Queen’s Speech
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, as we come towards the close of a long, civilised debate—if somewhat full of wishful thinking in some quarters—I begin, as many noble Lords have done, by congratulating my noble friend Lady Perry on the very model of a valedictory speech. For those of us of my age, that is ever present in our minds.
I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, on a maiden speech which proved that she is the living refutation of a view that is all too pervasive nowadays—that Members of Parliament are simply in it for themselves.
I should like to follow many noble Lords in confining my remarks to next month’s referendum. It seems to me that there are two striking aspects of the Government’s case in the European Union referendum debate. The first is that they can find no positive case for the European project, least of all for the full-blooded political union which is its declared objective. All they seek to do is to ramp up fear of what might happen were we to leave the EU. Indeed, today’s so-called Treasury analysis is a classic example of this. It has simply assumed a minor disaster and then, as even the Financial Times has pointed out, it has dishonestly portrayed it as a major disaster in order to scare the pants off the British people. Then it has spelled out the details of this assumption and called it an analysis.
The second striking aspect of the Government’s case is that they avoid like the plague anything that is a matter of fact and dwell exclusively on the area of pure speculation. It is, for example, a fact that UK law is obliged to conform to EU law, whether we like it or not. It is a fact that the European Court of Justice is legally superior to our own Supreme Court. It is a fact that we have no control over our own borders so long as any EU citizen has the right to live and work here. It is a fact that the EU as at present constituted is profoundly undemocratic. It is also a fact that we have to pay a net—I emphasise “net”—subscription of getting on for £10 billion a year in order to be part of this project, whose objective we conspicuously do not share.
But there has not been a word about any of this. Instead, we have a barrage of economically illiterate scaremongering. They speak of the dangers of not having access to the so-called single market. Poppycock. Everyone has access to the European Union market, as indeed our very substantial imports from the whole of the world testify. Indeed, it is a fact that since the so-called single market began, American, Canadian and Australian exports to the EU have grown faster than ours have. We already trade considerably more with the rest of the world than we do with the rest of the European Union, and the difference is growing with every year that passes.
If the existence of the single market is such a boon to those within its borders, how is it that the EU is one of the worst performing regions of the world, with distressingly high levels of youth unemployment?
It is widely acknowledged throughout the world that the economic reforms introduced by the Thatcher Governments of the 1980s, with which I was involved, transformed the British economy and transformed it for the better. We achieved this not by any trade agreement—in any event, as a member of the EU we would have been unable to conclude such an agreement even if we had wanted to—but, importantly, by a thoroughgoing programme of intelligent deregulation. This cannot be built on, and indeed is actively threatened, so long as we remain in the EU with its addiction to ever-more regulation, which is so damaging to the small and medium-sized enterprises that are the backbone of the British economy—however convenient it may be to big businesses, which have an interest in reducing the threat of competition from the small fry.
Tax reform, too, was a key feature of the transformation of the British economy in the 1980s. Today, the proposed financial transaction tax to which the European Union is committed was rightly described by George Osborne as a dagger pointed at the heart of London. He tried to kill the FTT and was roundly defeated. So much for Britain’s influence in today’s European Union.
We can build on the Thatcher era reforms and the economic success they so signally brought only by escaping the suffocating toils of the European Union. The future of this country lies in embracing a genuinely global, rather than little European, future, and doing so as a self-respecting and self-governing democracy.
Europe: Renegotiation
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, the Statement we have heard runs the full gamut from the inadequate through the vague to the completely meaningless. I ask my noble friend two quick questions of elucidation. Under economic governance, the Statement concludes that any issues that affect all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states. Does it mean that legislation in this area must be agreed by all member states? If not, what on earth does it mean?
Secondly, under sovereignty, the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk states that he would seek a formal, legally binding and irreversible way to exempt the United Kingdom from the commitment to ever-closer union. But since the rest of the European Union is committed to ever-closer union, and since the European Union will continue to legislate to this end, what on earth does that achieve?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, my noble friend raised two questions, and in the second he talked about ever-closer union. As he is aware, we want to halt this constant flow of powers to Brussels and part of that includes ensuring a stronger role for national parliaments. The concept of ever-closer union may be what some others want but it is not for us. We also need to ensure that subsidiarity is properly implemented.
The noble Lord also mentioned the legally binding nature of any renegotiations. We have on the table at present a substantial package of changes, including treaty change, which needs to be agreed before there is a British referendum. This is exactly what has happened in other countries and on other occasions. Agreement on the package must happen before the referendum, but we would never have got all 27 other parliaments to pass treaty change before the referendum. That is not in any way strange; it is how it is usually done, as in the case of the Croatian accession treaty and the ESM treaty. What matters is getting the substantial agreement. It will be difficult to get but it is not impossible. Indeed, it is eminently resolvable.
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
I think I owe my apologies to the noble Lord. According to the Library just over two fatal and three non-fatal Motions were voted on in each year between 1999 and 2012, resulting in 17 defeats. There is nothing odd or unconstitutional about this Motion. According to the Clerk’s office there is no reason why we should not table a delaying amendment.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
Can the noble Baroness say how many of her so-called precedents were budgetary matters?
Baroness Meacher
As I understand it, this House has every right to place amendments to statutory instruments on any subject—that was the conclusion of the Cunningham Joint Committee.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, there seem to be two strands to this emotive phrase “constitutional crisis”, which is what I would like to address. The first is that this House should not vote down a statutory instrument—certainly not one that has been through the House of Commons. But there is no Standing Order which lays this down, and the Parliament Acts are silent on the primacy of the Commons over statutory instruments. Yes, it is taking a very rare step, but the footpath is there, even if it is rather overgrown. In this House, we do not look to Erskine May so much as the Companion to the Standing Orders, which is where we find that this House has an unfettered right over statutory instruments. If an instrument is not approved by this House, there is nothing to stop the Government immediately bringing another instrument to both Houses with a minor change. It is time we stopped being bullied over how we consider statutory instruments.
The other strand of the so-called constitutional crisis involves the primacy of the House of Commons over financial matters. Here, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said. The parent Act from which this instrument comes was not certified by the Speaker as a money Bill, and if this House is entitled to debate the statutory instrument at all—which it is—then it is entitled to approve or to decline to approve it. It is not a question of courtesy; this is what we do and what Parliament has decreed. We would be failing all those affected by this measure if we simply pulled a duvet over our faces and turned our backs to the wall while saying it was none of our business.
If the Government had wanted to avoid this situation, why on earth did they not introduce a very short tax credits amendment Bill? Then we could have debated it in the usual way, with none of this intolerable pressure. If this House had sent back an unacceptable amendment, the Commons could have invoked financial privilege and that would have been that, but we might have found a way to tweak such a Bill that would have found favour with all those Conservative Members who have been calling for just that.
If the Bill route had been taken, we might have had a much more informative impact assessment, which could have told us what was likely to happen to those low-paid workers affected when the tax credit changes happen next April, instead of being told that by 2020 there may not be quite so many losers. We surely know that not all the thousands of employers up and down the country will pay the new living wage immediately to all part-time workers for the same number of hours to make up the shortfall. As it is, for the Government to decide to make a very controversial change by way of an unamendable statutory instrument, and then to bully members of this House into passing it by telling us that we are provoking a constitutional crisis if we do not agree to it, is surely quite unacceptable. We should stand up for what we believe to be morally right. The spirit of 1911 is being invoked, but at least Lloyd George wanted to take from the rich to pay the poor. George Osborne seems to want to do the opposite.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
I suspect that I am not the only one on this side of the House who feels torn on this issue. The constitutional position, which I will refer to first, has been set out admirably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and it is very clear: budgetary matters are the prerogative of the other place—of the elected Chamber—and this is undoubtedly a budgetary matter, however it is dressed up. What is the purpose of the measure? The purpose of it is to help reduce the budget deficit, and everybody is agreed that it should be—
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord seems to imply that because this is a tax credits issue, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for whom the House holds enormous respect, it would be subject to financial privilege. Is he aware that the legislation in 2002 was not subject to financial privilege? It is hard to argue, then, that a statutory instrument from that legislation should be.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
With respect to the noble Baroness, the constitution is more important than nitpicking. This is a budgetary matter.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
Does the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, think that the Clerk of the Parliaments was nitpicking when he told my noble friend that statutory instruments were not covered by financial privilege? That was said unequivocally by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
The point is that this is a budgetary matter and budgetary matters are the prerogative of the elected House. That is the most important constitutional principle. This was designed to reduce the budget deficit, which everybody on all sides agrees has to be eliminated, by something like £4.5 billion. It is quite clear that this is the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s measure, in effect, whosever name may be on the statutory instrument. That is the constitutional position. I said I would be brief, so I will not elaborate, but that is clear.
On the other hand, I also said I am torn, because I believe that there are aspects of this measure which need to be reconsidered and, indeed, changed. The right honourable George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made it clear that he was going to get a lot of his savings, probably the greater part, from the welfare budget, and tax credit, which has ballooned enormously in recent years, is a large part of the welfare budget. I think that is absolutely fair, but the question is the particular incidence of this package in the regulations. What concerns me is not that there are high implicit marginal rates of tax—which are transient, incidentally. That is the case with all means-tested benefits and it is absurd to say that means-tested benefits can never be reduced. Nevertheless the tax credits system—the in-work benefits—rise surprisingly high up the income scale, but here the great harm, or a great deal of the harm, is at the lowest end. That is what needs to be looked at again; that is what concerns me. It is perfectly possible to tweak it to take more from the upper end of the tax credit scale and less from the lower end.
I heard my noble friend the Leader of the House say that the Chancellor would listen to this debate. I would have been surprised if she had said that the Chancellor would not listen to this debate. Of course he will listen to this debate, but it is not just listening that is required. Change is required. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Howe, when he winds up, will indicate that there will be change, though he cannot indicate what, but I must say that my present intention is to support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer listens very carefully to the contribution of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, because his support for what appears to be the Frank Field amendment should be taken seriously. The Leader can call on all the constitutional arguments she can muster in support of the Government, as indeed can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, on the issue of financial privilege, but all those arguments pale into insignificance when compared with the greater argument that the general public, millions of people outside this House, are considering today—that being statements given during the course of the general election, solemn undertakings given by Cabinet Ministers to the British people, on what their attitudes would be to tax credits.
Mr Gove gave the undertaking that there would be no cut in tax credits, which he was unable to substantiate by way of any agreement, but that is what he said on television, in an interview. Mr Cameron deliberately misled the British public, who would regard what he said now as a lie to win a general election. The British public are fed up with politicians who tell lies on that scale. It exceeded the misleading of the public in the case of the Liberal Democrats over tuition fees; at least they did not know what was going to come after the election when they misled the public. In this case, Mr Cameron did know, and the Government set out to avoid revealing the facts by hiding behind the statement that they would have to make substantial cuts without going into details. Those lies trump all the constitutional niceties, whether they be financial privilege or the fatality of amendments, and it is on that basis that I intend to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hollis this evening. The public cannot take this scale of lying.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, I have two claims to briefly intervene in the debate. First, it was my proposals in the social security legislation of 1986 that led to the introduction of family credit, which was a successor to Keith Joseph’s family income supplement and, of course, the forerunner of tax credits. It then became a Treasury matter when it went to tax credits. Obviously, I have considerable sympathy with the general case being put in this debate. Secondly, I was for six years the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and, as such, no one’s idea of a natural supporter of the Treasury and all its schemes.
Lord Fowler
Various Chancellors and Chief Secretaries might put it more strongly, and a former one just has. Perhaps I can add in parenthesis in this heated debate that throughout my time doing social security my shadow Minister was Michael Meacher, who died last week. We did not agree on very much but he was a very honourable and totally sincere man and he will be much missed.
Steel Industry
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, this is a worrying time for communities that rely on jobs in the steel sector. That is across all the UK, including—I should add—in Lanarkshire, Scotland. Our hearts go out to the families and businesses involved. We have obviously been in discussion with Tata on an ongoing basis. It is a major business operator in the UK. The derogations that are mentioned in the Statement about industrial emissions are extremely important to it and to its future in the different steel communities in which it operates in the UK.
In terms of strategy, not only was there a summit last Friday—which set up three working groups in absolutely key areas that I mentioned in the Statement—but Anna Soubry launched a metals strategy this week which will work with metals industries right across the board, and that will, of course, include steel.
On the subject of China, the Prime Minister is indeed talking to the Chinese on the subject of steel and the necessary restructuring. Of course, it is not only a matter for bilateral discussion, because anti-dumping is a matter for the EU: 28 countries together can do more. We have actually taken EU action thanks to the UK on rebar anti-dumping, which is an issue between the UK and China. We have a number of groups; we have local task forces now in the affected communities, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, the Statement quite rightly referred to energy costs, which are of the first importance in steel making. Is the Minister aware, however, that it is entirely a result of the misguided energy policy of this Government, which they inherited unchanged from the previous coalition Government, that energy costs for British steel makers are significantly higher than they are for steel makers in the rest of the European Union, and very substantially higher than energy costs in China? In the light of the disastrous news of which we are all aware, will she urgently ask her colleagues in Government to review the suicidal energy policy being pursued at the present time?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the energy policies to which my noble friend refers date back to the Labour years and the coalition. We are where we are now; we have paid out £50 million to the steel industry through the special energy provisions that exist. One of the groups—the one on competitiveness and productivity being chaired by my noble friend Lord O’Neill—will look at energy and environmental costs, other regulatory costs, and what action industry could take to drive up productivity and competitiveness, in the light of the playing field that my noble friend has described.
Armed Forces: Afghanistan
Lord Lawson of Blaby Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, there never was an intention to deploy FRES to Afghanistan. The Government have deployed a range of protected mobility vehicles, including the Mastiff, which is highly valued by our troops. The new Foxhound lightweight protected vehicle is being delivered for training purposes now so that those deploying shortly will be able to use it on operations in Afghanistan from the spring.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked a rather important question. Would my noble friend the Minister care to give a slightly fuller answer than he has given so far?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend thinks that it was not a very full answer. I did say that we are in full discussions with our American allies, and I do not think that I can add anything to that.