Jobs and Growth

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that intervention.

Labour Members may be rejoicing in their election results, but before they start measuring the curtains for No. 10 it is worth noting that they fell well below the magic number of 40%. That suggests that those results were more about sending a message to the Government of the day than voting for an alternative. Of course people are worried about jobs, the cost of living, rising fuel prices and generally making ends meet, and we must not lose sight of that. The results therefore reflect a backlash against the establishment which is having to implement these very difficult decisions.

Three observations can be drawn from the results. First, such backlashes are often witnessed. Back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, she went down to 24% in the polls but then continued to win general elections. Likewise, in 2000 the Tories managed to get 40% only to lose the general election in 2001. Secondly, the electorate should be cautious about listening to Labour’s alternative economic strategy of spending more, because it is that sort of irresponsible stewardship that got us into the financial crisis in the first place. Thirdly, the Government need to listen and must not be distracted by less important issues. They must focus on the priorities of the economy, education, welfare, reducing crime, and the NHS.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. I know that he has a great interest in tourism and leisure. Does he agree that it is imperative that the Government make a decision soon on airport capacity in the United Kingdom, in particular in the south-east, to drive economic growth, jobs and the renaissance of our economy over the coming years?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a busy year for tourism in Britain and we must get those aspects right. This is not the first time that those points have been mentioned in this debate, and I think that the Chancellor has taken them on board.

The other thing I would like to point out about the local elections—this will be the same in future elections—is the deluge of news that has been thrown at us by the 24-hour news industry. We must think about how the message is managed, not just about the message itself. The Budget is remembered more for Labour’s sensationalist catchphrases, which have been heard again today, than for its game-changing announcements, such as the increase in the personal allowance, which will affect 24 million people; the largest single rise in pensions ever; and the cuts in corporation tax, which make us the most competitive country in the G8.

The latest phrase that Labour is peddling, which has leaked into the media, is “double-dip recession”. If I took my son, Alex, to the fairground and we went on a rollercoaster called “The Double Dip”, he would be pretty disappointed—even at the age of three—if the second dip was eight times smaller than the first. Labour is being disingenuous with the figures and undermines our economy by constantly peddling that phrase. [Interruption.] I hear Labour Members grumbling, so perhaps we should look at the figures. The Q1 results for 2012 were better than the GDP growth results for 2011, which suggests that the graph is going in the right direction.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect he is one of the few Opposition Members who supported the 50p rate throughout the period of the Labour Government, and is not one of the late converts that many of his hon. Friends have become.

As I have said, it is important that we create the right competitive conditions for business to flourish, and this Government will continue to invest in our nation’s future. We have announced that we will take forward many of Alan Cook’s recommendations on roads and develop a national roads strategy; we have confirmed investment to provide ultrafast broadband to 10 cities across the UK, with a second wave of cities to be identified in future; and we will continue to support the establishment of a new pension infrastructure platform to unlock an initial £2 billion of investment by as early as 2013.

However, a return to prosperity in the UK depends not only on what is happening here, but on what happens beyond our shores.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a coherent argument, but we have been told on many occasions that what happens in the eurozone is important for exports. Without any monetary stimulus, and without major fiscal changes or major structural reforms, how can a cumulative 3% year-on-year reduction of budgets in southern Europe in countries such as Portugal, Greece and Italy possibly assist us in growing our economy out of the recession of the past few years?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend needs to recognise that, in several countries that have a programme in place, there is a requirement to make structural reforms. A number of member states are already embracing structural reforms, tackling issues such as restrictions on the labour market and looking at ways to tackle the burden of regulation. We are seeing the structural reform that goes hand in hand with fiscal consolidation to create a stable and sustainable platform for economic growth. Here in the UK, we are undergoing fiscal consolidation, but at the same time we are engaging in supply-side reforms to help stimulate growth in the economy. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. Indeed, they need to go hand in hand if we are to deliver growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In any economy where there is economic change, there will be a political debate, and that political debate is helpful.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being his normal generous self. Do we not have a responsibility to the millions of young people in southern Europe who are on the edge of penury and economic misery, essentially because of this institutionalised, obdurate approach, principally from the Germans, and the failure to accept that the European Central Bank should be the lender of last resort? This political project, which the euro is, is plunging millions of working people in southern Europe into poverty for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. Surely we have a moral duty not to be complicit.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend would, I think, be the first to criticise other member states seeking to lecture us on our economic policy, so we need to be careful not to lecture them either. As I said, there is the political will in the eurozone to keep the euro, and its actions are consistent with that. Whether through closer fiscal integration or increased firepower for the European stability mechanism, those signs are there. The fiscal compact is a significant step towards closer fiscal integration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I am afraid that I am not surprised to hear that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman spends a great deal of time and effort monitoring how these issues progress. Personally, I feel we need to find ways of supporting and stabilising the situation in the eurozone, but I do not think that the Government’s strategy is the right way to do that. However, I digress.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I feel it appropriate to give the shadow Minister some friendly advice. One reason why my party was not credible on the economy until quite a few years after we lost the election was that in many respects we did not face up to the fact of the legacy we left. I remind him that he really should be looking at the wider picture of Europe rather than focusing on the national situation here. The fact is that real-terms public expenditure rose by 53% from £450 billion to £700 billion between 2000 and 2010. His party ran a structural deficit in times of economic growth. That is the situation in which we find ourselves now.

[Chris Leslie]

I obviously disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment, but he made an important point earlier about the plight of those who are suffering as a result of the austerity approach being applied in southern European countries in particular. I worry greatly about that; it is a matter of concern. It is also a concern, however, for our constituents here in the UK. We take a different approach on principle about the right ways to repair our economy. We believe that a stronger emphasis on growth is necessary to generate revenues; it is not just about public expenditure cuts, which do not provide the way out of the situation. I also disagree that the motion is a general debate about the state of the European economies. We are debating whether the Red Book provides a right, accurate, fair and good assessment of the state of the British economy such that we can submit it, as we are required to do by the treaties, to the European Commission. I am simply following the strictures placed on us by the Maastricht treaty.

IMF

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

No it is not, and there is no connection between the two matters. An IMF loan comes out of our foreign exchange reserves. That has been the case under Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and this coalition Government. It is a contingent loan that will be drawn upon if the IMF needs resources. We swap our foreign exchange asset for the IMF loan. The Chief Secretary said what he did today because we are trying to get a grip on the public finances. To do that, we have to ensure that Departments can deal with their own contingencies, as and when they arrive.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

We all know that what we are discussing is state-sponsored money laundering to prop up the failed and doomed European project called the euro. The deal does not come without a heavy human cost. In southern Europe, it means the imposition of a net tightening of 3% per year, yet there is no monetary stimulus to offset that, no demand for growth in the rest of Europe and no demand for structural reforms. Why is the Chancellor throwing the good money of UK taxpayers after bad for this economic madness?

[Mr Osborne]

This money comes out of Britain’s foreign exchange reserves and is swapped for an IMF loan. It is therefore not money that we would otherwise spend on public services or use to cut taxes. My hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the countries that are having to undertake difficult structural reforms. For example, Spain has recently passed significant reforms to its labour laws to make its employment market more flexible and Italy has made difficult pension reforms. People will remember the scenes in Italy when those reforms were announced a few months ago. Britain is also having to make difficult reforms and take difficult decisions to make our economy more competitive and to deal with the problems in our public finances.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Even during the International Monetary Fund crisis in the mid-1970s, things never got so tough that the Government of the day felt the need to interfere with child benefit. It was a reflection of the fact that families with children had higher costs than those without.

The proposals will create all sorts of perverse incentives, and the people who want to try to avoid the measures will have a field day. This has been well covered by the Treasury Select Committee’s recent report, as well as by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and other expert bodies. The fundamental issue is the proposals’ lack of fairness, as between one family and another.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The Centre for Social Justice says that the Government’s policy

“could threaten a new wave of family instability and breakdown”,

and that it

“flies in the face of their commitment to ‘shared parenting’.”

Does my hon. Friend find it incongruous that that policy is being pursued at the same time as the Government are failing to honour their commitment to introduce marriage or family tax breaks in this or future Budgets?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point, which was also covered in the recent Adjournment debate on this subject, which received what I can describe only as a rather woolly response from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke). He said that, basically, something was going to happen in this Parliament but the Government were not quite sure what or when. That was not good enough. We need an opportunity to look at the whole issue of transferrable tax allowances, and allowances in the tax and benefit system that recognise the family and marriage.

Returning to the issue of fairness, two people on £50,000 a year with children will not have to pay the high income child benefit charge, whereas a family with children with one person earning over £60,000 will have to pay it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman—he said he had some sympathy with my points, so I do not want to be entirely negative in response—we will not solve the complexities of the taxation system by adding even more complexities that are unfair to families and will affect children negatively.

Let me put one final issue on the record. People who are not in work and who receive child benefit for a child under 12 receive national insurance credits to enable them to build up entitlement to state pensions. The Government’s original announcement led to concerns about the impact on future pension entitlements of women, in particular, if families stopped claiming child benefit. The Government said from the outset that no one would miss out on national insurance credits as a result of the child benefit changes, but it is unclear how they proposed to ensure that. Under the latest proposals, people who are entitled to child benefit and families affected by this charge may elect not to receive it, but a claim for child benefit will still need to be made in order to receive national insurance credits. Information published by HMRC confirms that.

I am extremely conscious of the time so I will not say anything more, other than that I think that everybody should listen carefully to the debate and to the points that have been made. When Members consider how to vote, they should consider both the principles involved of support for families with children as well as the layers of complexity and confusion there will be if the proposal goes through.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I had not intended to speak in this debate so I shall keep my remarks brief. I do not have at my fingertips the comprehensive figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) gave; he made some cogent and powerful points. From my point of view it is always a very risky endeavour when a political idea is fleshed out to become a fiscal policy of any Government. The remarks made just after the general election at the Conservative party conference were really an aspiration that is now being turned into a policy. I believe that this policy is a fiscal time bomb that will blow up in the faces of this Government. I also believe that what we are doing—[Interruption.]

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking.

[Mr Jackson]

I defer to the parliamentary private secretary to the Financial Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). [Interruption.] At least he is at the moment.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made a very important point about crossing the Rubicon of undermining the universality of child benefit. The same point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Some time ago, the Child Poverty Action Group said this about child benefit:

“A benefit which goes to virtually all children is of course expensive. But it can also be argued that it is more likely that such a benefit will have ‘substantial and wide-ranging support’, and may be difficult to abolish; provision for the poorest children only, whilst cheaper, is often more precarious.”

Specifically, intergenerational redistribution and the value placed on children are universal values that we are seeking to undermine.

[Harriett Baldwin]

What would my hon. Friend say, though, about the example of two wealthy Americans who have four children born in this country who receive child benefit tax-free from the UK Treasury, but have to pay tax on it to the internal revenue service?

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I accept her argument, but we need to look at this proposal within the context of the wider proposals in the Budget. We are rightly reducing the top rate of tax and corporation tax, so for those in the upper 20% income range we have introduced fiscal policies through which we seek to support entrepreneurship and business, supporting those higher-rate earners. We are also proud to be taking a substantial number of poorly paid working people out of tax. My concern is that we are not extending those same tax breaks to the squeezed middle and it is a very important message that we are sending. I accept that the Chancellor has tackled the specific issue of the cliff-edge effect, but he has not done enough to secure my vote in terms of the discrepancy regarding the one taxpayer in a two-person household.

[Mark Reckless]

A rather larger category than that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is the very minimum of £62 million a year—and I suspect much more—that is paid to children who are resident elsewhere in the European Union where costs are much cheaper, many of whom have never even visited the UK.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely apposite point. If we really are all in this together, it beggars belief for my constituents and his that we are talking about looking after the interests of people on low or median incomes but are remitting abroad, within the European Union, anything between £40 million and £75 million in various benefits for people and families who do not even live in this country.

It would not be fair not to mention that the Chancellor has sought to ameliorate the concerns that various Members across the House have expressed about this policy and I give him due credit for that. Unfortunately, however, I think this policy will go badly wrong and will have a specific impact on aspirational, ambitious families and will breach the basic tenet of universality in child benefit. For that reason, I cannot and will not vote for it.

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

Order. I must call the Minister at 5.48.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

I certainly applaud measures to give young people the opportunity to take out loans to start up businesses, but even people with immense experience are finding it incredibly difficult to do that. There is just not the right climate at the moment to start a business. I would like to see more stimulus for the economy so that people who want to establish start-ups have a viable chance of making a success of them. At the moment, it is terribly difficult for anybody to sell anything to anyone or to persuade anyone to part with their money, which is the essence of getting a business going.

In Wales, we are trying to create jobs for young people; we are also investing money in infrastructure projects, again within the limitations of the Welsh budget. The Welsh Minister for Business, Enterprise, Technology and Science is providing grants and loans to companies to help them to expand and get their businesses going, because we are having so much difficulty with the banks. For example, in my constituency, Tallent Automotive has received money to keep workers in work, which people are very pleased about, and EBS Automation, a very enterprising engineering firm, has received money to expand, which means new jobs for young people in a high-skilled field. Those are the sorts of programme that I would like to see from the UK Government. What the Welsh Government can do affects only a small part of the economy in Wales. I would like to see the same kind of stimulus across the UK. First and foremost, my concern is about the lack of a coherent growth strategy.

Consumer confidence remains low. Many people fear that they may lose their job or have their hours cut. People have been hit hard by rising prices, which have been compounded by the VAT rise. Obviously, people on low and modest incomes have little spare income to put by, so their money goes straight back into the local economy. That contrasts with the money given away to millionaires at the top, who do not have to do anything with it immediately and do not know what they will do with it. They know that there is no benefit to them from putting it back into the local economy.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

What does the hon. Lady say to the 810,000 people in the eastern region who are better off because their tax allowance has been altered? Those are low-paid working people who have had a stimulus and are spending the money locally as a result of the measures in the Budget.

[Nia Griffith]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening earlier, he would have heard me explain that those people have already lost that money through the VAT increase. That is a stealth tax and a regressive tax, which always affects the least well-off the most. Many of the people who will get a little more in their pay packet because they will pay a little less tax when the personal allowance goes up will find that because of other taxes that have been implemented, they have lost that money already. Sadly, those people will not do so well.

The personal allowance helps people nearly all the way up the income scale, particularly those in two-income families. Frankly, although it is an expensive measure, it is not a well targeted one. As I mentioned, I would have liked to keep the tax credits system, which helped those who really needed it and took account of people’s different circumstances because it was based on the household income.

There is nothing to incentivise people to put their money back into the local economy and nothing to encourage people to unlock their savings and help the economy. We had the car scrappage scheme, so that people who were planning to buy a car that would last them for the next 10 or 12 years would bring the purchase forward by a year or two to take part in the scheme. We did the same thing with the replacement of boilers. Those schemes were introduced specifically to get the economy going. What have this Government done? They have thrown out of the window the one such scheme that they did have, which was the solar panels scheme, under which people were unlocking £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 of their savings and spending it immediately in the local economy. Even if the panels were not made locally, all the fitting work to install the solar panels was done by skilled plumbers and craftsmen, so the money went directly into the local economy.

The Government completely messed that scheme up and destroyed the industry’s confidence by incompetently changing the rules before the consultation was finished. They did not scale the scheme down in a sensible way, as the industry had asked. People in the industry accepted that the tariff would change over time, but they could not stomach being treated like idiots. The Government just said, “We’re going to change all this,” even though people had invested a lot of money. Some people had spent £3,000 on a course learning how to convert from being an ordinary central heating plumber to a solar panel installer. Some firms had expanded for the purpose, and firms in my constituency are laying people off because of the ridiculous changes.

What other scheme do the Government have in mind to get people to unlock their savings for an excellent investment that is environmentally friendly and provides local jobs? We have not seen such a scheme in the Budget. We have made some suggestions, but it seems that the Chancellor has ignored them. For example, we suggested a cut in VAT on repairs and improvements to houses. With the construction industry on its knees, that would have enabled plumbers, carpenters, electricians, plasterers and so on to find extra work, and people would have been encouraged to take on home improvements. What did the Chancellor do? The exact reverse. He slapped additional VAT on alterations to listed buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that over the whole country, 4.4 million pensioners who earn between £10,000 and £29,000 will be affected, including a huge number in my constituency.

People are incensed—not just pensioners but their friends and relatives. They say, “This is how it’s been since the 1920s, and the change came from nowhere.” Older people like to plan; they tend to be careful and like to know what will happen. In a Budget that was leaked and leaked, this change was just pulled out of a hat like some dreadful spotted rabbit. People were appalled, given all the emphasis that had been put on other measures that might be in the Budget.

Pensioners have to face that on top of losing their winter fuel allowance, which was a universal benefit and very useful for all manner of pensioners. We are talking about pensioners who have put by a little money and made some provision for their old age. They feel aggrieved because they have tried to do the right thing. They have been hit by the VAT rises. They have been lucky that it has been a mild winter this year, but they all tell me, “Look at my electricity and gas bills.” What are the Government doing to control energy prices? Absolutely nothing. Prices have gone through the roof even though the weather has been milder than last year, and pensioners are struggling to pay those bills. Then there is the fiasco at the petrol pumps. People had already been hit by mid-March with very high petrol and diesel prices, when suddenly the Government inflamed the situation by telling everyone to rush out and panic buy. Of course, everyone now faces even higher, inflated prices at the petrol pump.

Pensioners have been hit time and again. For those on a fixed income when interest rates are low, the rampant inflation that we have experienced is particularly hurtful. Again, pensioners have been badly affected. All in all, there is a feeling that the Budget takes from the wrong people. It takes from people who spend their money locally, tend to be careful with their money, and have saved. They spend a certain amount on their grandchildren, but they will have less money to do that—all to fund the cut in the 50p tax rate for those who earn more than £150,000. For some people who earn millions, it will mean that they are not just hundreds but thousands and tens of thousands of pounds better off. That is extremely unfair.

The people I meet ask why that is happening and why we are not all in it together. They ask why the 50p rate is not kept so that there is a fairer distribution of taxes across society.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I must remind the hon. Lady about the deficit. The previous Labour Government ran a structural and a cyclical deficit before the financial crisis. Between 2000 and 2010, they increased public expenditure in real terms by 53%, yet managed to double youth unemployment. The hon. Lady extols the virtue of Keynesian economics and growth management, but we have to deal with the deficit, and that is why we must make such difficult decisions.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, until 2008, we were reducing the national debt. Obviously, when a world crisis occurs, a stimulus must be provided. By the time we left government in 2010, the economy was beginning to pick up. It has flatlined since. We gave the Government the opportunity on a plate to try to get things going, but they squandered it and have put us back behind the starting posts. We are now in a truly difficult situation because getting things going again will be much harder.

The Budget has the wrong priorities. We do not seem to be getting the economy going and we are not putting money where it needs to go. Instead, we seem to be giving it away frivolously and stupidly. The money that is used for tax cuts for the wealthy should be put into stimulating the economy so that everybody can have a share of the wealth.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting debate, although we have not heard too much about transport, despite that being the theme for today. I suppose that that is a feature of Budget debates, but I suspect that it is also down to the fact that the Budget did not contain that much about transport. I am therefore not going to delay the House too much by talking about transport but will talk about the broader measures and about the Chancellor in the broader context.

People say that the Chancellor is a man who already worries a lot about his legacy, despite it being very early in his Chancellorship. I suspect that explains the volume of leaks, which reported that he wanted this to be remembered very much as a watershed Budget. The word used in the press quite a bit was “Lawsonian”, which I understand is a compliment where he comes from. Well, it was a watershed Budget and it will be remembered—there is no doubt about that—but perhaps not for the reasons he wanted and not in the manner he anticipated.

It was a watershed Budget for two key reasons. First, it shattered, once and for all, the illusion that this Chancellor is a master of political tactics or economic strategy. The only masters are the masters of the universe, down the road in the City, who will be thanking him for this Budget. They might be the people who think he is still smart about economic theory. I hate to tell him, but the only vanity that is burning right now is his own, on the front pages of the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and all the other newspapers in which I read this morning that one Tory Back Bencher, who remained nameless—I cannot think why he wanted to remain anonymous—said:

“Everybody was saying George is a great economic strategist and political strategist and how unique he is to have both skills: that is going to be questioned. In fact, colleagues already are.”

More important, this Budget was a watershed because it gave the lie, once and for all—[Laughter.] The laughter indicates that Government Members are not worried about this in any way, shape or form. However, the Budget gave the lie to the notion that we are all in it together in this country in a period of austerity, because after this Budget we clearly are not. Clearly after this Budget, the old Tory order is restored and some people in our society are, in their view, more equal than others.

The themes the Chancellor sought to pursue in his speech were that his Budget would be simple, predictable and fair—that was how he described it just a couple of days ago. This morning, the Institute for Fiscal Studies described it as a “hotch-potch” of reforms that

“may turn out to be less fiscally neutral than intended”.

It is hard to disagree with that conclusion from the independent IFS, because everywhere one looks in the Budget one finds measures that are mis-described, such as the tax increase on pensioners that is described as a simplification, and outcomes that are overstated. We have heard a lot today about this being a Budget for business, but according to the OBR, it is resulting in a 0.7% reduction in business investment this year, which is down 7% on the anticipated volume of business investment over the past year.

Crucially, numbers have been massaged throughout the Budget or just plain made up—guessed at—on the basis of Arthur Laffer’s famous cocktail napkin curve. I am afraid that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) will find that numbers in the Budget will fall apart.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

In a moment.

Those numbers are absolutely crucial to the debate because they are crucial to the claims of fairness and fiscal neutrality. The key number is that relating to the 50p rate costing only £100 million, because the OBR endorses HMRC’s findings. That is what the Government estimate will be the long-run annual cost to the Treasury of cutting the 50p rate. The Chancellor swept the number aside the other day as though it were nothing, just as he swept aside with an imperious flourish of his hand the £1 billion that we actually saw going into the Exchequer in the first year of the 50p rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate and to reinforce, at the end of the first few days of Budget discussions, the Government’s determination to restore the UK to prosperity.

I regret that you have not been here for the whole debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the day, we have heard from the Opposition, in general terms, vacuousness, hypocrisy and a lack of ideas. Specifically, the efforts from the Front Bench of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) show no grasp of the situation. I note he continued to put forward the view that child benefit should continue for millionaires. That is not something that the Government support.

As the House is already aware, it is because of decisive action that this Government have taken since the June Budget of 2010 that we have secured and maintained the stability of the UK economy. This year’s Budget builds on that strong foundation; it safeguards our economic stability; it creates a fairer, more efficient and simpler tax system; and it drives through reforms to unleash the private sector enterprise and ambition that is critical to our recovery.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is being rather shy about sharing the good news this week? Because of this Government’s decisions on the tax and regulatory reform and regime, GlaxoSmithKline is going to provide £0.5 billion and 1,000 jobs to his constituency.

[Miss Smith]

That is right, and the word I would use is “churlish.” Perhaps the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) will justify now why he does not welcome that type of investment.

Amendment of the Law

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

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

[Andrew Bridgen]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman refers to interest payments, but he knows that on that score this Government are paying out £150 billion more than they predicted, so his argument does not hold up.

A Budget is a mechanism for the distribution and allocation of scarce resources, so let us examine what this Budget means for a child born today. A child born in my constituency today brings us this message: “By the time I reach my 18th birthday, the world will require 30% more fresh water, 45% more energy and 50% more food.” This child is part of the generation that will see the global population move from 7 billion to 10 billion people. How do we respond to this child? Do we become the most selfish generation of the most selfish species in our planet’s history? Or do we become the generation that understood that justice and sustainability are essentially the same thing? If you want peace in the world, create justice. If you want justice, live sustainably.

We must get away from both sides of the political divide arguing that they uniquely possess the key to growth. We listen to the stale arguments about whether more spending now will raise growth and reduce the deficit more quickly, or whether less borrowing now will ultimately be a surer path to bring our economy back into GDP growth. But what both sides are talking about is yesterday’s economics: Hayek pitted against Keynes.

The Chancellor wants to set markets free and insists that we cannot spend our way out of debt, but he wilfully ignores Hayek’s equal insistence that the boom gets started with an expansion of credit—the very liquidity that the Chancellor has told the banks they must provide for business. Hayek would have been appalled to find his theories invoked by a Chancellor literally printing money through quantitative easing. In Hayek’s view, that leads only to unrealistically low interest rates and to the cycle of boom and bust starting all over again.

Keynes of course believed in consumption-led growth as an economic stimulus, but he did not live in a world of 7 billion people. He assumed that growth was sustainable and natural resource was, for practical purposes, infinite. We know that it is not. As a result, we have an obligation to make sure that growth is sustainable, not simply to assume that it will be.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a cogent and interesting argument. We all agree that we should give 0.7% of our GDP to international development. Surely he will concede that unless we grow our GDP, the absolute amount of cash that we have to give to good causes across the world, in supporting sustainability, will not be enough to do the things that he wants to do.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman precisely misconstrues my point; the issue is not about the amount of aid given to developing countries, but about understanding the valuation of natural capital and incorporating that into the Government’s accounting framework. That is in the natural environment White Paper, if he cares to read it.

In a world of 7 billion people, growth can be sustainable only if it is predicated on advances that bring increased productivity and greater efficiency in the use of resources. That is what Hayek would have called a sound capital structure and proper allocation of capital. For the world to continue to achieve a 3% per annum growth target, and to maintain a trajectory that keeps carbon emissions below the 2°C threshold of dangerous climate change, we must increase our productivity per tonne of carbon emitted 15 times over.

The Budget simply does not address that technological challenge. It was extraordinary to see the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change join forces with the Treasury last Friday evening and issue a press release at 6 pm, embargoed until midnight, to exempt gas-fired power stations from the emissions controls set out in the fourth carbon budget by the Committee on Climate Change. Those emissions reductions were, in the Committee’s view, part of the necessary regulatory framework for achieving our target of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2050.

The press release set out no alternative mechanisms that would be adopted to keep to those targets and no Minister has sought to expand on the issue since last week. It is a measure of the shame that the Government felt on reneging on the fourth carbon budget that they issued their press release in such a furtive manner. What is worse, what happened shows that the new Energy Secretary has no command over his brief and has been fingered by the Treasury as a weak Secretary of State.

Since William Ewart Gladstone instituted the modern accounting and budgetary processes of the House of Commons 150 years ago, modern economics has come a long way in its understanding of capital. In Gladstone’s day, the notion of capital was very simple; it represented money and machinery. Gradually, we have come to realise that capital is not just money and plant. We have developed sophisticated concepts of social and intellectual capital. We know that a well functioning legal system is very much a part of the wealth of a society, inviting commerce and trade to practise where certainty and redress prevail. That is certainly a form of capital different from a bridge, printing press or motorway, but we now measure them all in our assessment of the national wealth of a country.

Resource economists now point out that we have left out of our economic calculations perhaps the most important capital of all: natural capital. We have left it out for a very simple reason—we always took it for granted. We thought that it was a free good. It cost us nothing and we assumed the supply was infinite. In the language of classical economics, natural capital was a mere externality, “as free as the air you breathe”.

What we have now begun to realise is that the air we breathe is not actually free—at least, it is not without a quantifiable value. Any sound cost-benefit analysis of public policy must take that value into account. The Environmental Audit Committee report on air pollution estimated that the costs from air pollution are up to £20.2 billion. That is the cost of respiratory and other diseases associated with poor air quality, both in treatment and lost productivity.

The natural environment provides not just a physical stock of resources—forests and fish, minerals and fresh water that human beings depend on—but a network of services essential for human life. The pollination of our crops by insects, the stabilisation of our soil by trees and the regulation of our watershed by peat bogs are just some of the ecosystem services that a new economic model must begin to incorporate into our Government’s accounting framework. That new accounting renders inadequate the concept of GDP growth because it reveals one of the central conundrums of classical economics: that a country can become poorer while increasing its GDP.

The Chancellor said nothing today that showed that he understood that. Another important consideration is that those wider benefits, although immensely valuable, do not accrue to an individual private property owner; they are experienced by a community at large. They are regarded as free goods by the wider community, and in classical economics as externalities, and because they are not directly captured by a landowner they rarely feature in a landowner’s decision on how or whether to dispose of them. That is why the exercise of private property rights can often be to the public detriment. It is also why the role of the state in regulating the disposal of land is so important. Today we have heard much talk of stamp duty and how to raise revenue from the rich. It therefore seems quaint that no one has commented on the fact that the land registry for England, which was established in 1928, still accounts for only some 64% of the land in England, while in the registry for Scotland the figure drops to a mere 21%.

Of course, there is a reason why almost a century later we have not yet been able properly to map the title of land in the UK—it is that so much of it has never been sold but has been passed down in families, from parent to child, in enormous estates. If the Government genuinely want to raise tax from the very wealthy, they should examine not only houses sold for over £2 million but the vast tracts of our country that have been accumulated in great estates for centuries and are still owned and managed not for the benefit of the population at large but to maximise the income and pleasure of a very few private individuals. I do not claim that all hereditary estates are badly managed in respect of the environment, but I do claim that good management comes not only as a result of inheritance. Land tax reform is long overdue. If we wish to become a more equal society, then we need to consider the taxation of land and land use in different and more imaginative ways, for the benefit of society as a whole.

The Chancellor sought in his Budget to bury another important piece of environmental news. Next Tuesday, the new national planning policy framework is published. That deserves our attention not least because we know that the Chancellor takes the view that the planning system is a blockage to economic growth. The NPPF will cause havoc up and down the country as planning uncertainty and ambiguity filters down to local communities. Fundamental to the new framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In practice, this means—

Remuneration of EU Staff

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a useful point that I will address in greater detail later.

Being somewhat older than the Minister, I can recall the days when the so-called Eurocrats were high on the hit list of public anger, as salaries and conditions in European institutions were perceived to be far more generous than those enjoyed at home. Some of the most highly paid officials might be relieved that they are no longer the focus of that anger as bankers and others have taken over. However, the subject of EU salaries and pensions remains important. As the European Scrutiny Committee has highlighted, it is clear that this subject needs greater clarity and resolution. As we have heard, the Commission took the Council to the Court over EU salaries and pensions in 2009, and only last month it announced its intention to do so again. In advance of today’s debate, I asked the House of Commons Library about the costs involved in the last case. I was told:

“There is no straightforward way of getting a figure for the costs borne by the Council in Case C-40/10.”

I was also told that the Library had attempted to obtain information, but the Court had said that

“replying would be a massive undertaking that will require all sorts of cost allocation analyses (within the Commission’s legal service and the European Court of Justice), at great expense to European taxpayers”.

The Court might be unable to tell us exactly how much that wrangling cost, but it is clear that any legal fight will have come at great expense to the taxpayer. The questions that taxpayers will no doubt ask is whether that ping-pong between the Commission and the Council is really the best way to resolve such matters, and I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to that. However, taxpayers will want to know exactly what the Government have done in the past year to push for reform so that we are not faced with this annual tit for tat and ongoing uncertainty.

The second area of major concern for the European Scrutiny Committee was the Commission’s decision not to provide for an alternative salary adjustment in its 2011 report and the basis on which that decision was taken. Members of the Scrutiny Committee amplified their concerns in the conclusions of their report of 2 November by describing the assessment required of the Commission in considering the exception clause as appearing to be a one-sided exercise.

There are different opinions on Europe across the political parties, and indeed within them, but there is one thing that I am sure we can agree on: times are now tough across Europe. GDP fell throughout Europe at the end of the previous quarter, unemployment in the eurozone is at a record high and we continue to face uncertainty surrounding the eurozone crisis. In reality, apart from those at the very top, people in work in both the public and private sectors are already experiencing those tough times, and families are bearing the brunt. Every day we hear that small business are struggling, and they consistently report that they cannot get the finance that they need or, indeed, previously had. It is becoming harder and harder for people to buy their first home, with the deposits required now out of reach for many young people starting out in family life.

Yet, despite that wider economic climate, the Commission did not deem the general economic outlook in Europe to be an “extraordinary situation” as defined by the European Court of Justice. Try to explain that to the low-paid couple who are set to lose about £4,000 in working tax credits when they hear that a highly paid official could gain an extra £4,000 under the proposals.

If we are not in an extraordinary economic situation, what would make for one? We have to question why it is deemed correct to ask hundreds of thousands of public sector workers in the UK and throughout Europe to take the hit and to face a cap in their pay and an uncertain future, while no similar restraint is shown by the EU institutions.

Another part of the problem is that, owing to the structure of the current arrangement, annual adjustments are implemented across the board irrespective of salary levels, meaning that a high earner who is already on £200,000 will receive thousands of pounds more under the proposals.

The Opposition have made it clear that financial discipline in the public and private sector must be accompanied by fairness, and in terms of salary scales, just as at home, we must be tougher on those at the top to help protect those at the bottom. Have the Government made representations on that point during any part of the negotiations?

I agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the process smacks of being one-sided, and it could be argued that the Commission’s conclusion that we do not face extraordinary times has made a mockery of the exception clause, so urgent reform is clearly needed.

That brings me to my next point, and the Committee’s third area of concern: the Government’s action and representations on the issue. We hear a lot from the Government, as we have again today, about them taking a tough position on EU administrative expenditure and wanting to see real budgetary restraint in the EU over the coming years. They spell that out in their memorandum on the subject, and they go on to express dissatisfaction with the substance and procedure of the salary and pension adjustment proposals, making the point that the formal proposals were first circulated only on 24 November 2011 but required Council approval by the end of the year.

Again today, although we have heard a great deal about the facts of the situation, we have not heard in detail how the Government intend that tough position to manifest itself, or who exactly they are going to be tough on. The fear and worry for many will be that this is just another example of talk but not necessarily action on Europe by the Government, so I should like to hear from the Minister how the Government expect to take the lead in talks on reform at a time when the UK’s political capital in Europe is at its lowest in a generation.

In recent months we have seen how the Prime Minister’s actions have left Britain somewhat isolated in Europe, because leading up to last December’s summit he did not appear to put any real effort into alliance building.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s argument would gain more conviction were it not for the record of the Government whom she supported, because those issues, particularly the structural issues in terms of the European Union institutions, did not begin in May 2010. Does she think that the process she supports was improved by a previous Prime Minister giving away a huge rebate?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I have listened closely to the hon. Gentleman, but his party is now in government and it has to take responsibility for what has happened in the past year. I absolutely understand that past decisions have implications for the issue before us, but I want to focus on where we go in the future and what this Government have done in the past year. My concern is that, apart from trips to Berlin and Paris, for example, neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary travelled to the EU’s capitals before they went to Brussels. Britain was singled out for criticism by the Foreign Minister of Poland, a country that was one of our potential allies. If we want to change things in Europe, surely we must build alliances rather than destroy them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would have realised that I am saying nothing of the sort. I am saying that in an era when we have to compete in a global economy, we must ensure that our voice is heard. We therefore have to take our seat at whatever table there is to put the interests of the UK forward. Where we have shared goals, such as in climate change negotiations, tackling cross-border crime and dealing with human trafficking, working together surely makes global agreements more likely. We need a mature and positive approach to Europe from the Government.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am almost finished, but I will take an intervention on that point.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is being very generous. I am rather confused by her position. Can we infer from her comments that if the Leader of the Opposition had been Prime Minister on 9 December 2011 he would have signed the treaty, or would he have followed the lead of the Prime Minister and vetoed it?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Leader of the Labour party say on numerous occasions that he would not have walked out of the negotiations. There was no treaty on the table at that time.

I want to move on, because this point is important. As I have said, we need a mature and positive approach to Europe from the Government. When we get the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis, we should do so. We should engage in Europe and build alliances so that when important issues come up, such as those that we are debating, we have credibility and influence among our European neighbours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

This may be a light-hearted comment, but it always strikes me that people I have known who have gone to work in the European Union come back with a rather fuller figure than when they went. I may be wrong, but that is the impression I get. They are certainly loyal to their new organisation.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for consistently being right on this subject. Does he think it is rather perverse and insidious that one of the caveats attached to someone being awarded a pension by these European institutions is that they are specifically proscribed from criticising those organisations? Perhaps that is something that the Deputy Prime Minister takes on board on a regular basis.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a feature of all authoritarian regimes that they cannot bear criticism, particularly from the inside. In a healthy democracy, we should accept challenges from time to time. If we are governing, it is very useful to have people telling us that perhaps we have not got it right. Even at my modest level as a Member of Parliament, I like my staff to tell me when I have got something wrong. I do not sack them; I say “I thank you for your comments, and I’ve got to think about this.” Occasionally they put me right, and sometimes I am right, but debate of that kind is always healthy in a democracy. It is anti-democratic to sack somebody simply for disagreeing or criticising. In the end, we always do things by debating and voting, one hopes, with openness and transparency.

I have a story from a few years ago. Someone I knew who was involved in Brussels arrangements drifted into a meeting unexpectedly and found senior officials discussing among themselves whom they wanted to get into the post of Social Affairs Commissioner. They openly said, “We don’t want Social Affairs to be effective because it is only there as a decoration to get trade unionists and socialists on side, so we want somebody weak and ineffectual. Who shall we have?” Eventually they found an innocuous, sufficiently weak commissioner from one of the minor eastern European countries—I will not mention the name—to make sure that the post was not effective. The person sat in the room astonished at what was going on. The officials were deciding who the commissioner was going to be, and of course it transpired that that is who it was.

That is how the European Union operates. It is very anti-democratic, secretive and closed. We cannot get a verbatim report, or any kind of report, of what goes on in the Council of Ministers. When the European Council meets, a decision is made by officials before it meets. People talk for a couple of hours in the meeting, and they come out and the decision is adopted. It has been drafted beforehand and is invariably accepted, because that is the way things work. Let us not pretend that we are involved in some thrusting, democratic organisation—it is a bureaucratic structure where people are expected to fall into line.

I would enter a caveat for low-paid staff in any organisation—cleaners, security officers, people who work in the restaurants, and so on, who should have trade unions representing them to make sure that they have reasonable pay. We are talking about the highly paid officials who are part of the slush fund of the European Union and are clearly looking after themselves, with those who believe in this organisation being prepared to turn a blind eye to their vast salaries because they want to secure their loyalty for the foreseeable future. The whole structure needs to be opened up so that we have proper democratic controls at every level.

If the European Union is serious about reducing administrative costs, the way to achieve that is to cut out some of the things that it does. For example, there would be a substantial reduction in administrative costs if we got rid of the common fisheries policy and abandoned the common agricultural policy, as we should. We have talked about the repatriation of regional policy. If Governments decided what was appropriate for their regions, moneys would not be sent directly to our regions by Brussels, but would come through our Governments. If those unnecessary activities were repatriated, the administrative costs of the EU would be dramatically reduced and it would be a much more acceptable organisation.

I support the motion and commend the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Chair of the Committee, for bringing it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is absolutely vital that HMRC looks carefully at the costs it incurs in processing credit card transactions and that it charges taxpayers only what are reasonable costs. We want that same approach to be adopted in the private sector as well, as that would bring huge benefit to consumers.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

16. What steps he is taking to maintain the UK’s triple A credit rating.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The Government’s macro-economic strategy is designed to protect the economy through this period of instability, and to lay the foundations for a stronger, more balanced economy in the future. The autumn statement set out a comprehensive plan to return the public finances to a sustainable position and meet the Government’s fiscal targets. In recent months, the major credit rating agencies have reaffirmed the UK’s sovereign credit triple A rating, with a stable outlook.

[Mr Jackson]

Does the Minister agree that the systemic risk to our triple A credit rating is unlikely to be ameliorated by a form of state-sponsored laundering of UK taxpayers’ money through the International Monetary Fund to the failed eurozone, which hitherto has not received the confidence of the bond markets?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend raises an issue about resources for the IMF. It is absolutely vital that the IMF has the resources it needs to play its part in ensuring that there is a stable global economy, which is in our economic interest. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that if there is a request from the IMF for more resources, he will look at it carefully. If he agrees to the request, and the amount requested exceeds the limit in place at the moment, we shall seek parliamentary approval, but it is absolutely vital, and in our interest, to ensure that there is a stable global economy, because that is of benefit to the UK economy. I hope that the Opposition have changed the approach they adopted last year of opposing increases in the IMF subscription.

Eurozone Crisis

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Baron]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. By raising such issues in Parliament and in collaboration with other like-minded individuals, we can hope that we can force the Government to think again and to look at the various mechanisms at our disposal in the House. If we do not raise these points in our Chambers, the Government will not answer the questions that need to be put to them. My right hon. Friend is right; we will not change anything today. The hope is that together we can force the Government to think again.

Let me go back to why the IMF is getting involved at all. What makes the situation even worse is that the eurozone has resources that could do much more to help. For example, the Bundesbank has reserves of £180 billion, £130 billion of which is in gold, and gold is going up in price. That is in stark contrast to our country and the action of the previous Government, who sold gold at near the bottom of the market.

I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton about why we supported Christine Lagarde, the former French Finance Minister, being put in charge of the IMF. It is like putting the debtor in charge of the debtors’ prison. Christine Lagarde has admitted on record that the bail-out arrangements broke the rules, but she said that that could be justified because we all had to rally round to save the euro, which itself is a political objective. That is complete nonsense and it does not augur well for the future, and the Government taking confidence in the fact that the IMF has signed off the packages does not augur well either. The IMF signed off the initial Greek package and look at what happened then: the situation went from bad to worse. I suggest that it will get worse still. Having some sort of blind confidence in the IMF signing off the packages is basically abdicating one’s responsibilities of Government to question what is going on. I do not see that detailed questioning happening at the moment.

I suggest that the Government’s line on this issue—their approach to the eurozone crisis—is symptomatic of their flawed approach generally to the euro. The Government seem to have fallen in behind the French and Germans in this cry that somehow we must save the euro. I suggest to the Minister that that is economic clap-trap. Binding divergent economies into a single currency without full fiscal union was, and remains, a massive mistake. Similar thinking warned us of the perils of exiting the exchange rate mechanism, yet look what happened then: almost to the day that we exited the ERM, our recovery started and it was a very strong recovery.

I suggest to the Minister that the sky will not fall in if the euro breaks up. We will still have, by and large, a free market, although I think that it could be improved, and we will still have consumers demanding goods. If anything, by not trying to save the euro, we could help to stimulate demand, because by trying to save the euro we are cutting off one of the key ways to improve competitiveness—devaluation. By cutting off that option, we are making the austerity packages worse; we have to add to the austerity packages because the countries in need do not have the option of devaluation.

Saving the euro is making matters worse, yet the Government are silent on this issue. They have shown no leadership. They have fallen behind the line that saving the euro is everything—it is not. I suggest that the Minister and the Government look at the experiences of Norway and Switzerland, which have their own currencies and free trade agreements with the EU. Those countries are doing very well. Saving the euro should not be the ultimate goal, because it is making the austerity packages worse.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and convincing speech, but is the situation not even worse than he suggests, in that the Government are effectively adopting a de facto policy of support for a tighter fiscal union, which in the long term will inevitably militate against this country’s strategic political and economic interests as a sovereign state?

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. By joining in the chorus that we must save the euro, we are implicitly supporting fiscal union within the eurozone, which is the wrong approach to take, certainly for this country’s interests. But, no doubt, the Minister will be able to clarify the Government’s position on that issue.

The same flawed approach by the Government has denied the people of this country a referendum on the EU and our future relationship with it, while allowing massive budget transfers to Brussels. Our budget increase totals about £21 billion or £22 billion. It will increase from £19 billion for the last seven years to about £41 billion in the next seven years. What could we get for that additional £21 billion or £22 billion? We could get 100,000 police officers on the streets for each of those seven years, 100,000 nurses in our hospitals or 100,000 teachers in our schools. How could we stimulate growth with that money? We could cut basic rate income tax by 1p in the pound for each of the seven years. We could cut small business corporation tax by 6p in the pound. My goodness me—would that not be a concrete measure to stimulate growth and encourage competitiveness in this country?

I am afraid that the Government’s thinking on this issue is intellectually incoherent, economically flawed and, perhaps worst of all, flies in the face of what the majority of people in this country want. What we want is leadership—strong leadership. We hear noises such as, “Oh, regulation from the EU hurts growth.” There is nothing new in that; saying it is just making noise for the sake of making noise. We have known that about EU regulation for years. What we want is strong leadership that repatriates powers to this country, stops the salami-slicing of our political sovereignty, encourages the establishment of a genuine free market in Europe and guards against our liabilities to the eurozone crisis. But I do not see that strong leadership in front of me today, which worries me and a number of my colleagues and right hon. and hon. Friends greatly. Meanwhile, we stumble on.

I suggest to the Minister that this country will wake up about this issue one day and that we will renegotiate with the EU. My hope is that we will renegotiate a free trade arrangement, similar to the arrangements that Norway and Switzerland have, and that we have a constructive businesslike arrangement with the EU, without sacrificing political sovereignty and without going down the road of political union. My concern is about the damage that will be caused to this country between now and then and the cost that we and our children will have to bear.

I hope that the Minister, as he has refused my invitation to intervene on the questions that I have put to him, will come up with some answers when he winds up this debate. I hope that he answers the questions that I have put, because they are the questions that people in this country are asking.