Proceeding contribution from David Gauke (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 12 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
Again, a little patience from the Financial Secretary would be appreciated. I know that he is keen to move me on from whether a fiscal stimulus was affordable, but I think that the subject should be tackled thoroughly. Given what we know now, who was right about the pre-Budget report 2008? Could we afford that discretionary fiscal stimulus? Hon. Members should remember that, at the time of the pre-Budget report, the Government projected that they would borrow £77.6 billion in 2008-09, and the projected figure for 2009-10 was £118 billion. By the time we reached the Budget—which contains the most up-to-date figures that we have from the Government; some consider them optimistic—the figures for 2008-09 were £90 billion and those for 2009-10 were £175 billion. That is an increase in borrowing over the two years of almost £70 billion. Even in November, we were concerned about the risks of the VAT cut to the public finances. We were not alone—in a debate in the House on 17 December, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) expressed his concerns about the Government's ability to raise debt. Were we right to be worried about public finances? Absolutely. Given the decline in them and the difficulties in selling Government gilts since then, our case has become stronger. Our opposition to the VAT cut sent a much clearer signal to the markets than the Government could convey of determination to take the state of the public finances seriously. Let us consider whether a VAT cut is the best way in which to use the £12.5 billion that the Government said in November that it would cost. I have said that I do not believe that we could afford it, but there is a range of views about whether a VAT cut was the best method of using that money. I am not persuaded by Liberal Democrat proposals that the money should have been spent on a public works programme. The hon. Member for Taunton rightly did not have an opportunity to discuss the Liberal Democrat proposal in detail. However, I remember examining it, and it seemed to consist principally of improvements to rail services relevant to Liberal Democrat seats—strikingly so. Let me cite that great Liberal—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Taunton is from the same tradition—John Maynard Keynes. In 1942, he wrote:""Organised public works, at home and abroad, may be the right cure for a chronic tendency to a deficiency of effective demand. But they are not capable of sufficiently rapid organisation (and above all cannot be reversed or undone at a later date) to be the most serviceable instrument for the prevention of the trade cycle.""
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 492 c753-4
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Alcoholic drinks Companies Business Corporation tax Competition Capital investment Excise duties Business rates Public houses Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Tax rates and bands Trade competitiveness
- Legislation
- Finance Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:36:46 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_558317
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_558317
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_558317