Finance (No.2) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that Labour Members are passionate about business and our policy of a business rates cut for small and medium-sized businesses, which I will come to later.

The Government’s impact assessment says that the 1% cut in 2015 will lower the bills of 40,000 businesses that have profits of more than £1.5 million and pay the main rate of corporation tax. It will also benefit a further 41,000 businesses that have profits between £300,000 and £1.5 million and pay the main rate of corporation tax but receive marginal relief.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills estimates that the UK has 4.8 million private sector businesses, the majority of which, around 3.6 million, are sole proprietorships, and a further 1.02 million have fewer than 10 employees. That means that if 81,000 businesses benefit from cuts to the main rate of corporation tax, fewer than 2% of the total businesses in the UK are benefiting.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I would be grateful if the hon. Lady explained how the Treasury should go about making the calculations that she wants it to make. How would the Treasury know the consequence of that one particular tax change, and how would it know what it would be like without it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will come to the point about the different tax choices that we make and measuring their impact. Unlike the Minister, I do not have access to Treasury officials, so I am not versed in their methodology, but I do not deny that the Government’s corporation tax rate cuts in this Parliament, which we have supported, have benefited 2% of businesses. I will come later to the 98% of businesses that have not benefited from the cuts to the main rate of corporation tax, but which are struggling with the costs of running their business. The Opposition believe that the Government can and should go further in helping those businesses cope, in particular, with the business rates that they have seen increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

What I primarily regret is that, as a result of the choices they made, this Government choked off the economic recovery that was under way when they came to office. That is the most regrettable thing: it led to three damaging years of flatlining, and it is ordinary people who are paying the price.

Following a vocal campaign by a number of business groups, ahead of the autumn statement the Government decided not to go ahead with the planned 3.2% increase in business rates and decided instead to cap them at 2%. The Government also announced in the autumn statement that they would provide additional help to retailers. That was action—it was relatively late in the day but it was action—but it does not go far enough, and the Government’s policy does not compare favourably with ours ahead of the next general election.

Ultimately, business rates are still set to rise this month by an average of £270. The Government’s autumn statement offer of £1,000 business rate relief was welcome for retailers, but it excluded workshops and offices used by high-tech start-ups. I particularly have in mind small jewellery makers in my constituency, which is famous for the jewellery quarter at its heart. Such businesses will not benefit from the Government’s announcements in the autumn statement and, as I have said, a significant rise in business rates is still envisaged for small businesses.

Our proposal for a switch spend from corporation tax to business rates is a much more comprehensive measure that would offer genuine and more far-reaching support to small and medium-sized enterprises. Given the scale of the problem, our policy seeks to offer practical help that would truly make a difference on the Witton road, the Coventry road and the Soho road in my constituency. The Exchequer Secretary will be pleased to know that it would also make a difference in his constituency. The Office for National Statistics report “UK business: Activity, Size and Location 2013”—a great read—tells us that more than 80% of the 5,750 VAT or PAYE-based enterprises in South West Hertfordshire employ no more than four people, while almost 75% of them have a turnover of less than £250,000. They are therefore not affected by the changes to the main rate of corporation tax, which he himself oversees; they are more likely to be in properties with a rental value of £50,000, and are therefore more likely to benefit from Labour’s proposal to cut and then freeze business rates in 2015-16.

In conclusion, we believe that our policy is the right one for helping small businesses. It meets the scale of the challenge that they face on business rates, and it makes the right choice about how to pay for the policy. We will want to vote on our amendment later this afternoon to highlight the impact of this Government’s decisions and the imbalances in their approach.

[Mr Redwood]

I remind the House that I offer advice for an industrial company and an investment company, although not on these subjects.

I thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) started her speech very promisingly. I admire her background, and I can think of a former great Member of Parliament who came from a very similar background and who deduced some very sound principles about how economies and shops work. I thought that the hon. Lady was going to develop in that style. I was delighted when she said that she is now a convert to tax reduction. She said that she and the Labour party now think that taking corporation tax down from 28% to 21% was right. It is wonderful news that we seem to have cross-party accord on the fact that lower tax rates can bring businesses to Britain, keep more profit in Britain and, if we let such policies fructify for long enough, even lead to more revenues and help to promote the economic growth that we all want.

The hon. Lady went even further and thought up another tax reduction that she wants. I am not normally one to let a tax reduction opportunity go by, and she said that a reduction in business rates would be a very good idea. She said that it would be good to find a way to make a further reduction in business rates, because that would be very welcome after years of increases.

I was then disappointed, however, because the hon. Lady said, “Oh, you can’t have too much of a good thing. It might start to work. You’ve got to have a tax rise, as well as a tax reduction.” She did set one part of the business community against another, although she claims that she did not do so. I find that rather curious, because we are meant to be debating the Opposition’s amendment 2, which does not propose a reduction in business rates or an increase in the corporation tax rate, although she says that that is their policy. The amendment allows us to talk about that because it is very wide ranging. We can talk about any kind of tax because it invites us to look at alternatives to corporation tax in ways that she spoke about.

We have a contradiction: the Opposition say that they have a settled policy to put up the corporation tax rate for larger companies and to cut and then freeze business rates. However, we are asked to vote on a much weaker amendment, which just says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should conduct a review of the impact of cutting the corporation tax rate from 21% to 20%, as well as of other options, presumably including the one that the hon. Lady has already adopted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the primary cause of that increase in revenue is income shifting from one year to the next? Many individuals held back income in the year when the rate was 50%, and brought it forward when the rate was reduced to 45%.

[Mr Redwood]

I do not accept that at all, because the revenue in the previous year was very similar to the figure for the year before that, which was before people knew that there might be a cut in the tax rate. I suspect that next year will also see good levels of revenue. I do not expect a sudden reduction of £9 billion in revenue in the financial year we are just starting. As always, the hon. Gentleman is peddling misery for no good reason. Labour Members should rejoice and accept the fact that if we cut a rate, we sometimes get more money. They always want to spend other people’s money, so surely they should listen to how we can maximise the amount we get out of people.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where, following the rate change, this money has suddenly come from if it is not re-phased income? Is he suggesting that people have somehow avoided tax or that people have suddenly come into this country to pay it? He must have some reason for the increase, if he does not accept the one given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love).

[Mr Redwood]

We are talking about people who are a serious amount richer than any of us on MPs’ salaries, and if the hon. Lady meets such people occasionally she will discover that they have many more freedoms than other people on when and where they earn income, what they invest in and where they organise their affairs. Some of them were not in this country before and came here when the rate was lowered. Some have some money in one country and some in another, and they can quite legally shift their money around and decide where they are going to earn more income. That is what companies do, as she has discovered and sometimes complained about. Rich people have a lot of flexibility, which means that a country that sets sensible tax rates attracts and keeps more of them and gets them to do more things.

There is also a disincentive effect, because someone who is legally here and keeps all their money here might not do extra work—why should they, when they are going to be taxed at too high a rate? Or they might not take an extra risk with their investments—why should they? If it works they will get taxed, and if it does not work they will take 100% of the loss. We can therefore change the climate by setting a competitive rate to encourage more confidence and action.

[Mr Love]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

I will give way again, if the hon. Gentleman wants another go.

[Mr Love]

I do, because I want to explore the Arthur Laffer effect. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that if we reduce income tax, we increase the amount of money we take. How far would he take that? Would he make income tax 40p in the pound, or 35p? Would he abolish income tax entirely and raise even more money?

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman is now being completely stupid, is he not? There are two rates of tax that will raise no money—0% and 100%—and there is a curve between the two, which, as he rightly said, was first drawn by Mr Laffer, I believe on a napkin. Most people, including the Treasury, accept that there is a Laffer curve, and that it is a question of judgment where the rate is that maximises revenue. It is quite clear from the evidence in this year’s Revenue and Customs figures that 50% was too high a rate to maximise revenue, and that 45% gets us more revenue than 50%. I believe that 40% would get us more revenue than 45%. I am pleased to hear today that a Liberal Democrat, of all people, is writing a book on the subject. I welcome that and look forward to more progress in coalition talks about the maximising rate of income tax. If it were taken down to 20%, we would clearly lose a lot of money, so somewhere between there and where we are now is the maximising rate, and getting it right is partly science and partly trial and error. We can be sure that we are now moving in the right direction, having gone in the wrong one previously.

It is interesting that the previous Prime Minister, during all his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, never took the top rate above 40%. I do not think that was because he liked rich people or wanted to be unkind to the left wing of the Labour party. I believe it was his judgment that anything over 40% would have cost him revenue. As a modest man, I therefore accept that there was something about which he was absolutely right—he was correct in not raising the top rate of tax above 40%.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a case about corporation tax and about the top rate of income tax being reduced from 50p to 45p. Would he apply the same logic of Laffer to indirect taxation? It would be interesting to hear his comments about the raising of VAT to 20%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

It is clear from the figures that the raising of the rate to 20% increased revenue. Yes, there is a Laffer effect in VAT, and 20% is clearly below the optimising point if our only interest is in increasing revenue. Going from 17.5% to 20% has not got us to the point where it costs us revenue. If it had, I would have been the first to tell Ministers that it was a ridiculous idea. I understand their need for more revenue, because they inherited such a huge deficit.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Of course, companies often pay VAT before they even make a profit.

[Mr Redwood]

Indeed, there are timing issues with VAT, as the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not really see how that affects the argument about whether putting the rate up brings in more money. That is in the figures.

I fear that we are drifting a bit far even from the wide subject of the amendment, but I suppose the alternative options to help business could include cutting VAT. However, it is clear that if we cut the rate of VAT again, there would be a substantial loss of revenue, whereas we have just cut the income tax rate and there has been a colossal revenue gain. We should learn from those points.

I think the shadow Minister suggested that there would be no loss of revenue to local government from cutting and then freezing business rates. I do not know whether she wants to intervene, but that was my understanding of what she said. I think the Labour party has been converted to the Laffer effect. It now asserts—I do not know on what evidence—that if we cut and then froze business rates, we would collect the same amount of revenue. I would need persuading about that, because I am not sure that business rates are at that point yet, but if they were, it would be a sensible proposal for the coalition Government to take up. It would make it an even bigger pity that Labour has not bothered to table a proposal along those lines for us to vote on today, which might even have drawn me into the Lobby against my own party’s Front Benchers if the case had been well made and I felt that the Laffer effect of lower business rates was well established. I have profoundly shocked my Front-Bench colleagues now, having earned myself a brownie point through my earlier remarks. As they are well aware, they are quite safe, because there is no proposal on the amendment paper to cut business rates. [Interruption.] The Whip has just found that out—she needs to do a little more homework before coming to these debates. [Interruption.] Now she is complaining that she did not say that. As she will be in the record as having said nothing, who am I to disagree?

Before I get into any more trouble, I will conclude my remarks by saying that I will not support the amendment. I do not believe that a review would help, and I do not understand how it would be judged. Nor does it seem that it would have any impact on Labour policy. I am perplexed by the fact that when Labour has a clear policy for once, it has not tabled a proposal so that we can debate it fully and vote on it. I strongly support lower corporation tax rates, which will be very helpful.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak briefly in this debate. There is everything to be said for reviewing the effects of changes in tax rates, but to do that one must eliminate all other factors. A great surge in demand over a certain period, with unemployment going down and output going up, and all sorts of other factors can affect tax revenues. It is not just tax rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said, if there was a direct relationship between lower tax rates and increased revenues, a zero tax rate would mean big revenues and a higher tax rate would mean lower revenues. It is just not like that.

I also suggest that marginal changes to tax rates will not make much difference. Everybody in business likes lower taxes, and no doubt most citizens do. It is in the nature of things, because they have more money in their pocket. At the same time, in a civilised society—I like to think that we still have some remnants of a civilised society—taxation is vital to pay for the things that make it civilised. I would personally like higher revenues, so that we could spend more on the things that make our society worth living in. Over the past few decades, there have been some regrettable cuts in tax revenues. Perhaps we should not go back to the 98% top rate of the 1970s, but when Nigel Lawson got rid of the 60% rate and brought in the 40% rate, it led to substantial income for better-off people.

[Mr Redwood]

Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that cutting the top rate from 83% to 40%, or from 98% to 40% for so-called investment income, meant a huge surge in revenue? Rich people not only paid more in cash terms and real terms but paid a bigger proportion of total income tax. What’s not to like?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We can argue about particular cases, but when we measure the impact of tax changes, we have to ensure that we are not measuring other factors. I met some people in the City just after Nigel Lawson cut the tax rate, and a lot of them were aghast at the Budget, saying, “Why has he cut the taxes? We don’t need the money.” They were clearly not of the same mind as the right hon. Gentleman, but they were civilised, decent people who thought that good tax revenues and higher taxes were a good thing.

[Mr Redwood]

As they were civilised people who did not need the money, all they had to do was give it away. They could have given the money to the state or to charity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. If there is one attraction to the amendment, it is that it allows a broad-ranging debate on any tax measure one can think of. Perhaps I could talk about the impact that a carrier bag tax would have on small businesses, especially a tax on bags that would allow the biodegradable element to get into the recycling stream, which damages recycling businesses in the plastics industry. That would perhaps stretch the debate a little too far away from the main rate of corporation tax, even though hon. Members might agree on such a measure.

We are going in exactly the right direction in trying to get the main rate of corporation tax down to 20%. That has been the direction of travel for this Parliament and it is the right place to be. I suspect that, if we get it to 20%, that will be the end of the journey, for the very good reason that having a corporation tax rate lower than the basic rate of income tax creates lots of interesting tax planning opportunities, as the previous Government found out when they had a small companies rate of 10%. Lots of strange people incorporated themselves as businesses—they looked a lot like one-man bands who ought to have been self-employed and made interesting tax deferrals or savings when pretending to be companies.

If we get to 20%, that is the end. I suspect that that is why we can no longer have a small companies rate of corporation tax that is lower than the large companies rate. If we lower one rate, we encourage behaviour that we do not want to encourage. It is right that we get both rates down to 20% and to have one rate of corporation tax. We can then scrap the hugely complex marginal relief calculation and everyone will know what rate of tax they pay on their profits. That has to be the right situation. A small growing business, whose profit increases during the year and suddenly hits more than a quarter of a million pounds, will wonder what tax rate it will pay in that year, so losing that whole calculation completely is a huge advantage.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the review could very usefully come up with a 20% capital gains tax rate, too? I would settle for 20% capital gains tax, 20% corporation tax and 20% income tax. There would then be fewer tricks.

[Nigel Mills]

A symmetry of tax rates would make perfect sense. Whatever form of income one had, one would know what rate one was paying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

We must review constantly what we do to get it right. The suggestion is that a review in itself causes uncertainty, but there are many uncertainties in business. The constant discussion about the EU, Britain’s place in it and whether there should or should not be a referendum is an uncertainty. I am sure that many people who feel strongly about that nevertheless feel it is so important that they are willing to risk that level of uncertainty.

[Mr Redwood]

The Labour Front-Bench team made a great deal of the need for banks to lend more money to small businesses being crucial to their future. How would an increase in the corporation tax rate and a special bank levy on payroll help? Would not that mean that the banks had less money to lend?

[Sheila Gilmore]

We still see high levels of remuneration and bonuses at banks while small businesses are told that there is no money to lend. Sometimes, of course, we are told the opposite is the case: banks allege that it is not a lack of money, but that businesses are not coming forward and do not want to expand. For a lot of small businesses who want to borrow, it is galling to find that banks are still seemingly able—despite all the difficulties they allege they have—to pay out so much in bonus payments.

To review these matters and to make a genuine attempt to provide additional help for the small businesses we all say we want to help would be useful. The terms of the amendment would enable us to get details of the impact of the cut in corporation tax to see exactly what the impact has been and what the impact of the suggested minor and very small increase might be before a decision is made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

As a result of our corporation tax reforms, businesses are moving their headquarters here. The north-east of England, for instance, has benefited from Hitachi’s investment. However, if the hon. Lady’s point is that the job has not yet been done and that further steps are needed to make our economy more productive and competitive, I entirely agree with her. That is why we must stick to the long-term economic plan.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the Minister agree that increases in investment require consumption growth? Does he agree that the whole point of investment is to satisfy future consumption increases, and that we need both for a balanced recovery?

[Mr Gauke]

Indeed I do. As ever, my right hon. Friend brings great expertise to the debate.

Clauses 5 to 7 provide further evidence that we are continuing to make progress towards the delivery of a simpler and more competitive tax regime. They charge corporation tax for the financial year 2015. They set the small profits rate and the ring-fence small profits rate for 2014 at 20% and 19% respectively. They fix the ring-fence rates so that we need not reconfirm them every year in the Finance Bill. That is consistent with the way in which we handle the supplementary charge, the 32% tax levied on profits from oil and gas production. They set the fractions that will be used for businesses to calculate their marginal relief: the standard fraction is set at one four-hundredth, and the ring-fence fraction at eleven four-hundredths.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend, who characteristically makes a very good point. The problem is that to give the kind of detailed personalised advice that people want, the fee has to be at a certain level to reward professionals for doing the job, but smaller pension pots make that very difficult. That is nothing to do with regulation; it is simply about being able to charge the correct amount for their time. I hope that there will be alternative systems, although they may not perhaps give quite the bespoke advice that is available for people with larger pots. In other fields, such as accountancy, there are ways in which people can get good advice without having to spend the vast amounts of money available to those with larger pots.

My second point about changes in pensions legislation is just a thought. Many billions of pounds will become available that would have been dealt with directly in the insurance market through the annuity system. Have the Government given any thought to providing a facility involving national savings in which the Government or an organisation acting on their behalf deal with it on a managed fund basis? There is a similar system in Australia and New Zealand, where there is a kind of sovereign wealth fund that comes from people’s pensions pot, accrued together, with the necessary caveats about risk, a portfolio approach and all such matters. The Government thereby take advantage of the savings system, so that people can retire with a very good, solid and Government-guaranteed choice—of different types of products and risks—about what to do with their money. It would be very simple, with perhaps one or two choices; it obviously could not compete with the great panoply of schemes of the large fund management companies. It would be simple so that people could understand it, and I hope that it would provide a vehicle for funds that are safe and give a good return for the public, while also providing the Government with extra funds, as happens with National Savings & Investments.

On the Budget generally, which I support fully, my fear is that this country still lacks a business culture. Both this Government and the previous one quite rightly focused on small and medium-sized enterprises, businesses and apprenticeships, with different schemes and systems to try to help them. When I speak at schools in my constituency—as for all hon. Members, they are a regular feature in my diary—it is interesting to talk to young people about what they want in life, yet very few of the brighter ones seem to desire to go into a business environment. Those who do have such a desire tend to be interested in graduate schemes with larger multinational companies or the professions. There is nothing wrong with that—some of them, heaven forbid, want to be politicians—but these are the very people whose families often have small businesses in my constituency, and there are 1,600 businesses in Watford that employ between two and seven people. It seems to me that the establishment—schools, parents and everyone else—very much look for brighter young people to go into the professions and find alternatives to self-employment.

It is very hard to change that culture, but I want to commend the Government for what they have done to help small businesses and to help people to start up businesses. Wenta in Watford—the Exchequer Secretary may be familiar with it, because it is near his constituency —is an incubator for many start-up businesses. I saw several of them when I was there only a couple of weeks ago, including a small business started by James Morgenstern in which, in arrangement with Google, people who find an image of a building on Google Earth can then see a video of its interior. He started it in his bedroom and has now moved to an office at Wenta, and the business will expand.

To use James Morgenstern’s business as an example, his next big step is to have a first employee. I can speak with a little authority, because many years ago—I am probably about the same age as his parents or, depressingly, his grandparents—I was in that position. One starts a business and it is all great: one does everything oneself, being up 20 hours a day, and all that—it is a great pity that the shadow Chief Secretary is not in his seat at the moment, because he would be very interested in this, so perhaps I should brief him fully outside the Chamber—and the next step is to have a first employee.

I am very pleased that the measures taken by this Government have helped somebody to take that step. There have been different schemes relating to national insurance, and in particular schemes that have made it very reasonable for small companies to take on apprentices, who are given a tailor-made programme. To get to employees Nos. 1, 2 and 3—after employing only oneself—is the biggest step for a small business. From the point of view of the economy, in reducing expenditure on welfare, while people benefit from earning money themselves and eventually pay tax, that step is most critical. Many of the measures in this Budget and in previous Budgets will help with that.

In the end, most people set up businesses for one reason. It may be a noble reason or a selfish reason, depending on one’s perspective, but people set up businesses to make money for themselves and their family. When I speak to students in my constituency, I always commend those who want to be teachers, social workers and doctors because when they graduate, they will give their lives to help other people in society. However, to those people who put their hands up and say that they want to become rich, live in a big house and get a Ferrari—there are a few of them—I say that, provided that they pay their taxes and employ people, they will benefit society just as much as the first group of people. I really believe that. I believe in everything that the Government have done in the Budget and in the Finance Bill to help people to do that.

The tax cut for millionaires is a mantra for the shadow Chief Secretary. I am sure he is having his cup of tea and saying the same thing to anyone around the table who cares to ask. However, I do not believe that what he says holds water, because we want people to become millionaires. I want my constituents to want to become millionaires. By the way, on the first million, they will pay about half a million in tax and will hopefully spend another 200 grand on the Ferrari. Can we please let people become millionaires? The Government should help people to generate wealth and a lot of tax to support the people in this country who really need help.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Are not people who set up businesses performing a public service in their own right? They are not just given a million pounds because they want a million pounds. They have to open a chemist shop and provide pharmaceuticals to people or whatever. Is that not as much of a public service as anything else?

[Richard Harrington]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. That is another benefit. That is another way in which setting up a business is a public service.

Many of the things that the Government are doing involve not only the Treasury, but other Departments. I mentioned the pension changes, which relate to the Department for Work and Pensions. There are also changes in skills and education. The new university technical college in Watford completed on its property in Colonial way today. That has been put together by David Meller of the Meller Education Trust, who has several projects in the area, and myself. It will provide pre-apprenticeship education for businesses in the area that have jobs and that want trained people.

The UTC is sponsored by the Hilton hotel group, which is based in Watford. In fact, it runs the world from Watford. Everyone in Watford thinks that they run the world from there, but Hilton actually does. For the sake of clarity, people should understand that that excludes the United States, the rest of the world being a region of the United States in many people’s perception. The important point is that such firms are thinking, “If we want skilled employees to build up our business, we need them to be trained from quite an early age.” Hilton and Twin Technology, which is an IT company, are the two main sponsors of the UTC. They helping to design the courses because they are prepared to guarantee that there will be work experience and apprenticeships for people who come through the college. The Government have helped to facilitate that through the Budget and the Finance Bill.

In the dream world of the Opposition, they say, “Hey, everybody should get a job and it is guaranteed for a year.” No one has explained to me where those jobs will come from. I saw people working in the park as a result of the last Government’s attempt at that. People were taken on for a year to help the park keeper, but the job disappeared because it was not really a job. I am pleased that this Government have done their best to avoid that trap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I have met many such individuals in my constituency. Two of the main food banks in my constituency are Cardiff Foodbank and the Tabernacle food bank, which is run independently by a church in Penarth. During the festive period in the run-up to last Christmas, demand for the Tabernacle’s services was eight times higher than it had been over the previous festive period, and demand in Cardiff overall doubled. I found that information very revealing. If it does not give an impression of what is really going on—of the hardship that people are facing, and the number of people who are on the edge as a result of the cost of living crisis—I do not know what else does.

[Mr Redwood]

Since devolution and the advent of a Labour Government in Wales, there has been more public spending per head in Wales than in London and the south-east, yet the economy of London and the south-east has greatly outgrown that of Wales. Why should that be?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am interested that the former Secretary of State for Wales should want to make comparisons between the economic performance of Wales and that of the rest of the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, the Jobs Growth Wales scheme has secured work for 12,000 people who would not otherwise have obtained it. In fact, Welsh unemployment is now lower than unemployment elsewhere in the UK. I think that the Welsh Labour Government are doing a very good job, notwithstanding the constant war on Wales being waged by the Conservatives, which the right hon. Gentleman appears to want to continue.

What I have described is the reality of life in Britain today for the constituents I have met at food banks, because of the cost of living crisis. We want the Government to take the steps we have recommended. We would like to see a Finance Bill that froze energy bills, reformed the broken market, returned people to work—not just in Wales, but throughout the UK—with a compulsory jobs guarantee, cut taxes for 24 million people on middle and low incomes by introducing a 10p rate, and cut business rates for small firms rather than cutting corporation tax for the biggest. A moment ago, we were talking about the Welsh Labour Government. It was only yesterday that their Economy Minister announced a new business rates relief scheme for retail companies. That is another example of the way in which they are prioritising small businesses, whereas this Government are prioritising those at the top. Of course, we would also reverse the £3 billion tax cut for people earning more than £150,000 a year.

amendment of the law

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Before I start, may I say what a pleasure it is to see the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) replying to the debate? The House had an opportunity last week to express its great affection for his father. But no matter how distinguished or old a person is when they depart, to lose a parent, as those of us who have lost a parent understand, is a bitter blow. I just wanted the right hon. Gentleman to know that we express our deep condolences to him and his family at this very difficult time, and we wish him very well.

By sticking to our long-term economic plan, we have brought the deficit down by a third, we have helped a record number of people into work and we are continuing to boost Britain’s resilient economic growth. This is a Budget that literally places new pounds in the pockets of taxpayers. It is creating opportunity and putting Britain on a path to a secure future, and it will reward pensioners, savers and hard-working families. It has drawn a clear distinction between a coalition Government doing everything in their power to bolster Britain’s recovery, and a Labour party that just offers more borrowing, more debt, and more taxes, and ducks the major challenge.

We want to see a fair and fast recovery across the country. This can only be achieved by galvanising all forms of growth—whether inside a local enterprise zone or on a building site—and by firing up businesses and home builders, getting them investing, exporting and creating jobs. Local economies are providing the solid foundation for a national recovery. The economy is stronger and more resilient, and is rewarding the hard-working British public.

The Budget has recognised those who were so badly affected by poor winter weather. Some £300 million has already been announced to support the individuals, businesses and councils that were hardest hit by the flooding and storms. The Chancellor has made available an additional £140 million—money that will go towards immediate repairs to, and maintenance of, damaged flood defences across Britain. The £200 million pothole challenge fund will fill holes in the road that have already been a blight to road users.

Getting these communities back on their feet after such a devastating period of weather remains a high priority across government.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Those are very welcome announcements. Is my right hon. Friend also going to take action to stop rapacious councils making a misery of the lives of normally law-abiding motorists who slightly overstay their welcome at parking places and are then treated as if they were criminals? I am sure it would lift confidence if they were spared some of the excess.

[Mr Pickles]

My right hon. Friend and I are as one on that matter. He will recall that the Government have consulted on this and on other issues related to parking, and that the consultation period has recently ended. We hope to make an announcement in the very near future.

New measures in the Budget will also help to support the building of a further 200,000 new homes for hard-working people, on top of the work we have already done to kick-start house building. New house building and construction output in England is now at its highest level since 2008, and new housing construction orders are at their highest levels since 2007. More than 170,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2010, and £20 billion has been invested in affordable housing over the spending review period.

More council housing has been built under this coalition Government than in all the 13 years of the previous Government. I honestly do not understand why Labour Governments do not build council houses. Since the last quarter of the last century, the two really big builders of houses have been the Thatcher Administration and this coalition Government.

The number of first-time buyers is at its highest since 2007, and mortgage arrears at their lowest since the Bank of England’s figures began in 2007. The number of empty homes is at its lowest rate since records began and, in the last year, new housing registrations rose by 30% in England and by a massive 60% in London. In fact, the number of new homes registered in London last year was the highest since electronic records began more than 26 years ago.

By contrast, new home registrations fell in Labour-run Wales. House builders have shifted their business across the border to England because of the Welsh Government’s anti-business policies. This is due to Labour’s extra red tape, and to its botched implementation of home ownership schemes. By contrast, thanks to this Government, more than 17,000 people have already bought a home through Help to Buy. Overwhelmingly, these are first-time buyers, and they are mainly outside London and the south-east. This shows how we are supporting all parts of the country, north and south. Help to Buy is a key part of our long-term economic plan, giving thousands more people the security and independence that comes from owning their own home.

The Budget’s pension reforms will offer freedom of choice for people who work hard. It would be helpful if the right hon. Member for Leeds Central could clarify whether the Opposition support these reforms, or whether some ambiguity still exists. Our pension reforms, such as allowing the newly retired to pay off their mortgage and be liberated from the banks, will also lead to greater security in old age. I do not agree with the doom-mongers who say that this will somehow lead to a problem with buy to let. This Government are dramatically expanding the opportunities for institutional investment in the private rented sector, through guarantees and our build to rent schemes. These offer the opportunity for savers to invest in new built rented accommodation and to receive long-term, stable returns from the property market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pickles]

My right hon. Friend has carefully, and with his customary style, signposted where developers should go, from his constituency to parts of Kent. The top-down eco-towns built nothing but resentment, but this Government are working with communities to support large-scale development. As he said, this works only if local councils are in favour, and we work with local developers and with the local community to build something together in a proper partnership.

[Mr Redwood]

My right hon. Friend might like to know that about a decade ago I wrote a pamphlet called “Thames Reach”, recommending a new town in the Ebbsfleet area. I recommended it to the Labour Government, as I am full of generous good ideas and thought they might want to take it up. I think they agreed with it, but they did absolutely nothing. Can he explain why?

[Mr Pickles]

No, I cannot explain why. I suspect that my right hon. Friend’s reputation as a scourge from the right may have put the Labour Government off. I suspect they never got further than the title page, but had they gone on they would have seen some very sensible suggestions. We are free from that prejudice and, of course, he is an inspiration to us all.

Further support will come in due course from the second round of the local infrastructure fund and a prospectus on support for locally led garden cities. Increased output, increased supply and increased jobs, with stable recovery, low interest rates, and support for firms and sites of all size—we have got Britain building again. Labour’s threats of land grabs and a new development tax on house builders would cut the level of house building and undermine investment in complex land assembly projects. Against a backdrop of anti-business sentiment, perhaps epitomised by the Labour Department for Communities and Local Government team’s campaign against free Waitrose coffee, it is no surprise that this week’s Investors Chronicle warns savers to sell their shares in house builders if Labour were to win the election. That is not going to build more homes; it is a recipe for stagnation and for unemployment. As Wales shows, Labour’s anti-business dogma will have a chilling effect on jobs and the economy.

By contrast, this Government welcome enterprise and the free market. Enterprise zones have led the way in creating jobs all over the country, as well as helping the UK to become a world leader in a range of technologies and for inward investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

Absolutely.

It was not Labour’s public spending that triggered Britain’s or the world’s economic crisis; it was the global inter-dependency of reckless banking that the Conservatives wanted to be less regulated that in 2008 triggered an economic meltdown in Britain and right across the globe. [Interruption.] Labour responded by boosting public spending and borrowing to offset the catastrophic collapse in private sector spending, and the £90 billion spent on bank bail-outs plunged the public sector into record annual deficits, but these were deficits that stopped a shocking slide into a fatal slump and laid the basis for recovery from the biggest shock to hit the world economy in peacetime since the 1930s great depression. [Hon. Members: “Give way.”] If I have time at the end, I will.

Contrary to right-wing free market mantras and Tory-Lib Dem history rewrites, it was the banking crisis that caused debt to rocket, the deficit to rise and borrowing to rise as well. The low yields on UK Government bonds before, during and after the credit crunch under Labour bore eloquent testimony to the fact that the international markets had full confidence in its policies, and that they were not clamouring for the right-wing dogma subsequently visited upon Britain. Indeed, so desperate was the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) to identify with Labour’s success on spending, investment, jobs and growth that he pledged to match Labour’s spending plans for three further years in September 2007 up to 2010. [Interruption.] Members on the Government Benches shake their heads, but that is what he did. If we had spent too much—if all the charges made by the Conservatives were true—why on earth would the current Prime Minister have backed our spending plans for three years ahead? It would help the quality of this debate and the quality of assessment of the Chancellor’s Budget if the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had the decency to acknowledge that essential fact, including this Prime Minister’s support for our spending programmes, instead of ploughing on regardless, with no end to austerity in sight.

[Mr Redwood]

Why did the new and very expensive and complicated regulators the Labour Government introduced fail to control the banks when people like me were telling them they did not have enough cash for capital?

[Mr Hain]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to this extent: we did not regulate the banks well enough or carefully enough, but his party—not necessarily he, but his leadership—was saying that there should be less regulation of the banks at that time, yet now they have the temerity to attack our spending plans when we brought borrowing down. [Interruption.]

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Lord 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.

Fairness and Inequality

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is nothing fair, progressive or just about loading future generations with more debt and the consequences of debt. If we are a responsible political generation in the House, we will take care to ensure that our decisions minimise the impact on future generations.

This country continues to face deep-seated, long-standing economic challenges. The UK underwent an economic trauma between 2008 and 2010, and we are still living with the consequences. As a result of that trauma in those two years, there was a huge destruction of value in the economy, and a destruction of wealth, and we are still recovering from that, even in 2014. Although it is difficult for Opposition parties to admit, the Government have made difficult, challenging decisions and taken practical steps to reduce the deficit and restore stability and order to our national finances, which is the starting point—the foundation—for tackling all the other social and economic issues that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and others have begun to raise in the House this afternoon. As a coalition Government, we are ambitious that the emerging economic recovery should be a recovery for all parts of the UK, including Scotland and Wales, and for all people from all walks of life in our country. That is at the heart of our vision of fairness as a coalition Government.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the socialist remedy is so often to think of tax and regulations to get rid of the rich from London to abroad, and hopeless in thinking of ways of promoting other people to good jobs and success so that they can enjoy and share the prosperity?

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. There seems to be a blind spot in the left in that respect. We have begun to discuss fiscal powers for Wales and Scotland, and as that debate continues, what we should see from all the parties in Wales and Scotland are new, creative ideas to increase wealth and incentivise entrepreneurialism in those two challenged parts of the country.

Before I set out what the Government have done to tackle inequality and build a recovery for all, I want to deal with some of the issues that are already starting to be raised in this important debate. On the issue of spending and the necessary cuts to spending that we still have to make, the simple truth is that the previous Government left Britain borrowing more than £400 million every single day to pay for Government spending. As a result of the difficult decisions that we have taken, the deficit is now down by a third and we are borrowing nearly £3,000 less for every hard-working family in the country. However, there is still a long way to go. We are still borrowing around £100 billion a year and paying half that a year in interest just to service our debts, so there remain some difficult and challenging spending decisions further down the line. Whichever party or parties are in government after the next election, they will have to meet those decisions and challenges head on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

We touched on this point during the opening speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. I remind hon. Members that the most recent gross value added figures show that parts of the United Kingdom far from London are rebounding strongly with growth and starting to narrow some of the economic gap that we are all concerned about.

[Mr Redwood]

I think the Minister could agree that the former Prime Minister and Chancellor was not responsible for Lehman Brothers, but by the same token, should my hon. Friend not remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the competition and banking regulation regime that led to the collapse on his watch of the Scottish banks RBS and HBOS?

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend makes the point perfectly well.

It is the firmly held belief of this Government that it must pay to be in work, and we are restoring the incentives to work; restoring the value of work in our society. That is one of the reasons why we have brought in the benefit cap, opposed by the Opposition parties, to ensure that families are always better off in work rather than claiming benefit. We are also increasing the incentives in the tax system, putting money back into the pockets of working people by raising the income tax personal allowance to £10,000, taking 2.7 million people, many of whom are on the lowest wages, out of income tax altogether. In Wales alone, that will benefit 1.2 million workers, taking 130,000 people out of income tax altogether. For the record, in Scotland 2.2 million workers will benefit and 240,000 will be taken out of income tax altogether.

Autumn Statement

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The right hon. Gentleman and I are both looking forward to the Higgs centre at Edinburgh university, which is a reminder of the scientific collaboration that can happen across the entire United Kingdom. We are, of course, incredibly proud of Professor Higgs.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about oil and gas receipts in the forecast from the entirely independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Its forecast today for the whole of the UK is that oil and gas receipts will be £3.5 billion in 2016. That compares with the £6.8 billion on which the SNP Scottish Government have based their premises and their claims for independence. It is twice as much as the OBR has independently assessed, and that is another example of how they are not being straight with people about the facts in relation to independence. It would of course mean that there was a black hole in an independent Scotland’s public finances that would cost the Scottish people £1,000 each. It is yet another example of how they are not being straight; the independent facts refute their case.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor confirm that the independent official forecast shows that the more successful he is in future years in curbing spending and cutting borrowing, the faster the economy will grow, just as America has shown that by cutting the deficit, it can get more growth?

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill underlines this Government’s belief that pro-business policies help growth and job creation. For too long, our economy has been dependent on a booming financial services sector, on the one hand, and unsustainable levels of public spending, on the other. That made us particularly vulnerable to the crisis of 2007-08, the consequences of which continue to be felt today.

The challenge the Government faced in 2010 was how to begin the process of getting our public finances in order and to put in place the conditions for growth. Some believed that it was not possible to do both and some argued that measures to reduce the deficit would result in higher levels of unemployment. It was the Leader of the Opposition, no less, who said that the Government clearly had

“a programme that will lead to the disappearance of one million jobs”.

That was just over three years ago and there are now more people in work than ever before.

Since the coalition came to power, employment has increased by more than 1 million and there are 1.4 million private sector jobs, more than there were at the time of the last election. Employment in the three months until August 2013 was at its highest ever level, at 29.87 million. Those predicting disaster massively underestimated the capability of businesses up and down the country to adapt, innovate and expand, but they also failed to appreciate that we now had in place a Government on the side of businesses who were willing to put in place the conditions that help them to invest and expand, whether by addressing burdensome regulations or reforming our tax system.

In case we forget, such action included reversing the worst effects of the previous Government’s jobs tax. Yes, at a time when we needed businesses more than ever to take on more staff, Labour’s contribution to deficit reduction consisted of increasing the tax on jobs.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that it is possibly because they are embarrassed by that record that there are only two Labour Back Benchers in the whole Chamber and nobody from the other Opposition parties? How many extra jobs does he think his excellent Bill might help to create?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good observation. I can rarely remember so few Labour Members being present for the opening of a Second Reading debate. I was beginning to take it personally, but he has reassured me that this issue does not attract the interest of the Opposition. Labour is the party that intended to increase the jobs tax. Pretty much the only measure that they had for deficit reduction was to increase employers’ national insurance contributions, which was not a sensible approach at all.

We are not predicting how many jobs the Bill might create because a number of factors apply. It is interesting to note, however, that the Federation of Small Businesses believes that the measure is better than the one that it had advocated, which it anticipated would have created 45,000 new jobs. It has carried out a survey of its members and 28% of respondents believed that this measure would help them to increase the number of people they employ. That is a very encouraging step.

Living Standards

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I often hear about that from constituents, particularly this week, when children go back to school. The costs of the summer holidays are past, but those can be very expensive for many families, especially if they receive free school meals and have to provide an extra meal a day during the holidays. The cost of going back to school is also expensive. There is the cost of school uniforms, a new pair of shoes and a school coat—all the basics which sometimes I think the Government just do not understand.

In the face of such challenges, there is a distinct lack of urgency from the Government. For all the warm words, they do not get the reality facing families. Energy bills are up £300 a year, while energy companies enjoy huge profits.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady is highlighting this issue. She is right that in the last couple of years under Labour there was a huge reduction in living standards, and the coalition Government have not yet reversed it. Does she now think that her party was wrong to implement policies of very high and rising energy and fuel prices, which are one of the main reasons people are in this bind?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have said that we would abolish Ofgem and create a new energy watchdog with real teeth to force energy companies to pass on price cuts when the cost of wholesale energy falls. Meanwhile, under this Prime Minister’s watch, energy giants are enjoying a £3.3 billion windfall. That shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government. Rail fares are another example, increasing by up to 9% a year. We would apply strict caps. We have said that we would introduce a new legal right for passengers to be entitled to the cheapest ticket for their journey; this Government are giving powers back to train operating companies to increase some fares by up to another 5% beyond the cap. Again, that shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government.

On housing, there are now 3.8 million households in the private rented sector, including more than 1 million with children. Research shows that many are being ripped off through hidden fees and charges costing tenants £76 million a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

May I begin by welcoming, on behalf of the whole House, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) back from maternity leave, and congratulating her and her husband on the birth of Anna? We wish them much joy in the years ahead. Now that she has become used to being interrupted by someone making loud, insistent and sometimes incomprehensible demands, I am sure she is glad to have returned to the House of Commons, where such things never happen.

The necessary condition for rising living standards is, of course, a sound economy. The hon. Lady will be aware that during her absence the economic policy of the Labour party has collapsed. It has spent three years opposing every reduction in public spending that this Government have made; three years calling for more borrowing and more debt; three years denying any responsibility for its failings in government; and three years warning that unless the Government changed course and adopted its so-called fiscal stimulus, the economy would not grow and unemployment would rise. However, because we followed the right policy and did not follow the shadow Chancellor’s advice, and because of the grit and hard work of the ordinary working people of this country, the economy is on the road to recovery.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the Minister agree that President Obama’s economic policy, which has been much misrepresented and much praised by the Labour party, has included a far bigger budget deficit reduction, through spending cuts and tax rises, than anything done here, and that the American economy is growing faster for longer?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is right that there is a global consensus, if I could put it that way, that responsibility in fiscal matters is the necessary condition to revive the economy. The only exception to that consensus continues to be Opposition Front Benchers.

We have cut our structural deficit by more than any G7 country. The deficit is forecast to fall this year, next year and the year after that. We have record low interest rates. We are investing more in infrastructure during this Parliament than the previous Parliament.

It is still a world of economic turbulence—let us be clear about that—but the evidence throughout the past few months is that Britain is on the mend. National income has grown for two successive quarters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady and my party share the ambition of ensuring that people can earn a living that allows them to pay their and their families’ costs, but the question is how we get there. If Members oppose the reforms necessary to create that possibility they will not make any progress, given the financial situation we inherited.

[Mr Redwood]

I am glad that the Minister has said that we share Labour’s ambition for more people to have better paid jobs. Of course we want people to be better paid, but is not the best way for people to get a better paid job to start with a low-paid job and work their way up and get mentored and trained in the workplace?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Opposition Members should not be so disparaging about the chances that are being given to millions of people to find work, make progress, learn skills and acquire the necessary experience.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Let me be clear. The target that should be set would be for the financial system as a whole. It would be for the regulators to make judgments about firm-by-firm leverage arrangements, so it would be on a more sophisticated basis. There is a case to be made for a regulator to look at each individual institution. Some institutions are significantly different from one another. Some of the building societies, for example, have recently been making the point that they have different asset structures and so on, and that exactly the same leverage arrangement across the board for all firms simultaneously would not necessarily be appropriate. In an effort to work towards some way of dealing with the issue, this design is one that I have suggested.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

In the proposal, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the committee has to take into account

“adequate credit availability and growth in the economy”

and report to the Treasury. Would the Chancellor and the Treasury have any right of veto or influence over that, or would they have to put up with the Bank’s judgment of what is adequate credit growth? That could be rather important if the problem were one of insufficient growth in the economy.

[Chris Leslie]

That raises the question of the operation of the inflation target. If I draw a parallel between a leverage target and an inflation target, clearly the Chancellor has been setting out his inflation target. It has been missed on a number of occasions—quite a few months and quarters have gone by—so the interplay between the Chancellor and the Bank of England is critical here. I am more than happy to come back to the issue. My point in the new clause today is that we need to start seriously discussing how, from a UK perspective, we are going to deal with the issue of leverage from a home-grown point of view, rather than waiting for the European Union to come along with a set of arrangements which may or may not fit our circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I remind the House that I provide investment advice on world markets and world economies, but I am pleased to say that it has nothing to do with banking credit or banking leverage, so I feel quite entitled to comment in this important debate.

I welcome what I hope is a probing new clause from the Opposition. It allows us to discuss something that is at the heart of what regulators need to do to have a strong banking sector and economy and to have the comfort at night of knowing that we will not live through another dreadful crisis like the credit crunch of the previous decade. The new clause goes to the heart of the issue: what action should the Government and regulators take to try to ensure that large banks and other institutions advancing credit that can be a risk to the whole system are kept under sensible control, so that we can be pretty confident that, if something goes wrong or the world economy dips, they have the necessary money to pay the bills and deal with any losses that might arise?

If we look at the tragic history of the previous decade, we can see that the then banking regulator in the United Kingdom—I think that it has now admitted this—got it wrong both ways. It wanted the banks to have too little capital, cash and protection, and in the run-up to the credit crisis in 2008 it allowed the most enormous expansion of leverage, which previous generations of regulators had not permitted. Then, in the ensuing panic, when interest rates had to rise to tackle the problem of inflation, it lurched to wanting very high amounts of capital, but at the time the banks could not generate profit and so found that very difficult. That resulted in the previous Government’s decision, in two of the worst cases, that capital should be forthcoming from the state and taxpayers themselves. I think that we all agree that we do not want to go back around that course or to get to the position again where some Members of this House feel that the only option is for the state to provide taxpayer support for organisations that have been too leveraged.

New clause 9 suggests that it is possible to set a leverage ratio for the system as a whole, and it might be, and that might be desirable, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Of course, the regulator already does that in a way because it sets individual target ratios or capital requirements for all the major banks in the system, so if we aggregate those we get to its view of the aggregate amount of leverage. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has rightly said, if that overall leverage were to be set for the system as a whole, the regulator would still need to interpret that bank by bank. Some banks would be super-prudent and some would be straining at the other end of the spectrum and might be under special measures with the regulator to try to get their balance sheets into shape.

My particular worry at the moment is that it is never easy managing the transition. We would all be delighted to wake up tomorrow and discover that all the banks are super-safe, but if the price of getting to that stage too quickly is no growth in the economy or, worse still, the onset of another recession because the banks cannot finance the recovery, that would be a bad idea. Many of us would like to see the banks get to better ratios by writing more profitable business and generating more legitimate and sensible levels of profit, rather than having the regulator run the risk of moving too quickly to demand that they have much better ratios. The banks would then have to achieve those better ratios by not writing any new business and by trying to get old loans back ever more quickly from businesses that might find it difficult to repay them. Some of those banks, not being very profitable, could not trade themselves out of the difficulties that they found themselves in.

We also need to be conscious of what is happening globally, because although we should not chase the rest of the world if it has a group of regulators that are being far too generous and wish to re-enact the boom-type crisis of the previous decade—I do not think that we are in that position any more; I think that the regulators of the world are all generally trying to be more cautious—we need to ensure that we do not do anything in Britain that is particularly penal. What we need in order to have a prosperous economy is banks with sufficient profit, reserves and capital to be able to finance a normal recovery. It is very unpopular in this country to speak up for banks making profits at the moment, or indeed at any time, but it is important that they generate reasonable working profits, because that is the best way to make them more solvent.

[Mr Ruffley]

Is my right hon. Friend as unconvinced as I am by the relatively arbitrary figure of 4% being preferable to 3% for the leverage ratio? Like him, I believe that, if there is going to be any tightening on capital adequacy or leverage, it should be done when the recovery is more surely under way, and 3% is preferable to the 4% recommended by the Vickers commission and the parliamentary commission.

[Mr Redwood]

I think that I agree with my hon. Friend. What I am suggesting is that I would like to get closer to 4% and further away from 3% by growth, and I think that that could be inferred in Labour’s new clause, because I noticed that the hon. Member for Nottingham East wisely did not pledge himself firmly to 4%. Although he might secretly want 4%, like the rest of us he is probably wise enough to know that, although it might be nice to have 4% in due course, to lurch straight to a target that some big banks could not meet might be very damaging to the economy.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

One of the problems at the moment, as I know from my constituency, is that some companies are still finding it difficult to get money from banks, so the higher the leverage requirement, the more the banks will say that they have to keep the capital and cannot lend it. I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely that we have to be very careful about how we move from 3% to 4%, because otherwise it is companies and growth that will suffer.

[Mr Redwood]

I think that we have wonderful agreement across the Chamber on this, which might hearten the Minister. We would be happier with 4% than with 3% in general terms, but we do not want to get there too quickly if that means a further jolt to expectations and confidence and further actions by banks to pull back loans, rather than financing the recovery that we clearly need from them.

[Mr Love]

One of the banking commission’s recommendations was that that should be devolved to the regulator to decide and that we should not set a target or a figure. The Government seem to be resisting that, and for the reasons that have been outlined in relation to growth and living standards. What does the right hon. Gentleman think about the proposal to give that to the regulator earlier than the Government suggest?

[Mr Redwood]

I think that a Government have to take responsibility for the big calls on economic policy. They can take very good advice from independent regulators and the Bank of England, and sensible Chancellors take good advice, but ultimately it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of the day who have their names on all that, and the electorate will expect them to be responsible. I think that people believe in independent central banks and independent regulators up to the point where they get it wrong, and then they look to politicians to take the blame. We have just been through a period when the banking regulator, by its own admission, got it very visibly wrong.

[Mr Love]

The Government are suggesting that the regulators will get it wrong in 2018, and the commissions say that they will get it wrong a little sooner. Is this not an argument about timing and when the economy will be out of its current difficulties?

[Mr Redwood]

It is important that we should have proper discussion and informed debate, taking the best advice, so that we can try to get things right for a change. We owe it to all our electors and the economy generally to try to get the matter right.

Time is not generous, so I will be brief. My worry is that, under the previous Labour Government and in the early days of the coalition, we were running a strange policy in which, on the one hand, the Bank of England was trying to depress the vehicle’s accelerator by creating a lot of extra money and saying, “We really need to get some of this money out there to do some good in the economy.” On the other hand, the banking regulator was depressing the vehicle’s brake, saying, “No, you can’t possibly spend that money to create more credit and do more things. The priority is for the banks to sit on the money to have better cash and capital ratios. They probably need to wind down their loan books, which we think are too big.” My observation is that if we try to drive a vehicle with one foot on the accelerator and one on the brake, the brake normally wins.

[Mr Ruffley]

As has been mentioned already, some in the Bank, including Sir Mervyn King, argued that insufficient lending is a consequence of insufficient capital. I put that to Mr Bailey a few days ago in the Treasury Committee. I asked him about the net new lending level now compared with when funding for lending began last August, and he said that it was flat. Is that not evidence for his proposition that we cannot have tighter adequacy requirements on capital and lots more new lending? The figures show that lending is flat.

[Mr Redwood]

Indeed. That point also shows that we need banks to be profitable—particularly RBS, which is still largely state owned. Until the bank is making profits, its capital ratios will not improve quickly enough and it will then not be in a position to lend the money that the Government would like it to. The taxpayer would be grateful if it could be more profitable, because our shares would be worth more, which would be in the general interest.

I conclude by making the same point to the Minister. Yes, I want us to get to stronger banks with tighter ratios, but I want us to get there through growth and growth in bank profits—particularly for HBOS and RBS, in which we have a large state stake and whose results have been disappointing for a number of years. If we can get to that happy position, we can have a bit of growth and some more profitability and then the regulator will have to have a sensible conversation with the banks; it will say that some of the money has to be put into cash and capital so that they are stronger. We will be the better for that.

[Mr McFadden]

I will not detain the Chamber for long; I just want to make a few points.

The argument is really about complexity versus simplicity in how banks are regulated. One of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is trying to bring out is the inadequacy of the over-complex Basel regulations, which have allowed banks to game the system and say they had hugely different capital ratios on similar classes of assets in different institutions. The truth is that the Basel system is so complex that it does not give confidence about the safety of our banks. That is why this debate about leverage is so important.

In all the debate about ring-fencing, separation and so on, what has perhaps been under-discussed is the fact that not enough attention has been paid to leverage—a basic measure of banks’ safety or resilience against future risks and very important in respect of banks’ ability to absorb losses. One of the features consistently pointed out, both to the Treasury Committee and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, was that in the run-up to the crisis banks were hugely over-leveraged. That meant that their capacity to absorb and deal with problems when they came was minimal.

Our banks still have very high gearing today. The banks lobby hard on the issue. I counsel caution on the basic trade-off that has been raised about lending and leverage. There are other ways for banks to improve their capital ratios than simply by reducing lending. They could, for example, look at the proportion that they give out in remuneration every year; that could make a difference to their capital ratios. Over the past decade or two, vast amounts of money have been paid out in remuneration that could have improved capital ratios without having any effect at all on lending. Let us not fall for the argument that we can either have banks that lend, or safe banks, but we cannot have both. It would be wrong of us to fall into that false dichotomy. We should aim for banks that are both safe and have the ability to lend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I would tend to err on the side of publication and transparency. It is long overdue that we have better insight into banks’ balance sheets and the quality of their assets generally.

If we are to have this architecture, it could be a useful dynamic to have a leverage target set by policy makers—by Government. I slightly take issue with the parliamentary commission on this. There is a systemic aspect that ought to rest in the hands of politicians. Ultimately, the buck stops with us and Parliament is sovereign; the arguments about that are well known. However, as the commission said, the operational decisions taken institution by institution have to be left to the regulator. It would be invidious for that to be in the hands of the Treasury.

[Mr Redwood]

RBS, against the wishes of some of us, had been allowed to grow to a colossal size and to gear excessively. At the point when it got into trouble, it had a balance sheet of £2.2 trillion —almost four times the tax revenue of the state—and if it lost 2% of its asset value it lost the equivalent of the defence budget for a whole year. Is not that of interest to those conducting government?

[Chris Leslie]

There is a rare consensus across the Chamber in some respects. We have to agree that the UK economy, whether it is mid-sized or not, is potentially adversely affected by our vast financial sector.

I offered new clause 9 in the spirit of consensus to try to get some engagement from the Government. I am disappointed by the Minister’s attitude of saying, “We’ll just leave this and do it internationally. We’ll come to it in 2018 through the normal conveyor belt.” The Government must address this issue far more constructively and engage with it far more seriously, because it really does matter. We need action on leverage and it is important that we put on record the essential characteristics that it could and should have within our economy as a whole. I am afraid that I therefore wish to test the view of the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Finance Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman wishes to pay for a 10p rate from the proceeds of a mansion tax. Will he advise the House of Labour’s definition of a mansion? Could it, for example, include an one or two-bedroom flat in central London that was lived in by people of rather modest means?

[Chris Leslie]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of the bedroom tax, and we can come to that in a moment. I will come to the details of what a mansion tax would look like. We have looked carefully at the well-crafted and evidently well-thought-through proposal from the Liberal Democrats. They have proposed that properties worth £2 million or more should attract an annual charge, saying that that could net approximately £2 billion. That would allow an income tax band of around £1,000, which would give a tax cut of about £100 to those benefiting from the 10p band.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s thought on this issue, but I disagree. I do understand that more and more people are being brought into the 40p rate. That is another stealthy move by the Chancellor as he broadens out the 40p band. In the interests of fairness, our concern has to be with basic rate taxpayers on the 20p rate. There are 25 million basic rate taxpayers, and if revenue is to be generated from a mansion tax, then most of our efforts should be focused on that group. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said, that group in society feel under the most pressure and are finding it hardest to get by and to make ends meet, and they would therefore benefit most from this tax cut. It is an important point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised it.

[Mr Redwood]

I wish to make a procedural point. Does not the shadow Minister accept that when a Minister asks his officials for some information and they research it, and he then comes to the House to impart that information to us, that is publishing the information? I know that that will come as a shock to a Labour shadow Minister, because Labour Ministers always made sure that somebody else was told rather than Parliament, but I rather like the fact that the Minister researches this, takes us seriously and tells us the answer. Why cannot we now work from the published answer?

[Chris Leslie]

Obviously I believe every word that the Exchequer Secretary utters, because it would be unparliamentary to do otherwise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am asking for just a little bit more from him. I just want to see the detail that the Treasury has produced on the mansion tax proposition. It would be entirely possible for him to put that in the public domain. I am sure that even Liberal Democrats would like to see it and would find it of interest, as would other hon. Members.