London First's thoughts on Budget

22 April 2009

Baroness Jo Valentine is Chief Executive of influential business group London First.

She gave her initial thoughts on this afternoon's budget:

Debt

Debt levels are frighteningly high. The Government's running close to its credit limit and still plans to spend more than it earns over the next few years. Now that might be the right thing to do in these circumstances, but it's not comfortable for us, and it's a heck of an inheritance to pass to the next generation.

Nevertheless, there are a few worthwhile things where it should have spent wisely in this budget:

Rates

The Chancellor should have found room to reduce the damage which big rises in business rates are going to cause – particularly in London next year. Empty property rates are a millstone around business' neck in a recession. Add that to the hike planned because of last year's revaluation and it is going to hurt.

National Insurance

It should have scrapped the planned increase in national insurance contributions (due 2011). They are a tax on jobs. We welcome the new emphasis given to Job Centres, to concentrate on getting those losing their jobs quickly back into employment, but the national insurance hike will work in direct opposition to that.

50% income tax rate

But perhaps the biggest disappointment is the rise in tax on high earners. The tax rise to 50% (and changes to tax relief on pension payments) shows that it is a political budget, not an economic one. This tax rise, even by the Government's own figures, raises less than half a per cent of what they plan to borrow – small beer really. Indeed, the Institute of Fiscal Studies estimated that it might raise even less than that.

It may be understandable that some of the Government's supporters want to punish high earners, but actually these are the very people who we need to stay in London, to drive our recovery. Two thirds of what it costs to employ a company director in London will go not to him or her but straight to the taxman. That might lead some to stay away and others to move away – and take their support offices – hundreds and thousands of jobs – with them.

Efficiency savings

It's hard to know whether to believe the claimed efficiency savings in the public sector – the National Audit Office finds them difficult to quantify. So it's harder still to know whether new proposals for £9bn of savings are credible. Certainly there's lots of waste caused by duplication in London – for instance between Government Office for London and the Mayor's various bodies.

Regulation

The proposed changes to regulation of the Financial Services sector are no surprise, the test will be in the detail and in how they are implemented. Styronger governance and more transparency are usually good, but being overprescriptive could be unhelpful.

Competitiveness

The Chancellor emphasised the opportunities presented to the UK by global trade. We shouldn't start by encouraging some of our best people to emigrate to friendlier tax climates – which after this move include Germany and Austria as well as the usual Dubai, Geneva and New York.

We need London and the UK to be more competitive, not less.

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.