Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

It is my job to take away the political punchbowl, just as the party was just getting going. What we have just heard is the most difficult speech that anybody has to make in the House of Commons, and I am sure we will all read it with interest.

First, I should like to say a few words in a personal capacity about what has been announced on savings. They look extremely interesting and long-term reforms. For a start, the ISA reform is resonant of PEPs; that goes right back to the beginning, as those introduced the savings allowance. It was a tremendous idea. I am really pleased that the cash and equity ISAs have been merged and that we have raised the cap. The Treasury Committee will have to look at the provisions. I hope I will not have to come to the House and say that it has a different view.

Getting rid of the defined contribution rules that force people into annuities is a tremendous achievement—a very far-sighted announcement. The last Labour Government were also looking at that for a while, but they could not find a way to do it. This Chancellor has found a way to do it, and we should commend him for that.

Before I say a few words about some of the other measures in the light of past Treasury Committee recommendations, I should like to say a few personal words about the deficit. When the Chancellor set out his initial Budget judgment on behalf of the new coalition, many thought that the coalition would collapse—that the political strains of implementing spending cuts would be too great and shake the coalition Government apart. Well, the opposite has been the case. The coalition has stuck with it and the deficit reduction plan has become the cement of the coalition.

Both sides deserve credit for the fact that the coalition is still going and dealing with the deficit. Particular credit goes to the Liberal Democrats. If I may say so—I hope they do not mind—I never thought they had it in ’em. But they have, and they have stuck with it.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Tyrie]

May I make a bit of progress?

The deficit is down from the stratospherically high figure of 11% of gross domestic product to just below 7%, and next year it is forecast to fall to 5%, as we have just heard announced by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The consolidation is already significant. It has been achieved despite a massive external shock which was not built into the forecast four years ago and which I do not think the Chancellor mentioned—the eurozone crisis and the economic stagnation in our largest export markets. It was primarily that crisis that forced the deficit reduction plan to fall behind schedule. The key question for the Government a couple of years ago was whether to relax fiscal policy sharply in response to the almost 4% loss of forecast GDP, most of which was a consequence of the eurozone crisis.

Rightly, in my view, the Government showed considerable flexibility within the overall framework, in two important ways. First, they authorised the Bank of England broadly to double the quantitative easing programme; and secondly, equally importantly, the so-called economic stabilisers—the falls in tax receipts and rises in public expenditure that come with lower growth—were allowed to kick in.

To give an idea of the importance of the stabilisers and QE on policy, it is worth reminding ourselves of the numbers. Since the election, an additional £175 billion has been put into the economy through QE and £140 billion has been put in through the automatic stabilisers. The latter figure is based on Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates; no one knows exactly, but it is of that order of magnitude. These are very large numbers. That showed flexibility by the Government.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s flexibility included putting public spending up every year in cash terms over the period and relying on higher tax receipts to get the deficit down, which is how they maintained political agreement to the policy?

[Mr Tyrie]

I do not know about the political agreement point, but of course the effects of the stabilisers operate on both the tax and the spending sides. I think the Government were right to do what they did.

The Government have also been right to see off calls fundamentally to alter fiscal policy by sharply relaxing deficit reduction and increasing public spending. One of the main reasons it was important that they did not listen to those calls is that credibility in fiscal policy is hard won. It is built up over time—over many years—and it can easily be squandered. The Government resisted that temptation.

I will say a few words about the historical context. Looking to the 1930s, when stagnation set in and the agony was prolonged, partly because automatic stabilisers were suppressed and partly because far from engaging in QE, the then coalition Government did exactly the opposite: they lengthened the maturity of the debt and sucked money out of the economy. That is why the 1930s were so painful.

Now that we have a recovery, some are complaining that it is not the one we ordered. They complain that the recovery is consumer-led or uneven across sectors, regions and income groups. Well, of course it is. All recoveries of any value trigger a reallocation of resources, and therefore all recoveries change the shape of the economy. A recovery rarely takes root where the jobs were lost or the firms failed; it was ever thus and it will be the same this time. As the Chancellor stressed in his speech, jobs are being created at a record rate, but we cannot expect those jobs to be in exactly the same places as the jobs lost in the downswing. I am confident that, as in all previous recoveries, if we can sustain this recovery—and even if it is uneven, as it will be—it will, in time, deepen and spread through the whole economy. The figures for previous upswings support that.

The crucial question now, though, will be whether we can sustain the deficit reduction plan. A threat to deficit reduction will come from siren voices who say, “With the recovery under way, we can go back to spending money we haven’t got.” We are already hearing that. We need to remind ourselves that we are still spending about £7 for every £6 we collect in tax. It is true that we are in better shape, but with a deficit of about 6.6% of GDP, as the Chancellor announced today, we will remain vulnerable to economic shocks unless we do more to tackle it.

Another risk to deficit reduction is one of simple arithmetic caused by ring-fencing—something that the Treasury Committee has flagged up on several occasions. It will become increasingly difficult to find cuts to an ever-shrinking share of non-ring-fenced departmental spending. In other words, with ring-fencing of nearly half departmental expenditure, finding these savings will get tougher year by year. The Chancellor has argued, rightly, that polling evidence shows that that ring-fencing reflects public preferences. I think that is true for health and education, but it is not supported in the area of overseas aid. Spending on aid has risen by over a third in real terms and will rise even more because it is linked to GDP. Politics always points to ever-more ring-fencing; economics to less. Eventually, ring-fencing will have to be revisited, however difficult it is for all political parties.

Perhaps I should say a little about the risks—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think this should be seen as the first stage in a series of reforms, because as the Chancellor also said in his statement, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the savings ratio will continue to fall. As well as ensuring that we can provide a better deal for those in retirement, a better way for them to spend their pension pot and encouragement for them to build up more through individual savings accounts, we need to do more. I will come back to that in a moment.

These are radical reforms. I welcome another part of the package that goes hand in hand with the increased flexibility. The challenge that many pensioners face is finding advice and someone to help them through complex decisions about what they should do in retirement. Recent surveys have shown just what a bad job some of the comparison websites do for people trying to buy an annuity.

The right to advice is an important part of the package of reform, but I suggest to those on the Treasury Bench that we need to go further. The auto-enrolment savings system assumes that people do not think too hard about saving but save automatically. We then expect them at the point of retirement to engage in saving. We need to make sure that there is more advice and guidance available before they retire, to help them think about what age they want to retire at and what sort of income they want to retire on. I think that a key part of the next stage of reform should be to take that right to advice and see how we can provide better advice for people in the run-up to retirement in order to help them provide more for their retirement.

[Mr Redwood]

Is there not also a very cruel dilemma in public policy, in that savers want a better rate of interest but we need low interest rates to promote economic growth and to service the Government debt? There is a trade-off, and that is why tax breaks are particularly welcome at a time of low interest rates.

[Mr Hoban]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend provides me with the opportunity to praise the Chancellor for introducing the pensioner bond. Those higher rates of interest will provide not only an attractive way of enabling people to save, but some support to the Treasury.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) made a point about the savings culture. We must recognise that we need to help people on low incomes to improve their savings, too. Although the minimum contributions under auto-enrolment help people get on the savings ladder, they are not high enough to provide them with a reasonable replacement income in retirement that is proportionate to their income in work. Those higher up the income scale tend to do better. Not only do they qualify for higher tax relief, but their pension contribution rates need to be higher, too. They also tend to have additional sources of income and savings in retirement.

I encourage my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to look carefully at this area. I welcome the fact that we have increased personal allowances for those on low incomes. In a constituency like mine, where the average wage is £24,000 a year, increases to the personal allowance are valuable. However, as well as helping the low paid while they are in work, we should think about how we help them prepare for retirement. That would help provide a rounded package of measures to help people build up savings for their retirement and then, once they are in retirement, think about how they will get best value for money from those savings.

In conclusion, it is not possible simply to repair 13 years of damage in just a few years of this first term of Government. The problems we inherited were deep-seated and challenging: an economy that was unbalanced—it was too dependent on the south and on financial services—and a Government addicted to spending, taxing and borrowing. Tackling those problems against the backdrop of economic uncertainty abroad was not easy. Plenty of commentators, including from the Labour party, said that it could not be done. They prophesised huge increases in unemployment as we cut back the public sector, and they said we were cutting too far and too fast.

They have been proved wrong: the economy is recovering, growth in the UK is expected to outstrip that of our main competitors and more people are in work than ever before. Now is not the time for complacency. We need to continue with our reforms and drive the recovery forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I listened intently to the Chancellor, and I was pleased when he made the point that he wanted to ensure that growth occurred in all the regions of the United Kingdom. However, I was disappointed to listen to the rest of the speech, because I wanted to know what policies would be introduced to effect that more even distribution of growth. I welcome the setting up of the enterprise zone in Coleraine, but one has to bear in mind that that will just balance out the 350 jobs that have been lost in that town, where severe unemployment had already been caused by the closure of some companies. It is intended to balance out the impact that the central Government’s decisions have had on my constituents in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Redwood]

I would just like to correct the record. The forecast is for only a 4.7% increase in exports next year and an 8% increase in investment, which I think is achievable.

[Sammy Wilson]

The percentage growth in exports was 0.8% last year, and in the next year it is forecast to be 2.6%. By any calculation, that is more than a three times increase in the rate of growth. The Government have talked about the reduction in the cost of finance for exporters, but measures that were introduced in previous years did not have the intended effect. Of course, that is against the background of a strengthening pound, so there will be a difficulty there. On what is the Government’s optimism based? If it is on export and investment-led growth, past patterns do not show that happening.

My second point is about the Chancellor’s throwaway lines saying, “I am not in the job of easing up just because things are getting better”, and “We don’t want to spend more.” I am not asking the Government to spend more; I am asking them to spend differently and better. Of course we have to get the deficit under control, but what is the increase in that deficit at the moment? Of the percentage of our GDP that is debt, what is most of it made up of? It is made up of paying people to sit on their backsides doing nothing, instead of spending on investment in infrastructure projects, which would have a return. It would put people back to work, increase tax revenues and stimulate growth. We can examine the infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, such as in tourism. For modest amounts of money, the Titanic signature project is now bringing in millions of pounds and half a million visitors a year, mostly from outside the state. There has also been the extension of the gas pipeline. Many Members have talked today about the cost of living, and one way of bringing fuel prices down is to give people alternatives. For modest public investment, we have been able to increase the coverage of gas pipelines in Northern Ireland, bringing people cheaper fuel and helping to bring down their cost of living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I believe that Minouche Shafik is an absolutely outstanding public servant, and she has been appointed as a deputy governor of the Bank. I am sure the whole House will agree that it is an outstanding appointment.

The economic plan that has been introduced is right. We had to make those decisions, because the United Kingdom has racked up far too much debt. Siren voices effectively urge us to head back in the direction from which we have come, but it does not seem likely to me that the public will accept that. Today’s Budget enhances and underlines the difference between the Government and the Opposition, and in my view it will stand the test of time.

[Mr Redwood]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that despite all the efforts to control the debt, which we need to do, debt interest will still be £60 billion next year, which is more than the education budget?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but can he imagine what it would be like today if the Opposition’s policies were being pursued?

I wish to make a point that the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), will not agree with, although I thought his speech was excellent in every other respect. The Government deserve huge praise for sticking to their plans on international development. The House will be aware that as a result of the all-party support for that policy, countless lives have been saved. Hundreds of thousands of children are alive today in the horn of Africa who would not have been but for British leadership on the issue.

Through the House strongly supporting the Government’s policy to vaccinate, the British contribution means that we will vaccinate a child every two seconds in the poor world, and every two minutes it will save a child’s life from the effects of diseases that none of our children die from today. As a result of reforms introduced by the Government, such as building up governance structure and ensuring that poor countries have the benefit of effective taxation, independent media and so forth, we should all be incredibly proud of the success of that policy. I am enormously proud to have served in a Government who stuck to their promises to the poorest people in the world, and who did not seek to balance the books on the backs of the poorest, either in Britain or overseas. That is also hugely in British interests—this is not just soft-hearted altruism—because it is not only aid from Britain, but aid and development for the benefit of Britain. It enhances the security and stability of our generation and of future generations, and it builds on the prosperity that our generation enjoys, and that future generations will enjoy to a greater degree as a result of those successful international development policies.

I also believe that the Chancellor was right to raise the threshold at which tax becomes payable, and—at a time of great austerity—to target help on those who earn the least. Of course the 40% level bites much earlier than we intended, but the austerity we have faced was harder and deeper, and inevitably those with a little more have had to pay a little more in those circumstances. I am clear, however, that the 40% band needs to be raised as soon as we can, and the drag of people into that band should be reversed once the economy can withstand it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

Yes. I absolutely believe that when the minimum wage was introduced, it was set at the right level. It disappointed a lot of people who wanted it to be higher. There will always be those who want the minimum wage increased beyond what the market can sustain. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it has to be generous, but it has to be moderate so that we do not have the negative effect of losing workers.

But what about help for ordinary working families? I am loth to use some of the more overused phrases that we are encouraged to use like “cost of living crisis”—trademark patent pending—but the fact is there is such a crisis. If average wages in real terms have dropped by £1,600—and I have yet to hear any Minister saying that is not the case—that is something of a crisis if not for people in this House then certainly for families and workers in my constituency. Yet despite the high number of headline-grabbing announcements, many of which I would support, there is absolutely nothing in what the Chancellor said that will address this urgent issue that faces the whole nation.

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been quite a big fall in real wages, but will he accept that the biggest part of the fall occurred in 2008-10?

[Mr Harris]

I am, as always, very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening as I was just about to get on to the events of 2008-09. I want to address the deficit, because so many Government Members have raised it in the House whenever they have got the chance in a way that I find completely disingenuous, not worthy of an adult debate and not related to what actually happened in 2008-09.

An observer from Mars who tuned into what the Chancellor said today might have come to the wrong conclusion that when the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition he somehow opposed the last Labour Government’s spending plans. That is not the case: right up to November 2008 the official Conservative party policy was to support our spending plans. That either means that the Conservatives believe the deficit was created in the 18 months from that point until the general election, which frankly none of us believes, or that they are now saying something that is completely the opposite of what they were saying in opposition. I remember sitting on those Government Benches—in a couple of years’ time I hope to be back there—and I do not recall any Conservative Member, or indeed Liberal Democrat Member, calling for an end to spending on their local schools, their local hospitals, their local roads. The fact is that the deficit was almost entirely caused not by profligate spending by the Labour Government, but by a disastrous fall in tax revenue caused by an international recession—the deepest any of us have seen in our lives. That is the truth of the matter.

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—and I have to say especially Liberal Democrats, who seem to get more incensed about this than anyone, even though they said not a word about it in opposition—stand up and demand all this nonsense about apologies for the deficit and for mistakes that were made. Of course all Governments make mistakes, but let us be honest with the British public about how the deficit was created. It was not created because new schools were built. It was created because of a recession that put a lot of people out of work and that cut off revenue to the Treasury. That is why we are where we are. It is not because of Labour’s spending plans.

There are some items in this Budget that I welcome, but I fear it will be most notable not for the issues it addresses, but for those issues it needs to address and, sadly, ignores.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I would like to remind the House of my declaration of interests: I provide some advice on global economies and investments to an industrial company and an investment company.

I greatly welcome this Budget, because I think it is right that we need to do more to help the promotion of exports, industrial investment, the rebalancing of our economy and continuing the long process of getting the deficit under control. In our exchanges already I have highlighted the fact that debt interest will be higher than the education programme next year, despite the Government’s best endeavours, and that unless we carry on to make good and rapid progress to get the deficit down and eliminate it, that debt burden will build up and future Governments, whoever they may be, will find they are spending more and more money on debt interest and have less and less for the public services that our electorates expect us to provide.

I would like to clear up a common misunderstanding about how that is being done that I think has occurred because of the use of jargon and economists’ language in describing the process. The reduction in the deficit has been described as 80% by spending cuts and 20% by tax rises. That is true if the programme is successfully completed by 2018 and if we measure it as a percentage of GDP at that point, but that is not how most people think about how an excessive deficit is curbed. If we have a large deficit in our own accounts, we have either to find a way of earning more money or to make immediate cuts in the amount of cash that we spend. I think a lot of people outside the House think that, because we inherited a deficit of £160 billion, 80% by spending cuts meant £132 billion-worth of cash cuts in public spending. Of course it does not, and I am very glad that it does not, because that would have done huge damage to important public services.

What the Government have decided to do is limit the rate of increase in public spending and promote a more active economy so that tax revenues eventually catch up, and we are in that long process. The first three years of this Government saw very little growth in the economy, which delayed the reduction in the deficit because we did not get the surge in tax revenues we were hoping for. Now it looks as if there is better news, with faster growth coming through, and so the process can be completed, assuming the economy still recovers.

I had thought we might cut public spending in real terms in the first two or three years, but it appears from the latest figures that there was a small real increase in public spending. In the first three years, current public spending went up by more than inflation, and if we look at the impact on the economy as a whole, it gives the lie to all those who suggest too much was cut too soon, and that that reduced output and was the cause of the delay in growth. If we look at the attribution of growth and decline in activity and incomes, we see that the public sector made a small positive contribution to the economy in every one of the first three years of the coalition Government. I hope that reassures some of those on the Opposition Benches who felt too much was being cut and damage was being done. The good news is that it was not. There will have to be some reductions in some programmes in the years ahead in order to hit the targets, however, because although public spending will continue to rise in cash terms, there will need to be a little bit of a real reduction in the next Parliament; and because some of the programmes need to go up quite a lot—debt interest will go up quite a bit anyway—we will have to make reductions in other programmes, whoever is in office.

[Mr Newmark]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that, notwithstanding the austerity he is talking about and the fact that more than 500,000 jobs were lost in the public sector, what is particularly remarkable about these tough times was that 1.7 million jobs were created in the private sector?

[Mr Redwood]

Yes, that was magnificent news and it shows that the private sector is remarkably resilient despite all that has been thrown at it. That is why we can now look forward to both better living standards and a better public sector: we need all those people to be in work and paying more tax in order to pay for those public services that are much-wanted by our constituents.

I would also like to deal with the argument from the Opposition, which I thought was put in a very exaggerated form by the Labour leader in his response to the Budget, in what was a rather partisan appearance which was out of sympathy with his new style at Prime Minister’s questions. I am not one to condemn partisan debate, as I think sometimes it livens the place up, but it was a very partisan speech by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It was a rant.

[Mr Redwood]

The Leader of the Opposition’s rant, as my hon. Friend says, had just one basic message: the wrong belief that the Conservatives want tax cuts for the rich and misery for everybody else. What we want is tax cuts for everyone, and what this and the previous Budget offer is tax cuts for everyone.

Let me explain how we have different types of tax cut for people at different levels of income. We take those on the lowest incomes out of tax altogether, so they get a genuine tax cut: they go from paying something to paying no income tax at all. The House is, I think, united on the wisdom of that. At the top end, we cut the rate, and what happens is that the rich and successful people actually pay more tax, not less. That seems to me to be magic, because then everybody is happy—or they should be. Only the very jealous should be miserable, because what we then have is the rich staying here, investing here, creating jobs here, creating more money here and paying more tax because the rate is lower. What is not to like about that proposition?

What is odd is that the Labour party in office, until the last couple of days, knew that and kept the top rate of tax below the level that we inherited and below the level we have now fixed. It is a bit rich that Labour is now complaining that we are light on the rich, given that our tax rates are collecting a lot more tax from the rich and are higher than the rates that Labour imposed. Indeed, we could collect even more tax from the rich if we brought the rates down a bit more, which I hope, come a Conservative Government, we might be able to do. Surely what we want is to maximise the revenue from such people, not to make a political point and drive them abroad, so that we have a society with less money, fewer jobs and less creativity.

I am pleased that the Chancellor made some moves on energy. We need a much bigger and stronger industrial recovery than we have generated so far. The first thing we need to do to have such a recovery is to ignore the advice of the Green MP, and to go for cheap energy. America is going for cheap energy, and it is re-industrialising very quickly. America is now super-competitive against companies in the European Union. A leading chemical major in Germany has recently said that it will put more of its investment abroad, outside the EU altogether, because, in the light of the energy crisis, the gas feed stock is uncompetitive. We need to find that gas and to get it out as quickly as possible. We need to match the United States’ shale revolution if we wish to save our high-energy-using industries and to re-industrialise and give some hope to the northern cities in particular, with their long tradition of industrial activity, because they need much cheaper energy.

We need to do more for savers, and I am delighted by an elaborate and interesting set of measures from the Chancellor on saving. Savers have had a miserable time after the collapse. Rightly, successive Governments and Governors of the Bank of England have kept interest rates on the floor, as they had to do, to try to stimulate activity and to prevent a worse collapse than we experienced in 2008, at the height of the crisis. That has been very bad news for savers. The tax changes will help savers, and the pensioner bond offer, if the rates are around the level we are now looking at, makes sense and would be a bit more attractive and something for pensioner savers to look forward to. I also welcome more flexibility for pensioners generally. Annuities are not good news at the moment, and if people can put that off or have a better choice, that may well be an excellent answer.

This Budget needs to be good for savers, for industry and for exports, and we are going in the right direction. It will help to promote a bit more growth, and only if we get a lot of growth will we get out of this debt bind.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I start by welcoming a number of the measures that the Government announced, such as the increase in the revenue non-compliance budget, increased export funding and the further doubling of the annual investment allowance. If the Government carry on like this, we will be back to having an industrial buildings allowance policy, which should never have been scrapped in the first place. There is also the halving, at last, of bingo duty—my favourite cause. All these one-off measures are very sensible, could be implemented by any Government and ought to be welcomed by everybody.

However, that does not change this Government’s underlying direction of travel or the underlying shape of the economy as described to us in the Red Book. Scotland has suffered an 11% cut in the fiscal departmental expenditure limit, a 27% cut in capital and a real-terms 9.9% cut in the overall budget. The numbers announced today imply a further real-terms cut in the budget. I do not want to speak too much about Scotland, but it is important that we get on the record just how damaging this Government continue to be.

What the Budget speech and the Red Book tell us is that, by every measure the Chancellor has set for himself, he has failed. In his first Budget, he told us that in 2013-14 the current account deficit would be 2.3% of GDP, borrowing would be reduced to £60 billion and the net debt would be 70% of GDP. Today, he told us that for the same year, the current account deficit is higher, borrowing is actually at £95.6 billion and the net debt is around 75% of GDP.

Let me be generous: any Government can make a mistake for one year, so what about the big targets the Chancellor set for himself? They were: that debt would begin to fall as a share of GDP by 2014-15; that the current account would be in balance the following year; and that in the same year, public sector net borrowing would fall to £20 billion. Debt will not begin to fall until 2016-17—two years late. The current account will not be back in the black until 2017-18—two years late. Public sector net borrowing in 2015-16 will not be £20 billion; rather, the forecast figure—£68 billion—is more than three times that. Not a single one of the Chancellor’s key targets has been met.

[Mr Redwood]

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the forecasted very sharp fall-off in petroleum revenue tax, and is that reflected in SNP plans?

[Stewart Hosie]

It is extremely convenient that, once again, we have a “North sea oil price crash” story on Budget day, some six months before the referendum. If the right hon. Gentleman keeps saying it, I am sure someone somewhere will finally believe him. I am not dreadfully convinced.

The bottom line is that—just like the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention—the Chancellor’s speech was hugely political. He did not tell us about recovery; he did not tell us that he is trying to lift the burden from hard-working families; he did not apologise for trying to rebalance the economy on the backs of the poor. This Budget speech was a political platform for the next election, and if it was supposed to be a vindication of his policies, then it failed, because the policies have failed.

The Chancellor did of course have a deal to say about tax. He is right to increase the basic rate threshold to £10,000, and then to £10,500. Raising the threshold from £6,500 to £10,000, resulting in savings this year of £700 for the average person, is sensible, but of course, that is only part of the personal tax story. This Government have pushed ahead with a tax cut for millionaires and have continued to squeeze the middle—the genuine middle class. The threshold for those paying the 40% rate of tax has come down from £37,500 to under £32,000, so for every penny saved at the bottom, they have had to pay more than a penny at 40%. I therefore welcome the fact that the 40% threshold is going to be increased, but that is not until 2014-15. It will not change the fact that the proportion of people paying the 40% tax rate has doubled over the past two decades, and there are now 2.1 million more people paying a rate of tax that was previously only for the rich.

It is not just the middle: it is the poorest in society who have been hit hardest. We know—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) told us—that the proportion of tax cuts to tax rises is 4:1. We knew from previous Budgets that the impact of the discretionary consolidation would be £155 billion. Interestingly, the Government have removed that figure from the Red Book: they have removed the year 2016-17 from the forecast, and are now telling us that the discretionary consolidation will be only £126 billion. However, that forecast goes only to 2015-16, and I am concerned that they are not making a longer forecast, so we can see the real scale of the damage they are trying to do.

We in the SNP know where the pain of this Budget and of this Government’s policy direction will be felt. It will be the 144,000 households in Scotland who are losing some £3,500 each through changes to incapacity benefit. It will be the 372,000 Scottish households who have seen tax credits reduced to the tune of £800 a year. It will be the 620,000 families hit by changes to child benefit, who have lost an average of £360 a year. It will be felt by the 55,000 people who are losing an average of £3,000 a year as disability living allowance is removed. Those are the people whom we should be thinking about and who should be helped. Instead, the Government continue to try to balance the books on the back of the poor.

I welcome the fact that the Budget forecast at least says that there will be some growth, but it is once again heavily predicated on business investment growth. In Budget after Budget, the Government have produced five-year growth forecasts. In 2010, growth was predicted to be between 8% and 10% a year, but by the time we got to 2011 it had turned negative and they had to set yet more ambitious targets for the next five years. So it went on, and we find in the Red Book that the forecast business investment growth for last year turned negative again. I am desperate to see positive business investment growth, and the jobs that come with it, but we keep seeing the same story from the Government. They keep failing.

What should the Government have done? There are any number of policies that they might have adopted. Instead of tinkering with air passenger duty, they might have cut it properly or acted sensibly to boost international connectivity. Instead of simply freezing fuel duty, they might have introduced a real fuel duty regulator to smooth out future spikes. They might have cancelled some of their austerity measures, or at least removed the cap on discretionary housing payments to help the poorest. There are so many things that they might have done.

In the North sea, the Government announced that they would implement the Wood review in full. That will save the industry some £45 million, and it is to be welcomed. However, they are keeping the offshore chartering regime that they announced last year, which will cost the industry £600 million. They keep getting it wrong every single time.