Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Neil Carmichael

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

There has to be a connect between the promises that the Government make and the ability to deliver on them, whether through legislative changes or, indeed, through having the resources to deal with the issues.

The Northern Ireland Executive will benefit, from Barnett consequentials, to the tune of about £220 million over the comprehensive spending review period. Many people will welcome the fact that £5 million has been set aside to establish an air ambulance in Northern Ireland, for which we have called for a long time.

I want to deal with two areas. I will start where the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) finished, with the Chancellor’s references to the European Union. I notice that the Chancellor made fairly scant reference to it in his statement. Indeed, I think many people were probably surprised about that, given the way in which the Government have tried to drive this issue. On the other hand, I am not surprised, because what does he really have to say about retaining membership of the EU?

The Chancellor talks about struggling with the budget deficit and with the public finances, yet he is quite happy to give £10 billion a year to the EU. In the EU, the money is often so badly spent that its accounts are qualified every year. Such money goes on fraudulent activities; it disappears into black holes; it goes on vanity projects—[Interruption.] I notice that some of the most vociferous supporters of giving public funds to the EU are from the Labour party, while its Members are complaining about cuts in services for their own constituents.

The other point that the Chancellor has to address is that, although he will give £6 billion to companies in corporation tax cuts, he will, over the same period, take £7 billion more off them in environmental levies, most of which are driven by European directives. On the one hand he is giving money to businesses, and on the other, European directives ensure that he has to take it from them.

The hon. Member for Stroud got it wrong when he mentioned what the OBR has said about leaving the EU. The OBR has not been definite that certain things would happen. Indeed, its report says that leaving the EU “could usher in” uncertainty, “could have negative” impacts and

“might result in greater volatility in financial…markets”.

That is also what the Chancellor said. The ironic thing is that he had no sooner uttered his comments about threatening and slaughtering jobs, investment and everything else than, in his very next sentence, he pointed out that since the autumn statement—we have had all the uncertainty about the referendum and the fact that the United Kingdom might vote to leave the EU—the Government had

“created…150,000 more jobs than the OBR expected.”

There is all this volatility and uncertainty, yet in the face of a referendum businesses are not reflecting uncertainty or fear. Indeed, according to the Chancellor they are creating 150,000 more jobs than the OBR expected.

[Neil Carmichael]

I just wondered whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that 80% of businesses in Northern Ireland want to stay in the European Union.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, it depends on what survey we look at. Large firms benefit from the lobbying power they have to restrict innovation and the entry of small firms into markets. Small businesses are buried under regulations and strangled by the red tape that emanates from Europe.

The Chancellor carefully avoided talking too much about our membership of the EU, because there is not a good story to tell on that in budgetary terms. I notice that, so intent is he in ensuring that attention is not drawn to it, EU transactions are included with others in chart 1 of the executive summary—he does not want to highlight the exact amount of money we pay into the EU.

The second issue I want to deal with is inequality across the United Kingdom and across sectors of the population. Growth forecasts have been reduced for a whole range of reasons. Some of those reasons are outside the control of the Chancellor, but some are not. One way to improve growth is to borrow money for infrastructure projects. I find it inconceivable that the Government talk about not letting the level of debt go up when there are good infrastructure projects that would give a good rate of return. They are quite happy for debt to go up to finance consumer spending, which has been the main driver of growth. I would rather see growth driven by spending on infrastructure projects that increase productivity and give a return that generates tax revenues in the future, rather than putting individuals in jeopardy if there happens to be an increase in interest rates.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Neil Carmichael

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman has missed my point; perhaps I did not make it very well. When the Chancellor declares what taxes he intends to levy in the Budget, that announcement is accompanied by what he intends to spend that tax revenue on. Sometimes that revenue materialises and sometimes it does not.

The only requirement that I would make of an amendment of this nature is that it does not throw out a reckless figure and say, “We will make £x billion from this provision and spend it.” The Minister was right to ask on what basis the amendment’s calculation was made, but it cannot be argued that, because there is a degree of uncertainty, this is not a good proposition. I would have been very unhappy had the amendment said, “Let’s raise the money and then we’ll see what we will do with it.” It is much easier to make an argument on the grounds of fairness: “Let’s raise the money and this is what we will do with it.” Knowing where the money comes from, the purposes for which it was being used and the purposes for which it will be used once collected would enable us to judge whether the proposition is fair. It is not possible to divorce how the money is raised from what will be done with it.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does not this line of argument represent the thin end of the wedge with regard to hypothecation? Raising taxes is a general activity and the decision on how they should be allocated for expenditure purposes has to be made on other grounds. The obvious example is the health service.

[Sammy Wilson]

I agree that a general proposition that every specific tax raised should be hypothecated for a certain purpose would be very dangerous, but this is not a general proposition; it relates to one specific case and that case has to be made.