Budget Resolutions

Sarah Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

Correct. In a way, that is the point that I am gently trying to make to the House, with a very brief and, everyone will be pleased to hear, soon-to-conclude lesson in the fiscal consolidation of the last 14 years.

Austerity, a bungled Brexit and chaos left us with a growth rate that fell from an average of 3% in the Labour years down to 1.6% over the last 14 years. We had tax forecasts that failed time and time and time and time again; living standards that simply did not rise in the last Parliament; productivity growth that collapsed from about 2% a year to about 0.5% a year; inequality that soared; and, as I have just rehearsed, debt that multiplied to an extraordinary £2.7 trillion.

In the old days, we used to have debates about whether the roof had been fixed while the sun was shining. The reality is that for the last 14 years, the Conservative party has been trying to patch the roof by ripping out the foundations of our economy. That approach has drawn to a close today. We have only got through the last 14 years because of the ingenuity, fortitude, kindness and compassion of the people we represent. Those people deserve a better approach and that is what they got from the Chancellor today. We have an approach that Alistair Darling would have well appreciated: a Budget balanced not simply in the numbers, but in the balance of interests.

If we look at the numbers in the Red Book, we can see the guts of that different approach. Everybody knows—we might as well be honest in the House today—that the original sin of the British economy is a failure in the investment rate. Over the last 14 years, the approach to trying to stimulate development has relied on tax cut after tax cut after tax cut after tax cut. Today, the Chancellor has ended the insanity of trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

The capital investment delivered by this Budget will see £104 billion extra being surged into the economy. The Chancellor was absolutely right. Last week, at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, we heard a clear message from the IMF that unless we raise the fixed rate of investment in our economy, we are not going to improve living standards or the growth rate, and we are not going to pay down the debt, so the Chancellor’s approach is extremely welcome.

The Budget forecast shows that over the forecast period, we will now see the rate of fixed investment increase in our economy by between 6% and 7%. That is still probably not enough to catch up with our competitors, but it is a hell of a good start and, crucially, it is a departure from the failed economic philosophy for stimulating investment of the last 14 years. After 14 years of failure, it was time to try something new, and that is what the Chancellor has given us today.

That allows us to strike a new bargain with business. We can say to the business community, “Look, we will put £104 billion extra of capital investment into the economy. We will make sure you have the roads, the railway systems and the digital infrastructure that you need for your markets to function. We will make sure you have a workforce that is actually healthy and well, fit for work and well-trained. We will make sure there is investment in the skills you need in your business, and we will make sure your workers stand a hope in hell of getting a home somewhere near their work. We will make sure there is investment in research and development.” Why? Because if we put all of that together, we will have the greatest entrepreneurs in the world.

Our entrepreneurs have been making history by inventing the future since the age of the industrial revolution, but they need good people, good ideas and access to capital markets, which they do not have today. This Budget begins to make that available.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor remember that working people also live in rural areas? I was disappointed that the word “rural” was mentioned only twice in an hour during the Chancellor’s speech, and then only as an aside. No mention was made of the south-west of England, where there are serious pockets of deprivation—

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Except Cornwall.

[Sarah Gibson]

Except Cornwall, but no towns. No mention was made of the rest of the south-west, where we suffer from a lack of public transport. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that access to public transport and primary care is vital for working people in rural areas?

[Liam Byrne]

I agree 100%, but I say gently to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that that is not free. If we want to ensure that there are good transport links and digital links, that the workforce is healthy, well and trained, and that there is a rich ecosystem of ideas, the money has to come from somewhere. The sensible decisions that have been made to increase borrowing in order to fund a higher level of fixed capital investment are wise. Investment in public services is wise too. I very much hope that that will benefit the hon. Lady’s constituency.

An increase in investment on the scale we have seen today will improve the profitability of businesses in this country. The Business and Trade Committee looks forward to scrutinising the detail and ensuring the Government have got the balance right, because, goodness knows, it is hard enough to get the balance right in a Budget, never mind translating it into legislation. That bargain for business has to consist of two sides: on the one hand, we will create a better business environment through higher capital investment, but on the other we have to give workers a pay rise.

The labour share of income in this country has fallen precipitously since the 1950s. If the labour share of national income was as high today as it was in 1955, on average a worker would be receiving a pay packet this year that was over £7,000 bigger. That is why we have to get the balance right between ensuring that businesses are more profitable and ensuring that workers are getting their share of national income. Getting the balance right is difficult. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my Committee and I will scrutinise that in detail. We will begin that work when we see the Secretary of State for Business and Trade in front of our Committee in just a couple of weeks’ time.

My final point is about where I wanted the Chancellor to go further. Among the worst of her inheritance is the yawning gulf in inequality that scars our country. We have a moral emergency in Britain: sales of superyachts, luxury cars and big mansions are at an all-time high, but, at exactly the same time, the queues for food banks have never been greater. There is no mystery to that. Over the past 14 years, the combination of easy money and low taxes on capital income has meant that the top 1% in our country—the luckiest 1%—are 41 times richer than everybody else. Did they work 41 times harder? Are they 41 times cleverer? Did they win the lottery? Well, in a way they did, because £850 billion-worth of quantitative easing held interest rates in our country down by about 1%. That triggered three quarters of the rise in asset prices that we have seen over the past 14 years. Of course, people in the top 1% will own assets and will have seen a windfall gain, yet the rate of tax they pay on those capital gains is just half the top rate of marginal tax.

I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is no longer in his place to hear me say this, but he did a good thing a couple of years ago, which was to publish his tax return. I am sure that all hon. Members will have read it—it does not take long, as it is only a page long. It declares an income of £2 million and a tax rate of 23%. At a time when so many people in our country are paying a top marginal rate of more than 47%, I do not think that it is morally right that those with broader shoulders are paying much lower tax rates. I would have liked to have seen the Chancellor go further on capital gains tax.

I welcome the changes to the non-dom and inheritance tax regimes, but I would have proposed other changes as well. If we had truly restored fairness to the tax system, we could have raised money to increase the national wealth fund and opened the opportunity, for the first time, of paying dividends into a universal savings account for every young person in this country. That would have helped them get a foot on the housing ladder, repay their student debt, invest in their training, or kickstart savings for their pension. That would have helped us to create a universal basic capital system in this country. We will need a system like that if we are to fix the scandalous inequalities of wealth that now bedevil our country. None the less, I accept that the Chancellor had to put first things first today. She had to fix the foundations, because, as all of us in this House know, if we get that job done well, the best years for this country truly lie ahead of us.