Covid-19
Jon Trickett Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow such a powerful speech. I want to make two interconnected points. The first is that in post-industrial communities, such as the mining villages I represent, many former workers suffer from chronic underlying conditions—years of damaged lungs. They and their families are entitled to compensation for these industrial diseases, but the virus attacks older men with pre-existing conditions. If, sadly, tragedy then occurs, it is essential that medics ensure the death certificate records both the virus and the underlying industrial disease. The miners and the workers in similar heavy industries created the wealth of our country—we owe them.
My second point is that covid has revealed how deeply divided our country has been and how damaging austerity was. It is clear that the people upon whom we depend the most, the nation’s heroes, its key workers, are those who suffered the most under austerity, yet they went to work every day, and still do, driven by selfless hard work and dedication, a sense of community and solidarity, and the ethos of care and responsibility. The average key worker is paid less in our country than other employees. I am thinking of the delivery drivers, posties, nurses, shopkeepers, teachers, lab technicians, food retailers, farmers, binmen, carers, police officers, doctors and all those others who have held our society together through this crisis. It is wrong that their incomes were held back, the services that they provide were cut and our social cohesion itself was damaged, leaving us exposed to risk from the pandemic. Yet when the crisis hit, they were there, without hesitation, ready for the challenge that the virus posed, just as the miners, steelworkers and shipbuilders were in another time.
Working-class people emerge as the heroes in this crisis, although they are often poorly paid, with mortality rates among the highest. Let us remember that men in low-skilled jobs are four times more likely to die from the virus than those in professional occupations. People are already talking about finding an exit strategy from the lockdown, and we do need to lift our eyes to the horizon, but it is not acceptable—the Government appeared to envisage this yesterday—to drive poorer people back to work in conditions dictated purely by their employers, perhaps risking their health while their white-collar neighbours in more professional occupations remain at home safe. Workers need to get back to work, but they need unions, working alongside managers, to determine whether the workplace is safe enough before they go back.
After the virus, we need a new economic and social settlement, one that puts health, not wealth, at the centre of our concerns and agrees that there should be no return to austerity. We need a rebuilt NHS, adequate care services, properly funded universal public services, fair wages and an end to grotesque inequality. The efforts of millions of people and the spirits of all those who fell during this crisis serving our country must hang over this House of Commons in quiet reproach for the shameless failures of the past decade. We must respond to their whispered demand for a better way, and we must resolve that their sacrifice will not have been for nothing.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Jon Trickett Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
How time flies. It was only late last year that the Secretary of State was buoyed up by the Chancellor’s announcement that he had found a few extra billion quid down the back of his settee. The Secretary of State came to the House and offered no less than a guaranteed budget for every council. Sadly, as the Financial Times put it recently, the good times lasted only about a month. By February, the Chancellor was thousands of miles away in Shanghai. From there, he announced to the British people that there would have to be more cuts. Did no one remind him of the ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times”? Yes, it is a curse. As we now know, the Budget is a mega-shambles, but in China the Chancellor was blaming foreigners for his problems. He said that the EU was flatlining, the Chinese economy was failing to grow and petrol prices were collapsing everywhere.
Today’s retreat means that there is a financial hole of a further £4 billion in the Government’s accounts. No explanation has been given as to how that hole will be filled. More importantly, we have been reminded this weekend by the resigning Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that there is an ethical hole, a moral vacuum, at the Government’s core.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman seems completely oblivious to what is going on elsewhere in the world. The fact is that trends are happening in the world economy that will be reflected here in the UK. The Chancellor has cut the deficit by two thirds. Surely the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
Jon Trickett
The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that. The truth is that this Chancellor has been in charge of the nation’s finances for six years and he now wants to wash his hands of the mess he is making of the economy.
I was talking about an ethical hole at the Government’s core. We still remember Conservative Members cheering last Wednesday. They thought it was okay to rob the benefits of the most vulnerable for the purpose of cutting taxes for the better-off. It is not only the cuts to the welfare budget that illustrate the Government’s willingness to attack the poor; it is also the cuts to local government. Furthermore, the way in which the cuts are being distributed across local government equally illustrates the ethical hole that I have described. Those councils that face the greatest social needs are now suffering the greatest grant reductions.
Barbara Keeley
The Secretary of State would not give way to answer questions on social care, and that is unfair because it is a key responsibility. He keeps trotting out the usual figure of £3.5 billion, but that is a false premise because the Local Government Association wanted £700 million to cover the two years that will not be covered by the better care fund. My local authority can bring in £1.6 million from the 2% social care precept but it is going to cost £2.7 million to pay for the national living wage in the care sector. That is the sort of gap that we are faced with.
Jon Trickett
I shall make a little progress, if I may, as a lot of people want to speak in the debate.
I was talking about the unfair distribution of cuts. The three most affluent areas in the country have had the lowest amount of cuts to their Government support since 2010, yet lo and behold, the same three affluent councils then received an extra £33.5 million from the Secretary of State’s transitional grant. That £33.5 million was 10% of the entire amount of transitional grant that was given to the whole country, just focused on the three most affluent councils.
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) if she wishes. It seems she does not. I evidently made such a devastating point that she is still reflecting on it.
Let me draw a comparison between the three most affluent councils and the most deprived councils in the country. [Interruption.] This is an important point. I hope Government Members are not scoffing. Liverpool, Knowsley, Hackney and Manchester not only had the most severe cuts to their budgets since 2010, but they did not receive a single penny in transitional grant. There is no rational explanation for such a distribution of Government largesse. Perhaps the Secretary of State will consider publishing the criteria by which the civil service distributed that £300 million. We have had no luck so far in finding out how he managed to produce a distribution that favoured the richest councils and penalised the most deprived.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his comments that rural areas are getting a better deal? My local authority, North Yorkshire County Council, was facing a 39% reduction, compared to an average reduction of 20% to metropolitan areas.
Jon Trickett
I believe the hon. Gentleman said North Yorkshire. If I remember correctly, North Yorkshire got £10 million in transitional funds. West Yorkshire and south Yorkshire got not a single penny. Not a single council in the whole of west and south Yorkshire got a single penny, yet the cuts that west Yorkshire councils faced were much more acute than those that North Yorkshire had faced.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making his case well. Is there not worse to come? We heard last week that another £3.5 billion worth of efficiency savings are to be made in the final year of the forecast, yet this Secretary of State is asking many councils to agree four-year funding deals. Has my hon. Friend heard whether those that agree four-year funding deals will be spared that £3.5 billion extra efficiency savings, or will they just have the money taken off them?
Jon Trickett
Not a peep from the Secretary of State so far. Unfairness and inequality run through the DNA of this Government in every Department. Local government provides services that make the lives of the most vulnerable in our society bearable, yet it is suffering the most draconian cuts.
Jon Trickett
I shall make some progress now.
The same people who rely on the personal independence payments, which the Government so recently wanted to cut, rely on home helps and community services, yet nowhere is the pressure greater than the growing crisis being experienced by social care. The Tory-controlled Local Government Association estimates that despite the Government’s measures there is a big funding gap in social care—£700 million this year. Many of the frail elderly in our society are no longer being looked after properly. Lord Porter, the Tory leader of the LGA, put it starkly. He said that
“vulnerable members of the community still face an uncertain future where the dignified care and support they deserve, such as help getting dressed, fed or getting out and about, remains at risk.”
Yes, a Tory leader said that vulnerable elderly people will be denied help to be fed.
A few years ago my own family faced a crisis that so many of us have to confront at some time in our lives. Let me quickly describe what happened. I went to visit my dad in the fabulous St James’s hospital in Leeds, whose staff continue to amaze with their skills and dedication. But the nurse told me that my dad was coming to the end of his life and that he had to be discharged because there was little further the hospital could do. Clearly, he could not go home. By good fortune, I was able immediately to convert a downstairs room in our house into a bedroom and shower room and within days he came to live with me. He died in that room a few months later, but we spent a wonderful time together. The sun seemed to shine into our house every day that he was there. We were blessed to have the space available, and a loving family as well as loving neighbours who helped.
However, we could not have coped without the frequent house visits by the council’s care teams, who came every day, several times a day. Last year I held a fund-raising event at my house. One of our guests that day was a woman I recognised. She had been a carer who had helped me with my dad. She told me that she would always remember her visits to our house, but I felt a chill down my spine when she told me that because of the Government cuts, council carers could no longer provide the level of care to others that my family had received. “Honour thy father and thy mother” is an injunction that a civilised society should never forget.
Local government is facing £10 billion of additional future cost pressures. There are three main threats to council finances in this Budget. First, the Chancellor demands £3.5 billion of spending cuts, as we heard, to help to fill the black hole in the Government’s accounts. On top of that, there is the £4 billion that we heard about today.
The House knows that there are very few unprotected services left. Local government is one of them and is therefore a prime target. It is home helps, children’s centres, libraries, leisure centres, firefighters and youth clubs that are at risk.
Secondly, there is the overhaul of the business rates system. We welcome the extra help being given to small business in rate relief. That was in our manifesto; we campaigned for it, and it will cost about £7 billion. The Government have said they will compensate local government for this loss. The Secretary of State quotes page 84, line 15 in the Red Book, but he is wrong. That does not indicate where a single penny is coming from. Where is that £7 billion coming from? The Tory-chaired LGA has said that this will mean that once the 100% rate retention has been brought in, the resources to be retained will be less than previously projected as a consequence. By contrast, we would have financed these cuts to small business rates because we would have maintained, not cut, the level of corporation tax.
The third threat that the Budget outlines is the decision to ring-fence business rates in London, ahead of the rest of the country. But Westminster alone takes more business rates than Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Birmingham and Bristol combined—£1.8 billion. If prosperous Westminster keeps this £1.8 billion, there will be a significantly smaller pot of money to be redistributed to less affluent areas. Tucked away in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report are the implications of all this for the hard-pressed council tax payer—something on which the Secretary of State was silent.
The OBR estimates that 95% of councils will increase council tax by the maximum allowed, and they are being encouraged to do so by the Government. This means that for the first time ever, the average council tax bill payer will be paying £1,500 a year. Over the next five years local residents face a 14% increase above inflation in council tax. In return they will get a worse service. So much for the Tories being the party of low taxation: capital gains tax cuts for the well-off and council tax increases for ordinary families. It is an unacceptable set of priorities.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor’s decision to remove retail rate relief for small shops will mean that more than 400 shops in Chester will be paying about £1,300 a year extra? Is that consistent with the argument that he has just made?
Jon Trickett
Of course. The Tories are not interested in looking after ordinary people and small businesses. They are interested in directing money at the privileged few.
Let me turn briefly to the subject of devolution, which the Secretary of State mentioned. In his Budget statement the Chancellor announced a number of devolution deals, about which concern has been expressed in all parts of the House. The Minister cannot say we did not warn him that there would be trouble on that from the Labour Benches. The whole process is far too top-down. The insistence on a single mayoral model has caused much resentment, especially in cities where the idea was recently voted down by local people in referendums.
It is not councils’ fault that there are these tensions—our councillors are under enormous pressure to get whatever they can for local residents. The fault lies entirely with the process imposed, not by the Secretary of State, but by the Chancellor, who is stubbornly refusing to allow ordinary citizens to have a say in how their areas should be governed.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The idea of devolution setting people free from centralised diktat may sound good on paper, but how does it square with the forced academisation of schools?
Jon Trickett
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s point.
Let me make some progress on devolution. The average pot of money available to the metro mayors appears to be about £30 million a year, but that is dwarfed by the severity of the cuts that each of their councils has suffered. Top-down devolution, compounded by financial injustice, simply will not work as an enduring solution. Labour wants properly funded, real devolution, which would include, for example, the power for every council to open schools, build homes and regulate buses—mayor or no mayor.
That brings me to the Budget’s implications for the north of England. The Chancellor boasts about his northern powerhouse, but his Budget cuts to northern councils alone since 2010 add up to £3.9 billion being taken out of the northern economy. What do we get instead? A few million pounds for a scaled-down flood defence scheme in Leeds, and a few million more to fund not an electrified rail link, but a study that might report eventually on whether there should be electrification. None of that cuts the mustard—it is more of a power scam than a powerhouse.
Let me express my great admiration for councillors of all parties who do their very best across the nation, despite years of cuts, to protect services. Libraries, for example, are one of the most prized assets in any community, but they are frequently the first to go. On Friday, I visited Wyke library in Bradford. The council has managed to keep it open, despite the prospect of losing half its budget in a decade. The library is a beacon of hope and self-improvement, buzzing with learning. I met people there who were studying to better their lot in life. They told me there was no way on earth they could afford to buy the books they could borrow from a public library or to use the internet, which was also available. The priority had to be putting food on the table for their kids, but they were able to come to the library and have access to knowledge. I met one man who was using the internet—publicly provided in a public library—to complete his PhD. Cutting libraries, cutting museums, cutting theatres—all of this is nothing short of cultural vandalism.
The Secretary of State did a round of media interviews this morning. On ITN, he told Conservative Members to come together again; he said they should stop scrapping with each other. Well, good luck with that. Then he went on the “Today” programme and talked about the rough and tumble of Budget negotiations, as if that explained the resignation of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith).
I think the Secretary of State is a decent man, and I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, he appreciates the value of local government services. He knows the role—how could he not?—that many of them play in supporting the vulnerable, but what does he really know about the rough and tumble of Budget negotiations? He was the first Secretary of State to sign up on the Chancellor’s terms.
On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State referred to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green as his very good friend. My guess is that he may not want to follow the path of his very good friend and resign from the Government to defend local councils. I hope, however, that he will decide to fight his corner rather more strongly than he has this year against a Chancellor who has proved his judgment is nil.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for this little riff on resignations, but coming from a party that resigned from reality last August, it is pretty rich.
Jon Trickett
I think the Secretary of State should have stayed in this seat rather than make that intervention.
It is time for the Secretary of State to stand up to the demands of an unreasonable Chancellor, rather than standing by while communities are decimated. If he will not, we will.
Several hon. Members rose—
Finance Bill
Jon Trickett Excerpts(14 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I certainly appreciate the information that the Minister has put before us, and it helps us to get on with the debate. I suppose it means that she and her officials will have time for at least a little bit of a holiday this August. Under our plans, the yield begins to come in during the next financial year. I was under the impression that she would have had to ensure that she legislated for an entirely new system in the September 2010 Finance Bill. She now tells us that potential measures for an alternative system will be forced into next year’s Finance Bill, which means that an extra £0.2 billion of revenue that was scored for the next financial year will have to be raised. I assume that she will take account of that.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The new regime comes in in April 2011. If, as the Minister said, the Government will not bring legislation forward until April 2011, does it mean that we will use the system that we introduced? That will be a second system. There is the current system; the one that we introduced, which will apply from April 2011; and a third one, which will be introduced subsequent to the Government’s Bill. Or will the Government abandon our system, and will there be a period of time in which we get less revenue as a result of the complex process that has just been announced?
Ms Eagle
There are issues of process on which I would appreciate the hon. Lady’s enlightenment in her response to the debate.
There is also an issue about the backstop position. The hon. Lady says that draft clauses might be brought forward, and, although I am sorry to go on about process, it is important when it comes to tax changes. We gave ourselves close to two years to do all the work to introduce the higher rate relief charge, because it was such a difficult and complex area. We wanted to ensure that those who were liable to pay had plenty of time to plan, understand their liabilities—even if they did not like them, which they rarely do in my experience—and get to know the system, so that there was certainty about it. It now seems clear that there is a degree of uncertainty, which those who would have been particularly badly hit by the high charges, the very richest in our society, might welcome. However, we felt that they should shoulder a fairer burden of the necessary fiscal consolidation, because they had done so well during the good times.
If the Government are serious about protecting the yield, there has to be a trade-off with fairness. The Government have hinted at using the annual allowances as a way of raising that money, rather than our way, and if they introduce that change those on incomes of less than £130,000 will be dragged into the tax net. We wished to avoid that with our solution, so, if the reduction in annual allowances that the Government are considering turns out to be their final decision, in response to the debate will the hon. Lady tell us how many people it will affect? The Government have hinted that that is their preferred way, but our amendment would ensure a distributional analysis of the measure’s effect. Given that we legislated for a particular approach to raising that yield, and given that the Treasury did a great deal of work on developing that system, it would be entirely appropriate for the Treasury to produce some comparisons between that and the preferred approach at which the hon. Lady and, certainly, the Red Book have hinted. How great will the sudden tax liability be of people who earned less than £130,000 a year and would not have been affected had our approach to raising the yield gone ahead? How low down the income scale will the restrictions on tax relief go?
Finance Bill
Jon Trickett Excerpts(15 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
I am very disturbed that the Chancellor’s measures are coming at a time when our manufacturing industries are potentially just finding their feet and beginning to think about turning the corner out of the recession. Taking away some of those crucial allowances will not only affect those niche companies, which will, in turn, be the producers of the tool manufacturing equipment and the entrepreneurs whose work is so necessary and has perhaps been funded and supported by those allowances, but will, in a general context, potentially reduce the competitiveness of that particular sector of the economy.
It is a more general matter of debate whether some sectors of the economy benefit more than others from the corporation tax change. As I have said in previous debates, I am not sure whether my constituents would feel that the oil companies, the utilities and the banking sector should also have the gains from this corporation tax reduction. As I said in our debate some time ago, I am not convinced that now is the time to be giving away a £400 million windfall to the banking sector in this corporation tax cut.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s argument. Has not the largest single factor in this recession been, in effect, a private sector investment strike? I am talking about the fact that £6 out of every £10 of the fall in gross domestic product is attributable to a single factor, which is that the private sector some time ago decided not to invest. There are all sorts of reasons why that should be, one of which is the failure of the banks to provide the capitalisation to allow those companies to invest—that touches precisely on the point that he was just making. Given that level of inactivity in investment, are we not facing both an increasingly inefficient private sector and, as has been said, the cuts in the allowances, which will make things worse?
Chris Leslie
Indeed that is the case. I know that my hon. Friend has done a great deal of work on some of the analysis of these points. There are arguments to be made for reducing corporation tax to boost competitiveness, but clearly that is a way of encouraging profit-taking and, in turn, the removal of money from companies in the form of dividends. That, of course, benefits us all in some ways, because we are all members of pension funds and so on. However, if it is indeed the Government’s particular choice at this point in time, as we are coming out of a recession, to try to encourage companies to focus on their long-term profitability, might it not be a better strategy, in some respects, to retain some of those capital allowances to ensure that we can fix our banks such that they are able to supply much-needed credit to small companies, in particular, and to the wider industries across the board?
Capital Gains Tax (Rates)
Jon Trickett Excerpts(15 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
May I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on occupying the seat that you now do, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so?
The Business Secretary speaks with great authority and I noticed that the House listened to him with great care. I was particularly interested in the justification he gave for the reversal of his position on cuts. I listened to the two points he made on that with great care, but I was not convinced. First, he said that after the election, he was asked to get a briefing from senior officials. He then went on, in a way that I thought was not totally honest and that was certainly a form of elision, to talk about the situations facing this country and countries in the euro.
The then Opposition parties were offered briefings before the election. I assume the Lib Dems were briefed on the situation facing this country regarding the sovereign debt and other such matters, so it can hardly have been a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman to find that the circumstances were as they were. I find rather surprising the suggestion that he was surprised to discover—after the election, during the period when he was negotiating entrance into office for himself and his colleagues—that the situation was suddenly much worse than he had previously understood it to be.
There was a deliberate elision of the sovereign debt crisis being faced by Greece and Spain and the situation in the United Kingdom. The truth is that in Greece there is a 4% decline in gross domestic product—there is a collapse in output—and that in Spain more than 20% of people are effectively unemployed. Those two economies probably cannot sustain the debt they have incurred, but that does not in any way apply to the UK. I would be surprised if the Governor of the Bank of England had told the right hon. Gentleman, in what would have been a blinding revelation in the middle of the negotiations to enter into the coalition, that some kind of sovereign debt crisis was operating in the United Kingdom, given that the Bank of England’s quarterly bulletin, published the other day, refers to an increase in the flow of investments into UK bonds.
The structure and age of our debt is not in any way comparable to the situation in Greece or elsewhere. I therefore conclude that the meeting which the right hon. Gentleman no doubt had with the Governor and others came at a very convenient time, and that the abandonment of the policy that he and others had, to their credit, shared—that we should not cut further at this time—was linked more to the political opportunities that were opening up, given the nature of the election, than to the sudden discovery of a change to the situation facing this country that, rather conveniently, occurred 24 hours after the election.
I want to make a number of points about the Budget and the current situation that we are facing. I listened carefully to the analysis by the Business Secretary of how the crisis came about. From the implications that could be read into his speech, it seemed to me that there was a difference of view between him and Conservative members of the Government as to how the situation arose.
For the Conservatives, it is clear that the problem facing the country is almost ideological in nature, being one of government rather than of the markets. They believe that the problem lies with the state, which should be reduced, and not with the markets, which collapsed. I note that the right hon. Gentleman said that the crisis was global in character and that it was brought about by the collapse of the banks, and I want to refer once more to the question of bonds.
The credit rating agencies have been widely publicised for their judgments about the state of the UK economy, but those same agencies were happy to give triple A ratings to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and to some of the other banks and investment firms in the US. It is odd that much of the media now seem to rely on the judgments of those agencies as to the UK’s status in the bond markets—but speculating on that would take me away from the narrative thrust I am trying to develop and the points I want to make.
The Business Secretary referred to the collapse of the banks, but I think the judgments made in the Budget reflect a different analysis by the Chancellor. That much is clear from how the burden will fall: of the £40 billion fiscal tightening being proposed, it looks as though £13 billion will be achieved by raising VAT—and I shall return to that point in a second—and £11 billion by an attack on welfare. In contrast, £2 billion is being raised by the banking levy, and I believe that that reveals the priorities of this Conservative-led coalition: £24 billion is to be saved through reducing welfare expenditure and raising VAT, and only £2 billion will come from the banks.
The truth is that, in a constituency like mine, the Budget will hit people very hard. I represent some of the poorest people in the country, as do many other hon. Members. It will not have escaped them that the burden of the changes introduced yesterday will fall particularly heavily on the poorest, and on hard-working people more generally.
The right hon. Gentleman made a case for the rise in VAT, but the Chancellor said on television this morning that he had faced a choice, between raising income tax or VAT, and that he had made a judgment. Personally, I reject the idea that we should impose further fiscal tightening in the current financial year but, be that as it may, the Chancellor made it clear that there was a choice.
The Government’s choice—the Business Secretary’s fingerprints are on it as much as anyone else’s—was to raise VAT rather than income tax. However, about £1 of every £7 that poor people spend goes on VAT, while for the rich the figure is about £1 in every £25. It is a highly regressive tax, compared with income tax. If a tax is to be increased—and I am not saying that that would be my option—it should not be VAT. The fact that VAT has been raised reveals the Budget’s regressive nature and character, and reflects the right-wing agenda being elaborated by this Government.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has referred to the welfare cuts, including to disability living allowance, that have been outlined although not specified at all. People on DLA—in his area, in mine, and elsewhere in the country—come predominantly from a manual working background. Does he share my concern that it is precisely their inability to do manual work that will be a problem when their allowance is cut? The people involved are not the intellectual office workers of the future.
Jon Trickett
I wonder whether the Business Secretary and some of his colleagues came into politics to restrict welfare benefits for the disabled.
People in our areas have reason to fear other elements of the Budget, apart from the VAT hike. Public sector pensions are going to be cut, and the Government will accelerate the rise in the pension age. We know that they are going to cut 25% of departmental expenditure, that there is to be a freeze on child benefit, and that there will effectively be cuts in housing benefit. All those proposals will affect the communities we represent.
I remind the House that it was Mrs Thatcher who stole milk from schoolchildren; now, it is this Government who will take money from poorer mothers. Let me list the effects the Budget will have on mothers, especially those in poorer communities, as it seems they are to be targeted.
According to the TUC, the announcements made yesterday show that poorer mothers will lose about £1,200 a year. From April next year, the Sure Start maternity grant will be available for the first child only. The £500 maternity grant available for poorer mothers having their second child is to be withdrawn, and that is a disgrace. The health in pregnancy grant—a universal grant worth £190 that was available to all mothers to promote child and maternal health and engagement with health services—is being abolished.
The baby element of tax credits is also being cut. That was an additional payment of up to £545 a year for families with a child aged less than one who were in receipt of tax credits. The previous Government’s introduction of a new toddler tax credit would have provided an extra £200 a year for children aged one or two, but that has been cut too.
As we know, child benefit has been frozen for three years, and that obviously amounts to a cut in real terms. Finally, the child trust fund worth £250 has also gone. That may not affect members of the Cabinet much, given that there are 22 millionaires sitting around that table, but I assure the House that £250 can make a difference to children and families in my area.
Whatever my differences with them, I do not believe that people who joined the Liberal Democrat party went into politics to attack poorer mothers, but that is what this Budget does. That is what they will be faced with voting for in a few days, and I ask them to consult their consciences—never mind their party members—to determine whether that is the right thing to do.
Earlier, I said that it would not be my priority at this time to go for further fiscal tightening, given the fragility of the economy and the lack of demand elsewhere in the world. However, that is not simply my view; it has also been expressed by people who are very significant indeed.
The House will be aware of President Obama’s letter to the G20, but hon. Members may not know that KPMG chief economist Andrew Smith has described yesterday’s Budget as a “kill or cure” Budget. I note that the same phrase was used in today’s Financial Times headline, and there is at least a risk that we might kill the recovery. It is quite extraordinary to see KPMG make such a statement, and Andrew Smith, its chief economist, went on to say:
“The aim is to eliminate the structural deficit over this Parliament, but it risks choking off the recovery. There is no guarantee that private demand will rebound just because the government retrenches.”
John Philpott, of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said that we would see unemployment rise to 3 million for the rest of this Parliament.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Can the hon. Gentleman refresh my memory? In the last Parliament, did he vote for £40 billion of unspecified cuts?
Jon Trickett
I am talking about yesterday’s Budget and I shall continue to do so. If the hon. Gentleman does not like it, he should think about whether he will vote for it next Monday and Tuesday.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, asked how hard it could be to understand that Governments can save economies rather than destroy them. It is not too hard at all, yet as he said:
“All around the world…politicians seem determined…to short-change the economy”.
A consensus has emerged in the media about the need for cuts, which is infuriating sometimes, because there is a counter-consensus that has not been properly heard, represented by many people on the Opposition Benches and by leading economists, President Obama and others: we are taking a huge risk with the future of our economy.
Two million private sector employees work for companies that are dependent on Government contracts—Sheffield Forgemasters has already been mentioned. Further damage will inevitably be done to the private sector by cuts aimed at the public sector. When we look at the performance of the private sector we see that it, rather than the public sector, has brought about the reduction in gross domestic product, especially in investment. People may not like to use the word, but if there is a strike going on at the moment, it is not the BA strike but the investment strike in the private sector. We can understand why it happened, but none the less, £6 of every £10 of the reduction in GDP is down to one factor alone—the decline in private sector investment. It is not clear to me how cuts now will suddenly lead to growth in private sector investment, nor have the Government explained how that might happen. Furthermore, the Red Book shows a decline in public sector investment from £47 billion in 2008-09 to £21 billion, which is less than half that amount, by 2014.
I am troubled both by the assault on poorer communities, which is what the Budget really amounts to, and by the underlying economic philosophy that by reducing the state the private sector will flourish. The reverse is true, as we know from the great economist Keynes and from what happened in the great depression of the 1930s. Recovery in the United States was not brought about by slashing public expenditure, but above all by the new deal. Roosevelt’s great adventure rebuilt the American infrastructure and economy. The private sector was able to revive through expenditure, not cuts.
With those reflections, I turn to the politics of the Budget. The election gave no legitimacy for the course the Government have set. The vast majority of people who voted for the Liberal Democrat party did so on the basis that there would be no further cuts in this financial year, and no increase in VAT. The Conservative party did not achieve a majority and did not significantly increase its vote, in terms of the total numbers of people who voted. On the other hand, it is also clear—I would not claim otherwise—that Labour did not win the election either, but looking at the combined votes for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, for a policy of careful financial management, we see that a vast majority voted for that objective.
My conclusion is that there is no democratic legitimacy for the Budget. When the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills described his conversion on the road to Damascus on the day after the election, his argument was much less than convincing. It feels as though there has been an attack on middle-class and working-class families and on those dependent on welfare. Inevitably, there will be resistance both in the House and outside. When people reflect on the fact that an extreme Thatcherite Budget has been agreed and will be forced through the House without the legitimacy of an elected parliamentary majority, there will be outrage.
It is for the Labour party, particularly our leadership, to reflect carefully on how we respond to a Budget from a Government who were not elected with a majority, and who propose to impose savage cuts on the living standards of poorer people. Resistance will emerge. The Labour party will want to react responsibly, but we will—at least we should—place ourselves alongside people and communities who are resisting the cuts. I very much hope we shall be doing that in the coming weeks and months.