Autumn Statement Resolutions

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the Chief Secretary, I think for the first time, from the Dispatch Box.

The small print of last week’s autumn statement has now been studied and the verdict is clear: the British people are paying the price of Conservative economic failure. The disastrous Conservative Budget of two months ago, which was reckless and irresponsible in content—a Budget that we will never let them forget—led to markets taking fright; borrowing costs spiking; and the pound under pressure, which sparked a run on pension funds and sent mortgage costs soaring.

The British people are paying the price not just for that Budget but for 12 years of poor economic performance. Let us look at the record. The UK has grown by an average of 1.4% under the Conservatives, compared with 2.1% in the Labour years before that. If we had enjoyed the average growth rate of OECD countries over the past decade, British households would be £10,000 a year better off. We are the only G7 country that is still poorer than before the pandemic. Since the pandemic, the US has grown by 4.2% and the GDP of eurozone countries is 2.1% higher, but the UK economy is 0.4% smaller than at the start of the pandemic. Business investment is the lowest in the G7. Productivity is lower than in the US, France and Germany. Wages are squeezed, with the average worker earning less in real terms than they did 15 years ago. We see a growth gap, a wage gap, an investment gap and a productivity gap, leaving the Conservatives with a credibility gap.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a particularly anxious time for those who are coming up to mortgage renewals? The context that he laid out is particularly scary for lots of households that are about to renegotiate their mortgage.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

It is a particularly terrifying time for many households. The tragedy for the British people is that they now face recession, with half a million predicted to lose their jobs while enduring the sharpest drop in living standards on record, equivalent to £1,700 per household. What we got last week was an autumn statement that piles more tax on the British people and reduces the money available for the public services that the British people rely on.

The test for the Chancellor was whether his proposals were fair and whether they grew the economy. Let me turn to specific measures announced and assess whether he met those tests. First, on fairness, the Tories call themselves the tax cutters, but at the next election the economy will be smaller and taxes higher than at the last election. The freeze to income tax thresholds—in effect, tax rises by stealth—means that millions more are pulled into paying higher tax. It means that average earners in Britain face a sting of £500 more. Council tax is set to increase by £100 for a typical band E property.

Hidden away in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report, on page 53—curiously, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary forgot to mention it, but it is there—fuel duty is predicted to rise by 23% [Interruption.] This is from the OBR. The assumption in the Government’s financial plans is that they will raise over £5 billion from fuel duty, which is set to rise by 23% in four months’ time—12p per litre—as a result of the statement. Are the Government not raising £5 billion from fuel duty next March? Is that right?

[John Glen]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is an assumption made by the OBR. As the Government confirmed over the weekend, that is not Government policy.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Where are the Government getting that £5.7 billion from, then, if not from putting 12p on a litre of fuel? Can the Chief Secretary tell us that? He is responsible for Government finances.

[John Glen]

The Government’s position is clear: the OBR has made assumptions but it has not made policy. In due course, the Government will set out our plans.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am afraid that the Government’s position is as clear as mud. The OBR says that the Government are raising £5.7 billion from fuel duty. If they are not raising £5.7 billion from fuel duty, they should tell us where that £5.7 billion is coming from. I thought that this lot had moved away from the reckless, irresponsible approach to the public finances, but it seems that with the Tories, nothing ever changes.

Let us be clear: people are paying not only more income tax, but more council tax, and we expect motorists to pay more for petrol and diesel. Never again can Conservative politicians stand in front of posters of double whammy boxing gloves or tax bombshells at election time, because the tax on working people combined with the wages that they are losing to the ravages of inflation mean that they are being squeezed until the pips squeak under this Conservative Government.

[John Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were not proposing to spend enough by the end of the review period. They are proposing £200 billion a year more. How much more would Labour want to spend?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I did not actually say that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is disappointed with the Government’s plans and that the previous Budget, of which he was so much in favour, was decisively rejected by the money markets. That shows what happens when we allow the Conservatives to be irresponsible with the public finances.

I now turn to social security and pensions. In fairness, the Chancellor responded to our pressure and honoured the triple lock, which I welcome. I hope that the House will recall and accept that I always give credit where it is due and I always work on a cross-party basis when we agree on things. I always agreed with our man in the jungle, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), when he wanted to put us into lockdowns. I never went as far as the new Chancellor on lockdowns—he wanted much more severe restrictions—but I was always prepared to work cross party with the Government, so I am pleased that they have honoured the triple lock.

The impact of freezing the personal tax allowance at £12,500 or so, however, is that half a million more pensioners will be pulled into paying tax. Over the coming years, it is predicted that, because of the freeze on the personal allowance, 2 million extra pensioners will be pulled into paying tax. So pensioners with little income beyond the state pension—those who have done the right thing and saved all their lives—will be paying more in tax under the Conservatives.

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)]

When the Labour Government left office in 2010, the personal allowance was £6,475. Adjusted for inflation, that would be £10,200 today. Under this Government, it is still £12,570, which is significantly more than would have been the case under Labour adjusted for inflation.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I take it from that that the hon. Gentleman supports pensioners paying more tax as a consequence of the decisions in the autumn statement.

On social security payments for working age adults, the Chancellor again, in fairness, listened to the arguments that were made and uprated benefits in line with inflation. That is important, because this year, those on benefits and pensioners have seen a real-terms cut. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said earlier today that it was important for payments to be increased to make up for the real-terms cuts that they have experienced this year.

As always, however, the devil is in the detail. The Chancellor has uprated the headline rates and we also understand that many of the additional allowances within the benefits system have been uprated, although we do not know that for certain; we are assuming that only because Martin Lewis tweeted it based on what the Treasury press office had told him. As far as we are aware, the Secretary of State has not confirmed it to Parliament—I just asked the Library and we still do not have an official confirmation—so when the Minister sums up, perhaps he can confirm that the different allowances and reliefs within universal credit will be uprated in line with inflation. I would welcome it if those allowances were uprated, but not all of them have been, have they? The local housing allowance rates, for example, are frozen at 2020 levels at a time when private rents are rising at record rates. The consequence is that rents will swallow up the increase in universal credit for many of the poorest families. That is why Shelter has concluded that the freeze means that

“The boost to benefits will be built on quicksand”

and has warned that homelessness will increase this winter.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has welcomed every single increase in spending in the autumn statement, and in some cases, as he has just said, he wants spending to be increased even further, yet he has also attacked several of the tax rises. Will he explain whether he wants other taxes put up, spending cuts in other areas or more borrowing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

We want to grow the economy so that there is more money to spend on public services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who always listens carefully, will have heard me say a few moments ago that if our growth had been similar to the OECD average, households would be £10,000 better off and the Government would have the proceeds of growth to spend on our public services. The reason our public services are in such a dire state is the 12 years of poor economic performance under the Conservatives—that is the reality.

Let me come to another element of universal credit that has been frozen: the childcare payment. The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), is no longer in her place, but she made a similar point. It looks as if that payment has been frozen again, at £746 per month for a household with one child. That means that the childcare element will cover just half the average cost of childcare for a household with one child, when two thirds of families pay more for their childcare than they spend on rent or mortgages.

We know that many people want to work increased hours—this is the point made by the former Leader of the House—but cannot do so because of the lack of childcare support. But instead of fixing childcare support, the Chancellor is asking 600,000 people, who often have caring responsibilities, to undertake extra job-searching requirements, with threats to cut their benefits if they do not comply, even though the reason why they cannot work extra hours is that they cannot afford the extra childcare and the Government have frozen the childcare allowance again.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I will give way to my fellow Leicester City fan.

[Jim Shannon]

The childcare issue is very important for my constituents, particularly teachers and nurses, who tell me that when they come to the end of the month, they have nothing left after paying their childcare bill. They want the tax-free childcare allowance to be increased. Does the shadow Secretary of State feel that that is what we should do to encourage them to work while ensuring that their childcare is covered?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes his point with force. The consequence of freezing the childcare element is that more parents working limited hours—it should not affect women more than men but does so disproportionately as they tend to do the childcare—will not be able to work extra hours because they will not be able to afford the extra childcare associated with working those extra hours.

[Alex Cunningham]

As I understand it, carers who are able to claim carer’s allowance can earn up to £132 a week, but the welcome increase in the national minimum wage means that many of them face a choice: they can either give up work or earn the extra money. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to extend the earnings limit for carers as well as for everybody else?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend makes a point not dissimilar to that made by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire. All these things need to be looked at in the round, and the wider implications of tweaks here and there need to be properly assessed when making decisions. If the Treasury Minister is prepared to meet the former Leader of the House to discuss the impact on those who need childcare, I hope that he will also be gracious enough to meet my hon. Friend to talk about the impact of the changes on carers.

Let me move on to the Government’s proposal for another round of energy support, this time targeted at those on means-tested benefits only. Again, because this is a flat rate, families with children—they spend more because they are larger families—will get proportionately less. It is worth noting that, even with the inflation-proofed uprating of benefits, which we welcome, we will still have 4 million children growing up in poverty, and we will still have 500,000 children destitute, hungry, ill-clad, cold and often without a decent bed to sleep in. Tackling these shameful levels of child poverty is surely the obligation this generation owes to the next, but we still have no child poverty strategy from this Government. Tackling these unfairnesses is also key to unlocking growth, because an economy with so much poverty and so much inequality is a weaker, less-productive economy, which leads to a greater burden of ill health, forcing more people out of work against their wishes.

That brings me to the health announcements made by the Chancellor. He is of course a former Health Secretary—the longest serving Health Secretary, in fact—and he made great play of the increase in health spending. However, he knows as well as I do, both from the many exchanges I had with him across the Dispatch Box over many years and through his time as the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, that what he announced was an increase in NHS England funding. As the Chancellor well knows, and he probably produced reports on this when he was at the Health and Social Care Committee, overall health spending includes public health, capital and training budgets, which means that the uplift is 1.2%. That is below the 2% of the Osborne years and well below the historic 4% uplifts that health services enjoyed historically. This is at a time when the typical wait for treatment in the health service has doubled from seven to 14 weeks, when 400,000 people are waiting beyond a year for treatment, which is enough to fill Wembley stadium four and a half times over, and when 7 million are on the waiting lists. This is not just miserable for patients; it holds our economy back.

[Anthony Browne]

Does my right hon. Friend agree not just that spending on the NHS is at the highest level in cash terms and real terms, but that as a proportion of GDP it has never been higher in this country? Our Government spend one of the highest rates of GDP on healthcare compared with other developed countries, and according to analysis in The Guardian, growth in spending on the NHS, adjusted for inflation, has increased by 35% since 2010.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman has elevated me to be his right hon. Friend, and I am delighted to consider him a friend. Of course, we have an ageing and growing population, which is why the health services have always expected a higher uplift. The point I was making is that, in order to get the headlines and in the hope of giving people some good news in his otherwise quite miserable set of announcements, the Chancellor thought he was giving the NHS a huge uplift. However, if we look at public health, training and the other budgets, which, as we know—and as the Chancellor knows—is how health spending is properly measured, we will see that he is giving them a 1.2% uplift.

The reason why this is particularly significant, and why what is happening with the NHS is causing us such a problem, is that we now have 2.5 million people out of work for reasons of ill health. The OBR predicts that these figures will rise by another 1 million, costing £7.5 billion extra in sickness benefits. That is the OBR’s projection, and it is projecting that to be permanent, not to come down. The UK has seen the largest employment rate drop in the G7 since the pandemic because of rising numbers of people—the over-50s and those with long-term sickness—leaving the jobs market. Once people are out of work for sickness, that in itself can be bad for their health, and the lack of proper help and support leaves them trapped out of work. Only one in 10 disabled people or older people out of work is currently getting any help with employment support to return to work. When one looks at the case load for employment and support allowance, which is the old sickness benefit—obviously people are migrating to universal credit—one sees that only 4% of people come off sickness benefit or disability benefit and move into work each year. Those people should not be ignored and forgotten as they are at the moment. That is a dereliction of our responsibilities to those people, many of whom want help. Some have suggested that 700,000 want help. The Secretary of State has suggested that it could be as high as 1.7 million people who are economically inactive.

Offering no help to those people now undermines our economic performance, too, but instead of a plan to help people move into work, all we got was a review. We did not get a plan for our already overstretched jobcentres, which will be responding to an extra half a million unemployed and to 600,000 extra coming for interviews. We need action. Instead, the Secretary of State has launched a review: the Stride review. I could do the review for him—I can give him the Ashworth plan to get people back into work. We should be aiming for the highest employment in the G7 by using not threats and more sanctions or more humiliating assessment tests—we know too well that a letter from the DWP can fill people with dread—but a completely new approach. That is what we need.

First, the Government have actually underspent by £2 billion on their own employment schemes. Perhaps my old friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), can take this message back to his boss: the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should stand up to the Treasury and, rather than hand back that £2 billion, refocus it on the economically inactive over the next few years. That could help an extra million people.

Secondly, when we know that mental health is a growing burden of sickness for those out of work, we should be doing more to better integrate jobcentres, employment services and the NHS. We should be building on individual placements and support. We should be building on the pilots where employment advisers have been located in “improving access to psychological therapies” services, and we should locate employment services alongside primary care and addiction services, too.

Thirdly, to help more disabled people into work, Access to Work should be made more flexible. The unacceptable waiting lists also need to be urgently tackled. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Access to Work allowance was frozen or lifted in line with inflation in the autumn statement; that is not in the details of the Budget.

Fourthly, we should devolve more, and not use national contracting, which we know does not provide value for money. As we have seen in Greater Manchester, for every pound spent by the working well programme on getting people back into work, we get £1.75 back. Devolving more allows services to work better with adult education providers, which is vital when 9 million of our fellow citizens have poor literacy and poor numeracy. Older workers should be given more opportunities to access retraining and upskilling.

Finally, we need flexible working options, especially for those with caring responsibilities. So there we have it: a five-point plan to tackle inactivity. The Chief Secretary can take that back and implement the Ashworth plan. He is more than welcome to it. It is simply unacceptable to waste our most precious resource: the extraordinary skills and talents of ordinary people.

[Geraint Davies]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the OECD reports that have shown conclusively that less inequality means greater growth. Is he aware of the report in the Financial Times showing that, for every extra pound spent on the health service, we get £4 of growth? Therefore, it is completely false economics for the Tories to be miserly in their real-terms giving to health if we want to grow the economy and get people back to work.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

In fairness, I have not seen the specific report that my hon. Friend references, but I have seen numerous reports saying that we will be spending £7.5 billion more on sickness benefits and that the Government have underspent by £2 billion on their own employment services. That money should be reallocated urgently to focus on those who are out of work for reasons of sickness and want help to get back into work. We do not need to wait for a review when we have a million vacancies in the economy and are predicted to be short of 2.5 million workers by 2030.

In conclusion, the autumn statement has failed both tests. It was unfair and, as the CBI said, it offered no plan for growth. The autumn statement was the day of reckoning for 12 years of economic failure—the highest tax burden for 70 years, and public services in a worse state. It is clear that this Government have failed to make amends for the past and cannot be trusted with the future. For all the figures in the statement, there is one inescapable fact: the hard-working people of Britain are poorer because of 12 years of the Conservatives.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As everybody can see, there is a lot of interest in this debate. I will try to manage without a time limit to begin with. If people could look at about eight minutes or thereabouts, we will get everybody in with roughly the same period of time. As I say, I will try it without the time limit first, but if that does not work, we will introduce one later on.

Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne).

There is much to welcome in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, but since I have only four minutes, I will be brief about the Bills in it. The Schools Bill will raise standards and help every child fulfil their potential in this country, and the energy security Bill will tackle the long-term cost of living increases. We have seen the disruption that oil prices can cause, but we can expand on our leadership in offshore wind, build new nuclear and kick-start Britain’s hydrogen economy. The Brexit freedoms Bill will make it easier to amend and repeal outdated EU laws.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will give communities new powers to drive local growth and regeneration. That will build on the success we have already had in Newcastle-under-Lyme from the future high streets fund and the town deal, with more than £50 million of investment brought into our borough by a very well-run council. As I said earlier, it has already paid out to 34,000 residents their £150, whereas so many Labour councils—I mentioned some of them earlier, and I forgot Kirklees, with apologies to my hon. Friends from there—have not paid out their £150. All the words from those on the Opposition Benches about the cost of living squeeze ring very hollow when their councils are not getting that money into people’s bank accounts. No doubt that is why Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council was returned earlier this month with the first Conservative majority in our history. We won seats from Labour in historic Labour places, such as Crackley and Silverdale. I am very proud of the achievements of that council and the leader Simon Tagg.

Turning to support with the cost of living, many colleagues have said that we are right to target growth and investment in the long term. That is the solution to raising standards in the long term, but we need support right now because of the high inflation that has been stoked principally by the oil price and by Putin’s war in Ukraine. I welcome the threshold rise in national insurance, which means that 30 million people will be better off and 70% will be paying less even after the new levy. I noticed that in the Opposition’s literature, they said they would scrap the levy, but now they are rowing back on that. Can we have a spending commitment for the next election that they want to scrap it? That levy is going to support the NHS and social care, so if Labour wants to remove it, it should say so.

We are increasing the warm home discount to £100, and extending eligibility to 3 million people. We are doubling the household support fund to £1 billion and investing £200 million per annum in continuing the holiday activities and food programme. I am also very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on fuel duty. That 5p cut is very helpful in a constituency such as Newcastle-under-Lyme, where so many are reliant on cars.

We may yet need to do more on energy, but that depends on where the oil price goes. If the oil price stays high, I am sure the Chancellor will do more when we come to the next round of the energy price cap. I welcome what he said on the windfall tax. The Opposition amendment is unnecessary. I am clear that windfall taxes are unwelcome, although in certain circumstances they may be the right answer, and I am glad to see the Chancellor not ruling anything out. We need to see proper action from the oil and gas companies in investing. If they do not do that, I will be happy to support him, if that is the direction we take. I realise it is a cyclical industry, but there is a case to be made.

Finally, I press the Chancellor to do more about levelling up through the tax system. I urge him to look again at council tax. That £150 for bands A to D was very well targeted at people. It was not just levelling up for constituencies such as mine, where 92% of people are in those bands, but levelling up for anyone in a house in bands A to D across the country. Council tax rates are based on valuations that are now very out of date. No Government have ever had the appetite for a valuation, but there must be some scope to lower the burden on people in lower bands and to increase or add extra bands I and J on top. I put that to the Chancellor.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

That is brave.

[Aaron Bell]

It is brave—I thank the right hon. Gentleman—but we need to do it to level up the tax system.

More than anything, I am glad to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer leading us through these difficult times. Hon. Members should remember that if Opposition Members had had their way, we would be led by the right hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and we would not be standing up to Putin; we would be excusing him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a debate about the 250,000 households that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research predicts will be forced into destitution next year. This is a debate about the 1.3 million people, including 500,000 children, who will be pushed into absolute poverty. This is a debate about the 2 million—and rising—pensioners in poverty. This is a debate about the 2 million adults who did not eat for a whole day last year. This is a debate about our constituents who are working all hours God sends and still need to queue at food banks to feed their families.

In his speech earlier, the Chancellor—I do not know where he is, by the way—boasted of an employment miracle, but is it not the truth, as the Office for National Statistics has shown today, that pay is being outpaced by inflation, with real wages falling by 1.2%? That is the largest monthly fall in real regular wages in a decade, yet at the same time, pay-as-you-earn data shows that the wages of the very top earners are increasing rapidly. Labour market inequalities are widening, and workers deserve a fair pay rise.

If we drill down into the employment figures, we see that it is also the truth—and this has come up today—that they are lower than they were pre-pandemic. Indeed, 1.5 million have left the labour market, including more and more over-50s who are drawing down their defined-contribution pensions. The sickness levels of those out of work are at their highest level for 20 years—[Interruption.] Ah, here he is—come on in, Chancellor! Instead of providing help, the Gracious Speech had no employment Bill—it was ditched—while Jobcentre Plus and Department for Work and Pensions offices will be closed and staff laid off, and job scheme funding is being cut or underspent. This is a Government failing on employment.

Our constituents face a cost of living crisis, but instead of action we had a complacent speech from the Chancellor, who said that he may act on a windfall tax “soon”—but people need action today. Does he really think that the parents who are making choices between feeding meters and feeding their children, the families who are cutting off their meters and the people who are scared of the final demand from their energy companies can say to those energy companies, “Don’t worry, we’ll pay you soon”? Of course not—the mañana Chancellor needs to act today to help people.

A theme across the House not just today but throughout the week has been the failure of the Chancellor and the Government to help people with the cost of living crisis. I cannot mention all of the many speeches we have heard today, so I will mention only a few. The hon. Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made sympathetic noises towards a windfall tax. In fact, they were so sympathetic, I thought they had got hold of the parliamentary Labour party’s briefing pack for the debate.

[Mike Wood]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

We are pushed for time, so I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon—but he can have a word with me when he is voting with us in the Lobby later.

Look at the realities facing our constituents: the cost of pasta is up 10%; milk, cheese and eggs, up 8.6%; butter, up 9.6%; cooking oils and fats, up 18%. And the message from Ministers? “Just purchase supermarket own brand.” “Buy value beans”—the new three-word slogan from the Tory party.

Another quotation of which the Chancellor may be aware is from Milton Friedman; I know the Chancellor is a big fan. Milton Friedman said:

“Inflation is taxation without legislation”.

But the Chancellor has legislated. Instead of helping people on universal credit, he legislated to cut universal credit in real terms—a loss of around £500. Instead of helping pensioners with the triple lock, the Government legislated to impose the biggest real-terms cut to the pension for 50 years, meaning a cut of more than £420 for the typical retiree.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is about to embark on a programme of cutting the incomes of some of the most vulnerable people on legacy benefits as they migrate to universal credit. But it does not have to be like this, because—as the Chairs of the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, many charities and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said—one could bring forward a proportion of the benefit increase pencilled in for 2023 today. Indeed, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said a few weeks ago at the Dispatch Box that the 2023 increase in benefits and the pension will take account of inflation. The Government are promising to increase benefits and the pension in line with inflation in 2023, but in the meantime are sending the very poorest on a rollercoaster. Some 500,000 children will be pushed into absolute poverty.

To be fair to the Chancellor, he said, “We looked at this, but the IT system said no”. As many Members have said, it is a shame that his computer didn’t say no when he was cutting universal credit by £20. But I have been given a briefing note by Oracle, which I understand provides the IT systems for the Department for Work and Pensions, entitled: “How DWP transformed the backbone of the UK benefits system”. The note says that the changes that made to the computer system

“has built automation into…management—this allows DWP to make changes every week, rather than having to plan six months in advance”.

Mr Mark Bell, who is the deputy director at the Department for Work and Pensions, said:

“This has been widely recognised as one of the best technical achievements delivered by DWP Digital for many years…It also enabled us to make further digital enhancements to benefit millions of UK citizens.”

Technical lead Mr Nick Cutting says that this has brought “flexibility” and that it led to the Department being able to do things it

“never could have done, or that would have taken significant time at a significant cost”

if it was still running on legacy infrastructure. You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth is that it is not the mainframe that is preventing the Government from acting; it is their frame of mind.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman used to be a political adviser to the previous Government, but they did not have universal credit. What he is describing is universal credit, a system that the Labour party has consistently opposed. That is why we are able to make the changes; it is true and accurate, as he has just read out to the House, that it is the legacy systems that are the problem. That is why we cannot simply change the rates of all benefits as he wants us to do. The point is that we cannot do that, and he has read out the reasons to the House.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The right hon. Lady has just confirmed that she is refusing to increase universal credit, with the consequence that 500,000 extra children will be pushed into poverty—[Interruption.] I am not misleading the House. I remember meeting her for negotiations over the pandemic legislation. We met in the offices of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We said that we needed more support on universal credit and we came to an arrangement. She also gave a lump sum to those on working tax credit, which is a legacy payment. So if there is a will, the Government can do it, but the truth is that they do not want to do it.

The reality is that if the Government wanted to lift children out of poverty, they could do it. If they wanted to lift pensioners out of poverty, they could do it. If they wanted to prevent 250,000 families from being pushed into destitution, they could do that too. The fact that they will vote against the amendment in the Lobby tonight tells us everything we need to know about this Tory party. For them, rising child poverty is a price well worth paying.

Anti-corruption Summit

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. This issue is of such importance to me that I was determined to be here despite the ongoing celebrations in Leicester, the city I represent. I reassure you, Sir Edward, that I will be celebrating Leicester’s remarkable victory tonight.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), both of whom have worked so hard on the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption, on being instrumental in securing this excellent debate. The hon. Gentleman, in particular, made a fine, well-considered speech that raised many key questions, and we look forward to hearing the answers from the Minister. Equally, my hon. Friend made a serious, heavyweight contribution with many good, practical suggestions, and I look forward to the Minister’s assessment of her points.

Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) made a typically forensic speech, and I pay tribute to all her work, both in her role on the Public Accounts Committee in the previous Parliament and in the role she continues to play in this Parliament on pushing these issues. Parliament is so much the better for her being here and for her work, and we are all grateful to her.

The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made an interesting contribution, and he has shown great tenacity in pursuing corruption in sport. I hope that he continues to pursue those issues, and I look forward to seeing where his inquiries take him. There was much in his speech that is of concern to us all, and I hope that, if not this Minister, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will respond to him adequately. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) mentioned some of the issues that I will particularly address in my brief contribution, especially on the developing world.

There is consensus on both sides of the House on the importance of addressing corruption, and we would all agree with the Prime Minister and his strategy when he reminds us that corruption harms societies, undermines economic development and threatens democracy. In the past, he talked about the golden thread of conditions that allow countries to thrive, and the absence of corruption is one of those conditions. The Opposition welcome the summit because, as has been said many times in this debate, some campaigners estimate that illegal tax evasion, corrupt deals for natural resources and money laundering cause between $100 billion and $2 trillion-worth of money to flow out of developing countries every year. Estimates suggest that corruption equates to more than 5% of global GDP. The World Economic Forum’s analysis shows that corruption increases the cost of doing business by up to 10%, and it suggests that cutting corruption by just 10% could benefit the global economy by nearly $400 billion a year.

We welcome the summit, which is an opportunity for the Government to show leadership, as many Members have said. The summit meets against the backdrop of the Panama papers. Indeed, the full details of the papers will be released just three days before the summit. Surely, the test for the summit in the eyes of the public will now be how it responds to the issues raised by the Panama papers. There has been widespread revulsion at the revelations, which is understandable, and many people are interested in the impact of the Panama papers on our domestic scene and in the political fallout from the Prime Minister’s tax returns and the way that he had to come to Parliament and from the number of Tory party donors caught up in the Panama papers.

Interesting though that is, and we all accept that the Government probably still have more to answer, for me the biggest issue raised by the Panama papers was the revelation of chronic corruption that has helped people to siphon billions of pounds from Africa, stealing from some of the globe’s very poorest people. Africa is a continent rich in natural resources, yet its people are poor because, too often, foreign investment has been channelled through offshore centres such as the British Virgin Islands. Fortunes are being made and siphoned from Africa, rather than being spent on the schools, hospitals and infrastructure needed across the continent. Surely, it is obscene that, for example, a Jersey-based oil company can instruct Mossack Fonseca to shift its registration from the Bahamas to Mauritius, to avoid more than £280 million in tax on the sale of an oilfield in Uganda—£280 million is more than the Ugandan Government will spend this year on health services. Surely, it is a disgrace when major mining concessions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are acquired at seemingly below market rates and sold on for $1.4 billion, which is almost double the combined annual budgets for health and education in a country with one of the world’s highest child mortality rates, by taking advantage of such offshore accounts.

Surely, the test for the summit now is how the UK deals with its overseas territories and Crown dependencies. As has been said throughout the debate, the Prime Minister has previously pledged to introduce a fully public register, and he has previously written to the overseas territories demanding such a register. I will not run through all the quotations because of time, but last year in Singapore he said

“when you have companies whose ownership isn’t known you allow a shroud of secrecy behind which people can do bad things, sometimes terrible things, with no accountability.”

On the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, he went on to boast that he would

“take concrete steps to force the pace.”

Sadly, those concrete steps have been smashed up. Just two months ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies are “not committed” to a public register of beneficial ownership:

“The United Kingdom is leading the way in respect of a public register of beneficial ownership, but other countries, including the overseas territories, are not committed to that.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2016; Vol. 606, c. 815.]

As many Members have said, is now not the time for the Government to insist that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies take the action necessary? To what extent will that be on the agenda for the summit, and will the summit agree a timetable to force those jurisdictions to publish central public registers of beneficial ownership? Not to do so would surely mean that the summit fails the test set for it by reasonable people. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley asked, which overseas territories and Crown dependencies will attend the summit?

Very quickly—I appreciate that the Minister will want time to sum up—as well as action on beneficial ownership, which is vital, we want action on tax reporting. It has been disappointing, given the summit’s aims and the Chancellor’s stated support, that past proposals in the European Parliament calling for published country-by-country reporting by companies of the details of where they earn their money and pay taxes have been defeated by Conservative MEPs. Does he not agree that it is now time for the Government to deliver on their promise to introduce country-by-country reporting for multinational companies, and can he tell us what progress will be made on that at the summit? My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking discussed money laundering. I will not go over that because of time, but again, will the Minister respond to those issues and detail what response we can expect at the summit?

The Minister has been asked a number of questions that I hope he can answer. As I said, we welcome the summit. We want concrete action on registers with respect to overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The Government can force action. There is a degree of consensus across the House, but when Governments tolerate large-scale tax avoidance by big corporations and the wealthy and fail to address legitimate concerns about tax havens, it is our constituents, public services and some of the poorest people in the world who suffer. If we refuse to act, we create the conditions for the inaction of others. The Government have an opportunity to show leadership at the summit; they must not squander it.

Local Government: Ethical Procurement

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I suppose I will start where the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) left off—why we are having this debate. Well, we are having the debate because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) asked for it, and I congratulate him on that. He spoke with his typical eloquence and knowledge of the situation—eloquence and knowledge that I have been familiar with since I was a teenager listening to his speeches when he came to the Mechanics Institute in Manchester in the mid-’90s.

I have followed my hon. Friend’s career closely ever since. I think I speak for everybody in thanking him for securing the debate, but the reality is that we should not be having the debate in this Chamber; we should be having it in the main Chamber—and not on the initiative of an Opposition Member through the usual processes and channels or as a result of the Backbench Business Committee; I wonder whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh East was hinting at that. We should be having this debate because the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who announced the policy at the Conservative party conference and then again on a trip to Israel, should have given the House the courtesy of coming to the House, outlining his change in procurement policy and allowing hon. Members to question him.

I entirely appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who said that there had been a number of changes to procurement policies over the years. I do not doubt that she is right: she is a former Cabinet Office Minister and is very experienced, but other experienced Members know that Members on both sides of the argument have sincerely held views and those experienced Members appreciate that the issues are sensitive. Given that, the Paymaster General should have come to this House to announce the shift in Government policy and allowed us all to question him.

The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was lucky enough to be on a delegation with the Paymaster General in Israel. At that time, the Paymaster General may well have been happy to answer questions about what the issue meant for Government policy and for the Palestinians. Well done! We are pleased that the hon. Gentleman got that opportunity, but everybody else in the House should have that opportunity, too. That is why Members on both sides of the Chamber will want to hear the Minister answer a number of questions; it is a pleasure to see him in his place. I will not take up too much time with my remarks, because I know that Members are anxious to hear the Minister’s response. I want to give him ample opportunity to answer satisfactorily the questions of my hon. Friends and colleagues.

[Robert Jenrick]

When I came back from Israel, I assumed that there might be an urgent question in the House on the issue. Did the shadow Minister request an urgent question?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

It is not for me to criticise Mr Speaker and his team of Deputy Speakers on the selection of urgent questions. That is not in order—is it, Mr Streeter?

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Certainly not.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

But I have a suspicion that Members requested urgent questions.

[Robert Jenrick]

Did you?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

It is not in order to criticise Mr Speaker when he grants or does not grant an urgent question, so far as I am aware.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Would that be a no?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman makes his usual witty sedentary contribution, but let us get back to the substance of the issue.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, there has been a conflation in what the Government are hinting at about our relations with Israel. They seem to be suggesting that we need to clarify the rules on procurement because, according to them as far as we can tell, the procurement rules are not clear and we need better guidance on whether local authorities are allowed to procure and not be in contravention of the various World Trade Organisation rules. Is it the view of the Cabinet Office that the guidelines were vague and that proceedings were taken to the WTO about local authorities making decisions in contravention of those guidelines? How many proceedings have been taken?

The reality is that this is more about politics. When the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General announced the policy at the Conservative party conference, he said that it would

“prevent…playground politics undermining our international security.”

Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield highlighted, in the briefings, the editors’ notes and the suggestions to the newspapers, and so on, councils such as Leicester City Council and Tower Hamlets Borough Council were being highlighted. Those councils were not making decisions about Israel as a nation; they were responding to the illegal settlements in the occupied west bank. It was not about the nation of Israel; it was about illegal settlements, which the Government recognise and accept are illegal settlements.

When the Paymaster General says that this is “playground politics” and that he is taking the decision in order not to undermine international security, why, as Members have said, does guidance on the FCO website talk of the risks of trade with the illegal settlements? The guidance discourages such trade, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said. What discussions has the Minister for the Cabinet Office had with the relevant Foreign Office Ministers on this matter? If he really believes that this is undermining international security, how does he sleep at night when he sees that guidance on the FCO’s website?

As the hon. Members for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and for Edinburgh East, our colleagues from north of the border, told us, the Scottish Government, in procurement notices of last year, or two years ago,

“strongly discourages trade and investment from illegal settlements”.

Is the Minister for the Cabinet Office saying that the Scottish Government are undermining international security? Is that really the view of the Paymaster General? Is this not about democracy at local level, as various Opposition colleagues have said, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)? Is it not ironic that all this comes from the Government who talk of and celebrate localism and from a Prime Minister who told us:

“When one-size-fits-all solutions are dispensed from the centre, it’s not surprising they…fail local communities”?

In 2009, the Prime Minister told us that

“We’re going to trust local authorities”.

How are these decisions trusting of local authorities?

Is it not right that local councils should make such decisions and be accountable to the people who elect them? Leicester City Council, the area I represent, made its decisions in 2014—the Government always quote Leicester City Council in the newspapers—and the councillors who put those decisions to the council chamber stood for election in 2015. They were re-elected with people knowing about those decisions on trade with illegal settlements in the west bank, not trade with Israel. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) knows Leicester well.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend is right; the issue is not just about the content and the context of the decision made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Government seem to be saying that it is completely out of order for local government to have any regard to ethical or valid policy considerations when it comes to procurement or supply. Yet when we passed the Modern Slavery Bill in the last Parliament, this House improved the Bill and the Government, against their first position, accepted the need to include responsibility for supply chains and procurement in the Bill. How can we legislate for that in the private sector and then abolish it for local government?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I will speed up, because I know that people want to put points to the Minister and want him to answer. Will he tell us what “severe penalties” he has in mind for local authorities if they do not follow through on the regulations? Given the scepticism about what the regulations actually mean, will he answer my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and tell us whether the guidance actually changes the law in any way? Will he answer the six questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield?

Will the Minister confirm that the guidance is simply restating existing law that states that public bodies cannot refuse to award contracts to companies purely because of their nationality? Will he confirm whether the Government think it is still lawful for public bodies to refuse to award contracts to companies for reasons other than nationality, such as their human rights record, compliance with international law or connection with trade such as the arms trade or fossil fuels?

The Paymaster General talked about “playground politics.” Well, there are many in this House who take these issues extremely seriously and who have sincerely held views on both sides of the argument. When the Paymaster General talks about playground politics, perhaps he should look a little closer to home.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman can make that intervention in the parliamentary Labour party meeting later this afternoon, because I understand that that is the official Labour party policy.

Let me say a few words about devolution. As we recover from the recession and look to the future, it is clear that economic progress cannot come from London alone. One of the most striking achievements of the past five years is that the recovery has come from every part of our country. Businesses have created 2 million jobs over the past five years. Before 2010, only one in three jobs was created outside London and the south-east; now the figure is three in every five.

Where are exports growing fastest in the country? Is it in London? No, it is in the north-east, the home region of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and myself. Where in England has the largest trade surplus? Is it London, or the south-east? No, it is the north-east again. Where is employment rising fastest? Is it in the south-east? No, it is in the north-west of England. For Britain to succeed, every part of the country must be firing on all cylinders.

That requires that we ask every city, town and county what they need to prosper. No two places are the same —Manchester cannot be confused with Margate, nor Newcastle with Newquay—so it should be obvious that a central plan for everywhere will end up working nowhere. For decades, however, that is exactly what central Government Departments tried to do; they prescribed blanket solutions for diverse local problems, which were enforced through unaccountable and expensive regional bureaucracies.

During the last Parliament, we made great strides towards reversing the failures of centralisation by devolving powers on planning, housing and economic growth. The Chancellor has already set out a bold vision for building the northern powerhouse, and this Budget will take us further.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to devolving powers to the regions. However, in the last Parliament Conservative Ministers made a commitment to deliver the electrification of the midland main line. Why will the Government not get on with that, because it would be good for the east midlands economy?

[Greg Clark]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that that project is very important, and we are committed to it. However, to the regret of, I think, every Member, it has been necessary to pause it, to ensure that it can be done according to prudent budgetary principles. Nevertheless, the Transport Secretary has made it absolutely clear that such transport projects are very important for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

That is useful and I regard it as a step forward. I hope the hon. Lady is able to remain in place after the leadership election. Let me explain why. With all respect to her, being on the campaign team of a Blairite in the Labour leadership election probably makes the prospects of the ostrich pretty good in terms of species survival, so I wish her well for the future.

The Labour party has ducked the real issue, which is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have offered genuine devolution of power to local authorities. The issue is not so much about the badge on the top of the tin, although there is a good reason for a single focal point in city areas. It is hugely important to remember that we have offered that to Cornwall too, and we are starting to see the good work of city deals rolled out to the shire counties. That should be applauded. The ability to join up adult social care, one of the principal cost pressures on top tier authorities, with the health service should be applauded by everybody in the House, not greeted with the rather curmudgeonly response that has come from Opposition Members.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman has moved on, but may I extend an invitation to him to come to Leicester where we have an elected mayor? The opponents of that are members of the Leicester Conservative association.

[Robert Neill]

I believe there is a Blairite in Leicester. It might be too difficult for me to go up there.

It is sad that the key issues are being missed. We ought to be prepared to work across the House on opportunities to improve the offer available to local government. Whether Opposition Members like it or not, a good deal of work was done under the coalition Government and more is being done now to hand power down to local communities. That is a good thing in itself. It must be right to give significant economic drivers—London and the other major cities—the power to raise revenue and invest it more for themselves. Could we go further? I think we should, but we should recognise this as a very important first start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), I shall start by making a few observations about the state of the public finances.

When the Chancellor delivered his Budget speech last week it struck me that that was the fifth time he has had to come to this House and admit he has got his targets on balancing the books wrong. We all recall that in 2010 the Chancellor promised to balance the books by 2015; he failed. Just two months ago the Conservative party’s manifesto told us it would balance the books by 2018-19, yet just two months later the Chancellor came to the House and told us he is now going to balance the books by 2019-20. That effectively means that since the March Budget the Chancellor has pencilled in £18 billion more in borrowing, and he is balancing the books by 2020 by changing the profile of his public spending cuts and increasing taxes by £6.5 billion. These were not figures we heard much of in the general election campaign.

Although the Chancellor is smoothing out these public spending cuts, they are still deep. Public expenditure will have been cut by a third since 2010. By 2019-20 we will have seen £19 billion in cuts and we know that a large proportion of the cuts will fall on local government. Leicester city council is expected to find £54 million in savings per year over the next few years. It faces deep cuts but it will have to pick up the pieces of a deeply regressive Budget.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Would the hon. Gentleman support the Leicester and Leicestershire combined authority’s bid that is currently with the Secretary of State?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Of course I would support Leicester and Leicestershire working together. We have a mayor in Leicester. I am sad that Leicester Conservatives oppose that. I hope the hon. Gentleman will support me in the campaign to get the Government to deliver on their promise on midland main line electrification, which they have broken, as he knows.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Given that Network Rail’s board minutes from March made reference to

“decisions required jointly with the DfT re enhancement deferrals from June”

does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers need to come clean about when they actually decided to shelve that vital investment in our region?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She will recall the Chancellor coming to Derby in February to launch his long-term economic plan for the midlands, one point of which was that the Tories would deliver electrification of the midland main line. The fact that they have now shelved it and there is nothing in the Red Book about when they are going to bring it back on track—excuse the pun—is an absolute disgrace and the Government are letting down the people of the east midlands.

I was talking about tax credits, and let me make it clear that I cannot support a Budget that spends £1 billion giving an inheritance tax cut to some of the richest estates in the country while cutting deeply into tax credits. In Leicester, the diverse city I represent, larger families are very typical and we are going to see further cuts to tax credits, which I fear will increase the already severe child poverty in our city.

A small change to tax credits that has not been remarked upon is the decrease in the income disregard, and I am worried about what it might mean. Conservative Members may recall that in 2002-03 this measure was brought in to deal with the overpayments that were plaguing the system. The problem might not now arise as the Government’s IT systems may have been updated, but I will be interested to know whether Ministers are confident that this small change to tax credits will not lead to the overpayment problems we had in 2002-03.

The increase in the national minimum wage—it is not a living wage, despite what the Chancellor told us at the Dispatch Box—was a bit of a conjuring trick. It was a bit of semantic prestidigitation from the Chancellor—[Laughter.] I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) that we are intellectuals in Leicester—perhaps it is not the same in Hartlepool. He should just ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). It was a conjuring trick by the Chancellor—I will stick to that terminology—because he said he was increasing the living wage. It was an increase in the national minimum wage for over-25s—that is a pay increase and of course we would welcome it—but it will be interesting to see what happens to the Chancellor’s gamble on whether the jobs market can withstand that increase and we will watch that carefully. That increase, however, is not going to make up for these tax credits cuts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that that is—

[Alison Thewliss]

rose—

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I hope the hon. Lady does not mind, but I am not going to give way. The IFS said that that is arithmetically impossible. So when the Chancellor tried to pretend that by increasing the minimum wage he is compensating for the loss of tax credits, it was a complete conjuring trick.

I wish to make a couple of final points about trade, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool talked about persuasively. I agree that we need to do more to increase trade. I am particularly concerned about our trade with India, because we now export less to India than we did in 2010, despite the Government’s rhetoric. I am particularly worried about the state of the global economy. Our current account deficit has widened to 5.9% of GDP, the OBR says that we have the largest annual peacetime deficit since at least the 1830s and we are £367 billion short of the £1 trillion goal on exports. Higher education is a great export of ours, which is why I am deeply disappointed, yet again, by the rhetoric from the Business Secretary telling international students that they should not come to this country to study. For a city such as Leicester, which has two universities and benefits from international students, that is very damaging. [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is shaking his head, but those were the remarks of the Business Secretary so he should have a word with him.

We know that there is a hiatus in global trade, with commodity prices falling. In the foreign affairs debate during our consideration of the Gracious Speech, I spoke about the problems of China and warned of the frenzies on the Chinese stock market, with millions of Chinese borrowing money that they cannot repay to invest in what they think will be one-way bets. Last Thursday, the Chinese stock market came to a juddering halt. After just three weeks, investors have lost $3 trillion; there has been a 30% fall in China’s stock market, with a loss in value equivalent to the UK’s economic output in the last years. That could deter investor confidence across the Asian nations. We have also seen weakness in the US economy. Investing in China is not a one-way bet. Of course I support the Chancellor’s move to sign up Britain to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, but we will be foolish if we think that investing in China is a one-way bet.

Given these global headwinds—not just in Greece but in China—the weakness in the American economy and falling commodity prices, this Budget was a missed opportunity. In this Budget we should have seen more investment in manufacturing, in higher education, and in science and research and development. Given what we are seeing on the world stage, this Budget may well be considered politically clever for a Chancellor trying to move into No. 10 Downing Street, but I fear it has left Britain ill-prepared in an increasingly uncertain world.

Autumn Statement

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend has been a great champion for Plymouth—I have visited some of the economic developments taking place there with him—including for better rail services, and the work on how to improve those services is under way because of his interventions. In addition, there are now major improvements on roads into the south-west. There was never any investment into the south-west when there was a Labour MP representing his constituency. This is all proof that Conservatives in the area are champions for the south-west and are delivering for the region.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

The Chancellor asked in 2010 that we judge him on whether he balanced the books by 2015, and he is set to fail that test. Will he explain why, compared with March, he has had to revise up borrowing for this year and next by £12.5 billion?

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman, like the shadow Chancellor, neglects to say that borrowing has been revised down for the following three years of the forecast and that the structural deficit continues to fall at the same rate. The problem for Labour is that it has been parading around the television studios for the past two weeks saying, “Wait for the autumn statement and the big deterioration in the public finances.” Unfortunately for them, it has not happened. That is the problem with a shadow Chancellor who keeps staking the credibility of the Labour party on his terrible economic predictions.

Childcare Payments Bill

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Some 1.9 million working families will have access to the scheme. Of those, 1.25 million will have qualifying child care costs and will benefit under the scheme. As I will explain, more families will benefit under this new scheme than currently benefit from employer-supported child care vouchers.

Of course, for some families there is no choice about who should look after the children, because the parent or parents have to go to work, and must therefore arrange child care. It is worth reminding Members that the research shows that this issue has had, and continues to have, a disproportionate impact on women. The Women’s Business Council, which has done an excellent job in its first year in drawing attention to the barriers women face and suggesting changes to help remove them, has frequently pointed to the way in which child care costs can have an undue impact on women’s careers. Recent survey data from the Department for Education show that more than half of mothers in the United Kingdom who are not in paid work would prefer to be in paid work if they could arrange reliable, convenient, affordable and good-quality child care.

We need to think about what is at stake, not just for the mothers whose careers are held back, and not just for the many fathers who are primary carers and experience the same problems, but for our economy. If we can equalise the labour force participation rates of men and women, the United Kingdom can further increase growth by 0.5% per year. That will be a huge change which could make a real difference to our families and our economy.

Hon. Members will know that the Government have already taken action on this matter. We have funded 15 hours a week of free child care for all three and four-year-olds, which is available to all families, including those where a parent is not working. We have funded 15 hours a week of free child care for the 20% of two-year-olds who are most disadvantaged. From this September, we are extending that offer to about 40% of two-year-olds.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that I am going to have to leave to pick up my own children from child care. Will the Minister confirm that a lot of parents who need access to child care help need it now, and that it was a mistake on the part of the Government, back in 2011, to reduce the child care support that was available when they made cuts to working tax credit?

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree that families need support now. I have been setting out exactly what we have done in extending to 15 hours a week the free child care available for all three and four-year-olds, as well as for disadvantaged two-year-olds. On working tax credit, let me point out that the Government are spending £1.1 billion on the child care element of tax credits each year, so many families are still, rightly, receiving a huge amount of support through the tax credit system. We are proposing an enhancement of the child care offer that we already have.

We are taking action to drive up the supply of high-quality child care provision by legislating for childminder agencies, encouraging primary schools to open for longer, and reducing bureaucracy and red tape for providers—all steps that should help to drive supply up and costs down.

The Bill represents a further step towards helping hard-working families. We are committed to launching the scheme next autumn and rolling it out to all eligible families with children under 12 within the first year of its operation.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Before Members make their address, they should answer this question for the general public to hear—do they agree to use the OBR to examine the tax and spending policies of the major political parties? If Members are against that, they should tell the public. That is seen by the OBR, the Treasury Committee and the House as the main purpose of the exercise. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) said he would do away with the OBR, but that is what the OBR does for the Government. If Members are moved by the non-existent Chancellor and the speeches from the Government Front Bench, they should ask what they are being talked into. They are being talked into reducing the ability of the general public to take informed decisions on the economic policies of the political parties—all political parties—at general election time.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is speaking with his typical eloquence. Is it not the case that for all the arguments that we have heard about what Mr Chote may or may not have said and all the arguments about timing and what Bills can or cannot be brought before Parliament, Tory Front Benchers do not want the proposal to be implemented because they put Tory party interest ahead of the national interest?

[Mr Mudie]

I follow my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor in not wishing to inflame matters or become party political. We are speaking about an issue that is very important to the general public and a first step to giving Back-Bench Members an input into Budgets, as the Americans, the Dutch and other Parliaments do, whereas we are simply used as voting fodder when a Chancellor presents a Budget. This is a first step and it is an important step.

It is outrageous that we are turning the motion down to protect the OBR. Members should not allow the Government to hide behind the OBR or to besmirch and lessen the reputation of Robert Chote. Robert Chote and his colleagues have carried out extremely important work. Their forecasts are not always right, but they make them sincerely and within the finite probabilities. The OBR is a very important institution. When it was first established, I thought the Chancellor had taken an extremely significant step, though not a big enough one.

Sadly, the Minister and some of my colleagues on the Treasury Committee have taken quotes out of Robert Chote’s letter of January and the minutes of the March meeting of the Treasury Committee. That should not be done. Robert Chote was asked by the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee:

“Can I begin by asking you, do you in principle support the OBR having a role in the costing of political parties’ manifestos in the run-up to an election?”

Robert Chote replied:

“Yes, I do.”

He went on to say that this route

“does offer the prospect of improving the quality of policy development for individual parties and it potentially improves the quality of public debate in the run-up to an election”.

The Chairman, putting his finger on the real issue, which is time, asked Mr Chote:

“Do you think that you could get this job done between now and the general election?”

Mr Chote replied:

“It would be difficult but by no means impossible”

and he spelled out that the decisions to enable the OBR to do that must be taken by this summer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I know Kettering very well as I pass it on the Midland main line up to my constituency twice a week. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the increase in jobs shows that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working. As I said, the job is not yet done, there are always risks to our economy, and we need to build a sustainable, strong economic recovery that benefits everyone, including everyone living in Kettering.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Chancellor promised to balance the books, but is going to fail; he promised to deal with debt, but is failing; he promised to maintain triple A ratings, but he failed; and when it comes to the jobs market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, it is increasingly characterised by low pay, squeezed wages and zero-hours contracts?

[Nicky Morgan]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor promised to fix the British economy, which is what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman might remember that the last Chancellor promised to abandon boom and bust, and we know where that got us.

HMRC Inquiry Centre Closures

Jonathan Ashworth Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. This debate focuses on the Government’s proposals to close all HMRC inquiry centres in the UK. Inquiry centres provide a vital public service, allowing taxpayers to access free expert advice from highly skilled HMRC staff. In 2012, some 2.5 million people visited those offices, where they could take advantage of free phone and internet access, and 340,885 of those customers made a face-to-face appointment to get help complying with their tax duties and receive advice on their benefit entitlement.

Last month, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs announced that a “needs enhanced support” service model would be rolled out, resulting in the closure of all 281 HMRC offices by the end of June 2014. The taxpayers most likely to be prevented from accessing the proposed new service as a result of the cost are the unemployed, those on low incomes such as migrant workers and pensioners, and child benefit and child tax credit claimants. Such taxpayers rely heavily on the free service currently provided by HMRC staff at inquiry centres.

The closures will also put the 1,300 jobs of those who work in the centres at risk as a result of compulsory redundancies. Staff in the offices are faced with an impossible decision about their future as the Department rushes to implement the closure of the offices in four short months.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I apologise for coming in to the Chamber a few minutes late. My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. One of the offices affected is in Leicester, where a number of staff jobs are now at risk. Does he agree that the Government must put in the time to negotiate properly with the workplace unions, particularly the Public and Commercial Services Union, and do all they can to ensure that if they insist on closing the offices—although I hope they do not—the staff will be redeployed?

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that closing 280-odd offices—the service is provided up and down the country—will cause huge problems, mainly for people who are least well off but also, of course, for the staff themselves.