European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Debate between Liam Byrne and John Redwood(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden).
I begin by associating myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). I wish that I was not engaged in this debate tonight. I wish that we were not having to clear up this mess. I wish that the former right hon. Member for Witney had not cut and run but was here to help us to dig our way out of this hole. I am not surprised that he left, because he offered us a political strategy that was based on the ethos and ethics of the Bullingdon club: smash up the place, put some cash on the table, and leave it to others to clear up. I am not sure where the cash is—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) knows, we appear to be half a trillion pounds further in debt than we were in 2010. Although I wish that we were not starting from this point, the people have voted. This is a democracy and I will respect the decision that was taken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) hit the nail absolutely on the head. The people of this country did not vote for a plan or a blueprint. They did not vote to lose their jobs and they did not vote based on the full truth on the table. Indeed, the campaign was terrible, bedevilled with lies about what money would be saved and what money would be spent. There was, though, a vote to make Parliament sovereign, and we should start now by making sure that Parliament is sovereign over the plan. This must be the first debate of many, and tomorrow and in the coming days we will have the first votes of many. We will ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and his colleagues to come back to the House so that we can check whether they have got the answers right and their strategy sound.
As the Secretary of State sets about the negotiations, I want to ensure that three things are uppermost in his mind. First, we have to ensure that those who lose out from Brexit are helped and supported. We all know that there are people who will be battered and bruised by the Brexit process—there is no point pretending otherwise—but let us make sure that a plan is in place to support them. They are not the rich; they are the poor. As has been argued, they are the people whose tax credits have been frozen. As a result of that and the higher inflation that is now cursing fuel and food, they will be £620 a year worse off by the time of the next election. We need a plan for making sure that we do not waste £1 billion on corporate tax cuts by 2020. Let us use that money to unlock the freeze on benefits.
John Redwood
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we have been the fastest-growing G7 economy for the whole of the past year, with an acceleration in the second half, and why wages are up—real wages are up—and things are looking good?
Liam Byrne
I know that experts are no longer in fashion among Conservative Members, but the Office for Budget Responsibility is clear that, because of higher inflation, people on tax credits will be poorer, not richer, over the next couple of years. I genuinely believe that the Brexit Secretary does want to protect hard-working families, but let us see him put his money where his mouth is by arguing with the Chancellor in favour of unfreezing tax credits over the next couple of years. That should be our priority.
Secondly, we need a real plan to protect manufacturing in this country. We must recognise that manufacturing output has not yet recovered to its level before the crash. The car industry in regions such as mine in the west midlands employs 49,000 people today, but it will be destroyed if we have to rely on WTO tariffs of 10%, and if we add another 10% to costs by building a border to check the 60% of parts that we import to build the cars that are created in this country. Whatever deal is put in place, it must put manufacturing first.
Thirdly, we must ensure that there is no race to the bottom on rights—on workers’ rights, social rights and the rights of minorities. We have already seen the briefing that has come out from a No. 10 source that the Conservatives’ 2020 manifesto will propose exiting the European convention on human rights—that great European Magna Carta that we in this country helped to draw up after the war to stop any return to the holocaust that we marked last week. How can we possibly contemplate leaving that convention and joining the company of Putin’s Russia? I hope that, over the course of these debates, we will hear a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no exit from the convention on human rights.
Finally, although tests are looming on how we protect those battered and bruised by Brexit, how we defend manufacturing, and how we ensure that there is no race to the bottom on rights, the spirit of these negotiations is important. I have to accept that we will leave a federal Europe, but I believe that now could be the start of a confederal project in which we begin to step up our collaboration with our neighbours on security, jobs, international development, science—the things that we can do together in the world. In this debate, it is so important now that we do not listen to the devils and demons of division. Now is the time for the Government to listen to the better angels of our nature.
Jobs and Social Security
Debate between Liam Byrne and John Redwood(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that only just over two in every hundred people referred to the Work Programme in its first year have gone into work; further notes that it has delivered a worse outcome than no programme at all; recognises that long term unemployment is soaring and that the welfare bill is projected to be £20 billion higher than planned; notes with concern that the Government is cutting £14 billion from tax credits and is taking £6.7 billion from disability benefits to pay for this cost of failures; and calls on the Government to implement a bank bonus tax to fund a Real Jobs Guarantee for young people and commission a cumulative impact assessment of disability benefit changes.
Our debate takes place in the shadow of the Chancellor’s winter statement next week. It is clear that a winter of misery lies ahead. The Chancellor has already had to revise up the cost of welfare spending for this Parliament by an eye-watering £20 billion, and now, after yesterday’s brutal exposure of the Work programme, we know a great deal more about who is to blame.
We already knew that the Chancellor had done his level best to throttle the recovery. He has cut so far and so fast that we have now been landed with the longest double-dip recession since the war; and our economy is so fragile that the Governor of the Bank of England has warned that we might lapse into another recession this year; but what we did not know until yesterday was just how badly let down the Chancellor, the Cabinet and our constituents have been by the complete inability of the Department for Work and Pensions to get our country back to work. No wonder the Chancellor is tearing strips off the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in Cabinet.
All over Britain, businesses and families are busting a gut to do anything and everything to find work. Some 60% of jobs created since the election have either been part-time or self-employed, and, amidst all that strain and effort, we might have expected a little more support and a little more of a helping hand from the DWP. Yesterday, however, we discovered that it has done worse than nothing. Ministers swept into office promising the biggest-ever scheme to help people back to work, but yesterday we heard, not the hype, but the reality. It has been trying to hide these figures for more than a year, and yesterday we found out why: the Work programme has proved precisely as useful as doing absolutely nothing—in fact, worse than nothing.
When the DWP went out to market to ask contractors to come forward and help with the task, it said, in its documents, that it could expect about 5% of people on long-term benefits to make it into work under their own steam each year. That is why it set itself a target of outperforming doing nothing by 10%—not a high bar—but somehow it managed to set a target as low as possible and miss it. It is right, therefore, that the House highlights, not just this failure, but the soaring cost of failure, which our constituents will now have to help pay down.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some positive ideas on what improvements could be made? I am sure that all people of good will in the House want more people to get back to work and will recognise that this large welfare spending needs to be used in a way that encourages them.
Universal Credit and Welfare Reform
Debate between Liam Byrne and John Redwood(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Byrne
Let me start with precisely that risk. We were told when universal credit was first proposed that the IT costs would be in the order of £2 billion. Some £200 million was taken off for subsidies for another problem with child care created by the Secretary of State’s friend, the Chancellor. The former Minister responsible for unemployment, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), before he departed for the Ministry of Justice, said that the cost had spiralled to £2.1 billion. Already, two years in, the project is £100 million over budget and we learned yesterday that universal credit, when it is introduced and fully rolled out in 2017, will demand an extra £3.1 billion in welfare payments each year. That was the figure that the Department for Work and Pensions gave to the Office for Budget Responsibility in July last year.
Yesterday, however, the Secretary of State told the House that he had agreed to a Treasury target of £2.5 billion, wiping £600 million off tax credits by so-called policy designs. Where on earth is that money going to come from? It is, I am afraid, a mystery. It is a mystery shrouded in further questions about whether people will be better off in work when universal credit is introduced. What on earth is going to happen to free school meals, which are worth £410 million a year to families in many of our constituencies and are a vital lifeline every week? The Children’s Society says that if universal credit integrates free school meals in the wrong way, that will wipe out incentives to work for 120,000 families. What is going to happen to that budget?
Then there is the question of council tax benefit, which is worth £5 billion for 6 million households in Britain. As it turns out, we are going to get not a national scheme but a local scheme, because the Secretary of State lost his battle with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He was sat on by the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), which is a fate we would not wish on anyone. The result is that whether someone is better off in work or on benefits will depend on where they live. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that universal credit “severely undermines” the simplification.
Then there is the question of how universal credit will interact with increases in personal allowances, which were introduced with such a great fanfare over the past year or two. Last week, Gingerbread said that because universal credit is calculated on post-tax income, the lowest paid would see most of the increase in personal allowances wiped out. In fact, when universal credit is introduced, the low paid will lose two thirds of the increase in personal allowances. Somehow the Chancellor of the Exchequer forgot to tell us that when he unveiled the proposal in his last Budget.
Then there is the question of how universal credit will lock in the cuts to tax credits that hit so many of our constituents this April. Those cuts now mean, according to answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), that a couple with kids working part time—and goodness me, there are more people working part time these days—will now be more than £700 better off on benefits than in work. How on earth can that send the right signal?
Mr Redwood
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some of his ideas on how we could make it more worth while for people to work, given that all parties in the House think that that is the right aim and that it is not worth while enough at the moment?
Mr Byrne
That is very much the point of bringing the debate here today. We need from the Government transparency about the business case, which is being kept secret. Until we get to the heart of how the policy will be rolled out, until we get some answers to these basic questions, it is difficult for us to offer some constructive advice—advice we would offer for free.
Welfare Reform Bill
Debate between Liam Byrne and John Redwood(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Redwood
I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s idea; I presume that the regulator would be called Ofcap, or conceivably Doffcap. Would his party tell Doffcap that it would have exactly the same amount of money as the Government are proposing, or does he think that there ought to be more money because the amount is not really generous?
Mr Byrne
The Minister with responsibility for pensions asks what we did about it; again, in the Conservative party’s briefing for today’s debate, there are some interesting figures about the rise in housing benefit over the past few years, but of course closer inspection of the DWP forecast for the next few years shows that housing benefit is set to rise, year on year, at the same rate as in the past 13 years. That is why Labour has been right to expose the dangers of cutting investment in new housing and the lack of any policy making from the Government on what should happen to the private rental market.
This afternoon, Labour has set out its proposal for a benefit cap that will work in practice. We hope to press it to a vote and that the Government will think again about giving the other place a chance to vote on it—just to reinforce that point.
Mr Redwood
This is rightly difficult territory. I am relieved to hear that Ministers have reconsidered the transitional arrangements, and I am pleased that the Opposition welcome that. In the noise and heat of the debate, important truths are getting lost or ignored. We are not generous enough towards the disabled, and I was pleased to hear that they are completely exempted from the proposals, which should be widely welcomed across the House. The exemption of war widows, who often have very little to live on and whose former husbands sacrificed so much to help our country, is extremely welcome, as both parties in government have asked their loved ones to go into battle on our behalf.
I am also pleased to hear that anybody in work is exempted. The Government’s case revolves around something with which I believe the Labour party normally agrees: working should always be worth while. In today’s debate, there has been more heat than light. If the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party all believe that it should be more worth while to work, we need such a provision to achieve the desired effect. It comes down to the last-minute proposal that there should be some regional differentiation of the cap. We are no longer arguing for or against caps—we all now believe in that type of headgear—but Labour believes that there should be different fashions of cap across the country whereas, on the Government Benches, the passion is apparently for uniform caps.
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend is ahead of me in my argument. So far, I think I have carried an expectant and worried Labour party with me. Labour agrees with all the exemptions, agrees with the delayed transition and agrees that we need to make working worth while.
Mr Redwood
No, I like representing my constituents and I suspect that the two jobs would not be compatible. I am very grateful for the kind offer, however, and I notice that the right hon. Gentleman prefers the name Ofcap to Doffcap. As Labour has not yet put forward proposals to deal with the people it describes as fat cat landlords, I think it might well be a case of Doffcap to the landlords, as we seem to be discussing how much money we will route to the landlords through the housing benefit mechanism.
I suspect that if I strayed into the subject of proposals for the housing market and landlords, you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but perhaps that is a debate for another day. There might be common ground on how we can get better value for the public money being spent while ensuring that we do not cut off the supply of housing, which would be a very stupid thing to do by clumsy intervention. We need more housing at an affordable level for people on modest incomes.
We are talking about a group of people on very modest incomes, and it ill behoves people on decent incomes, such as Members of the House, to be too mean about it. We have the conundrum, however, that we always want to make it worth while for those people to work. We all accept that there will be a cap, but, if it is to be a regional cap, before deviating from the Government’s proposal to the Labour proposal we would need to know what Labour has in mind for the total costings and how the proposal would work fairly within an area as well as between areas.
Mr Redwood
I thought it was now common ground that for a large number of people on certain kinds of benefit, work is not worth while. We are trying to solve that problem, so despite all those things that the hon. Lady truthfully reports to the House, we still have that problem, with which both parties are wrestling. That is why the Labour party is not here today saying, “There is no problem: we are going to vote against the whole thing,” but is here with an alternative proposal at the 11th hour—the last possible chance to consider this.
Let us go back to Labour’s argument on the regional cap. If it had come with a properly costed and working proposal, I might have been sympathetic to it, but we do not yet know from Labour what is the total package of money available. We have not even been told whether it wants to live within the budget that the Government have come up with for the proposal or whether it thinks the overall proposal is too mean. If it wants to spend much more, it will not solve the “Why work?” problem because provision will become too generous again and it will have a public spending problem.
Mr Redwood
Ministers are very capable of setting out their own figures. I do not have, at the top of my mind, all the detailed figures the right hon. Gentleman wants, which are properly things for Ministers to report to the House, but they have detailed the total savings overall and they are trying to live within that budget. As has rightfully been reported to the House today, they have given up some of the savings to accommodate the transitional period. It is entirely fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a specialist, as is the Minister he shadows, to tell us how much difference there would be in his proposals. Clearly, Labour has not yet thought through what the total should be.
There is another, very difficult, issue to consider with regionalism: there are big divergences in house and flat prices within, as well as between, regions. We should recognise this point, which in some ways makes this policy a bit easier to stomach than some on the Labour Benches suggest. I heard a former Westminster councillor saying that she had done some work on the situation of families who would be caught by the cap in Westminster. Naturally I was worried and wanted to hear what her answer was. She said she had found a considerable number of properties that she thought would be suitable for those families, quite close to where they were currently living, which happened to be rather better value than those in which they were currently living, supported by benefits. That seemed rather good news to me. Members from London constituencies will know that within London there is a huge variety of cost in property—often street by street, not merely borough by borough—so I do not think the proposal is quite as penal as some on the Labour Benches suggest. That makes it quite difficult to set a regional cap because such a cap might be no more appropriate as an average than the national cap.
Mr Redwood
I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
I am conscious that others want to speak so I shall not extend my argument further. I just want to make the point that in order to consider fairly what is an interesting proposal from Labour, the minimum we would need to know is the overall cost in comparison to the Government scheme and how these difficult problems of judgment within areas or regions would be settled. That is an important consideration.
Mr Byrne
Presumably, the fact that homelessness will not be created, which is what the Secretary of State has argued over the past year, is the reason why he has had to find another £80 million—to solve a problem that does not exist. In direct answer to the challenge put by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), our amendment suggests that the right place to start this debate is by having a level for London and a level for outside London. That would begin to address the problem he is highlighting.
Mr Redwood
That is something we need to think rather more about, but unfortunately we have little time to do so. That suggestion might have been helpful, but there is also the problem of the big variety of levels within London. We need to know the extent to which the Labour party wants to validate the current high rents and whether there might be some other solution to the problem of very high rents that lies behind some of this difficulty.
The conclusion I must come to is that the best offer on this issue at this late stage is the Government’s. Something must be done to move things in the right direction and make it more worth while to work. All of us, on both sides of the House, are extremely concerned that in recent years, under both parties, although quite a lot of jobs have been generated a very large proportion of them have gone to people who have recently arrived, because they think the jobs are good enough and that the pay is high enough. There have been reasons—perhaps very good reasons—why people who are settled here and out of work have not wanted those jobs or been able to take them, but part of the answer must be that we have the wrong balance between benefit and work income, and we need to do something about that.
Living Standards
Debate between Liam Byrne and John Redwood(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Byrne
I shall give way in a moment.
The weakness in the jobs market is not abstract; it shows up in people’s pay packets. That is exactly what the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed yesterday. Earnings, it says, are now set to fall throughout the rest of this Parliament. By 2016 wages will be no higher than they were in 2001—£1,400 below their pre-crash peak—yet prices are not falling; they are rising. Prices are going up over the course of this Parliament. Wages are falling and prices are rising. That double whammy is now hurting families all over this country.
Not long ago, the Governor of the Bank of England said that we in this country now confront the worst squeeze on living standards since the 1920s. Yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the squeeze was “unprecedented”. This is the biggest fall in household income since records began. With our nation’s family budgets under such pressure, we would have thought that the Government would step in to help. Not a bit of it. Instead, working families are being asked to pick up the pieces.
Mr Redwood
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point—that a big squeeze on living standards started under his party’s Government. It is continuing under the coalition. As the forecasts make clear, a big element in that is energy and fuel prices. Does he have any proposals that the Government could adopt to tackle that problem?
Mr Byrne
We do think that Government should be doing more in the energy market to help to bring down prices. The right hon. Gentleman will, I know, feel strongly about that, because of the 6,500 families in his constituency who are now seeing cuts in tax credits.
When wages are falling and prices are rising, people would expect the Government to do more to help, but what we now have is a budget set out yesterday that tightens the squeeze on working families. Last Friday the Deputy Prime Minister blustered his way through an interview on the radio and said, once again:
“We will not balance the books…on the backs of the poorest”.
That is an old line, and today it rings pretty hollow, because that is exactly what the Government are doing.
Yesterday, the Government rejected any new tax on bankers’ bonuses. Instead, it is children, women and working parents who are picking up the tab for the Government’s failure to get people back to work.
Finance Bill
Debate between Liam Byrne and John Redwood(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of mandates. If one thing is clear in the debates that we have had in the months since the election, it is that there is absolutely no mandate for the VAT measure in the Finance Bill. I would be interested to hear how he is explaining that to his constituents.
I do not believe—nor have I heard any explanation of this—that some kind of recovery plan on the cheap could have delivered the economic recovery that is now under way. In life’s difficult moments, one is always open to advice, but the truth is that if we had followed the prescription of the Conservatives, we could have kissed goodbye to the recovery, not least because our banking system would have collapsed, the cash points would have stopped, the dole queues would have spiralled, repossessions would have spiked, and Britain’s small businesses would have been submerged beneath a wave of foreclosure, bankruptcy and liquidation.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
In August and September 2007, when I and some others were urging the Government to make more cash and liquidity available to the banking system to prevent the collapse of Northern Rock and others, why did they ignore our warning? Why did they lecture the banks about having got it wrong, instead of supplying reasonable amounts of money to see them through, and then bankrupt them as a result?
Mr Byrne
I seem to remember that the Government’s response to the banking system was opposed by the Conservatives when it came down to the substance of a vote. When legislation was brought before this House to accelerate the way in which the banks could be sorted out, the Conservatives voted against it.
In the Budget and the Finance Bill, the Conservatives should have centred their rationale on how the recovery can be sustained. In the debates on those measures, I think we have established that there is a consensus that the deficit has to come down. The price of dodging an economic doomsday was not cheap, and the deficit was bound to rise. However, when the shocks hit back in 2008, we had the second lowest debt in the G7. Between 1997 and 2007, we cut public sector debt from 42.5% of gross domestic product to 36% of GDP. Over the 10 years before the crisis, UK borrowing averaged 1.4% of GDP compared with 1.9% for the rest of the OECD economies. As a result, even amid the current expense, our national debt will simply rise in line with every other major economy.
We have learned something from the debates on the Finance Bill and the Budget about the disposition—the economic philosophy—not only of the Conservatives but of the Liberal Democrats. They may feel that the price of recovery was not a price worth paying, but they cannot ignore what economic statistics are now saying about how the recovery is improving the position of the public finances. In March, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor told the House that the deficit this year was £13 billion better than expected for 2010-11; in June, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that it was £8 billion better even than that. Since February, £123 billion has been knocked off projections for national debt, and that is before we sell our shares in the banks. The Government’s budget was underspent last year to the tune of £5 billion according to Treasury figures that we saw a week or two ago, and interest rates were falling in the months before the election.
When we examine the savings generated by falling unemployment, we can really see the wisdom of a strategy that hinges on growing our way out of recession. Our policy all along was to act to ensure that we kept unemployment down. Not only did that policy work well, and not only was it morally right, but it was economically wise. Our policy has delivered unemployment that is 2% lower than either in America or across the European Union. In the Budget in 2009, we had to assume that unemployment would stick at about 2.44 million. A year later, in the 2010 Budget, that forecast had fallen by 700,000 people to 1.74 million. That meant that over the four years from 2010 to 2013, there would have been a fall of £14 billion in the unemployment benefit bill, as well as an incalculable saving in human misery.
With that inherited recovery in place, the question that the House should ask in relation to the Finance Bill is what action should be taken to speed up the recovery. How can we guarantee the recovery’s certainty and begin to marshal investment into rebuilding an economy that is better balanced? Instead of providing any answers to those questions, the Budget and the Finance Bill will slow the recovery down and put more people on the dole. They offer a strategy for rebalancing the economy composed in equal measure of a wing and a prayer.
Nothing better illustrates the gambling instincts of this Government than the fast cuts to public sector jobs and the depression of consumer demand through VAT. With the most breathtaking casualness, they are prepared to put our hardest-fought recovery at risk. With such an unlikely scenario for growth in his pocket, one would have thought that the Chancellor might just hedge his bets a little and ensure that the private sector was creating jobs at some pace before bringing forward plans to sack up to 800,000 public servants. One might have thought that he would have some regard for cities such as my home town, Birmingham. It already has high unemployment, but if the Chancellor cuts 9% of the 156,000 public sector workers there, it will potentially rise by 14,000 people. That will not help the recovery in Birmingham; it will act as a drag anchor on recovery. That story can be told in towns and cities all over the country.
Finance Bill
Debate between Liam Byrne and John Redwood(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Redwood
That is what I am trying to explain, while remaining in order on this narrow amendment. The bottom line of my case is that motorists comprise a large category and, when polled, they say that they feel badly done by because they pay a disproportionate amount of tax and do not get much back. It is argued that motorists ought to pay more because they get the use of the roads, which are provided free at the point of use in most cases. It is not like that, however, because the bulk of the taxes levied on the motorist, including this insurance premium tax, are used for purposes other than roads and motoring. That is why motorists feel hard done by.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider carefully the general category of the motorist. I would love it if he could make a concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, but if he cannot, it would help us and the people we represent if he could say that the Government were at least aware of the bad deal that the motorist has been getting in recent years, and that, where possible, they will do something about that. As we have heard, people in rural areas have no choice; they have to use their cars. People in urban and suburban areas also have no choice at certain times of the day or at weekends. People who work antisocial hours clearly need a car. Most MPs need a car, for example, because we still work antisocial hours.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with some care. He said that motorists get only a limited amount back from the taxes that they put in. Does he therefore support arguments in favour of the greater hypothecation of taxes such as the insurance premium tax, to help to resolve that problem?
Mr Redwood
No, I do not. I am sufficiently in tune with Treasury thinking to know that all Treasuries under any Government hate hypothecation, and I understand the complication. Critics of motoring and cars often argue that motorists are walking off with all these free goods, but people have come up with lots of figures that show conclusively that, in a hypothecated way, motorists get a particularly poor deal. People now look at these issues in such a way partly because the green movement has made them do so. It has now been demonstrated that, calculated in a hypothecated way, motorists put in a lot more than they get back. I do not think that the Treasury should operate all its taxation on that basis, but it does need to take account of the mood and the politics surrounding this question, which we are here to represent.
The feeling of unfairness is now quite extreme among the motoring community, and motorists want to communicate through us the fact that they are often motorists because they have to be. There is no train to take them to the shops, for example. The train might be 2 miles away from their home so, unless they have plenty of time to walk to the station, they need to start their journey in the car and sometimes they might as well finish it in the car as well. There is often no alternative, which is why some 86% of our journey miles are carried out by car, and only some 6% by train. There is a basic necessity, which is why we need to be fair when making any tax proposals affecting motorists.
The case of private health insurance is somewhat different, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would agree. I make my declaration: I have no private health insurance, so I am not arguing my own case. I rely on the NHS, should ill health befall me, as I am sure do many other Members. However, I am not saying that some of my constituents are wrong to take out private health insurance. It is still a legal thing to do. Indeed, in a way, I feel that I am cheap-skating at their expense, because they are paying twice and I am paying only once. I pay my taxes, and if something happens to me, I hope to receive NHS care, whereas they contribute to everyone else’s NHS care through their taxes—they have no choice, of course, but some of them do it graciously—and then make the additional choice to pay for their own insurance. There is a double advantage: more money comes into the health sector, but when those people become ill they make no claim on the health service, even though they contribute to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is making a reasonable point. Given that it is not illegal to have private insurance, and that those who have it help to eke out NHS funds, should we be taxing it more? That is a very good question to raise. I shall make no stronger statement than that, but it will be interesting to see how the Treasury responds. After all, on this side of the House, we are all now big society fans and advocates—[Interruption.] Well, practically all of us, perhaps. There might be one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are not so enthusiastic about it, but I am; I think it is a great idea. The essence of the big society idea is to harness private money, voluntary effort and charitable activity, and to understand that the state cannot solve all the problems. In a complex, difficult and expensive area such as health care and related social care, we need voluntary and private contributions as top-ups, or in addition to public sector care.
This issue poses a particularly interesting question for Ministers. If they are really serious about the big society idea, do they want to increase the taxes on people who make voluntary contributions and take some of the demand away from public services? Ought they not to be encouraging people to do such things? I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s reply to these nice philosophical questions in this wonderful caring, sharing age of coalition government, in which the big society will require some erosion of the old boundaries between public and private.
Mr Byrne
It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). The strength of their contributions was in illustrating that the proposals in clause 4 raise a wide range of policy concerns and debates. Hitherto, the House has not had much explanation of the logic or rationale of all the changes set out in the clause. The arguments for some of the proposals are fairly easy to deduce, but the core of the clause is the increase in the standard rate of insurance premium tax, which has not been explained.
The lack of explanation underlines the fact that the Bill is somewhat piecemeal. It is fragmented. It is not a whole Bill; it is not even a half Bill; it is a bit of a Bill. We were told with great fanfare a few weeks ago that the Government were introducing an emergency Budget. The Bill and the clause illustrate in our debate this afternoon that the only emergency was the need to get some pretty difficult changes on to the statute book by the summer, before Liberal Democrat members on the Treasury Bench got cold feet or had, dare I suggest, too many conversations with their constituents.
So the result of that emergency—something that some would uncharitably call a panic—is a Finance Bill with measures such as clause 4 that so far are bereft of logical explanation. The strategy has also produced clause 5, which we shall debate later this afternoon, which withdraws tax legislation without putting anything back in its place. Where there is certainty, the Government in their panic have decided to substitute mystery. So much for the simplification credentials.
The effect of clause 4 on one level, as I have said, is reasonably straightforward. It raises the higher rate of insurance premium tax from 17.5% to 20%. That would appear to be a fairly automatic consequence of the decision to raise VAT to 20%. The higher rate of IPT was introduced in 1999 to prevent a problem called value shifting, whereby some retailers and other producers tried to lower prices of goods and bundle them with insurance policies, for which they redeemed some of the value. I was not sure whether that was some of the financial innovation that the hon. Member for Dundee East was beginning to welcome in his remarks. Perhaps he will say more about that a little later.
Finance Bill
Debate between Liam Byrne and John Redwood(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
May I begin by putting on record the Opposition’s thanks to Sir Alan Budd for his excellent work in the short months that he has served the Government? May I also congratulate the Chief Secretary, who is rapidly becoming one of the Chancellor’s longest-serving advisers? After his performance this afternoon, I think we can see why that is. He is pursuing what is now a noble Liberal Democrat tradition of fronting up some of the Government’s nastiest and most regressive policies in the House. His speech was a Liberal Democrat defence of an emergency Budget—an emergency so great that the Chancellor could not be bothered to join us this afternoon to listen to the House’s deliberations.
It is fair to say that since we met last week to debate the Budget, the economic horizon has darkened. British families and businesses fought so hard in the past year and a half for this country’s recovery, but the Bill puts all that at risk. We can see from the Bill that the Chancellor would like us to believe that size is not everything—although it is very thin, it is none the less very dangerous.
We all enjoyed the Chief Secretary’s summary of business opinion, but Opposition Members thought it odd that he missed some of the news that has appeared since the Chancellor gave his Budget speech. The truth is that, as we warned last week, the dangers in the global economy have become not less visible—they have not ebbed away—but, if anything, become more visible and more dangerous. This week, for example, the news from our trading partners and from the United States, which is our single biggest export market, has not been good. Factory orders in May dropped after eight consecutive months of improvement, and confidence surveys last week showed the biggest falls for some time—far bigger than expected.
Last week, we heard that the number of Americans in work has fallen by almost the largest number since 1995, and new figures for the eurozone show unemployment stuck at more than 10%. The news from new markets is likewise not great. China’s stock exchange hit a 15-month low yesterday, and confidence surveys have reported the worst outlook for a year and a half. Therefore, we cannot blame British businesses, investors and exporters for being somewhat depressed. They know that the odds of success in the gamble on which the Chancellor has embarked are slim, and they know very clearly who will pay the price for his failure.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The previous Labour Government said that they would halve the deficit in four years. What spending cuts and tax increases would they have introduced if they do not like ours?
Mr Byrne
The right hon. Gentleman has today put out a number of very constructive suggestions—for example, urging people hit by budget cuts to wear more clothes, to turn down the thermostat and to eat more vegetables—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”] I am merely quoting the Daily Mail, which is a source I trust—it is, of course, beyond reproach.
Mr Redwood
The Daily Mail withdrew the article from its website because it was untrue.
Mr Byrne
It is not a great triumph for unemployment to fall as an economy returns to growth. The point that I was making is that employment in this country is lower as a result of the Chief Secretary’s Budget, that growth is lower as a result of his Budget, and that the Budget hits the economy so hard that he must raise another £9 billion of taxes, although the Chancellor refused to admit it at the Dispatch Box.
I now wish to turn to a question to which I hope we will devote quite some time today: the wider question of why this Finance Bill is so unfair. We now have the judgment of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which tells us that the Budget is so regressive that its only redeeming features are Labour policies. Age Concern tells us—clearly, starkly, urgently—that it will put older people’s lives at risk. The Child Poverty Action Group tells us that it will drive poorer parents into the arms of loan sharks. The House of Commons Library tells us that nearly three quarters of the £8 billion tax and benefits bill will be paid by our country’s women—and that is before we get to VAT.
Clause 3 is the clause that deals with VAT, and I think it fair to say that it is the clause without a mandate. I have come to learn that, after nearly 30 years in the House, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark did not get where he is today without knowing what makes his party tick. I believe that when he said, a week before the Budget,
“I hope we don’t have a VAT increase because it is the most regressive form of tax”,
he spoke for the majority of his party’s voters and his party’s members. Before too long, those words will come back to haunt the Chief Secretary and the rest of the occupants of the Treasury Bench.
Back on 7 April, the Deputy Prime Minister warned us about hikes in VAT. He said:
“let’s remember, it is a regressive tax”.
He was right: it is a regressive tax, and we now know that he is a regressive politician for supporting it.
I think that it is fair to say—I feel that I can say this among friends—that I know a thing or two about writing something and regretting it later, but the Liberal Democrats did not just write a silly note. They unveiled a whacking great poster on a lorry saying, “Tory VAT bombshell”. Little did we know that they would be the ones not only to prime it, but to set it off.
Mr Byrne
I will in a moment.
If Members go to the Deputy Prime Minister’s website—for those who do not have the address, let me be helpful, it is nickclegg.co.uk; it is not a site that I visit quite as much as I used to—they will see that that famous poster saying, “Tory VAT bombshell” is still on the website, available to download. The Liberal Democrats cannot kick the habit of saying one thing and doing another.
Mr Redwood
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why putting VAT up by 2.5% before the recession was scarcely over, as the Labour party did in government, was a good idea and did not destabilise the recovery, but putting it up another 2.5% to pay all the previous Government’s bills, which Labour still will not tell us how it would pay for, is a bad idea?