Proceeding contribution from George Osborne (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 8 June 2010. It occurred during Queen's speech debate on Economic Affairs and Work and Pensions.
Economic Affairs and Work and Pensions
I will make a little progress. The Queen's Speech contains five Treasury-sponsored Bills, and I should say something about each of them. There is the national insurance contributions Bill to stop the jobs tax that Labour would have imposed. Like every post-war Labour Government, the previous Government left office with unemployment rising, and their answer was to increase the cost of employing low-paid people. I have not yet heard from the shadow Chancellor, or anyone else, whether that is still the official Opposition's policy. Our reforms to national insurance will not just stop the most damaging part of the jobs tax but will, by raising employer thresholds, reduce the cost of employing people on lower incomes. The Budget will also contain further measures to stimulate private sector employment and to proclaim to the world that Britain is open for business. There is the financial services regulation Bill to fix the previous Government's system of banking regulation. To respond to the question asked by the shadow Chancellor, next week I will set out in more detail the content of that Bill and how we propose to take the matter forward. I find it somewhat baffling to be told by him that he is unsure who is in charge of banking regulation at the moment. That was the question posed by the Treasury Committee in the last Parliament—a question about the system of regulation that his predecessor as Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, created in 1997. That system meant that no one was in charge of looking at the growing levels of debt and the systemic risks building up in our banking system. I believe that it is still the Opposition's policy to oppose our decision to introduce a bank levy; they claim that they want every country in the world to have agreed to such a levy before Britain goes ahead with it. Our decision is to proceed with it, because the banks should pay some contribution to clearing up the mess that they helped to create. We are working urgently on a problem that the shadow Chancellor correctly raised, but to which, of course, he found little solution when he was Chancellor: the problem of getting credit to small and medium-sized businesses that still face a credit crunch out there in the country. I welcome the shadow Chancellor's support for the terrorist asset freezing Bill, which, of course, has bipartisan support. Then there is the Bill that should have been introduced by the previous Government years ago—the Equitable Life payments scheme Bill to help those who lost everything and were given nothing by the Labour Government.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 511 c198-9
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Poverty Children Cost effectiveness Bank services Banks Bank of England European Union Financial services Financial Services Authority Economic situation Economic growth Public expenditure Nationalisation Unemployment Regulation Economic recession Social security benefits Public sector debt Social security Reviews Cuts World economy Office for Budget Responsibility Living wage
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-02-05 18:40:48 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_644038
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_644038
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_644038