Autumn Statement

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Let me begin by associating myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the Jo Cox trial and sending my deepest condolences to her family and friends, who will be suffering again today.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Privy Council. I only wish that I could have been present at the investiture. I remember the procedure quite well: they give you a little red book to hold. [Laughter.]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. His central argument appears to be that the deficit is too high and borrowing is too high. That is a bit of a problem, because, as I have understood it, his central proposal for our economy is to borrow more and spend more. Under his rule, Labour would always be borrowing, in good times as well as bad. His analysis of the problem of the last Labour Government is not that they spent too much money, but that they spent too little. Indeed, his rule has remarkable similarities to Gordon Brown’s “golden rule”, and we all know where that got us. His big idea is to spend an extra £500 billion, without any notion of how he would pay for it.

The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the industrial strategy. I am not sure that I welcome his welcome, but I warn him not to welcome it too quickly, because it will not look anything like an industrial strategy that would come out of his office. What he has heard about today is a responsible set of decisions, such as the decision to borrow £23 billion of tightly targeted investment while paying for every single penny of every other commitment that has been made.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about Brexit, and attacked us over the way in which we are handling the Brexit process. I honestly do not know whether he has ever been involved in a negotiation—I suspect not—but I invite him to look across the continent for a moment and note the admirable discipline that our negotiating counterparts are displaying in their messages, revealing nothing as they prepare to go into this negotiation with us. My advice is this: if we want to secure the best possible deal for Britain, we must keep our cards appropriately close to our chest.

The right hon. Gentleman may have heard “cuts in people’s incomes” in my announcement about universal credit. Let me explain to him how this works. When we cut the taper from 65% to 63%, we allow people to keep an extra 2% of the income they are earning. I would have thought he welcomed that.

This is all about making tough decisions, and I am very happy to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, but I just wish he would be honest enough to accept that we cannot shower money everywhere, proposing to spend money on everything, without having to raise that money, either by taxes on ordinary people or by cutting spending elsewhere. It is simply no good to keep on pretending that we can do that just by taxing the rich. The top 1% of people in this country already contribute 27% of income tax paid, and unfortunately there are just not enough of them to be able to finance all the right hon. Gentleman’s ambitions.

The right hon. Gentleman said he was disappointed by the announcement on the national living wage. I do not remember—perhaps one of my hon. Friends can remind me—the level of the national living wage during the 13 years of Labour’s Government. He might note that the level I have announced today is precisely the level recommended by the Low Pay Commission, the body set up to pronounce on these things.

I wish the right hon. Gentleman would also be honest when he talks about the work-related activity group in the employment and support arrangements. This applies to new claims only, as he very well knows, so nobody is going to have £29 a week taken away from them however many times he says it. He also knows that it is not a stand-alone measure; it is part of a package. The money saved is being reinvested in a £330 million package to get these people into work, with targeted support to help them to be ready for work.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about house building starts. House building starts were 45% down under the last Labour Government.

The right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have spread division and disunity through the Labour party, and that is exactly what they would spread through the country if they ever—God forbid—got into government. The right hon. Gentleman says there are no new ideas; I have to say that he needs to check the opinion polling, because that is not quite what public opinion believes. Instead of carping and opposing every measure we propose, why doesn’t he roll up his sleeves and support us in the hard work of building an economy that works for everyone?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chancellor on reverting to the extremely sensible practice of having only one Budget a year, which Gordon Brown abandoned in order to try to buy votes twice a year, with disastrous consequences. I also congratulate him on easing the taper on tax credit, because it is having distorting effects on the labour market at the moment, for example by discouraging part-time workers from working extra hours. I particularly thank him for the money he has spent on the very valuable work rehabilitating the disabled at Stanford Hall in my constituency.

With those notable exceptions, will the Chancellor reassure me he will resist political pressures of all kinds over the coming years to move away from the very sensible fiscal discipline he has set out, because the major risk to his period of office would come—and it would affect every section of our society, including the JAMs that the media have discovered—if he were unable to avoid or mitigate the risk of recession, which global uncertainty undoubtedly poses to us in the real world?

Finally, will he confirm that, wherever he holds his cards, he will continue, inside the Government if necessary, to spell out economic reality and the long-term benefits to this country, if he wants to develop a modern, competitive economy, of retaining access to our most important market, in Europe, by retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union, and that no amount of short-term political pressure will allow him to be deflected from that?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am delighted that we have been able to lower the taper rate of universal credit, because of course it is absolutely in line with our principle that we should be supporting and encouraging people into work. He says the taper rate discourages people, but it is of course a much lower rate of withdrawal than under the old tax credit system it replaces.

Let me reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remain absolutely committed to the sound Tory principle that a country has to live within its means. Of course we have to deal with the realities the world throws at us, and that is why today I have adopted, as an interim measure for the remainder of this Parliament, a cyclically adjusted target which will always allow us to respond to any downturn that occurs. However, I certainly understand the importance of economic reality, and I also understand, as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the extreme desirability of achieving the very best access to markets in Europe for those who produce our goods and services.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on reviving the tradition of the Chancellor speaking on the last day of the Budget debate. It is one of the many things that my successor, Gordon Brown, should not have abandoned. I think we will agree it has enlivened the debate very considerably, compared with what usually happens. I also congratulate him on his extremely effective and spirited performance in defence of his Budget. He rightly took pleasure in his achievements so far in his term as Chancellor.

It is remarkable that we are having such a lively debate on the Budget at a time when, as we have just discovered from listening to the shadow Chancellor, there is absolutely no alternative economic strategy or policy on offer—no doubt my party will make up for that lack of challenge in its own curious way, but meanwhile I congratulate the Chancellor on where he has got so far.

In case the Chancellor is worried about the controversy surrounding the Budget, let me tell him that it is not unusual. I have been here so long that I have seen much worse. Geoffrey Howe’s 1981 Budget was extremely controversial, and passions ran higher, and far more seriously, than they have on this occasion. Nigel Lawson had his Budget speech interrupted, and the House was suspended because of disorder, when he tried to cut the taxes on the higher paid.

I had merely one defeat on a Finance Bill. I lost to a rebellion on the Floor of the House. My mitigation was that it was not my proposal—it was Norman Lamont who proposed VAT on domestic fuel—although I still think it was perfectly sensible. I immediately came back with more tax proposals to get the revenue I had lost, but my right hon. Friend is quite right to wait for events between now and the autumn statement and then to continue the fiscal discipline he has rightly maintained so far.

[Geraint Davies]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows that the Royal College of Physicians has announced that 40,000 people are dying a year, at a cost of £20 billion, from diesel emissions and pollution. Does he think the Chancellor should reconsider promoting green transport, public health and savings and rebalancing the tariffs on electric, diesel, hydrogen and petrol in order to save lives and money?

[Mr Clarke]

We have been extremely active on that front, but scientific knowledge is moving on. I remember when diesel was positively subsidised by Governments because it was thought to be more environmentally friendly. In a more appropriate debate, those issues are well worth pursuing. I understand the problem. I turn to what the Chancellor has to devote himself to: the Budget judgment and its implications for the economy. The Chancellor accepted, as he has to, that that is his principal responsibility. The Chancellor has the most difficult job in government, because he has to spend all his time challenging all the lobbies that demand extra expenditure and challenging his colleagues to find savings or improvements in the budgets of their Departments in order to close the gap.

What this Chancellor has not done is take a short-term view at any stage. That is why he has achieved such remarkable economic success. What I liked about his Budget speech was when he stressed how it was for future generations. What he said a few moments ago—a soundbite, if I may say so, which I had not heard before: there is no social justice without sound finance—is one of the best summations of one nation Conservatism I have heard for a very long time.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I shall be in trouble with the Speaker and everyone else who wants to speak if I give way. Otherwise I would love to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has never been in trouble with the Speaker.

[Mr Clarke]

I am trying to be reasonably concise rather than too expansive. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

I tried to think of what I would have done had I been Chancellor in the present situation. Before the Budget was delivered, I expected a much tougher Budget. Thank the Lord that I am not in my right hon. Friend’s position; I never had to face problems of the kind that he inherited from his predecessor. My instincts are classic, traditional stuff for anyone for whom the iron of the Treasury has entered the soul. This is the first Budget after an election, we have not made fast enough progress in eliminating the deficit and debt, and we will not have sound future progress with a modern rebalanced economy unless we have done that, so my first thoughts would have been to get on with it.

I would have introduced a Budget, as I frequently did in my time, raising taxes and cutting public expenditure. I am glad to hear, for reasons that I shall return to later, that my right hon. Friend has committed himself to his continuing long-term objective, and has decided to pause. I thought this was going to be a popular Budget. People speculate as to why we chose an easier path. [Interruption.] The Chancellor has in the short term relaxed fiscal policy. It is good that the Bank of England is retaining a very relaxed monetary policy, but it will tighten it if we were to abandon fiscal discipline. In the short term, my right hon. Friend has lowered taxation and lowered Department spending targets for cuts. He has eased off on public spending and lowered taxation. I was surprised by that.

I assume that this was partly caused by the considerable uncertainty that the economy faces. No one has addressed that issue in any of these debates, although the Chancellor did in his Budget speech. The global economy is slowing down, and mainly as a consequence of that, the British economy is slowing down. The uncertainties for our economic prospects over 2016 are very concerning. There are many uncertainties, all of which would threaten most of the developed economies if things go wrong. We still do not know whether China, for example, is going to achieve a soft landing; I think it will. In the emerging markets—there are associated problems with emerging market debt—there is volatility and some unsoundness in the financial world.

And there is the risk of Brexit. I am very glad that the Governor of the Bank of England decided to reassure people by setting out publicly that he was prepared to take action if we had a flight of capital from this country should people be alarmed about the referendum. So far, such risk has led only to a big decline in the value of sterling and the freezing of most people’s investment plans. One would be a bit of an idiot to invest in the British economy in anything that had the slightest risk when we do not know what the circumstances and trading patterns are going to be in six months’ time.

I assume one reason why my right hon. Friend took a more relaxed view than a traditional Chancellor would have done and did not make those big spending cuts or increase taxation—in fact, he eased taxation for businesses and the low-paid—was to avoid the mistake of being too severe when circumstances might well worsen as the year goes on. That underlines the point that, in the long term, one cannot forecast and fix these kind of things further forward.

A great deal of the debate around the Budget centred on the forecasts and the Office for Budget Responsibility. The fact that the OBR’s forecasts keep changing so rapidly just underlines what I am saying about the uncertainties for the immediate future. Fortunately, thanks to my right hon. Friend, the British economy has been the fastest growing developed economy in the last 12 months, and we are probably less at risk than most others. However, the fact remains that this was a time to be cautious. Personally, I would have maintained the squeeze—it has all been put off until the latter half of this Parliament, and into the next if we are not careful—because so long as the economy continues to grow, and there is a reasonable prospect that it will, we should not be running a deficit of this percentage of GDP, piling up more debt for our successors.

My doubt is whether this pause was totally justified. I accept that it probably was; but certainly we must resume things. I listened to a shadow Chancellor who plainly does not have an idea in his head about how he would save any money or do anything other than continue spending and borrowing. It is totally profligate stuff, as we have seen very much in the past.

I am very glad that my right hon. Friend made the changes to business taxation. When I was in office, I put up taxes, but I never put up business taxes because I was trying to encourage growth. We still need to make our economy stronger, so it is welcome that the Chancellor stepped in, keeping our corporation tax level at a competitive rate. I particularly welcome the help he has given to small and medium-sized businesses. Encouraging business is, of course, the best way of protecting ourselves against economic risks for the future in this uncertain world.

My right hon. Friend has not been wholly generous towards big business. He and the Government have been leading in the OECD on attempts to tackle the problem of tax evasion and tax avoidance on the part of big multinational companies. He has incorporated the first serious attempt for a long time to attack the problems of tax relief on interest when it is exploited and misused, on royalties and on past losses. I get told a lot about how the Chancellor should be collecting more from big international companies, but no Government have done a blind thing about tackling this tax avoidance for the past 20 years. This Government are leading international discussion towards agreement, which is what is needed, and in this Budget, the Chancellor has started to act.

We are told that we are relieving tax on the rich, but everybody knows—I certainly know, and not just from the newspapers—that the Treasury has been looking at the idea of doing more on tax relief for the wealthy when they contribute to their pension funds. If they have very high earnings, tax relief on pension funds is the way of avoiding tax and it is a great way of ensuring that 45% tax is not paid on a very considerable part of one’s income. That was the case, but we have now put a cap on it. I feel that we are still rather too generous, but in today’s politics that was another lobby, and when someone leaked it, it was seen off by the pensions industry in about 10 days flat. So my right hon. Friend was not allowed—on that occasion, I suspect, because of fear about what would happen on this side of the House—to proceed with fairly modest changes in tax relief for the rich.

As far as other tax moves that my right hon. Friend has made, on personal allowances and the thresholds for the higher rate, because the higher paid—the rich—now pay such a huge proportion of tax, it is almost impossible for Chancellors to ease the tax burden on the low-paid and the ordinary citizen without it being possible to demonstrate mathematically that they have done quite a lot for the rich as well. If Chancellors bought that argument every year, they would never move the threshold at which people start to pay tax, and they would never raise the 40% rate for the people who are currently in modest jobs and find that they are subject to a marginal rate of 40% because Gordon Brown started the habit of freezing the threshold in order to secure stealth taxation. Raising these thresholds is welcome, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend felt able to do it.

Other measures should be seriously canvassed. The pensioner benefits, to which I am entitled, are discussed every now and again. I am always told that we have put things in a manifesto, but I have yet to meet a candidate or an elector who read the last general election manifesto, which, although it seems to contain considerable detail, was certainly not crucial to my constituency victory, or, I suspect, to anyone else’s. We have ruled out ever raising income tax, ever raising national insurance, ever raising VAT; we appear to have ruled out doing anything at all that would stop the very wealthiest people having free bus passes and receiving the winter fuel allowance. I am not going to advocate the breaking of manifesto pledges, but I know of no prosperous pensioners, and certainly none who are in full-time employment like me, who would object to, at the very least, those benefits being made taxable.

I think that there is a case for considering those measures and various alternatives, but I will not risk going into it any further, first for reasons of time, and secondly because, given today’s populist politics, I fear that if I do, some lobby yet unknown to me will descend on me in the next two or three days in order to mount a campaign, through our ridiculous media, to blow that case out of the water.

Of course we must judge the Budget on its own merits, and I understand why my right hon. Friend has got to where he is. No two Chancellors have ever done the same in respect of every measure. Within our system, a Chancellor makes an overall judgment, and this Chancellor retains my full confidence: I am prepared to support his judgment.

I have another reason for supporting my right hon. Friend’s judgment. As I have already said, the present Government are in a strange position. Absolutely no alternative proposition is being advanced by anyone outside. Some pundits, and, as a result, some politicians, seem to believe that we are wrong to maintain our target of a balanced budget over the cycle, or however we choose to put it. They suggest that, actually, there are no problems, and the answer is simply always to run a deficit, on and on and on. After all, it is free money. It is a bit troublesome that interest rates might return to normality one day, but meanwhile, just let it pile up: it will sort itself out.

People on the far right say “Tax cuts, that is all you want. Tax cuts will inspire such tremendous entrepreneurship that jobs will be created, wealth will be created, and it will all be paid back. You will not be in debt for long.” On the left, the argument is “Boost every welfare payment, increase public spending on every public service, and that will generate such demand from the grateful taxpayer recipients that they will pump it into the economy, and it will pay for itself.” That is Mickey Mouse economics, as practised by the last Labour Government, and it got us into this trouble that we are still—thanks to my right hon. Friend—getting out of now.

As for my final reason for backing my right hon. Friend’s judgment, his record, after eight Budgets and six years, is absolutely amazing. I must concede, having been one of his competitors at one point, that he is far the most successful departmental Minister in this Government to date. If anyone had said, when he took over the state of affairs that he took over more than eight Budgets ago, that he would stand here, in charge of the fastest growing economy in the developed world, with near-full employment and with employment at record-breaking heights, able to demonstrate the steadily improving state of not only the public finances but the condition of the poor, as well as the alleviation of social problems across the country, that person would not have been believed. It is a quite remarkable performance.

So I back my right hon. Friend’s judgment. I am also delighted that he is helping us all to avert the risk of Brexit in the forthcoming referendum, because, if the public were so ill advised to vote for it, that would be the only thing that could really send this economic recovery off the rails in a big way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I rise to support the Budget and, in particular, to welcome the Government’s supply-side reforms. This has been a dramatic Budget, and I would be failing the Government if I did not concentrate on the areas of drama. First, on the disability reforms, the challenge before the Government is clear: to deliver a policy that we can all be proud to defend in our constituencies and in front of any objective scrutiny. I do not think we would have been able to do that if the Government had not wisely made the decisions that they have over the past few days.

When I look at page 150 of the OBR’s report, on the successive forecasts for spending on disability benefits, I can see that the Government’s envelope within which to deliver this humane disability policy is very clear. When we came to power in 2010, the Government were spending £12 billion on disability benefits, which rose to £16 billion by now, which is an increase of a third. The figure is forecast, with the reversal of the PIP measures, to reach £18 billion by 2020-21. It is clear that the Government have an envelope within which to work to ensure that we have a world-class policy that any of us can defend, even in an environment of fierce and partisan political attack.

I signed the two amendments on VAT to highlight the extent to which VAT is controlled by our membership of the European Union. Neither amendment has legislative effect. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) on her amendment, which, as she said, makes clear our intent to zero rate tampons and other sanitary products. Of course, both amendments are pursuant to Government policy, and this is the bitter irony of our membership of the EU. We had to have a dramatic row over VAT in the context of an EU referendum in order to secure the following commitment from the European Council:

“The European Council notes that the Commission intends to publish shortly a communication on an action plan on VAT. It welcomes the intention of the Commission to include proposals for increased flexibility for Member States with respect to reduced rates of VAT, which would provide the option to Member States of VAT zero rating for sanitary products.”

That is welcome, and it is clear that the Government’s policy and the House’s wish is that sanitary products should be zero-rated. It is welcome that the Government have secured this change of EU policy but, particularly as a participant in the campaign, I do not want us to have an EU membership referendum every time we want a different policy on our second largest tax.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Will my hon. Friend accept that British Governments have always supported the idea of having an EU framework on VAT? Otherwise, the problem is that there is pressure on Governments to compete with each other in lowering the tax on selected products when they think that their manufacturers or producers will benefit. Also, it is very difficult to operate an open trade area if everybody is going for competitively different tax rates. If we go too far down that path, the main beneficiaries are smugglers.

[Mr Baker]

My right hon. and learned Friend raises some interesting points and, although I am grateful for the additional minute for my speech that he has given me, I cannot touch on all of them. He illustrates the difficulty of operating a customs union among interventionist nation states. The old doctrines of liberalism did not require that one got rid of non-trade barriers, for the most part. There were no non-trade barriers because laissez-faire was the norm. I abridge an argument that could be made at much greater length, but at the heart of the exchange that we have just had is the difficulty involved in interventionist nation states attempting to engage in free trade. In a world of globalisation, air travel and the internet, we need some degree of harmonisation on a global scale, provided that that enjoys democratic consent. That is probably a subject for another debate, but I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention.

Until the VAT directive 2006/112/EC is changed, it will be technically unlawful under EU law for any amendment to be introduced in UK law, even if it is not applied and takes effect in the future. That is the situation that we face. It is similar to the situation concerning insulation products, on which a judgment in the European Court of Justice on 4 June 2015 ruled that

“The United Kingdom cannot apply, with respect to all housing, a reduced rate of VAT to the supply and installation of energy-saving materials, since that rate is reserved solely to transactions relating to social housing.”

That is the position in law while we are in the EU. Although I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says, it is a fact that while we remain in the EU, we cannot control what is currently our second-biggest tax. I am grateful that we have had this opportunity to put this part of the EU membership debate on the public record and have it discussed in the media. I am particularly grateful that the Government will not be opposing either amendment. If there is a Division, I shall certainly vote for amendment (a) and I shall probably abstain on amendment (b).

Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the Budget is a subject that I have talked about at every Budget. It is a subject that I mentioned in my maiden speech—the insane state of monetary policy all around the world. If the European Central Bank was printing €80 billion of new money every month in paper and shipping it around the continent in articulated lorries, it would already have destroyed faith in paper currency. Yet, because the process is one of buying Government and corporate bonds, we simply notice a recirculation of money and celebrate the coarse aggregate results. In 25 seconds, I cannot give a lecture on capital-based macro-economics—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] If Opposition Members would like to call a Back-Bench debate on the subject in their own time, I would be glad to give them the lesson. I welcome this Budget, but its dramatic consequences will be felt much later as a result of easy money.

Budget Changes

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The richest 1% are paying a greater proportion of income tax revenue than in any single year of the Labour Government. This is the Government that introduced the national living wage, the Government that increased the personal allowance—in a year’s time, a typical basic rate taxpayer will pay over £1,000 less in tax than they paid in 2010—and the Government that are helping to generate record numbers of jobs, helping young people get on the property ladder, increasing spending on health and education, and disability benefits too, and protecting pensions and helping people achieve their aspirations at every stage of their lives. Delivering for Britain, creating economic security, jobs and growth—that is the record of this Government and the record of this Chancellor, and it is a record to be proud of.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary agree that the first duty of a Chancellor and his Treasury team when preparing a Budget is to have regard to the medium-term national interest and to provide sound finances for the benefit of our businesses, our investments and our employment? If we now have a situation in which Chancellors are expected to produce, on every occasion, popular spending commitments and popular tax cuts, while there is a failure to control out-of-control budgets, we will have the sort of economic performance achieved by the recent Governments of Greece, Italy or the United Kingdom under Gordon Brown.

[Mr Gauke]

I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is the long-term approach that he took as Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are now taking forward so that we can secure prosperity and economic security for the British people.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

So the shadow Chancellor literally stood at the Dispatch Box and read out from Mao’s little red book. And look—it’s his own personal signed copy. The problem is that half the shadow Cabinet have been sent off for re-education. People treat this Labour leadership as a joke, but they are actually a deadly threat to the economic and national security of this country.

The hon. Gentleman comes here to complain that the deficit and the debt are too high, yet he wants to increase the deficit and the debt and to borrow forever. The problem is that he would borrow in the good times, because he says the country can afford it, and borrow in the bad times because the country could not afford not to. He would always be borrowing money. And how would he be able to afford it? He could afford it because, as he says, his policy

“can readily be funded...through printing money”.

He has said that he would end the Bank of England’s control over interest rates, and he calls it the “people’s quantitative easing”. That is called deficit financing, and it has only been tried in Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. It would lead to the economic ruin of this country. The Labour leadership’s chief adviser on the economy has said that it would cause a sterling crisis, but that the

“sterling crisis would pass very quickly”.

The shadow Chancellor talks about our support for business and defence industries, but he is a threat to the free market of this country. He wants literally to take control of the commanding heights of the economy. His manifesto is all about nationalising industries. He wants to nationalise the whole banking system of this country—as if the last Labour Government did not do a good enough job by nationalising half of it.

The hon. Gentleman gave a speech at the weekend in which he described his policies as “socialism with an iPad”. The problem is that if the socialists built an iPad, it would weigh a ton, it would be impossible to use and no one would design any programmes for it. It would literally be app-less. And then he has the temerity to get up and talk about defence industry jobs and the police. He has spent his entire career attacking the police forces of this country and calling for them to be disarmed. He has sent me a letter saying that I should fund the Security Service, but it turns out that he has been campaigning to disband MI5. He says he is on the side of the British Army, but he has been sharing platforms with the Irish Republican Army. That is the truth.

Let me end by asking this question. Where is the shadow Chancellor going this evening? He is travelling to Waltham Forest to support the new hard-left members of the constituency Labour party there who are trying to deselect the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). He is addressing a rally called “Keep up the momentum”—[Interruption.] Well, if he was actually in charge of this country, we know where the momentum would be. It would be in one direction: growth down, jobs down, the security of the country destroyed. In the last three months, he and his friends have taken control of one of the great institutions of our political democracy, the Labour party, and they have brought it to its knees. That is their business, frankly, but Conservative Members are going to make sure that they never get their hands on any of the other institutions of this country, so that we can keep our country safe.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sticking unswervingly, despite all the recent difficulties, to his commitment to a balanced budget over the cycle and on answering the fears expressed by some of us by sticking to his aim of a modest budget surplus if the economic cycle remains strong. Will he reinforce the argument that that is an essential precondition for our building a modern, sustainable economy in this country that is able to withstand such shocks as the global economy will send us in the next few years? When the cheers die down—as they will—and as people fall upon the details, assisted by lobbies, will he tell the responsible majority that ought to exist in this House and in the House of Lords that no Chancellor acting in the national interest could possibly produce a Budget that had no reductions in public spending and no increases in revenue? We do not want a repeat of the utterly irresponsible reversal of the £4 billion a year savings that were made in his earlier Budget.

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend; he is absolutely right. We do not know what economic storms lie ahead, but we sure as hell know that we have not abolished boom and bust in this country, so we have to prepare for whatever the world throws at us. If a country is not running a budget surplus after nine or 10 years of economic growth, when is it ever going to do so? We are taking sensible steps to build up that surplus and pay down our debts, which have in my view reached dangerously high levels because of the very large deficit we ran over recent years. So those are the steps we are taking. He is also completely right about the lobby groups. In the end, the best way to have great public services is to have sustainable finances. We know to our cost what happens when those public finances are not sustainable: the people who suffer in our country are the most vulnerable and those who are least advantaged. That is why we have taken these steps today to protect them.

Tax Credits

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I shall endeavour to give a brief speech, but I think this is a rather big occasion.

We have reached a stage six months into the new Parliament where we are defining the issues in terms of how we are going to conduct the responsible management of the economy over the rest of the Parliament and achieve the healthy, long-term recovery that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has just said, we are trying to give to benefit our children and grandchildren, and not just ourselves.

We won the election because, I think, we were regarded as more credible on economic policy. People had not always agreed with what we had done, but they realised we would take the necessary difficult decisions to keep the country on course with an economy in the process of recovering.

The Labour party has still not woken up to the fact that it lost the election because it was not credible on the economy and was simply presenting an uncertain collection of rather populist proposals that did not add up to a responsible future. That has been illustrated today. Labour Members are having a very enjoyable time because at this difficult stage for them they have found something they can all oppose. They have found nothing they can all support and they can present no alternative, but they are enjoying opposing on a populist basis what has been put forward. I would exempt from that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), a former shadow Secretary of State and briefly a contender for the leadership of the Labour party, who has just left his seat, because he made an intervention conceding that he was against taxpayers subsidising pay, but the message was, “Make us virtuous, but not yet.” He was quite happy to go along for the time-being with this flawed system until some uncertain date in the future.

The Scottish nationalists appear simply to be taking the view that this is a good popular occasion on which to give a harrowing description of the consequences of these proposals, and to imply that they are a deliberate attack on the poor that has been chosen by the class enemy on this side of the House. Fortunately, however, I see no prospect of the Scottish National party getting a UK majority—however successful it might be electorally—and of having responsibility for the economy on which my constituents are dependent.

The starting point, as usual in these debates, is that in modern Britain there is a wide community of interest in where we are all going. We all think that the economy should be managed to boost the overall prosperity of the country. At the same time, however, we live in a society in which we have to seek to alleviate poverty, to ensure that people are helped when they work hard to help themselves and to ensure that we have a system whereby we can provide a decent income for those people who are so vulnerable or so unlucky that they are unable to support themselves without help. That is the starting point, and that is why we have a welfare state and a welfare system.

My second point is that I have always thought that tax credits were one of the most flawed innovations to be brought into our welfare system. The idea was taken from the Clinton Administration in the United States and applied slightly differently here. It might have had some worthy intentions behind it, along the lines of providing negative income tax, but I always suspected that it was in fact introduced for politically populist reasons. The new Government could be seen to be giving money to add to the pay of a wide section of the population, and we have had that system ever since.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress. I do not want to speak for long, as lots of Members want to speak. Let me just finish my outline, then I will start to give way.

When tax credits were introduced, the then Government were confined by their election promise to stick to the spending and tax programme that they had inherited, because of the deficit. I seem to recall—I have not looked this up—that they therefore introduced them by means of a device that treated them not as public expenditure but as a tax change. Indeed, I seem to recall being assured on the Floor of the House by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, when I expressed my disbelief, that they constituted negative expenditure.

That is why the payments became the responsibility of the Treasury and were described as tax credits. The Treasury is—or was—very good at collecting money from people who do not want to pay it, but with great respect to my old Department, which I greatly admire, it was not particularly suited to handing out benefits to people on low incomes with any degree of reliability or accuracy. I still get constituency cases relating to tax credits, because the system is based on forecasting someone’s income based on the previous year, but lots of people do not notify precisely all the changes in their arrangements. Ever since the system started, one feature of it has been that perfectly ordinary working people get demands to repay thousands of pounds that have been paid to them in error. I think that the level of error has come down, but at one point it was staggering, with a very high proportion of claimants being given bills by the Treasury that they could not afford to pay.

These measures were usually introduced on the eve of an election, so that even more members of a grateful public could receive yet more money on top of their pay. More importantly, it rapidly became clear that a lot of this money was subsidising employers, who found that they could hold down incomes. This was happening at a time when the economy was coming out of a recession, and they could therefore hire all the staff they needed, with the taxpayer subsidising their pay.

Given the objectives that we are all agreed on, and that it is quite obvious that we need welfare reform—although Labour Members are unable to think of any at the moment—I cannot think of a more obvious target for such reform than the tax credit system. I approve of the Government’s choice in that regard. Of course, electoral bribes are always difficult to reverse, but I shall explain in a moment why this is a good time to make substantial progress towards getting rid of this dreadful mistake, which the last Labour Government should never have introduced.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point about the nature of the benefit and the difficulties some people experience in paying it back a year later. Does he accept, however, that the system of family credit was introduced by Margaret Thatcher, and that Eleanor Rathbone fought for family allowances back in 1929? There has broadly been a cross-party consensus that the welfare state has to deal with those on low incomes, particularly those who are working.

[Mr Clarke]

Of course the Government have a duty to look after those of all kinds who are below subsistence income—that is what we have the welfare state for. I used to support family allowances with some vigour, because in those days we had persuaded the then Government to pay it to the mother, and a high proportion of women—there probably are still some in this position—did not know what their husbands earned and it was right to pay a benefit for the children directly to them; it was a kind of social reform. I did agree with the current Government that the time had come to end it for higher-rate taxpayers—again, it was a general subsidy. Various attempts were made to do a negative income tax, but we never succeeded in finding one—I tried over the years, talking with Chancellors and also when I was Chancellor. What has been introduced—tax credit—was a Clinton invention, altered by the Labour Government, and it has never worked properly, for the reasons I have given.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clarke]

I do not want to take as long as the Front Benchers, so I will make a little progress.

Why do this now? There is never going to be a better time again to make more substantial progress in loosening our dependence on this subsidy to pay. I will not repeat what the Minister said admirably from the Dispatch Box about all the other things that are being done in more sensible areas, where we support the income and help with the expenditure of working families. That of course has to be key. That is the alleviation that everybody is demanding of what is bound to be difficult when we move forward. I am not naive. Politically, I point out to my Conservative colleagues that this is early in a Parliament, six months in, and my guess is that if we do not take this decision now, everybody will run for the hills if we decide we are going to do it in two years’ time. If we are looking, as a governing party should do, to what we are going to be able to show to the public by way of a successful economy when we next face them in five years’ time, we will see that now is the time to take the necessary decisions to get on with this.

More substantially, as has been mentioned by, among others, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), the former Solicitor-General, the employment situation is extraordinarily strong. This is the time to do it, because we are never going to get all the full compensating reactions in the labour market if we do not get them at a time when employment is at a record-breaking high, unemployment is very low and real incomes are rising at an amazing 3% a year.

In all the figures that keep being cited about what will happen to those who lose tax credit, there is one great incalculable, although people have tried to estimate it: what will employers do as they realise that their staff are losing their tax credit? We have already seen various firms lining up to say that they are going to pay my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s living wage, some straightaway. That is because the labour market has changed, they do not want demoralised staff and they want to race ahead of the Government and say that they are giving a big pay rise. I accept that not everybody will be able to do that, but I think that employers, finding that the subsidy of tax credit is being drained away again, are in a better position now than they have been for years to say, “Perhaps we are going to have to give—perhaps we ought to give—a reasonable pay rise to the staff working for us because we can no longer rely on the Government setting in behind us.” Again, if we do not do it when the employment market is so strong, we will never do it at all—now is the time.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, because I agree with an awful lot of his analysis of the problems caused by the whole system of tax credits. The difficulty is that we do not start with a blank sheet of paper. The fact is that the cuts are in the here and now, whereas the possible increase in wages will come only in the future. Can he really see any employer giving somebody a wage rise because they have just had a third child who will not be eligible now for tax credits?

[Mr Clarke]

Quite a lot of low-paying employers will realise the effect on the morale of their staff, some of whom will tell them that they are losing their tax credits. I am not naive and know that this will not mean that nobody loses. Not everyone will be able to do that. The downsides of the change—my hon. Friends on the Front Bench explained the upsides that will affect a lot of these working families—may not be totally eliminated, but there will be fewer problems now if we go ahead with this. I have already said that getting rid of electoral bribes, which most parties have given over the years, always proves to be terribly difficult. I have seen some dreadful things introduced and then nobody has the nerve to vote against them. Perhaps I should not worry. I receive a free bus pass, free television on which I do not pay a licence, and a winter fuel allowance to save me from winter poverty. I know that I was meant to say to the previous Labour Government, “God bless you, Mr Brown. You are a worthy man, and I shall vote for you from now on.” My political views are more complicated than that. Tax credits were about the Labour Government bumping up people’s income on the eve of an election.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

No, now is the time to get on.

I will conclude by turning to the rather big question of the £4 billion that will be lost by this motion. We are having a cheery knockabout argument and £4 billion is going out the window, and neither the Labour party nor the Scottish National Party can agree on any credible explanation of what they will do about that. They will borrow the money; that is what they did and that is what they will do.

I think that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) is trying to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. He tried to produce some alleviation; at least he is halfway there. I think his changes save only £2 billion, so another £2 billion must be found from somewhere else. Perhaps he will address that when he speaks.

More importantly, there is talk of Labour and Liberal peers in the House of Lords voting down the measure. That is really quite a startling constitutional innovation. They use technical arguments, saying that it is a statutory instrument, and that it was not in the manifesto. Well, Budget measures are not in manifestos, so that is not a relevant argument. If the Upper House decides that it will not accept the supremacy of this House when the Government set tax and spending matters, I advise all Members in this House of all political parties to take that extremely seriously. It is irresponsible and it should not be done. We do not want a repeat of what happened in 1911. Personally, I will become a fervent advocate of reform of the House of Lords, as I always have been, all over again if they start doing that.

Pay should be set by employers once we get back to a healthy and normal world. We cannot have a system where we all have a party political argument about how much subsidy the Government will give to employers for selective members of the population. We do need welfare reform, and tax credits are one of the best candidates for such a reform. The Treasury should never have been paying out on welfare. We cannot get rid of it, but it is time to make some great progress. If this matter gets lost, the path of steady recovery that we have been on, as we lead the way in the western world towards a much more balanced, sustainable and modern economy, will be seriously damaged. I support my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope that we will reject the motion.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I need to—

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I will give way.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Mr Clarke]

What happened under the last Labour Government was that the Chancellor and his regulatory authorities allowed first the dotcom bubble and then the crazy credit boom. Tax revenues temporarily soared to astonishing levels. The Labour Government carried on running a deficit on top of those tax revenues, and then the revenues collapsed, leaving us with the worst annual deficit in the G20. The last Government were complicit in the consequences of 2008.

[John McDonnell]

And when that expenditure was being determined in the House, the Opposition supported it, and never objected. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well have rejected it, but I remember his Budgets. His Budgets balanced, but when they balanced, there were 40,000 homeless families in London. People were dying on waiting lists before they got their operations. Those were the consequences of his economic policies.

Focusing on the deficit continues to mask the underlying weaknesses and failures of our unreformed economic system. We are witnessing a recovery based on rising house prices, growing consumer credit, a ballooning current account deficit and still inadequate reform of the finance sector. I worry that some of the warning signs are reappearing. But the Conservatives have adhered to their dictum: never let a crisis go to waste. They have skilfully used their narrative of the deficit to enable them to cut public services, slash benefits, and give tax cuts to the rich and corporations. Successive charters and fiscal mandates brought before this House have been cynically used as a weapon in that cause.

The purpose of the original Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, brought in by Labour, was to bolster the then Government’s economic credibility. I recall what the current Chancellor said. He described it as little more than a political stunt. But he soon learned what a useful tool charters and mandates can be, and immediately upon the coalition’s election, he introduced his own. The fact that he missed most of his targets was irrelevant to him; what was more valuable was that charters could be picked up whenever needed and prayed in aid to excuse any attack on the welfare state and any cut in benefits, and provide a means to redistribute wealth upwards.

The charter before us today also has little basis in economics. Let me quote Dr Ha-Joon Chang, Professor Thomas Piketty, Professor David Blanchflower, Mariana Mazzucato and Simon Wren-Lewis. Those eminent economists in our society said that it has

“no basis in economics. Osborne’s proposals are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy and, as such, they risk a liquidity crisis that could also trigger banking problems, a fall in GDP, a crash, or all three.”

They go on to say that if the Government

“chooses to try to inflexibly run surpluses…Households, consumers and businesses may have to borrow more overall, and the risk of a personal debt crisis to rival 2008 could be very real indeed.”

Tax Credits

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make a little progress, and then I will give way.

Far from increasing work incentives, these measures will reduce them. Reducing the work allowances or thresholds and increasing the taper rates mean families will have their incomes reduced earlier and more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the vast majority of Members in this Chamber probably agree that we would like to see Britain move away from being a low pay, low productivity economy to a more advanced, higher productivity, better paid one? Can she explain how she thinks we can possibly move in that direction, even now the economy is recovering, if we do not tackle the absurd level of taxpayer subsidy to low pay from the tax credit system?

[Seema Malhotra]

I—[Interruption.]

Greece

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In belatedly congratulating the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) on his birthday last Thursday, I express the hope that he was able to celebrate with something more than mineral water and muesli.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I am glad to say I was, Mr Speaker. I was not going to ask my right hon. Friend about my birthday, but thank you very much for your kind remarks.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to give support to those of our sensible European allies who insist that the Greek Government cannot just expect a third bailout and a second restructuring of their debts, so that Irish, Portuguese, Spanish and other taxpayers can continue to pay for untenable levels of public expenditure, including generous early retirement schemes, bloated public sector payrolls and so on? Does he also accept that if in the next week or two the Greek Government just print a new currency, called the new drachma, it will be a quite worthless means of exchange that will probably not be used by the Greek population or by foreign suppliers of commodities? There is therefore no alternative to the Greek Government eventually agreeing structural reform, to give them a competitive economy for the future and to rejoin the European community of nations.

[Mr Osborne]

First, let me join in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his birthday. The points he makes are echoed by many eurozone Governments that we speak to. There are countries in the European Union with lower GDP per capita incomes and there are Governments in the eurozone who have undertaken incredibly difficult structural reforms—he names our close neighbours in Ireland—so these points are regularly made. It is clear that there needs to be major structural reform of the Greek economy and certain conditions set on eurozone membership, and that is why the eurozone is waiting for the latest proposal from the Greek Government. Equally, we urge all parties in this, including those other eurozone Governments, to be open to new offers and to be ready to sit round the table.

Greece

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr—sorry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took me by surprise. I call Mr Kenneth Clarke.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I am always quietly inconspicuous in this Chamber, Mr Speaker.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the IMF has always made advances to countries in financial crises conditional on a programme of reform aimed at minimising the effect on creditors and, above all, on restoring a competitive and effective economy to prepare for a healthier future? It would be quite irresponsible for the IMF or the European Central Bank to abandon that approach at the moment. The best outcome would be for the Greeks to vote yes in the referendum. The one thing my right hon. Friend has not touched on is the great hardship that could be caused to the Greek people if they vote no and their economy goes into total collapse. Are there any discussions going on about the way in which the friends of Greece can mitigate those consequence for the ordinary Greek population? There is no quarrel in this House with Greece or the ordinary people of Greece who are not responsible for the mismanagement by their Government.

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to remind us that the people of Greece have paid a very high price for the mismanagement of their economy by previous Greek politicians and Greek Governments. Of course it is now a matter for the Greek people to decide their future, and we should respect that. I made it clear in my statement that most people now consider this referendum as one on whether Greece leaves the euro. Of course there are considerable consequences of taking that step, but I do not think we should be telling the people of Greece how to vote. It is for the people of Greece to make that decision, but they should be aware of the consequences. That is the broad approach that we shall take. The discussion of what would happen if Greece were to leave the euro should probably happen at a later date, but there will clearly be issues over the support that the family of western nations can provide to that country.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

I was merely pointing out that there are a number of international examples. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire will go through some of those in some great detail. This is not unusual in matters of constitutional import.

There is no doubt that a constitutional referendum on whether the United Kingdom should be part of the European Union carries constitutional implications. It is not unusual internationally, even in a federal or confederal state, to have more than a simple majority on such matters, and also reference to the various component parts of that state. If that is the case for a confederal or federal state, surely it should be so much more the case for a United Kingdom of four component nations.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Will he confirm my suspicion that his secret wish—the perfect result, from his point of view—is for Scotland to vote yes and England to vote no? Personally, I would regard that as a disaster. Does he agree that if Scotland voted to stay in the European Union and England voted to leave, the end of the United Kingdom would probably be quite imminent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I very much agree, and it may be of interest to Members, if they have not already noticed, that the Electoral Commission has examined not only the Bill but my amendments, and has stated:

“The Commission is therefore generally supportive of proposals to reinstate restrictions on the publication of promotional material by central and local government in the run-up to the poll.”

Even after Second Reading, the Electoral Commission—which is, after all, charged with these duties—has concluded it would be important to retain these restrictions. Some adjustments may need to be made in due course, but we should secure the status quo, then have the discussions, and then have the vote on Report. That would be the right way round.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

How far does my hon. Friend want to take this? In a general election, the whole government machinery closes down for four weeks and studies the potential future of alternative political masters and waits to see what the political policy of the new Government will be. In this case, however, the Government at the time of the referendum will be the Government for the next several years, and the Government, as a Government, will have been involved in producing the terms that are part of the referendum. Does my hon. Friend intend that no Minister can act as a Minister, as could be the case if we strictly applied purdah, or take advice for all those weeks on anything that might pertain to an issue in the referendum? Is the Prime Minister going to be prevented from expressing a view? Surely some compromise that is a modification of purdah is required—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been here longer than most Members, and he should know that interventions must be short, especially if he wants to make a speech later.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers are responsible for making available their own documentation. It may be a courtesy, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I think I am fairly confident in saying that the starting point of this debate is that every Member of the House—from the Prime Minister and Ministers to the acting Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers to the most newly elected Back Bencher—agrees that if we are to have a referendum it must be perceived to be fair. The most balanced position possible must be taken vis à vis those who wish to advocate yes or no, for a variety of reasons, so that the public hear the broadest possible range of views and can make a reasonably objective judgment.

I have never known a referendum settle any question. It certainly has not settled questions of Scottish independence, elected mayors, proportional representation or AV, and does not seem to have settled the European question either. However, I think that those who believe that a referendum is a valuable way forward agree with me that we should bend over backwards to make sure that all those who feel strongly either way on this subject are treated as fairly as possible.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Most of what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said could be applied to democracy itself, yet still we trouble ourselves with it.

[Mr Clarke]

Which is why I believe that the parliamentary system of democracy is so very good. A representative body of people elected from time to time have continuous responsibility for step-by-step decisions, and eventually they have to face the consequences of their decisions and can be removed. But we are already going wide of the amendments.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is able to stand when he feels passionately on the subject. I am sympathetic to the problems he has had, and I am glad that he was able to speak from a sedentary position, which I had never seen before. I will finish making my point before I give way.

I hold my hon. Friend and those who agree with him in the highest possible regard. We in the Conservative party have to be careful that we do not repeat the folly of Harold Wilson and tear our party apart in the course of a referendum campaign. After quite a few decades of this battle, I continue to be on excellent personal terms with those of my hon. Friends with whom I disagree. It is best that we proceed by putting forward our respective views of the public interest. We must certainly not divide the strong purpose of the Government, who have been so recently elected with the support of the whole Conservative party.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow me?

[Mr Clarke]

Let me make a little more progress. I hope that my hon. Friend’s constraint will stop him leaping up too frequently; I will give way in due course.

I do not believe that there is any bad faith anywhere. Everyone wants those who campaign and the public to feel that the referendum has been conducted with absolute fairness. I am surprised, therefore, that, in these opening days of the European referendum process, so much passion is being excited by procedural issues. I will not describe them as footnotes, but, although they are important, none of them will make the faintest difference to the result on the day of the referendum. If we asked most of our masters—the public—whether purdah was followed properly during the campaign, they would not have the first idea what we were talking about. So my first plea is for a sense of proportion.

My plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister—I do not think I need to make it because I have seen the letter, which did not get to me either; I have just been shown it—is to live up to his undertakings. It is right to bend over backwards to reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is no conspiracy, that they must not leap into paranoia, and that the intention is to hold a referendum in which the British public will be able to reach a view on balanced presentations. It seems to me that Ministers have started doing this straight away. I got the impression from the Second Reading debate that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench were as surprised as I was at the sudden excitement about the rules in what should have been a fairly routine Bill paving the way for the referendum.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way in a moment.

The Prime Minister has announced that he will suspend the rules of collective responsibility and that members of the Government will be able to campaign on whichever side they choose. We now have the letter giving an undertaking that the Government will depart from section 129. People seem to think that there is something magic about 5 May 2016, so we will not hold the referendum on that date. I have sympathy with Ministers; they are being derided. The moment they make concessions to all these impassioned pleas, they suffer the fate of all Ministers and are immediately accused of a humiliating U-turn and held up for ridicule.

Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and perhaps others in the Scottish National party are difficult to calm down and reassure. I ask them to accept, as I accept, that every effort is being and should be made to satisfy fears about the propriety of the campaigning period.

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. and learned Friend’s rather Hush Puppy approach—saying that there is really nothing much that we need worry about, and that Parliament is far better at doing this than the people—seems somewhat dangerous and disrespectful of the voters. We have had a lot of referendums over the years. He says that purdah would not make a difference anyway. Does he think that the Electoral Commission is wrong when it says that disapplying section 125 of the 2000 Act would enable the Government to spend unlimited sums of money?

[Mr Clarke]

I once gave evidence to an inquiry chaired by Sir Nigel Wicks into the workings of the Electoral Commission, and my recommendation was that it should be abolished as a useless quango, but that is a wider issue.

Of course we have had referendums, but my hon. Friend has never accepted the result of any referendum if he disagreed with it—for the sound reason, for which I respect him, that he has strong personal principles and convictions. I took part in the referendum 40 years ago. No serious Member of Parliament on either side of the argument changed their beliefs one jot the day after the result of the poll was announced. Tony Benn, who was personally responsible for floating this innovation in British politics, was one of the first to start demanding that we left the European Community within a few weeks of the announcement of the result. The Labour party was committed to leaving the EU by the time we got to the 1983 election, having shed a high proportion of its members to the Social Democratic party. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and I agree that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Let me move on a little and perhaps reassure my hon. Friend. I am prepared to be persuaded that, despite my bewilderment that so much importance is being given to the procedure, we should bend over backwards to reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government are acting in good faith and will hold the campaign in a serious way. So I accept that 5 May 2016 is verboten—absolutely ruled out. It is a sacred day in the next two years on which it is not possible to put an additional question on the Scottish referendum—[Hon. Members: “European.”]—on membership of the European Union. So it has been decided not to hold it on 5 May.

I could not care less on which precise date the referendum is held, as long as it is held properly. I do not think that 5 May is a remotely important subject. I might have argued that it would have been a good idea to raise the turnout in our electoral process. There is an argument that if elections for various things are held on the same day, the turnout for some elections might go up from its current pathetic level. Apparently, however, it is thought that the poor electorate would be puzzled and confused—that they would vote in their local council election thinking that the Germans were playing a key role in the whole thing and that the questions would be too complicated and they would muddle up the documents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

The point is that Members of the same political party may well campaign on different sides of the referendum question while at the same time being on the same side for the local elections. That is the key reason we need to have them on separate days.

[Mr Clarke]

If, on the day of the referendum poll, a member of the electorate does not realise that different Members of both the Conservative and the Labour parties—at the very least—are campaigning on different sides of the campaign, I regret to say that we will all have failed, because that member of the public will have been singularly uninformed about the progress of about 20 years of debate, during which that has always been the case. But there we are: the issue of the date has been determined. The Government have given way and have been derided for doing so, and I will spend no more time on the subject.

The more serious point—although I do not think this is a serious problem—is the suggestion that the absolute statutory rigour of purdah should be applied to the Government as a whole acting as a Government throughout the final four weeks of the referendum campaign. I have already made this point during an intervention, but it is important.

People are suggesting that the whole Government machine should be switched off for those four weeks on a whole list of issues. They say it would be improper that any public body, the Government machinery or any Minister purporting to speak as a Minister should be allowed to engage in anything that might be designed to encourage voting in the referendum or to express a Government view on any issue that might be germane and regarded by people on either side of the argument as relevant to the outcome. I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends at least to pause—as I am personally prepared to do—until Report, which, as I have discovered from this mysterious message on Twitter, is when the Government will make proposals that might reassure people but that might fall short of the full rigour of the rather odd referendum legislation that we passed a few years ago. Obviously, that legislation did not exist when we last had a referendum on Europe, when the Government were deeply divided and very odd messages came out.

Given that everybody is going to concede to my hon. and right hon. Friends anything that can reasonably be seen to put any legitimate fears to rest and to reassure them that this is a sensible approach, we cannot ignore the risk that one might, rather oddly, be closing down the whole machinery of Government for some time. I have already cautioned against conspiracy theories and paranoia. We all know that individual members of the Government will go out and give their own personal views on one side or the other—they are allowed to do that.

[Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

In a moment. Why on earth should a Minister not be allowed, as a Minister, to advocate that people might be encouraged to vote? As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) rightly asked, would a Minister who goes to Brussels for a difficult meeting on an aspect of agricultural policy or of the research and development budget be told by his officials that they would melt away the moment he expressed a view on an issue that might have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone or me in the referendum campaign?

I think we have received genuine undertakings. Everybody wants a fair referendum, so let us not resort to the legalism of section 129—[Hon. Members: “Section 125!”] That shows my regard for legalisms, despite my being a lawyer: section 125 is very important! When we get to Report, let us take a considered look at what would happen if we threw the whole weight of the law at this issue and had one of Her Majesty’s judges adjudicating on whether the pronouncements of some Parliamentary Secretary in Brussels had broken the statutory injunctions and he should have been reduced to silence.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

May I say how much we are enjoying my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech? His casual wafting around of various sections, whether they are the right ones or not, reminds me of one of those lovely days when he said that he had not bothered to read the Maastricht treaty. Will he clarify something that seems to be a bit of a caricature? He says that the whole of Government would have to be closed down and that Ministers would not be able to engage in any business at all, but surely that could only possibly be true if the European Union was so involved in every nook and cranny of this country’s affairs that it could not possibly function without those relationships. Is not that the whole point?

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before we proceed, in case there was any implied criticism, I have to say that, although the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) might be rambling around the European Union, this is a broad-ranging set of amendments. I have listened to him very carefully and he is, in fact, in order.

[Mr Clarke]

I hope I am not being too light-hearted, but this has been a long debate. I have already confessed that the issues have not engaged me as passionate issues of great principle to the same extent as they have engaged others. I was genuinely surprised to hear Eurosceptics take off and pronounce that there was a monstrous conspiracy in all the details. I am trying to reassure them that if there was any risk of a conspiracy, it could be laid to one side. I will treat the arguments with every due solemnity.

I am not saying that every Minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change—although this might apply to them—or the Scotland Office would necessarily find that they could not do anything. It is not like during an election, when they would not be allowed to go into the office or take any decision of any kind, but the proposal could be very wide-embracing indeed. It is all very well for people to dismiss light-heartedly—though perhaps they are not speaking in the same tone as I am—the Prime Minister’s warnings that there would be a serious impact on the conduct of business, but I think that that is what would happen.

To repeat the point I made earlier: strict purdah stems from long before the statute was passed. It stems from the rules for a general election, and they are right. Once we get into the campaigning stage of a general election, the Minister is the Minister only if he or she is required to sign something that has to be signed. When an election comes, the party political Minister is prevented from taking any decisions. Nothing can be changed. The civil service goes into its totally non-political mode because the whole point of that election is to decide which political masters are going to return to the Department, so that eventually we again have a Government who are able to act.

What we are discussing is a referendum being held by a Government. It is part of the Government’s policy to hold the referendum. The Government have been negotiating a deal as part of their policy on reform to supplement the arguments in the referendum. The Government will continue to be the Government for the next three or four years and will have to live with the consequences of the referendum, so what is being argued is that these men and women and the civil servants who support them should all switch off for four weeks, stop having an opinion on these issues and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and myself, the day after the election pretend that they now agree with the enlightened view of the electorate and that they are going ahead and taking all the decisions on whatever is now the position.

I am sure there is a balance to be struck. I would deplore it if the Government were to spend taxpayers’ money on sending out ridiculous pamphlets and so on. That would misfire. I expect the Government to be in favour of a yes vote. I will be campaigning for a yes vote. I do not want the Government to squander taxpayers’ money and plainly abusing their position by putting out material that I might not wholly agree with anyway. The electorate would react if it was obvious that the Government were resorting to using the machinery of government for campaigning. But the statute is too severe. I hope we will not all get carried away and that we will allow my right hon. and hon. Friends the chance to come back with a sensible compromise.

Let me move on. I am sure the Whips will be very happy, but I am taking rather longer than I intended. I am attracted by the Opposition amendments, although I am not going to support them, as I shall explain in a moment. The shadow Minister, with unusual naiveté, seems to believe in evidence-based politics. He obviously believes that the more rational information is produced objectively and placed before the public, the more certain one can be that the correct result will be arrived at.

But this is politics. This is the European issue. Nothing of that sort has intruded into the debate on the European Union for the past 30 or 40 years, and it will not do so now. The Government have tried to move in that direction. The Foreign Office carried out the most objective study of the division of powers—the division of competences, in the jargon—[Interruption.] Precisely. I hear colleagues behind me shouting out, “Whitewash!”, by which they mean that the study came to the wrong conclusion, in their opinion. Evidence-based politics was rejected the moment it emerged. It could not find that the balance of competences, as negotiated by successive Ministers of all political persuasions over the previous 40 years, contained anything that was to the disadvantage of the British public.

The reaction was not to try to challenge any of these arguments with any new facts, but to try to bury the document, which most members of the public were never allowed to hear about. I suspect that it has not been picked up—it is pretty voluminous stuff—by very many Members of this House, let alone people outside, but it is a noble aspiration.

I have one serious reservation about what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) proposes. He suggests that those pre-eminently independent bodies, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, should be, as it were, enjoined by this Bill to produce those reports, which is quite attractive. I have the highest regard for the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility. We should all vigorously continue to ensure that their independence is maintained in every possible way, but there is a danger of politicising them. The Bank gives its opinions all the time, as most central Banks do, about the outlook for the economy, the latest statistics and the way things are unfolding. Central bank governors become notorious for talking a kind of obscure, slightly ambiguous mandarin language. That is precisely to try to avoid getting themselves immersed, which the Bank and the OBR would do if they seemed to be leaping into something that is a partisan opinion or appears to be a position of strong partisan support for one question or another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

Briefly, on the issue of the Bank of England, we know that it is preparing such a report anyway. The issue is whether people will see it or not.

[Mr Clarke]

Precisely. If I were the Governor of the Bank of England—some might say thank the Lord I am not, though it is quite an interesting job—I would not feel I wanted to publish such a document because I would suddenly find myself in the middle of the most emotional political debate going on in the country, and that is not where the Bank of England should be. On that serious ground, I think the amendments are interesting and I hope I discover what the views of the Bank of England are. They will probably be leaked, although central banks should not leak. I do not think we should enjoin the Bank to produce what would inevitably be ferociously controversial documents.

I conclude as I began. I find all these debates a little bewildering. I have not the slightest doubt that the British public will not allow this referendum to be run on any basis other than that of reasonably fair objectivity on both sides, and we should beware of making the mistake of slipping into the Bill rigidities which, if we are not careful, will start causing totally undesirable results when the reality of the referendum takes place.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I support amendment 16 and new clauses 3 and 4 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and other hon. Members.

I hope I can welcome some clarification from the Government later on the question of holding the referendum on the same day as the elections in Scotland and the elections for the Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales. An aspect that has not received much attention is that of the effects of the franchise. EU citizens have the right to vote in our general elections in Wales and in Scotland. The Government here in London propose to exclude them from the referendum. If the referendum and the election were held at the same time, one can picture the spectacle in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales when EU citizens turn up to vote, cast a vote and then are cast out. They are being prevented from voting on our future in the EU. That spectacle would cheer the hearts of despots throughout the world, from Moscow to Damascus to Pyongyang.

On the declaration of the results and the so-called quad lock, there are particular EU issues pertaining to Wales. I would say that these are national issues. On Second Reading I referred to the value that we as a multilingual society derive from membership of a multilingual and multicultural European Union. This may not figure as largely elsewhere in the UK as it does in Wales—it is a particular Welsh issue.

Wales is one of the poorest parts of Europe—it is at the same level as some former Soviet bloc countries—and we have derived much benefit from EU regional policy. Again, that is of national significance to Wales. We are also very dependent on EU agricultural support. There are other issues relating to manufacturing and demography, but I will not go into those now. All those factors might or might not decide the result in Wales—I cannot say whether they will—but they are legitimate national interests and should be respected as such.

We have a particular national interest. It might be different from the national interest of our neighbours. As the Government intend, their national interest will trump ours. I think that there are only two ways to go on the respect issue: either to respect or not to respect. The current proposals potentially will not respect, which is why we will support amendment 16.