Queen’s Speech

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

There is an advisory limit of eight minutes. I inquired and that was stated. I do not know whether anyone would like to confirm that that is the case.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, as the question has been raised, the Chief Whip gave the advice that if Members were to keep their remarks to eight minutes we would finish at 10 o’clock. I am advised that it is traditional in debates on the Queen’s Speech not to enforce the advisory rule, so it is entirely open to noble Lords still to be here at one o’clock in the morning if they so wish. However, if anyone were to go on for a very long period, I dare say that noble Lords would have ways of making their feelings on this known.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I have no wish to produce the result whereby people are here at one o’clock in the morning. I simply say that I hope no one thinks that there is any discourtesy if, in the light of what has been said, one does not stick to eight minutes.

As my noble friend Lord Eatwell pointed out in his magisterial analysis of the short term, austerity will not improve our tax revenues, nor will it reduce our tax expenditures. There are perhaps three timescales over which one can analyse economic prospects: short, medium and long, by which I mean for the short term possibly three to four years, for the medium term 10 to 15 years, and for the longer term perhaps 20 to 30 years. The post-war architecture of the world economy—Bretton Woods and so on—goes back no less than 70 years. The IMF and the World Bank were the main institutions created at that time. Surprisingly—it is hard to think that it is true—the European Union in all its manifestations now goes back for the best part of 50 years. It is partly in view of the extraordinarily peremptory and dismissive speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lawson, in recent days that I will concentrate on the second and third of those timescales.

Their recipe for leaving the European Union and indeed for the future of the nation as a whole is, in my view, catastrophic. It is going down an ideological road and is far from an objective analysis of our economy and our place in the world. It is also as far removed from pragmatism and empiricism as something that went on in the Labour Party in the 1980s, and that is where the Conservative Party will wind up if they follow that line. In the short term, it will be, as I said, catastrophic. Figures published today by the TUC, which has done some analysis of the statistics of the International Monetary Fund, suggest that by 2017 our per capita income in Britain will have increased by precisely 0.0%. I know it sounds extraordinary that a figure should be as precise as that but it works out that our living standards, our per capita income, in Britain will have risen by precisely 0.0% since 2008. Given the vast increase in the quantum of the top 1% and, indeed, 10%, that explains the deep cut in living standards for the median and the vast majority of the British people who, not surprisingly, are angry and disorientated as a result, and are prepared more readily to listen to sophists such as Mr Farage and others nearer to home.

I acknowledge that the EU as a whole has not had a very much better record, although perhaps I may draw attention to the fact that per capita incomes in the same series in Germany and Sweden—two examples of northern Europe—will both be projected to have risen by 10% in this period, a point to which I will return. In passing, I will also mention that on a couple of occasions I have asked my noble friend Lord Eatwell a rhetorical question about how we will pay for this, that and the other without increasing the deficit. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says that we have to get on urgently with filling up the potholes. Perhaps he will pay for it himself but I assume that it will come out of public expenditure.

What is the bigger economic picture that we face in this country? Just to put the numbers another way, the loss of output in these 10 years below our earlier potential of roughly 2% growth per annum comes out at some extraordinary numbers. If you look at the cumulative loss against that trend, by the year 2017 it will work out at some £3 trillion—£3,000 billion. It will not be £30 billion or £300 billion but £3,000 billion. People can work it out for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is looking puzzled but if he does a bit of mental arithmetic he will find that that is in the right ball park. I know he does not have time to work all that out in the time of my speech but perhaps later he will realise that my figures are accurate. We are talking about figures that are worse than the slump in the 1930s after the parallel banking crisis of 1929, from which we only recovered the full scale of our potential during the late 1930s and the Second World War, as, of course, did Germany and the United States.

As to my own prescription or views regarding these matters, I do not begin by wanting to be orthodox in terms of Labour Party policy. I do not think that that is the role that one is necessarily here to play. I am generally orthodox but I just should like to draw attention to one or two features of the trade deficit. It is not that we cannot grow our economy in the European Union. If the EU per se is the reason for some incompatibility because of so-called red tape, how is it that Germany, despite absorbing a very weak East German economy over the past 20 years, has a GDP per head of 121—if we put EU equals 100—while ours is 109?

Germany, of course, which relies much more than we do on something as old fashioned as manufacturing, is rarely mentioned by the new ideologues. They seem to think that there is something magic about the City of London. For every £2-worth of goods or services—in the statistics they come to the same thing—we now export, we import £5-worth. This is, in part, to do with our exchange rate. Of course we cannot go on devaluing the pound without our living standards falling. However, if we want to regain our competitiveness, I could argue at the same level of abstraction as the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lawson, who think they are brilliant economists—I do not think that I am a brilliant economist but at least I can see the fallacies in what they are saying—but what is wrong with saying that although we are now stable at 85p to a euro we would be more competitive at parity with the euro? That is a devaluation of 15%. With the growth of our educational system and our whole industrial policy, perhaps that would ensure that we stay, for once, at parity with the euro.

I do not anticipate great enthusiasm for what I have just said but is it not a fact that our trade deficit is a fundamental issue both within the European Union and outside it? Simply asserting that we have got to trade with the rest of the world in no way addresses that fundamental question. As for the European side of growth, that, too, goes back to Lehman Brothers five years ago. It is not as if the whole of the European slow growth was created within the European Union.

The other point which needs to be put to these new iconoclasts is whether they would stay in the European Economic Area along with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. There is plenty of red tape in the European Economic Area. We signed the EFTA treaty in Stockholm leading up to its creation in 1960 and there have been rules on state aid and so on. The noble Lord who referred to the acquis, the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, who is not in his place, is correct in that if we were a member only of EFTA we would be following all of the acquis without having a seat or a vote at the decision-making table. Would he be happy to be in that position? He has given no clue as to the scenario we would be expected to vote for if he had his way.

The third and final fallacy—I am still three minutes off my 16 minutes—concerns relying on the City of London. The noble Lord seems to want to have it both ways. Either it is the centre of Europe’s financial system and dependent on our being part of the EU for its strength, or it will somehow have a comparative advantage in its own right without our being part of the European Union. The noble Lord must have missed the speeches by leading officials in China, the United States and elsewhere, who have said that of course our share of world investment would be considerably at risk if we were to leave the European Union.

In conclusion, “Stop the world, I want to get off” is a policy which I am sure the British people, when they are told the truth—we are told that we have to get them to understand the truth, but that is a bit difficult when the Murdochs, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and so on do not allow them to know it because for the most part they censor it—will reject. On the state of British public opinion, I shall read out three or four statistics taken from a new survey produced by YouGov/The Fabian Society looking at the attitudes of the younger generation, those aged between 18 and 34. They were asked:

“How convincing or unconvincing do you find the following statements in favour of the European Union? … It has given people the freedom to travel, work and live in other EU countries”.

Some 60% found it “fairly convincing”. Perhaps I should send an e-mail to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in France saying that I hope he is happy that that has enabled him to live there.

“The EU has agreed common standards of workers’ rights, consumer protection and played an important role in guaranteeing the social rights of individual citizens”.

The response showed that 48% found that statement “fairly” or “very” convincing against 15% who did not.

“Co-operation between EU countries is the best way to tackle the big issues of our time, like climate change, the global financial crisis and international terrorism”.

Some 49% said yes, while 18% said no.

“The EU has helped keep peace in western Europe since the second world war”.

Some 47% agreed and 17% did not.

Perhaps I may say in my final sentence that, so far as peace in the world is concerned, it is essential that Germany, France and ourselves are in the same Europe with a common defence approach vis-à-vis the rest of the world. That point will become clearer and clearer as this debate continues.