European Investment Bank

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Balfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to seek a closer relationship with the European Investment Bank to encourage investment in the United Kingdom.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have set out plans to significantly increase investment in the UK economy, including through a new national wealth fund and far-reaching reforms to the planning system. The Government have not set out any specific plans in relation to the European Investment Bank.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. When we left the European Union, we left the agencies in a particularly violent way. We did not really deal with them at all, but there is nothing in the EIB statutes that precludes it lending to non-EU countries such as the United Kingdom. Will the Government consider opening negotiations with the EIB to get a closer relationship, one that is based not on cherry picking but on the mutual concerns on both sides to get a better spread of investment in the United Kingdom and Europe?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with the substantive points that the noble Lord is making. We need to reset our relationship with the European Union. The Government are committed to doing this in order to strengthen ties, reinforce our commitment to security and tackle barriers to trade. We also need, as he says, to increase investment in our economy, so we have set out significant steps to unlock billions of pounds in private sector investment in the industries of the future through a national wealth fund, planning reform, a pensions review and a modern industrial strategy.

The noble Lord asked specifically about a third-party relationship with the European Investment Bank. Although it is possible to agree such an arrangement, it is unlikely that such an arrangement would provide anything like as much investment into the UK as membership of the EIB did.

Autumn Statement 2023

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to the Treasury bit of the Front Bench, having dealt with her extensively in her previous job as Aviation Minister.

I look at the Autumn Statement and I think it is fair enough, but there is no inspiration in it. Next year we are going to be going to the country and asking people to vote for our party to continue in government. A random selection of my friends yielded no one who was particularly happy with this Statement; they think it is a Statement for other people. Within this House we are always hearing about the poor, but we never hear about the people who make the money that keeps this country going. They are people who go to work every morning, have qualifications and work hard. In a democracy there is no such thing as gratitude; people look to Governments to improve their standard of living. That has not happened recently and, indeed, there is a feeling abroad that the British state has been captured by the Civil Service and the woke brigade. The biggest example of that is the National Health Service. It has never had more money or more staff, and it has never had more problems, which it appears incapable of solving. All we get are calls for more and more money when, quite clearly, the system itself is not working.

I will give the Minister three things that I would like her to take back to the department and look at. First is the reform of death duties—inheritance tax. No one will believe you if you put it into the next manifesto. They will say that George Osborne promised this in 2007 and it was never delivered. Do we, on this side of the House, honestly believe that an incoming Labour Government will reform inheritance tax? I think it will be well down their list of priorities. But many people in Britain, particularly in the middle classes who keep this country running, hope to inherit part of a house, and about 30% of them believe that they will end up paying inheritance tax. The Minister has not only to reform it but to get it into law before the election. If it is in the manifesto, no one will believe we will carry it out because we have not done so in the past.

Secondly, I will mention the freeze on tax thresholds. Every year, the Britons who are just managing may get an increase in their income, and then they are pulled into higher-rate taxation. There is virtually no incentive to do anything. To say it is frozen until 2028 because of various government things is marvellous for the Government, but that is not going to incentivise anyone to vote for the Government. No one is going to get up and say, “Oh goody, by the time this Government come to an end, they may or may not have delivered on some promises that they have made and, frankly, do not have much of a record in carrying out”.

The third thing is child benefit. Its withdrawal rate has been frozen at £50,000 for 10 years, which means that more and more families are losing out. If the Minister thinks that a family with two children and an income of £50,000 a year is a rich family, she needs to think again. They are not; they are struggling. Even paying nursery fees is difficult. I ask the Government to look at this, please—look at increasing the threshold, changing the taper or doing something to help the hard-working middle class, which is losing its benefits all the time. I declare an interest here, because this affects two of my three children. My third child does not have any children, so this affects both of those who do.

My daughter was a convinced Conservative long before I was. At nine years old, she stood as the Conservative candidate in her school election in 1997. Note that it was 1997, and she was a Conservative candidate. She actually came second and was beaten by the Green—you can tell it was a private school. She said to me on the weekend, “Dad, what are they actually offering families like ours at the end of the Statement?” The Minister will have to go back to the Treasury team meetings—I know it is not within her gift to change these things—to ram home that we need changes in these areas for the hard-working, middle-income, middle class.

My final point might please the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, although he is not in his place. We somehow need to find a way to tax the billionaires who jet in from Monte Carlo and keep their savings in the British Virgin Islands and all over the place. We seem to put no effort into taxing them. This is not just for Britain—it needs an international move—but there is no sign of anything happening. Can we please get together? If people thought that the Government were trying to get some money out of these tax dodgers, they might feel warm towards them. At the moment, the feeling—and this applies equally to the Labour Party—is that they are not bothered. Could the Minister please remember that you have to win an election, as well as have a nice and very sound economic statement? We need to win an election, please.

King’s Speech

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I think he is misplacing his hope if he thinks the Labour Party is going to do much—but we will let him live in hope. From time to time, I do a bit of lecturing. One of the subjects I lecture on is British politics, and occasionally I point out that the Conservative Party is the most successful party in the world. From time to time it loses elections and then reinvents itself. In the past, of course, everybody has sat there feeling rather smug and thinking, “Yes, we are in government”, but I say to my good and noble friends on the Front Bench, if they still are my friends, that we are soon going to have do a bit of reinvention by the look of things, because the state we are in is somewhat dire.

Part of the problem is quite simply this: there is no longer room for incentive and aspiration among the group of people who create the wealth of Britain. I see my noble friend Lord Callanan sitting there and he knows who I will mention: the huge army of trade unionists who run middle Britain. They are people with degrees who work hard, go to work every day and create the wealth of this country. I am afraid my party still does not seem to have come to terms with the fact that the average trade unionist today is a middle-aged woman with a professional qualification—the days of the old working-class TUC are gone—and these people are leaving the Conservative Party behind because they do not feel that incentive and aspiration are being looked to.

I shall just point out one or two things. If the higher rate tax threshold, 40% at £50,271, had increased with inflation, it would be £55,340. Every year, roughly 1.6 million people move from the lower rate into the 40% rate, and they do not see that as an incentive. Also, people who get to £50,000 find they lose their child benefit. They find they have a tax rate of around 60% between £50,000 and £60,000—but the children still need feeding. I know much is said in this Chamber, rightly, about the plight of the poor; but there is a middle group, which Theresa May characterised as “just managing”. They are just managing, but they are not managing to feel very happy with a Government who do not appear to want to help them earn a bit more money.

I will also give another challenge to the Government: in 2006, George Osborne promised an overhaul of inheritance tax. Our Government—and the Labour Party, for that matter—think, “Oh, not many people pay it; it doesn’t matter”. But there are millions of people in middle-class housing, in middle age, who are looking forward in a grim sort of way to inheriting the wealth of their parents, and we are doing nothing about it. If you want to do something, I say to the Government, “Do it now”—because I do not think Labour will do much.

My final point is that we need a strategy for the public schools. If Labour imposes VAT on public schools, they will not go bankrupt; they will be full of foreign children, as they increasingly are at the moment. We will have another large increase in migration as the children—with their mummies—come over and fill the places, and that will be a cause, again, of great resentment. So I say to both sides of this House, “Think of middle Britain and the people we need to innovate. Think of Harold Wilson and the way that he stirred middle Britain into action. For goodness’ sake, we all love the poor, but let’s start doing something for the wealth creators”.

Income Tax Threshold

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Balfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to adjust the threshold for the higher rate income tax of 40 per cent to account for inflation.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

The income tax higher rate threshold is still high enough to protect the vast majority of people from paying the higher rate of income tax. Around 80% of all income tax payers pay at the basic rate. The Government must ensure that the tax system supports strong public finances, and it is right that those who earn more contribute more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply, but I remind her that paying tax at 40% used to be a sign of achievement in this world and the middle classes—the middle earners on whom the prosperity of this country depends—are getting gradually poorer, with 1 million more of them paying higher rate tax in the last two years. With the withdrawal of child benefit, the effective rate of tax between £50,000 and £60,000 is around 61%. I know the Labour Party is not standing for lower taxes either, but does the Minister really believe that the country is going to be incentivised to perform well if it is crippled by this level of taxation?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, of course, the Government want to bring taxes down. It is worth reminding noble Lords that since 2010 we have nearly doubled the personal allowance and, this year, around 30% of those with income are projected to pay no income tax at all. In our current circumstances, we need to be fiscally responsible, and the best tax cut we can give people is to cut inflation.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Balfe Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register and I begin by welcoming my noble friend Lady Lawlor. I was one of her sponsors. I am delighted to see her here; she will add huge intellectual firepower to our Benches. I hope not too much of it will be turned on me, as I do not think we agree very much on the European Union. I also thank my noble friends Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe, who will also add considerably to these Benches.

This is an interesting Bill. It is a good basis for a debate, and it follows a good deal of consultation. I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Holmes, who is not in his place, on the subject of cash. Things move ahead. In 2020, I went to our local Turkish shop just after Covid started. I offered the shopkeeper some money and he said, “We’ve stopped accepting money, sir. We might get Covid.” I thought, “This is interesting.” Believe it or not, I stopped using money. Of course, the difficulty for poorer people is that they do not have access to credit or debit cards that they can just hand over all the time, so we need to retain the ability to pay in cash. But shops will maintain that for us, because they will want to continue to sell their goods, which is a pretty good thing.

As I see it, the growth of cryptocurrency, which I regret, is the next big scandal on the horizon—I thank the most reverend Primate for giving me a drink of water; it is jolly good to be given one by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I warn us against cryptocurrency. We need to look at regulating it, because it is totally out of control, and it is meaningless. I discovered the principles of Warren Buffett before they were popular; if you want an investment, you should be able to see it, understand it and answer the question, “Does it do anything useful?” If you cannot get positive answers to all those points, you are likely to be investing in a dud. All these bubbles over the last umpteen years have been about things that do not exist. They did not have any benefits and most of them did not pay any dividends. You need to be very careful. I predict that anyone investing in cryptocurrency will come to regret it pretty shortly.

I welcome Clause 69 of this Bill, in particular the ability to develop credit unions further. We often forget the role that they play, particularly in providing secure finance for poorer people and in the trade union and working people’s movement. Anything we can do to strengthen credit union regulation, while making them dependable, is something to be gained. Enabling them to extend cautiously into hire-purchase agreements and insurance, and to lend to and borrow from each other, is extremely good. I hope that, as we pass this Bill, we can look carefully at how to support credit unions.

Finally, we need to look at the dangerous “buy now, pay later” phenomenon. Problems are already beginning to arise with the idea that you can go into a shop and say, “I’ll pay in three months.” This sector needs bringing under some sort of financial regulation. I hope that we can get some sort of outline during the course of this Bill of how we can get a regulatory framework.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Balfe]

104: After Clause 79, insert the following new Clause—
“Pension Protection Fund: compensation cap underpin (service-related)
(1) Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (pension compensation provisions) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 26 (compensation cap), after sub-paragraph (9) insert—
“(9A) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 26B.”
(3) After paragraph 26A insert—
“26B (1) The relevant compensation payable to a person must in every case equal the lower of the amounts specified in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) The amount specified in this sub-paragraph is the sum of—
(a) 50% of the annual value of the benefits to which he is entitled under the admissible rules; and(b) 2% of that amount for each whole year of the person’s pensionable service, subject to a maximum of 40% of that amount.(3) The amount specified in this sub-paragraph is two times the standard amount.
(4) Expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in paragraphs 26 and 26A.””

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of being able to speak to this proposed extra clause at the end of the Bill. I will say straightaway that it is motivated by friends in BALPA, the union for pilots, but it also affects a number of other higher-paid workers who are caught by what many of us would regard as an anomaly in pensions legislation.

The aim of the amendment is to ask for a review of the part of the Pensions Act that covers the limitation on funds that can be paid out to people whose pensions go into the Pension Protection Fund. In particular, I refer to pilots who used to work for Monarch Airlines—which has gone into the Pension Protection Fund—many of them with many years of service, but because of the cap that was put on payments out, they are limited as to the amount of pension which they can now draw. That cap was put into place for very good reason: to stop moral hazard; to stop directors who were members of their company pension fund abusing the fund knowing that they could basically transfer their liabilities for their own pensions to the Pension Protection Fund. However, the people who I am speaking about, such as the pilots of Monarch Airlines, are inadvertently caught. They had no say whatever in the way in which the company was run. They were workers for the company; they were higher-paid workers and were paid the sort of wages which you only get in the other House down the corridor—of course, if the House of Commons ever went into the Pension Protection Fund, many MPs’ pensions would be limited as well, but no one would say that they are the directors of a company. They are the MPs of the people and look after many things, but they would be caught.

So the amendment is a measure to deal mainly with higher-paid workers, but workers who have none the less put in. We are very fond in this country of bashing anyone who makes anything that exceeds the higher-rate tax threshold, but there are many people who go to university, who work hard in our economy and who exceed the higher-rate tax threshold—they earn more than £40,000 or sometimes even more than that, and they do earn it. I have never been a subscriber to the view that we have to pay megabucks to everybody, but I have always been a subscriber to the view that a decently trained professional worker who is putting their efforts into the benefit of the country deserves a decent wage. These pilots are highly skilled people and deserve a decent wage, as do people at the Atomic Energy Authority and British Midland Airways who are caught. In this particular instance, of some 67 pilots, around 13 will lose more than half the pension that they have paid for. Part of the weakness in the Pension Protection Fund is that your levy is not based on how many workers are covered; it is based on the liabilities of your fund. If someone earns too much to get the full pension, you are still paying, as I understand it, a levy into the pension fund which is commensurate with the liabilities of the fund, not of the individuals.

I am asking the Minister to look at the PPF cap and how it works. We are proposing two ways of dealing with it: either reviewing the cap on the basis of years of service over 20 years, as the current planned change would do little to help many of those in the pension scheme who are affected by the cap; or reducing the service-related or age-related underpin into the PPF. We are basically looking for a way of relieving those workers. It would be a comparatively cheap operation, largely because many people who earn a lot of money are in the PPF. It is estimated that the measure would cost something in the order of £12 million in all over all the years that the extra pensions would have to be paid, so it is not a huge amount of money.

I am therefore asking the Minister to have a look at this matter. Clearly, the categories of people that I am speaking about are not the decision-makers and they should not be caught by moral hazard. They are well worthy of a review of the contributions that they have made and the way in which the PPF works. I have not made enough speeches in this House to know whether it is conventional to thank my colleagues opposite, the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord McKenzie, for their help in meeting the union that I have mentioned. I think that we are talking on a cross-party basis in asking for this matter to be seriously looked at by the Government. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe]

Did the noble Lord not hear my other speech?

[Lord Monks]

I am sorry, I did not, but this one made for a nice change and I commend that example to the rest of your Lordships on those Benches and hope to hear more remarks of that kind.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has admirably covered the BALPA case. Monarch Airlines is the current case, and BMI was the previous one. We are beginning to struggle as these airlines in trouble pass their pensions obligations over to the Pension Protection Fund. There are other similarly paid workers in the same category. I hope that the message of this amendment is that though this cap is essential—I understand that very well, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, does—in order to stop exploitation of the fund, which after all is contributed to by well run pension schemes around the country, it is very important that we take those obligations seriously.

The cost to the fund is not enormous; it is quite modest. I hope therefore that the Government will consider the idea of a review of the arrangements around the cap and that we can get extra justice for some people who are hard working, who do responsible jobs, who are not fat cats and who deserve rather better than they have had recently from the fund. I am very happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I want to make a brief comment on this amendment since I am a non-executive director of the Pension Protection Fund. I declare that interest and hope that I can offer some thoughts that may be helpful to the Committee. The PPF was set up by the Pensions Act 2004 to be a lifeboat for members of defined benefit pension schemes whose sponsoring employer has become insolvent, leaving the scheme in deficit. The PPF saves thousands of members from potential penury who otherwise would have received only a small fraction of the pension promised to them in their employer’s scheme. The benefits it pays to insolvent scheme members are paid for, in large part, by a compulsory levy on other DB schemes with solvent employers, which of course is a cost on the employer.

When the PPF was set up, it was always recognised that there was a fine balance between on the one hand protecting those who had saved and who, through no fault of their own, were now the casualties of their employer’s insolvency, and on the other, not unduly penalising schemes which had made prudent assumptions or decisions, or employers whose businesses remain solvent, providing jobs and funding for their pension schemes. One way in which this was reflected was the benefit cap: the maximum benefits normally paid for someone who is not above the normal retirement age and drawing pension, are 90% of what the pension was worth, subject to a cap.

The cap at age 65 is currently £36,401 per year, which equates to just over £32,500 when the 90% level is applied. The earlier a person retired, the lower the annual cap is set, to compensate for the longer time the person will be receiving payments. So the full expectations of high earners who have built up a number of years in their schemes would not be met. The average annual compensation in payment per member in the PPF is just over £3,500 per annum, so the average PPF member has clearly received less than the amounts which would have been earned by high earners such as those who would be affected by this amendment.

The important point to note is that the PPF board has no role or responsibility in setting the financial limits in the fund. That is the responsibility of Governments. However, back in 2004 there was a general political consensus, which I believe still holds, that there was a need to balance the interests of members against the cost to those who fund the PPF—the levy payers, who ultimately are the employers and members of other pension schemes.

There is obviously a debate to be had about appropriate levels of compensation. I have every sympathy with those who have been made a pension promise that their scheme can no longer afford. However, that is a matter for the Government and I do not want to comment on it, except to say that the PPF board has an obligation to keep the fund’s finances on a sure footing in changing economic conditions. It has a particular responsibility to balance its liabilities within a reasonable framework of constraints so that it does not impose an undue burden on the pension schemes and businesses which pay its levy. The PPF also has to be sustainable over the very long term, and the level of protection given to pension scheme members has to be such as to make that possible. The PPF has faced some significant calls on its resources as a result of big household names going bust. At November 2014, the net deficit of the 6,000 PPF eligible schemes is £221 billion. PPF provides a protective wrap for these liabilities in the event of insolvency. The amount of levy that would need to be raised to cover all members’ benefits in these schemes would be much higher.

To add a final note of caution, requiring solvent employers with DB schemes to pay more levy for higher levels of compensation will not come without problems.

[Lord Balfe]

Is it true that the PPF currently has a surplus of £2.43 billion, out of which we are asking that this modest payment be made?

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

I do not think I should enter into a conversation about that and I do not think it is really relevant to this argument.

--- Later in debate ---

The Pension Protection Fund currently pays compensation to about 150,000 people and protects around 11 million scheme workers. We should be very cautious before we place any extra burden on the fund. The argument for so doing must be very strong and, respectfully, I do not think that it has been made out in this case. While I sympathise with those who have lost their pensions, as do the Government, they will still get a significant amount of compensation. I do not think that the position of people with capped compensation is so unfair as to justify putting an extra burden on to the PPF. I therefore urge my noble friend Lord Balfe to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Balfe]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am glad that we have aired this problem. It often seems to me that we as a society are very good at concentrating on fat cats, who are seen as being unworthy, and thin cats, who are seen as being extraordinarily worthy, but we forget all the people in the middle—the people who work extremely hard, often for good salaries, to keep this country going. They do not live in Monaco, and they do not live on benefits either. There is a shortage of support for what I would call “the middle middle class”, which is reflected in both parties. We see here that classic private sector pension schemes are in the PPF and public sector pension schemes are underwritten. No one is going to take my pension away from me. HMG are not going to go bust and go into the PPF. The European Union is not going to go bust and go into the PPF. As Britain will find out if it tries to withdraw, it will get a rather large bill. However, I appreciate what the Minister and my colleagues said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 104 withdrawn.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, my remarks are addressed first to the current controversy surrounding the next President of the EU Commission, and secondly to our perceptions of, and relations with, our MEPs whom we have just sent to Brussels. I should declare an interest for those who do not remember it: I was an MEP for 25 years, and I still hold one or two appointments in Brussels—of an honorary nature, let me say.

I remind noble Lords that the legal position under the Lisbon treaty is that the European Parliament must give a positive endorsement to the incoming President. That is an important starting point because we should note that the three major groups in the European Parliament—namely, the largest, the centre-right European People’s Party; the centre-left social democrats known as the PES; and the Liberals—represent 62% of the votes and indeed of the seats in the European Parliament. In other words, you cannot get a President through the Parliament without the support of those groups.

The candidates for the presidency were not chosen in some backroom way; all three major parties had conventions of their European party to choose the three candidates. I regret to say that the Conservatives chose to marginalise themselves, first by leaving the EPP and secondly by setting up their own group, called the European Conservative and Reformist Group, whose contribution to the debate was not to choose any candidate for President at all. I suppose they can say that they are not committed, but that is about as far as it goes. It would not be so bad but I am afraid that Labour stood on the sidelines of the PES and has conspicuously failed to endorse Martin Schulz, the PES candidate for President. Both those candidates were picked at party congresses, not in smoke-filled rooms. I must give credit to the Liberals; they played a full part in choosing Guy Verhofstadt as the Liberal choice. Indeed, according to the latest rumours he may well become the next President of the European Parliament.

We have a candidate in play, chosen by the party that won the most seats. I have met Jean-Claude Juncker on a number of occasions. He is a skilled negotiator, has been an extremely good chair of the euro group and excels in what is known as quiet diplomacy. I would have thought that those were very useful attributes. I have also met the other person who seems to be mentioned at the moment, Christine Lagarde, strongly pushed by some and, let me say, a most formidable candidate of enormous ability and clear vision. If it is the wish of Her Majesty’s Government to move away from a natural conciliator such as Jean-Claude Juncker to a figure more akin to Jacques Delors, then Christine Lagarde is the candidate for them to back. But please do not come to any conclusion that somehow out there is a marvellous candidate who is going to endorse the position of the British Government, which, I regret to say, both major parties have pushed so far out of the mainstream of parliamentary politics that it is sad—that is the only thing that I can say about it.

Lastly on this subject, I remind the House that Jean-Luc Dehaene was the candidate in 1994. The British Government moved heaven and earth to get him removed. We ended up with Jacques Santer, who led the only Commission that has been forced to resign. We could well end up in the same position here. I say to the Government: “Be careful what you wish for”.

My second point is about MEPs. I am astonished at how little attention we pay to them. When I was an MEP, you used to be able to get a pass to come in here; you were not necessarily very welcome but you could get through the door. I asked this week what the arrangements now were and I have been given the current guidance, which says:

“Security staff in the House of Commons have been instructed not to grant access to UK MEPs unless they are accompanied—throughout their visit—by a passholder who is entitled to escort guests”.

They can get a pass for this end of the Building, but in fact we have moved backwards. I say to this House: if you keep on kicking the dog and telling it that it is horrible, do not be surprised if some people agree. I put this to both major parties: it is time for us to look very carefully at the way in which we relate to the European Union, to stop being so negative and to start to settle down and ask how we can build a constructive relationship that will deliver what Britain needs. We are on a loser and we need to change.