The Economy
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on his forceful and good speech, and on his resilience in coming here and facing the House with such dignity and distinction. I, too, pay tribute to the way in which he fought for his principles and his cause in the election. Indeed, it causes me slight annoyance that in the leadership election that has broken out in the Labour party, some of the people who a month ago were his greatest admirers, his most loyal colleagues and those closest to his cause are now busily detaching themselves and attempting to scapegoat him for the problems that the Labour movement experienced.
In my opinion, for what it is worth, the right hon. Gentleman fought a very good election campaign. It was much better than anybody expected, because of the expectations that the tabloid press had raised. I thought he put the message across very well. I thought the message was wrong, and that was the judgment of the majority of constituents in my constituency and my part of the world. It is not the case that his performance had anything to do with the result. Apart from the great events in Scotland—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Apart from the remarkable, almost bizarre, events in Scotland—the SNP is equalled only by Syriza in Greece on economic policy—and the very welcome events in the south-west, which were also very unkind because I lost many good colleagues in government as a result, the underlying basis of the majority that we won, to most people’s surprise, was the judgment of sensible people on economic competence and our record on the economy.
I do not think the election campaign made very much difference to the result one way or the other. My part of the country, the east midlands, is thick with marginal seats. We won all of them and added gains by taking back Derby North. In the end, people saw what we had inherited economically and what we had done over the previous five years. They recognised our economic competence and accepted the message that the job had to be completed. When listening to the Labour party’s message, however it was presented, they simply decided that they could not take the risk of changing the Government. When the problem arose that the SNP would apparently be able to hold a Labour Government to ransom in what was bound, because of the tsunami in Scotland, to be a hung Parliament if Labour won, that made a little bit of difference, but the result was mainly down to economic competence.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that in individual constituencies, particularly Liberal Democrat-Conservative marginals, the fact that his party was often outspending my party by a factor of perhaps five to one made any difference to the election result?
Mr Clarke
I look forward to a little party political debate with the right hon. Gentleman again. As I have said, what decided the election was the coalition Government’s extraordinary record. It was a particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, closely assisted, as he said, by Danny Alexander, the former Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who was an excellent Chief Secretary, in getting the affairs of the nation back in order and steering us to some of the most successful economic results in the western developed world, which is what we have now.
What concerns us now, in this Parliament, is what judgment the public and history will make of this Government when they look back in five years’ time, or whenever. That will crucially depend on whether we finish the job and deliver the modern, more balanced, competitive economy that will give our children and grandchildren greater security and a better quality of life. That is the task we have set ourselves, and it is not going to be easy.
At the moment we are all enjoying the hubris of victory, as far as my party is concerned, or the relief of being back here just opposing, as far as the Opposition parties are concerned. On the surface the task looks easy, because at the moment our economy is growing more strongly than almost any other in the western world, employment is soaring because of our flexible labour market, which we should keep that way, our inflation is low, and real pay is at last beginning to rise as the benefits of recovery get through to every level of society. However, it would be a false assumption to think that it is plain sailing from now on, that everything will continue in that way and that the risks have vanished domestically and abroad, so we can take easy measures to reward those who voted for us. The world is not like that.
I take encouragement from what I took to be the Chancellor’s message. He has announced a July Budget, because he wants to take the opportunity while the economy is growing to take some of the tough and difficult decisions that the Government still have to take. I certainly encourage him to do so. In my part of the world—Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, the east midlands—the people who voted for us knew that there were still tough and difficult decisions to take. They were not seduced by the speeches of those whose only examples of what they intended to do were ways of spending money or rather short-term popular things. The sooner we get on with tackling the underlying problems—including, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has reassuringly just confirmed, the debt and the deficit—the better we will be able to get on with all the other things that need to be done, which will enable our economy steadily to get back on to a stronger and more secure footing.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Neil Carmichael
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Does he agree that one of the key tasks is to keep up the pressure to improve our skills agenda, so that we can ensure that our young people continue to contribute to a productive economy and increase our capacity to develop, innovate, research and develop and manufacture?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend anticipates some of the points I wish to make. I agree with everything he has just said. Tackling the deficit and debt, together with what he has just described and the other measures that we have committed ourselves to, is a genuinely one nation Conservative approach. Ever since I became active in politics, I have declared myself a one nation Conservative. The phrase has moved in and out of fashion a little in my time, but I have remained boringly consistent. In my view, it means free market economics combined with a social conscience, as well as a forceful internationalism that looks after Britain’s interests in the world and helps to spread our values.
On the economic front, the combination of fiscal discipline and economic competence, with measures such as taking the very lowest-paid out of tax altogether, easing the tax burden on the lower-paid, not taking people on ordinary incomes into higher rates of tax that should affect only the very wealthy, and the right to buy from those giant landlords the housing associations, which should be unlocking their resources to invest in more new social housing, gives the right one nation balance to the proposals we have put forward. As I have said, it is important that we get on with it, because this Session of Parliament is probably the best time to get some of the most formidable challenges out of the way and under our belt.
If I am sounding a little foreboding about what could go wrong, I should say that I do not foresee anything going wrong, but we will be lucky if no global shocks hit us. We have had five years of growth since 2010, with only a minor blip—not a recession—in 2012, and 10 years of uninterrupted growth would be pretty well a post-war miracle. It does not happen in the real world. We are doing better than any other western European nation, but that is based on the fact that we devalued by 25% when we had the crash—that has done us a bit of good, but not a great deal—and on a US recovery that is now looking rather feeble, as it was stimulated by quantitative easing, which is a dangerous thing. Our own recovery is not forcefully strong, and it was based on quantitative easing when that was necessary. Of course, we rely on interest rates, and they are the lowest they have been for 300 years, which is good for indebted countries.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr Clarke
I will not, because other Members want to speak. I enjoyed what the hon. Gentleman said yesterday, and I would like to give way to him, but not at the moment.
It will be surprising if we do not face difficult times. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken the deficit down to a little under 5% of GDP—far too high, and quite unsustainable, but practically half what we inherited. He paced it pragmatically, because five-year forecasts of where we will be are a complete waste of time, although people always produce them. So long as we have growth, we should press on with taking the deficit down now, because if we ever have a slowdown we will have no weapons to do anything about it. If the Chinese turn out not to have a soft landing, or if America goes wrong, we will not be able to help ourselves by having a fiscal stimulus when we have a 5% deficit. We will not be able to ease monetary policy with interest rates at practically zero. Now is the time to get on the with the task.
There is much more that I would like to say along the lines of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), because cutting the debt and deficit is not in itself a complete economic policy. It is the essential precondition for all the structural reforms that we still have to make so that we can make our economy modern and competitive. We have a long way to go, because as Members have said, our productivity performance is dreadful, our investment performance is recovering but remains rather poor, our trade and export performance is pretty dismal and we have an appalling current account deficit. In this modern, balanced economy, we have a long way to go.
We therefore require the right kind of European reform. The European Union has been the essential basis on which we have established our voice in the world and our current economic base. In my lifetime, it has had the most beneficial effect on both those things, which were in a pretty dreadful state until we joined, but it does require changes.
When the Prime Minister announced his referendum, in a very pro-European speech at Bloomberg, he set out an economic agenda for change. That remains the most essential reform that we require and desire, and it would benefit the rest of Europe, as well as us. That means completing the single market, which we have talked about and never done. It means an EU-US trade treaty, which we have an opportunity to get and which would boost investment, trade, jobs and activity on both sides of the Atlantic.
It means deregulation. The Barroso Commission talked about deregulation and got no support whatever from member states. The Governments of all member states, including Britain, tend to send people to Councils from various Departments who advocate more regulation—on transport, road safety, food safety, environmental standards, pollution and all the rest of it. Vice-President Timmermans wants to deregulate. We should compete with deregulating there by deregulating here to stimulate our economy.
Of course we can stop people coming here just to claim benefit—we have always been able to do so. There are other things we can do. The economic reforms, however, were the basis on which we started the negotiations and they remain the most important to us.
Beyond that, skills training and education reforms are still required. We have immigrants because we have to go Romania to recruit nurses—we do not train enough nurses of our own. Our construction industry would come to an end if Poles did not come here in the numbers they do. Skills training, education and higher education—every innovative business I know complains they cannot recruit people with the necessary skills to expand their business. It is one of their major constraints. We do not train and produce enough engineers. We need to get somewhere with giving STEM subjects a higher priority and so on.
I could go on. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] No, no. This is an agenda for a Parliament. It is tough agenda. Now that we have been re-elected, we have the ability to deliver it. The precondition is that we start well, and we start with getting rid of the deficit and debt restraints while we can. In July, we need an iron Chancellor. We need a bold and radical Government. We need a Government who are going to repeat the success of the past five years, measuring up to these enormous international challenges, to show that the United Kingdom can again have one of the strongest global economies in a totally changed globalised economy and a new world.
Amendment of the Law
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
We have always made a clear distinction between the basic recommendation on the minimum wage, which every Minister in my position has accepted, and some of the second-order questions. We have changed the recommendation on apprenticeships, and indeed others, but the recommendation on the basic minimum wage is fundamental and something that Ministers of both Governments have honoured. The Leader of the Opposition—for reasons that are unclear beyond anything other than political populism—now proposes to destroy that tradition, and that is very retrograde.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s experience of having opposed the minimum wage when it was proposed by the previous Government, although I now realise that was a mistake and have been converted to the value of it, given how it has worked. Does he agree that if the political debate follows what the shadow Chancellor wants, and each of the parties—all seven of them, no doubt—says what it would tell employers to pay as a minimum wage, we go back to the danger that I initially feared of unemployment being caused by bidding up, for vote-catching reasons, the basic pay of people trying to get into work?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, may I gently say that 23 Members wish to take part in this debate, and he has been speaking for nearly 35 minutes. I understand that he has generously taken lots of interventions, but will he perhaps think about all his colleagues who still wish to speak?
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
I shall provide an analysis of the new charter and why it is different from the old charter in a moment, but my hon. Friend is quite right. The Chancellor did not explain either that he had failed to meet the requirements of his charter in the current Parliament, or that he has now changed it for the next Parliament for reasons that are surprising and a bit confusing.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does the shadow Chancellor agree that all these fiscal forecasts are based on a forecast of spending reductions and growth in tax revenues and the economy? Does he agree that in 2010, no one on either side of the House, including him and including me, realised just how persistent the global problems were going to be and how grave the banking crisis was, and that therefore the growth that everyone—including him—expected to see was not achieved? The Government stuck to their spending plans, but could not achieve the growth forecast. Is the shadow Chancellor saying that in the middle of that grave crisis, when it was still persisting, a Labour Government would have cut our spending plans more dramatically in order to hit what he is now praising as our target?
Ed Balls
As ever, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got to the heart of the issue. Three factors can bring the deficit down: spending cuts, decisions to raise taxes, and what happens to the underlying growth of the economy and the tax revenues which flow from that. The Chancellor did not talk about the third factor, for understandable reasons.
Ed Balls
I will give way in a second, but I want to develop a point that the former Chancellor has helped me to make, about the relationship between receipts, growth and the deficit. Before the autumn statement, the OBR said that
“weaker-than-expected wage growth so far in 2014-15”
was
“depressing PAYE and NIC receipts.”
Then, in the autumn statement, it said, “We expect earnings growth to remain subdued for longer than in March. This is the key driver in the lower forecast for PAYE and NIC receipts.”
The Chancellor had to revise up borrowing this year because real wage growth has been revised down for this year, next year and the year after. In table 4.10 of its document, the OBR forecasts a cumulative loss even in relation to the Budget, and predicts that lost income tax and national insurance revenues alone will rise to £9 billion a year. The Chancellor does not understand that unless he can bring in receipts from income tax and NICs, from growth and wage growth, he will not succeed in meeting his targets without “colossal”—that is not my word, but the word used by the Institute for Fiscal Studies—cuts in public spending. The Chancellor has never really “got” the economy, and therefore he does not understand that point.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The shadow Chancellor is claiming to have a grip on economic reality which, with great respect, I do not think he had when he was in office, but on the point, which we are getting dangerously near to agreeing on, presumably he is not saying that when we had the growth forecasts not being met in those dark days three or four years ago we should have put up income tax, any more than he is saying we should have done anything other than stick to our spending reductions. Until conditions improve, we have to attack the structural problems. Has the right hon. Gentleman not noticed the banking reform, the banking regulation, the skills training, the education reforms, the support for small business, the introduction of research and development in technology? That is the real job, but fiscal responsibility is the essential precondition before any of those things work.
Ed Balls
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not going to pick over past debates, but when he led his party through the Lobby opposing Bank of England independence, well, that was then; and when he advocated Britain joining the single currency in 2003, well, that was then. We probably agree on other things these days.
Let me take the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the most recent OBR forecasts. He makes an important point about trend, and in 2010 the OBR forecast that the underlying growth in our economy—trend growth—would in this Parliament, in 2014, be 2.1%, but in its most recent document it has revised down the underlying trend in 2014 from 2.1% to 1.7%, so, despite the reforms he talks about, we have been going backwards in terms of trend growth and productivity.
On the other hand, if we can raise through reform—I will come to this in a moment—the underlying trend growth of the economy, we can turn this around. These are not my numbers; they are the OBR numbers. The numbers show that if we were able to increase the underlying trend growth of the economy by just 1%, so it was 1% higher by 2019, which is the equivalent of about 0.2%—
Mr Clarke
The shadow Chancellor is very generous, and I assure him that this is my last intervention. I am afraid I am not quite following this rambling textual analysis, so let me take him back to where I thought we were near to agreeing. He agrees that we were right to stick to our spending reductions and that further fiscal consolidation of the kind the Chancellor is describing is required. The shadow Chancellor’s case appears to be that he has some great plans that will increase our underlying growth rate in future, on top of those the Government already have. Is he going to set out these startling new plans in the remainder of his speech?
Ed Balls
I will do so. Let me just say, for the interest of the former Chancellor, because it was not like this in his day or when I was in the Treasury, that our trend rate of growth in 2014—1.17%—puts us 19th out of 34 countries in the OECD. We have a lower underlying trend than Chile, Israel, South Korea, Australia, Mexico and Poland—and the list goes on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is completely right: we have to find a way to strengthen the underlying growth of the economy.
Let me come on to Labour’s position. We will cut the deficit every year. We will get the current budget into surplus. We will get the national debt falling as soon as possible in the next Parliament, fully consistent with this fiscal charter. How fast we can do this will depend on what happens to growth, wages, the housing benefit bill and events around the world. But our approach will be very different from that of the Conservatives, on the following fronts. We believe, unlike the one-club Chancellor, that three different things need to be done to properly and fairly balance the books in the next Parliament.
First, as we have said, because we will cut the deficit every year, there will be sensible spending cuts in non-protected areas. We will cut the winter allowance, taking it away from the richest 5% of pensioners. We will cap child benefit at 1% for two years, and our zero-based review is examining every pound the Government spend in order to find savings. Secondly, we will make different and fairer choices, including reversing this Government’s £3 billion-a-year top-rate tax cut for people earning more than £150,000. Thirdly, our plan will deliver the rising living standards and stronger—
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
That last speech clarified the fact that the shadow Chancellor admits that fiscal consolidation of the kind we are describing will be necessary for whoever comes into office after May and that getting back to a balanced economy depends on continuing efforts to improve the underlying growth rate of the economy. He was not able to produce any specific ideas at all. The only things on to which I could latch were that he was going to put up the minimum wage and restore the completely pointless 50% tax rate on the very highest earners. If he thinks that that is an economic growth plan to stimulate our underlying trend in growth to the levels of Chile and Mexico, he is showing the same levels of competence that he displayed when he was the main economic adviser to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in the previous Government.
What we are talking about and what I hope we will get agreement on—I hope that the reality of this will dawn on the Labour party as a whole eventually—is that the essential pre-condition of any economic policy that will get this country back to healthy balanced growth is fiscal consolidation by eliminating the deficit, controlling the overall level of debt and, at the top of the cycle, running a surplus on the budget to get the stock of debt back to a manageable level. That is a message that the present Chancellor has been trying to get across in the four years that it has taken to get us to the position that we are in at the moment, which is much more successful than that of almost every other western democracy in similar troubles. If the Labour party has really taken that on board, at least it is beginning to be fit for office. But as far as I can see, it has no other policy.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The former Chancellor may remember that, in the 1920s, similar policies were followed and that, at the end of the 1920s, the debt was larger and we had a decade of unemployment and poverty. After the second world war precisely the opposite policy was adopted, and we had rapid growth, full employment and the debt came down.
Mr Clarke
No two crises are the same. The causes of the problems in the 1920s were quite different. The steps taken to stimulate demand then were too late. We have been running a deficit throughout these difficult times. We are not going into surplus until the next Parliament. As I have said, the circumstances in which the United Kingdom found itself trading are much more difficult than anybody predicted in 2010, but the idea that what we have done so far resembles anything that was done by the less successful Government in the 1930s is absolute nonsense. The idea that we are going back to the 1930s is also nonsense. The Labour Front Bench has just accepted that what has been proposed by the Chancellor is an essential pre-condition to any lasting success for the benefit of our children.
There are all kinds of other things, but I have no time to go into them. The structural changes that we, like many other Europeans with damaged economies, have got to go in for, and that we are going in for, include: bank regulation; skills training; education reform; and stimulating modern technological industry and businesses in this country. All of those are absolutely essential and include sensible infrastructure spending, which we are sustaining. Unless we get the deficit under control, we have no prospect of getting back to the kind of levels of growth to which we used to aspire. In fact, the debts we are running are rather easier to sustain with interest rates down to a 300 year-low. Once we go back to ordinary levels of interest, all those countries that have failed to tackle their underlying problems of fiscal discipline will find themselves in terrible, terrible trouble. This is a challenge for every western democracy, and it is a difficult message to get across in a democracy. The Greeks may be the latest population in danger of being seduced into not doing difficult things and living on other people’s money. That is very dangerous indeed. The next time that we have another crisis will be difficult because, with the present level of debt, we will have so little in reserve to draw upon to help us through.
The last Labour Government completely failed to foresee what happened, and I think that even now they do not quite understand where they went wrong. They ran a massive surplus during the dotcom bubble, because they stuck to my fiscal figures, and found their tax revenues were inflated for a time. Then, when the next South Sea bubble came around and we had the credit bubble and the credit crunch, they were still—at the top of crazy levels of growth—running a fiscal deficit. They borrowed, but claimed they did not have a deficit. Well, they did not have much of one in 2006, but once the crazy tax revenues from the City collapsed, they were left high and dry, with the full extent of their irresponsibility exposed. They had failed to regulate the mad borrowing and lending in the City of London just as the Americans had failed in Wall Street. It was free money, which their last Chancellor indulged in, and when the bubble burst they were caught.
Mr George Osborne
The former Chancellor is making a strong speech. He might remember that the Labour Government increased the trend growth rate—a decision that at the time was in the hands of the Treasury, rather than an independent OBR. That led them to spend more money and run a structural deficit—the highest, according to the IMF—during that period. Now, we have come full circle and the shadow Chancellor, who was an economic adviser at the time, is proposing exactly the same assumption to underlie his economic policy, so that he can spend and borrow more.
Mr Clarke
I entirely agree. The shadow Chancellor has done just the same today. In his way of looking at things, the future trend rate of growth will be what he says the future trend rate of growth has to be to justify his plans. I used to envy the Ministers in China, who did not have to worry about a national statistical office: what the Minister said the growth rate was now was what the statisticians told him his growth rate was.
Ed Balls
I am sure the former Chancellor knows that decisions on the trend rate of growth in previous Parliaments were not made by the Treasury; they were audited by the National Audit Office. They are now a matter for the OBR, not for the Treasury, but he agrees with me that that is what we should do.
Mr Clarke
A lot of people did not—I did not—foresee the full extent of the catastrophic crash that resulted from the combination of problems in both the regulation of banks and the credit markets and in fiscal policy that occurred under what, with hindsight, were the most irresponsible Government we have had since the war. I will not mention the invasion of Iraq—another matter they presided over.
Everybody has to have their targets and ambitions. My stated target when I was Chancellor was to balance the budget over the cycle, which is really where we are going back to and which I think is essential prudence. I also said we should not spend more than 40% of GDP—Conservatives before me had allowed spending to get above that. The Maastricht criteria were quite useful—the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath used to agree with them—but we have to have targets, and the new ones, in a more globalised economy, cannot return to where we were. The Chancellor has to respond to events, but I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved so far, and what he will achieve if he sticks to the charter.
Autumn Statement
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
With that performance, we see why the right hon. Gentleman is totally unfit to be put in charge of the nation’s finances in six months’ time. We have had an object lesson in how not to plan an autumn statement reply before hearing the autumn statement. That was what he expected to hear, as we know because he went round the TV studios over the past few weeks predicting it. He said that the deficit would go up this year. He said it last month, he said it last week, he said it on Sunday. I have his words. He said that the Chancellor is going to have to make an autumn statement where he is
“going to have to say that the economy is weakening, the deficit is getting larger”.
I have just quoted independent forecasts which show that the economy is stronger, the deficit is falling and the debt is lower in every future year. The shadow Chancellor got it completely wrong.
It is hardly surprising that his party has such low economic credibility when the shadow Chancellor repeatedly makes predictions about the British economy that turn out to be completely wrong. No more boom and bust, he said—wrong. A double-dip recession, he predicted—completely wrong. He has spent the past three months betting the entire credibility of the Labour party’s response to the autumn statement on the prediction of a massive deterioration in the public finances and the deficit going up, and he got that completely wrong. People say there is a split in the leadership of the Labour party. They are right. It is between people who get the deficit figures completely wrong and people who forget about the deficit altogether.
The Opposition have no economic credibility and they have policies that show that they are not up to the job. The shadow Chancellor mentioned his homes tax. We still do not know what the Labour party’s view is of the stamp duty reforms. I guess we will find out in the next few days. We do not have a clue what its views are on the postgraduate changes or the infrastructure investments that we have announced. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about his homes tax. This is what the Labour party thinks about his homes tax. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee says:
“I don’t think it’s the world’s most sensible idea.”
The former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), says that it hits the “cash poor”. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) says it is “a tax on London”, and the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) says:
“Let’s stop calling it a ‘mansion tax’…these are family homes”.
One of Labour’s council group leaders summed it up best when they said it was “completely bonkers”. That is the housing policy—to put taxes on housing.
The shadow Chancellor asked about our tax cut on apprentices. His jobs tax policy is to increase national insurance. He talks about pensions. His pensions policy is to tax pensions. He asked me a couple of questions about savings in the public finances. I was hoping that he was going to give me some suggestions for savings that we can make in the public finances. I have had to do a bit of research myself about what his party’s policy is.
The Opposition have conducted what is called a zero-based review for the past year and identified two surplus assets that the Government should sell. The first is the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. The shadow Chancellor first proposed selling that in 2001 and seems to have forgotten that it is the only bit of Government that pays us an income. The other thing they found to pay down the national debt—it is in the Labour party document—is a restaurant in St James’s park, estimated to be worth £6.7 million. That is 0.005% of the national debt, so their national economic policy is literally out to lunch.
That is the problem that we have seen in the right hon. Gentleman’s reply. He has absolutely no answers to the economic challenges that Britain faces. He has no credibility and no workable policies because Labour has no workable plan. We are five months away from a general election in which people will have to choose their Government. The most serious responsibility incumbent on anyone seeking office is to show that they can provide economic stability to the nation and protect the families who live here. The Opposition do not have a clue how to do that. They do not have a plan. Their whole response today shows that they would take Britain back to square one. Britain has pulled itself out of the economic crisis that the shadow Chancellor created, and we are not going to let him take us back there.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall, as I do, that the shadow Chancellor was the right-hand man of the Chancellor who presided over the credit crunch, the banking collapse and the incurring of the biggest deficit in the G20, and does he not find his conversion to rigid fiscal discipline and the pursuit of fiscal surpluses absolutely quaint and ridiculous?
On a more serious note, my right hon. Friend is proposing to devolve considerable powers, in a very welcome way and to varying degrees, to the different nations and cities of the United Kingdom. Can he reassure us that he will combine that with firm and enforceable commitments to financial responsibility so that he and the UK Treasury can retain overall responsibility for the stability of sterling and our economy, because not every local government Labour leader can be trusted to follow the clear and effective path that he has followed in getting our debt back under control?
Mr Osborne
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good observation about the shadow Chancellor’s career. I should pay tribute—probably for the first time—to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who this week announced his retirement: first, for his commitment to advancing international development and to British aid, which I fully support; and secondly, because when he was shadow Chancellor, as we all remember, he built up a really compelling case for fiscal discipline. That, in part, is why the Labour party won the 1997 general election. That stands in such marked contrast to the shambles we see from the pair sitting opposite me now, who subsequently advised him.
On my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor’s good point about devolution, of course both local government and the different nations of the United Kingdom—the devolution arrangements apply to both—will have in place robust arrangements that protect taxpayers across the United Kingdom. That is certainly an important part of the Smith commission report and how we must take it forward. It is also at the heart of the devolution settlements that we have discussed with English local authorities.
EU Budget (Surcharge)
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which is why I made the point at the end of my remarks that the whole episode demonstrated why we needed reform in Europe. She, of course, is one of a growing number of Labour MPs who join us in wanting to see that referendum—I hope she can persuade the Labour Front-Bench team.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does the Chancellor agree that whatever deal he had obtained last Friday—even if he had come back bearing sackfuls of tribute in gold—it was wholly predictable that hard-line Eurosceptics would immediately say that this was robbery by Brussels and that the shadow Chancellor would immediately claim that, in some mysterious way, he could have produced some superior outcome for this country? Would the Chancellor accept my congratulations on a surprisingly good result that he achieved at that meeting, which I strongly suspect was a friendly discussion between 28 Finance Ministers and a Commissioner on a technical subject, and did not resemble the gunfight at the O. K. Corral, which is how everybody has to present European Council meetings and the debates we have on these subjects in this House?
Mr Osborne
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his support; he is not always fulsome in his support of our European policies, so that is particularly appreciated. He is right that around the table were other members states that had been hit by this very large payment—the Dutch, the Italians, the Greeks and others—and therefore there was a lot of sympathy for trying to change the rules. In parallel, as he would know, there is a discussion with the Commission about the British rebate, which is properly a matter for the discussion with the Commission rather than ECOFIN.