The Economy
William Bain Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests.
The Government’s economic plan is not working—if it were, we would not have heard much of what we were subject to in last week’s autumn statement. The Chancellor has choked off recovery and in turn raised unemployment. I acknowledge that the eurozone crisis is having an impact on the economy now, but growth in our economy was choked off well over a year ago.
I want to spend a little time looking at economic growth and the role the construction industry can play. Labour has set out measures designed to create jobs and growth, and many of these would help the construction industry: 25,000 affordable homes, 100,000 jobs for young people and cutting VAT to 5% for home improvements. Having started my own business in 1986, I believe that without a vibrant small business sector, economic recovery is impossible, and without a vibrant construction industry, such recovery is equally impossible. The construction industry is of the private sector, but it needs both a vibrant private and public sector to survive. It is also a cash-consuming industry and as such needs the support of the UK finance industry. It is an industry that can create jobs fairly quickly and can train people in skills that will last them a lifetime. However, in recent years more than 300,000 construction sector jobs have been lost, 63,000 of those in the first three months of this year. Private sector job creation is not keeping up with job losses from the public sector. If it were to do that, the Government would need the construction industry to be significantly more active than it is.
The major banks will not lend enough to the industry. They have seen the sector weakened by Government decisions, and by their actions the banks add further to that decline. The benefits of a strong construction industry are, however, great and should mean one thing: more jobs for Britain, and more jobs for Britain means more tax revenue.
An obvious indicator of a country’s economic well-being is its construction industry. Every business needs this sector in order to expand—whether it is through bigger offices, bigger factories, better high-tech communications, or better road and rail infrastructure. However, let me make this point about infrastructure to both Front-Bench teams: major projects are very important, but I would argue for lower-cost, more local investments throughout the country, as well, as they would have an impact throughout the UK in both their development and post-development stages. Only “shovel-ready” proposals will have an immediate impact on our flatlining economy.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will have noted that in Scotland recently, construction output has fallen by 2.3%. What contribution does he think the cut by John Swinney, the Scottish Government’s Finance Minister—a reduction in capital spending that is two and a half times faster than this Chancellor’s—has made to that slump?
Gordon Banks
The Scottish Minister’s decision is responsible for the cuts that could also impact on investment and delivery in the construction industry. The flipside is that if we are prepared to invest in the construction industry, it will deliver; if we cut public spending, it will destroy the industry and with it the economy.
For businesses to grow, they need access to affordable funding. Historically, most small business funding has been generated from our banks, but the Institute for Family Business and the Federation of Small Businesses tell us that, due to the actions of the banks and small businesses’ distrust of them, many such businesses are seeking funding from family members or not seeking it at all. To do the latter damages the business and the economy; to do the former may place limitations on the business, with the same impacts.
However, what is clear is that small and medium-sized enterprises are not at ease with the banking sector. The much-hailed Project Merlin has been a resounding failure. The British Bankers Association has declared that lending targets have been met; however, the FSB and the Federation of Master Builders have other ideas. I have been told of banks meeting their Merlin targets by re-signing existing, unexpired deals. But the truth is, we will never know how much of Merlin is re-signed and regurgitated arrangements. Indeed, this is smoke and mirrors that the Merlin of folklore would be proud of, but I suppose we should not be surprised: the clue is in the name.
I know of financing arrangements that have long been in place being removed with immediate effect, leaving a business in turmoil. Then, the bank returns to the business a few days later with the offer of a term loan that is new business for the bank to write—no doubt adding to the Merlin figures—at increased rates and with arrangement fees, all paid for by the business and with less capital provision for the lender, but leaving the business without any long-term funding in place.
Small businesses in the construction sector have been victimised on two fronts: for being small, and for being in the construction sector, which is deemed toxic by many lenders.
When considering finance, however, we should not forget first-time buyers and the crisis in mortgage lending. In 2007, there were 357,000 first-time buyers in the UK, and as a result the British high street was boosted by some £2.1 billion when these people kitted out their homes. However, today, young people, who are the majority of would-be first-time buyers, are unable to purchase their own home. Now, the average age of a first-time buyer without parental support is 38. With 25 or 30-year mortgages, these first-time buyers could still be paying off their mortgages as they approach their 70s. Surely, pensioners paying mortgages is not something we want to see in Britain in years to come.
In my business, where investment in vehicles can cost up to £130,000 each, and where forklifts and loading shovels cost tens of thousands of pounds, the real driver for investment is the footfall of customers and the profit margin. Both have taken a tumble in recent years, and nothing that I have seen this Government do or promise to do will result in more customers or a rise in profit margins.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Last week was the week when the bubble burst and the Conservatives had to accept what everybody else knew: that the Chancellor had got it wrong on growth, this year and next; on unemployment, up by half a million next year; on borrowing, going up to £158 billion; on children in poverty, again set to rise; and on hitting women the hardest. The House of Commons Library says that the effect of cuts to tax credits and attacking public sector pay will impact on 73% of the women involved. There is complete humiliation for the Chancellor and even more damage to our economy, but who carries the can for the failure of the system? The old, the young, the jobless, the disabled and the women of this country.
As always, when capitalism fails, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. We should look back to the 1930s. Only a few weeks ago, young people marched to London in a sad echo of the crusades of those who left Jarrow 75 years ago. Those brave souls in 1936 did not march to London for the exercise—they did it because they were starving, jobless, and desperate. Just like today, they were turned away empty-handed and made to carry the can for a mess they did not create.
We all know that history repeated itself in the 1980s, when the country was led in a series of recessions by a neo-liberal Government who saw the deindustrialisation of this nation as a price worth paying. They destroyed not only the coal mining and shipbuilding industries of this country but the manufacturing industry that those industries helped to create and that was making leading, cutting-edge technology for the coal-mining industry. Why did we do that? Because the market demanded that we did it. It said that British coal was too expensive and that we needed cheaper coal to deliver cheap power. The Government’s response was, “That’s okay. It’s a price worth paying.” They were not paying it and their constituents were not paying it; the people in my part of the world were paying it. The outcome was that hundreds and thousands of lives were decimated, local communities withered and died, and support industries died off.
The truth remains that it is the less well-off, the poor, the frail, the poorly educated who lose the most, while those in charge—the ones to blame—get off scot-free. What else can we say when we face a situation where a quarter of our children will be living in poverty, record numbers of people are out of work, and those lucky enough to retain a job face pay freezes, an unprecedented drop in living standards, and a real lack of security, while at the same time Barclays makes a £11.6 billion profit and pays only £113 million in corporation tax, and its poor chief executive is paid only a measly quarter of a million pound salary but, luckily for him, it is topped up with a bonus of £6.5 million?
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend is making a passionate argument, as ever. The Chancellor said earlier that the only people who were calling for an alternative were, in effect, communists. Does my hon. Friend share my sense of disgust at the Chancellor’s slurring the democratically elected Government of Denmark, who are engaged in a stimulus programme and have seen their bond yields fall?
Mr Anderson
I am very clear that the Chancellor is trying to pretend that nobody else in the world wants what we want. The whole world is crying out for a change to a system that has let it down.
The people of this country—the nurses, the doctors, the care workers—are carrying the can for the failure of global capitalism. We now know that 98 of the top 100 FTSE-listed companies are avoiding £20 billion-plus of tax by putting their money into offshore tax havens.
Mr Clarke
The Chancellor likes to hear himself, but I do not see him often when others are speaking.
We are entitled to be extremely worried given that over the past three months unemployment has reached its highest level in 17 years. There are now more women unemployed than at any time since 1988. All of this is a consequence of this Government’s austerity measures—and what improvement has there been as a result of the hardship?
Mr Bain
My right hon. Friend has been a champion of equality since being elected to this House in 1982. I wonder whether he has had an opportunity to consider the report issued by the Institute for Fiscal Studies this morning, which says that one of the biggest drivers of the lift in household incomes has been female employment. How does he believe the cuts announced by the Chancellor in the Budget and the autumn statement will contribute to living standards?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an interesting and relevant point. I hope to return to it later if time allows.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that growth will now be lower this year, and for every year until 2014. Unemployment will rise next year and be higher than previously forecast in every year until 2015. Consequently, Government borrowing, which we have heard so much about, is set to be £158 billion higher than was planned a year ago.
The coalition Government’s economic policy is simply not working. When Labour left office, the economy was growing. In the past 12 months, only Greece, Portugal and Cyprus have grown more slowly than Britain. That is not just because of the eurozone crisis. The British recovery was choked off more than a year ago. In the 12 months since the Government’s spending review the UK economy has grown, but by a mere 0.5%, while the EU has grown by an average of 1.4%. Their policy has starved us of growth.
Britain needs sensible public sector projects that will stimulate our economy, so that it is less dependent on a downward spiral of destructive cuts. Instead, the OBR forecasts more than 700,000 public sector job losses as a result of Government measures, and for anyone who remains, a ceiling of 1% is being put on pay rises for the two years following the spending review period.
Youth unemployment has exceeded the 1 million mark, and long-term unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is up by a shocking 83% since the start of 2011. What do the Government do in the face of that crisis? They scrap the future jobs fund and introduce three-year work placement subsidies, which will mean just over 53,000 funded jobs—a far smaller number than the 105,000 starts provided by the future jobs fund between October 2009 and March 2011. Those new placements are not even guaranteed. No wonder our young people feel cheated by society. That message certainly comes over to me in my constituency.
If we are not careful there will again be a lost generation of young people—just as there was in the ’80s, Mrs Thatcher’s time—which will lead to broken homes, broken relationships, dashed hopes and broken dreams. I would not for one second condone the riots that took place in England earlier this year, particularly as I am asking the House to reflect on what youth unemployment actually means. Indeed, I am pleased that they did not extend to Scotland. However, it would be naive in the extreme to think that we can continue with the figures and statistics that are a reality in Scotland and not expect young people to articulate their views.
We were first warned about these matters as long ago as during the war, when Sir William Beveridge wrote:
“If full employment is not won and kept, no liberties are secure, for to many they will not seem worth while.”
So what about the poor and people with disabilities? Since 2010 jobseeker’s allowance claimants have risen in the most deprived areas of my constituency—I underline the word “deprived”—from 26.3% to 28.1%, against a UK average of 3.9%. We are asking what the Government’s response will be, because that is a real problem. Additionally, Mencap has found that one in two families with a disabled child live in poverty. The Chancellor is playing with the lives of those people. As they teeter on the breadline, tax credits are being cut, Sure Start centres are closing at an alarming rate and the number of people able to claim disability benefit is being cut.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Follow that, as they say.
There is no doubt that the economic news of the past few weeks has been appalling. In last Tuesday’s autumn statement, the Chancellor finally admitted what the shadow Chancellor and many economists had been telling him for months—that the massive gamble that he took in June 2010 has failed.
Last week, the Chancellor announced not plan B but plan A-plus. Over this Parliament, the Government will now have to borrow £158 billion more than they said just 18 months ago. That is despite the pain of cuts worth £40 billion imposed on the economy and tax rises imposed on ordinary families up and down the country.
Angela Smith
It absolutely does explain the scale of it. Let us make real-life sense out of some of these figures. They mean that 700,000 public servants had to be cast aside, 300,000 more than the Chancellor said would lose their jobs just a few months ago. Some £1.2 billion has been taken off tax credits while bankers suffer a mere £300 million increase in the take from their pay packets by the Treasury.
Any pretence of fairness and of our all being in this together went out the window last Tuesday. Ordinary families are taking a massive hit: already more people are unemployed than at any time since 1994—the current figure is 2.6 million—and to make matters worse the number of people out of work for more than a year is 868,000, with the long-term rate for 16 to 24-year-olds standing at a staggering 30%.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this extremely important debate.
The huge error made by the Chancellor on assuming office last year was to mistake a global crisis of demand, growth and jobs for one purely of debt and deficit. He launched a grand experiment of so-called expansionary fiscal contraction, which he must now admit has been the most disastrous episode in British fiscal policy since the 1930s.
The Chancellor took an economy recovering at an annualised rate of 2.1% at the end of the previous Government’s period in office and turned it into an economy with flatlining growth. This autumn, our rate of growth stands as the fifth lowest in the EU according to the European Commission and is lower than the eurozone average. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has said that this is the slowest recovery from recession in Britain in a century. In the great recession of the 1930s, it took just 48 months to rebuild the lost output in the economy. Under this Chancellor, it will be 69 months and counting. Even taking into account the measures announced by the Government last week, the OBR has downgraded growth for the fourth time since its initial forecasts last June. Growth is now 0.8% lower this year and a whopping 1.8% lower next year than in the previous March forecasts.
The burden is not being shouldered by the Chancellor, nor by the rich and powerful in society. It is being paid by women working part time to help support their families. It is being paid by children facing lower living standards than the generation before them. Above all, it is being paid by the poor, with the number of people in food poverty in this country approaching 4 million, and by the unemployed, with the number of young jobless now more than a million.
The respected Fraser of Allander Institute has said in its latest commentary that there is still some scope for fiscal easing without damaging our fiscal credibility in the long term. As Tony Dolphin of the Institute for Public Policy Research wrote last week in relation to the Government’s fiscal consolidation plan and its impact on bond yields:
“If it had started with a plan that reduced the deficit more slowly—say over six years rather than four—yields would probably be little different from current levels now.”
What is particularly worrying is that the same austerity medicine is being applied in many other EU countries with similar results.
The Chancellor’s growth strategy is now predicated on maintaining loose monetary policy indefinitely, with ever higher levels of quantitative easing, a policy he once derided as
“the last resort of desperate governments”
whose other economic policies had failed. As the experience in the 1990s shows, low interest rates in themselves are insufficient to generate new demand. Japan has net debt of more than 200% of GDP, but even lower bond yields than the UK. As the Japanese economist Richard Koo recently said of austerity economics in an interview with Money magazine in the United States:
“The Japanese made a horrendous mistake in 1997.”
He explained that
“The cutback caused a second recession… The Japanese Government didn’t do enough spending in the early 1990s and added another 10 years to the problem.”
It is precisely that thinking that underpins what the Chancellor is doing today.
The Government are ignoring four basic realities about our economy. The first is that living standards for families with working-age parents are being squeezed to levels last seen in the 1920s, amid slumping consumer confidence, slumping demand and weak retail sales. The second is that supply-side reforms are needed to stimulate growth in manufacturing and construction. In particular, a national investment bank could produce the borrowing capital needed to kick-start new investment in the green economy. The third is that mass unemployment creates massive social costs and unrest, and devastates lives, which ends up placing a higher burden on future taxpayers. That is the price of economic failure. Finally, we need to build an economy in which those on low and middle incomes share more of the proceeds of growth than they have over the past three decades.
The country is crying out for a fair alternative to this failed Tory plan that is sucking demand from our economy, and hope and life from our communities. Our country deserves better leadership and a more optimistic vision of the future than that which has been offered by the downgraded Chancellor of this deflationary Government.
Northern Rock
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Northern Rock demutualised in 1997 yet collapsed 10 years later. Does the Financial Secretary recognise that if it did so again, the cost to the taxpayer could rise to £10 billion? Why, then, did he not more rigorously pursue a mutualisation option that would have restored a safer building society mode of finance to the British high street?
Mr Hoban
We should think about those dates very carefully. It was demutualised in 1997 and failed in 2007. The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that the regulatory architecture put in place by the previous Government meant that Northern Rock could act as an outlier and become over-dependent on wholesale funding. Nobody did anything about that at a time when there was an asset price bubble in the UK economy. Those factors in the regulatory architecture led to some of the financial problems in the economy in 2007, 2008 and 2009. We are acting to strengthen the regulatory architecture, to tackle those problems and to ensure that the Bank of England has the powers it needs to supervise the banks properly and look at systemic threats to financial stability. We have also set up the Independent Commission on Banking, which is looking at ways of making the banking system in the UK safer while remaining competitive at an international level.
Independent Banking Commission Report
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of competition in the investment banking sector. It is not often talked about outside the pages of the Financial Times, but it can be very uncompetitive, the fees can be exceptionally high, and there is that old maxim that no one ever got fired for hiring Goldman Sachs. The report will enable Britain to remain a home of competitive investment banking while protecting retail customers. That should encourage new entrants and drive down the fees that are charged. That would all be a good thing.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
In the first six months of this year, the five major UK banks lent £63 billion to non-financial corporations, excluding small and medium-sized enterprises. The Vickers recommendations would not oblige the banks to protect that lending via the 10% capital requirement for retail banks within the ring fence. Does the Chancellor agree with that recommendation, which would contribute to up to two thirds of all bank balance sheet holdings being outside the protection of the ring fence?
Mr Osborne
Again, I think we should trust the judgment of John Vickers and his commissioners. They explicitly considered whether to prescribe more closely than they have the scope of the ring fence—I am not talking about the height now, but the scope—and whether to include lending to larger corporates inside or outside it. They decided to leave that open to the banks. We will consider that advice and recommendation, but it strikes me as quite sensible to have some flexibility about the scope, if not necessarily the height, of the ring fence.
Eurozone (Contingency Plans)
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Hoban
I cannot speak for Her Majesty on this occasion, but I would say to my hon. Friend that we did not come forward with a statement today because no decisions have been taken. A statement was put out by the Eurogroup last night which recognised that work was in progress, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has continually sought to keep the House informed of the outcome of such discussions. Once ECOFIN has met today, there will be an opportunity for him to lay a statement on the outcome of that meeting.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Despite the European lenders having cut their exposure to risk in Greece by 30% in the past year, the risk of contagion in the eurozone has become the paramount concern. Will the Minister acknowledge that, with about $2 trillion exposure to Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain by lenders in the eurozone, any Greek default would have the potential to devastate the European banking system and jeopardise the economic recovery in the eurozone?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the event of a default, there would be consequences for the strength of bank balance sheets across Europe. That is why we are going through a stress-testing process across Europe at the moment to determine the consequences of various scenarios on the strength of bank balance sheets. UK banks have strengthened their balance sheets significantly and they hold high levels of capital. That will give them some insulation against the impact of a default.
Oral Answers to Questions
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I can today report to the House that in the past year Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has saved an additional £1 billion by tackling fraud and error in the tax credit system. For many years, the flaws in the shambolic administration of tax credits went completely ignored by the Labour party, causing misery for hundreds of thousands of families and costing the taxpayer billions of pounds, but we are now sorting out this mess.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T3. Has the Chancellor had an opportunity to note the findings of last week’s report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which show the contraction in public and private demand since emerging from the recession to be higher in this country than in any comparable major economy? Does that not show that the Government are cutting too far and too fast?
Mr Osborne
First, the report recommends higher taxes and higher interest rates—perhaps that has become part of the Labour party’s official policy. I think it is worth looking at what the CBI has said this week. I have already quoted what it said when I was asked what the outcome would have been had Britain followed Labour’s plans—it said there would have been weaker economic growth—but its director general has also said:
“We are rock solid behind the chancellor’s plans to eliminate the structural deficit within a parliament”,
which are an
“essential part of putting the economy back on a stable footing”.
That is the voice of British business’s view of the deficit. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says that is not true. A couple of months ago he was quoting the CBI across the Dispatch Box at me, but now that the CBI says that Labour’s economic policies would lead to weaker economic growth, he is in denial about that too.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Mr Speaker.
Many Bills are based on evidence, but this Bill takes a huge gamble on the judgment of a Chancellor who regards his plans for fiscal consolidation more as an article of economic faith. The extent of the tax rises that it imposes, when added to the effect of the Government’s decision to reduce spending by £81 billion over the next four years, threatens to remove about 2% of GDP from output. As Anatole Kaletsky wrote in the most recent edition of Prospect, that is the equivalent of the annualised growth achieved in the whole of 2010.
The theory that underpins the measures in the Budget and the Bill is that of expansionary fiscal contraction: the idea that cutting deficits as quickly as possible while also making a massive reduction in the scope of the state will liberate private sector capital to fill in the gap, and will create higher levels of growth. That theory is deficient for two reasons. First, in countries where it has been applied there has been a marked expansion in the export sector, normally accompanied by a depreciation of the currency. Secondly, it has tended to be applied in countries pursuing a policy of monetary easing. Neither factor is likely to obtain in the circumstances faced by the UK economy. In the last quarter of 2010 the country recorded the worst trade figures since 1985, there is weak demand in the rest of Europe apart from Germany, and inflationary pressures are making a rise in interest rates more likely than not this year. Nor is it credible for the Chancellor, who in January 2009 described printing money as
“the last resort of desperate governments”
whose other economic policies had failed, to rely on further quantitative easing to provide any additional monetary stimulus beyond the £200 billion already utilised by the Bank of England.
Government Members have prayed in aid of their fiscal consolidation plans the experience of the Canadian Government of the 1990s who faced the largest deficit in the G7. In a report entitled “Whose Canada?”, Mario Seccareccia of the university of Ottawa noted the real reasons for the success of the Canadian fiscal consolidation programme. High growth in the United States, Canada’s largest trading partner, a sharply declining Canadian dollar and the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement combined to push the export sector’s share of Canadian GDP to 45% by 2000. In addition, an expansionary monetary policy raised consumer spending, and continued until the financial crisis. None of those factors is likely to obtain in the United Kingdom.
Here we have a Finance Bill that imposes the largest squeeze on living standards for British households since the 1920s. As was ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), its most worrying feature is the massive rise in personal debt and borrowing that underpins its provisions. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects total household debt to rise from £1.56 trillion in 2010 to a staggering £2.13 trillion in 2015, a rise of 36.3% in just five years. Whereas debt represented 160% of household income last year, the debt-to-income ratio will reach 175% by 2015. Through the higher taxes in the Bill and his Budget’s spending cuts, the Chancellor is transferring the burden of debt from the state to private individuals. As the International Monetary Fund’s recently published global economic outlook report finds, the global recovery remains unbalanced. High unemployment is likely to persist in the coming years. In the European Union economy, an underlying low rate of potential output is the biggest problem. The managing director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, noted in a speech at the Brookings Institution on 13 April that the global economic crisis had cast 30 million people into unemployment, and that over 200 million people across the world are currently seeking work. He says:
“The jobs crisis is hitting the young especially hard. And what should have been a brief spell in unemployment is turning into a life sentence, possibly for a whole lost generation.”
He further states that
“fiscal tightening can lower growth in the short term, and this can even increase long-term unemployment, turning a cyclical into a structural problem. The bottom line is that fiscal adjustment must be done with an eye kept keenly on growth.”
Those are wise words indeed.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s upward revision of projected unemployment for the remainder of this Parliament shows that there is little in this Bill to help tackle youth unemployment and to stop it nearing 1 million and surging over 20%. Indeed, the Government are cutting investment allowances to small and medium-sized enterprises by £2.6 billion in total, which will hurt manufacturers, particularly in the automotive and renewable sectors, and will most benefit high-profit but low-investment companies. As Richard Koo of the Nomura Research Institute in Tokyo says, drawing on his analysis of the Japanese economy in the 1990s, many businesses may remain in a “balance sheet recession”, preferring to pay down debt and protect cash flows and yet shun investment.
Despite this Bill’s lifting of some poor families out of income tax, there are cuts in child tax credits and child care support, and an increase in the withdrawal rates for tax credits to 41%. So the £48 per year which the Chancellor is giving through the increase in the personal allowance in income tax is more than exceeded by the increases in VAT, lower tax credit entitlements, and the slashing of child care support by 10%.
By the decisions the Chancellor has made in his Budget and by the tax rises introduced in his Finance Bill, he has boxed himself into a corner, and has made the economy the prisoner of the OBR’s growth forecasts. Missing the target for growth, as has already happened three times in the last year, means less revenue for the Treasury and a higher than expected deficit.
With tomorrow’s publication of the UK quarterly growth figures, we may get more of an idea of whether it was just the snow or, more likely, the Chancellor’s policies that put the economy in reverse in the last quarter of 2010. For output to bounce back from the calamitous fall in the autumn, the growth rate would automatically need to achieve the minimum level of 0.7%. If the OBR is correct in its above-average estimate for 2011, growth in the first quarter would need to fall in at around 1.2% tomorrow for the economy to be in recovery. If it does not, the Government will have to say how far they will be prepared to see unemployment rise before they decide to change course. It is not too late for a plan B, and I urge the Chancellor to take on board the advice from Gus O’Donnell and the Institute for Public Policy Research on a plan B and a slower rate of deficit reduction.
This Finance Bill is an example of faith-based economics and cynical politics from a Chancellor in whom this country is losing its belief. Britain deserves better, and only with alternative fiscal and taxation policies will we have a fairer way to sustainable public finances and rising living standards for the British people once again.
Amendment of the Law
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate on the Budget resolutions. In January, the Chancellor was fiercely critical of what he called the forces of stagnation holding back economic recovery. With last week’s Budget, which fails the test of growth, strips demand from our economy, and hardwires unfairness and higher living costs into our society, he has joined those forces. Rather than being a Budget for growth, it is a Budget that now depends on growth.
If the OBR’s growth forecast proves overly optimistic, and the resulting lower tax receipts further impede the Government’s ability to encourage growth, what will drive the economy? Before the Budget statement, the OBR was expecting total receipts to exceed non-investment spending by 0.3% of national income by 2015-16. It now expects instead a deficit of 0.2% of national income by then. On Thursday afternoon, the Institute for Fiscal Studies at its post-Budget seminar gave its verdict on the Chancellor’s failure—his spending cuts will now be even more dramatic than planned in last June’s emergency Budget because of surging inflation, cutting 1% deeper over the next four years.
The Chancellor says that only his programme of fiscal consolidation and no other can save the economy from collapse. He talks of the need for confidence in the markets. Emulating Lady Thatcher and Lord Lawson, he tells us that there can be no alternative. But on Thursday morning, the ratings agency Moody’s said that a combination of slower growth and lower than forecast tax receipts could endanger the UK’s triple A credit rating.
This Budget sees growth downgraded for last year, for this year, and for next year, with the price of the Chancellor’s failure on growth being £43.4 billion in extra borrowing, higher debt interest payments to the tune of £17.6 billion between 2010 and 2016, and higher benefit costs of £12.6 billion by the end of this Parliament. The Chancellor’s headline measures, such as the 1p cut in fuel duty, were described by the OBR last week as having at best a minimal effect on the stagnant level of growth that his policies are set to deliver.
Given the appalling UK trade deficit recorded in the last quarter, it becomes even clearer what an error the Chancellor committed in slashing investment and capital allowances inherited from the previous Government. Although the Budget contains some small-scale measures such as on the research and development tax credit for small and medium-sized business, and on the enterprise investment scheme, they are no substitute for a comprehensive strategy on supply-side reform.
Many credible voices, both national and international, have warned the Government that taking £81 billion out of public spending, as they propose, is cutting too far and too fast. Higher unemployment, a slump in consumer confidence and lower growth are the likely results. As Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist said in The New York Times last week, after the Budget the downgrading of the economic forecast plus the upgrading of the deficit forecast is evidence that
“slashing spending in the face of high unemployment is a mistake”.
Whereas we should have had a Budget for jobs to reverse soaring youth unemployment now approaching 1 million, we instead had a Budget which directly increases unemployment in each of the next two years by 130,000, and will increase the International Labour Organisation measure of unemployment by 0.5%. The IFS, in its green budget last month, found that Labour’s plan to halve the deficit by 2015 would have restored the public finances to sustainable levels. There is an alternative to the Chancellor’s raid on the winter fuel payments of pensioners from next winter, when the bonuses of the bankers who exacerbated the economic crisis have been left so feebly undertaxed.
Most feeble of all was how the self-proclaimed greenest Government ever completely failed to fulfil the green economy’s potential to generate growth. As the UN environment programme’s report “Towards a Green Economy” concluded recently, green investment
“will result in the long run in faster economic growth.”
On the green investment bank, there will be no independent borrowing powers until 2015 at the earliest, and again that is dependent on growth not being further downgraded and the national debt falling. There are no green ISAs or green bonds underpinned by the Government to promote small investor participation in the renewables sector.
The Chancellor said that his Budget would put fuel in the tank of the economy, but instead he has put the engine into reverse. He has fired up the Quattro and is taking Britain back all the way to the 1980s. There is inadequate help for the construction sector and no plan for jobs for young people. Our country deserves better than this reckless, deflationary gamble, which is hurting but not working. This is the no-growth Budget from the out-of-touch Chancellor.
Economic Regeneration (Glasgow)
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gale, in this important debate on the Glasgow economy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) on securing the debate and on speaking with the experience of 12 years as a parliamentarian serving Glasgow, both in this House and the Scottish Parliament. She was also a champion for social justice when she was a Minister in a previous Scottish Executive.
It is clear that, prior to the global economic downturn in 2008, Glasgow was on the cusp of a real economic renaissance. Between 1998 and 2008, there were more Glaswegians in work than ever before, while 30,000 jobs were created in business services—a 60% increase—and more than 4,000 new jobs in the financial services sector. Glasgow experienced strong retail growth in that period, with 1,500 shops in the city centre, which even now generate £2.4 billion per year in retail sales turnover. Glasgow also extracts real economic benefit from tourism, as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) has said. The current expansion in hotel capacity is key to attracting new events and to the hosting of a successful Commonwealth games in 2014.
Even in recent times, major companies have continued to invest in Glasgow’s biggest asset, its people, by announcing major recruitment programmes. In autumn 2010, Vertex, a provider of customer management outsourcing, announced plans to create 368 jobs, while 1,500 new jobs have been announced in the financial sector by Barclays, Santander, esure, Morgan Stanley and Odyssey Financial Technologies. There has also been a 75% increase in the leasing of office space in the city.
I would like to emphasise three points. First, investment in infrastructure is needed if Glasgow is to remain competitive in increasing its output in retail and business services. The particular priorities are upgrading Glasgow’s drainage and water catchment system to mitigate flood risks, and improving transport networks. There is an overwhelming case for constructing a high-speed rail network from London through the major English cities to Glasgow and Edinburgh at the earliest opportunity. That is worth £20 billion in economic benefits to both cities. The city council, the business community, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, and Labour Members are concerned about the lack of momentum by the Department for Transport in initiating the necessary discussions with the Scottish Government on the planning and financial issues involved in the construction of high-speed track in Scotland. I hope that the Financial Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will encourage the Secretary of State for Transport not to leave that essential work in the slow lane. The Scottish Government also need to play a central role in increasing capacity, principally between Glasgow airport and the city centre, through the reinstatement of capital funding for the Glasgow airport rail link, which has—as my hon. Friend pointed out—the potential to create 1,300 jobs in the west of Scotland. A further priority is the upgrade of major roads, such as the completion of the M74, because half of those who work in Glasgow live in constituencies outside the city’s boundaries—for example, that of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire.
Secondly, more has to be done to tackle Glasgow’s historic underperformance in labour productivity, particularly in the service sector. BAK Basel Economics benchmarked Glasgow against a group of 35 European cities, and Glasgow averaged an annual growth rate of 2.3% in productivity from 2000 to 2005, which puts it in the top 10 cities. However, Glasgow lay in 33rd place in relation to measures of labour productivity in 2005, which is relatively low in comparison with other major EU cities. Thirdly, Glasgow’s economy needs to diversify in order to take advantage of the expansion in the renewables sector, of our universities as centres of scientific and other research excellence, and of high-value-added manufacturing.
The life science community within the west of Scotland is home to 180 companies, including those in Nova park, Robroyston in my constituency. Those companies range from major pharmaceuticals, to diagnostics, therapeutics, medical devices, contract researchers and manufacturers, all of which jointly employ more than 80,000 people. However, continued business support from the Government is required to ensure that they flourish in the coming decade.
Glasgow is home to a quarter of the west of Scotland’s core energy sector businesses and many other energy sector supporting businesses. Research undertaken by the sustainable Glasgow initiative found that Glasgow currently emits around 4 million tonnes of CO2 per annum, which is linked to its energy use. The initiative proposes a series of measures to reduce those carbon emissions, such as renewable energy systems, fuel switching and energy management systems.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I am speaking as a Glasgow constituency Member rather than as an Opposition Front Bencher. I very much welcome what my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that Glasgow is a perfect location for the new green investment bank proposed by the Government, given its track record not only in financial services, but in innovation and in having a connection with the renewable energy sector?
Mr Bain
I am most grateful for that intervention. As on so many other matters, my hon. Friend anticipates the argument I was about to advance. She has pointed out why it is particularly regrettable that the creation of the green investment bank, which could kick-start many renewable energy projects in Glasgow, has been caught up in a game of Whitehall pass the parcel. As the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills revealed last week, plans for capitalisation are unlikely to be published before May at the earliest. It is still uncertain whether the green investment bank will have sufficient operational independence from the Treasury, and there is a wider need for capital for new innovatory business start-ups. In addition, there is a strong argument for investigating the case for a wider British investment bank.
The city council has identified low pay as an area requiring urgent attention. In 2006, the average Glaswegian earned 2% less than the UK average, but thanks to the adoption of a living wage policy—first of £7 an hour, but rising to £7.15 an hour this year—by 150 businesses that employ 50,000 people in Glasgow, average earnings are now 3% above the UK average.
It would not be fair to leave out the records of the Scottish and UK Governments in recent months on assisting Glasgow in developing a strategy for growth. I regret to say that Glasgow has not been particularly well served by either Government. The city council experienced a cut in funding of 3.6% from the Scottish Government, which was 1% more than previously indicated and is the worst financial settlement since 2007. Despite that, the city council has made job creation, particularly for young people, a priority. It has invested in the Commonwealth apprenticeship initiative, through which 241 companies took on 600 apprentices last year, and the Commonwealth jobs fund, which aims to create 1,000 jobs for young unemployed people across Glasgow through a £6,500 subsidy per job. That is open to every private and third-sector employer in the city.
However, it is clear that, at a UK level, the cut in capital and investment allowances is affecting manufacturing exporters and harming Glasgow business. The UK Government’s failure to continue the future jobs fund beyond the spring and the revelations this morning that fewer people will proceed through the Government’s work programme than under the initiatives of the previous Government add to concerns that the hard-earned progress on employment levels of the past 13 years will slip backwards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East intimated in her remarks, incomes will also be damaged by the Government’s proposals on housing benefit, which it has been estimated will cost £10 million to £12 million a year in lost spending capacity by the poorest families and individuals in the city.
The Glasgow economy has the potential for continued growth in existing and new areas in the next decade, but it will require Government at all levels to exhibit a sustained and credible strategy for growth, rather than simply a plan for an over-hasty fiscal retrenchment that may cost jobs and damage Glasgow’s competitiveness.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. In giving the Bill’s proposals qualified support, Opposition Members view the creation of the OBR as part of the direction of reform started by the previous Government, with the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to decide on monetary policy and the establishment of the Office for National Statistics. The International Monetary Fund has said that the OBR’s proposed mandate is
“broadly consistent with established best practice for independent fiscal councils.”
Placing the Office for Budget Responsibility on a statutory basis is an important stage both in its development and in securing its greater independence from the Treasury, but Opposition Members will continue to scrutinise the Bill’s provisions closely to ensure that the OBR is as genuinely independent from the Government as it can be, and sufficiently accountable to the House.
It would be unacceptable if the OBR’s independence were compromised by insufficient access to its own resources, or if it were subject to excessive intervention by the Treasury. The OBR is due to receive £1.75 million per year in funding until the end of the current spending review period, but higher than expected CPI inflation might see that financial support fall in real terms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recommends, on page 56 of its green budget, that
“the OBR should be as transparent as possible about what meetings have been held, and when and how all key assumptions made in its forecasts were decided upon”.
Internationally, it has been established that fiscal councils can undertake four main roles in connection with economic policy: first, provide objective macro-economic forecasts on which Government budget proposals can be based, as carried out by the Centraal Planbureau—CPB—in the Netherlands and by the Economic Council in Denmark; secondly, cost various Government policy initiatives, as performed by the Congressional Budget Office in the United States, the CPB in the Netherlands and the Parliamentary Budget Office in Canada; thirdly, evaluate whether fiscal policy is likely to meet its medium-term targets, as the Fiscal Council does in Hungary; and fourthly, analyse the long-term sustainability of fiscal policy, with examples being the CPB in the Netherlands, the CBO in the US, the Government Debt Committee in Austria, the Fiscal Council in Hungary and the Fiscal Policy Council in Sweden.
Of those functions, the OBR appears to cover only the first and third. Fiscal councils are less likely to engage in normative analysis of economic policy; only the Austrian Government Debt Committee, the Danish Economic Council and the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council appear to carry out that role.
The OBR’s role includes responsibility for preparing the Government’s economic and fiscal forecasts and issuing them alongside fiscal forecasts with the Budget. That is clearly helpful to the Government, but it means that Ministers are able to prepare in detail for any consequences of a Budget before the OBR makes its assessments public. Without safeguards, that could lead to concerns about the extent of private consultations between Ministers and the OBR prior to publication—the perceived problem during the release of unemployment data last summer.
As Lars Calmfors, chair of the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council, wrote in The Guardian on 28 July last year:
“It might be better if the OBR provided a post-evaluation of the budget as an input into the work of parliament (in addition to a forecast before the budget).”
The IFS also concludes in its green budget that there is a case for the OBR
“to take as much advantage as possible of the required end-of-year fiscal report to conduct and communicate detailed analysis of how and why outcomes deviated from the forecast.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, there are also questions about the use of different forecasts by the Treasury, the OBR and the Bank of England. The Bank already produces macro-economic forecasts. As the IFS again concludes:
“Those produced by the OBR will be used when deciding fiscal policy, while those produced by the Bank of England will be used by the MPC”—
the Monetary Policy Committee—
“when deciding on monetary policy.”
That might lead to a situation in which fiscal and monetary policy is not sufficiently well co-ordinated.
On fiscal forecasts, progress has been made to underline the OBR’s independence in reaching its conclusions, but it needs to make as much data as possible, as well as the details of its financial models, available to the public. In evidence to the Treasury Committee recently, Professor Tim Besley recommended that the OBR should be able to communicate with key international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund, the EU and the OECD.
The OBR’s mandate will not in itself generate higher growth, and that brings us to the proposed charter of fiscal responsibility to be created through clause 1. The aim of the charter as stated is to create
“objectives in relation to fiscal policy and policy for the management of the National Debt,”
and to establish the Government’s “fiscal mandate”. Opposition Members have no problems with that concept; indeed this House legislated for similar goals in the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, but the real difficulty is with the Government’s proposed fiscal mandate of attempting to eliminate the deficit over a four-year period—and the effects that that is already having, as the country can see, on growth.
The OBR has already revised down its growth forecast for 2011, from 2.6% when the Government took office last May to 2.3% after the emergency Budget in June; and it did so once more, to 2.1%, after the comprehensive spending review in November. We will see on 23 March whether those figures have to be downgraded again in the light of growing evidence that the Government’s decisions on the economy have seen it take a turn for the worse this winter.
When Labour left office, the recovery was picking up, with growth of 1.1% in the second quarter of 2010, and, according the OBR’s own analysis, the deficit for 2009-10 came in more than £20 billion lower than forecast. The Office for National Statistics was clear that, even once the effects of December’s inclement weather were taken into account, there would have been no growth at all in the last quarter of 2010.
The Government should adopt a fiscal mandate in the Bill to put jobs and growth first in order to ensure that cutting the deficit does not harm the productive capacity of the economy, and they should end their complacent argument that the economy is “out of the danger zone”. With the country facing 20% youth unemployment, rising prices and stagnant growth, that is not a claim that either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor can credibly make.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that Government debt stands at £1 trillion. According to a recent ONS report, if we add on the bank debt that the country inherited from the previous Government’s policies, we find that the figure is about £2.3 trillion—equal to 160% of GDP. Does he consider that to be a good legacy with which to engender growth?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am trying to allow some freedom, but we are in danger of straying off Second Reading and on to a general debate about the economy. Can we please come back to the debate in hand?
Mr Bain
I am very grateful for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.
To conclude my response to the hon. Gentleman, public sector net debt in 2007-08 was 36.5%, so it was lower than that which we inherited when we came to office.
The analysis of the IFS, in chapter 2 of its green budget, produces the conclusion:
“The financial crisis and associated recession have reduced revenues and, to a greater extent, increased public spending as a share of national income. Without action, there would have been an unsustainable increase in borrowing and debt. The government’s spending cuts and tax rises are forecast to be sufficient to return the UK’s public finances to a sustainable position, but the same would have been true under the fiscal consolidation plan set out by Labour in its March 2010 Budget.”
I doubt that even Government Members would label the IFS a deficit denier, so a fiscal mandate that pays insufficient attention to the impact of higher growth and employment in bringing the public finances back to stability will fail the needs of the country.
We look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee, to improving the operation of the OBR and perhaps, during the Bill’s proceedings, to securing the change in fiscal mandate that would improve the economic prospects of the British people.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which makes my point. If the OBR had been there in the past, it would not have been possible to proceed with the bunker mentality that I mentioned. Alternatively, the Chancellor could still have moved forward with the same forecast, but everybody would have known exactly where the blame lay and got rid of the arguments that we hear time and again whenever we talk about the horrific financial mess that this country is in—the chorus from Labour Members saying, “It’s the banks, it’s the banks.”
Alec Shelbrooke
My point is proved by that sedentary intervention. Labour Members think that the whole financial crisis is down to the banks.
There is no doubt that the banks contributed to the global recession, but there is equally no doubt that this country was one of the worst placed countries in being able to deal with the downturn. Let us not forget what a structural deficit is. Again, I see Opposition Members shaking their heads, completely in denial of the fact that this country was living way beyond its means. One does not rack up a £1 trillion debt in the good times if one is acting sensibly. While £120 million a day in interest is going to foreign nations, we see councils around the country, especially Labour-run councils, cutting front-line services that impact on the public and trying to blame the Government, yet never mentioning what we could have done with that £120 million a day. We have to get a grip on the economy.
I want to return to the OBR, because I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have been trying to keep the debate on track. Let us consider the name of this body —the Office for Budget Responsibility. “Responsibility” is a word that has been lacking in the governance of this country and its fiscal policy, not only in the Treasury but, as we recently learned from senior civil servants, in other Departments that lost control of spending. We in this House have to be responsible and move things forward.
Oral Answers to Questions
William Bain Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Chancellor announced measures in the Budget on corporation tax and national insurance breaks, particularly for companies in the regions. We have set up local enterprise partnerships, which enable local authorities and businesses to work together to promote their own economic interests, and in due course we will announce the first round of decisions on the regional growth fund, which will help to support exactly the sort of initiatives the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that any credible strategy for growth must include proposals for a fully capitalised, properly independent green investment bank? Will he assure the House that the Treasury has ceased to act as a roadblock to the creation of such a bank?
Mr Osborne
We are absolutely committed to creating the green investment bank. Indeed, we set aside money in the spending review to achieve that, and we will have an announcement in due course.