Public Appointees (Tax Arrangements)

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for the shadow Chief Secretary’s welcome for the steps that I announced today, though it was striking that in her response there was no reference at all to the fact that many of these arrangements date back to the time of the previous Government. About 40% of the cases identified began work under the previous Government.

If the hon. Lady wants to know more about why those arrangements came into place, she could ask her Front-Bench colleagues if they were here. She could ask the Leader of the Opposition, for example, as two cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. She could ask the shadow Home Secretary, as nine cases date back to her time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She could ask the shadow Health Secretary, as 45 cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Health. She could ask her colleague the shadow Chancellor, because at least 24 cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Education. Yes, it is once again their mess and we are cleaning it up.

The hon. Lady asked a few questions. With reference to the chief executive of the Student Loans Company, as I said in answer to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) in February, the individual concerned went on the payroll straight away—that day. I announced that at the time of that statement, which I think the hon. Lady responded to. Of course, going on the payroll was the appropriate thing to do. As I made clear then, I had no knowledge of any tax benefit to an individual. As is the practice with cases where those involved are earning more than the Prime Minister’s salary, the approval is given within the Department. My role as Chief Secretary is to examine the salary level to make sure that it is consistent with the pay restraint that we are properly putting in place across the public sector.

This review looked at the salary level above £58,200 because that is the minimum salary level in the senior civil service, and it focused on senior public service appointments. These rules will be available for Departments to apply more generally, should they wish to do so. As I said in my statement, the review was not looking for evidence of tax avoidance because individual tax arrangements are a matter of taxpayer confidentiality, but all the results of the review from across Government have been passed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so that they can investigate if they choose to do so.

I referred in my statement to organisations that are not within the control of central Government, such as local authorities, the BBC and so on, but I am sure the many Labour councils around the country will have heard the shadow Chief Secretary’s remarks and will be bringing forward as a matter of urgency transparent publication of all the arrangements in their local authorities. I look forward very much to seeing that.

In relation to IR35, I should remind the House that in the spending review we provided an additional £900 million to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs specifically to focus on their work tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance. That will include resources to investigate cases caught out by the review or cases under IR35. The hon. Lady will know that the Office of Tax Simplification looked at the operation of IR35 last year and we are carrying forward some of its recommendations, but the proposal on which we are launching a consultation today—that controlling persons in organisations should, as a matter of course, be on the payroll—will strengthen the IR35 regime, which I hope Members on both sides of the House will welcome.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s statement, taking note of his comments regarding the BBC. A great number of my constituents pull their hair out at the huge salaries paid to people at the BBC, only to see them invest them in companies outside to try to avoid tax. Will the IR35 regime go some way towards trying to address the situation?

[Danny Alexander]

The arrangements at the BBC are a matter for the BBC. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has drawn the review to the BBC’s attention, so it is aware of the focus that the Government are placing on the issue. IR35 potentially applies to any taxpayer in the relevant set of circumstances, whether that individual works for the BBC or for any other organisation.

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The Government have taken on the issue of ensuring that the wealthiest pay a greater share, to ensure that there is fairness in our deficit reduction plans. For example, we have increased capital gains tax and put in place the new bank levy that I have mentioned. We have also maintained the 50p rate of income tax. We are making substantial changes to ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

On the point just raised in an intervention, we hear much crowing from Opposition Members, but does my right hon. Friend think that they might persuade their former leader and Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to pay more than £315,000 in tax on a £12 million income?

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend has made his point, but I do not think that it is for me to comment on the tax affairs of any individual taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I shall try to keep to four minutes.

I start by echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said. I do not believe that there is anybody in the House who does not want to try to do as much as possible to help the youth unemployed, and I genuinely mean that about all parts of the House. It is easy to score cheap political points, but deep down, I think that there is probably no one in this House, on either side, for whom that is not true. We feel this to be such an important issue for many of the reasons that have been outlined today.

I will come to why I think the motion is not helpful in solving the problem, but let me say that no matter how we approach the issue, everyone wants to do something about it. That is the nature of party politics: the Opposition have a different approach to those of us in government. When I look around at the unemployed young people in my constituency, I think about how to help them. Equally, I have met young people on apprenticeships—16-year-olds—and seen the difference that being able to go out has made to their lives. There are children whom I have known over many years who have got an apprenticeship and who now go out to work. One sees them visibly maturing before one’s eyes, becoming more confident in themselves and thinking about what it means to get a career and move along that path. However, the flip side of the coin is the children and young people who have not been able to get an apprenticeship or get those jobs. We think, “Well, for every high there must a low,” and we worry deeply about the effect that that will have on young people. But is it fair to offer them false hope by suggesting that taxing bankers’ bonuses could create jobs for them?

I worry about the message that we send out from this place, because there is nothing worse than false hope. We have seen so many examples of it in the history of politics. During elections, people vote for something that they believe will give them x, y or z, only to be bitterly disappointed later. It is also easy for the Opposition to make promises—I mean this not as a comment on the Labour party but as a general remark—when the reality of changing circumstances means that those promises cannot be fulfilled. Another good example is that, following the austerity Budget, we were hoping to reduce the structural deficit by the end of this Parliament, but because of the changes in the world economy since then, it does not look as though we will achieve that until 2016 or possibly 2017.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a further way in which the coalition could help small to medium-sized businesses would be to reduce the heavy burden of bureaucracy that they have to deal with? A further area in which they could be helped is that of energy costs.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Bureaucracy has strangled small businesses over the past 13 years and made it almost impossible for the people running them to say, “Let’s go out and employ a few people. Let’s take a punt on it and see what happens. Let’s grow our business and see whether we can grow the economy.” If they tried to do that but did not succeed, the bureaucracy meant that it was very hard for them to scale back the business afterwards. I believe in protection for workers—I think we all do—but there has to be a reality check at some point. Just keeping people employed because of bureaucracy while watching a company go bust does not serve anybody.

That is why the Government have adopted a programme of tackling bureaucracy and some of the more nonsensical parts of the health and safety at work legislation. I have talked to the local businesses in my constituency and found that they have hired, on average, one full-time equivalent employee to deal with the increase in bureaucracy. That is not job creation; that is sapping the resources from a company that might be willing to go a step further.

I am exceptionally worried about creating false hope. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made it quite clear how many promises have been made about a bankers’ bonus tax, including the suggestion that such a tax would create 100,000 jobs. Bankers are already paying 50% tax on those bonuses. Do I personally agree that the head of RBS should be getting the size of bonus that he is getting when its share price has halved? No, I do not, but I did not draw up his agreement and I do not know what the small print says. I do not know why he feels entitled to take that bonus. Do I think it right that he should do so? No, I do not, but we are not legally in a position to do anything about it. We have to look at the position that we have got ourselves into, and try not to make those mistakes again.

I do not want to get back into the same old hoo-hahs that we have across the Chamber on these issues. We see the same old faces on the other side, and we all have a history, in these ding-dongs, of talking about whether the austerity measures are working and what would happen if we did not do what we are doing. Whenever we introduce a policy to try to rebalance the economy, there will be a negative effect. There is a recession throughout Europe and the world, and growth is practically flat across the whole of the European Union. We have to do something about that. This Government are trying to do something. They are trying to invest in apprenticeships, for example. Their apprenticeship scheme has the advantage over the jobs scheme introduced by the previous Government in that it involves the private sector rather than the public sector. I hope that we can bring hope to the young unemployed in this country, without a false dawn.

Northern Rock

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed. Councillor Nick Forbes, whom I quoted earlier, also said:

“The decision by Virgin Money to make Newcastle their home sends a message of confidence in our city and the wider North East.”

Virgin Money backed that up by saying that it would not make any compulsory redundancies beyond those already announced by management for the next three years, and I think that that provides a good level of assurance for Northern Rock’s staff.

When I visited Northern Rock on Thursday and talked to some of its staff, they were clearly pleased that the uncertainty that had hung over the business for the last four years and acted as a brake on its development had been removed. They look forward to its continued growth under Virgin Money.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The deal that the Minister has announced represents the best value that can be obtained for the taxpayer at this time, and for as long as financial crises continue to abound. We have secured the jobs of people in the north-east, hence the good cheer that is felt there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the good news is here, and that the reason people may look po-faced is that, once again, we are clearing up a hell of a mess?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since we came to office, we have reformed the failed tripartite arrangements that were introduced by the Labour party. We are changing the nature of banking in this country by establishing the Independent Commission on Banking, whose proposals on ring-fencing will mean higher levels of capital and better levels of liquidity for businesses. We are tackling the mess that Labour left behind, and the disposal of Northern Rock is part of that story.

The Economy

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it says everything that we need to know about the Opposition’s economic policy when the shadow Chancellor’s immediate reaction to the IMF report was, “They don’t know what they’re talking about”?

[Mr Osborne]

It went beyond that—my hon. Friend makes a good point—not only did the shadow Chancellor attack the IMF, but he also attacked in the speech that I have just mentioned the IMF’s acting managing director. So he laid into the Governor of the Bank of England a couple of months ago, and he is now laying into the IMF’s acting managing director. Anyone who disagrees with the shadow Chancellor, which means most of the world, has become his political opponent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

This is a debate about the economy. We all enjoyed reading those papers in The Daily Telegraph.

To get the better economy that we all want to see requires the three things that this Government have provided—

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Is it not also telling that after the Opposition have spent a year banging on about the American model and what the Americans were doing, we heard nothing today about the fact that President Obama had to introduce austerity measures because his massive input of billions into the economy did nothing except raise unemployment and increase the deficit?

[Mr Osborne]

The interesting thing is that in the United States the debate in the Congress has turned to discussions about the US budget deficit. The proposal from President Obama in his speech at George Washington university bears some striking similarities to the British Government’s plan, and is similar in pace, scale and composition between tax and spending measures. It shows that this is the discussion that the world is having, but it is not a discussion of which the shadow Chancellor is a part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I have taken two interventions, so I will take no more until near the end, perhaps.

This Government do have a growth strategy: we want to rebalance growth, including rebalancing it geographically. We have just heard about the plight of the north-east. Perhaps it was a failure of the last Labour Government not to rebalance the economy sufficiently, away from the south-east of England and towards other regions and nations of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) ought to have a stiff word with some of his colleagues. After 13 years, the economies of some of our regions were still very fragile and unable to withstand external shocks. We also wish to rebalance the different sectors of the economy, away from over-dependence on the City of London, important as it is, and the resources that it generates towards more sustainable parts of the economy, in particular growth from digital media. The Government have announced the establishment of a network of enterprise zones around the country. My local enterprise partnership—the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership—has just announced that it will be based around Temple Meads station in my constituency, where we want to build the country’s leading media hub and business growth area, with a particular focus on digital media.

We also want future growth to be sustainable in a green way. This country has a huge economic opportunity to grow a low-carbon economy. In the Energy Bill, which is just completing its passage through the House, we have something quite revolutionary: the green deal, which gives every household in the country a fantastic opportunity to retrofit their houses to reduce energy bills and help us cope with meeting the demanding climate change targets that we have set, on which there is cross-party consensus and agreement. There is also a fantastic opportunity for British business, and for people to be trained in the skills needed to retrofit our housing stock. On a rather larger scale, the Government have also announced—the Chancellor confirmed this in the Budget—the creation of the green investment bank, in order to provide finance for schemes that might otherwise find it difficult to secure funds in the market. As the country’s green capital, the city of Bristol has a good case for being made the future home of the green investment bank.

A further way in which the coalition Government are going to make a fundamental difference in turning the economy around and reducing unemployment is by making work pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned that the coalition agreement would deliver the Liberal Democrat policy of reducing income tax and taking out of income tax completely those people who are earning up to £10,000 a year. That will be achieved before the end of this Parliament. Our programme of welfare reform and the introduction of universal credit was mentioned earlier by the Chancellor in his confrontation with the shadow Chancellor. The Opposition rather recklessly voted against the entire Welfare Reform Bill.

Reform is also needed in the banks. The Opposition motion calls for a reintroduction of the tax on bankers’ bonuses. It is worth pointing out, however, that the people receiving large bonuses will now pay 50% income tax, rather than 40%, that national insurance has doubled for those on the higher rate of tax, and that employers will pay more national insurance on those bonuses as well. The taxation on those bonuses will certainly increase.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

If a banker pays 50% income tax on his bonus, does not that represent a greater tax take than if the money were left in the bank, where it would be liable to only 28% corporation tax?

[Stephen Williams]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

What should we do with RBS and the Lloyd’s banking group, which were bailed out in 2008 adding £67 billion to our national debt? Earlier this year, I wrote a pamphlet on what the Government should do with their holdings in the banks. It was called “Getting your share of the banks: giving the banks back to the people” and it was published by the think-tank CentreForum in March. My proposal was to give those shares to every citizen in our country and, when they sold them in the future, the Government would get back the cost of their investment in 2008 while the citizens would keep the result of any growth. That would mean that we would reduce our national debt by £67 billion over time, and that every citizen in the country—each of us who has felt the pain of bailing out the banks—would see some benefit from this upside to the situation. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been endorsing that proposal today on his trade mission in Latin America.

What have we heard from the official Opposition today? What is their grand idea for turning round the country’s finances and getting our economy back on track? They have opposed all the cuts that we have debated in the Chamber. I have never heard a Labour Member of Parliament stand up and say that they are in favour of any of the measures in our Bills, whether in this Chamber or in the Bill Committees on which we serve. Today, the Opposition have come up with a completely reckless proposal for an unfunded cut in VAT. It has no economic justification and there is no evidence that it would make any difference to the economy. Let us contrast that with the record of the coalition Government. We are determined to have a fair tax burden, and we have plans for sustainable growth and deficit reduction. Both plans have international credibility. That is what this country needs right now: credibility at home and abroad, rather than the reckless opportunism that we have seen from the Opposition today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

To expand my hon. Friend’s point about wasted money, does she agree that it was an absolute disgrace to spend £5 million a year of taxpayers’ money on sponsoring British superbikes for 10 years?

[Margot James]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and I thank him for his intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I will take one intervention, from my hon. Friend there.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Labour Members like to harp on about the ’80s, but if we are going to go that far back in history, let us go back to the ’70s, when again a Labour Government completely bankrupted the country. They have learned nothing.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. The 1970s was also the era of strikes, and as we all know, strikes cost jobs, they do not create them. Before last year’s Budget, we had the deepest recession, record rates of job losses, and national debt increasing to a peacetime record—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I want to start by putting an end to the myth that the Government have no mandate for the action they have taken. [Interruption.] Already I can hear somebody saying from a sedentary position that there is no mandate. Let us look at the figures. I do not think anybody in the House would deny how unpopular the Conservative Government of 1997 were. That led to the Labour landslide. I therefore wonder how the Labour party managed to take an even lower share of the vote in 2010 than the Conservative party took in 1997.

We went into the last general election saying that we would get the budget and the deficit under control, and that we would introduce welfare reform. Everybody heard that message, not least because the Labour party kept delivering leaflets to everybody’s houses saying that we were going to do those things.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I do not dispute that the Conservative party went into the election with those things in its manifesto. The point is that the Conservative party did not secure a majority and its coalition partner went to the electorate with a completely different prospectus.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am not sure that I quite understand the hon. Lady’s point.

[John Hemming]

The hon. Lady claims that the Liberal Democrats fought the election on the basis of not dealing with the deficit. We fought it on dealing with the deficit and that is what we are doing.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Absolutely. It is a salutary lesson in the history of British politics that it has taken two parties to come together to deal with the mess that that lot left behind.

Labour Members say that there is no mandate, but nobody in this country was in any doubt about what the Conservative party would do in government, and they voted for us. [Interruption.] I have already given way twice and I will not give way again because I have only six minutes. The public voted for the Conservative party in big numbers. The only reason that it did not end up with a majority was the in-built advantage to the Labour party. Even with that, Labour could not win the election.

Labour Members have learned nothing from their election defeat a year ago. As far as they are concerned, there was nothing wrong with the economy and they knew how to sort things out. They think that the only reason they are in opposition is because people accidentally voted Conservative, and that we are in government only because of the Liberal Democrats. Well, I point out that we have a majority of 83 in this House. As I said, two of the main parties have come together to deal with the mess left by the Labour party. When I was campaigning up and down the country, that is what the British public wanted. They wanted a coalition Government and they got a coalition Government because this mess needed to be sorted out. I think that we should be proud of our record over the past year: job creation in the private sector—up; export growth—up; manufacturing growth—up; the largest fall in unemployment for more than 10 years; 50,000 apprenticeships; 100,000 work experience places; and millions invested.

What is Labour’s plan? From what we can work out, it is to cut taxes and carry on borrowing. What would be the consequences of that? If we had carried on borrowing money at the rate at which it was being borrowed, the people lending us the money would have thought, “Will they be able to pay it back?” They would have said, “Here, have some money, but I’m charging a higher interest rate.” This country faced the danger of unfettered borrowing, which would have meant higher interest rates in the gilt markets and everywhere else. That would have worked through to people’s mortgages. We have spent the last 12 years on interest rates of about 3% to 4%, which were seen as historically low. If the interest rate went back to 3% or 4% tomorrow, it would cause real damage to the people of this country, who for almost 18 months have been on an interest rate of 0.5%. A responsible Government must ensure that frivolous spending and unfettered borrowing do not end up with the people about whom the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) just spoke suffering the consequences of not being able to borrow, not being able to afford their mortgages and not being able to live within their means.

It was interesting that the shadow Chancellor had clearly spent a long time looking into details about Government Back Benchers whom he though might intervene on him, instead of looking into a credible policy. He picked out statements from Government Members to paint the picture that we were all demanding higher spending. Of course, the reason why he thinks that is that the Opposition have no concept of governing for the long term. They do not understand that when my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) talks about the policies that he wants to have in his constituency, he is talking about the long term. I am sure my hon. Friend will expand on that when he speaks.

I am sure that the shadow Chancellor, having a neighbouring constituency to mine, had a few choice phrases ready for me. I have made no secret of the fact that I would like a better rail infrastructure in my city. However, I have always made it quite clear that my aspirations are for the long term and do not have to be achieved tomorrow. We do not have to borrow trillions of pounds to put them in place now, but such infrastructure could be built up in the next decade or even two.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by reducing the rate of interest and the amount of interest paid, in the long term we will be able to spend more on infrastructure than the Opposition would?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Absolutely, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I have said in the House before that when we tell people that we have a deficit of £1 trillion that will go up to £1.4 trillion, they look at us blankly and think, “What’s a trillion?” It is such a huge number. However, when we tell them that every day of every year we are giving £120 million to foreign countries—that is the money that we borrow—they recognise the mess we are in. They recognise that we cannot give schools the improvement that they need, because of the absolute shambles of the private finance initiative projects in Building Schools for the Future. Money was wasted once again on bureaucracy.

Labour Members have banged on about regional development agencies all afternoon, but they were a great way to spend bureaucratic money. The RDAs very proudly said that they had created x number of jobs, but they did not create those jobs, the private sector did. The jobs that they created were paid for out of the public purse. Where did that money come from? From the wealth creators in this country. Everybody understands that if I want to spend £1.25 and I have only £1 in my pocket, I cannot afford to do so. We understood that idea, and the country understood it, which is why Labour Members sit on the Opposition Benches and we sit on the Government Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

No.

The Chancellor’s choice meant breaking promises that he made before the general election by scrapping the future jobs fund, cutting tax credits for people on incomes under £50,000 and increasing VAT to 20%. For the hapless Liberal Democrats, his choice meant that they had to do the exact opposite of what they had promised in their election manifesto. Before the election, they promised a £3.1 billion stimulus package; just after it, they went along with a £6.2 billion cut. They campaigned for an end to tuition fees and then trebled them. They warned about a VAT bombshell and then voted for it.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

No.

How strange, then, that the Liberal Democrat election slogan was, “No more broken promises”.

Eurozone (Contingency Plans)

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I am not going to comment on whether the eurozone will remain intact. Clearly, this crisis demonstrates the huge strain that the eurozone is under. That is why it was right for us to stay out of the eurozone.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one of Greece’s biggest problems is that its people, backed up by the unions, have not accepted the austerity measures going through? Is that not a timely warning to unions in this country, which are complaining about how we are trying to get the deficit under control, of the consequences unless proper and sensible action is taken?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is clear that difficult decisions must be made if our economy is to be put back on the right track, and the Government are demonstrating their commitment to making them. Interest rates are lower than they would have been if we had not made those tough decisions, which is good for families and good for businesses.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I would regard the hon. Gentleman’s approach as credible, if it was not for the fact that in precisely the same debate a year ago, he would have argued precisely the opposite points. The Liberal Democrat party has made a volte-face away from supporting the economy and pursuing a pro-growth strategy, and has absolutely no credibility when talking about strategies for growth. They used to be a pro-growth party; they are now an anti-growth party that has joined and been assimilated into the Conservative party.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I wonder whether I can help the hon. Gentleman. Will he outline for the House whether his speech is based on Keynesian or Brownite economics?

[Chris Leslie]

It is actually based on common-sense economics. I regret that the Government cannot see that. Unfortunately, I think that they will rue the day that they neglected growth in the economy. As we know, there is anxiety in the Treasury at the flat-lining, almost comatose nature of the economy. We hope sincerely that it picks up through the next quarter, but many people predict choppy times in the second quarter of this calendar year. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the paradox that I spoke about: pursuing the austerity approach too hard and too fast undermines growth and pulls from under the economy some of the key drivers for future prosperity that support it. Cutting too far and too fast is bad not just for the economy, but for deficit reduction strategies.

The Government’s spending plans are already coming unstuck. I will wind up with this point because I know that a lot of hon. Members want to speak. On tuition fees, which we debated earlier, we know that the cuts to higher education budgets will mean that universities will charge the highest fees, which will result in the ballooning of student loan pressures and the creation of a funding shortfall. Where will that money come from? We know that the Government have U-turned on school sports and that, when it came to the crunch, even the Financial Secretary had to U-turn on the financial inclusion fund. We are glad that he did so, but it changed the spending trajectory. On forests and on any number of other spending plans, when the rubber has hit the road, the Government have been unable to fulfil many of the so-called spending cuts that they promised in their much-vaunted June Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I start by drawing on the last intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He made an important point, and it was the one that I made last night. Government money is not our money, it is the public’s money generated by the private sector. We cannot simply say that we should carry on pouring in money, because it is not our money. We must think about where it comes from.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said that if certain actions had not been taken, an extra £6 billion would have come in to the Exchequer, but in our emergency Budget we cut the deficit by £6 billion. If we had not done that, there would not have been any extra money, would there? We would have borrowed an extra £6 billion instead. We would have been borrowing money, churning it out, collecting it back in and saying, “What great money generation”. We would just have been turning money around. We can get money coming in to the Exchequer only through growth, and that can occur only if the private sector is in a credible position so that it can move forward.

The Opposition’s comments are interesting, because there is a paradox in that they paint a gloomy picture but meet it with glee and struggle to keep a straight face. Of course, we know that if we had followed the previous Chancellor’s spending plans, we would have been cutting £7 for every £8 that is being cut now. The margins are small. Let us not get into a discussion about the idea that if the Government’s actions had not been taken, a further £6 billion would have come in. We cut the deficit by that amount in the emergency Budget, so there would not have been any extra money. The money that we borrowed would just have been churned out and collected back in, which would have done nothing to stimulate the growth of the economy. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East that the growth figures are small, but they are growth figures. He says that they may be flat, but we know that things can be choppy. The point is that we are growing and moving forward.

Let us come back to tonight’s debate and the history of the Council of the European Union. Back in July 2008, the Council of Ministers decided that the UK had an excessive deficit and asked it to correct that by the financial year 2009-10 at the latest. In April 2009, the Council concluded that the UK had failed to correct its excessive deficit within the time set. In December that year, it adopted a recommendation that the UK end its continuing excessive deficit by the financial year 2014-15, by bringing it below 3% of gross domestic product. In 2009-10 it was at 11.4% of GDP, but the convergence document now predicts it to be at 2.6% of GDP.

That is in stark contrast to the Opposition argument that it is unnecessary to make cuts and that we should continue as before. I shall tell the House later how I actually feel about the EU’s interference in such matters, but people outside this country were saying, “You are spending too much; you need to make those changes,” and we are now doing so. Whether we should have to do that for the EU is a slightly different debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was right to say that we are using parliamentary time and publishing documents containing information that the EU could quite easily find out for itself. That adds to the already bloated EU system, and perhaps indicates why it asks us for a 5% increase in its budget, which is an absolute disgrace at times of austerity.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) spoke of the imbalance of trade with the German economy. The German manufacturing economy is a powerhouse of Europe, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone outlined, we have a very low manufacturing base. The picture that that paints is that economic integration in the EU is not possible with sovereign countries generating high GDP growth and trade imbalances. For integration, countries must move to one common taxation policy. That, if anything, is proof that the euro is leading to a common taxation policy and a loss of fiscal sovereignty.

[Mr Cash]

As my hon. Friend may have noted, I raised that question with the Prime Minister earlier today in relation to voting against the provisions for a corporate tax base for the whole of Europe. That decision will in fact be made unanimously, and we can get rid of it with our veto. I did not get an answer from the Prime Minister, and I hope my hon. Friend continues to urge against having a tax system imposed upon us by the rest of Europe.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a very pragmatic view on such things, and I am sure he took great note of my hon. Friend’s question. I am also sure that the Prime Minister will listen to the mood of the country and ensure that the EU does not move towards such a common economic base.

This is crux of the matter: we are publishing documents tonight to pass back to the EU that show that the UK is in compliance with the rules. Those rules mean that we could qualify for the euro. People have often asked, “With the pound so close to parity with the euro, why don’t we join?” but we will not join because we will not fudge the figures just to get into the euro—not that we want to join—[Interruption.] Please! I would not want anyone to leave the Chamber thinking that I am pro-euro, because I certainly am not—perish the thought.

To qualify for the euro, countries must have a budget deficit of 40% of GDP and they must borrow no more than 3% of GDP annually. We know that the Italians fudged that. That is one reason why the euro is in the mess that it is in, and why it is nowhere near competing with the US dollar, or indeed the Chinese currency, in the way that people thought it would. The fact is that if the EU wants to have a strong economic case, it must go for full monetary union, which is totally unacceptable for sovereign countries.

As we know from the treaty of Rome, the original European partnership of six nations was set up to try to prevent further wars in Europe, to bring peace to the European nations, and to get everybody trading together as one bloc. That was the vision. However, I do not think that the rise of far-right parties across Europe and the increasing moves down the federalist route are coincidental. People feel that they have lost their sovereignty and identity. If the EU moves forward to a full, integrated economic policy, that will be the end of the EU, because people around Europe will vote in extremist parties to try to reclaim their national identity. I say that as a warning, with no joy. I am probably one of the more dove-ish Government Members when it comes to violence or military matters, but I fear where those moves could lead.

The Opposition’s main argument this evening has been: “You’ve got your economic policy completely wrong. You could have had more money coming to the Exchequer.” However, they have forgotten that the money coming to the Exchequer was the money they printed, pumped out and brought back in before saying, “Oh, look at all the money we’ve generated!” I do not think so. This is about creating growth, and in the document before us, an independent body has said that the Government’s policy is correct and in line with what we want to achieve, which is what the previous Government singly failed to achieve despite the warnings in December 2009.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The role of the state is much larger than it was even in Keynes’s day; therefore, the state has to generate more demand. The state has a bigger role in the economy—I think that is a good thing—but we cannot withdraw from the idea of managing economies in the way that we did after the second world war. Between 1945 and the 1970s, we had a world that actually worked. We had rising living standards and the highest rate of growth in our history. We had full employment, we developed a welfare state and the national health service, and we had free tuition at universities. Since then, the neo-liberals and the monetarists have got hold of economic policy again and we have gone back to something like the early 1930s, albeit with higher living standards, at the moment, but that could so easily be destroyed if the current mistakes continue to be made.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I really do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s rose-tinted view of the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1960s we had to devalue, and by the 1970s inflation and wage inflation were huge, to the point where teachers were given a 25% pay rise in the mid-1970s that was worthless the following year. As for the Keynesian arguments, the new deal in 1930s America failed until the second world war came along and the country could manufacture and lend money to support the war effort. That is what created the recovery. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we need another war to sort out the economy.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I would advise the hon. Gentleman to read an excellent book by J. K. Galbraith called “The World Economy Since the Wars”. He said that wartime investment in American manufacturing transformed the economy, which emerged as the strongest economy in the world.

We could go into those matters at great length; the point is that it is nonsense to try to deflate our way to growth, as has been said by a number of leading economists. Okay, so they happen to be Keynesians rather than monetarists, but do we want to go back to a world of high unemployment and greater inequality, or do we want to go forward to a world of full employment and greater equality? That is the choice. The Government’s proposed strategy, as set out in the document under discussion, will have a devastating effect on our economy and—they may not be prepared for this—will make them detested and massively unpopular. I remind them that, after the second world war, Labour took office with a massive majority as a result of the working people of Britain rejecting what had happened in the 1930s: the recession and the war. We are in danger of going in that direction again, and the end result would be the election of a Labour Government who would have to pick up the pieces of an economy that had been destroyed.

Even PricewaterhouseCoopers—not a noted left-wing organisation—has suggested that, for every job lost in the public sector, one would also be lost in the private sector, as opposed to the private sector picking up where the public sector left off. Much of the demand in the private sector comes from public sector spending and public investment. We have already seen construction levels falling, with the cancellation of many school building programmes. That will create unemployment in the private sector as well as the public sector, and it is conceivable that unemployment could rise by 1 million. If we had 1 million unemployed, in addition to the 2.5 million that we already have, we would be in very serious economic waters. It would be a terrible time, not just for young people but for the whole economy. We would see falling living standards, mass unemployment and a mass political reaction to what was happening.

I had a different view on this matter from those on my own Front Bench, particularly before the election, when I and a number of Labour comrades rejected the idea of cuts altogether. We believe that dealing with the deficit has to be done by generating growth. After the banking crisis, the Labour Government did exactly the right thing. They pushed demand into the economy by printing money, reducing interest rates almost to zero and recapitalising the banks, all of which had to be done. In fact, the Conservative Government, in their first six months, were living on the growth generated by Labour’s policies—[Interruption.] That is the reality. Now, Conservative policies are kicking in and we are starting to see the economy go down.

I could go on about this at greater length, but others want to speak and this is a short debate. I am happy to come back and talk about these issues time and again if hon. Members wish me to. Indeed, I am happy to discuss them in private as well as in public. I am convinced that the Government have got this wrong, and that Keynesian economists such as Krugman and Stiglitz have got it right. We need to generate growth through public spending and public investment; we do not need to cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I will bear that in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who speaks with such knowledge and who gives the House the benefit of his long experience of these matters. Let me say at the outset that I am 100% supportive of the economic policies that the Treasury and its Ministers have pursued since the general election. It cannot be the case that the way out of the financial mess created by the last Government, who were borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, is to borrow even more, and to continue to borrow at those levels.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Nuttall]

Briefly.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will be brief. Is his view not confirmed by what the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said about inflation creeping into the system, and by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) that the way out of the problem was to print more money?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As everyone knows, printing money invariably leads to inflation. I am sure that that would be the case if we continued to print money today.

I want to address the issue of our dealings with Europe, but first let us consider our net borrowing figures. According to forecasts from the House of Commons Library produced just a few days ago—on 21 April—even if we take into account all the measures that the Treasury are taking, we will borrow £122 billion in the current financial year and £101 billion next year. We are not paying back our debts; we are simply reducing the scale of the debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a good point.

I had not intended to speak until we heard so eloquently from the shadow Minister about the virtues of reckless spending—it is tremendously important to stop that view of the world. We have to get back to some of the debate we had yesterday, which is why it is worth supporting the Government’s financial outlook position and policy. The reason for that is that the situation will be increasingly difficult. The economy was left to us in a terrible mess, in terms of not only the public finances, but private sector debt. The idea that this will easily be recovered by getting people to borrow again or banks to lend again is simply wrong.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is an hon. Friend on European matters but an hon. Gentleman on other matters, talked about getting more people to spend and taking money off the rich so that it can be spent by poorer people, who have a greater propensity to spend. That might be fine when the banks have money to lend, but we need to get the loans-to-deposit ratio for the banks as a whole in the United Kingdom below 100%, so that the banks have the liquidity to lend. Until we are able to do that, the idea that we can have debt-fuelled re-growth is simply mistaken.

On Government debt, I wish to return to a point made yesterday by the shadow Chief Secretary on Ricardian equivalence. She does not believe in Ricardian equivalence and I do not think that many people do in exactly the terms that Ricardo spelt it out. None the less, his underlying point was completely sound: the debt of Governments will ultimately have to be paid back through tax income raised. Intelligent electors realise that and know that if the economy is growing on the basis of Government debt, that will eventually be a charge to them. It might not affect their behaviour over one or two months, but over one, two or five years it certainly does. Economies that run indefinitely on debt find that their growth levels are neutered, and anybody who doubts that should look at the Japanese economy.

If we look at what has been going on in Japan since 1990, we see that the Japanese have increased their public sector debt from next to nothing to 200% of their GDP and that in that period they have had absolutely no growth—their economy has been stagnant. Their tax revenues were lower in 2010 than in 1985, because the level of growth in the Japanese economy has been so low.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Would my hon. Friend like to bring things up to date and comment on the US economy and the fact that the Americans decided to pour a lot of money in, found that that did not work and are now considering very strong austerity measures?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is relevant to look at the United States economy and at the gold price, which is up at $1,500 and not because more people are getting married and want wedding rings—although I congratulate my hon. Friend on his forthcoming nuptials and I am sure he is buying a large piece of gold for his future wife. The gold price has been so strong because the financial markets have lost confidence in the US dollar and because the American political forces—the President and Congress—have not been willing to tackle the deficit in the way that Her Majesty’s Government have done. The gold price in sterling terms has not risen by anything like so much, because people have confidence in what the Government are doing.

Normally, I take the view that there are two people in this world who should be obeyed. One is the Holy Father and the other is my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). When my hon. Friend speaks on European matters, he does so with a degree of infallibility that belongs to only one other living person, although I hasten to add that the remit of the Holy Father does not cover European matters. My views diverge slightly from those of my hon. Friend on one point: I think we should be proud of the document that Her Majesty’s Government are sending because of what the Government have got right. The situation they faced a year ago was desperately serious, needed urgent attention and had to be brought under control by their taking measures that are not necessarily popular.

It is important to emphasise that point because all Governments, when they take tough decisions, face gentlemen such as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). Over the next year or two, as people see the cuts coming through, it will be very tempting to listen to such voices and to think that perhaps there is an easier way and a land flowing with milk and honey that we have not yet found where we can borrow more money, where the financial markets will turn a blind eye, where we can spend money we do not have and not worry about our children and our grandchildren and where the banks will suddenly miraculously lend to bankrupt people to keep inefficient systems going. That is when those on the Treasury Bench must stiffen their sinews and summon the blood and not give way to those voices. At the moment, that is still relatively easy, because there has not been much coming through in the way of cuts. We have not seen the pain that will come from those difficult decisions. Now, however, we are sending our plan abroad. We are telling people not just in this country but in foreign countries of what we are doing and we should be proud of it because it is right. If we do what is right, the economy will begin to recover.

We on the Back Benches, in particular, must support those on the Front Benches when they do such things and when the critics from the other side appear to be doing well in the opinion polls. That is the point of maximum difficulty. Let us think of the great lady in 1981, when 360-odd economists wrote to The Times—a great newspaper with very fine editors—to suggest that the economic policy was wrong. That was two years in and it was the hardest point and that Government stuck to their guns, which led to the recovery we then had.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The fundamental flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument is to think that there is a painless way out of a major crisis. It is simply a question of whether we deal with it now and ensure that the problem is resolved and that the economy can grow again or whether we delay it and have a much worse crisis later. The pain I was talking about was political pain for the Government as people notice the cuts. Our approach will reduce the pain for individuals because it will ensure that the economy is rebalanced sooner rather than later. That is the way to minimise pain—not thinking that there is a never-never land with no pain after we have lived on debt and incompetent Government policies for the past 13 years.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

We hear about fairness from the Opposition, but which does my hon. Friend feel is more unfair: bringing in higher taxes to get us out of this problem or letting the economy run away and allowing interest rates to rocket, thereby leaving thousands of people’s homes to be repossessed?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. This is one of the great virtues of the Government’s policy, which is being welcomed by the gilt market.

It is also worth noting what the late John Maynard Keynes said on such matters. Everyone in opposition quotes him and says that we should follow his policies but one of his policies, to quote the Chancellor, was that Governments should mend the roof while the sun shines and should build up reserves in the good times. My godfather interviewed John Maynard Keynes late in life and asked him, “What happens if Governments do not do this? What happens if they spend money in the good times?” to which Keynes replied, “If they do that I shall make a speech in the House of Lords and that will put them off.” Sadly, he was not here between 1997 and 2010 to make a speech in the other House to tell the other side of the policy failures when the economy was booming, so there was no money when the economy went wrong.

Time is short and I have a point to make about the presentation of the document to Europe. I hope that we have a Division because it will be delayed until after the deadline for sending in the papers. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will show their independent-mindedness and ensure that the House’s approval comes before the requirements of a foreign international body. It would be a great discourtesy to the House if the document were presented to the European Commission before the deferred Division that we are likely to have on Wednesday.

Question put.

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 5 May (Standing Order No. 41A).

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I welcome the Finance Bill in so many ways, many of which are to do with creating growth and jobs. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), noted in his comments after the Budget that it will create growth, so it is interesting that some of the newer members of the shadow Cabinet on the one hand praise him for the things he said but on the other ignore his praise for a Budget that creates growth.

The Budget is helping to rebalance the economy, which is never an easy thing. We need to get more from private sector, as we have been over-reliant on the public sector. An important point that is often missed when discussing the private and public sectors and whether the Government should spend more money here or there is that the Government do not have any money. It is not our money; it is the public’s money. It is the money we take off people and businesses and from trading throughout the world. It is not our money for us to do with as we like. It is the public’s money, and we should ensure that we deal with it responsibly.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I am following my hon. Friend’s powerful argument closely. Will he add that, to the extent that we go into debt, it is actually our children’s and grandchildren’s money?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. That leads me to the problem, which I had not intended to mention, of how indebted the nation was personally. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made the point that a total private sector debt that is 450% of GDP is something to fear and shake at.

One reason I believe we did not see the increase in the public’s spending in certain areas despite the historically low interest rates—the Bank of England brought interest rates down and I think we understand why—was because people saw the opportunity to use the extra money they had in their pockets from the reduction in their mortgage payments to start paying off credit card debts, although many were on fixed-rate mortgages. That money was not poured back into the economy as was originally envisaged because people saw the writing on the wall and started to reduce their personal debt, and the Government should take a big lesson from that. We need to get debt down if we are to sustain future growth. We talk about interest of £50 billion a year on £1 trillion-worth of debt, but that does not mean anything to people because those numbers are huge. However, when we tell them that £120 million is being given to foreign nations every day because of the money we have borrowed, they start to realise the situation we face.

We all face such situations in our constituencies, where certain services are being cut—there is some politics involved, but that is not my point—and local councils need more money, which they cannot have because of the situation we are in. People realise that rather than going to foreign nations, that £120 million could be used to go some way towards addressing, for example, the closure of a leisure centre in my constituency that is losing £100,000 in a year.

That is why we needed to rebalance the economy. We became far too reliant on public debt and public money—public money that comes from private money—and we cannot keep magicking public money out of the air, because in the end it leads to hyperinflation. Indeed, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), made some link, which I could not follow, between our policies and the rise of the far right in the 1930s, which in turn led to the second world war. Hyperinflation certainly played a big role in nationalism among Governments, however, and it came about precisely because of the economic circumstances that we were moving towards recently.

I take issue with the hon. Lady when she says that we are attacking ordinary hard-working people. That is, quite frankly, a disgraceful comment to make. There is not a person on either side of the House who deliberately wants to attack the ordinary hard-working person, so let us just put down a few facts. We have just brought in an income tax cut for 23 million people and taken almost 1 million people out of income tax altogether. Let us compare that with doubling income tax for the lowest paid in society.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

indicated dissent.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

But you cannot deny that your Government doubled income tax for the lowest paid in society and destroyed pensions—not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the previous Government. The previous Government destroyed pensions, leaving many people whom we would class as the most vulnerable in society to take their pensions with fear and trepidation. At least we have brought in the triple lock on pensions, meaning that people should never again get the 75p rise in their pension.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In addition to the facts that my hon. Friend is bringing to bear in this debate, is it not shocking that the amount that the Government have borrowed only over the past year is equivalent to more than £2,000 for every family?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Again, that illustrates my earlier point: when the figures are brought down to a smaller level, people can understand their full impact and the state of the nation’s finances. When I compare that to our personal finances, I say to people, “For every £1 we’ve spent, we’ve borrowed 25p. How long would your household finances survive with that sort of economics?” They simply would not. Indeed, the increase in private debt and in people’s credit card debts, with some even committing suicide because they used credit cards to pay off credit cards, is a lesson that Governments should learn.

Let us look at the growth and debt figures. Our debt is 10.4% of GDP, Spain’s is 9.2% and Portugal’s is 9.1%, but I do not see our interest rates on the gilt markets being as high as Portugal’s. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made an excellent point when he described the percentage rates being below RPI by 300 unit points, or 500 unit points below normal. That shows that a credible plan had to be put in place.

I find it distressing when we get into this argument with the Opposition, who say, “You don’t need to do all this.” I will give the House an analogy. For 13 years, the previous Government fed everybody chocolate and burgers, and every person in this country now weighs 35 stone. Along comes the doctor, in the form of this Government, who says, “I’m afraid if you don’t lose at least 20 stone you are going to die very young and it is going to be disastrous for you.”

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Your doctor said that?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Yes, probably! I am in a rotund position to say this, and I certainly speak with a certain authority on these matters, but it is never easy to lose weight, as indeed I can testify. I am getting married in a month’s time—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. I am desperately trying to lose weight, and it is not easy, but it is never easy for someone if the previous lot who fed them when they were trying to lose weight say, “Go on, have another bacon sandwich, it won’t do you any harm. Have another chocolate. We’ll pay for that on the credit card by the way, which we’ve nicked off you.” But seriously, if we do not get the economy under control, we will find that it leads to the situation that we see in Portugal.

What does that mean to the public? The Opposition have attacked the Government and said that they have not done anything to protect people, but what would higher interest rates do to people? We have had an interest rate of 0.5% for well over a year. We used to think that 3% or 4% was a low interest rate when the Bank of England maintained it at that level for a good period of the last decade. If the interest rate went back to 4% in the next six months, what effect would that have on the people of this country? Having spent a great deal of time with interest rates at an historically low rate, they have learned to live within those means. We do not have the option to go back to 4% interest rates—that would be a disaster for hard-working families. Ironically, it could increase the pound’s value against the dollar, reduce the oil price and reduce petrol prices—I suppose there is a quid pro quo to everything—but let us not get away from the fact that going back to what we then thought were historically low interest rates would be seen as an absolute disaster.

I get annoyed with the twisting of the Keynesian argument when people say that in times of recession Governments should pour money into an economy. That was only half the truth: the other half was to invest it in capital investment.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend misses the other half of the other half, which was to accrue a surplus in a time of plenty.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend pre-empts me, because I was going to say that the Swedes put aside 2% of gross domestic product during the good times and the Australians paid off their national debt in the last quarter, leaving them well placed to deal with these issues.

People often say that the new deal in America, with its Keynesian attitude, dug the American economy out of its hole. No, it did not—that was achieved by the second world war and the fact that America was able to lend money and sell armaments to the rest of the world while not having its mainland invaded. That put the Americans in the economic driving seat, from which they have never looked back.

I want to talk about fuel prices. The Opposition were going to add another 5p to the price of petrol. I know that it is difficult to prove a negative. If we say to people, “We’ve cut 6p off a litre of petrol,” they will say, “No, you haven’t—you only cut a penny,” because if they are not paying that 5p it is difficult to prove it to them. However, at least we have done something to help, and we have to pay for that somehow. We cannot just go on printing money and saying, “It doesn’t matter. It’s the Government’s money—we’ll supply it, don’t worry about it,” because that completely misses the point and gets us into these problems. Under the previous Government, fuel prices rocketed because of taxation; under this Government, fuel prices have gone up because of the oil price, over which we do not have influence. If we are to believe what is said, we may have reached peak oil. We could have a discussion for three hours about whether that is so, and people would say, “Well, more oil comes online because at the current high oil price it becomes more economical and there is plenty of oil out there—it isn’t going to run out.” However, the key to that argument is that it relates to the current oil price. Let us not forget that the oil price is controlled by the oil traders and speculators, and if they believe that we are at peak oil, that oil price is here to stay. We have tried to cushion the impact and help hard-working families, and it is pretty cheap for Labour Members to snipe at that.

Drawing on the comments by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, at the same time as the argument that we should try to reduce our carbon emissions, we hear that we should not build any nuclear stations or put any subsidies into moving forward with nuclear power. We have seen an absolutely terrible and disastrous event in Japan—something that shocked the world and daily covers the newspapers, and still gets talked about constantly, with Russia now making criticisms. As far as I am aware, that nuclear reactor has not killed anyone. It is funny how quickly people completely forget about the 20,000 people who died in the tsunami: the real human cost. But no, they focus on a nuclear power station hit by the third biggest release of energy the world has ever seen and a 30-foot tsunami doing 60 mph, and everybody says that that is why we should not have nuclear power. Nobody adds that more than 20,000 people have been killed by this natural disaster. Let us get some perspective. We know that nuclear power may not be the best way forward, but it is the best way forward at this moment. Until we develop the technology so that we can get to nuclear fusion and perhaps some better green technologies, these are our options and this is what we face. We cannot keep saying no to everything.

The Opposition always want it both ways. They want to cut the fuel price, but they do not want to tax oil companies. They want the banks to lend more, but they want to tax them so much that they would leave the country. They want to reduce carbon and to have secure energy, but they do not want to go nuclear. They are a joke. Their speeches vary from Member to Member. Some could be on this side of the House, some could be old Labour and some could be new Labour. I do not know what their policy is, but the blank sheet of paper is certainly something that they are all sticking to vigorously. We have seen very little in the local election campaign except for criticism of the Government.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy. Does he have an opinion on the Scottish National party’s view on nuclear energy?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. He has asked his question. Members should not just walk into the Chamber and intervene.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am not aware of the SNP’s policy. It may have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman, but I stand here as a Conservative Member of Parliament.

I have a final plea to the Minister. I know that there are problems with the European Union interfering in all aspects of alcohol and that we cannot do certain things, but can he look at putting higher taxation on non-draught beer? He may have done so already and it would be interesting to hear about that when he sums up. That does not involve saying that if beer is sold in a supermarket it will be taxed more, which brings competition law into play, but just that draught beer will not be taxed as much as other beers. The reason for raising tax on non-draught beer is that draught beer is served in pubs and publicans have a responsibility to ensure that people do not drink out of control, because they are licensed and controlled. I think that that idea would go some way towards countering the binge drinking problem. It may be that we cannot do that under European law, but I make the plea to the Minister. I will be interested to hear whether it is something that he has considered.

I support the Bill and believe that it is the only way we can secure growth. It is an intelligent and credible way forward that, frankly, is not just trying to get a good headline in The Guardian, which the shadow Chancellor seems keen on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I did indeed meet senior retailers from the British Retail Consortium and we discussed a whole range of issues in a private meeting. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the consortium’s views, he should listen to what its director general said on 20 October, the day of the spending review. He said that delays in public expenditure cuts

“would just store up more pain for later, risking increased borrowing costs, higher taxes and more job losses.”

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Which does my right hon. Friend think is the lesser evil: a rise in VAT that does not apply to food or children’s clothes, or taking almost 1 million of the lowest paid workers out of income tax altogether?

[Danny Alexander]

I certainly think that our Government have got their priorities right when it comes to lifting the burden of income tax on low-income workers. The increase in the personal allowance by £1,000, which will come into effect in April this year, will ensure that 880,000 low-income workers will no longer pay income tax. Furthermore, 23 million basic rate taxpayers will see a tax cut of £200 next year.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We cannot allow the Treasury to be judge and jury. That was the problem under the last Government. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said recently:

“If an OBR had been in existence over recent years it might have discouraged Gordon Brown from persevering with fiscal forecasts that most independent analysts thought over-optimistic from 2002 onwards.”

We believe that the OBR can have a real impact on the Government’s financial and fiscal management.

We are clear about the fact that we need to put our country’s public finances back on a sustainable footing. Both the IMF and the OECD went from issuing warnings and cautions about the UK’s economy and public finances to describing the measures introduced by the coalition Government as “essential” and “courageous”. Only a couple of weeks ago the Secretary-General of the OECD urged the British Government to stay the course, and we will. Our bold action has taken Britain out of the financial danger zone, but we must not forget that none of this would have been possible without the crucial first step of increasing the credibility of our fiscal framework. The Bill will put on a statutory footing our reforms of the way in which fiscal policy is conducted in this country.

Let me remind the House of the origins of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Within a week of taking office, we had set up a new independent body to return credibility to official forecasts. Until then, the final decision on official Government forecasts had always been made by the Chancellor and his advisers—one of whom is now shadow Chancellor—rather than by independent experts. Over the past 10 years, the last Government’s forecasts for growth in the economy have been out by an average of £13 billion, and their forecasts of the budget deficit three years ahead have been out by an average of £40 billion. Unsurprisingly, those forecasting errors have almost always been in the wrong direction.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The transparency that the Bill brings to finances is part of an overall package of transparency. My hon. Friend mentioned budgets that have overrun. Does she agree that the Bill will help to prevent Departments from losing control of their budgets in the way that was described recently by a senior civil servant?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right. The fact that, for the first time, official forecasts will be prepared by a body that is independent of the Treasury is critical. It will not only return credibility to the assessment of whether the Government are on course to meet their fiscal mandate, but will make that more likely to happen. I believe that Governments will be reticent about introducing policies that seem to take them off course. There is a clear distinction between the responsibilities involved. The fiscal mandate and the policies will continue to be determined by Ministers. It is not for the OBR to do that; what it must do is assess the economic and fiscal forecasts in the light of those policies, and in the light of their likelihood of meeting the fiscal mandate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

In this debate on the Bill and the Office for Budget Responsibility, I would like to focus on the word “responsibility”. Interestingly, Members in other parts of the House have focused on the downgrading of the growth forecast from 2.6%, to 2.3%, to 2.1% and possibly lower, but at no point has it been said that this allows the Chancellor to ensure that we have a Budget that is based on facts rather than on what he would like the growth figures to be. That is the problem of previous years that led to a bunker scenario.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has noticed that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:

“If an OBR had been in existence over recent years it might have discouraged Gordon Brown from persevering with fiscal forecasts that most independent analysts thought over-optimistic from 2002 onwards”.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which makes my point. If the OBR had been there in the past, it would not have been possible to proceed with the bunker mentality that I mentioned. Alternatively, the Chancellor could still have moved forward with the same forecast, but everybody would have known exactly where the blame lay and got rid of the arguments that we hear time and again whenever we talk about the horrific financial mess that this country is in—the chorus from Labour Members saying, “It’s the banks, it’s the banks.”

[Mr Bain]

It is!

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My point is proved by that sedentary intervention. Labour Members think that the whole financial crisis is down to the banks.

There is no doubt that the banks contributed to the global recession, but there is equally no doubt that this country was one of the worst placed countries in being able to deal with the downturn. Let us not forget what a structural deficit is. Again, I see Opposition Members shaking their heads, completely in denial of the fact that this country was living way beyond its means. One does not rack up a £1 trillion debt in the good times if one is acting sensibly. While £120 million a day in interest is going to foreign nations, we see councils around the country, especially Labour-run councils, cutting front-line services that impact on the public and trying to blame the Government, yet never mentioning what we could have done with that £120 million a day. We have to get a grip on the economy.

I want to return to the OBR, because I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have been trying to keep the debate on track. Let us consider the name of this body —the Office for Budget Responsibility. “Responsibility” is a word that has been lacking in the governance of this country and its fiscal policy, not only in the Treasury but, as we recently learned from senior civil servants, in other Departments that lost control of spending. We in this House have to be responsible and move things forward.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that we should be cautious. How successful does he feel that previous attempts to add caution to Budgets were? The National Audit Office has previously examined the assumptions made by the Treasury. For example, it was assumed in the March 2010 Budget that GDP growth was 0.25% lower than it really was. Would he like to comment on how those previous attempts at caution might feed into the OBR’s future work?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

As the hon. Lady suggests, previous forecasts and attempts at caution came from many different angles. The public will recognise that the OBR is giving us a proper set of figures that can be relied on. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer then ignores those figures and ploughs ahead, not only would the calls from the Opposition be deafening but the public would know that the Chancellor was acting against their interests.

[Matthew Hancock]

Does my hon. Friend know that in 1995 the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) called for a panel of independent forecasters to express their views on public finances? Does he agree that it is a great shame for the nation that the right hon. Gentleman did not act on that when in government, because it might have meant that there was restraint and, in turn, that he would not have left this country in such a terrible mess?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful for that intervention. Needless to say, one of the very first things that our Chancellor of the Exchequer did was to give away the forecasting power to an independent body so that our statistics be relied on. This is about not just public faith in the statistics but the faith of the money markets internationally. That is why the forecasts and credit ratings of this country have been upgraded since the emergency Budget, and secured since the Government laid down a clear, responsible fiscal policy on how they were moving forward. These are highly important matters.

Like many people, I am sure, I am sick to death of the cherry-picking by Labour Members. Stopping that taking place strengthens the case for the Office for Budget Responsibility. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) told the House about GDP figures between 1997 and 2010, when Labour left office, but he never mentioned that the private finance initiative was taken off the books. That meant that huge amounts of public debt and public spending were not linked in to those GDP figures because of a fiddle done with the statistics. That cherry-picking must, and will, stop under the Office for Budget Responsibility.

We are told that forecasts can change and that it is therefore not the fault of the previous Chancellor that we are in such a mess. I would like to have seen the forecasts that were made for the price of gold in 2000, when it was at its lowest level ever. Was everybody saying, “It will just drop further and further, so sell the lot now”? I very much doubt it. When things go wrong, it is too easy for the Opposition to say, “It wasn’t our fault—forecasts change.” We now have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has taken the bold step of passing responsibility to the Office of Budget Responsibility and has put together a Budget that is based on realistic figures rather than what he would like them to be, buried in his bunker at No. 11.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), whose robust arguments I always enjoy, if not agree with.

The purpose of this Bill is to separate politics and economics, which is not always an easy job but is one that it is important to do. There is a body of academic understanding about the importance of the independence of judgments, forecasting and transparency, and that importance is recognised and understood on both sides of the House. In many ways, the Bill makes clear Labour’s economic legacy of the past decade—rules-based economic policy. The reasons for the sustainable investment rule and the golden rule were clear: after decades of boom and bust, it was felt that the way forward was to establish clear lines of accountability and rules by which economic policy might be set.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I agree that the golden rule was important, but how does the hon. Lady respond to the fact that the dates of the cycles were moved to fit in with what the then Chancellor was claiming instead of sticking to the timeline that he originally outlined for the fiscal cycle?

[Alison McGovern]

Understanding the business cycle has been the job of economists since the dismal science began. The fact that it is difficult does not make it the wrong thing to try to do. I applaud some of the work that has been done by the Treasury and others in trying to find a better way forward. The hon. Gentleman asks an important question that cannot be dismissed by saying, “Oh, this is just people politicking.” Understanding the business cycle is extremely difficult.

When we consider the importance of rules-based economic policy, it is important to reflect on the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility is to fiscal policy what the independence of the Bank of England was, and remains, to monetary policy: that is, it is an external-to-the-Treasury body that is charged with an important economic function that will drive the policy prescriptions that the Government make, in liaison and discussion with, and working alongside, independent chairs and officials from the organisations concerned. I have no doubt that that is an extremely difficult job. I wonder how real that independence can be. That is an important question for us to consider as the Bill moves through the House. The OBR’s work will be inextricably linked with Departments.

That point was brought home to me by the answer to a parliamentary question in which I asked the Department for Work and Pensions for forecasts of the number of young people who would be unemployed through the life of this Parliament. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) wrote:

“The Department produces projections for business planning purposes which are aligned to the overall independent claimant count forecasts published by the Office for Budget Responsibility”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 587W.]

I wondered what the nature of that alignment would be. I understand that it will be an iterative process as business planning projections are made and discussed in challenged conversations with the OBR. It will not be easy to maintain the independence of this body, but we must all strive to do so.

If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take this opportunity to say that I mentioned that parliamentary question in Treasury questions last Tuesday, and said that

“the Government’s own business planning projections show that the proportion of young people on the dole by the end of this Parliament will be reduced by less than 1%.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 153.]

I misspoke, and should have said less than one percentage point.

It will be a difficult job behind the scenes to maintain the independence of the OBR. Lars Calmfors, who has been mentioned, has argued that it will be difficult to stop or prevent behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Treasury. However, I believe that the Government have set such store by the independence of the OBR that they want it to succeed and its independence to be maintained. As hon. Members have suggested, it could have increased accountability to Parliament via the Treasury Committee. I am sure that the members of that Committee will be perspicuous in demanding that accountability and independence.

To conclude, I will make a few remarks about rules-based economic policy. I take it from this debate that it is agreed across the House that the right way to make economic policy is to set out ahead of events the rules and principles that the Government wish to stick to, and that the Government should allow themselves to be held up and judged on the basis of those rules. What could possibly be the problem with that approach to making economic policy? In some ways, we are already seeing the problem. Young people in this country who are unemployed because of the global shock face significant difficulties. We have to ask ourselves how the rules that we have set as the basis of our economic policy allow us to act to ensure that our economy runs well. Surely, economic measures are the tools to aid a well-functioning society, not the other way round. If so, our economic policy must be able to respond to shocks.

Not only must the Government say what the rules for their economic policy are and allow themselves to be judged by independent bodies on those rules, as they are doing; they must also say how they will respond to crises. Should this country find itself in a further economic downturn, facing an even worse situation for residents of this country, especially those on the lowest incomes and at the start of their careers, who face severe unemployment, how will the Government use the flexibility in their economic policy to return the country to growth, and how will their economic rules take account of the possibility of shocks? This is a significant challenge for the Government and I hope that all hon. Members will add to the scrutiny of the Bill as it progresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I was talking about events prior to the crash, rather than the policy response to the crash itself, which was in any case initially rather timid and slow. My right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) repeatedly urged the Chancellor to nationalise Northern Rock, which was the first symptom of the crisis, but those urges were resisted for quite some time.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are getting tempted into an area where we should not be. We are dealing with Second Reading. I am sure the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) will stick to that, and that Mr Shelbrooke’s intervention will be relevant to it, and not a history lesson for those in the Chamber.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend was trying to make the point that the key word in the name of the Office for Budget Responsibility is “responsibility”.

[Stephen Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Predictions and forecasting are at the heart of the Bill. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), my coalition colleague, who has now gone off to his black-tie dinner, because the crash—if not its scale—was forecast by my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. I remember him being derided and sneered at in the House at the time, including by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who today led for the Labour party.

I welcome the setting up of the OBR, and particularly the appointment of Robert Chote from the Institute for Fiscal Studies as its first permanent chair. I am sure that all hon. Members have cited IFS reports in support of our policies at various times, and that we have all been on the receiving end of its critiques, which are not always welcome. Nevertheless, everyone recognises that those reports were arrived at independently, and therefore that they had authenticity and credibility about them. I also welcome the appointment for five-year terms of Mr Chote’s fellow board members and the ongoing Treasury Committee scrutiny, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) spoke. As we heard, the Bill is not a panacea for dealing with economic ills, but I am sure that the OBR will none the less restore credibility to our statistics and give a sound basis for decisions.

The second part of the Bill, which has not been mentioned much, deals with the National Audit Office. As I have mentioned Disraeli, I will mention in balance Gladstone, who set up the NAO. All Members of Parliament will recognise that the reports produced by the NAO are excellent and well informed across the range of policy issues. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, it is the role of the NAO to review the impact of Government policy especially in financial areas, and to examine whether money has been spent efficiently according to the original remit of the policies. Although the NAO formally reports to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I was briefly a member in the last Parliament, its reports and its work are fundamental to the operation of the House of Commons itself.

I welcome the statement made by the board of the NAO and the professional qualifications now held by some of its board members. I remember going to a briefing by the NAO not long after I became a Member of Parliament and being astonished by the lack of financial qualifications of many people in the civil service—I shall avoid looking in their direction—who none the less managed the purse strings of billions of pounds of public money. Professional qualifications should also be rolled out around Departments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I seem to be fated—this is the second time in two weeks—to be the last Back Bencher to contribute to a debate. Tempted though I am to continue to speak until as close to 10 pm as allowed by the need for wind-up speeches, I shall resist temptation—I can see my colleagues’ looks of horror. For those of us who are far from home and whose potential valentine is 400 miles away, we have nothing better to do than speak in this debate.

More seriously, it will be useful to have independent forecasts; indeed, it already has proved useful. In the short life of the Office for Budget Responsibility we have seen some figures that even this Government, who have professed a desire to be transparent, might not have been too happy about. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to figures such as the forecasts for unemployment and for economic growth. Had it not been for those reports, the Chancellor and other members of the Government might have been tempted to be a little more optimistic and gung-ho. We saw a little of that even last year when some Ministers talked about economic growth in the second and third quarters. We might have thought that everything was now motoring forward, but the OBR was able to tell us that that was not quite the case. The OBR’s forecasts may not always be palatable, even to the Government who have set it up.

I appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have not wanted people to discuss the economy generally, but it was clear from the context in which this debate was put by the Economic Secretary that we cannot entirely avoid doing so. She made it clear that the OBR’s remit is determined by the Government’s view of the economy and what needs to be done to deal with it. She said that deficit reduction was the priority and the context for the OBR, but the question of how to do that remains. How do we reduce the deficit, how fast, and what are the implications of reducing it too fast? The Opposition believe that the actions that have been taken in order to fit the framework set for the reduction of the deficit in this Parliament may be counter-productive. The deficit may in fact rise, because if unemployment rises, demand falls and the economy does not grow, tax revenues will fall even further—and that was part of the reason for our current position. If that happens, we will see the deficit grow.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

As the hon. Lady has said, the OBR will indeed stop a Chancellor saying, “Growth is going to be this amount, and therefore I will borrow this amount,” while knowing full well that growth might not be so high and he might not be able to repay it. Surely that was the problem in recent years, and it is hoped that the OBR will stop such mistakes from being made again.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Our views of when it is appropriate to borrow and what the Government should do about the economy are clearly different. Emotive words have been used in this debate, including the term “mountain of debt”. Coalition Members are fond of saying that interest payments on borrowing are wasted. They are also fond of domestic analogies, and we hear a lot about the national credit card being maxed out, but there is another domestic analogy that we might use. When we pay our mortgage payments, we do not say that that is money wasted—it is money being invested for the purpose of acquiring a home.

When I was the convenor of housing for Edinburgh city council, 40p in the pound of tenants’ rents went on debt repayment. Sometimes the local newspaper and council opposition members would say, “This is terrible mismanagement”, but it was not mismanagement—it was an investment in building homes over many years and improving homes with such luxuries as central heating and double glazing.

Financial Assistance (Ireland)

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The fact that we export more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India or China is a statement of the interconnectedness of the Irish and UK economies, but also an indictment of our exports to the fast-emerging BRIC countries, which is precisely why, since taking office, the Prime Minister has led major trade delegations to India and China, and why we want to ensure that companies in Macclesfield and throughout the country can export more to those fast-emerging new markets.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The Chancellor has been asked whether he has a smidgen of regret about his comments on the Irish economy, but does he not find it more incredible that the Opposition still believe that we should join the euro after the devastation that it brought to a thriving Irish economy?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, it is for the Opposition to speak to their own policy. As I understand it, they are still committed in principle to joining the euro—