Multiannual Financial Framework

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I would hope that my right hon. Friend and I—we are of a similar age—will live long enough to see that, but I do not think it will happen immediately. It will require the eurozone to become much more tightly organised than it is today.

Last week, I visited Germany and Norway with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We are considering the future of Europe and the implications for this country of different options that might arise. Two or three years ago, the political debate in Germany was about trying to keep Britain on board and to move with Britain. However, the reality, right across the political spectrum, is that Germany has given up on the UK under the coalition Government. The Germans see their future as being with France and Poland, and their priority will be to save the eurozone at all costs.

That means that the UK will be in an uncomfortable position. The Prime Minister might have signed a joint letter with European leaders in 2010, but the reality in 2012-13 is that Germany is not with us. Anybody who thinks that only Germany is not with us should read the remarks of Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Minister, who gave a radical speech in Oxford just a few weeks ago, in which he used phrases such as:

“Poland wants to be with Germany and France as partners”.

He also said:

“You could, if only you wished, lead Europe’s defence policy…Britain’s leaders need to decide once again how best to use their influence in Europe…The EU is an English-speaking power. The Single Market was a British idea. A British commissioner runs our diplomatic service…But if you refuse, please don’t expect us to help you wreck or paralyze the EU.”

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Gapes]

I cannot—I have very little time.

The Polish and German Governments and many others want the UK to stay in the EU as partners, but they will not wreck the EU to keep us. We need to realise that our options are narrowing. The Government are in danger of taking us into an isolationist position.

VAT on Air Ambulance Fuel Payments

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions an exceptional air ambulance charity, which is supported not just by him but by all MPs concerned with the north-west.

Put simply, in my part of the world—and all others, for that matter—health care would be jeopardised without the charitable air ambulance service. I am not denigrating the providers of other emergency services, but we could not operate without the Air Ambulances. For example, the Great North air ambulance covers an area of 8,000 square miles, from the Scottish borders to North Yorkshire and from the east to the west coasts. The helicopters can be anywhere in the region within 15 minutes and on board are specialist trauma doctors and paramedics, who bring expert accident and emergency qualities to the scene. However, each mission costs £2,500, regardless of whether the patient is airlifted. That takes into account the cost of the aircraft, storage, paying the pilots and paramedics, and medicine and other equipment. There are hundreds of call-outs per month, and the same applies all across the country. Given that this involves paying in excess of £100,000 a year on fuel, of which VAT represents 20%, there will be a significant saving not only to the Great North air ambulance service but to several others, and that would equate to life-saving missions.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. East Midlands Air Ambulance is based in East Midlands airport in my constituency. I have met the crew, and they are genuine professionals who, as he says, go out every day saving people’s lives, especially along the M1 and M42 corridor, where the roads are very dangerous.

[Guy Opperman]

At this stage, one has to acknowledge that only a fool would fail to see that the Government are in the headlock of a debt crisis, a eurozone meltdown and a struggling economy. Everyone accepts that they are short of a magic chequebook. However, I am pleased to point out to the Treasury that those at the air ambulance organisations are not difficult people. We do not seek a solution straight away. The motion asks for an urgent review and a study of the submissions and financial arrangements of the air ambulance charities, and for a long-term solution to be reached at some stage in the near future. On any interpretation, successive Governments have got a great deal from this free service. No Government have ever properly addressed this loophole, and we are giving this Government a chance, over the next year, to investigate and address the problem.

We may be divided on many things, but we should all support this wonderful organisation. The sums that the Treasury would have to find are relatively slight—considerably less than £200,000 a year. Given the amount that the charitable organisations raise from members of the public and the amazing service that is provided, at the end of this debate we should be able to agree that there is no fundamental difference between a lifeboat and a helicopter, because both services are invaluable and should receive our support equally.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I am not going to give way to the Chancellor’s aides until the Chancellor himself puts up or shuts up, and he cannot, because he knows there is no evidence: the allegation is untrue and he made it anyway because that is the integrity of the man.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I will not give way now.

The reality is that we must all admit that regulation should have been tougher, including those who argued for less regulation. I say to the Chancellor that I will await, and press for, his withdrawal and apology day after day until I get it. All of us on both sides of this House need to show a little more humility, including the Chancellor—and the Prime Minister, too.

I am more than willing to attend an inquiry and answer any questions. What the public will ask about this Chancellor and this Prime Minister as they listen to this debate is, why are they not prepared to do the same in the public interest? That is the question they will ask.

Let me turn to the motion. The Government have three declared objections to a judicial public inquiry: scope, speed and form. Let me take each in turn. First, on scope, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor argue that we have already had the Vickers commission on banking, which reported last September, and now the Financial Services Authority will report. They say we do not need to have a more broad-based inquiry that, in their view, will lead to more uncertainty. “Get on with it,” they say, and it is right that there are a number of important questions that need to be asked about the LIBOR scandal, not least why, when this market was investigated by the British Bankers Association in 2008, the then chair, now Lord Stephen Green, gave it a clean bill of health. We need to look at these issues, including, if the Treasury and the BBA urged tougher regulation when they discussed LIBOR on 5 March 2012, when the Financial Secretary was asked the next day in Committee whether we needed a change in law, why did he say no? These are important questions that need to be addressed.

The issues go much wider, however. A member of the Vickers commission said earlier this week that

“banks, as presently constituted and managed, cannot be trusted to perform any publicly important function, against the perceived interests of their staff. Today’s banks represent the incarnation of profit-seeking behaviour taken to its logical limits, in which the only question asked by senior staff is not what is their duty or their responsibility, but what can they get away with.”

That is what a Vickers commission member says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

When the Conservatives gave reasons in Parliament at the time for opposing the establishment of the new regulator, did they talk about the tripartite system? The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was the lead on this issue at the time, said in 1999:

“Our concerns about the Bill may be said to fall into two general areas. The first is the very wide power still vested in the FSA and the danger that any concentrated executive power can lead to abuse.”

We know all about that from this Chancellor and his reforms.

“The second is the danger of over-regulation, with consequential damage to the United Kingdom’s position.” —[Official Report, 28 June 1999; Vol.334, c. 44.]

Perhaps the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) needs to go back and read the Hansard of the time.

The Government’s second objection to a full judicial inquiry is one of speed. As the Prime Minister said on Monday—

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

I need to make some progress. This is a very important issue and others want to speak. I have taken a number of interventions. I have to say, I am still waiting for the intervention that I want—the apology from the Chancellor. [Interruption.]

The Government’s second objection to a full judicial inquiry is one of speed. On Monday, the Prime Minister said that we need to just get on with it. We agree. We need to move ahead as quickly as possible. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has proposed a two-stage process for a judge-led review. Stage one: an immediate review into LIBOR and derivatives. Start now, conclude by Christmas, establish it immediately, meet through the summer—five days a week, if necessary—and without any need to stop for the summer recess. Then, there is a second stage, to be finished within 12 months from now, looking into the wider issues of banking practice that we have identified. That is a timetable that past inquiries have shown can be delivered.

[Ed Balls]

This is an important point, and Members should listen.

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I am not going to take an intervention from that hon. Gentleman.

While we need speed, we also need the inquiry to be thorough and genuinely cathartic, and to succeed in rebuilding public trust and confidence, or else we risk being back here again.

The third argument the Government employ is one of form: that, compared to a full judicial inquiry, a parliamentary inquiry can do the job just as well in less time, and with less cost. We do not believe that that argument holds water, but more important, it does not take on board the scale of the task ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

I will make the point and then take the intervention.

First, all the recent experience of the phone hacking scandal—[Interruption.] The Chancellor should listen—unless he is composing his apology. We should consider the recent experience of the phone hacking scandal and all the deliberations we see in, for example, the very important report on the details and reality of Select Committees and coercive powers, entitled “Select Committees and Coercive Powers—Clarity or Confusion?”, from the Constitution Society. All the experience shows that only a judge-led inquiry can have the necessary power to compel witnesses to attend and ensure the production—

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

I am not going to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who interrupts every sentence. It is not good for the House or this debate, and I suggest that he stay in his seat.

I will say the sentence again, Mr Deputy Speaker, if that is okay with you—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

We heard from the Attorney-General that a judge-led inquiry may, in his words, not even get off the ground. The idea that we cannot have a parliamentary inquiry is obvious nonsense, because yesterday the Treasury Committee questioned Bob Diamond on the LIBOR scandal. Of course it is entirely possible for a parliamentary inquiry to take place. Our motion will enable us to get an inquiry under way and assuage the anger of the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the country.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I am very pleased that the shadow Chancellor has agreed to give evidence to the parliamentary Committee, where he can be held to account for his role in the LIBOR scandal. Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agree that others who were involved should be compelled to give evidence, including those who are currently absentee Members of the House?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, all involved need to answer questions. The first thing that we are doing to address the immediate issues with the LIBOR—[Interruption.] There are very serious issues of financial stability that we in the House have to address—[Interruption.] When is the shadow Chancellor going to take some responsibility for his time in office? He takes none whatever.

We have asked Martin Wheatley, the chief executive-designate of the Financial Conduct Authority, to review urgently what reforms are required to the framework for the setting and governing of LIBOR and other price-setting mechanisms in the financial markets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

The Government have confirmed their commitment to child poverty targets and we are going further by consulting on better measures of child poverty in the autumn. We seek a range of views on that.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the real failing of the previous Government was their narrow focus on income transfers instead of addressing the real root causes of welfare dependency such as low aspirations and worklessness?

[Miss Smith]

I certainly do. The important point is how we help people to get out of poverty and stay out. I note that there are problems with the current measure of poverty. Because median incomes fall, children are considered to have moved out of poverty when there will have been no real change to their lives. That cannot be a fully accurate measure.

Petrol and Diesel

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As I will say in my conclusion, statistics show that motorists in my constituency on average earnings pay one tenth of their income just filling up the family car. The Government say that people face fuel poverty if they spend one tenth of their income on fuel. People are forced to use their cars, and in my constituency—and, I am sure, elsewhere—they are paying one tenth of their income to fill up the family car.

I will make a brief point about the banks; I am nearly done. Last year, western Governments tried to release oil to cut pump prices, but banks bought up at least £1.6 billion of it. There is evidence that a lot of it was stored in silos at sea rather than entering the market, keeping prices high. America is introducing tough new penalties for market manipulation. I urge the Government to do the same in Britain. If Governments around the world do the right thing and release oil stocks, we cannot allow banks to buy it up, keep it at sea and hurt the struggling motorist.

What is to be done? I am a realist. I do not believe in “Charge of the Light Brigade” politics; I much prefer the battle of Agincourt. I accept that we do not have a magic money tree, but the big oil companies are not struggling. In the first quarter of this year, Shell had profits of $7.6 billion, BP $5.9 billion and Exxon Mobil $9.4 billion. It is a similar story at Chevron and ConocoPhillips. At the end of 2011, those firms had $58 billion in cash reserves. In order to find the money to stop price rises and help hard-pressed motorists, the Government could consider a windfall tax to fund cheaper petrol at the pumps. A windfall tax was imposed before, but on North sea oil in particular. I am asking the Government to consider a windfall tax on oil companies in general.

We must remember that motorists are not a lobby group. They are mums driving to school, children on buses and pensioners hit by inflation. When the cost of road haulage rises, the price of everything else rises too.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Halfon]

Very quickly, but this is the last intervention.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity. To declare an interest, I should say that I am a qualified transport manager and have run a considerable haulage fleet. One major anomaly in the haulage industry is that we compete against foreign competition, but diesel is priced considerably higher than petrol in the UK, whereas on the continent it is considerably cheaper. Perhaps we could explain that anomaly. It is extremely important in my constituency, because more than one third of private sector jobs there are in distribution or are distribution-related. As we have no railway stations in my constituency, a vehicle is not a luxury; it is essential.

Jobs and Growth

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor has used many quotes in his opening speech, so let us see whether he agrees with this one from Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, whom Labour appointed. He said that this Government demonstrated a

“textbook response to the situation”—

the economic mess we inherited from the previous Government.

[Ed Balls]

The Governor of the Bank of England was confident two years ago that the Chancellor was making the right calls on the pace of deficit reduction. Unfortunately, it has turned out that the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have both got that wrong. We had gone back into recession even before the eurozone crisis. Let us consider recent entries from the website of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). They show him “criticising cuts” to “local health centres”, and reveal his wish to “Save Moira Fire Station” and for the “replacement” of local bus services. I am not sure that all that is entirely on message. Yet the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are still clinging to the view that they are right and everyone else is wrong. In his speech today, the Prime Minister seemed to be trying to claim that the choice between austerity and growth was a myth. [Interruption.] I think that the Chancellor should listen to this, because I am about to explain why he has got it so badly wrong. He should listen and learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, listen and learn.

If the Prime Minister meant that we should not choose between policies for growth and policies for deficit reduction, he was right. I agree. In fact, that is exactly what Lord Mandelson and I argued in our joint article in Monday’s Guardian. We argued for action now to boost jobs and growth, alongside tough medium-term deficit reduction plans. But that is not what the Prime Minister was saying today. He and his Chancellor are still clinging to the mistaken and, now, increasingly discredited view that cutting spending and raising taxes faster to cut the deficit is the route to economic growth, when all the evidence is to the contrary. Trying to cut the deficit faster has not boosted growth in recession; it has choked off confidence, unemployment is up, and we are borrowing more than he planned, not less. If the Prime Minister is really claiming that he is on the right course, he is even more complacent and out of touch than I thought.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

No, I will not.

What an eight weeks it has been! The transformation has been startling, with the Chancellor’s long-held dreams turning to dust. He dreamed that his brilliant economic plan would bring unprecedented growth and finally deliver a Tory majority in 2015, and that a grateful Prime Minister would then stand aside, as he was finally cheered into 10 Downing street. How far away those dreams seem now!

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

I will not.

Last month YouGov asked 1,800 people whether they thought the Chancellor was very well suited to the job of Prime Minister. How many said yes? Just 1% did—18 people only. The question we must ask is this: who on earth were those 18 people? After that Budget, they must be vegan, health freak, cyclist millionaires who passionately hate cars, pasties and caravan holidays, and think that pensioners get a cushy deal. So, other than Steve Hilton, who are the other 17? Is this not the truth: that the Chancellor’s plan has failed, and he has been exposed not simply as unfair and out of touch, but as incompetent? This part-time Chancellor needs a new economic plan for jobs and growth. This part-time political strategist urgently needs a relaunch for him and for the Prime Minister. This Queen’s Speech delivers neither a new economic plan, nor an urgent relaunch. He and the Prime Minister should go back to the drawing board and think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what businesses need—a stable economic environment in which we are not exposed to some of the financial problems that some eurozone countries face at the moment. The low interest rates and the credibility that our policy bring help every business, not only in Bedford but around the country.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that just as we need to rebalance our economy away from over-reliance on the public sector, we also need to rebalance our exports away from over-reliance on the eurozone at the moment? The latest figures suggest that this is already happening, with UK exports to non-EU countries up by 12% while those to the EU remain flat.

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to diversify where our exports go, not just because of the problems in the eurozone but because this country should be taking greater advantage of the extraordinary growth in the Asian economies. It remains a staggering fact that we were exporting more to Ireland than we were to Brazil, Russia, India and China put together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I shall start my remarks by talking about the announcement by General Motors about Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port. I represent many, many people who work there and I pay tribute to that excellent work force and the community around them who support them. Whilst I recognise the commitment of all politicians who have helped back Ellesmere Port, in Wirral all of us know somebody—a family member or a friend—who has worked incredibly hard for this, and it is those people I am thinking of most and congratulating today.

I would like to make a few remarks about unemployment. Our commentary on employment, I am afraid, often shows the limits of the way we do our politics. The news, and we ourselves, often obsesses about the figures—the monthly movement up and down—and whilst those are important indicators, of course, it is the trend that really matters. We often worry about the weather when we should be thinking about the climate that we are in, and sadly, the unemployment figures are worse than those for this time last year. According to the Library, the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance is now 106,000 higher than in April 2011. That is incredibly worrying. The Chancellor mentioned the figures for two years ago. Unemployment plateaued in 2010. It is growing again now and we need to worry about why.

To add to the problem that we have, our understanding of the impact of unemployment and the lack of the necessary jobs in our economy is limited. I recently tabled a parliamentary question, asking the Treasury what assessment the Department had made of the medium and long-term cost to the Exchequer of the current level of unemployment. That matters because unemployment has a wide range of impacts. The Treasury did not give me as full an answer as I would have liked. I would have liked to know how unemployment impacts on the health budget in the form of increased costs; how much funding is being made available for the regeneration that is needed; and the impact of unemployment on crime levels.

[Andrew Bridgen]

In the shadow Chancellor’s speech, he made much of the apparent increase in long-term youth unemployment. Is the hon. Lady aware of the cynical way in which the last Labour Government manipulated the figures for long-term youth unemployment by cynically bringing people in for a one-week training course and then restarting the clock immediately after, to keep the figures down? That was a cynical measure, which this Government have stopped.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have thought a lot about youth unemployment over the past years. The former Government oversaw radical improvements, such as our intervention in the labour market with things like the new deal. I find it hard to characterise any of that work, which has been recognised around the globe, as cynical. I find that very difficult to believe.

E-Tabling of Written Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman was a bit slow on the uptake. I told him that he should do his point of order before the Adjournment, but anyway we will give him a go.

[Andrew Bridgen]

What powers do you have, Mr Speaker, to censure Her Majesty’s Opposition, who spent five days opposing the cut in the top rate of tax from 50p and then abstained from voting in the Lobby?

[Mr Speaker]

None.

Amendment of the Law

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

As the hon. Lady knows from the Public Accounts Committee, where we have often talked about such matters, it would be lovely if Government Departments had a holistic approach to any area of policy. If we could start with small business, that would be fantastic, but I do not think we are quite there yet. That is something we would all support across the political spectrum and without political point-scoring.

I was speaking about the waving of Order Papers and the 2 million people being lifted out of paying tax altogether—a thoroughly good thing, which I would like to think is welcomed in all parts of the House. It benefits everyone who is working—people who are trying hard for themselves, have got on the job ladder and are moving forward. I benefit. From what I see on Twitter and other media sources, if people are earning around £60,000, have children and drive a car, they are not in a great place after the Budget. That includes most Members here. We have managed to produce a Budget that penalises MPs, which I am sure our constituents will be relatively happy with. Most people want to see the lowest paid in society not paying tax, and long may that continue.

I have one or two concerns and plenty of suggestions. The Treasury Minister will know of my long-running love affair with onshore wind turbines and what they do to my constituency. Although there was not much about renewables or the subsidy levels, I welcome the words spoken by the Chancellor in his speech. An investment in gas and in nuclear is proposed. If we chose that method to hit our 2020 carbon target, we would save more than £35 billion, compared with the route that we are currently choosing to go down, which involves other types of renewables that cost an awful lot more. The subsidy that is given to landowners and energy companies makes energy cost more, increasing fuel poverty at the other end of the cycle. I suggest wholeheartedly that we look carefully at the policy choices we are making when we talk about energy, green taxes and fuel poverty in the future.

Personally, I do not mind consumption taxes. I know that Labour Members take issue with that, so let me give an example. I would love to see the end of vehicle excise duty. Fuel prices are too high, as we all know because we all regularly fill up our fuel tanks. Getting rid of vehicle excise duty would add, I believe, roughly 1.5p to the cost of a litre of unleaded petrol and diesel. But we would not have to pay vehicle excise duty and we would pay as we drove, so if we drove a gas-guzzler we would pay a lot more. The old lady who drives hardly at all would pay a lot less. There would be a huge simplification of the tax system. That might not work, but I would like us to think outside the box and consider areas where we could simplify taxes.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the millions of vehicles that are not paying vehicle excise duty? Putting the tax on fuel would catch them all and bring them within the scope of taxation.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am aware of that; it is one of the reasons I moot the idea at this point.

I would like to finish by talking about personal taxation and the general excitement across the House about the reduction in the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, based on the Laffer curve. I have been reading the document that the Treasury has produced and note that the comparison has been made on the changes to the additional rate of income tax and the money that we might have expected to get in, or not to get in, as a result of increasing taxes. I humbly suggest that that completely underestimates the value of reducing taxes, because reducing taxes means that there is more of an incentive to pay and not to try to divert or put off paying them for a certain amount of time. I would love to see more work done in the Treasury on what those figures would end up like, because we want to encourage the creators of wealth, and one way of doing so is by saying to them, “You can keep more of the income you generate.” We want people to take a chance and a risk and to set up their own businesses, and this is one way of encouraging them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor opened his statement by promising us that this is a Budget that “rewards work”, “backs business” and “is on the side of aspiration”. Fine words, but I remember the last Budget, which he said would

“put fuel into the tank of the British economy.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]

I have an uncomfortable feeling that in one year’s time, I will be looking back on the Chancellor’s opening words today with the same scepticism and cynicism with which I look back on the words that he used to describe his previous Budget. The fact remains that this Budget is set against a background of increasing unemployment, a squeeze on living standards and flatlining economic growth. It was significant that Government Members were so enthusiastic about the revised Office for Budget Responsibility projection which showed that the economy could grow by an extra 0.1%, given the fact that the economy is performing way below the Chancellor’s original projections. I sensed a hopeless clutching of straws.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of recent predictions that the UK economy will grow twice as fast as the German economy and three times as fast as the French economy this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Budget is set in the context of continued uncertainty in the global economy, but it is a Budget that binds many threads of Government policy as we seek to reward work and enterprise and to rebalance our economy. The House would do well to remember that it is only by virtue of the deficit reduction plan set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in June 2010 that the UK has managed to achieve a relative safe haven status and achieve record low interest rates, which will save the taxpayer a projected £36 billion over this Parliament.

The Chancellor today announced measures that will allow companies and individuals further to share in the benefits of these low interest rates, achieved no doubt by international acceptance of the fiscal competence of this Government’s policies. The deficit reduction plan, however, is not just about reducing the size of the increase in Government spending; it is also dependent on achieving growth. Although the eurozone crisis has damaged economic growth rates across the continent and globally, it is a testament to this Chancellor and this Government’s handling of the public finances that the deficit reduction figure was ahead of target this year, while at the same time achieving a growth rate in the economy of 0.8%.

As we have heard during the debate, the Opposition try to argue that deficit reduction is being pursued at the expense of growth, and America has been mentioned. They should look at the International Monetary Fund’s fiscal monitor, which shows that fiscal policy in America was tightened by 0.8% of gross domestic product last year, at the same time as a growth rate of 1.7% was achieved. This fact completely contradicts the inaccurate claims of the Leader of the Opposition in his Budget response and those in the Labour party who still cling to the misguided mantra that the only way to obtain economic growth is through fiscal stimulus. When will they learn that they cannot borrow their way out of a debt crisis?

There is, however, no room for complacency and the economy needs to start growing at a faster rate. I welcome the measures outlined today that will stimulate the economy and see taxes cut for 24 million taxpayers through the increase in the tax threshold. That is another example of the Government’s commitment to the lowest-paid and stands in stark contrast to the actions of the previous Prime Minister, who removed the 10p starting rate of tax in his final Budget, hitting the lowest-paid the hardest. The increase in the personal allowance to £9,205 is very welcome and will lift an additional 66,000 people in the east midlands alone out of income tax and benefit more than 1.7 million individuals nationally. The Government will have lifted a total of 148,000 people in the east midlands out of tax at this rate.

Another damaging legacy of the previous Prime Minister was the 50p rate of tax—a purely political and cynical attempt to lay a bear trap for the Conservative party. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained, it is raising little or no money and damaging the competitiveness of our economy. It was a Trojan horse of a tax. It raised no money and at the same time damaged our economy.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Opposition have no credibility on this issue, because even though the shadow Chancellor knows that the 50p rate damaged entrepreneurship and collected very little revenue, he still refuses, even this afternoon, to confirm that the Labour party, if in office, would bring it back?

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; they have no credibility and will not confirm whether they would bring the rate back. I remind the House of the comments of their former leader, Tony Blair, who stated:

“I wanted to preserve, in terms of competitive tax rates, the essential Thatcher/Howe/Lawson legacy. I wanted wealthy people to feel at home and welcomed in the UK so that they could bring more business, create jobs and spread some of that wealth around.”

Whatever happened to new Labour? Even Mr Blair accepted that the top 1% of earners pay almost 30% of the taxes in this country, and many other countries certainly feel the same, but our top rate of tax was the highest in the 10 largest economies in the world.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

While my hon. Friend is on the subject of tax, will he join me in welcoming the comments of the Birmingham chamber of commerce today that the Chancellor’s tax reforms are a recipe for growth?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I certainly will. As my constituency is only 22 miles from Birmingham, I always listen to what its chamber of commerce has to say. I am sure that it also welcomes another signal that this country is open for business: the acceleration in the cuts to corporation tax. These changes will encourage business investment, support growth and create jobs. My only regret about the announced cut in corporation tax is that Ken Livingstone stands to gain from the devious arranging of his tax affairs. I also welcome the announcement of loans for young entrepreneurs, which displays a commitment, not always shown by the previous Government, to open up opportunities for young people who choose not to go to university.

We are all well aware of the over-complicated and incomprehensible tax system left by the previous Government. The Chartered Institute of Taxation stated shortly after the election:

“The UK now has the longest primary tax code, and one of the most complicated, in the world.”

We all know that this is stunts growth, and I welcome the tax simplification measures announced today in the Red Book, which abolish 28 reliefs and will make the tax affairs of small businesses, the lifeblood of our economy, much simpler. However, this Budget needs to be the beginning of the work on tax simplification, not the end. We have all become aware of the stamp duty loopholes that have been ruthlessly exploited through schemes such as subsale relief and individuals, through companies, avoiding stamp duty on multi-million pound houses. I welcome the action the Chancellor has taken to close this embarrassing loophole.

I welcome also the announcement on regional pay bargaining. The Opposition will argue that it widens the north-south divide, but I argue that the north-south divide is being perpetuated: areas have become so hooked and reliant on public sector jobs that the private sector, which cannot compete with the pay and conditions agreed nationally by the public sector, is stifled. We need more of our brightest and best to enter the private sector, which in many parts of the country struggles to compete with the pay and conditions on offer in the public sector.

I welcome the measures announced to help military personnel, particularly doubling the rate of council tax rebate and doubling the rate of family welfare grant. That is another example and extension of this Government’s commitment to the armed forces, and, although the announcement of £100 million of investment in military accommodation is long overdue, it will be welcomed by all service families.

We cannot tax our way into prosperity any more than we can borrow our way out of a debt crisis. This is a Budget that is symbolic of this Government’s principles—to promote fairness and to reward work and enterprise so that we can start to earn our way back to prosperity.

Financial Services Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Maybe we should just exchange our notes; then we could spare the House.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

To take the Chancellor back to my experiences in 1997, I was in business, and my bankers at the time were at the Royal Bank of Scotland. Shortly after the general election in which the Labour Government were elected, I had a meeting with my bankers. I expressed my disappointment at the election result, but they were extremely upbeat. I asked them why, and they said, “Labour Governments are never any good at regulating the financial services industry. We’re going to make a lot of money in the banking industry.” Were not those words prophetic?

[Mr Osborne]

For a while, they did make an awful lot of money. Unfortunately, they then lost an awful lot of money, which is one reason why we are here talking about the legislation.

Before any Minister comes to the House of Commons to ask for an existing regulatory regime to be replaced, it is incumbent on him or her to explain why it is felt to be necessary, so let me explain. Another flaw of the current system is that when the crisis hit in 2007 and 2008, no one knew who was actually in charge. The Treasury Committee of the last Parliament, led by John McFall, said in its report:

“The biggest failings of the Tripartite’s handling of Northern Rock were that it was not clear who was in charge, and, because the Tripartite took a minimalist view of their respective responsibilities, necessary actions fell between three stools.”

The House of Lords Committee, which also did some excellent work on the matter during the last Parliament, said that

“the tripartite authorities in the United Kingdom…failed to maintain financial stability and were found wanting in dealing with the crisis, in part because the roles of the three parties were not well enough defined and it was not clear who was in charge”.

In other words, a whole system of financial regulation had been created by the previous Government, yet no one knew who was in charge.

That led to the third fatal flaw that became apparent. The Government of the day, accountable to Parliament and the public for the use of taxpayers’ money, simply did not have the powers to do what they felt necessary when the crisis hit. My predecessor as Chancellor said in his recent memoir:

“The whole system depended on the chairman of the FSA, the Governor of the Bank and the Chancellor seeing things in exactly the same way. The problem was that in September 2007, we simply did not see things in the same way.”

That, of course, led to the confusion in the autumn of 2007. As he said,

“I could not in practice order the Bank to do what I wanted”,

even when taxpayers’ money was at stake.

On top of all those flaws in the tripartite system, it is not as though customers were being better protected from the mis-selling scandals that have beset the industry for the past 30 years. The payment protection insurance saga happened on its watch. In 2001 alone, firms were forced to pay more than £1 billion-worth of redress to consumers who were mis-sold products.

Those are the flaws of the tripartite system—flaws that cost this country in output more than 10% of our entire gross domestic product, flaws that have led to hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, flaws that wiped out the savings of millions of small shareholders, and flaws that saddled an entire country with more than £1 trillion of debt. The British people need to be confident that mistakes have been acknowledged and that lessons have been learned. The legislation that we have put before the House today shows that they have been learned.

Autumn Statement

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Of course I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to be part of those discussions on enterprise zones. Many areas of the country put in bids for enterprise zones. We were able to give the go-ahead to only the 22 that we announced previously and the two now for Humber and Lancashire, which I have confirmed today. There is also the expansion of the north-eastern one to the Port of Blyth, which is warmly welcomed on the Opposition Benches. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the problem. On the national loan guarantee scheme, he is right to say that we have to get the audit trail right. We are looking very closely and seeking to model a lot of what we are doing on the European Investment Bank’s scheme, which already delivers lower rates to small businesses in Britain. It is a small scheme but the procedures are already in place. I can confirm that the credit risk of the small business loan sits with the banks.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that the Government must continue to oppose the calls from the Labour party to adopt its plan B? When in government, it took our country to the brink of bankruptcy, and adopting its plan B would risk pushing it over the edge. The B in Labour’s plan B stands for bankruptcy.

[Mr Osborne]

It is indeed a plan B for bankruptcy. It is striking that no mainstream or centre-left party in Europe, other than the Labour party, currently advocates more spending. I can reach only one conclusion: the Labour party does so only because the man that it has chosen to be its shadow Chancellor is the man more identified than almost anyone else apart from the previous Prime Minister with the financial and economic mess that this country got into.