Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
Debate between Josh Fenton-Glynn and Mel Stride(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for that passionate intervention. The best way to get people out of poverty is through work. To the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the record of the last Government was exemplary. We had 4 million more jobs, and 800 new jobs every day under the last Conservative Government.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Were I not sat in a different place, I would be feeling déjà vu, because this appears to be the same debate that we had on the Budget just a week or so ago when I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the problem we have is that two thirds of children growing up in poverty have a parent in work, when it was a third before the last Government got in. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, like to, first, apologise for that and, secondly, reflect on why work was not a route out of poverty under his Government?
Sir Mel Stride
I just ask the hon. Gentleman what he thinks the effect of increasing taxes on hard-working people does for poverty. Any economist will say it drives poverty up.
There is also the question of the farm tax, with the changes under the inheritance tax regime. In the run-up to the general election, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, then in his shadow position, looked the National Farmers Union president Tom Bradshaw in the eye and said that, at least on that count, farmers had nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. Well, that lasted about five minutes before they changed and the Chancellor changed her position. That will cause untold misery to farmers up and down our country. It will mean that farms that have been passed down generation to generation over many years will now fall into the tax net and potentially have to be broken up.
Budget Resolutions
Debate between Josh Fenton-Glynn and Mel Stride(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is precisely right. I have set out the iniquitous impacts of the reduction of the national insurance threshold on younger people, as well as the impact that the Employment Rights Bill will have by increasing the risks of employing younger people. That is self-evident and obvious, and businesses are saying it over and over again. If an employer is put in a position where he is faced with a young person who has no career track record, and the Government’s legislation says that on day one the employee can take that employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal—a claim that may get clogged up for two years, and for which the lawyers advising the employer will probably conclude that he should give in and pay out, even if the merits of the case do not warrant it—that is a recipe for higher youth unemployment. It is simple; it is basic economics.
Look at the taxes in the Budget placed on rental income. Do Labour Members not realise that that will lead to higher rents and fewer properties on the market? Do they not understand that if the family home is taxed, we will catch a lot of people who may be asset rich but are income poor? I suppose the solution will be to allow that liability to roll up and be paid on death—yet another death tax at the hands of this Government.
What is all this pain and taxation paying for? In large part, it is paying for more welfare—it is as simple as that. Scrapping the two-child cap is a mistake and it is unfair, because those who are paying taxes, working hard and doing the right thing have to take tough choices as to whether they can afford a larger family or not. It is quite right and proper that those who are on benefits should face similar choices.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the majority of people impacted by this uplift, and two-thirds of children in poverty, have a parent in work. The false dichotomy of those in work and out of work is simply incorrect, and as a former Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, he should know that.
Sir Mel Stride
I have already set out the fact that this Government’s ruinous taxation policy, including in the Budget yesterday, is to load up taxes on people who are in work, many of them not high earners. The impact of that tax is the reason why the OBR has concluded that for every year of this forecast, real household disposable income—in other words, the cost of living issues people are facing—will deteriorate compared with the forecast back in spring. The Labour party is making poverty worse by making sure that work does not pay to the degree that it should.
The other point to make is about inflation. If the Government run a policy of borrowing vast amounts of money and spending half a trillion pounds over and above the plans that they inherited across this Parliament— that was added to by more than £100 billion just yesterday—we should not be surprised if inflation is the highest in the G7, or if the International Monetary Fund says that it will be the highest in the G7 next year. What does high inflation, particularly on food, do to poverty? It drives poverty up, and therein lie the answers that the Government need to think about.
There is an alternative, which is to get on top of and control Government spending and to do the responsible thing. Our golden rules is that at least half of those savings should go towards driving down the deficit and the debt, but we would then have capacity to drive down taxes as well. That is exactly what we set out at our conference: £49 billion of savings, and £23 billion of savings on welfare. Thanks to the solid commendable work of my hon. Friend the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, we have found those savings, and it is a tragedy that the Government—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury says, “What are the savings?” The savings are £23 billion on welfare—[Interruption.] It is a number. As a member of the Treasury team, he should be familiar with numbers, but clearly he is not.
We will be bringing down the welfare bill, and the savings are clear. I direct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to the paper from the Centre for Social Justice, which makes it clear—[Interruption.] Well, it is rather better than the Resolution Foundation stuff that he produced, I have to say. The paper from the Centre for Social Justice makes it clear that by changing the gateways into longer-term sickness and health benefits, which we did when we were in office—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman stops jabbering and starts listening, he might actually learn something, and that might be for the good of his party and this country.
When we were in office, we made reforms to the work capability assessment that, according to the OBR’s own scoring, would have seen 450,000 fewer people going on to those benefits. We were making a real difference in arresting the rise of the welfare bill. What did the Government do on coming to office? They scrapped those measures on day one. They then came forward with their own proposals—[Interruption.] I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury gets to his feet later he will address this, and talk us through what happened to his Government’s attempt to control the welfare bill. It got smashed into a million pieces on the rocks of his own Back Benchers—that is what happened. That is the tragedy of much of this Budget: the economics are being driven by the internal politics of the Labour party. We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor whose position is now so precarious that they have to bob up and down like a cork on the tide when it comes to making policy at the whims of Labour Back Benchers.
There is a certain melancholy about this Budget. It is like groundhog day; an old song, with the words seared into the collective mind. A socialist anthem for all time:
“That for he who has, then that must be taken away.
For he who has not, then to him must be given.”
That is not on the basis of any measure of fairness, as suggested in the topic for debate today, but rather on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Economics is about resources, of course, but it is also about incentives. To he who has, I say this: if you work hard we applaud you, and we will incentivise you to work harder still, recognising your contribution to the common good. To the vulnerable we say this: we are there for you. But to others who have not we say this: here is not a hand out, but the means for improvement.
For the socialist, Madam Deputy Speaker, distribution is all, and the means are never sufficiently willed. The eternal lesson—also the lesson of this Budget—is that that path leads all to be diminished. An economy laden with debt, with Government spending spiralling still and taxation touching skyward, will never burn bright. The whole will never grow. It is not enough—it will languish. That is how the dreams of millions perish. Yesterday, the lingering flickers of hope died.
Taxes
Debate between Josh Fenton-Glynn and Mel Stride(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mel Stride
If the hon. Gentleman looks at absolute poverty after housing costs, he will find very significant reductions for children, pensioners and across the piece during the vast majority of our time in office.