Job Insecurity

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I think the clue is in the question. The hon. Gentleman said three to four years, but he did not mention that we had a flatlining economy during that period, or all the stress and worry that people have been subject to in the meantime. That is why we disagreed with his Government’s economic strategy.

Returning to the composition of our Labour market, as economists grapple with the ongoing productivity puzzle, a growing body of thought suggests that it is explained by the compositional change in the work force that I mentioned, and the change towards having more low-paid, low-productivity sectors than before. We must address that and do so fast.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. In 2011, employers spent £1,680 per employee on skills and training, but that has fallen to £1,590 this year. Does my hon. Friend think that has anything to do with the £54 billion fall in investment in SMEs since 2011?

[Mr Umunna]

I agree with all of that, and it has definitely had an impact. Ultimately, to tackle these problems we need a proper comprehensive industrial strategy that is implemented across all Departments. Some people say, “Well, the Government have an industrial strategy”, but there is no point having an industrial strategy that only the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills buys into, or in using such a strategy to support our defence sector if at the beginning of the Parliament the Ministry of Defence decides to buy product off the shelf from other countries. We must rebalance the economy in the long term, and that is still some way off. In his speech the other week, the Secretary of State acknowledged that, but we still do not export enough, and we still have geographical imbalances and relatively low levels of business investment. We will earn and grow our way out of this cost of living crisis and create more security by better balancing our economy with a proper industrial strategy. I commend the motion to the House.

Finance Bill

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I will turn to those exact points in the rest of my speech if the hon. Gentleman will wait.

Let me address the claim that the Bill will, as the Chief Secretary said, help

“businesses that we rely on to rebuild our broken economy”.—[Official Report, 28 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 674.]

The signs are that those businesses, along with leading economic experts, do not share his optimism. A recent survey of the service sector by the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply showed that confidence in the sector has been dented by the austerity measures announced in the Budget, of which, of course, the Bill is a part. The survey registered a fall in confidence between May and June this year that was the most significant drop since records began 14 years ago. Since the First Reading of the Bill, the International Monetary Fund has updated its 2011 growth forecasts, downgrading that of the UK by 0.4% on its April figures—the largest drop in the forecast of any major economy over that period. The BDO business optimism index, which measures business confidence, saw its sharpest fall since 1995 between May and June this year, and who can blame those involved?

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I should like to echo my hon. Friend’s words, especially given that the Government will reduce annual investment allowances by £75,000 under the Bill, which determines that a monetarist miracle will be export-led. Given that on emergency Budget day, the Engineering Employers Federation, which represents manufacturers, said:

“Reducing the corporation tax rate over time…might be a positive signal for large companies, but not for their suppliers”,

how will that meet export-led targets that are predicted, yet not witnessed since 1945, especially when the majority of nations’ economies are contracting?

[Mr Umunna]

Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. In addition, behind closed doors, some people in the Treasury share the pessimism about the state of our economy, with a leaked Treasury document showing an expected unemployment increase of 1.3 million over the next five years owing to the coalition Government’s economic policies. As well as the colossal human cost of those job losses, that will exacerbate the deficit by significantly increasing unemployment benefit payments, as I mentioned before, and cutting income tax and national insurance receipts significantly, but let me go on to the next point, as I wish to make some progress.

According to the Chief Secretary, the Bill will help to reduce the deficit and take action to eliminate the structural deficit, which is, of course, an obsession of the Government. We have already seen that their determination to do that could lead to the biggest cuts in Government spending that we have seen for many decades, but let us linger a little on the claim that the Bill is “responsible”. I have already explained how the coalition has sought to conflate public finances before the financial crash with the measures taken to mitigate the crash’s impact on hard-working ordinary people, but it is crucial that we establish what is “responsible” and what is not. The facts tell a very different story from that told by the coalition Government.

When Labour came to power, as the shadow Chief Secretary has said, public sector net debt was 42.5% of GDP. On the eve of the financial crisis, it was 36.5%, and interest payments had fallen from 3% to 1.6% of national income. A recent report by the IFS found that,

“the UK public finances were in better shape when the financial crisis began than they were when Labour came to power.”

By contrast, Germany’s indebtedness amounted to 65% of national income in 2007. In France, the figure was 63.8%; in Italy, 103.5%; and Japan ran consistent deficits, with the result that it owed 167.6% of national income by 2007. In short, the UK Government’s borrowing at that time was not of the order suggested by the Conservative party and certainly did not by any stretch of the imagination cause the economic crisis that followed.

That crisis, of course, caused the world economy to contract for the first time since the second world war. As I said, that called for decisive fiscal expansion—for billions to be injected into failing banks and into a flagging economy. How lucky we were that the then Government intervened. I for one refuse to apologise to Government Members for the bold action that the Labour party took to keep people in work, to ensure that they could still take money out of the ATM cash machines in the wall and to prevent the recession from mushrooming into a catastrophic depression.

Let it be said loud and clear that responsibility was what the previous Government did, but irresponsibility is pinning the blame for the size of the public sector debt on the previous Government and using that as a reason to hack off chunks of the public sector through spending cuts. Will Hutton, whom the Government have just appointed to head up their commission on high pay in the public sector, hit the nail on the head when he wrote in October that it was not the Labour Government

“that got us into this mess…What got us into this mess above all was the 30-year rise of Big Finance”.

However, the same people who insist that the previous Government got us into this mess propose in the Bill a corporation tax cut that will gift millions to big finance—that is what I call irresponsible.

Let me finish by examining the claim around which much of the Budget debate has revolved: that this was an “unavoidable” Budget, thus making the Finance Bill unavoidable, too. The two parties in government have made a set of choices that, I dare to venture, predate the economic crisis by a number of years. The game plan on which the Budget was based was disclosed long ago in the 2005 Conservative manifesto, the author of which happens to be the new occupant of No. 10 Downing street. The Conservatives pledged in their manifesto to slash 250,000 public sector jobs and to abolish 168 public bodies. Back then, Howard Flight, the party’s deputy chairman, was secretly recorded saying that the cuts publicly advocated by his party were a fraction of those planned. He said that the actual plans had been recalibrated into something that would be “politically acceptable” and that his party

“had to win an election first”,

but that afterwards

“you can actually get on with what needs to be done.”

We therefore cannot say that we were not warned, although people’s surprise that the Conservatives have been joined in their venture by the Liberal Democrats is wholly understandable.

Given all the shifting political sands and hidden agendas, the game of choices necessitates an eagle eye, because what stands out from the Bill and the Government’s general economic policies is not just the unfair VAT rise and the corporation tax gift to the City, as well as the disingenuous rhetoric with which they are presented, but what is absent from the Budget and the Finance Bill. Where, for example, is the plan to make the financial services sector bear its fair share of the burden? The Wall Street Journal said that the City should

“count itself lucky with the coalition government's emergency budget”.

Of course, the Government will introduce a bank levy that is forecast to raise about £2 billion, but that is a pin-prick when one considers the vast profits made in the sector. Even the IMF has proposed that the levy should raise £6 billion a year if we are properly to curb the “reckless behaviour” of the people in the industry. That additional £4 billion a year could—