Finance Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Meacher]

My hon. Friend helpfully assists my argument.

I want to be fair and point out the Government’s proposals on corporation tax and the small companies tax to get firms investing, as well as the national insurance cuts for firms outside the south-east to aid new hiring. That is all very welcome, but those measures will be more than cancelled out by the additional Tory spending cuts of £32 billion a year by 2014-15, and the additional £8 billion in tax increases. Let us take a highly topical example. It has been pointed out that the construction industry gets 40% of its work from public sector contracts. The 700 cutbacks in the schools building programme announced yesterday, and the nadir in house building, which is now at its lowest ebb since 1923, will almost certainly cost tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of building workers their jobs over the five-year period.

I shall give the House another example. According to the Treasury Red Book, the OBR forecast for public sector net investment is that it will be flattened from its current level of about £49 billion to just £21 billion in 2014-15. That is a staggering drop. It is not just a marginal change or a change in direction but a staggering reduction. So I repeat, where is the growth going to come from, especially as the banks are not lending? The Bank of England reported a fortnight ago that the flow of net lending to UK businesses was still negative. In other words, people are repaying money to the banks, rather than the banks handing out money to businesses. That compares with the situation in the first half of 2007, when there was annual growth of 20% in the relevant M4 figures for banks lending to businesses.

The great fallacy of the Bill—the fantasy black hole at the centre of the Budget—is that as the devastating public spending cuts take effect, the private sector will expand its hiring and investing to compensate. That is the Government’s argument, but the premise is completely indefensible. Why should the private sector do that? The only reason that private businesses invest is because they see the possibility of profitability and expansion, but where will that come from when consumption is falling, when the banks are not lending and when export markets are fading? Where is the growth to come from? All the coming misery is allegedly unavoidable because there is a crisis in the bond market, which there is not, and because the UK is supposedly like Greece, which it certainly is not.

Many of my colleagues have pointed out the real risk involved in this deficit-cutting fixation to shrink the state. Let us make no mistake, this cannot be justified economically; it has ideological motive. That is the fundamental bottom line in assessing this Budget. It will impale Britain on a very low growth path for years ahead, with rising joblessness and stagnant gross domestic product, even if the country does avoid a double-dip recession, although the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice admitted the other day with typical frankness that that remains an open possibility.

Even in the Chancellor’s own framework for the Budget, there remains the question of striking a balance between tax increases and spending cuts. The Chancellor chose an 80:20 ratio, but that is far more heavily weighted against public spending than in previous economic episodes of this kind, including under previous Tory Governments, such as that of the early 1990s. Poorer households will unquestionably be the main victims of the spending cuts, and even the tax increases—notably VAT—will of course impact most harshly on the poorer half of the population. This is anything but a fair Budget.

Even the two new taxes that impact directly on the rich will have little effect on them. The £2.5 billion bank levy will mainly be offset. There has been no mention of this, but it is fixed at the very low rate of 0.07% of eligible liabilities. One could hardly find a tax rate lower than that. One can be sure that it will be largely avoided through balance sheet adjustments away from short-term wholesale funding, together with other devices such as group restructuring and de-leveraging.

The second tax change that will affect the rich is the increase in capital gains tax to 28%, but that still takes it only halfway to parity with higher rate income tax, which is where it ought to be, and where Nigel Lawson—Nigel Lawson!—left it in the 1980s. The change will still allow people with very high incomes to dress up their income as capital gains so as to halve the tax that would otherwise be payable. The idea that the rich are making an equivalent sacrifice and—to use the mantra that I think will come back to haunt the Government—that we are all in it together is nothing more than a sick joke.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, because the Liberal Democrats were also inclined to support a higher rate of CGT. But does he still support that proposal, given the evidence that it would raise less income and thereby impose harsher penalties on the public sector than if it were left at 28%?

[Mr Meacher]

I have never believed what some Laffer economists say, which is that increasing taxes on the rich results in a reduction in the net income. I believe that that is based on a false premise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I will not give way at this moment.

Politically one has to applaud, in some senses, the Government for the way in which they have changed the debate that was about fiscal stimulus, support, opportunity and hope, despite these difficult times. The country had a focus on the banking sector in this country, in particular, but that has been turned into solely a debate about deficits; that is the only discussion taking place. I say, as a Labour Member who is proud of my party’s tradition, that the discussion had not solely been about the recovery; it had also been about what had led us to this position. That was a discussion about materialism, consumerism and excess, but all we hear now is this emphasis on cuts, cuts, cuts and deficits. The Government are wrong, as was made clear in the G20 meeting and the letter that President Obama wrote shortly before it. They have taken the wrong position for ideological reasons, which will have grave social consequences.

The Government have said that this Budget is unavoidable, but of course it is not, for the reasons that I have set out. It is not unavoidable, because the previous Budget, in March, made it clear that we intended to cut the deficit over the next Parliament in a measured way. This Budget is not progressive. How can one describe a Budget that means that unemployment will rise and growth will shrink as “progressive”? This is a total twisting of the word “progressive”. We have a dictionary on the table in front of the Economic Secretary, so I invite her to pick it up and look at what “progressive” means. It certainly does not mean what is in this Budget. This Budget is not fair to many people beyond this place.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that taking nearly 1 million people out of income tax altogether, a measure of which the Liberal Democrats are immensely proud, is progressive or not?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul—I am sure that his mother said that to him. One cannot give to people on the one hand and take a damn sight more in VAT on the other, and he knows it. I am talking about people such as the Uddin family, who live on the Broadwater Farm estate in my constituency. I am grateful to the TreeHouse charity for asking me to spend a Friday afternoon with a family in my constituency, dealing with the issue of autism. Because of the context of this Budget and the Finance Bill that flows from it, I was, of course, examining the wider issues that surround this family.

It was privilege to go to the Broadwater Farm estate, which I have known all my life, as I grew up and spent many years there. It was a privilege to go up the stairwell to the 15th floor to spend time with the Uddin family. In that two-bedroom flat was Mr Uddin and his wife, a family of five children and a niece. There were eight of them in this flat surviving on income support of £322 a week and struggling with a five-year-old autistic child. I was the bearer of bad news, because I had to explain to them that Mr Uddin, who cannot work as a result of an injury at work—he was a chef in an Indian restaurant and he had a serious back injury—would face a new medical test in order to get the disability living allowance that made up that £322. I had to explain to them that once again—I recalled this from my own background—their child benefit would be frozen. I had to explain to them that the price of living would go up because extra VAT would be whacked on their household goods and items such as school uniforms. I had to explain to them that the toddler element of the child tax credit and the element for their new five-week-old baby had been taken away. That was worth £1,000 to many families across the country. The Uddin family would be experiencing huge hardship as a consequence of this Budget.

It gets worse. What the Uddin family would dearly love of course is better housing. The prospect of better housing in London as a consequence of this Budget is dark indeed. That brings me on to the real test of what is progressive and what is fair. The cap on housing benefit will have the most pernicious effect in this city. Rents in London boroughs such as Islington, Camden and Westminster can run into the many hundreds of pounds, so there will inevitably be an exodus from zones 1 and 2 to zone 3. My constituency already has 20,000 on the housing list, more than 3,000 in temporary accommodation and, as I speak, more than 800 in emergency accommodation. It will become even more crowded. There will be no prospect of the Uddins moving anywhere, particularly when, as we would expect, Conservative local authorities in London continue to refuse to build. Guess what? Westminster council built just 200 affordable homes in the last year for which there are records. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea built just 100; Richmond built 127; Wandsworth just over 300. That is the record on affordable housing. It is very bleak indeed. The Mayor has made not one representation on the housing consequences of this Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who is being attacked in her absence, were here to defend herself, she would do a very good job of it. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the consequences of very high housing benefit payments in central London has been, in effect, to line the pockets of private landlords with public money? Even if he does not accept the solution presented in this Budget and Finance Bill, does he not think that something needs to be done to address the problem?

[Mr Lammy]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his defence of his hon. Friend, who, let us face it, is having a bad few days. This is not the moment to say that the private sector should step in. What are the chances of one of my constituents wanting to go into the private sector, as many of us have encouraged our constituents to do, given the uncertainty about what will happen to their housing benefit? None. The people who are in social housing will stay there, despite conditions such as those that I have described.

This is the time to walk the walk, I say to the Liberal Democrats. This is the time to demonstrate compassion, care and empathy—to walk alongside those who are poorest in our community. That is test of whether this is an effective Finance Bill, and it does not meet that standard.