost to the economy that is needed. Millions will be squeezed by another year of capping public sector pay, while the private sector has simply not managed to perform as well as was needed at a time when growth has stalled.

A sensible Budget would have seen an intervention to legislate for a living wage, rather than giving the tax break to millionaires that is coming up in a few days’ time. That would not only be fair on working people, but could help inject the economy with consumer spending power. The most ironic part of this plan is that the Chancellor has not even succeeded in reducing the deficit—the golden goal that we have been suffering these tax cuts in order to achieve. Borrowing is now forecast to be £245 billion more than was planned at the time of the spending review. We will not have balanced books, but we will have low-income families paying the price, while millionaires continue to count their money.

I concur with the views of the TUC, which welcomes the British business bank but is calling for more resources to support businesses on a larger scale and for the bank to be able to raise funds in the capital markets as comparable banks do.

I and, I am sure, my constituents do not see this as an aspirational Budget, but as a desperation Budget.