Taxation Freedom Day Bill

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate, which is clearly of great importance to him. He referred to two dates: 1972, when tax freedom day would have been earliest in the year, and 1982, when it would have been latest.

In 1972 we had a three-day week, so there was not much happiness, and there would not have been much to celebrate on taxation freedom day. In 1982, we had unemployment of 3 million. The reason taxation freedom day came so late that year might be that there were not enough jobs and more was being paid out in benefits with not enough coming in via tax revenue.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said that he would like us to be more like Cyprus and less like Belgium. The Belgian economy has grown by 1.8% over the past year, and Cyprus is one of just three countries in the European Union, along with Portugal and Greece, that has had a slower rate of growth than the anaemic growth that we have seen in the UK this year. I think that many of our constituents would rather we were a little more like Belgium, with stronger growth and lower unemployment, and a little less like Cyprus, but we may differ on that.

[Philip Davies]

I take it from what the hon. Lady has said that the Labour party’s official stance is that it would like taxation freedom day in this country to be 4 August.

[Rachel Reeves]

No, that is not our stance. If the hon. Gentleman would like us to be a bit more like Cyprus, he might want to look at it in the round, because, as I said, Cyprus is one of just three countries in the European Union that has grown at a slower rate than the UK this year.

Conservative Members have spoken about the difference between taxation freedom day in the US and in the UK. One of the reasons taxation freedom day in the US will come a little earlier is that it does not have a national health service, and, as a result, people have to pay from their own income for the health service. If hon. Members took into account how much individuals and businesses contribute towards health care insurance in the US, they might find that its taxation freedom day came a little later in the year—perhaps even later than in the UK.

My main question is why we need a Bill on this. Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Kettering, have spoken about the work of the TaxPayers Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute. If they have all the facts and figures, why do they not organise a celebration for taxation freedom day? Why do we need Government legislation? If we had Government legislation on taxation freedom day as a result of passing this Bill, the day might fall a little later in the year because of the additional costs.

[Mr Bone]

Surely the hon. Lady is not saying that the cost of announcing taxation freedom day would shift it by one day—that is patently absurd.

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, though, that there would be costs associated with the legislation, the statutory instrument, and civil servants’ time. I wonder why hon. Members want more legislation when presumably they really want less legislation and less money spent on civil servants and so on.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady has converted me. I always thought that Palmerston was right when he said that the House of Commons would eventually run out of things to legislate on. It is a thoroughly good idea that we should run out of things to legislate on and not legislate for everything we feel like. For once, I have been converted by a Labour Front Bencher.

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not sure whether to celebrate that, but this does seem to me to be a strange thing to want to have a piece of legislation on.

[Mr Hollobone]

An interesting comparator would be the interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has taken in human trafficking. Her Majesty’s Government have designated an anti-slavery day and given it official recognition. All the Bill asks the Government to do is officially to recognise taxation freedom day.

[Rachel Reeves]

That does not seem necessary to me, but I guess that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree. If the work of the TaxPayers Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute is as fantastic as he thinks, why could they not organise a celebration, as other groups organise days to celebrate things? One does not necessarily need legislation in order to celebrate a day that one thinks important.

[Mr Bone]

There is a serious point here. Everyone knew when anti-slavery day was, but its official recognition by the Government lent weight to its importance. That is the reason taxation freedom day would be so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I guess that we disagree on that. There are costs associated with all these things and I do not think this is a cost that my constituents and many hon. Members’ constituents would want to bear.

That brings me to my main point. This is a worrying time for businesses and families throughout the country. They are struggling with higher food prices and fuel bills, and are worried about their jobs and their children’s future. I am not convinced that the hon. Member for Kettering has explained what the Bill would do to help an ordinary family in Kettering who are struggling with stagnant wages, high unemployment and high inflation. In Kettering, there has been an increase in long-term youth unemployment of 127% since January this year.

It seems to me that the most important thing that Members of Parliament can do in representing our constituents is to put in place policies to address those issues. I am not sure that celebrating tax freedom day would help get young people back to work, help families facing a squeeze in their living standards or help businesses that are seeing demand dry up. I am certainly not sure what it would do for the 4,000 people who are unemployed in my constituency of Leeds West.

One tax that the hon. Member for Kettering might want to change is VAT. I wonder whether next Tuesday he and other Government Members will support the Opposition when we argue that VAT should be cut temporarily. That would bring forward tax freedom day and put £450 in the pocket of the average family. It would be a real step to help families and businesses across the country.

The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer in his place, spoke about the tax on cigarettes. Many people would think—[Interruption.] Oh, here he is. Welcome back. It seems that if anyone mentions cigarettes, he is automatically in his place. Most of our constituents recognise that cigarettes should be taxed because they have social costs beyond the cost of producing and selling them. However, if one looks at the increase in the cost of petrol that we all face when we fill up our cars, reducing VAT back down to 17.5% would reduce the cost of petrol by 3p in the pound.

[Philip Davies]

If the hon. Lady is so keen for people to have an extra £450 back in their pocket, which I could certainly support, will her party propose a reduction in income tax to deliver that? If her party proposed cutting income tax to give £450 back to people, I might even be tempted to support it.

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier—or it might have been the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), but I am sure that they agree—that the increase in the income tax threshold means that fewer people are paying income tax. The good thing about reducing VAT is that it has a progressive effect, because people on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their income on VAT than people on higher incomes. A reduction in VAT would therefore help to get money in the pockets of the people who most need it at the moment in a way that a cut in income tax would not.

[Robert Halfon]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so generous in giving way. She said that one way to reduce petrol and diesel prices would be to cut VAT. Is it not the case that the majority of businesses get their VAT back? What most people want is a fuel duty cut, which is why I welcomed the Government’s cut in fuel duty in the last Budget and hope that they will not increase it next year.

[Rachel Reeves]

The reduction in VAT would put money in the hands of families. Of course, most people who run businesses are also part of a family, so they would benefit from the reduction in VAT. Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth also includes a national insurance holiday for small businesses taking on new employees, so that plan would help families and businesses up and down the country.

[Mr Bone]

Are Government Members to assume that the hon. Lady has absolutely no support from her party, as the Opposition Benches are completely empty?

[Mr Bone]

Well, they were empty.

[Rachel Reeves]

I think my hon. Friends are where I would like to be today—in the constituency meeting constituents, rather than here. I usually try to go back to my constituency on a Thursday, as do many other MPs. Of course, the Members who are here today think that this issue is more important than doing work in their constituencies.

[Charlie Elphicke]

A few moments ago, the hon. Lady mentioned the taxation of cigarettes. Seeing my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in the Chamber, it is only right that I remind her that the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius said in his “Meditations”:

“Into every life a little rain must fall.”

Those of us who smoke have enough rain with the health hazard, without massive taxation on top.

[Rachel Reeves]

I am afraid I only went to a comprehensive school, so I did not study Latin. Maybe the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would like to do some interpretation.

The hon. Member for Kettering reminds me of my holidays when I was at school. As he knows, I used to go to Kettering in all my school holidays, because my grandparents lived there. I still have many family members in Kettering.

[Philip Davies]

Do they vote for him?

[Rachel Reeves]

I expect not.

I was just thinking about the lives that my grandparents led and the things that mattered to them. Every day, they benefited from what happened in both the public and private sector. They worked in the shoe factories in Kettering, as the hon. Member for Kettering knows—we have discussed it before. However, they also lived in a council house, when they were ill they used Kettering general hospital, and their children went to state schools in Kettering. My father went to Kettering grammar school.

Having a tax freedom day suggests that until that date in May, June or whenever it falls, people are contributing to someone or something else, or to the Exchequer. Actually, the money that they pay in taxes every day from the beginning of January until the end of December is used for things that matter to them, for instance building council houses such as my grandparents lived in, paying for teachers and for schools such as they went to and paying for nurses and doctors in the hospital that treated them when they were ill. It seems a little irrelevant to have a tax freedom day, because whether it is 5 February or 25 November, people need both what they pay their taxes for and disposable income to pay for things that matter to them. That is why those suggesting a tax freedom day misconstrue the situation.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady makes the point that public services need to be funded. Does she not recognise that tax is needed also to fund the interest on the Government’s debt, much of which was added by the previous Government? Does she share my regret that we have so much debt as a nation?

[Rachel Reeves]

The reality is that because the current Government have failed to get a grip on growth, and because unemployment is rising and inflation is higher than forecast, borrowing is now expected to be £46 billion higher over the course of this Parliament than they had previously planned. When the Office for Budget Responsibility reports next week, we are likely to see that Government borrowing will be higher still.

The point is that we cannot reduce the budget deficit just through tax increases and spending cuts. We also need economic growth, and we can see the difference between the UK’s growth rate of 0.5% over the past year and the higher rates of other countries such as the US, Canada and even Italy. We cannot reduce the deficit and get debt down unless the economy is growing again and creating jobs; otherwise, we will end up paying more out in benefits and getting less in through tax revenues. That is why the Government’s deficit reduction plans are not bearing fruit—they do not have the strategy for growth upon which all that hinges. I believe that if we want to reduce the deficit and get our constituents back to work, we need a plan for jobs and growth. Without that, borrowing will continue to get higher and tax freedom day will be a little bit later in the year.

I was looking earlier at Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth and wondering how much of it Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Kettering, might support. The first point is a temporary reduction in VAT, which he might support because it would bring forward tax freedom day to slightly earlier in the year. I suspect that he would not support the second point, which is a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses, although most of our constituents would not be affected by it. The bank bonus tax would be used to fund 100,000 jobs for young people, which would get more people back to work and paying taxes and mean that less was being paid out in unemployment benefits. Perhaps that, too, would bring forward tax freedom day.

The third point is the introduction of long-term investment projects. That might sound like something that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with, but if it helps people to get back to work, particularly in the construction sector, perhaps Conservative Members would support it. It would get more people back to work and paying taxes. The fourth component of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth is a one-year cut in VAT—to 5%—on home improvements. Perhaps Conservative Members could also support that, given that it is a tax cut. The fifth point is a one-year national insurance tax break for every small firm taking on new workers. I hope that they could support that, too, because it would help small businesses to take on more employees and get the economy moving again.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady mentions a long wish list but what would be the total cost in extra public spending?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Government will be borrowing more this Parliament because they are paying the costs of economic failure: they are paying the costs of having 2.62 million unemployed people, including 1.02 million unemployed young people; they are paying because growth, at 0.5% over the past year, is lower than the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast; and they are paying for the higher levels of inflation, which was 5.2% in September compared with the 4.3% that the OBR forecast, which means that we are paying out more in benefits.

The Government are borrowing £46 billion more this Parliament, and as I said earlier, that number is likely to rise next week because the Government have not done enough to get the economy moving, to get people back to work and to contain inflation. The VAT increase led directly to that increase. I accept that these policies would cost money but they would get people back into jobs, get the economy growing again and reduce the budget deficit at a more balanced pace. As Conservative Members have said in the past couple of days, it is clear that although targeted tax cuts now might mean a bit more borrowing, they would help to get the economy back on track, which would also help to reduce the budget deficit in a balanced way.

[Charlie Elphicke]

But would that extra borrowing not put at risk our interest rates? I do not know whether the hon. Lady is aware, but today the interest rates on UK gilts are lower than those on German bunds. I do not know when that last happened. The risk is that if we borrow more, interest rates will be higher, which will have vastly more negative effects on our economy than the current spending squeeze—

[Charlie Elphicke]

May I finish first, Mr Deputy Speaker? That would delay tax freedom day.

[Rachel Reeves]

It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman will talk about more than just the cost of cigarettes. The last time I looked, yields on German Government bonds and UK gilts were 2.14% and 2.16% respectively. I do not know whether that changed when he nipped out of the Chamber for a cigarette.

Market traders are looking for a deficit reduction plan, but they are also looking for economies that will grow. Economic growth is a component of reducing the debt and tackling the budget deficit. Unless we have growth, we pay out more in benefits and get in less in taxes. If we want tax freedom day to be a bit earlier in the year, we need more people in work and more businesses succeeding, which is why Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth is so important to getting people back to work and achieving the balanced deficit reduction that we need.

In conclusion, I do not support the Bill. It is not a good use of Government time, parliamentary time or taxpayers’ money to celebrate a tax freedom day. Our constituents would all prefer us to concentrate on the things that matter to them: jobs, growth and the squeeze on living standards. The Minister said earlier in the week that the Government were on track to meet their deficit reduction plans. It would be interesting to hear what she has to say about that today, ahead of the OBR’s numbers’ coming out next Tuesday. I believe that a policy of targeted tax cuts to help families is more in touch than the Government sticking doggedly to plan A. I thank the hon. Member for Kettering for giving us a chance to debate these issues today, and I am sorry that I am unable to support his Bill.

Public Service Pensions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and for advance notice of it. I welcome today’s signal that the Government are now willing to enter into proper discussions. That is a welcome change from the months of Treasury and Cabinet Office intransigence that came before.

Too often in recent months it has appeared that the Government have not understood that strikes are a sign of failure on both sides. Let us be clear: it was this Government’s decision to rip up the framework established by the last Labour Government and to go much further much faster. In particular, it was the Chancellor’s decision to pre-empt Lord Hutton and impose a 3% surcharge for all employees announced in the spending review last year, before negotiations had even begun. That decision suggested that rather than negotiating in good faith, the Government were intent on acting unilaterally and so provoking confrontation. It is good news, therefore, that the Government have at last made a constructive move to begin proper discussions.

Let me be clear: no one wants strike action. The Government and the unions have a duty to show that they have exhausted every possible avenue. Our focus is on those who rely on services that would be affected by strikes—from parents who will have to take a day off work to those who rely on home help. However, public sector workers—nurses, teachers and dinner ladies—also care too much about the people they serve day in, day out to consider action as anything other than a last resort, yet those who work in front-line public services are also desperately worried about their future and about whether they will be able to afford retirement. It is for the Government to ensure, therefore, that change is agreed and delivered in a way that brings with them the nurses, teachers, home helps and dinner ladies affected by the changes.

It is welcome that the Government have now recognised that announcing tactical offers on the airwaves, rather than constructive proposals in proper negotiations, is not the right way to proceed. However, I would suggest three key tests for a fair agreement. First, on affordability, do the changes deliver a fair deal for taxpayers when times are tough, taxes are rising and spending is being cut? Secondly, on fairness, do they deliver a fair deal for public sector workers on low and middle incomes, whose pensions are far from gold-plated and who have given so much to the services in which they work? Thirdly, on sustainability, do the changes deliver a workable settlement for the long term that does not undermine the sustainability of existing schemes and which can be flexible in the face of rising life expectancy? That is how we will judge the outcome of the negotiations.

To meet those tests, it has always been clear that public sector workers will need to accept higher contributions on average and, given that people are living longer, an increase in the retirement age, too. That was fundamental to the arrangements put in place by the previous Government for capping the Government’s contributions and then, as costs rose, negotiating how to increase workers’ contributions or change entitlements. Equally, however, the Government have to accept that for many low-paid staff, their pension is the only means of security in retirement. In a time of pay freezes, sharp increases in contributions risk hardship today and increased levels of opt-out, pushing up pensioner poverty in the future, which is why we have been critical of the confrontational stance taken by the Government and of the rush to early industrial action in June.

We will see in the coming days whether these moves are sufficient to restore the much-needed trust in these discussions that could ensure that, even at this late stage, there is still time for both sides to step back from the brink. We must all study the detail of what is now on the table, but on affordability will the Chief Secretary set out the cost of these concessions to the public purse? As he rightly sets out the transitional protections for workers in their 50s and tapering arrangements for those in their late-40s, can he say whether both these additional costs will have to be made by savings elsewhere in the system? On fairness, can he confirm that the proposed increase in contributions, if applied across the board, would still mean an increase in contributions for low-paid and part-time workers earning less than £15,000 a year? Have the Government assessed the impact of the pay freeze on opt-out rates from public sector pension schemes to date?

On sustainability, has an assessment been made of the impact of the 3% increase in contributions proposed from April and of whether increased drop-out rates could affect the viability of funded schemes, such as the local government scheme? Is it the Chief Secretary’s intention that those affected as a result of the settlement will have the certainty of knowing that there will be no further changes for 25 years? How will he deliver on that commitment? Will he give the House a timetable for discussions over the next eight weeks, given his aim to secure agreement by the end of the year? I hope that he can reassure taxpayers and public sector workers—teachers, the police, home helps and others—on those points. The Government must leave no stone unturned in their negotiations to seek a genuinely sustainable agreement that is fair for public sector workers and taxpayers, and avoids a strike this autumn.

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response, although she left a few questions unanswered herself, which I shall come to.

On proper discussions, I reject what she said about the Government’s stance. Talks have been going on constructively for the last eight months. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and I have spent many, many hours in those discussions, and if the hon. Lady talked to the trade unions, she would discover that they, too, see them as constructive. She also referred to the previous Government’s cap and share arrangement. Let me tell her what Lord Hutton said about it in his report:

“Cap and share cannot take account of the increases in cost of pensions over recent decades because people have been living longer. Also, untested, complex cap and share arrangements cannot of themselves, address the underlying issue of structural reforms, nor significantly reduce current costs to taxpayers.”

In other words, the previous Government’s arrangements were simply not good enough at controlling the costs in the way we need to.

The hon. Lady asked me several questions; let me address them directly. As I said in my statement, transitional protections and tapering are outside the cost ceiling, so they will not be met at the expense of other arrangements, which may be negotiated on a scheme-by-scheme basis. On contributions, there was an assumption, audited by the Office for Budget Responsibility, about the impact that 1% of pay bill would have on opt-out rates, which I accept. We are engaged in a separate track of negotiations with the local government pension scheme—which the hon. Lady also mentioned—precisely in recognition of the fact that it is a funded scheme and that therefore different considerations apply.

On affordability—the first of the hon. Lady’s three tests—let me tell her that, yes, the changes are affordable. Her test is met. This test ensures—[Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers are saying, “Part-time workers?” The contributions increase has been set out. We have ensured, on a scheme-by-scheme basis, that the contributions will be tiered according to income. Those earning less than £15,000 a year on a full-time equivalent basis will have zero—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) likes to hector from a sedentary position. Instead of being the shadow chunterer, perhaps he will sit there and listen. We have made it clear that those earning up to £21,000 on a full-time equivalent basis will have a reduction. The full-time equivalent basis for pension reform is the basis—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I must say that I find the Chief Secretary’s answers incredibly complacent. Given that unemployment is at a 17-year high and long-term youth unemployment has risen by more than 60% since the start of the year, we all know what impact the Chancellor’s policies have had on unemployment. Instead of being complacent, will the Government support calls for them to repeat the bankers’ bonus tax in order to create 100,000 extra youth jobs and to introduce a national insurance holiday for small businesses taking on new workers? That is what Labour has proposed in its five-point plan. We need policies that will get the economy moving again and reduce unemployment, thus reducing the deficit. When will the Government act?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Lady’s position would have more credibility if she recognised the fact that youth unemployment rose during Labour’s time in office, as did long-term unemployment. As for her proposal for a bonus tax, that was written off by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that it could not work. She should listen to her own colleagues first.

Eurozone Crisis

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

I wanted to update the House as early as possible on developments in the eurozone overnight, and in the absence of the Prime Minister as he travels to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, to report on the good progress made at yesterday’s European Council.

The crisis in the eurozone has caused instability in financial markets, has greatly undermined confidence around the world, and is having a chilling effect on economic growth in many countries, including our own. It is in our overwhelming national interest that a coherent, comprehensive and lasting solution to the eurozone’s problems is found, because the decisive resolution of this crisis would provide the single biggest boost to the British economy this autumn, and the break-up of the euro would be the single greatest threat to our prosperity.

Our view about how to solve the eurozone’s immediate problems has been clear, consistent and forcefully expressed. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have set it out to the House on a number of occasions: reinforcement, recapitalisation and resolution. First, eurozone member states need to reinforce their bail-out fund to create a firewall; secondly, weak European banks need to be recapitalised; and thirdly, the unsustainable position of Greece’s debts needs to be resolved. But if the solution is to last, as I said many months ago, members of the eurozone also need to address the logic of monetary union by pursuing greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, while at the same time we protect Britain’s interests.

We have to improve competitiveness: competitiveness in the peripheral economies of the eurozone as measured against the core economies such as Germany, and competitiveness across the whole European continent versus the rest of the world. This is the solution of the crisis that we have been advocating for months, and the solution again advocated by the Prime Minister at yesterday’s European Council.

Our view is that last night very good progress was made towards solving the immediate crisis—very good progress on all fronts. The deal put together is much better than was expected yesterday afternoon. But much detail remains unresolved, and having put pressure on the eurozone to get this far, we have to keep up the pressure to get the details completed. It has started down the right road; now it must finish the job.

Let me take each element of last night’s deal in turn and say how it affects Britain. First, on recapitalising banks, we are pleased that the European Council agreed to the proposal hammered out by myself and other Finance Ministers at the weekend ECOFIN. All major European banks will be required to hold at least a 9% core tier 1 capital ratio by the end of June next year, including marking to market all their exposure to sovereign debt. The European Banking Authority, based here in London, assessed that achieving this target means that banks will require an extra €106 billion of capital, and the Council yesterday confirmed that if this cannot be raised privately, Governments will have to step up to the plate.

I can confirm to the House today that in the assessment of the European Banking Authority and our own tripartite authorities, no British bank requires additional capital. This is an important expression of confidence in this country’s banking system at a time of global financial stress. EU member states also agreed to co-ordinate guarantees of term funding, should they be required, and we have ensured that state aid rules will be applied properly, and European banks will be restructured if necessary, just as the European Commission demanded of the last British Government two years ago.

While some would have wanted an even tougher banking agreement, and even more capital going into Europe’s weak banks, we should welcome what has been achieved with this agreement. We now have—unlike the totally inadequate stress tests of last year—a commitment to significant extra resources for the European banking system. However, the UK and others insisted that that commitment from the whole of the European Union on banking be conditional on the two other key components of the solution to the crisis that I set out: a reinforced firewall and a resolution of Greek debt. These are both properly matters for the Eurozone, not the UK—and they are both matters on which progress was also made last night.

On Greece, a headline agreement was reached to reduce the Greek debt-to-GDP ratio to 120% by 2020. The eurozone will contribute an additional €30 billion. Because the British Government have made sure that we are not part of the Greek bail-out, none of that extra €30 billion will come from our taxpayers, while private holders of Greek sovereign debt will be asked to accept a nominal write-down of 50%. A lot more work is needed to put all this into practice, including detailed negotiations with the private sector—but we said that Greece’s debts were unsustainable, and we are pleased to see a resolution in sight.

On reinforcing the size of the firewall, the eurozone has set out two options that could operate in tandem. One is to provide, from the bail-out fund, insurance on new debt issued by Eurozone countries; the second is to create special purpose vehicles that can attract resources from private and public investors. In its statement, the eurozone said that

“the leverage effect of both options will vary”

but that they could be

“expected to yield around 1 trillion euro”.

We have always believed that the role of the European Central Bank is critical, and I welcome the positive statement made by Mario Draghi, the incoming ECB president.

Talk of special purpose vehicles has given rise to questions about the involvement of the International Monetary Fund and major shareholders such as the UK. As I have said to the House on many occasions, Britain has always been one of the IMF’s largest shareholders and biggest supporters: we helped to create the institution 60 years ago; the last Government agreed to increase its resources two years ago; and this Government not only ratified that agreement but helped to make the IMF more representative of the new world economy by brokering a deal last year that gave countries such as China and Brazil a greater say, while securing Britain’s seat on the board. The IMF has been an active participant in the packages put together to support Ireland, Portugal and Greece. It has also been active in extending flexible credit lines to Poland and Mexico—neither of which is in the eurozone, of course—as well as supporting other countries in central and eastern Europe such as Hungary, Romania and Latvia. Indeed, it currently has 53 lending programmes around the world, of which only three are in the eurozone.

Supporting countries that cannot support themselves is what the IMF exists to do, and there may well be a case for further increasing the resources of the IMF to keep pace with the size of the global economy. Britain, as a founding and permanent member of its governing board, stands ready to consider the case for further resources and contribute, with other countries, if necessary. Let us remember that support for the IMF does not add to our debt or deficit, and that no-one who has ever provided money to the IMF has ever lost that money. But let me be very clear: we are prepared to see an increase only in the resources that the IMF makes available to all the countries of the world. We would not be prepared to see IMF resources reserved for use only by the eurozone. By all means the IMF can use its expertise and advice to help the eurozone to create the special purpose vehicle that it is considering. By all means let countries with large foreign currency reserves such as China consider putting their own money into the eurozone’s special purpose vehicle—that must be their decision—but the IMF cannot put its own resources in; it can lend only to countries with a programme for adjustment.

I confirm today that Britain will not put its resources in either. We do not have a surplus; we have a large deficit. We have had to use our resources to recapitalise our banks and to stand behind our currency. An active member of the IMF? Yes. Helping the IMF with advice and technical support? Yes. But the IMF contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. And Britain contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. That is Britain’s clear position.

We expect eurozone members to use the next few days—the next few weeks, at the most—to provide much more detail about their plans to increase their firewalls and sort out Greek debt. We have made it clear that the sooner that happens, the better it will be for the world economy. We must maintain the momentum.

This package will not on its own resolve the longer-term issues of how to make the euro work more effectively. Those longer-term issues were addressed yesterday, and there were proposals for greater fiscal integration and mutual control over the budget policies of eurozone Governments. I have argued that we need to follow the remorseless logic of monetary union, and that involves a loss of national sovereignty for countries in the eurozone.

It is in Britain’s interest that the euro operates more effectively, provided that the interests of all 27 member states are properly protected in key areas of European policy, such as the single market, competition and financial services. We are insistent that our voice will continue to be heard and our national interests protected. We have found allies among the other 10 members of the EU that are not in the euro. An important marker was put down in Sunday’s European Council conclusions.

No one pretends that sorting out this situation in a satisfactory way will be easy, but it is a necessity. That is the context in which we should approach potential treaty changes. The coalition Government have already proved that they can protect Britain’s interests by getting us out of the previous Government’s involvement in the eurozone bail-outs, holding down the European Union budget increases, and putting into law the guarantee that no further powers or competencies can be transferred to Brussels without the consent of the British people in a referendum. The Government will again protect Britain’s interests as the discussions on a possible limited treaty change begin. We will seek to rebalance the responsibilities between the EU and its member states, which in our view have become unbalanced.

Finally, the euro will not find lasting stability until its peripheral members become more competitive. That means credible plans to reduce budget deficits. That commitment was made in the very first section of yesterday’s agreement. However, that involves difficult decisions on pension ages, business tax rates, welfare reform and educational standards. Britain, thankfully, is not in the euro, but we are taking those difficult decisions at home, because the ultimate lesson of this crisis is that unless a country can pay its way in the world and compete around the globe, it will be next in the firing line. I am determined that our country will never be in the firing line.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for coming to the House to make that statement. With the shadow Chancellor in New York, I am responding on behalf of the Opposition, and I have a number of detailed questions. It is good that some agreement has been reached, but with so little detail, many unanswered questions remain. I hope that the Chancellor can help the House today, because whatever happens in the eurozone will have huge ramifications for British families and businesses.

First, on the recapitalisation of the banks, is the Chancellor confident that the deal announced is sufficient and that UK banks do not need further recapitalisation? Will he keep that under review? What estimates has he made of the exposure of UK banks to Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish sovereign debt? Will he confirm that the House of Commons estimates of $3 billion for Greece and $17 billion for Italy reflect the current position for UK banks? Although the agreement states that banks and other creditors are invited to accept a 50% loss on Greek sovereign debt, is the Chancellor confident that the vast majority will agree—and if so, by when?

On the expansion of the European financial stability facility, does the Chancellor believe that the €1 trillion package is sufficient? Does it amount to the “big bazooka” that the Prime Minister talked about earlier this month? Alternatively, will we be back here in a few months’ time, which would mean further uncertainty, undermining confidence, undermining investment and undermining growth? That is the last thing that Britain, or Europe, needs.

Can the Chancellor explain how the leveraging of the EFSF will work, and when he believes the detail of credit enhancement and special purpose vehicles will be finalised? If the EFSF must also fund bank recapitalisation, will it be sufficient to give the markets confidence, and will there be funds remaining to underpin any sovereign debt crisis and prevent further contagion?

Although we have a clear economic interest in the eurozone sorting out its problems, the interests of British taxpayers must be safeguarded. It would have been wrong for Britain to pay twice, both through ongoing temporary EU bail-out funds and through the IMF. If this package is indeed the final and permanent bail-out fund, any British role should be through the IMF alone.

I heard the Chancellor’s question and answer session with himself on the IMF, but will he clarify what he said on the radio this morning? He said that the IMF was not

“going to put additional resources directly into the eurozone, hypothecated for the eurozone.”

Does he believe, though, that there will need to be a further increase in UK contributions to the IMF? Whether he succeeds in persuading it to describe that as anything other than a hypothecated fund is irrelevant.

On the arrangements for future decision making, the agreement states:

“The President of the Euro Summit will keep non euro-area member states closely informed of preparations and outcomes of summits.”

“Closely informed”? Has Britain now been reduced to simply receiving a postcard from Brussels? How will the Chancellor ensure that Britain’s voice, and our vital national interest, is heard loud and clear in future negotiations?

On the forthcoming treaty changes, will the Chancellor admit what the Prime Minister was unable to admit yesterday? Is it now the Government’s policy to seek to repatriate powers as part of those treaty changes? Which ones, and on what timetable?

Finally, is not the missing piece in the agreement the lack of any plan for jobs and growth, which were not mentioned at all in the Chancellor’s statement? Is it not the case that without growth we cannot solve the debt crisis, we cannot solve the banking crisis, and we cannot solve the jobs crisis? At this time, Britain should be leading the charge and pushing for a proper plan for jobs and growth across Europe. But is not the truth that this Chancellor cannot do that? With unemployment at a 17-year high here in Britain, with no growth since last autumn, and with borrowing therefore now set to be £46 billion higher than he planned, he is clinging to an austerity plan that is failing here in Britain.

With the UK economy flatlining since this time last year, before the eurozone crisis of recent months, and with only Greece and Portugal growing more slowly than Britain, is it not time that we had a plan for jobs and growth—across Europe, yes, but here in Britain too?

[Mr Osborne]

I thank the hon. Lady for some of her questions. Of course, we miss the constructive and consensual approach of the shadow Chancellor. We are talking about the Bretton Woods institutions, and it turns out that he is at a place called Buttonwood, which adds to the pantomime feel of Labour’s economic policy.

Let me deal directly with the hon. Lady’s questions. First, of course we keep the capital and liquidity positions of the British banks under constant review. We would do that in the absence of any European agreement, but of course we have also participated in the recent work by the European Banking Authority. We thought it was important that that was done at EU level rather than eurozone level. I repeat what I said in my statement: the EBA and our own authorities confirm that no British bank requires additional capital, which of course is very good news for us all.

On the hon. Lady’s question about getting private sector involvement in the write-down of Greek debt, that is of course one of the key unresolved issues from last night. We now need to see whether the headline agreement reached on behalf of the private sector can be implemented in practice. I am confident that it can, but that is one of the crucial next steps that need to be got on with.

The hon. Lady asked about the exposure of the UK banking system and the UK economy to various peripheral economies of Europe. Those figures are published regularly by the Bank of England. I do not propose to repeat them today, but they are available for everyone to see.

On the question that the hon. Lady asked about the overall fund, €1 trillion is the number that the eurozone has put on its firewall. Of course, some said it should be larger, but it is very significantly larger than what we had yesterday, which we should welcome. As with private sector involvement in the Greek deal, we now need to see the details of how the eurozone will create that leverage. It has set out two options that can work side by side. One is a kind of first loss insurance on newly issued debt, and the second is the special purpose vehicle, by which it hopes to get external private sector investment. Of course, it is openly speculating about getting Chinese money into that.

The IMF can only lend directly to countries, and countries with programmes or agreed and negotiated flexible credit lines, which will remain the case. It cannot lend into that special purpose vehicle. That is also the UK position. We do not think that Britain, with its deficit, can contribute to the special purpose vehicle. If we were to do so, we would add to our debt, and we do not think that that is appropriate. We have had to use our own resources to deal with our own problems in this country.

It is of course crucial that the IMF remains a central economic institution in dealing with the world’s problems, and I urge the hon. Lady, newly appointed as shadow Chief Secretary, to reconsider Labour’s position—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) led the Labour party in Committee to vote against the increase in IMF resources, which the last Labour Prime Minister negotiated at the London 2009 summit. Whatever I have said about the right hon. Gentleman—and I have said quite a few things—I do not think that anyone would doubt that the highlight of his premiership was the negotiation of the London 2009 G20 deal. It is completely astonishing that the Labour party voted against that agreement.

As we discuss over the next few months increasing the IMF’s resources to deal with all the countries of the world, I urge Labour Members to reconsider their position on that, and also their rather odd position on the euro. They seem to be holding out membership of the euro—[Hon. Members: “No!”] Well, that is certainly what the Labour leader was doing at the weekend. To be in the euro but out of the IMF strikes me as a rather bizarre economic policy at the moment.

That brings me to my final point. Britain has been arguing consistently for months that a solution to this crisis requires recapitalising the banks, reinforcing the firewall and resolving the Greek crisis. We have insisted that the appropriate issues are discussed at the level of 27, which is why there have been two European Councils this week, and an ECOFIN. We will continue to argue for Britain’s national interest as we enter the difficult discussions ahead on the potential treaty change, on making the euro work, and above all on getting the growth and jobs that the hon. Lady talks about across Europe and in this country, by making this continent far more competitive and stopping Britain and Europe from pricing themselves out of the world economy.

Jobs and Growth

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will provide me with the figures—

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Do you not know?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

I am sorry, but I will not give way. I want to make progress.

The Labour party opposes the Government’s public spending cuts, but its alternative—the too little, too late alternative—would mean that our economy, like Greece’s, would shrink by 5% this year, and that mortgage rates would rocket. One of the things that Government Members are most proud of is our desire and aspiration to increase the tax threshold to take many of the lowest paid in our society out of tax altogether. Had we followed the too little, too late approach, as Greece did, we would have had to cut our tax-free allowance by 50%.

The Chancellor has been frank about the choppy waters ahead, yet businesses in my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen still strive to succeed. Businesses such as J&J Ormerod, the largest employer in my constituency, B&E Boys, Crown Paints and WEC engineering, are doing their best to manufacture proper products and to rebalance the UK economy, despite tough times. Those businesses know about the Labour party’s economic illiteracy. That is why, before the general election, some of them signed a letter opposing Labour’s jobs tax. Businesses in my constituency will not forget that the previous Government were the enemy of enterprise and industry, and that Labour is the party of the jobs tax.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jake Berry]

Sorry, I will not.

How ironic it is that the Opposition motion calls for a cut in national insurance. That is too little, too late, and business in my constituency knows that the Labour party is not the solution but, in fact, the problem.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jake Berry]

Sorry, but I will not.

Looking at today’s job figures, including the increase in unemployment in my constituency—

[Rachel Reeves]

The increase was 29.2%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What the markets were looking at was the deficit. The hon. Lady may remember what happened to the gilt market as her party’s Government were being shunted out. The price of British Government debt rose and yields fell in direct anticipation of Labour leaving power. The markets made their own decision. In the last 18 months, the price of British Government debt—that is, the interest rates that we pay—has fallen. It has managed to remain at the same level, precisely because markets realise that the Chancellor and his team are doing the right thing in tackling the deficit. We have been told repeatedly that if we were to show any relaxation of our deficit reduction programme, the markets would dump our bonds and interest rates would rise, which would cause immense damage to the hon. Lady’s constituents as well as mine.

[Rachel Reeves]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that before the last general election—between January and May 2010—yields on Government bonds were falling and they have stayed at low rates since the general election? The markets did not know which party would win the election because the campaign was so close. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot argue that those yields were falling in anticipation of an incoming Conservative Government, because nobody knew that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The yields were not falling in anticipation of a Conservative Government, but they were certainly falling in anticipation of the then Labour Government going out. Markets anticipate events—that is how people make money—and the markets had, in their wisdom, decided that Labour would not be re-elected. I assure the House that if Labour had been re-elected, the markets would have dumped British debt and we would be facing a much tougher interest rate environment than we currently face.

I always enjoy listening to the shadow Chancellor’s speeches, as they are very entertaining, and I enjoyed his speech today—I think one Member even mentioned vaudeville, which I think does vaudeville discredit. However, I was staggered by the shadow Chancellor’s assertion that the fact that we have low interest rates is somehow a reflection of our having a weak economy. That was an extraordinary claim. People in my constituency are very grateful indeed that we have low interest rates, because that enables them to pay their mortgage liabilities. It seemed extremely arrogant for a supposedly responsible politician to say on the Floor of the House that low interest rates were a bad thing, which was essentially what the shadow Chancellor was arguing. [Interruption.] He was suggesting that they were a symptom of a weak economy, which is a bad thing.

On the contrary, however, our low interest rates are a signal that the markets have confidence in this Government. They have absolute belief that the current Government are going to deal with the deficit that was created, almost deliberately, by the Labour Government. We in the House of Commons have to understand why this deficit arose, so we can explain that to the country. It was not just handed down to us by some Moses figure—although the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) probably thinks of himself in that way. It was not handed down from on high; rather, it was created by Governments and by the Members who then sat on the Treasury Bench, and it was created for the simple reason that they, in their arrogance, honestly believed that they had abolished boom and bust. We all remember those statements, and it is an arrogant misrepresentation of the past to suggest that they did not think that. The last Prime Minister believed that he had solved the key economic question of our time, but he was wrong, and it is as a direct consequence of his mistake that our Government have had to introduce the policies we are pursuing.

Many people will ask why we do not have a different plan. They will ask: “Why don’t you suddenly borrow and spend more money in the time-honoured Labour fashion?” That would be a road to disaster, however. It would create a massive lack of confidence and lack of credibility in the British Government’s programme, leading to the markets dumping our Government debt and our interest rates rising. It would lead to people in our constituencies having to face higher payments every month. They would be squeezed even more if we were not as focused and committed as we are to reducing the deficit.

I have tried to inject some reality into this debate. We have heard consistent denials from Labour Members, and we have heard no admission of guilt or wrongdoing and no ideas as to how we might get out of the situation we are in. We have also heard no real arguments to attempt to explain why what the last Labour Government did was right. Interestingly, no Labour Member has said in this debate, “We did a marvellous job; we gave you a golden inheritance.” I would grant them more credit if any of them would be bold enough to stand up and say that, but they will not do so. That is because, as everyone in this country knows, Labour is bereft of ideas, and it would be a disaster if we were ever to leave our future in its hands again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to wind up this debate as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I may be new to the job, but after five hours of debate today I am still no clearer on this Government’s plan for jobs and for growth. Even on the day when unemployment has reached a 17-year high, the Government have no plan for jobs and for growth. Today’s numbers are proof that plan A has failed.

While Government Members say that there is no alternative to the policies being pursued by the Government, the Opposition have put forward a five-point plan for jobs and growth which was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the shadow Chancellor, and supported by Opposition Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) reminded us that a year and a half ago, the economy was growing and unemployment was falling. How different from today. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) gave a vivid account of the impact that the Government’s policies are having on constituents in Hackney.

We heard about plans for jobs and growth rooted in the constituency experience from my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

From the Government Benches we also heard some constructive speeches, particularly from the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). Some Government Members, however, defended plan A 100% but none of them, remarkably, wanted to talk about unemployment in their constituencies. One hon. Member gave a speech not even knowing that unemployment in his constituency was up 29.2% in a year. If that is not proof that plan A has failed, I do not know what is.

Let me rebut some of the Greek myths that we heard from the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) and for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), which they use as a smokescreen for their austerity programme. First, UK debt is just over 60% of GDP; in Greece it is over 150%. Secondly, the average maturity of our debt is roughly 13 years, compared with around six years in Greece. Thirdly, bond yields were falling in the UK ahead of the general election, but they were rising in Greece. Fourthly, Greece is part of the eurozone and so, unlike the UK, cannot devalue its currency. This is a story of two very different economies. The Greek defence for austerity simply does not add up.

I urge hon. Members to look at the facts. We have great British businesses, great British industries, great universities and people in all our constituencies who want to work hard and get on. Let us celebrate and build upon our successes, rather than talking Britain down. Instead of the mantra of resignation and defeat from Government Members, the shadow Chancellor has set out practical policies for jobs and growth. What a contrast and what a different message on how to support families feeling the impact of rising energy and food prices. What a different message to businesses worried about sales and accessing finance. What a different message to young people looking at the prospect of enormous debts when they leave university, with less and less hope of getting a job.

When Labour left office unemployment was falling, but today’s figures show that unemployment, at 2.57 million, is higher now than at any point during the recession, at a level last seen under a Tory Government. Youth unemployment, at 991,000, is the highest ever on record and is inching ever closer to 1 million. Unemployment for women has increased by 40,000 since May and is now above 1 million, the highest level since 1988. Last week’s GDP revisions show that GDP estimates for the second quarter had halved to just 0.1%.

Households are feeling the biggest squeeze on their income for 35 years, but our out-of-touch Prime Minister lectures hard-pressed families to pay off their credit card bills right now. Tell that to the ordinary families coping with the effects of the Government’s VAT hike. Tell that to the struggling small businesses trying to access credit from the banks. Tell that to the anxious young person who cannot even get a job. It is also crazy economics. Of course we all need to be prudent, but the Institute for Public Policy Research has calculated that if everyone were to pay off their credit card debts, consumer spending would be reduced by 6% and GDP would fall by 4%.

Growth has flatlined for nine months, starting before the European debt crisis. We have heard the Chancellor’s excuses. First he blamed the snow, then the royal wedding and now Europe. When will the Government stand up and take responsibility for their actions? The managing director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, says growth is necessary for fiscal credibility, and she is right. It is because the economy has ground to a halt and unemployment is at 2.57 million that the Office for Budget Responsibility now forecasts that we will borrow £46 billion more over this Parliament than planned.

It is not possible to reduce the budget deficit while paying more in benefits and getting less through taxation. Austerity alone will not reduce the budget deficit without a plan for jobs and growth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West reminded us, 18 months ago unemployment was falling, and as my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor noted, John Maynard Keynes once said:

“When the facts change, I change my mind.”

John Maynard Keynes was a Liberal, and so too was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. When he was a Liberal he said:

“We are in real danger of condemning a generation of young people to a cycle of unemployment and low expectations.”

How very prescient—on the day when figures reveal that youth unemployment has gone up to 991,000 under his watch. The Liberal Democrats were once progressives, but now they just represent failed economics, implementing the reckless policies that they said before the election would not work.

There has been much debate this afternoon about the growth strategy that the Government promised, instead of which we have simply had a strategy for failure. They increased VAT, costing families £450 a year, and cancelled the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters so that high-skilled jobs are now going to South Korea rather than south Yorkshire. They scrapped the regional development agencies and replaced them with a regional growth fund that is yet to spend a single penny. The Government have introduced what the Governor of the Bank of England described as the “weakest possible measures” to get banks lending—a ringing endorsement of their Project Merlin. Today the Government have announced the guarantee of a job interview for 50,000 young people, but young people want not just an interview but a guaranteed job or training—a real opportunity, which they had under a Labour Government before the general election and before the future jobs fund was scrapped by this Government. With policies such as these from the Government, no wonder the economic recovery has ground to a halt.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

One of the most dreadful things that this Government are doing is that when they do spend money, for example on the rail or helicopter contracts, they do not support British businesses such as Bombardier and AgustaWestland but spend money on jobs and growth abroad. Should we not be spending British taxpayers’ money to preserve British jobs?

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, with 1,000 jobs going at Bombardier and Government policies putting people out of work and businesses out of business.

While the Government offer no relief, at least the Bank of England is offering some leadership, with an extra £75 billion through quantitative easing, which the Chancellor described just two years ago as

“the last resort of desperate governments when all…other policies have failed”.

Let me be frank. The last Labour Government were desperate to avoid a global recession becoming a global depression; desperate to ensure that unemployment did not hit the 3 million mark, as it did in the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s; and desperate to avoid the business failures and home repossessions that scarred our country in Tory recessions. Government Members should be desperate today, because unemployment is at a 17-year high, because borrowing in August reached a record high, because growth has stalled, and because plan A has failed.

Today, as we see the unemployment numbers, it would be nice to have a Government who reacted and said they have got it wrong. Instead, it takes Labour to come to the Chamber with a five-point plan: a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses and a guarantee of a job for young people; bringing forward long-term investment projects to get people back to work; cutting VAT temporarily to give immediate help to our high streets and to struggling families and pensioners; cutting VAT to 5% on home improvement repairs; and a one-year national insurance tax break for every small firm taking on extra workers. That is a five-point alternative that offers hope and unlocks opportunity.

We can call it what we will—plan A-plus, plan B, or the five-point plan—but this Government must come up with an alternative to help families struggling with rising prices and stagnant wages, to help businesses that cannot get a loan and are scared to take on new workers, to help young people who are facing record youth employment, and to help pensioners facing higher gas and electricity bills this winter. This Government must act for every struggling family, for every struggling business, and for every pensioner. They must act, with Labour’s five-point plan, to unlock the potential of every young person in Britain, to create jobs, and to get our economy growing. Their plan has failed. I urge hon. Members to support this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

No, I will not.

We will not return to growth on the back of what we might call predatory growth, based on spending money we do not have, so that when the music stops and the bills fall due, they have to be paid for by the rest of us. Instead, we are committed to building a new model of growth powered by investment, exports and enterprise, for example by investing in infrastructure. Over the four years of this spending review period, we will invest more in transport infrastructure than our predecessors managed in the previous four years.

[Rachel Reeves]

Before the general election, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said:

“Cuts without economic growth will not deal with the deficit.”

Does the Chief Secretary agree?

[Danny Alexander]

I do, and I am about to set out exactly what this Government are doing for economic growth, if I can be allowed two or three more minutes to fill in that point.

As I was saying, we are investing in infrastructure. Only two weeks ago, I announced the creation of a new “Growing Places” fund—half a billion pounds that will kick-start developments that are currently stalled, deliver on key infrastructure and create jobs.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said, we also have to stop the decay in our competitiveness that has marred the past decade. so we are cutting corporation tax to 23% by 2014, taking it to the lowest rate in the G7. We will increase the SME rate of research and development tax credits to 225% by April 2012, and we are tackling the problems of the imbalances in growth between regions, which a number of Members on both sides of the House have raised. That is why today, the Business Secretary announced the first of our new technology and innovation centres that are being established, and why we have committed £1.4 billion to the regional growth fund, which has committed to projects in the north-east, the north-west and across the country.

As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) rightly observed, we have also announced 22 enterprise zones that will attract hundreds of new start-up enterprises and create thousands of jobs by 2015. We are ensuring, too, that our young people have the skills to seize their opportunities through the recovery. We are supporting more apprenticeships than any previous Government—by the end of this Parliament we will deliver 250,000 more than the previous Government planned, on top of a total of 100,000 work experience placements.

I know that this is a difficult time for many people and families across the country, and that it is not much comfort to say that it would be very much worse if it were not for this Government’s determination to fix the failures of the past.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

That is, of course, absolutely what the IMF said in its recent article IV assessment—and we remember the article IV assessments at the end of the previous Labour Government. It asks explicitly whether the UK Government should change their policy, and it says no. That is the advice of the IMF. Last July, the Labour party voted against Britain paying its subscriptions to the IMF. Frankly, I do not think that Labour Members should talk about the IMF in Treasury questions until they agree with paying the subs.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

If the Office for Budget Responsibility downgrades its forecast for growth for the fourth time when it reports later in the autumn, and revises up its forecast for Government borrowing, would the Chancellor regard that as a success or failure of this Government’s economic policy?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, the Government want economic growth and prosperity. We want a stable international situation in which we can trade. We have to take account of the fact that major trading partners, such as Germany, France and the United States, have seen either no growth or very limited growth as well. That is the challenge we face. As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) reminded us at the weekend, we can either have a credible economic policy that takes note of what is going on in the world or, as he put it, we cannot even be at the races.

Amendment of the Law

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in the same debate as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)—the new Member for that constituency—who will be a credit both to his constituents and to this House. We should listen carefully to his words and his warnings.

Today’s Budget is equally noticeable for what it does and does not include, because the Chancellor has not heeded the many warnings showing that the Government’s economic policies are not working. Gross domestic product figures for the last quarter of 2010 showed that our economy contracted by 0.6%. Government Members blamed the snow, but it snowed in Germany, yet its economy grew by 0.4%, and it snowed in the United States of America, yet its economy grew by 0.7%. The difference is that we are cutting too fast and too deep and they are not.

Another warning can be found in last week’s unemployment figures, which showed that unemployment is the highest it has been for 17 years and that youth unemployment is the highest on record. The OBR today showed that unemployment is set to rise to 8.2% this year and 8.1% next year—higher than it was even at the height of the recession. House prices continue to fall and yesterday we learned that the consumer prices index has increased to 4.4% and the retail prices index to 5.5%. There are many warnings that the Government’s policies are not working.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I have a quick question for the hon. Lady. Why, on the “Daily Politics” show approximately three hours ago, was she unable to name one measure in this Budget that Labour Front Benchers would vote against?

[Rachel Reeves]

We would like to vote, for example, on the bank bonus levy and other components of the Budget. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) set out today that we will consider areas of growth in “The Plan for Growth” green book. There are areas where we want to work with the Government but also areas where we disagree with what they are doing.

Given the warnings I have mentioned, it is hardly surprising that the independent OBR has today downgraded its growth forecast for 2011 to 1.7% and has revised growth for next year to 2.5%. Let us put that in context. Before the Chancellor’s first Budget last year, the OBR predicted growth in 2011 of 2.6%. That forecast has now been downgraded three times—to 2.3%, 2.1% and today to 1.7%. Every time the Chancellor gets to the Dispatch Box, the OBR has to downgrade its growth forecasts.

The Government will say that the only way to get growth back on track is to reduce the deficit, but we have also seen today that the OBR’s borrowing forecast is expected to be £44.5 billion higher over this Parliament as a result of lower growth and higher unemployment. Despite today’s opportunity to think again, however, the Chancellor will still not accept that plan A is not going to plan.

Although the Chancellor has no plan for growth, his implicit plan B, I think, was looser monetary policy, yet today’s Monetary Policy Committee minutes show a further split over whether to increase rates and yesterday’s inflation data show more pressure for a rate rise. Plan B is looking as forlorn as plan A, with householders likely to see a mortgage rate rise by the summer.

We have heard many times today that the Government cannot change course, but that is a fallacy. Jonathan Portes, the new director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, recently said that that intransigence

“relies on an odd view of market psychology, one that says markets have more confidence in governments that never adjust policy, even when it is sensible…history suggests the opposite: that the real hit to credibility comes from sticking to unsustainable policies”.

He is right. Now is the time—more than ever—for the Government to rethink their plan, which is sapping jobs and growth out of the economy.

We need to begin to build the Britain of the future, because confidence in UK plc requires a belief that we have a competitive economy that productively employs its resources, draws on our strengths across the sectors and regions and invests in science, skills, technology and infrastructure. Today’s Budget, however, does nothing to foster investment or hope. Although I welcome “The Plan for Growth”, which has been published today, and the announcements to relieve us of a further increase in fuel prices and to provide help for first-time buyers, the Chancellor could and should have done more.

Most of all, although the Chancellor has said repeatedly that he will be tough on the banks, page 103 of the Red Book shows that the bank bonus tax brought in £3.5 billion in 2010 whereas the bank levy will bring in just £1.9 billion this year. There is no guarantee that the banks will lend any more to small businesses because the Government agreed gross lending targets and no net lending targets. No wonder the Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, Lord Oakeshott, resigned, saying that if this was tough action, his name was Bob Diamond. The Government have washed their hands of any responsibility to help small businesses, which are being hit hard by the banks’ actions.

There are other areas where the Chancellor could have acted today. We need a plan for green jobs and there is still the potential for Britain to be a world leader, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out earlier, in the green technologies of the future, but the market requires certainty and we are losing the initiative to countries that are willing to provide it. We need action, not just words, on the green investment bank, yet today we found out that it will not be fully operational until 2015.

We need regional economic strategies. The regional growth fund is estimated to be 10 times over-subscribed, and with a two-thirds cut to regional economic investment, cities and towns across Britain are missing out on opportunities to grow and diversify their economies. We risk another overheating in London and the south-east while the potential powerhouses of the north of England are being left behind. Although I welcome the enterprise zones, the evidence from the 1980s shows that such approaches move, rather than create, jobs. Of course, the funding for enterprise zones is a fraction of what the regional development agencies had to spend.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that because the enterprise zones are being imposed on regions, unlike in London where the Mayor will decide where they are, entire areas of the north-east such as Northumberland and Durham will be completely excluded from them and the little help they will bring?

[Rachel Reeves]

I do agree. Of course, only half the plans were announced today, which was disappointing.

We need an approach to business taxation that fosters growth. Although the Government have trumpeted the cut in corporation tax, it has so far been funded at the expense of investment and manufacturing allowances, so while big businesses have benefited from a tax cut, start-up and investment-intensive firms have seen their taxes rise. If we are to create the jobs of the future, we need today’s entrepreneurs to innovate and that is where the limited funds should be targeted.

We also need greater investment in skills and education. Last year, 8 million people graduated from universities in China and India. No other country is cutting investment in universities, reducing the teaching grant by 80% and cancelling partnerships between business and universities, but that is what the Government are doing.

Last week, we heard that the youth unemployment figure is approaching 1 million and it beggars belief that the future jobs fund is closing its doors in the same month that youth unemployment has risen yet again. One in five young people—more in my constituency—now claims unemployment benefit. Today’s unemployment figures are likely to rise further and today’s Budget is bad news for young people up and down the country.

The public recognise the need for austerity, but they also want to know that the Government have learnt lessons from the crisis and are determined to build a fairer and more sustainable economic future. Britain could be a world leader in the jobs, technologies and industries of the future but only if the Government support growth. Today was the Chancellor’s opportunity to show that he understands the needs of businesses and families, but the OBR’s verdict was to downgrade growth for the third time in 2011 and for next year as well. The Government have ignored the wake-up calls. This Budget is a missed opportunity and I urge the Chancellor and his colleagues to think again about what is really needed to ensure that we emerge from this recession with a stronger, fairer economy for everyone in the country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your time restraint.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

The main thrust of my speech was to point out that growth had been downgraded and we did not know that until today. It was only when we heard the Budget that we knew that growth had been downgraded, for the third time in a row, to 1.7%, so I could not have written it earlier.

[Mr Jackson]

I know that the hon. Lady has some expertise on these issues. She can rest assured that my criticism will be confined mainly to the Leader of the Opposition, who delivered a master class in opportunism and vacuity. His loquacity was in inverse proportion to his intellectual insight. In his 15 minutes of speaking, no policy whatever was articulated.

The Budget is supported by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and business leaders such as the deputy director of the CBI, John Cridland, and David Frost of the British Chambers of Commerce. It is about the Government putting in place the conditions for sustainable, balanced economic growth. Let us remember that the Institute for Fiscal Studies still says that public finances remain in a critical condition, but we have had no alternative whatever from Her Majesty’s Opposition. Indeed, we might have to call in Professor Brian Cox, the noted cosmologist, to search for the black hole where the Labour economic policy should be.

[Mr Jackson]

I will make some progress; I am sure that I can let the hon. Lady in a bit later. The priorities of the Budget are primarily to reduce the deficit; rebalance the economy, which was left out of kilter by the Labour Government, with an over-concentration on financial services, the housing market and public expenditure; reform public services; and grow, via initiatives such as the green investment bank, green expertise, knowledge, skills and jobs. If I may give a plug, yesterday a collaboration was announced between Peterborough city council and Cranfield university on a centre for renewable energy and biofuels, to be based in Peterborough.

We need to move towards a high-wage, low-taxation economy with less pressure on household incomes, and the Budget provides a road map for that. No one denies that we have had to make some very tough decisions in the comprehensive spending review and in last year’s emergency Budget. There were real-terms cuts in departmental expenditure; the cut to departmental expenditure will be, on average, 11%. However, we should remember that between 1998 and 2010, there was a real-terms increase in budgets in each Department of anything between 2% and 8%. The fiscal tightening between now and 2015-16 will mean that we have to reduce public expenditure and put taxes up, with capital gains tax, tobacco, fuel, the bank levy, consumer prices indexation and child benefit affected. Contrary to received wisdom among Opposition Members, the richest 2% will be hit hardest by the tax benefit and other changes.

What choice do we have? Labour’s poisonous legacy and debt millstone left us with simply no alternative. In 2010-11, we had to borrow about £140 billion—perhaps around £10 billion less than expected. Only Ireland has a bigger cyclically adjusted deficit. Labour ran a structural deficit some seven years before the banking crisis in 2007-08, and we entered the financial crisis with the largest structural deficit in the G7. The national debt doubled between 1997 and 2010. In May last year, we were at significant risk of a downgrading in our international credit rating, with a catastrophic impact on public services, business and consumer confidence, a long period of stagflation, and a contraction in the economy.

[Rachel Reeves]

I want to enlighten the hon. Gentleman with two facts. First, in 1996, just before the Labour Government came into power, there was a structural budget deficit of 4%, whereas it was 2.5% in 2007. Secondly, he compares the UK economy with that of Greece, but does he recognise the figures that show that although bond yields in Greece increased from 7% to 12% between January and May 2010, in the UK, before the Conservatives came to power, they were falling?

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady will know that the markets have recognised that the fiscal consolidation that the Government had to put in place as part of a policy of growth in the private sector and consolidation in the public sector has resulted in a lessening of the pressures in the gilt markets, with gilt yields down to 3.53% since May last year, and every 1% is £1 billion of interest payment. Of course, that is change in the pocket to Labour Members; we are spending £120 million on debt every day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I was going to say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but we have heard a succession of speeches from Government Members that were not only economically illiterate, but stuck to the rhetoric pumped out during the general election. They seem unable to get away from that rhetoric even when the reality of what this country is facing hits them. We heard a rant from the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and, frankly, a very strange speech from the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who clearly had read something about the gilt market but did not quite understand how it works.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on an excellent maiden speech. I think he will be a great asset to the House. He is a man of great courage in both his private and personal life and in the service of this country. I look forward to many more contributions of the standard he gave today.

I would like to focus on two issues: the lack of a policy for growth in the Budget and how that will not affect positively the economy of the north-east of England. Growth figures for the last quarter of 2010 show that the economy contracted by 0.6%, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). The Government blamed snow for that, but she eloquently pointed out some great examples of economies that grew despite having weather that was far worse than it was in this country.

On top of that, last week we saw a 17-year high in unemployment, set against a continuing fall in house prices and an increase in inflation to 4.4%. It would not take an astrologer, as was mentioned earlier, or a genius to work out that the OBR was going to have to downgrade its growth forecast today. Initially, it said that growth would be 2.6%; then, that it would be 2.1%; and today, that it will be 1.7%. The lack of growth is the main risk to our economy, and let us be honest, the Budget was spun so much that we could have read or predicted most of it before the Chancellor even stood up at the Dispatch Box today to announce it.

The Government also say that the key thing they have to do is to reduce borrowing, but borrowing is now going up, so even by their standards the economic pill is clearly not working. What is happening now is both risky and dangerous to the UK economy, and, although history cannot be repeated precisely, we need to look back, because one of the key lessons we have learned from the 1920s and ’30s is that recovery from large financial crises is delicate, slow and stuttering. Now, as a precise result of this Government’s policies since May, growth is down and unemployment, borrowing and inflation are up.

[Rachel Reeves]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, who says:

“Unless advanced countries can count on stronger private demand, both domestic and foreign, they will find it difficult to achieve fiscal consolidation”?

[Mr Jones]

Yes. That is the entire flaw in the Government’s policy: the idea that they can cut public expenditure as deeply and savagely as they are going to, and that somehow jobs will be created in the private sector—something that will just not happen. It might happen in parts of the economy, but there is certainly no indication that it will happen in my region. In fact, the situation is even worse, because Durham university’s model shows that taking out 20% of the public services will lead to 50,000 jobs going in the north-east, with 20,000 of them actually in the private sector. Replacing those jobs, in addition to the 30,000 in the public sector, is going to be very difficult.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I can indeed confirm that, and this is one of the great paradoxes at the moment. The plan, which the previous Government all appeared to have signed up to, including the shadow Chancellor—that is, the plan put in place by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer—starts in eight weeks’ time and involves billions of pounds of cuts, amounting to just £2 billion less than what we are planning this year. We have not had any proposals from the Opposition; they have eight weeks to come up with a plan.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

In Leeds we will lose 11 citizens advice bureaux debt advisers next month because of the cancellation of the financial inclusion fund. Where would the Minister suggest that my constituents who are struggling with debt and excessive and escalating charges from doorstep lenders go for advice?

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the financial inclusion fund, which was set up by the previous Government, was coming to a close at the end of March. Other sources of debt advice are available. For example, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service is an effective provider of advice, while the Money Advice Trust provides advice over the phone. There are sources of advice out there, but as I said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), the Consumer Finance Education Body, which was set up by the previous Government and which we proposed, will reach out to the most vulnerable people in society to ensure that they get access to high-quality advice.

Bank Bonuses

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

An absolute central part of any settlement we might reach with the banks will be a material and verifiable increase in the amount of lending to British businesses, especially medium and small businesses. [Interruption.] Labour Members mutter, but they secured absolutely nothing for British business when they bailed out the banks. They had the money in their hands to give to the banks, and they secured absolutely nothing in return.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

A quick glance at today’s newspaper financial pages shows that the share price of RBS is 40p today compared with 52p this time last year, while that of Lloyds was 66p today compared with 64p a year ago. My constituents in Leeds West would not expect bonuses for such performance, so why should taxpayers’ money be used for the bonuses of our nationalised banks?

[Mr Osborne]

The deal that the previous Government signed with RBS as a condition of being part of the asset protection scheme stated that it should not pay bonuses in 2009, but that for the bonuses awarded in 2010—the period we are talking about now—it should pay the market rate. That was the deal that Labour signed up to. I am trying to reduce the RBS bonus pool, and I have made it very clear—as has the Prime Minister—that it should be a back-marker, not a market leader.

Financial Assistance (Ireland)

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am not proposing to take Britain out of the Maastricht treaty, despite my hon. Friend’s request. I know that will come as a bit of a disappointment. I would like the balance of payments mechanism to remain—it has existed for many years—but of course the situation in the eurozone is not a balance of payments issue. That mechanism is for countries, particularly accession countries, to draw upon. I would like the mechanism set up under article 122 to be used for what it was designed to be used for, which was natural disasters and the like, and I would like the permanent bail-out mechanism for the eurozone not to include the United Kingdom.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Although it is imperative that we support Ireland through the crisis, does the Chancellor accept that events in Ireland demonstrate that the global economic recovery is extremely fragile, and that to premise our own recovery on £80 billion of cuts and export-led growth looks increasingly optimistic at best and dangerously naive at worst?