Policy for Growth

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reed]

I do not disagree with those facts, but I do not think that they are germane to the “Public bad, private good” mantra that we are hearing; quite the opposite, in fact.

The findings of the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis are self-evident. The Chancellor has confirmed that as a result of his choices, the public sector will lose 500,000 jobs. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that that will cost at least a further 500,000 private sector jobs, and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that the Government’s plans will cost 1.6 million jobs over the course of this Parliament. All the while, in the face of the facts, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor persist with their economic medicine irrespective of the condition of the patient, like Elizabethan physicians with an absolute belief in the benefits of leeches.

As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), for communities like ours what matters is where the pain is felt. Of course we want to see growth in all sectors throughout the country.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Reed]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way again. I have already done so twice.

At present, however, the Government have no growth policy at all for areas such as mine which depend heavily on the public sector.

There are only 650 parliamentary constituencies. It would not be difficult to undertake an impact analysis of the effects of these economic policies and spending cuts on each constituency. That could be done in short order, but it clearly has not been done. Why not? Is it because the analysis would demonstrate the pain and misery these economic policies will cause in areas and communities such as mine? In the absence of such analysis, policy is demonstrably being both produced and prosecuted in ignorance of its likely effects. What kind of policy is that?

The International Monetary Fund has told the Government to develop a plan B. The Government must produce a plan B, and, in the interests and spirit of the new politics, it should be brought before the House and debated so Members of this House can express their views on it.

The likely consequence of Government economic policy is that areas such as mine will suffer more than other parts of the country. Future Labour Governments will have to reverse that decline, but we will never be able to turn the clock back for those whose aspirations went unfulfilled, for those whose dreams were destroyed and for those whose lives were blighted as a result of this Government’s current economic policies. My constituents and this country deserve better, and I ask the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I was standing up, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this most important debate, which has been overdue for some months. We certainly need to up our agenda for growth.

Those who know me—and love me—will know that I am not a great interventionist. I believe that the most significant influence the Government can have over business and growth is through mood music. We need to do more to create the right mood and give confidence to the private sector, on which we will rely to provide the growth needed to repair the immense financial damage and the hole left behind by the Labour Government.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bridgen]

With some trepidation, yes.

[Thomas Docherty]

I can see why so many people love the hon. Gentleman. Does he not accept that if the last Government had not stepped in to save the financial services and the banks, there would be no private sector for him to want a growth strategy for?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. When the previous Prime Minister stepped in, the economy was at a precipice, and there is no doubt that we took a great step forward. [Laughter.] There you go.

We need all Departments to look at their role and at the mood music they create. As Arthur Laffer says:

“You can’t love jobs and hate the job creators.”

The question is what we do about that. We cannot love jobs and hate the people who create them. That must be at the forefront of the thinking and agendas at the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I believe that our Ministers do love the job creators, but it would do no one in the Chamber any harm if we wore our hearts on our sleeves a little more openly.

The Government’s role is to set the conditions for business growth. The state of the public finances reduces our scope somewhat, but, to pick up a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), there is a method of cutting costs to business that will not reduce the Treasury’s take by a penny: reducing and minimising regulation. Over the first 10 years of the previous Labour Government, the increase in the regulatory burden saw the UK fall from fourth to 13th in world competitiveness rankings, a trend that has, unfortunately, continued.

As anyone who runs their own business will know—I am afraid that there are more business people on the Government side of the Chamber than on the Opposition side, and I ran a business for 22 years myself—business owners have spent ever-increasing amounts of time ensuring that their businesses comply with all the latest rules and regulations emanating from an ever-increasing number of Government agencies and quangos at home and in Europe. That is an unwelcome diversion from working and developing the business, and I welcome the measures being taken to reduce the number of quangos. We must, however, ensure that those quangos that remain do not unnecessarily hold back businesses, because time always costs money in the business world.

It was Adam Smith who said that vexation is the equivalent of taxation. I believe that regulation on business is vexation, so regulation is the equivalent of taxation. The business of business is business, and the business of government should be creating an economic and regulatory environment conducive to business growth and development.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman support more efforts to increase access to broadband, given that the lack of broadband is one reason why businesses cannot properly develop, particularly in many rural areas?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I would, and I have asked questions about that of the Minister in this very Chamber. It is important to prevent rural isolation following the disastrous closing of the post office network in rural areas under the previous Government.

Only through a strong and vibrant private sector can our nation’s long-term prosperity be assured. With that in mind, it is vital that we undertake measures to deregulate as soon as possible. I urge the Government to consult a document that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham produced on this issue. His economic policy review in 2007 presented 33 specific areas where it was thought that the repeal of, and amendments to, regulations could cut costs and improve business efficiency.

I sit on the Regulatory Reform Committee, and I have severe concerns that it is simply not busy enough. I want the Committee to be one of the most active and busy in the House, which is why I support calls for the Government to bring forward a deregulation Bill as soon as possible and as a matter of urgency. Measures such as the scrapping of the home information packs produced no ill effects and got rid of regulations that did nothing but increase the burden of costs on consumers and business. We must continue that work.

We must also do more to tackle the gold-plating that we are so famous for in this country. EU regulations are signed up to by many countries, some of which do not have the will to implement them, some of which do not have the administrative ability to implement them and some of which, unfortunately, have neither the will nor the administrative ability to implement them. We have both, and we are very good at implementing regulations. That is unsustainable and it puts a tremendous burden on our businesses. We need to look around Europe to see how countries deal with their regulations in a lighter way. If possible, we should adopt those approaches to make the UK more competitive.

The answer to bad government and bad regulation is good government and good regulation. Regulations almost curtailed the growth of my business 15 years ago, when they caused a seven-year delay on a factory relocation. Fortunately, we managed to find a way through that.

[Thomas Docherty]

On the relocation of factories, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the localism plans of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will slow down planning applications and lead to more nimbyism? Will that not actually harm growth?

[Andrew Bridgen]

As so often, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. By incentivising local government by offering—potentially—10 years of business rates, the localism Bill will make local government considerably more business facing and business friendly than it was under the previous regime. Over-regulation is sending many businesses to the wall and dissuading many potential entrepreneurs from going into business.

We need an adult debate about taxation. Do we have taxation to provide the revenue for the essential public services that we need and deserve, or is taxation merely a tool for redistribution and a way to punish hard-working and entrepreneurial people, which is how I believe the previous Government often used it?

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), although I think we have very little in common politically. My politics are almost identical to those of his predecessor, the great David Taylor, a fine parliamentarian and a true socialist.

This debate is essentially about growth, but the Government cuts strategy will have the opposite effect. It is acknowledged that the cuts will drive up unemployment by something like 1 million, but there is speculation that that could go up to 1.5 million, which would mean a total unemployment level of something like 4 million. That will mean a massive loss of confidence for consumers, lenders and corporations as we plunge into depression, and years—possibly decades—of deflation. That has been described as the Japanisation of the economy, which is defined as the

“deflationary trap of collapsed demand that occurs when consumers refuse to consume, corporations hold back on investments and banks sit on cash.”

That is what we face.

My views are perhaps best expressed by Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, who said that the Government’s plan for the economy

“boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction”

and that it

“appears to come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the US Treasury secretary who told President Hoover to fight the Great Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages.”

Krugman further observes that

“the Government is using the financial crisis of 2008 as cover for advancing an ideological programme for downsizing the welfare state and that its plan has been sold to the public with an unprecedented and unwarranted degree of fear-mongering”.

I absolutely agree with that. He might not be to the taste of Government Members, but a Conservative Member of the upper House, Lord Skidelsky, says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s fiscal contraction will lead to a fall in growth. I will leave that with them.

There are historical precedents. In the 1920s, we had the Geddes axe, a massive programme of cuts that saw the economy shrink in 1920-21 and slow growth throughout the 1920s. Government debt actually increased during that time from 135% of GDP in 1919 to 180% of GDP in 1923. By 1929, Government debt was still higher than in 1919, immediately after the first world war.

Subsequently in 1931, we had the Snowden cuts, a shameful period when our former Labour leaders brought about a split in the party. I am pleased to say that today’s Labour party grew out of the opposition to those cuts. The national Government—a coalition Government that was essentially Tory—took us off the gold standard. Snowden said afterwards said that no one told us we could do that. They recovered only by devaluing, which has happened time and again. Even then, there was relatively feeble growth through the 1930s. Not until the massive expansion in public expenditure during the war did the economy begin to recover. After 1945, there was a period of full employment for at least 25 years—unemployment was half a million or less—and Government debt fell from about 250% of GDP to 50% of GDP. That was a period of high Government spending, and it saw the development of the welfare state and the national health service, among other things.

I commend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in the Chamber, for what she said about growth. There are enormous areas in which we could invest additional spending now to reduce unemployment and, in effect, the deficit. I suggest that we have an enormous programme of green growth and targeted investment in construction. We could build energy-efficient buildings, insulate every building in the land, and put local energy generation into every site. We could have heavy investment in infrastructure, especially railways and rail freight, and in areas that are labour intensive. Of course, one of the most labour-intensive areas is the public services, which the Government propose to cut. I suggest that we should invest more in the public services and soak up unemployment, which would have beneficial effects in every way, including bringing down the deficit. The environment needs enormous amounts of investment to improve it, and we could also invest in energy—solar, geothermal, wind, wave and tidal.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Where would the money come from? Which bit of “There’s no money left” is the hon. Gentleman failing to understand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I would like to touch on a couple of specific points and, if there is time, to make a more general point.

I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement about entrepreneur visas, when he spoke about laying out the red carpet for business people who come here to create wealth and jobs. Had that approach been in operation in recent years, it might have helped two constituents of mine. They are New Zealand nationals who run a multi-million pound technology business, which is now based in the UK. They came to this country following a meeting with Lord Digby Jones in 2008, when he visited New Zealand as part of a Government trade delegation seeking to attract investors and businesses to the UK. Following that meeting, they decided to relocate to the UK, and subsequently applied for leave to remain in May 2010, having set up their board in this country and secured more than £1 million of orders.

The UK Border Agency has yet to consider my constituents’ applications, and it is over six months since they were first submitted. My constituents run a company that creates products sold internationally, and they are often required to go overseas to secure further orders for their company, and, by extension, for the UK. Clearly they cannot do so while their passports are held for indefinite periods by the UKBA, and are available only for identification purposes, not for travel. If those business women want to use their passports, they go to the back of the queue. My constituents have told me that they are already considering relocating their business to Singapore or Hong Kong, as there are fewer barriers to setting up and relocating businesses there. However, they do not want to do that; they want to be based here in the UK. It would be a great loss to our economy if they relocated, and their case is indicative of a wider problem. I hope that Business Ministers can address the matter urgently with Home Office colleagues.

Tax increment financing schemes allow local authorities to fund major regeneration projects by borrowing against the future increase in local business rate income. We have talked a lot about the conflict between public and private regeneration, but TIFs bring the two together, allowing borrowing against the income of companies set up in the regenerated areas. TIFs have been successful in the US, and there have been some pilots in this country. TIFs are of particular interest to my constituency and people across London, and probably to people across the country, as it is hoped that they will help to fund the extension of the Northern line into the Nine Elms area, close to this place, and put Battersea power station on the underground map.

Members on both sides of the House may be interested to know that a detailed regeneration plan for that iconic building is finally going to the local planning authority this evening, with a recommendation for approval. If the plan gets the go-ahead, the funding for the tube extension, via a TIF, will be vital for securing thousands of new jobs and homes. I welcome the consultation outlined in October’s local growth paper, but I am given to understand that Business Ministers envisage TIFs being available only from 2013. I realise that they will require legislation, but I hope—this is also a plea—that Ministers can accelerate that timetable, to make possible their introduction much earlier.

I want to make a more general and perhaps slightly unfashionable point. It is time to stop talking down the financial services sector. We know about the huge problems in banking, which have been well covered in the debate, and many of the criticisms were correct. Nevertheless, financial services is a world-leading British industry. It is essential to economic growth, and a major export success for the UK.

The UK has global leadership in the provision of a number of financial services. For example, the UK insurance industry is the largest in Europe, and London is the world’s largest international insurance market.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that so-called banker-bashing is extremely unhelpful?

[Jane Ellison]

It is unhelpful. The banking sector’s mistakes and the problems with lending are well documented. They have been covered, rightly, in this debate, but they should not obscure the wider interest that we all have in a thriving financial services industry. More than 1 million people are employed in that industry, two thirds of whom are outside London.