Budget Resolutions

Debate between Tim Farron and Meg Hillier

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of this House, and she has made her point. She will no doubt have the opportunity to speak in this Budget debate, and there will be plenty of opportunities across the Committee corridor. I welcome her as a fellow Chair. Committee Chairs are already planning how we will work together to ensure that we hold the Government to account, whichever party we represent.

The fiscal rules are designed to provide fiscal certainty and predictability, to bring a sense of discipline to the public finances, and to reassure the markets, as I have mentioned. I welcome that stability, as will the markets, as the FTSE increase suggests. Given the headroom that the Chancellor has secured under the new rule, the Treasury Committee will be watching how much she invests, because we need to see the growth that she has set out as her goal. That must be sustainable, so it needs to be productivity growth. There is no single solution, but analysis by the Resolution Foundation found that a 1% increase in capital stock increases productivity by 0.4%. We will look closely at this, and at the spending review in 2025.

On tax, the increase in employers’ national insurance to 15% is an understandable measure. It is always challenging to find money in these difficult fiscal circumstances, but the increase brings money into the Exchequer at a faster pace than some of the other measures that were mentioned in the media. I have a wide approach to reading about things. If we read The Daily Telegraph, we will think the world is going to hell in a handcart, but if we read more measured commentary, we will find that the Chancellor is judged well on what she has achieved today.

As the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, there are concerns about how the measures in the Budget interact. Alongside sister Committees, we on the Treasury Committee will examine those.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady and the Treasury Committee look very carefully at the Chancellor’s proposals on agricultural property relief? They are very likely to do damage to small, family-owned farms, and especially to tenants, who are likely to be evicted as a consequence. Will she look at what that might do—not just for basic justice, but for food security in this country?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

If I were the sort of person to get big-headed as a result of the number of Members asking me to do things that are probably not within my remit, I could extend the remit and the power of the Treasury Committee infinitely. Of course, it is the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. As I say, we Chairs are planning to ensure that we work closely together on issues where there is an overlap of interests, and we will pick up on all these issues. The Government have promised openness, transparency and accountability, and I take my Front Benchers at their word on that. I am sure that the Chancellor and her Ministers will be available to talk to people and address Members’ concerns about specific elements of the Budget.

I welcome some of the other measures that have been announced. The increase in the national living wage will make a huge difference for so many of my constituents. They work hard and are certainly not shirkers, as some Conservative Members might call them, but they can barely make ends meet. In my constituency, many people work four days a week because they earn enough to be able to do so. Others have four jobs over seven days, just to hold body and soul together. I welcome the increase and the removal of age discrimination.

The devolution model makes so much sense in so many ways. On the Public Accounts Committee, we repeatedly looked at the challenge of bidding for pots of funds, which is costly and time-consuming. We need to trust our elected Mayors to make decisions for their area, and the model shows the direction of trust that, hopefully, this Government will continue to go down.

Before the last general election, I listed what I called the big nasties. This was just some of the additional spending that needed to take place on things that had been left, sometimes by the previous Government and, sadly, sometimes by successive Governments. These issues included the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete failure in schools—I welcome the move finally to deal with that—the long waiting lists in the NHS and overcrowded prisons. From the Red Book, it looks as though the Justice Department has had an uplift, although it is difficult to make a full judgment on that in the few minutes I have had to glance through it.

Other things such the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge and Porton Down need investment. These are risky things not to invest in. There is going to be a challenge in public spending even with the increase. Although the increase is welcome, the growth that the Chancellor has called for and is trying to achieve will be required in order to deliver and ensure that we see the spending that we need. Even with the uplift that she highlighted—the 1.5% from next year in day-to-day spending—this is a very tight financial situation for all Government Departments.

The boost to the Department of Health and Social Care is staggering, and welcome. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee will, among us, hold the Health Secretary to account for his promises to make sure that that is spent well and delivers permanent and lasting change. Also, the capital investment is desperately necessary. It is not that long ago that the previous Government raided capital budgets for day-to-day spending in the NHS. That cannot be allowed to continue.

The investment in defence is also absolutely necessary. There is a huge gap in the defence equipment plan, which I know my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is all over, and she is right to make that increase. I look forward to the path to 2.5% of GDP on defence; never again should we be going below that.

Local government, although it has had a boost, is going to be very squeezed. Again, we will be working with sister Committees to look at that.

The Chancellor also promised to close or reduce the tax gap. That is very bold, and difficult to deliver, so again the Committee will be looking closely at how it is dealt with, as well as at the recovery of fraud moneys, which can be challenging to deliver in any particular timescale.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Tim Farron and Meg Hillier

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

I rise to discuss new clause 6, which stands in my name. The Bill has been very rushed. It was announced on Thursday in the business of the House. We had to lay amendments by Friday, and I thank you, Dame Eleanor, for allowing a manuscript amendment today in order to get the new clause put forward.

As the Government rush into this legislation—I think there are questions about why that is—it is important that we make sure there are points of review and reflection about how well it is working. To put it more charitably, I am trying to save the Government from themselves. I think there is a lot of support across the House for the new clause, but in the very short time between Thursday and now, it has been hard to marshal all that and enable people to come and express their views.

The Minister may be able to answer this, but why has the Bill been quite so rushed, given that we have been in lockdown since 23 March and we knew that was coming for some time before then and given that we knew these sectors would be among the hardest hit? One would have thought that somebody in the Government would have been working up a Bill and stress-testing it before now, so that it was not such a surprise to Members of this House and sectors out there.

Local government has been caught rather by surprise. Of course it has been involved. I am not saying to the Minister that the Government have not spoken to local government. It would be extraordinary if he had come to the House from his Department and not done that. But there has not been enough detailed discussion about the impacts. We have heard, and I will not go into the detail again, about some of the impacts in constituencies such as mine and other urban constituencies with a high density of licensed premises, where antisocial behaviour has already been happening as a result.

We are already seeing problems, so there is a warning sign for the Government. The reality is that once off sales are allowed, as the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan said, at the same hours as on licensed premises—almost with a sweep of a pen, with a very short period for councils to object—we will see an awful lot more sales off the premises at all hours of the day and night. We also have the big issue about the resources involved from the police and local councils to police it.

It is easy to say, as the Minister did, that the police have certain powers and there are powers for local authorities, but the issue is the resourcing. We cannot just do all of that in one go. A lot of licences are being applied for. There are more than 1,300 licensed premises across my borough as a whole. How many licensing officers are needed to do that work? The police have other things to do with their time—certainly that is the case in my constituency, where they are dealing with serious crime issues, as well as antisocial behaviour and managing and policing social distancing and covid-19 regulations. There is a lot on everyone’s plate. We want to support businesses, but a three-month review after this has been in place would give the Government the chance to come back and either reassure us that it is all fine everywhere, or, if there are problems, look at ways of addressing that. The Minister has heard today from the Labour Front Benchers that there is strong support to get the economy going, and backing to make sure that businesses can survive the next period, as we still live in the pandemic. That is really important, certainly in a constituency such as mine with so many licensed premises, but we have to get that balance so that residents do not lose out.

This is a very mild amendment. Earlier, the Secretary of State rejected it because I had discussed a rolling amendment—I just say to the Minister that I had very little time to draft it and get advice about how to make it fit. I did not have time to discuss it in detail with the Government, otherwise I would have, and I know that other Members around the House agree with it.

I will not push the amendment to a vote today, but I am hoping that in the other place, they will have more time to think about, listen and reflect upon it, and that, in the meantime, the Government will also have time to reflect on it. Perhaps the Minister can give me some indication of whether this is something that the Government are willing to reflect on—to build in, simply, a three-month review point, so that three months after the Bill becomes an Act, the issue would come to the House again. A Minister would come to explain what is happening and we would have a debate about how this is working in our constituencies up and down the country, in the four nations of the UK, and we can make sure that we are getting it right. If there are problems then, the Government would have my backing to bring in certain powers to ensure that the antisocial behaviour that I fear this may herald is tackled, and I am sure that the Government would have the backing of other Members.

It would be helpful to hear from the Government about their thinking on this very mild amendment. We pushed for a review of the covid-19 legislation, which was pretty draconian. That was accepted by the Government and I propose this review in a similar spirit. I do not think that this will provide uncertainty for businesses. A review, when there has been such cross-party support in general for a proposal that supports businesses, is unlikely to completely reverse it, but it may allow for amelioration of some of the worst impacts if they materialise, as I fear they may in my constituency, or it may allow for different approaches to how the measures are applied in different nations of the UK, different regions or different cities.

They key thing is that if we have the review, it would give the Government and the House an option to look at this again. I think that something as draconian as this—the biggest change in licensing rules for decades—warrants a review. Some of these licences will be granted for a year if they pass through on the nod. A lot of them will go through very fast because of a lack of resources in local authorities. I urge the Minister to take my suggestion for this amendment constructively. I will not push it to a vote today because I recognise that, although the Bill is rushed, the amendment is also rushed. I hope, however, that the other place will consider it, that the Government will approach it thoughtfully and that when the Bill returns to this place, we can consider having a three-month review.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I shall speak to new clause 1, which I will not push to a Division because, for reasons mentioned by others—not least the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—I accept the premise of the Bill. It is about boosting the economy and creating flexibility so that people can begin to make a living again within the confines of the important safety restrictions that there are. However, I am very much looking to the Minister and the Government to be very clear that they will accept the terms and the general approach of my amendment, which seeks Government support for the hospitality and tourism industry beyond the current date set, which is the end of October, when the Government’s financial support schemes currently run out.

We welcome this Bill, rushed though it is, and understanding the necessity of that. We also welcome the support that the Government have given to the sector and the economy more widely. Undoubtedly the furlough scheme, the grant schemes and, more recently, after a lot of lobbying by myself and plenty of others, the discretionary schemes delivered through local authorities have helped to save thousands of companies from bankruptcy and protected millions of jobs. I am grateful to the Government for that.