National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

Our constituents are not fools, so I sincerely ask Labour Members to consider whether they came into Parliament to increase taxes on their GPs, on their care workers, on their charities and on their nurseries, or to add to the burden on hospices, like Keech hospice in Mid Bedfordshire, on local air ambulances and on charities such as the Greensand Trust, which does amazing work on environmental conservation in my constituency. They did not, so Labour Members should stand up to their leadership today, for the sake of hard-working people throughout our country, and stop this jobs tax.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is extraordinary to follow Opposition Members, with their short-sightedness and, frankly, short memory of the damage they have done to this country. Indeed, it is the very definition of chutzpah. I have been in this place for 14 years, and I watched what happened unfold in my constituency and across the country. That is how we got to this Bill today. New MPs may wish to rewrite history, but many of us can give testimony to the damage the Conservatives did.

This country should be grateful that we now have a Chancellor who is facing up to the fantasy public finances that we inherited from the previous Government, and who is trying to rebuild this nation. We finally have a framework for improving our rail services. Anybody thinking about getting on a train this Christmas knows how far we have to go. The damage lies at the door of the previous Conservative Government.

This Government are devolving meaningful powers to local government and generating clean electricity, which are just two things that the previous Government could not even understand, let alone get a grip of. We are certainly developing a better approach to our infrastructure.

In their final years in office, the Conservatives passed tax cuts that the country could not afford. There may have been genuine shocks around the world, but we can see the damage the Conservatives did, and we can see that they chose to compound it with bad choices. They did not just break Britain; they slashed it and burned it to the ground. That means this Government’s first year in office is a salvage operation. The previous Government’s decision to prioritise fake tax cuts over sustained investment in our public infrastructure has cost us all dearly.

Those who are sceptical of what I am saying should stand in an A&E and see the trolleys in the corridors, as 7.9 million people still wait for operations. They should talk to the schools with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, to the councils barely clinging on to provide social care, and to the police who just do not exist on our streets.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

For donkey’s years, I listened to the right hon. Gentleman try to claim that this country was on the up. I have seen the alternative. Please let him justify that.

[Graham Stuart]

As the hon. Lady knows, 4 million jobs were created under the last Conservative Government. She has just talked movingly about patients stuck on trolleys in corridors. Could she explain to the Committee how the Labour Government’s policies in England will differ from the policies of the Labour Government in Wales, which has far worse outcomes and worse waiting lists than anywhere in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what this Government are going to do differently: they will make a difference to all our constituents by getting waiting lists down with the money provided to invest in our NHS. The previous Government were all vandals, and we have seen the damage they have done.

The challenge before us in the Bill is to ensure this Government do not make the same mistakes, but instead address head-on the need to build the necessary foundations. To deal with the expectations of the public—our constituents—we need to talk more openly about the fact that having better services requires better funding through taxation. The broken Britain we now see will not fix itself with a bit of time. Worse, the public cannot be distracted from the problems they see by being given someone else to blame—trans people, refugees, immigrants, women or foreigners generally. That is a fantasy the British public did not buy at the last election, and they should not be promised it again. They know we have a difficult road ahead and difficult choices to make, but they will back those choices if they can see there is a reason to do so.

Above all, the British public understand that this country needs investment and growth. I am chair of the Labour Movement for Europe and I think there needs to be discussion about our future relationship with Europe, but that is for another time. We also need infrastructure, which is why I have proposed new clause 4. Infrastructure is not just about roads and rail, but about the services people need every day to be able to get to work and to manage their commitments, including childcare.

As somebody who spent 14 years urging the previous Government to invest in childcare, I will brook no lectures from the Opposition now they have had a damascene conversion to the idea that it matters. Childcare is economic infrastructure. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but time and again he voted against proposals to make childcare a matter of economic infrastructure.

New clause 4 is about how best we invest in our people to be able to grow our economy. As we make tough choices, it is important we do so in a way that means our productivity improves, which means looking out for parents as well as potholes. We are in the middle of the biggest expansion of childcare this country has ever seen, to try to get to a point where every parent can access 30 hours of free childcare for all under-fives. Under the last Government, some parents were paying more for childcare than for their rent or their mortgage. The previous Government repeatedly failed to invest, and then they made promises that they knew they could never keep, pushing up demand without increasing supply. We must not make the same mistakes.

It is vital for our economy to make childcare more accessible and affordable, and we know we have a way to go. In rural areas, there are 31% fewer childcare places compared with inner cities and town centres. The most deprived communities have 32% fewer places per child, compared with affluent areas. Of the poorest fifth of parents with young children, only a third use formal childcare, compared with 73% of the highest earning households. The previous Government reinforced that inequality, rather than addressing it in their childcare policies. That is why in my constituency there are still three children chasing every single childcare place.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Lady has always been an advocate for childcare. One way the previous Government tried to address the issue was to try to stop the cliff edge for childcare by looking at households rather than individual parents. In the last Budget, the Government were looking at the proposal to consider households as one unit. Does that mean the hon. Lady has changed her mind and would support that mechanism being looked at again? It would solve a lot of the problems caused by, for example, a single parent having to pay for childcare because they are exempt, whereas a household containing a couple who earn under £45,000 are not eligible.

[Ms Creasy]

Let me reach the hand of co-operation across the House to the hon. Gentleman, if he wants to finally work on what would be a genuinely affordable and accessible childcare system in this country. However, I will temper his enthusiasm, because his party made things worse. Under the previous Government, there was a 50% reduction in childcare place. We saw nurseries closing time and again because of the changes his Government made. We are starting from a foundation where the places simply do not exist. For the places that are there, too often it is those who can well afford childcare who are taking them.

If we are to get to a position where we have the childcare places we need, so that every child can get the best start in life in this country, we need to invest. We need to ensure that we save what is there and encourage those nurseries that can expand to do so. If we do that, we will reap the rewards, both in the Exchequer and in society. That is why early years provision matters to the future of this country.

Research by the Education Policy Institute shows that 40% of the disadvantage gap at the age of 16 has already emerged by the age of five. Equally, investment in early years means we could save £16 billion a year later, according to the London School of Economics. It also means we will get more money, because more people—mothers, fathers and carers—can make the choice to work and pay tax.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case about the need to invest to save. When we invest upstream in our public services, that often saves money for the taxpayer further down the line. Does she agree with the Liberal Democrats that that could be equally applied to investing in GPs, dentists and pharmacists to relieve pressure on the NHS?

[Ms Creasy]

I have worked with the hon. Lady on various issues, and I hope she will give me the latitude to expand my argument and set out my proposals, which we could move forward on together as a House. I do not doubt her sincerity, but I also recognise the fiscal destruction of the previous Government that we need to deal with, which means we need to tell the British public the truth about what needs to happen. Making unfunded promises is as bad as not promising to act.

Parent surveys show that a real difference is made when 30 hours of childcare is offered. That amount of childcare enables families to make choices about getting back into work. If we want to get to 30 hours by September next year, we need 60,000 additional childcare places and 29,000 extra members of staff. If we do not have fundamental root and branch reform of how we fund the provision of childcare, that will cost about £72 million extra a year on hiring staff alone. That is the challenge we face if we want to get this right.

I know how hard the Minister is working to get the economy growing again. I know he is going to hear pleas from every single sector about the impact of the national insurance changes; nobody should be under any illusion that they are not difficult changes. I make a plea for the childcare sector because I believe that in the end, it will pay for itself. If we are able to get more people back to work, especially mums, who all too often end up bearing the burden of childcare, we will be able to raise more taxes and there will be more investment as a result.

That is particularly true of the childcare sector because it is a people-intensive industry. Staffing costs make up 75% of a nursery’s running costs, compared with 30% for the average restaurant. Because the previous Government systemically failed to invest in childcare, the majority of childcare has been provided by the private sector. Some 85% of places are delivered outside the state sector. There is little flexibility on numbers in the sector, because ratios—the number of people looking after little people—matter. These are not businesses with small numbers of staff; an average nursery has 14 members of staff, which means the additional costs will be about £36,000 to £39,000 a year. Around £14,000 of that will be national insurance.

Many Members agree that we need to invest in that childcare and will be pleased to see this Government trying to address the balance. The damage done under the previous Government meant that 83% of nursery providers said the funding they received did not cover their costs. That is why closures increased by 50% in the last couple of years. This Government have already increased the funding for our nurseries, but while that takes account of increases in wages costs, it does not take account of the increases in national insurance.

I tabled new clause 4, which is about having a review of one element of all that, to ensure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face when trying to get more people into work. We recognise that extra national insurance costs may have consequences, be they recruitment freezes, reduced staff training or even closures, at a time when we want the sector to expand. Indeed, the majority of nurseries have staff vacancies, so they need extra people already.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case of logic as it applies to early years provision, and I do not think anybody in this place could argue with the logic she advances. Is it not so robust, however, that it also applies to primary care, hospices and charities, if it applies to nurseries?

[Ms Creasy]

I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am talking about a specific function of the way in which the childcare sector operates and the fact that it generates public Exchequer funding when we get people back into work. My argument here is that we invest to save. This is specifically about childcare. I am sure the hon. Member has read new clause 4 in depth, by the look on his face.

[Dave Doogan]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

He will therefore understand why I suggest that we as a Parliament could look at how we address those issues. Right now, the sector is concerned. I do not think that is a surprise to anyone. It may be a damascene conversion for the Conservative party to suddenly care about it, but there is a concern across the sector about not going backwards.

Clause 3 will increase the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 and will reduce the current £100,000 threshold. It might be perceived that for some small businesses, particularly in the childcare sector, that would be a potential way forward in reducing some of the impact of the changes so those businesses can continue to expand. However, the challenge is right now, with the majority of childcare providers not qualifying for the employment allowance because of the way in which the sector operates and because it has been ignored, dismissed and derided by previous Governments. The majority of positions are produced in the private sector. That means they do not qualify.

There is perhaps an unintended irony in all that, however, which is that investing in more childcare, as we are doing, means that many of those small businesses will not be eligible for the employment allowance. As it is about companies that receive less than 50% of their income from public funding, while many childcare providers were originally in that position before money started going into them, the irony is that many fewer will be in that position in the coming years as a result, meaning that they will be denied the opportunity.

Childcare provision in educational settings will be able to benefit, so it is not a total denial. That means that if we are looking to expand childcare, in the current environment and without looking at how we can make that an equal opportunity for all childcare providers, that will have to be done through the state sector, which means having to find nurseries that can be provided in spare classrooms or childcare settings within an educational setting. That accounts for a small amount of the structures in place at the moment, and there is a risk that we will not see the investment in expansion because expansion in previous times has come through the private sector.

My concern, if I am frank, is that this is a perfect storm of our own making. With the best intentions of investing money from the Budget in childcare, we may inadvertently make it harder to expand childcare. That is why we need a review, because it is not clearcut that that will be the outcome, which is why I have tabled new clause 4. I also urge Ministers to look at business rates, which currently add around £21,000 to the average nursery. We found support in the Budget for those in retail and hospitality. We could look again at the childcare sector on the same basis.

Above all, we need to raise those questions and ask how we can ensure that we do not see a curtailment of childcare in this country, because the reality is that fees will then go up, making it even harder for parents to use it. That is what the Pregnant Then Screwed surveys are showing us: 90% of parents who have a place are terrified that costs will go up in the coming year, and 60% say that if that happened they would reduce their hours or leave work altogether.

This is a tough time, this is a tough Budget, and there are tough decisions to be made. We are not shying away from that and I am proud to be a member of a political party in government that is getting a grip of this country’s needs. However, I am also determined, as I am sure is everybody on the Back Benches, to make sure that we do that in the best way possible. If the Minister will not accept new clause 4, I hope he can tell us what work the Treasury is doing to ensure that childcare as a form of economic infrastructure can grow and support this country as it recovers from the last 14 years of Conservative Government.

We know that all those who will be affected—in the choice to work, to stay in work and to stay open and run a nursery—are literally the ones who have been paying the price of having a Conservative Government. We do not wish to make them pay all over again. The Conservatives broke Britain. We now need to be honest about the work and the investment that it will take to repair it.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I am greatly concerned about the consequences of this Bill. There are consequences for businesses, for employees and for essential primary care providers in my constituency and across the country. The Bill represents an unfair jobs tax that risks harming the livelihoods of countless individuals and the viability of small businesses at a time when they are already grappling with a multitude of challenges.

I wish to begin by highlighting the impact that this legislation will have on community pharmacies, which are at the frontline of healthcare in our local areas. The owner of Horton Pharmacy and Travel Clinic in Epsom has expressed grave concerns about the financial burden that this increase in employer national insurance contributions will impose. He told me:

“We are estimating that it’s going to cost an extra £12,000 a year. It’s very distressing and making it harder to keep our doors open and help reduce the burden on other parts of the NHS.”

Community pharmacies such as Horton Pharmacy play a critical role in alleviating pressure on our overstretched NHS by providing accessible healthcare and advice, yet the Bill threatens their financial viability, which in turn risks leaving constituents without the local care they rely on, thus increasing the burden on the NHS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

I understand that lots of people have suffered, as the report explains, which I said I have read. However, I do have confidence in the FCA; I have sent it remit letters outlining what we expect it to do to deliver on its objectives. The FCA is looking at certain things such as its rulebook, which we think is too extensive, to look at rules that no longer need to be applied but, overall, we are working with the FCA closely and we believe that it is trying its best. It is not possible to have a system where nothing ever goes wrong, but we are trying to minimise that and ensure that there is consumer protection. The FCA knows that we are working together to deliver on its objectives.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of funding for the Money and Pensions Service.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

The Money and Pensions Service plays a vital role in supporting individuals to manage their money effectively. Its funding levels are regularly reviewed to reflect demand, inflation and evolving needs.

[Ms Creasy]

New research from the Centre for Responsible Credit shows that 7.5 million people in this country are going without the debt advice that they need. We are in a cost of living crisis, so services are severely stretched. The Money and Pensions Service underestimates need by excluding people who are behind with their bills. That means that the financial levy that it proposes is not what it needs to be. Since a third of those who need financial help borrow from buy now, pay later lenders, and given the delay in regulating those companies, will the Minister meet me to look at the funding model of the financial levy and what more we can do to ensure that those profiting from exploiting our constituents pay to repair the damage?

[Emma Reynolds]

My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on this issue. We are reforming buy now, pay later, as the Economic Secretary recently stated in answer to my hon. Friend in the House. The Government recognise the gap between those who need debt and those accessing it, which is why the Money and Pensions Service is exploring ways to improve accessibility, including through outreach initiatives. We continue to keep a close eye on its funding levels to ensure that they reflect demand.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We know that the tough decision that we have had to take will have impacts—we have been up front with people about that—but we also know that over half of all employers will pay no more or less national insurance than they did before. We acknowledge that this decision will have an impact, but we believe that it is the right decision. I will explain why that is.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clear that the Government are working hard to get this right, but may I press the Minister on the point about the employment allowance? What he says about doubling the threshold is welcome, particularly when it comes to childcare provision, and we all want an expansion of childcare places. He will be aware that the employment allowance doubling that he is talking about will apply to state-provided childcare places, but not to private and co-operative nurseries. Some 85% of places are in private and co-operative nurseries, so will he look at extending the employment allowance that he is giving to state nurseries to private and co-operative nurseries, so we can support the expansion of childcare?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but eligibility for the employment allowance is not changing. It is the same as it was before, and we are maintaining that provision. On protecting small businesses and charities, the crucial thing for us is the doubling of the employment allowance. In individual cases, I would recommend that organisations get the right advice, but the eligibility criteria for the employment allowance will not change as a result of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Since the hon. Lady is reviewing history, she should look at the Bank of England review by Bernanke, commissioned under the last Government, which looked at the impact on interest rates in the UK compared with other countries and included that period. She will see that the real impact of those changes on interest rates was no different from any other year. The UK stayed in exactly the same place every year. There is a difference between facts and reality and what the Labour party thinks is history.

[Ms Creasy]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Fuller]

No, I am drawing my speech to a close, because plenty of people wish to speak.

UKHospitality is also concerned. It estimates that our pubs, clubs, hotels and restaurants will have to stump up £1 billion more because of the Bill. It points out that for a typical staff member aged 21 or over earning the national living wage and working 38 hours a week, the jobs tax will increase by 53.9%, from £1,863 to £2,869. Does the Minister honestly think that that will not mean job cuts in the hospitality sector?

The Government claim to have shielded the public sector from the jobs tax, but the reality is murkier. Many of our GPs will have to stump up more money, and our hospices and charities will have to find more money. As we approach the Christmas season, will the Minister give some hope to our charities, voluntary groups, GPs and hospices, and say that they, too, will be exempt from Labour’s jobs tax?

The Labour party in government is stumbling badly. I know from my own experience that no amount of resets will inspire confidence, and certainly not when a Prime Minister is forced into a reset within five months of taking office. The Labour party in government is also getting a reputation for a series of cruel policies motivated by socialism based on hate. The removal of winter fuel payments for the elderly was cruel. The family farm tax, penalising British farmers who have toiled in our fields for generations, was cruel. Today’s jobs tax, attacking businesses, charities, GPs, hospices and employment opportunities and growth is cruel, too. I urge all Members of this House to support our amendment.

Financial Services: Mansion House Speech

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I will pass them on to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who will look into the matter. I am worried to hear what she says about SMEs; she is absolutely right that they are the heart and soul of our economy—we should be looking into that. I will ensure that he writes to her, but if she needs a further meeting, I am sure he will meet her.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Members from across the House have long called for financial regulation of “buy now, pay later” companies. Because of the delay in regulating those companies, a third of people seeking debt advice do so because of them. The Woolard report in 2021 identified the urgency of the FCA regulating the industry as soon as possible. I welcome the Government’s commitment to regulating them, but I am bemused, as many are, as to why it will take until 2026 for the regulations to take effect and for our constituents to be protected. Everybody knows that regulation needs to happen, and what the regulations are, and the FCA has been waiting since 2021 to do it—so why are we giving these legal loan sharks two Christmases-worth of presents, and allowing them to exploit our vulnerable constituents in this cost of living crisis?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has done an enormous amount of work in this area, and I applaud her for that. She was instrumental in the Government taking our initial steps to regulate the “buy now, pay later” sector. There is a need for “buy now, pay later” during a cost of living crisis, and people will access those companies’ products, but I have brought this under FCA control so far, and have regulated to ensure that it is safer, and that people do not store up a huge amount of debt that they cannot pay back. The consultation is open until 29 November, and I ask her to urge others to feed into it to ensure that we get this policy right; that was not done by the previous Government. I will bring forward legislation as quickly as possible, but I thought it was important to hear what people and the industry had to say, because we want to regulate properly. She is being patient, and I ask her to be a bit more patient; our intention is to make the sector as well regulated as possible under the FCA.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

It is a delight as ever to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) on his maiden speech and his kind comments about his predecessor Jane Hunt, a great colleague of this House. It was one of my great pleasures in my previous role as Minister for science and research to visit the fine university he now represents; I wish him and them well, and I wish him all the best of luck with those on his Front Bench in procuring the financial support he seeks.

This is a disreputable Bill, if we are brutally honest. It is a piece of political theatre, which all of us on both sides of this House should think very strongly about giving our support to. This history of this place is of legislation made in haste, which this House subsequently repents at leisure. I say this in all seriousness and in the spirit of this place: at a time when there is low trust in politics, did our constituents—did the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, when they trooped to the ballot box and returned him to this place only weeks ago—seriously expect that our role would be to give away even more of our responsibilities? Can any of us, hand on heart, say that our constituents know what and who the OBR is? Did the electors of Bristol North West, Hampstead and Highgate, Richmond Park or, indeed, Arundel and South Downs send us to this place only to give away our duties and responsibility to the unnamed, unknown and unelected officials—well-meaning, no doubt—of the Office for Budget Responsibility? Hands on the face of a stopped clock are sometimes more accurate than the OBR forecasts, as they are at least correct twice a day for sure.

In truth, this legislation, put together at breakneck speed, has more holes than a Swiss cheese. If we look at clause 1(3), who decides the “costing”? Proposed new section 4A exempts any measure that is intended, at the time of its introduction, to be temporary. Members of this House will be familiar with the fact that income tax itself, one of the largest ever fiscal measures, was intended to be temporary; perhaps the Minister will address that fact when he winds up. Income tax was introduced by Pitt the Younger in 1799 as a temporary measure. Well, here we are, 225 years later, and that temporary measure is still going extremely strong.

Who defines what is and is not a fiscal measure—a measure with a potential impact on the GDP of this country? Many things decided in this House will have a direct or indirect impact on the GDP of this country; the decision by Tony Blair to take us to war without a vote in this House undoubtedly had an impact on our GDP. Decisions to introduce a four-day working week—if this House so chooses to make them, as is its right—would have a material impact on the GDP of this country. The Centre for Business and Economic Research estimates that every bank holiday costs this country a sum approaching £3.6 billion. Three, four, five or six bank holidays add up to a 1% impact on GDP, which I speculate may be the threshold for the OBR to intervene.

On trade deals, if those on the Government Benches fulfilled their ambition to realign with Europe—to federate and once again abrogate our trade to Europe—that would potentially have a material fiscal impact on GDP. There are very few domains of this House—very few of the decisions that our constituents have sent us here to legislate and decide on their behalf—that would not potentially fall foul of this rule.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will delight the hon. Gentleman, because, as I am sure he saw on the amendment paper, I have tabled an amendment that would look at trade deals. One of the reasons why I felt compelled to do that, and explore this question that he raises about the economic impact, is that while he was in government and, indeed, a Treasury Minister, the Government did not publish any information for the very trade deals he is talking about. I will always welcome a sinner who repenteth but, for the avoidance of doubt, is he saying that he now believes there should be independent scrutiny of things such as the trade and co-operation agreement?

[Andrew Griffith]

It is good to have a proper debate. I certainly think that if we want and seek good government—which, like the human condition, is not a perfect state, but a state that we should seek constantly to perfect—the highest levels of transparency and the very important exercise in Government publishing of impact assessments when they make material decisions, as required by Cabinet Office guidance, are things that the whole House should join hands and agree on. It is one of the reasons why I asked my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), whether the Government had published an impact assessment on their callous decision to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from so many pensioners. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) will well know that the process of trade deals undergoes extensive scrutiny in this House, and I took one of those trade deals through that process of scrutiny in a former life.

I will conclude, because I simply want to alert hon. Members to what they are potentially doing as they seek to support this Bill. It is not for partisan or political advantage, but about the important role of Parliament, which has been litigated many times in this Chamber and in debate.

[Andrew Griffith]

As ever, the hon. Member makes an important and weighty contribution. He is exactly right about the direction of travel. On both sides of the House, we will all find our own particular point on the envelope when it comes to the balance around organisations that can hold us to account and, in particular, hold a mirror to Government and ensure that this House acts with the best, most accurate and well-meaning data.

My core point is that we are sent here by our constituents. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough, who has been sent here on behalf of his constituents and has given a fine speech today, but I do not believe—he may intervene and correct me—that the citizens of Loughborough, whether they voted for Jane Hunt or for him, intended that one of the very first actions he and we would take as legislators would be to award more of our powers and place more fetters on ourselves. This is the right Chamber for accountability. We should hold ourselves to account; we have a number of ways in which to do that to ourselves. The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) makes a very real point about quangos, arm’s length bodies and how we hold ourselves to account.

That is my point. I understand that many colleagues wish to get in. I support the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham, because it is quite right that we have rules. I was an accountant by training, and the first thing we learn—whether someone is an accountant or in performance sport—is that we play by the rules as they are; we do not seek to rig the rules in our favour.

[Ms Creasy]

It is a pleasure to speak in the same debate as the maiden speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I am sure other speeches are coming that will show just how impressive the new generation of MPs is across the House.

It is also a joy to follow the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), because I have always enjoyed the experience of listening to him. When he was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government, I watched him, debated with him and tried to encourage him to take on the buy now, pay later lenders—that is related to what I will say about legal loan sharking. But I have to be honest: being lectured by former Conservative Ministers about fiscal probity is a bit like being lectured by Toad of Toad Hall about safe driving, given the experiences of many of our constituents, which have led to the need for this legislation.

I put on record my support for this legislation, because frankly anybody who has had to renegotiate a mortgage since the Liz Truss Budget knows exactly why it is needed and why we must protect the British public from the consequences of bad decision making at a national level. As we saw in many examples under the previous Administration, the public have paid the price for that and will continue to do so.

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course, the legislation does not fetter previous Governments, but it would fetter the discretion of the hon. Lady’s own Front Benchers. In that context, does she not have the same confidence in her Front Bench that many others seem to enjoy?

[Ms Creasy]

I am a bit disappointed that the hon. Member did not seek to call me Ratty. I am also quite struck by the fact that he, a former Conservative Treasury Minister, rises not to hold himself accountable for the consequences of decisions made by the previous Government, or indeed to defend them, but simply to say, “You will be held to a higher fiscal standard.” We on the Labour Benches welcome a higher fiscal standard; that is the purpose of the legislation. Political decisions will still be made, but we will make them with the benefit of independent information. He will know that there were many debates in the previous Parliament, and indeed in those before it, in which independent information about and verification of the economic impact of policies mattered but were missing. Indeed, he mentions trade deals, which are an example of where we did not have independent information. I will comment on that only briefly, because my amendment has not been selected—he will be as disappointed as I am about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

You are not as old guard as some.

[Ms Creasy]

Yes. But in that time, many of us have had persistent concerns, and one of mine has always been the private finance initiative. The Government are asking all of us to make and support some very tough decisions because of the economic mess that the country now finds itself in. My view is that we must look at all outgoings in that process. If somebody came to a constituency surgery because they had multiple outstanding loans and could not pay their rent, we would look at the debts that they held. That is the challenge with private finance: it is the legal loan-sharking of the public sector. Amendments 6 and 7 are about the process of getting a grip on our debts and ensuring that we learn from the damage that private finance has done.

Let us be clear: nobody can absolve themselves from private finance. Governments of all persuasions have sought to use that process—the ability to put only the repayments on the books, rather than the substantial cost of borrowing. That started under John Major; yes, there were multiple PFIs under the previous Labour Government; and indeed, the previous Conservative Government continued to use private finance until 2018. That is why, as of February this year, there are still 700 PFI schemes representing a capital value of £57 billion, but for which we will pay back £151 billion in the years ahead. We are asking pensioners to pay more for heating their homes, but we should be asking how we can pay less for the private finance debts that we have built up.

Private finance was about being able to build things such as schools and hospitals. Anybody who has an outstanding PFI debt in their constituency, or a school or hospital that urgently needs rebuilding, such as Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency, understands the importance of being able to access private finance. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying through my amendments that we should never work with the private sector; I am saying that PFI was a catastrophically bad deal and that, cumulatively, it would meet the legislation’s targets of 1% of GDP, so it is a fiscally significant policy. My amendments are about trying to understand how we will deal with cumulative debt and cumulatively fiscally significant policies.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. As a member of the even older guard than hers—

[Ms Creasy]

The original OG!

[Graham Stringer]

I am certainly the old guard from the start of the previous Labour Government. That is relevant because I had a discussion at the time with the then Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, about the cost of PFIs for hospitals. His answer was succinct: “If you want the hospitals, you have to go down the PFI route.” He said that because the Treasury rules were so rigid about finding money for socially needed projects—hospitals in that case—the Government had to work around them, at what would eventually be a huge cost to the taxpayer. There is a warning there about rigid rules and not dealing with reality.

[Ms Creasy]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I agree with him not just about his football team but in his analysis. The legislation is about having better fiscal rules and tougher constraints when Governments make decisions. We saw with the Liz Truss Budget how catastrophic those decisions can be.

Many Members will have come across PFI in their constituencies, but it is worth putting on the record just how big it is, because that is relevant to the legislation. We are talking about 700 projects, but each project can be hundreds of individual buildings. One of those 700 projects is made up of 80 schools, for example, which shows the scale that we are talking about. About half of PFIs are held between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. That is how we built desperately needed schools and hospitals, but the cost is absolutely critical.

Some NHS trusts are now spending 13% of their total budget on PFI repayments—£2 billion a year for some. In practical terms, that means that some trusts are spending more to repay what is essentially a payday loan for the public sector than they are spending on drugs for their patients. It is a huge drain on our public finances. In 2020, during the pandemic, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust paid £66 million to service its PFI commitments—the same amount that it spent on lab equipment, surgical tools and personal protective equipment. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has already paid out £200 million in dividends to the company that owns its PFI, so the money is not just going to repay a debt for building a hospital; it is going out in pure profit to those companies. That is why I draw the parallel with payday lenders and buy now, pay later companies: once you are hooked in, you have to keep paying the debt.

It is not just a problem in the NHS. Hanson academy in Bradford has reached a debt of £4.16 million because of its PFI debt. It is now referred to as the UK’s “orphan” school because nobody wants to run it or take it over, given its financial position. Liverpool city council pays £4 million a year for Parklands high school, which was, again, built under PFI but is no longer needed because of falling school rolls. The council has roughly £42 million left to pay back on that contract for an empty, dead building. The equity solutions company that owns it has posted profits of £340,000 from that project this year alone.

PFI companies have made £111 million in pre-tax profit from education projects alone. That is about £800,000 per project, and the equivalent of 5,5000 new teachers’ salaries. The companies took on the risk of those deals to rebuild our public infrastructure, but the reality is that we do not let schools and hospitals go bust, so they took on the ability to print money. That is what the deals are doing. I will wager that every new and returning MP has had a conversation with someone in local government, a local hospital or a local school who talks about the damage that PFI is doing to their budgets, as if it is non-negotiable.

My amendments are about changing that culture. One challenge is that we have let those companies run rampant. That does not mean that we should not work with the private sector; it means that we should learn lessons, and I think we could learn some very simple ones. For a start, a lot of the companies are incorporated in overseas territories, which raises questions about the amount of tax that they are paying on those deals. Tax was originally part of the Treasury assessment of the deals, which was why working in that way was considered good value for money, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) was told that it was the best way to get a school or hospital.

We could also learn from payday lending by capping what the companies pay. After all, we cap the returns on defence projects. It makes no economic or ethical sense that we cap what can be earned from a military contract, but when someone builds a school or a hospital, they have free rein.

Above all, we need to know how much we owe, because even the Infrastructure and Projects Authority within Government could not get a grip on the total reality of our PFI commitments to date. That is partly because this has been done at a local government level, through devolution and in silos within companies, but it seems a very simple thing: even if those debts are being held overseas, the people paying them are very much here. In Northampton, there are 42 schools costing £30 million per annum, including £4.2 million in pre-tax profits in 2021-22, and Northampton’s budgets as a local authority are in a very difficult position right now. The firm that owns all those schools is based in Guernsey. In Birmingham, 11 schools are part of the Birmingham Schools Partnership, owned by Innisfree. Innisfree owns 260 schools across this country, as well as my local hospital in Whipps Cross. It is based in Jersey and is making millions of pounds in profit from these deals. We have never consolidated those loans to ask ourselves whether we could renegotiate them as a country and therefore claw some money back, because we do not know who we owe what to, or how much it is going to cost.

Amendments 6 and 7 deal with the challenges posed by the threshold of this legislation. It is absolutely right to set a threshold for what is fiscally significant, and individual PFIs would not go anywhere near a threshold of 1% of GDP, which is about £28 billion. However, when we add them up, it is very clear from what we already know about our PFI commitments that they do. As such, these amendments are intended to probe the Government about how we deal with debts and spending that might not meet that threshold individually, but might do so cumulatively, and to look at what we can do in the future to make sure that if we work with the private sector—again, I am not saying that we should never do so; I am saying that we should learn from PFI—we make better decisions. After all, this legislation is about making better-informed, independent decisions.

That is why I also tabled amendment 8, to learn the lessons from trade deals. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs is right: the Government’s decision to go for the trade and co-operation agreement—the hardest of Brexits—has cost us an estimated 4% of GDP, so again, that would be a fiscally significant decision. It would be as catastrophic as that Liz Truss Budget—indeed, many of us can see that it has been—but we did not have an independent assessment. Amendment 6 and amendment 7, which is an enabling amendment, would ensure that we have an independent assessment of cumulative spending looking at these issues.

I know that the Minister is as interested as I am in what we can do to tackle the drain that PFI represents and work better with the private sector. I hope that this legislation and the concept of putting PFI on the books is the start of a conversation about better public spending, and I hope that Toad of Toad Hall will recognise that maybe this time it is good that they are in the passenger seat.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I will speak in favour of amendments 1 to 4, which were tabled in my name. Once again, I welcome this Bill and this Government’s intent to rebuild trust with the financial markets and across our economy as a whole. The Liberal Democrats are optimistic about the new Government’s stated commitment to building a strong platform for economic growth, particularly after years of Conservative turmoil. I remain hopeful that this Bill can support fiscal responsibility and transparency and help prevent a repeat of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget. The amendments tabled in my name would strengthen the legislation so that that aim can be achieved.

I welcome the concern that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) has shown for my constituents in Richmond Park and their thoughts about this legislation, but I wonder where his concern for my constituents was when the Government of which he was a part cheered on, championed and voted for that disastrous mini-Budget that so undermined our stable economy, to the detriment of the wellbeing of individuals, communities and businesses.

Liberal Democrats understand how much our constituents have suffered from the increase in mortgage payments, higher fuel bills and escalating food prices. We understand the disastrous effects of the chaos and uncertainty wrought by the previous Conservative Government in their horrendous mismanagement of the economy, and we know that future prosperity can only be built upon a firm foundation. We know the heavy burden that our constituents continue to feel in their pockets and their personal finances, and we know that they deserve better.

As I have previously acknowledged, the broad positive response that this Bill has evoked across the business and finance sector is indicative of the desire for stability, and we welcome the engagement from economists—such as the new hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who I wish well in the beard of the year contest—and industry experts who advise of the beneficial impact this Bill will have on confidence in the public finances. We have carefully scrutinised the details of the Bill to make sure it will achieve its intended aims.

In particular, we have looked closely at the threshold for fiscally significant measures, which will be set at 1% of GDP or approximately £30 billion, and whether the proposed fiscal lock could be circumvented by Governments announcing major changes that fall just below that threshold. Although we understand that the bar has been set relatively high to prevent a large-scale irresponsible fiscal event such as the disastrous mini-Budget, we are aware of the limitations this places on the Bill, especially when it comes to measures that might have relatively small up-front costs to the Government but significant indirect fiscal or economic effects. I therefore ask Treasury Ministers whether a GDP measure alone can adequately capture the impact on the economy of a spending or taxation measure, and whether the Government should examine the possibility of using additional criteria when setting the threshold.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your election. Let me take my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. and hon. Members in the new Treasury ministerial team, who have taken up some of the best jobs in government. I loved every minute of my time in the Treasury, even when I had to come to this place to face my shadows. I will always be grateful to the officials who so ably supported me and the team.

As the Member of Parliament for Grantham, the home of our country’s first female Prime Minister, I congratulate our country’s first female Chancellor. It is right that we highlight that. While the two are not politically aligned, we can all recognise when a ceiling has been shattered and no matter who is breaking it, we certainly recognise that on this side of the House.

The Bill before us seeks to amend the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011—a Bill, introduced by a Conservative Chancellor, that created the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Bill should be understood in that context, building on a previous Bill that replaced the system where His Majesty’s Treasury would produce its own forecasts and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would essentially mark their own homework. Back then, that was an essential piece of legislation, given what had gone on before. Between 2000 and 2010 the then Labour Government’s so-called forecasts for growth in the economy were out by an average of £13 billion and their forecasts for the budget deficit three years ahead were out by an average of £40 billion. Their forecasts therefore lacked any credibility at all.

It was not just their forecasts that led to the creation of the OBR; it was their management of the economy. Much has already been said by the shadow Chancellor about the higher inflation, higher deficit and higher unemployment that the Conservatives inherited from Labour in 2010. What is, however, sometimes forgotten is that total public spending accounted for almost half the national income when Labour last left office. Welfare spending ballooned by a staggering 45%, and that runaway spending meant that we inherited the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe with the sole exception of Ireland. The idea that Labour has an unblemished record when it comes to the public finances is, therefore, plain wrong. We Conservatives created the OBR, in Parliament, to guard against Labour’s fiscal unaccountability and recklessness with the public finances. We continue to support the role of the OBR in providing open, fully transparent, independent forecasts for all to see, no matter who is in government.

It was genuinely good to hear that the Chancellor recognised the importance of the OBR when she said that because of the OBR, in her words,

“You don’t need to win an election to find out the state of public finances.”

She was absolutely right about that. That is why yesterday’s supposed revelations simply won’t wash. In fact, if she is so supportive of the OBR, I ask a simple question: why was yesterday’s statement based on internal Treasury analysis, not OBR analysis? Surely if they are very supportive of the OBR they would have asked the OBR to conduct the analysis. The OBR has always said that it would be ready to produce analysis at any time, on short notice.

That was yesterday, and today we are here to talk about the Bill before us. While we are supportive of the OBR, we think it is right that the House should consider a number of concerns that we have, on which we will seek clarification. First, the Bill will require the Treasury to request, and the OBR to produce, a report on fiscally significant measures announced by the Government, with the exception of temporary, emergency measures. The definitions of these terms—"fiscally significant”, “temporary” and “emergency”—will be set out in a charter for budget responsibility as the Chief Secretary outlined. The draft charter text, published alongside the Bill, deems measures to be fiscally significant if they cost the equivalent of 1% of GDP in any financial year. It defines as temporary any measure intended to end within two years, and the draft charter text gives the OBR discretion to reasonably disagree with the Treasury’s interpretation of what constitutes emergency.

Despite some of the rhetoric, we note that nowhere in the Bill or the surrounding documents is the OBR empowered to prevent a Government from taking fiscally significant action of any kind. The effect of this Bill is to ensure that an OBR costing accompanies any fiscally significant action the Government take—nothing more, nothing less. The way in which the Chancellor described this Bill as a so-called lock to prevent certain activity is—to be generous on my first outing—overly ambitious. The Bill is described as introducing a fiscal lock, which the Chancellor promises will prevent large-scale unfunded commitments, but that is not what it does. There is no fiscal lock, and if anything, it is a forecast lock. The potential impact of the Bill is so limited and specific as to lead some to wonder whether, for all the animated hyperbole of the Chancellor yesterday, this is the prioritisation of gimmicks over governing, despite what the Prime Minister said on the King’s Speech.

Secondly, and I say this genuinely constructively, the Government need to be better prepared to clarify what is meant by “emergency”. The draft charter gives the OBR the power to reasonably disagree with the Government’s interpretation of what is an emergency, but this raises questions about whether the OBR is equipped to make such a decision in the first place. What counts as an emergency should mostly be clear-cut, but what about instances that are less obvious, or when unforeseen circumstances come down the track? The OBR would then be straying into political decision making, which would rightly raise constitutional issues. Even if it is ultimately for Ministers to decide on such matters, any resulting disagreement between the Government and the OBR about whether the circumstances amount to an emergency could undermine the credibility of the Government, the OBR or both.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am genuinely perplexed whether the hon. Gentleman is with the former Member for South West Norfolk, who wanted to see the OBR abolished and not part of any decision making, or feels that the Bill does not go far enough. Either way, does he recognise and accept, as thousands of mortgage payers in this country now do, the disaster of the previous Conservative Prime Minister’s Budget, the impact it has had and the need never to go back to those days?

[Gareth Davies]

We support the OBR. I have been clear on that. We created the OBR, so to suggest that we do not support it is incorrect. I would just pull the hon. Member up on some economic facts. The reason interest rates were so high and mortgages went up is that we faced a global challenge, which this Government will now experience. In office, the Government have to deal with events, and what caused inflation around the world was two things: the war in Ukraine, which pushed up wholesale gas prices to record highs; and the fallout from a once-in-a-century pandemic that the Labour party seems to have forgotten about. Those two factors resulted in 11% inflation, which resulted in the Chancellor and Prime Minister at the time prioritising bringing down inflation, which we did, to 2%. We have now handed this Government 2% inflation, half the deficit we inherited in 2010, half the unemployment and the fastest growth in the G7, so it is a little bit rich to suggest that we take lessons from the Labour party on economic performance.

Our third and final concern—we have others, but I am in keeping this short on Second Reading—is that, in the event that the lock is triggered, the OBR does not need to produce one of its standard reports, even though the Treasury, under the Bill, is required to request such a report to avoid breaking the lock. The Bill creates, therefore, the possibility of an entirely new OBR report, which is not envisaged by the original Act. I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary explained that and what it means in practice when he sums up. Although standard OBR reports must be published, it is not clear whether that applies to other reports that the OBR may prepare. If this requirement does not apply, are the Government happy to give the OBR the power to decide whether its costings are published? That is potentially very concerning for transparency.

The official Opposition look forward to more detailed scrutiny of the Bill and its practical implications. Be in no doubt: we support the OBR, which we created to bring in much-needed transparency to our fiscal framework after years of fiscal folly and false promises by the Labour party. At the same time, let us not pretend that the OBR should be the ultimate judge of good policy, that nothing bad can happen under its watchful eye and that nothing good can happen beyond its gaze. Labour Members know this: it is precisely what they argued 15 years ago when we first debated the Bill that led to the OBR’s creation. The OBR should not become too political. It should be a referee, not a player, in the fight for fiscal accountability. In the end, we stand by the principle that the British people, through their elected representatives, should always have the deciding say on public policy. We look forward to debating this further in the months ahead. We will not be voting against this Bill on Second Reading. I look forward to the debate.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I feel as though I am almost in Alice in Wonderland world when I listen to the Opposition response to this legislation. I certainly feel concerned that they, with the Cheshire Cat and possibly following the Queen of Hearts, might have been trying to pretend that their previous Conservative Prime Minister did not exist, or indeed that the former Member for Spelthorne was never ever the Chancellor. Those of us paying for a mortgage—and I declare a direct interest—know all too well that they were in charge and about the damage that they did with their disastrous mini-Budget, which is why this legislation is so important.

I would wager that that what their constituents would tell them if they suggested that the economic harm the previous Government did to this country, for which we will all be paying for generations to come, was solely to do with Ukraine or the pandemic. That mini-Budget was a political choice, but worse than that, it was a politically uninformed choice. The Government at the time consciously and purposefully made the decision on ideological grounds to press ahead with a Budget that cost 1% of our GDP, and to hell with the consequences, as we have all seen. That is why this legislation is so important.

I will always welcome a sinner who repenteth, so I am pleased that the shadow Minister recognises the value of independent scrutiny and, indeed, urges us all to go further. We will always welcome such an approach, because it is right and because our constituents deserve better, because we can see how bad things are and how broken this country is. What this Bill has at its heart are the funds to repair the damage done by the previous Administration. That is why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here today with this Bill to be clear with us about why it matters, why we put things on the books and why sound money is at the heart of it.

The markets did not react by accident and put up all our mortgages; they saw with terror the damage that bad leadership in the Treasury can do and have accordingly asked us to meet that challenge. Frankly, there is nothing progressive about crashing the economy, and that is exactly what the previous Government did. By putting on the record the need to report independently on fiscally significant measures, we are starting with a clean sheet and saying that we will not take such a reckless approach with other people’s money. At the end of the day, that is what this is: the tax revenues that are generated are the moneys of our constituents, and it is therefore right that we are careful about how we administer them.

However, I recognise that there are challenges in this legislation. I am speaking today because I hope to hear from the Ministers on the Front Bench further clarity about the concept of “fiscally significant”. As somebody who has always liked to be hawkish about public money, I think it is important that we are clear where we are investing, and I very much urge the Treasury to think about investing to save. I see in our broken society the damage that is done by poverty, poor public services and the higher costs that come with that, so I want us to be clear about the funding we have, where it is coming from and why every penny matters.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As the hon. Lady knows, the new Government have intimated that they may decide to mirror much new EU legislation, which could well have budgetary consequences. She and I have not quite always seen eye to eye on Europe, but does she agree, in that context, that it is actually a bad mistake to do what the Government want to do tonight and abolish the European Scrutiny Committee?

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Member pre-empts many of my concerns. There is a very strong story to tell about good fiscal discipline, but it is not possible to do that independently in a modern, global economy, so the scrutiny that we can provide in this place of a whole range of regulations does matter. Those include financial regulations—I think particularly about the City and issues around a financial transaction tax, for example. I have not yet convinced him of the merits of working more closely with Europe, but I am confident that one day we can do so. I agree with him, however, that this House should be fully part of that, just as I believe in the principles behind the Bill—that disinfectant comes from transparency and our ability to see what is going on. That is why the Government are so right to bring this legislation forward.

Let me move on to some areas where it is right to ask what we mean by fiscally significant. The right hon. Member and I might disagree about the deal we do in resetting our relationship with Europe, but there can be no doubt that that will have a clear economic impact on this country. I think of the hauliers who are considering whether they will give up bringing goods to the UK because of the Brexit border tax. The previous Government admitted that that measure was inflationary and could have a significant impact not just on our food security, but on our economy, pushing up the cost of living. Many of our constituents know that there is still too much month at the end of their money, and we should challenge any measure that makes that harder. That will also inflect our tax take.

The point I am getting to is that if we are talking about measures that are so fiscally significant that they count for 1% of GDP, a trade deal would easily meet that criterion. We need to be clear in the Bill what we ask of the Office for Budget Responsibility—which, after all, has provided evidence on the impact, for example, of leaving the European Union—and whether we consider its role in such matters. If we are going to put everything on the books, let us make sure that the public understand fully the decisions that we make and where the information comes from.

Another area in which we as a House need to act is our outgoings, especially when we are being asked to make very difficult choices about some of the most vulnerable in our communities, such as people who rely on welfare, or pensioners who rely on the winter fuel payment. We have to be honest: this country is pretty much bankrupt as a result of the previous Administration. If somebody in that dire financial position came into one of our surgeries, we would sit with them and talk about a debt relief order. We would look at their costs and particularly at consolidating the debts that they may have.

Many colleagues here will know that for many years I have been concerned about legal loan sharking. That is not just in people’s private lives, but in the public sector, and I consider the private finance initiative to be the legal loan sharking of the public sector. If we are talking about fiscally significant measures—measures that meet the test of £28 billion—we should consider that we have £151 billion of outgoings committed to private finance companies in this country, against £57 billion-worth of assets. Most people can see that those figures do not add up.

Local authorities spend around £18 billion every two to five years on PFI repayments, of which about £4 billion is interest costs. That would suggest an average interest rate of around 35%. If somebody came into a surgery with a loan at a 35% interest rate, we would encourage them to go to a debt relief order. Our country is no different, and this matters because, individually, local authorities might not meet that fiscally significant threshold, but collectively, they will for us. We are not going to let hospitals and schools go bust and go out of business. Parklands high school in Liverpool was built under PFI. It was closed because there was not a demand for the places, but Liverpool city council is still playing £12,000 a day for that closed school. It has repayments of £42 million left and the company that owns it is making a profit of around £340,000 a year from the scheme.

Private finance companies are on our books, and they should be on our books nationally. They should be considered fiscally significant. We can do things to consolidate those loans and to reduce the outgoings that will come. My contribution to the Bill and the amendments that I might table, depending on what Ministers say, will relate to the fact that I think we need to be clear that everything that is fiscally significant—decisions that we might not proceed with and ones that we do—should be subject to that level of scrutiny.

The National Audit Office has given us plenty of information about the poor value for money of private finance initiatives. Many Members who have these schools and hospitals in their constituencies will have seen this at first hand. There is evidence from the Department of Health and Social Care about what could be done to consolidate loans that probably would generate savings that would be fiscally significant, when we talk about the sums involved. It would be fantastic to see the Office for Budget Responsibility pick this matter up as part of our knowing how much we have to pay out as a country; how much of a contribution we need to make. This money is going to private companies that, on the whole, are not paying tax in this country, so it is not generating revenue that can go back into paying for the repairs that need to come.

The previous Government started to look at these issues and then walked away. I know that this Government, with their commitment to fiscal discipline and fiscal transparency, will want to be open about the benefits, costs and fiscal significance both of the trade deals that we might make and of private finance initiatives. I look forward to hearing from Ministers about that. This is a very different world—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister is smiling. I am sure that he misses his colleague from Spelthorne, but I know he will not miss the opportunity to say sorry to all our constituents for the mess we have been left in and the reason why we need this legislation on the discipline of the OBR, and for the failure to tackle the long-term problems that have left legal loan sharks and poor trading opportunities for our constituents, because they are going to pick up the pieces for generations to come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not sure if hon. Gentleman was paying attention. The £22 billion black hole is this year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies was warning about a black hole of £18 billion over the lifetime of the Parliament. Those are two very different things and both of them can be true. What we are showing today is an in-year gap of £22 billion that the hon. Gentleman did not know about, that no one on this side of the House knew about, that the OBR did not know about, and that the country did not know about. This is new information that is being published today, above and beyond what anyone knew when we were campaigning in the election.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Frankly, the Conservatives’ response leaves something to be desired. After 14 years of stripping the engine of this country’s economy, their response is simply taking the piston.

I am so proud that we now have a Chancellor who is not penny wise and pound foolish, but is conscious that all our constituents will have to pick up the pieces after the past 14 years. Can the Chancellor tell us a little more about her audit and what it has identified about the money wasted by the previous Government and their mismanagement of capital projects? We now know, for example, that the failure to rebuild Whipps Cross hospital has cost us an extra £15 million in the last few years alone. Our constituents will pay the price of the last Government for many years to come. This new Labour Government need to be honest with them. Sorry seems to be the hardest word for the Conservatives to say, but can the Chancellor tell us just how much money it will cost?

[Rachel Reeves]

This country is owed a £22 billion apology by the Conservative party, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the overspends, including on the hospitals programme; there is a £4 billion gap between what was announced and what is needed for those hospitals. There is also a £6.4 billion overspend on the asylum system. That was all unfunded and undisclosed until I disclosed it today.

UK Economy

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says the Government’s priority is backing British business, cutting inflation and reducing the pressure on British families. When the Government admit this measure will increase inflation, when British business is tearing its hair out at the chaos caused by not knowing what the charge will be and who will pay it—with less than 10 weeks to go—and when British consumers will find that it causes food shortages and an increase in food prices, why on earth are the Government going ahead with the Brexit border tax? Will the Minister commit here and now to cancelling it, so that we can stop this inflationary measure—yes or no?

[Bim Afolami]

I thank the hon. Lady for focusing on inflation. She is right that it is critical, and bringing it down is a focus for the Government. The House has heard her point about the European Union, but I would add that we have a clear plan for bringing down inflation, which we will continue to carry out. She has to ask those on her Front Bench why they do not have one.

Economic Growth

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I do not accept that we are not an extremely attractive place. We have third largest renewables sector in Europe and are the largest European provider of offshore wind. Can we do more? Yes, we can, particularly by improving access to the grid. The House should expect to hear more from us on that.

We had a lot of talk from the shadow Chancellor about the cost of living crisis, but she barely mentioned that the biggest pressure on the cost of living is caused by the rise in inflation—in fact, it did not get a mention at all in her conference speech. Because we have taken difficult decisions, inflation has fallen by 40% since its peak. Core inflation is now lower than in nearly half the entire EU membership. I say gently to her that if she were to reflate the economy by ramping up borrowing by £28 billion a year, prices would go up and families would end up paying more for their petrol, their food, their electricity and their mortgages. That is why that is the wrong approach.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

One issue on borrowing that has not been talked about is that it is now four years since this place agreed that we should regulate the buy now, pay later lenders. Under this Government’s watch, the number of people borrowing from these companies to make ends meet during the cost of living crisis has doubled, and 40% of those people are struggling and borrowing from other lenders to pay their debts, yet we have still seen no regulation at all from the Government. If the Chancellor wants to prove that he is actually on the side of the people and understands the bills that they have racked up paying for this Tory Government’s failures, will he finally commit to regulating these loan sharks?

[Jeremy Hunt]

As the hon. Member might have heard if she had been at oral questions, we are acting on this and have been consulting on a solution since March this year—I started that at the spring Budget—but we want to get the answer right. We want to crack down on rogue lenders but also ensure that the financing that appropriate people can offer responsibly is available.

I want to talk about the pressures on ordinary families, because the shadow Chancellor also talked about incomes and the tax burden on working families. What has happened since 2010 to adults on the lowest legally payable wage? When we took over from Labour, that wage was £5.93 an hour; today, it is £10.42 an hour. After inflation, gross pay for those on the lowest legally payable wage has gone up by 20%. The number of people on low pay, defined as less than two thirds of median hourly earnings, has halved. At the same time, because Conservative Governments want to make work pay, we increased the thresholds before which people start to pay tax or national insurance from £5,700 to £12,570. Take-home pay after tax for people on the adult main minimum wage has therefore gone up by more than 25% after inflation. That is a bigger percentage increase than for people on much higher incomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The question that all our constituents are asking is: “Is that it? After 13 years, is that all this Government have to offer?” This is a King’s Speech so pointless that it could be an answer on the game show. It comes from a Prime Minister who is acting like one of the contestants on “I’m a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!”—desperate to do anything to stay in charge.

Frankly, our constituents deserve better. Many Members have spoken about the deep-seated challenges in our country, such as the lack of growth. After 13 years of this Government, we have a society in which the bank of mum and dad determines outcomes, not talent. In the last decade alone, housing and stocks and shares have earned far more than any hard work or effort that our constituents could undertake, because of sluggish productivity and the Government’s failure to invest in our communities.

Our kids cannot get apprenticeships; they are struggling to stay in university. [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking her head. I invite her to come and meet my local residents, who beg me for apprenticeships. They are still reeling from the impact of the pandemic. They are scarred by where they live and who their parents are, because that is what determines their outcomes. It is a mark of shame for us that we live in a country in which the exam results of black children are, on average, almost 10% lower than those of their white counterparts. Nothing is changing any time soon, and the King’s Speech will do little.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) set out the housing crisis. When I see the other crises that we are facing, I suppose I should be careful what I wish for, because when faced with the climate crisis, the Government’s response is to go hard on fossil fuels rather than recognising that renewables are cheaper and that, if we are to tackle both the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis, we should put those things together rather than asking our communities to choose.

Of course, nothing in the King’s Speech deals with the elephant in the room that is Brexit. I am sad that the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) is no longer in his place after his valiant attempt to claim that Brexit has had a positive impact on our country and communities. The economic data suggests otherwise, so let me give him some other figures. Eurostat figures show that exports have fallen by 14% in the last year and that UK to EU trade of goods is down 16%. European Central Bank research shows that 77% of firms in this country say that the Brexit deal is not helping their sales. Indeed, our constituents are facing a £250 surcharge on their food bills alone.

The King’s Speech could have dealt with the fact that, in the coming year, Brexit’s impact on inflation will get a lot worse. Our constituents will face a £43-a-time charge on anything imported into the UK. Food will get more expensive—not my words but those of the Government’s own record. There will a £10 charge to enter the UK. What will that do to our stuttering tourism industry, which is trying to recover after the pandemic? The King’s Speech is silent on all those challenges, and tries to suggest that trade through the CPTPP will make up for the trade lost on our doorstep.

The King’s Speech offers a Criminal Justice Bill, which I welcome. It is time that we finally sorted out the inequality that means that my Walthamstow constituents have fewer human rights when it comes to choosing to have an abortion than constituents in Belfast. Sentencing guidelines will not deal with the fact that hundreds of women are now being prosecuted under outdated abortion legislation. It is time for decriminalisation, and perhaps one of the few positive things we can do in the year to come is to sort that.

I wish to correct the record. Earlier I said that in the time it has taken for the Government to fail to do anything about buy now, pay later lenders, the number of people borrowing from these companies has doubled—it has actually tripled. Forty per cent of people who are borrowing from buy now, pay later companies say they are in direct financial difficulty because of it, and these companies are benefiting from the Government’s failure to regulate them. I care as much about legal loan sharks in the private sector as I do about those in the public sector. The regulation of these companies is long overdue, and if this Government does not do it, waiting for a Labour Government to do it will mean another year and another explosion in the millions of people borrowing from them.

In the next year, we will see a crisis in our childcare industry, because the Government have pushed up the cost of childcare without providing the subsidy for it. We need to go further. It is not just about providing high-quality childcare; it is about helping every family to make the choices they want. Only 5% of dads report taking shared parental leave, because our shared parental leave system does not work; it asks the mum’s employer to pay the costs, rather than sharing them. Some 80% of dads say they do not have enough time with their kids as a result. These are challenges that we could deal with, but this King’s Speech will do nothing to solve them.

As I said, public sector legal loan sharks need to be dealt with, too. In the next year alone, private finance initiative deals will cost this country £9.8 billion in repayments. PFI is something that all Governments have used, and we need to tackle it. We have £200 billion-worth of commitments coming our way—money that could be going back into our public services if we fought for a better deal for our taxpayers.

What we are seeing is small responses to big challenges, not least to the biggest challenge of all, which is the uncertainty and conflict around the world. Everybody in this Chamber wants the bloodshed to stop in Israel and Gaza. Everybody in this Chamber, I hope, stands with people like my constituent whose parent has been kidnapped by Hamas and wants to see them returned and to see the dismantling of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. A humanitarian pause would require the same type of negotiation as a ceasefire. Let us stand together with our international partners and put pressure on those partners who can put pressure on Hamas to get people round the table. Let us challenge Israel to stand up for international humanitarian law, and let us stop the bloodshed. This King’s Speech does nothing to achieve that, but it could have done.

Draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Enforcement) (Amendment) Order 2023

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 General Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure belatedly to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms McVey. I am possibly going to shock the Committee in many ways by saying that I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire has said. He and I might come from different ends of the political spectrum, but we share an interest in local regulation and in doing that in a proportionate fashion, because we have seen at first hand what happens when it does not work.

I am possibly the only person here who served on the Committee that considered the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in that halcyon era in which we in this place were looking at good regulation, rather than having no regulation at all. I want to ask the Minister a set of questions that follow up what the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, and I agree with him that there was a good reason for not including trading standards on the list of bodies that were to have powers under that legislation.

At the time, we felt that the powers were quite strong, and we recognised that the comparator bodies—the others that had the powers, such as the Competition and Markets Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority—were about whole markets. This statutory instrument is very much about a local power and local trading standards. Indeed, it now looks as though trading standards will have stronger powers than local police forces to do searches.

There might be good reasons for that owing to the nature of the trade that trading standards is trying to tackle, and I want to come to that subject, but the Minister did not say anything about, for example, what has been done to monitor the use of the powers over the past eight years. Will he say what we know about when there have been raids, what happened and how the use of the powers is monitored? The difference between market-wide powers and locally applied powers could be very strong.

The next point I want to follow up is the capacity of trading standards to make good on this measure. It is one thing to confer powers, but quite another to have the people to implement them. We know that spending on trading standards fell by 52% between 2009 and 2019. In some areas of the country, there are no trading standards officers at all. Liverpool Council, for example, no longer has a trading standards department because something had to give considering how little money the Government have given the council to run services.

Most local authorities have just one qualified trading standards officer, but if we are to give people stronger powers than the police, we want them to be qualified people who understand the remit and understand why they are being given the powers. Again, I ask the Minister to say something about whether additional funding is going to be given. If this measure generates the impact that we want it to generate in tackling the illegal cigarette trade, revenue will be raised that could go into trading standards.

My colleagues in trading standards do a fantastic job trying to tackle the crimes that, after all, are the crimes that most of our constituents come to us about most of the time, and they would want to see more investment in trading standards. A £16 billion cut in the core revenues of trading standards means that there will not be the officers to use these powers, and certainly not officers trained to use the powers sensitively, unless there is investment.

There is a final point on which I would like to hear more from the Minister, which is the trade we are trying to tackle. We know that 21% of cigarettes sold in the UK are illicit. This is an international trade—gangs, funding and all sorts of criminal activities in our communities. Putting trading standards officers on the frontline of tackling that trade is a bold move owing to the nature of the people with whom they might be interacting. What conversations has the Minister had with the National Crime Agency?

[Kit Malthouse]

There is an unproven statement that much of the trade is organised crime, but I know from my time at the Home Office that this is a low-margin business. I am not convinced that the volume is coming through via organised crime; I think it is coming through in fast parcels—small packages from overseas. That is why I am so keen to see some kind of intervention at the border, and I worry slightly that the more we talk about organised crime and gangs, the more the effort gets put in that direction, whereas a huge volume is coming through orders on the internet.

[Stella Creasy]

We were so close to having unanimity in this place about the nature of the challenge. I think it is both. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are small packages—I was going to ask the Minister to say a bit more about what conversations he has had with Border Force—but the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee investigation into the matter set out that international gangs were involved. One German-Russian gang made £50 million over several years by importing cigarettes into the UK.

We are therefore potentially asking trading standards officers to interact with very serious and dangerous people, and it is important that this House does not ask trading standards to be the blue line in our local communities. If we are to ask trading standards officers to take on this serious trade—packages might be one piece of investigation work—to enter properties and to take on organised crime, they need support. Will the Minister say more about the conversations that he has had with the National Crime Agency or Border Force about how to keep trading standards officers safe? Everybody agrees that we want to tackle this trade and everybody wants more investment in trading standards. We will all support the draft order, but I hope that the Minister understands that those of us who wrote the original legislation have some concerns about what we are asking of a service that has been stripped bare over the last 13 years.