Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe]

Yes, of course that is the hon. Gentleman’s belief. However, if we go back in history, I seem to recall Tory Chancellors singing in the bath as the pound collapsed and we were jettisoned from the ERM. I seem to recall crisis after crisis, including one Tory Chancellor who left a note saying, “I’m sorry I’ve made such a mess of it, old chap.” I do not think it is quite as the hon. Gentleman remembers. I would say that the Minister’s claims on borrowing are about as reliable as the Chancellor’s reputation for competence proved after the shambles of his Budget.

Like many others, I would like to know what bad news is coming down the line. Why is it, after five public refusals to call a general election—after assurance after assurance that there would be no election before 2020—that the Prime Minister now needs one? What does she know that the rest of us do not know? I suspect that what she knows is that the NHS is in chaos, our schools are in chaos, the Brexit talks are in chaos, and the economy is heading for the doldrums. That is what I suspect is happening. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) would like to rise and say that for the benefit of Hansard.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I am inordinately fond of the hon. Gentleman, but we have heard this—“24 hours to save the NHS”—so many times for the past 20 years. It is a fact that the Conservative party spends more on the NHS, is more committed to the NHS, and delivers better patient care than Labour has ever done.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jackson]

I will come to the specifics later. However, my hon. Friend—I am pleased to call him that because we serve on the Public Accounts Committee together—will know that many of his constituents in Redcar on low wages have benefited from our personal allowance changes. Indeed, many of them have been taken out of tax altogether, as have people across the north-east of England. He will know, too, as will the Opposition spokesperson, that unemployment has significantly fallen in the north-east and there are now more jobs available than in 2010. [Interruption.] We will not take any lectures from Labour, which doubled youth unemployment between 1997 and 2010.

I would have hoped that Labour Members supported these proposals, particularly this clause, because they are progressive. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced a very helpful chart demonstrating how the provision will disproportionately benefit those in the lower half of the income distribution—a point astutely made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). This is not a provision for the middle classes, as Labour critics sometimes suggest. The truth is that the failure of our income tax system to have regard for marriage in recent years has been very odd, as the Prime Minister said in response to a question from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) in June 2010:

“I simply do not understand why, when so many other European countries—I remember often being lectured when I was on the other side of the House about how we should follow European examples—recognise marriage in the tax system, we do not. I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system…We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]

[Steve McCabe]

The difference is that the tax provisions on Christmas parties and parking bicycles are extended to all. This provision is for a very narrow segment of married people and those in civil partnerships; it is hardly an example of a general principle of marriage.

[Mr Jackson]

I do not think we all attend Christmas parties or cycle. [Interruption.] The more serious point, which I will elucidate further if the hon. Gentleman will generously allow me, is that there is demonstrable evidence that the institution of marriage has a positive net impact on society, cumulatively, particularly on children. There is nothing ignoble about using the tax system in a mature democracy to support behaviour that is good for society overall.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I apologise for being absent for part of the debate while attending duties at the Home Affairs Committee.

The one inescapable fact is that however much the Chancellor talks about shared pain, we are discussing real cuts to benefits at a time when he thinks it is okay to prioritise tax cuts for millionaires. We should no doubt be grateful that pensioners have been spared this cut in their benefits, but that is probably down to Lord Ashcroft having identified what a key group they are and putting their benefits off limits.

I am afraid that these proposals look like an ambition to create division between those who have little and those who have less. That sits comfortably with the values and politics of a particular kind of Conservatism. This is called an uprating, but 1% rises over three years really represent a cut of 4% in the spending power of those already struggling. Citizens Advice estimates that when we take tax changes into account, a family with two children paying £130 per week in rent and earning just above the minimum wage will be almost £13 per week worse off. That is before we take food and energy inflation into account. No wonder people are being driven into the arms of payday loan sharks.

Income transfers for those on modest incomes, for example, are recognised throughout developed economies as exactly the kind of fiscal stimulus needed when recessionary pressures are highest, but the Chancellor is doing the exact opposite. A total of 4.6 million women will lose their tax credits, including 2.5 million working women and more than 1 million who care for their children while their partner works—the same people who are also having their maternity benefits cut. Lord Ashcroft calls them “suspicious strivers”. In his words, they fear they are one more redundancy, one interest rate rise or one tax credit change away from real difficulty, and they would not want to rely on a Conservative Government if they found themselves in trouble.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

For the record, 42,654 people in the Peterborough constituency will be better off under the tax changes in April. Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed that under his Government, who presided over 16 years of economic growth, more than 1,000 people in my constituency were parked on invalidity and incapacity benefit for more than 10 years. That is shameful and it is his Government’s record.

[Steve McCabe]

I cannot wait for the hon. Gentleman to have to meet all those people who are better off at his advice centre.

The International Monetary Fund regularly warns about the dangers of cutting the automatic stabilisers in these economically fraught times, yet that is exactly what is happening. It is estimated—the IMF is the source —that these benefit cuts will contribute to a £40 billion reduction in the country’s output when we desperately need the opposite to happen.

As well as implementing benefit cuts that defy economic logic, the Chancellor has set up a special hotline for Tory MPs who are confused about his benefit changes. Special hotlines for Tory MPs, Government cars to cushion Ministers from rail-fare rises, and specially arranged meetings to cover the transport costs if they want to watch the European cup final—yes, they are definitely all in it together.

My contention is that these decisions do not make economic sense, are not fair and will punish the very people who are striving and struggling to make ends meet while the Chancellor’s millionaire friends are prioritised for tax cuts. That tells us all we need to know about this Government’s values.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jackson]

It was indeed defeated, by one vote, because of the good sense of many of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on the then Government’s side who saw that it would not be sensible to traduce the British traditions of liberty and fairness on the back of a scare campaign from some people who were taking an authoritarian, draconian approach. To be fair and open-minded, as I aspire to be, I should say that the debate went on in my own party as well. Some Conservatives took the view that we should be tough on law and order, and that we should do the right thing and support the then Prime Minister. A small number of my colleagues voted for that proposal. I must not perambulate too far from the new clause that we are debating, but we must bear in mind that context as we listen to Labour Members’ arguments about civil liberties today. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was absolutely right to say that, until that point, there had been a fine tradition in the Labour party of support for civil liberties.

[Steve McCabe]

I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, whether the best symbol of a Government’s faith in civil liberties is their support for a phone hacker in No. 10 and a Minister who spies on his own colleagues and friends—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I shall speak specifically to the proposal about compensation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Please forgive me if I meandered somewhat.

There is, of course, precedent for a party being elected, putting a programme forward and sticking to its manifesto commitments without paying compensation, even at a modest level. For instance, one has to think only of the assisted places scheme, a windfall tax on utilities or the national minimum wage—they all had fiscal ramifications, but the Conservative party in opposition did not insist that there was any necessity to make specific compensation to specific groups.

[Steve McCabe]

On a minor point, this new clause is not asking for compensation per se; it asks for a reimbursement of £30 only for those who subsequently apply for a passport. It is designed to right a wrong; it is not a general request for compensation.

[Mr Jackson]

The substantive general point, which the hon. Gentleman does not want to concede, is that what is happening is a direct result of a new Government who with their coalition partner have a mandate to take a decision that has fiscal ramifications through new legislation. My point is that the precedent has been set in the past for new legislation having financial ramifications; it will inevitably affect some groups of taxpayers and voters, but the Government will not see fit to compensate them in a particular way, even on a modest scale.

Of course it is regrettable that some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton West will be in a difficult position as a result of the decisions made, but I come back to the point that the two parties that form this Government won 60% of the vote on an unequivocal commitment to abolish identity cards, whereas the party that was unequivocally in favour of them comprehensively lost the election on 6 May. Although only a modest amount of money is involved, the amendment is inappropriate, particularly during a time of less than benign financial circumstances when we need to reduce the deficit.

Crime and Policing

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) who spoke with his customary expertise and erudition.

This afternoon I feel as if I have stumbled upon the Alan Johnson shadow Cabinet hustings speech. It is a shame that the shadow Home Secretary is no longer in his place, but he was performing for a very small audience—the parliamentary Labour party—which will vote in the forthcoming shadow Cabinet elections. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, the right hon. Gentleman demonstrated a degree of selective amnesia. On this side of the House, we will continue to make the point that the reason we have to make any fiscal reductions is the calamitous fiscal situation bequeathed to us by the Labour Government—£157,000 million of public sector debt.

What marks out the contributions from Opposition Members is an opportunistic and, frankly, intellectually dishonest approach. I specifically challenged the right hon. Gentleman about his comments on 20 April, during the election, when—as Home Secretary—he committed to a 20% reduction in the policing budget and refused to specifically rule out reductions in front-line police numbers. It ill behoves him to attack the Home Secretary for having to do what he himself would already have done.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, not Birmingham, Hall Green.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind about my constituency. It is true that Labour set out cuts, but since then the coalition has decided to make a further £30 billion of cuts. Those cuts are not economically necessary, but ideologically driven. That is why we have a problem today.

[Mr Jackson]

The key point that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, must concede is this: if we are to de facto ring-fence the police budget, it is incumbent on the Labour party to say where the cuts would occur in other areas of Government activity. Would it be social services, transport, health, education or defence? We are not receiving those answers from Her Majesty’s Opposition.

The Opposition’s collective amnesia, articulated by the shadow Home Secretary, is interesting. He had a bit of a mea culpa moment over the Licensing Act 2003, of which I shall say more later, and which was also a catastrophe. It has created a calamitous situation, and now huge amounts of public resources have to be spent on the consequences of an ill-thought-out piece of legislation that demonstrably increased antisocial behaviour and impacted across public services, as the shadow Home Secretary would concede.

We heard nothing about the botched mergers forced on police authorities in 2006, which led indirectly to the demise of Charles Clarke, the former right hon. Member for Norwich South. We heard no apology for that policy, which took up a lot of time and destabilised local police authorities and forces without any—let us remember this—proper, meaningful consultation with local people, elected councillors or others. So the shadow Home Secretary is gilding the lily by attacking the Government for having the temerity to put forward proposals, with checks and balances, for directly elected officials, who will be responsible for policing and crime in their local areas.

There is also selective amnesia in quoting the Audit Commission. Its most recent publication, “Sustaining Value for Money in the Police Service”, stated that

“the scrutiny and challenge of spending has so far been poor. Public debate and political interest has focused more on increasing police officer numbers, with a simple equation that more is better”.

On that subject, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on his wise words on the balance between inputs and outputs in policing and crime reduction. The Audit Commission also made a damning indictment of the previous Government’s paradigm of always spending more of taxpayers’ money without looking at the results:

“there is no evidence that high spending is delivering improved productivity”.

It would be unkind and churlish to say that everything that the previous Labour Government did was wrong. There was consensus on many areas—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on that. Of course, we support the proposal enunciated in the December 2009 White Paper, “Protecting the Public: Supporting the Police to Succeed”, on minimum service standards, gang injunctions, protecting witnesses and communities from intimidation and focusing much more on the victims of antisocial behaviour. Who could disagree with that? But that was after 13 years of judicial activism, legislative activism, more quangos, more reports and a failure to free up police so that they can deliver what they need to deliver.