IMF

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

If the world were unable to provide the IMF with the resources it needed, people would see that the world was not able to act as a whole to deal with world problems. By the way, I happen to believe that there is no prospect that the shadow Chancellor would have taken a different decision from the one I have taken if he were doing my job. He takes the position he does simply because he is sitting on the Opposition Benches.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will repeat almost exactly what my right hon. Friend just said. Can he envisage any Chancellor of any party not making a decision such as the one he made this weekend for contingency funding to help out the IMF?

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think that any Chancellor since the creation of the IMF would have taken a different decision. In the end, all parties—at least, until today—have recognised that the IMF is an incredibly important institution for the stability of the global economy. If was created under a Labour Government, and it would be pretty remarkable if a Labour Chancellor were to try to pull the plug on Britain’s participation in it.

Financial Services Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What happens when the FPC gets things wrong? How will it be held responsible for the decisions it makes?

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because that is exactly the point I am coming to. What is the accountability of the FPC? Ultimately, it has to come down, in some way, to the court of the Bank of England making an intervention to assess what is going on.

As we have discussed, the FPC will have far-reaching powers to intervene, some of which we may never know about. Some might be restricted to a 30-year rule, so we might hear about them in the future, although an awful lot may well be published. However, it is incredibly important that we look at what the Bank of England does to supervise. Currently, the court of the Bank of England is responsible for administrative matters, as we have heard—it is responsible for pay and rations. What we on the Treasury Committee want is the Bank to have a proper board—probably with a new name that reflects its updated role, although I do not think that will happen. We recommended that it should have a majority of external members who must have the relevant skills and experience, and the Treasury Committee wants the court of the Bank to be able to conduct—this is an important point—retrospective internal reviews of policy decisions of the Bank. The Bank’s response envisages limiting that to commissioning external reviews or conducting internal reviews only of the decision-making process of the Bank.

The creation of the FPC—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) intervened on me—makes this governance issue incredibly important. As we have heard, the Monetary Policy Committee has just two tools: quantitative easing and interest rates, which it uses openly and publicly. We see detailed minutes of the meetings, followed up by evidence sessions by the Treasury Committee, which is also part of an incredibly important scrutiny process, which is fully transparent and very simple. However, as we have heard, the FPC has a large range of tools at its disposal, which means that it might not be able to give a full and open account to the Treasury Committee or publish entirely transparent minutes. Moreover, as I have said, it might be years before we know what intervention has been made. That is why we need an organisation that can intervene to look at what the FPC is doing and take on a strong governance responsibility.

That is why the court of the Bank of England needs to be able to look at the merits of the FPC’s policies and not just the method. The Bank’s board must not be restricted to finding out whether the wrong decisions were made but in the right way. That is why I would be incredibly grateful if the Minister gave serious consideration to new clause 1.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson]

This is an important issue for airports outside the south-east of England. We should pursue a course of action that reflects its importance to regional airports and other airports in Scotland and Wales. I have been sent a letter asking for regional and national variation in air passenger duty outside the south-east. It is signed by people who run airports not only in Scotland but in England. This is a UK-wide issue.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Phil Wilson]

I will not give way, as I do not have much time.

Will the Minister look into whether there is a way of varying air passenger duty? I understand that there might be some European issues to deal with, but we must consider the congestion around Heathrow and Gatwick. Perhaps there could be two variations in the duty, and a small congestion charge to encourage the growth of regional airports around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

Hon. Members, including my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), have touched on the fact that Northern Ireland faces a unique challenge, given that it is the only part of the UK to share a land border with another EU member state—one where aviation duty has recently been cut to a substantially lower rate. That is the context in which we have taken the decision to devolve direct long-haul rates to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I thank the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for his sensible acknowledgement that this was for economic development reasons. Any decision to devolve APD further, such as to Scotland or Wales, must of course be based on a full examination of the evidence.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

Extremely briefly.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the Minister. I have just one thing to add to the argument—that there are small airports in the south-east of England, too, and they also require support. These are not the big airports that everyone talks about.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a fine point, and I acknowledge it in what I am saying about the regional aspects of the debate and the necessity of aviation in many different parts of the United Kingdom.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s addressing the fact that the tax system should be fair in how different individuals get relief for an activity that is to be encouraged. Perhaps the relief on pension contributions ought to be seen in the same light but I think that would be controversial among many of his colleagues. I suppose that the basic principle of gift aid relief, tax relief and what can be recovered by a charity relates to one’s net income and the money that one no longer has. It therefore has to be grossed up by the rate of tax that has already been taken off one’s income before one chose to give that money to someone else. That is the basic underlying logic.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My problem is that I do not quite understand how it works so perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me. If a philanthropist gives a huge amount of money to a charity, does that mean that he or she chooses who they give the money to and that the only loser is the Exchequer because it does not get tax on that? It is difficult but I rather like the fact that a philanthropist can give all that money and choose what happens to his or her money and that the Exchequer is the only loser. Am I wrong or is that his understanding?

[Stephen Williams]

I intended to give a speech on the Bill this evening rather than a broad-ranging tutorial on how the tax system works, but yes my hon. Friend is broadly correct. The basic premise of philanthropy is that one chooses of one’s own free will to whom one gives one’s money, but one gives from one’s net income and the money available—that is all one has to make that donation. The gift aid system therefore works so that the tax that has been deducted from that income already is put back in place and the charity receives that benefit.

I wish to make a second suggestion about how this restriction could be addressed. Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be to exempt large gifts to certain institutions such as universities. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has rightly expressed concern about the effect on the alumni fundraising programmes of our universities. The Russell group universities are particularly active in raising funds from members of their alumni such as myself, although I do not think I would be caught by these provisions. Gifts to other institutions such as Cancer Research UK and national institutions and museums such as the National Gallery could also be exempted. Perhaps we need to look again at the Charities Act 2006 and the public benefit test to see which activities and donations are generally of a philanthropic nature and which may fall into the grey area. It may be an individual’s personal choice to donate to a particular cause but that cause might not be something of wider public benefit that deserves tax relief. Whatever system we come up with, whether it is what is proposed in a dry sense in the Finance Bill or one that takes on board the suggestions that I and others will no doubt make as the Bill progresses, it must support genuine philanthropic activity.

My final point is on the rather obscure clause 180, which it will probably take us some time to reach in Committee. It relates to controlled foreign companies and how the UK is changing the taxation basis for companies with activities abroad. The primary duty of the UK Government, and indeed of Members of the House of Commons, is to safeguard United Kingdom taxpayers, and we must always think about that whenever we debate these issues, but we also have a duty to make sure that our Government’s policies are joined up. At a time when despite decreases in budgets elsewhere we are increasing the budget of the Department for International Development, it would be perverse if DFID had to give developing countries more support because of the adverse effects of the tax changes we are making in this country. We cannot address all those aspects now, and we shall look at them again in Committee, but I hope we can find a way of measuring their effects and supporting overseas tax authorities more effectively to collect their tax liabilities so that they are not adversely affected by changes we are making to our basis for taxation.

I said that I wanted to make a short speech. We have long debates ahead of us over several days, both in the Chamber and in Committee. When the dust has settled on the Budget and it passes into the annals of history, despite everything that hon. Members have rightly mentioned today—whether pasties or caravans—I think it will be remembered for the huge increase in personal allowances that raised millions of people out of taxation and provided a broad cut in income tax for millions more. That is the radical measure in the Budget; it is something I am very proud of and it is why I shall support the Bill this evening.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to say a few of the things I was unable to say just before the recess because my speech was limited to about three minutes. I shall make up for it this evening.

It is important to put the Budget in context. No Budget can be considered without the context in which it is to be carried out. My major concern is that it does not address the problems we are facing. Of course, we have a deficit and we need to reduce it, but we can do that only if we make money, and there seems to be no strategy to get the economy going. The Government do not even seem to know where to feed money into the economy, and seem to be wasting money by giving it away in the wrong places and not using it to do things that would stimulate the economy.

Let us look at what has happened to date. Since the emergency Budget of 2010, and subsequent measures, the Government have already planned to take a huge amount out of the economy, much of it from people on low or modest incomes—the very people who by necessity have immediate spending on the essentials of life simply to keep their families fed and warm. What seems to have happened in the Budget is that we are seeing money given away to those at the top end of the scale, and there is no guarantee at all about what they will do with their money. They could choose to do all manner of things with it and it may never come back into our economy. The money may go abroad or be stashed away somewhere, but it will not immediately feed back into the economy. The Budget proposals present a serious problem from an economic and a fairness point of view.

[Bob Stewart]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, from the point of view of fairness, it is a really good thing to increase the tax threshold for those people who pay little tax? That was well done in this Budget, and it will be better next year. Surely that will help the lowest-paid in our society.

[Nia Griffith]

The difficulty with raising the personal tax allowance is, first, that those on very low incomes—those who will have their disability living allowance or housing benefit cut—do not even pay tax. Secondly, those much higher up the scale will benefit from the increased personal allowance. It is often dual-income families, quite high up the scale, who benefit from the personal allowance being pushed up. It is a very expensive way of helping people who are in the position that the hon. Gentleman sets out.

Although people criticised the tax credit system, the whole point of it was that it maximised the amount of benefit that went to the people who really needed it. The irony is that when we were in government, we were often accused of introducing stealth taxes, but look at the amount of indirect taxation now. What people have supposedly been given back through the direct taxation system—that is, through their personal allowance—has already been taken off them through the 20% VAT rate. That is the type of “stealth tax”—the same goes for fuel and so forth—that people resent. They are actually saying that they are paying more tax than before. Even the increased personal allowance will not make up the difference.

The Government propose making a very expensive move that is not properly targeted, and that is worrying, because the money will not feed back into the economy as quickly as it would if it were targeted at those who really need it and would want to spend it straight away. The first problem is that the money is going to the wrong place.

Secondly, we seem to have no growth strategy at all. We are lucky that some of our manufacturers are able to export because they are selling to markets in countries where there are stimulus packages, or strategies to stimulate growth. The fact remains that if we were relying solely on the home market, our manufacturing would be in a dire condition.

With growth flatlining and unemployment rising, the Government, far from bringing the deficit down, are facing the fact that they will have to borrow an additional £150 billion simply to pay people who are out of work. What is the point of that, when we could be paying them to do constructive things such as build council houses or schools? Through employment in manufacturing, they could be learning skills that they could use later. That would keep the skills base going. One of the big problems when there is mass unemployment and a massive drop in the number of people in an industry, whether it is coal mining or building, is that we lose a generation of skills.

People do not want to sit about doing nothing. The overwhelming majority of people whom I meet who cannot find a job are very frustrated at not being able to find work. They are looking for anything and everything. It is often older workers in their 50s and early 60s who particularly suffer. They feel that time and again, they turn up for an interview only to be told that they are too old and cannot be taken on. We want the opportunity for all people—young and old—to get back to work.

Let me give an example of the type of money being taken out of the economy, so that we can see the real problem. In Wales alone, some £6.3 billion will be taken out of the economy over the next three years. We are talking about a very small population of not even 3 million people. The money is coming directly out of the Welsh economy. It is coming from the VAT increase, the loss of jobs in the public sector, and, significantly, most of all, from cuts to the tax credit system and to a wide range of allowances, including the disability living allowance, housing benefit, and council tax benefit. It is coming from a whole range of moneys that were put in to help people who struggle to pay particular bills—people who really could not make ends meet without the money.

As was mentioned, many of the people affected by the housing benefit changes will either find themselves homeless or simply have to use money that they would normally use for food and heating to pay the rent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the detailed and forensic speech of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). However, unlike her, I support the Finance Bill, and hope that it will go further, particularly on business and the reductions in corporation tax. By 2014, corporation tax will be 22%—the lowest rate in the G7. I strongly believe that if the rate is cut, the take is increased. However, in cutting the rate, we also need to take firm action to stop tax avoidance and to have a new tax compact. A low rate means great responsibility, and a greater responsibility to pay the tax that is due. We need business to pay a fair share of taxes, especially multinationals that are located not here in the UK, but overseas. For too many years, they have failed to pay their fair share.

Let me give some numbers. In 1997-98, income tax raised £77 billion a year; in 2008-09, it raised £153 billion a year. In other words, income tax receipts doubled. Let us look at corporation tax. In 1997-98, corporation tax raised £30 billion; in 2008-09, it raised £43 billion, an increase of just a third. How can it be that income tax receipts doubled in the same period that corporation tax receipts went up by only a third? The rate during the period was largely unchanged. The answer is that the Labour Government allowed massive, egregious and unacceptable tax avoidance for a decade on an industrial scale. That is a disgusting record in government.

There was a massive change during that period. With the rise of the internet, tax bases were threatened, but the Labour Government were asleep at the wheel and failed to reform our tax system, and to understand and take into account the new technologies and the new threats to our tax bases.

Let us look at this massive and inexcusable tax avoidance by multinationals. Who am I talking about? I shall give a few examples. In the last financial year, it is estimated that Apple had earnings of about £6 billion in the UK. Apple has an operating margin of some 33%, meaning that profit in the UK would be roughly £2 billion. Tax attributable to UK profits should be roughly £500 million, but how much tax did Apple pay? It paid £10 million—not £500 million. That is unacceptable.

Let us take the case of Amazon. In 2010, Amazon had revenues attributable to the UK of £2.8 billion. It is estimated that it should have paid some £35 million in tax on profits of some £125 million. How much tax did Amazon pay? The answer is nothing.

[Bob Stewart]

So we are going to sort this, are we? Will it be sorted as soon as possible so that it does not happen again? We must ensure that it does not happen again.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating the next part of my speech, but let me first give some more examples.

Google revenues in the UK were £2.15 billion in 2010. Estimated UK profit was £700 million. How much tax should have been paid? Google should have paid around £180 million, but how much did it pay? It declared a loss of £22 million.

Amendment of the Law

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I agree with a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said about welfare cuts, regional pay and the £25 billion that the Government will provide to allow some banks—five at the moment, I believe—to help businesses. I trust that banks at home will take up that offer as well, because it would make a lot of difference to companies there.

I know that this was a very difficult Budget for the Chancellor, but I believe that some better decisions could have been made than the ones that we heard yesterday. First, I would like to deal with the corporation tax cuts to 24% and then to 22% by 2014. The Northern Ireland perspective, of course, is that we are in direct competition with the Irish Republic for investment. A former chief executive of the Republic’s Industrial Development Agency once remarked:

“In the battle to attract overseas investment to Ireland, no financial weapon has been more important than tax in convincing new industry to locate here. It remains the IDA’s unique selling point, giving Ireland a critical advantage in winning new investment.”

The measure in the Budget, therefore, is certainly welcome from Northern Ireland’s perspective.

Of course, not every business in Northern Ireland is liable for corporation tax and in a position to benefit—only 3% of businesses pay it. Some 99% of our businesses in Northern Ireland are small businesses. The measure is welcome news for those who will benefit, but it will have no impact on the overwhelming number of our businesses in our business community. That is why I welcome measures such as the proposal to allow the smallest businesses to move to a cash-based tax calculation. That simplification of the process could help up to 126,000 small businesses in Northern Ireland.

In the local press in Northern Ireland, the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed the Budget, but expressed disappointment that there were no plans to set up at the heart of government a small business administration to champion small businesses. Perhaps we will see that later.

I also welcome the devolution of air passenger duty, which will be included in the Finance (No. 4) Bill. That measure will allow the Northern Ireland Executive to set their own rate for long-haul direct flights—we have competed against the Republic of Ireland on that, so the measure will also help our investment strategy. The proposal for loans for young people to start their own businesses is another welcome part of the Budget.

Fuel duty, however, is one of the biggest problems that we have in Northern Ireland, especially for road hauliers. Because we rely so much on road transport to deliver our goods, fuel duty is causing a major problem. It is bitterly disappointing to people across the whole United Kingdom that the Government have decided to go ahead with the 3p duty increase, which will happen in August. I understand that in doing so, the Government will bring into their coffers somewhere in the region of £800 million from the motorist. Although the Government will get a lot of money from the measure, it will cause a lot of difficulty for those working people who must travel by car or another vehicle to their place of work. It is causing major difficulties.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I support what the hon. Gentleman says about fuel duty in Northern Ireland. In my many times there, the one thing that always struck me was the scarcity of railways. There just is no railway system, and therefore everything must go by road. It is very sad, but the duty has an impact on Northern Ireland.

[David Simpson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. That is one difficulty we have in Northern Ireland because for 40 years of the troubles, the infrastructure investment was not there. We are only now playing catch-up. Perhaps some day when he comes across to the Province, we will have a new railway link from Belfast International to the centre of Belfast, which will be beneficial. It could be some way off, but perhaps we will achieve it.

Many people will welcome the tax credit measure to be introduced for the video games, animation and high-end TV industries. The Northern Ireland Executive have tried to promote that sector for some considerable time. Of course, Northern Ireland has seen significant investment in the sector, especially in film production. I hope there will be added benefits to be derived from this announcement. Recently, it was announced in the press that the series “The Game of Thrones”, which was made in Belfast, is to return shortly to film a new series.

In a passing comment, the Chancellor mentioned an enterprise zone for Northern Ireland. I would welcome that, if we could just find out from someone what is meant by an enterprise zone in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State tells us that it is an enterprise zone for the whole of Northern Ireland. When we tease it out, some will say that it is going back to the 1980s, when there were different enterprise zones across Northern Ireland. We are yet to have any beef on the bones, and we need that if we are to determine exactly what is meant.

One of the issues that has continually acted as a brake on business is the endless red tape and planning laws, and I welcome the announcement in the Budget that we will perhaps see a quicker response to businesses when they apply to expand their premises. Of course, it is a devolved matter for the Executive, but I am sure that the Minister in Northern Ireland will see fit to fall into line in order to create an environment that is helpful for businesses in Northern Ireland. We also have the dreaded dead hand of EU regulation. I urge the coalition to have a firm hand when it comes to all the directives and regulation that the EU imposes on businesses. That needs to be addressed and, frankly speaking, the coalition needs to tell the EU where to get off. This is the United Kingdom, and we make our own decisions for our businesses and companies.

Although there are some plusses in the Budget, there are of course some negatives, but I wish the Government well with it. I hope that the Government can turn around the fortunes of the United Kingdom, and that we can see the people of this United Kingdom having a better standard of living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Obviously, any rise in cost base will have an impact, but we are working hard to reduce that to the absolute minimum, and we are putting in place a framework around which businesses can grow that will mitigate the 5.6% rise.

We all welcome the investment in infrastructure, which will be a driver for growth, although I add the caveat that I and my constituents remain wholly unconvinced that an airport in the Thames estuary is the right solution to maintaining our hub status. I would therefore encourage the Government to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who made a very good bid for that increased capacity in Birmingham.

I also want to put in a plea for small and medium-sized enterprises. In 2009, they accounted for 49% of private sector turnover. SMEs are vital to the economy. Cutting corporation tax, abolishing Labour’s job tax and offering support through the national loan guarantee scheme are all welcome, I am sure. However, if SMEs are to operate at their full potential, regulation, red tape and bureaucracy must be cut. They have been strangling the economy for too long. I am therefore encouraged to see measures that will allow greater freedoms for businesses in this area. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday that he plans to reduce the number of UK SMEs required to undertake an audit and to reduce the burden of financial accounting for UK businesses has to be welcome. I hope that the consultation on a new cash basis for calculating tax, which the Federation of Small Businesses has welcomed, will benefit many small and micro-businesses, allowing them to concentrate on growing their businesses, rather than spending time, money and effort fulfilling requirements that were designed for much larger businesses.

[Bob Stewart]

As an expert, my hon. Friend will be able to confirm this, but I have heard that about 10% of what small businesses do is taken up with bureaucracy—filling in forms, and so on. Does he agree that we need to avoid that?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It varies from sector to sector, but that is not an unrealistic figure.

Finally, in the short time I have left, I want to talk about jobs. Businesses are vital for growth, but they are equally vital for tackling unemployment. I am delighted to see that unemployment is beginning to stabilise. Dealing with unemployment, through the building business and enterprise loans, will allow jobseekers to start their own businesses and unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs. However, we should not forget that our existing small and medium-sized enterprises have the potential to deliver sustained employment. We should redouble our efforts to create confidence for businesses to take on staff. I therefore reiterate my call to make it easier for firms to hire staff in the knowledge that employment regulation will support them if things do not work out.

As we emerge from the deepest recession in living memory, I applaud the Government’s commitment to addressing an over-leveraged economy, an unsustainable budget deficit and a broken model of growth, inherited from the previous Administration. Our plan of fiscal responsibility has allowed the UK to surge ahead of the curve. We have become a safe haven in the sovereign debt storm. As a result, we have been able to deliver record low interest rates for families, businesses and taxpayers, yet still remove millions of people from paying any tax at all, by increasing the tax threshold. Although we are not immune from events taking place on our own doorstep, we can—as this Government are demonstrating—steer this country out of a financial quagmire and deliver growth, employment and a future brighter than any alternative the Opposition may offer.

Amendment of the Law

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my hope that we can bring corporation tax down again next year? That would really help business. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s comment today. The further and the faster we can go on that, the more welcoming we will be for business, and therefore jobs and economic growth.

I have one other suggestion for the Treasury to consider in the years ahead—how we deal with regulation. The changes to planning will be a massive advantage to businesses. One of the attractions of the enterprise zones is how they make planning so much easier by freeing it up. We can do more on regulation. One in, one out is a great aspiration, but it depends on what the one coming in is. There is a strong argument for looking at the billions of pounds a year that business has to spend on dealing with regulations, and targeting a value figure to cut the cost of regulations in this country.

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement about creating certainty for decommissioning, particularly for the oil and gas industry. That will be widely welcomed by the industry and I am sure it will be welcome in Great Yarmouth, as we have a huge number of businesses working in that field, developing and investing massively in our country and offering more jobs and more employment. It further builds on the opportunities for the New Anglia enterprise zone.

To see the benefit for business, we need strong, growing, improving infrastructure. I appreciate the work that the Government have done and the announcement last year of the dualling of the A11, which will open up that corridor of economic growth right through East Anglia, particularly in Suffolk and Norfolk. I make a small plea for something on which the Norfolk and Cambridgeshire Members of Parliament are working closely—to open up the spine that the A11 joins, with the full dualling of the A47 from Great Yarmouth through to Peterborough. We will continue to build the case for that and the economic growth that it would bring.

The Budget brings further benefits through the mobile infrastructure fund. The A143 from Great Yarmouth to Haverhill will benefit. The Growing Places fund will put almost £6 million into the New Anglia enterprise zone. Both of those provide more beneficial opportunities for business. As well as unlocking infrastructure growth, we should turn our attention to unlocking growth in the construction industry, which is a huge employer. We need more homes and more infrastructure to be built.

Employees and customers must be able to get from their base to the marketplace, and rail infrastructure can play an enormously important part in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) is working hard on some ideas about how to take that forward. He is to be congratulated, and I know he will speak in the House shortly. Through the work being done by the Department for Transport and supported by the Treasury, we have a further opportunity to unlock economic growth. We have just over 2,500 railway stations across the country, many of which we would all like to see regenerated and improved. Dealing with them as real estate rather than just as transport hubs would allow us to unlock up to £27 billion of business for the construction industry.

It is important that that kind of infrastructure develops and grows so that people can get to the marketplace quicker and businesses can transport their goods, products and customers from their bases to where they need to be faster. Broadband will open up communications and be a hugely important part of that, particularly for areas, such as Norfolk, with rural hinterlands where the transport infrastructure is not as good as we would like it to be. Broadband communication could make up for that deficit, so the target of 2015 is very welcome in Norfolk.

We have huge opportunities for growth. This Budget knits together work done by a number of other Departments and the past few Budgets and presents a real opportunity to encourage business to grow. It sends a strong message to business that this country is not only open for business, but clearly working hard to create the infrastructure and environment in which business and business people can flourish, and I welcome that from the Treasury.

Remuneration of EU Staff

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, and that is far too much of an endemic problem throughout the EU. We know about the case of Marta Andreasen, who was one of the chief accounting officers in the EU some time ago and had the temerity to challenge the basis on which its administration in the Court of Auditors was being run. She was sacked. Before that, there was Bernard Connolly. I am given to understand today that in Greece the chief representative for EUROSTAT, who has to operate within its regulations, is under siege and under incredible personal pressure, and may even be taken to court because he has taken unpopular decisions.

The problem lies in the idea of acting as judge and jury and being self-serving when the whole of Europe is in a state of complete crisis. People are, frankly, lining their own pockets at public expense at a time when we know, because we have just had our letters from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that we are not going to be given an increase, any more than are the civil servants and so forth. The disparity between what is going on in the European Union and what is going on in the domestic administration of this country is so glaringly obvious that we have every reason as a Parliament not only to debate the issue but really to put our foot down.

How are the Government approaching the negotiations on annex 11 of the staff regulations, which deals with annual salary adjustments? It strikes our Committee that the procedure by which the exception clause is invoked is tantamount to a breach of natural justice, as the Commission, in effect, decides whether it should freeze the salaries of its own staff. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how she would like this procedure to be amended.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would it not be natural justice for European bureaucrats to have exactly the same conditions as our own civil service, with no additional money being paid by this country for them to get an add-on to their salaries?

[Mr Cash]

I certainly agree with that, and I would say the same about the European Parliament and the analogy with this House. The reality is that there is an air of unreality. In the words of T. S. Eliot,

“Humankind cannot bear very much reality.”

It is time that we sorted this out.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I stand together with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am delighted to be a member, on this issue. When we have these debates, I worry about the constant references to Europe. Europe is a wonderful place; I go there for my vacations and I love everything about it. The European Union is not Europe; it is a political construct invented by someone or other and imposed on the peoples of Europe. We should always refer to the European Union, because that is what we are discussing; it does not even cover all the countries of Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) talked about making alliances. Some alliances are little short of conspiracies against countries’ peoples. The Greek Government are made up of PASOK, an allegedly socialist party, and New Democracy, an allegedly conservative party, standing together against their own people. In the elections, at least 43% of the population will vote for the left and probably an equal number will vote for right-wing parties that are not even represented in their Parliament. When Front Benchers start to agree with each other against their own peoples, democracy is in danger. We should sometimes take different views, and when we form alliances, we should do so on the basis of what we believe in, and not for political convenience in order to conspire.

On salaries at the European Union, I believe that senior officials there have been bought for generations. When I worked as a scribe at the TUC some 35 years ago, one of our colleagues, who was left of centre, was suddenly jetted off to Brussels to become a European Union, or Common Market, official. His salary was astronomical, and he had to pay no national taxes. It was obvious that he was plucked out so that he could be bought. The people in Brussels wanted to pick out some key people of the left from the trade union movement, which was sceptical about the Common Market, and get them over there literally to buy their loyalty.

[Bob Stewart]

It is not just about salaries but benefits in kind and allowances—duty-free cars and things like that. These are incredible perks that no one else in Europe gets.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great joy to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—although, I must say, I do not think that I can follow his eloquence, knowledge and so on.

I want to put on the record where the Democratic Unionist party stands on this issue. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their opinion on the decision to increase salaries and remuneration for those who work in the European Union. That will be financed by taxpayers from the United Kingdom at a time when we are imposing austerity measures on our own population, when our own public servants are being asked to accept pay freezes and when many people in the private sector are taking pay cuts. At the same time, the countries of the EU are telling the people of Greece, Italy and the Irish Republic that their Governments must cut back to the point that jobs are lost and salaries are cut. So for those who make and impose these decisions to then say, “By the way, we’re exempt,” will strike many people as grossly unfair and grotesque.

[Bob Stewart]

There must be huge anger in all EU states, which are all going through exactly the same problems as we are. I just do not understand why other countries in Europe are not as angry as we are in the Chamber about the suggested increase in salaries.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is quite right. Any objective observer is bound to be angry about the fact that there seems to be one set of rules for those cosseted within the structures of the EU, and another for the millions ruled by them and on whom it imposes its wishes. Social disorder is now appearing on the streets of Greece, Italy and other European countries. One can understand why people are angry at the imposition of rules by people who seem totally out of touch and by institutions that, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset clearly explained, are so incestuous in their decision making—they collaborate with each other, supporting one layer of the institution with another layer—so we are bound to get the kind of reaction we have seen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

We should be grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for throwing a spotlight on yet another example of an unconscionable lack of accountability on the part of Eurocrats at the expense of democratically elected Governments. Ostensibly, the determination of pay and pension contributions for EU civil servants is the preserve of the Council, in co-decision with the European Parliament and on the basis of qualified majority voting. That is what it says, but of course, as we have heard today in eloquent speeches from those on the Government Front Bench and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the Commission has frustrated the will of the democratically elected and accountable politicians.

As my hon. Friend said very eloquently, at the beginning of 2011 the Council decided to invoke the exemption clause allowing for a departure from the automatic uprating of remuneration in the event of a serious or sudden deterioration in the economic or social conditions in the EU. It is fairly clear that the Commission ignored that decision but was required to publish a review after being asked to reconsider. The Commission came to the conclusion, however, that there should still be a 1.7% increase in remuneration and a cut—I repeat, a cut—in the contributions of civil servants to their pension pot. This is at a time, I hasten to add, when, in this country, owing to longevity and the rising cost of pensions, we are asking for higher contributions from public servants.

[Bob Stewart]

To my hon. Friend’s knowledge, has the European Union ever been asked to cut its own civil service—or has it done so itself—by such-and-such a percent, as we have had to do in this country?

[Mr Ruffley]

I am terribly pleased that my hon. Friend asks that question. The House of Commons Library told me, about two hours ago, that spending on remuneration and pension contributions for EU civil servants from 2005 to last year went up by a staggering 63% in cash terms. So “No cuts” is the answer to his pertinent question.

When the Commission argued in the summer of 2011 that there were no triggers under the exemption clause—it argues that there was no serious or sudden deterioration in the economic or social conditions in Europe—it came up with a couple of what I can only call classics. They are comedy gold, and with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to quote from the Commission’s report. It says:

“The forecasts released by DG ECFIN on 10 November 2011 show worsening trends for 2011 as compared to the Forecast released in spring both as regards economic and social indicators and that the European economy is currently experiencing a turmoil. However”—

wait for this one—

“despite short-term indicators pointing to an ongoing slowing of economic activity in the EU, the overall growth performance for this year is still relatively strong.”

You couldn’t make this nonsense up. They are meant to be economic experts in the Commission, but they can still print, publish and stand by judgments such as that, when all the evidence to any sentient human being is to the effect that the downside risks to the EU economy are very considerable indeed.

The second comedy classic in that document is where the Commission is rebutting the call from the Council to trigger the exception clause:

“General government deficit within the EU is projected to decrease further from close to 7% in both 2009 and 2010 to 4.7% in 2011 according to the Autumn and Spring Forecasts. Fiscal consolidation is forecasted to progress with public deficits set to decline”—

the Commission was talking about the annual deficit, by the way—and, wait for this:

“even though EU public debt remains a constant concern for the EU economy at least since 2007.”

Well, you can say that again. We have seen colossal debt-to-GDP ratios right across the continent, including in this country. Added to that heady brew of incompetent economic forecasting and putting a rosy glow on a fairly dangerous economic position, the Commission prayed in aid the precedent set by the European Court of Justice, as we heard earlier, referring to the fact that the Court had ruled that the EU was not facing an extraordinary situation. So our old friend the European Court of Justice intervened, in support of the Commission.

We have already heard that the circumstances in this country and other mature industrialised economies in the EU are dire, so we should congratulate ourselves on the noticeable public constraint that this Government have imposed, introducing a two-year pay freeze, followed by two years of average rises of 1%. However, we in this country are paying very large amounts of money, as part of the net EU contribution; and as we know, that figure will go up from this year to the last year of this Parliament. This will outrage members of the British public—hard-working taxpayers who are seeing their private pensions hit, perhaps with the final salary schemes or corporate plans that they are part of closing down, as they face redundancy or lose their jobs.

It is worth reminding ourselves what contribution the British taxpayer is making to the pensions that are the subject of this evening’s motion. The cost to the British taxpayer of gold-plated pensions for retired European bureaucrats is expected to double in the next 30 years unless action is taken—by the way, those are the European Commission’s own projections. If we go further out—say, 50 years—the total contribution from Britain to EU civil servants’ pensions will be a staggering £8.5 billion, which is again a EUROSTAT figure. Many EU civil servants qualify for pensions worth up to three quarters of their final pay packet on retirement. The average annual pension for a retired EU civil servant is just under £60,000 a year. The number of retired civil servants entitled to EU-sponsored pensions is expected to increase from 17,500 this year to 37,500 in 2040. These are large amounts of money which, unless we act, will go towards financing a large pension burden.

I would like to close by reminding the House of what exactly we are getting for our money. Let us remember how utterly useless those civil servants are who do work in the new EU global diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service, and how nugatory their beneficial impact on the lives of British people is. The service will have an annual budget of £5.8 billion and an army of ambassadors across 137 embassies, with up to 7,000 European civil servants who will benefit from the arrangements that we are debating this evening. The EU will have a surprising 46 full-time diplomats in the Caribbean holiday destination of Barbados. The diplomatic corps, which was set up recently, will have 29 diplomats in Tajikistan, 53 in Madagascar, no fewer than 59 in Burkina Faso, 21 in Costa Rica, 46 in Mauritania, 39 in the Indian ocean holiday destination of Mauritius, 26 in Namibia and 27 in Papua New Guinea.

[Bob Stewart]

Papua New Guinea?

[Mr Ruffley]

It gets even better: the tiny Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, which has a population of around 200,000, will have six European civil servants to look after British interests, and there will be thousands more at EEAS headquarters in Brussels, and in Paris, Vienna, Rome and—let us not forget our old friend—Strasbourg.

Prevention of Nuclear Proliferation

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Absolutely. They do so less and less each day, and that is one of the major regrets for someone such as me who believes that Iran has a great future and that the west often looks to the wrong allies in the middle east in the long term. I disagree, however, with the position on the Mujahedin-e Khalq. I believe that if one of the few things the Iranians and the Americans both agree on is that the MEK should be a proscribed terrorist organisation, we should perhaps maintain that.

I have some specific questions for the Minister about the sanctions. Why did he choose to include the Central Bank of Iran? A number of cases have been brought to my attention, including one from a company in Cambridge that has gone through five regimes of British export licences, and has European as well as Treasury approval to sell engineering goods to Iran. It is owed £12 million for goods already delivered and the sanctions—either those effectively extraterritorially imposed by the United States or our own—have prevented it from getting its money. I suspect—in fact, I know—that that threatens its very viability. When I went to visit Treasury officials, the answer to the problem was that they did not really get engaged in commercial-to-commercial decisions. I am afraid that the Treasury’s decisions have caused the problem, and in the past, companies—including American companies—have used a corridor from central bank to central bank to clear certain moneys. Not so long ago, JP Morgan in New York received money from Iranians that was owed to an American/UK contractor. If they can do it, so can we.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The only question I would ask is: would not the Iranians consider it to be part of the irritation factor not to use such a channel, if there was one? They could stop that payment, which is owed to one of our companies, just to irritate us further, even if there was such an avenue.

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend would have a point if it was not for the fact that at the moment, the Iranians need our goods more than we need theirs. I meet plenty of day-to-day Iranians in business and everything else—not in my business, as I do not have any such interests—who try to do the right thing and live by the rule of law.

Secondly, I ask the Minister what our European colleagues are doing. Historically, Germany and Italy are some of the biggest traders with Iran, and my worry is that the strength of the E3 plus 3 was unity. That was its strength: we brought together the three European powers of Britain, Germany and France along with China, Russia and America. For every round of sanctions that has come before this House or the international community, there have been fewer and fewer signatories to it. As the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) pointed out, as we get fewer and fewer signatories we are at risk of undermining the message that says that we all agree that Iran should not be progressing along such a path.

My worry is that the Iranians are super-sensitive to such differences. They are one of the greatest trading nations in history, of course, and my word, are they canny! When I was there, there was no shortage of some of the things that were subject to sanctions. They used to use the Bahrainis as one of the greatest routes for money, goods, new cars and so on. Without Germany and without Italy, there is a real danger that we could be left high and dry.

The Economy

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

The economics of this are clear and easy to understand, which is why both the IMF and the OECD have made exactly the point that I am making. The fact is that the Government are borrowing £158 billion more than they planned, and the deficit is coming down much more slowly than was planned, because unemployment is going to be so much higher.

The issue is the pace at which we try to get the deficit down. If we try to get it down too fast, as the Chancellor did a year ago, it blows up in our faces. Growth and taxes slow down, unemployment goes up, and we end up borrowing £158 billion more. The right thing to do is to have a staged and balanced approach, get the economy moving, get people into jobs and get the deficit down. That is the only plan that will work.

Let me make an offer to the Chancellor. It is not too late to change course, and the deepening euro crisis makes it more important for him to see sense. If he does, we will back him—a new start, a second attempt. We read in The Daily Telegraph today about the Chancellor’s recent efforts to land a plane at Manchester airport—on a flight simulator, I should add, to reassure Members. There was too rapid a descent and a crash landing on the runway, narrowly missing ploughing into the terminal building. Too far, too fast—no surprises there. However, the Chancellor had a second go. With a little help from the experts and a steadier hand on the controls, things worked better the second time round. Perhaps there is a lesson for him in that story.

Perhaps the Chancellor should take my prescription after all. He claimed last week that a balanced plan to get our economy moving and to get the deficit down was like

“the promises of a quack doctor selling a miracle cure.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 810.]

Was not the Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman closer to the truth when he described Britain’s experiment in austerity as being

“like a medieval doctor bleeding his patient, observing that the patient is getting sicker, not better, and deciding that this calls for even more bleeding”?

The patient is crying out for a second opinion, and all we hear from the Chancellor is a call for more cuts and more leeches.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

I will not, because I have gone on too long and there are other important speeches to be made today.

I was thinking about what other doctors the Chancellor resembled, and I concluded that he resembled Voltaire’s giant. I will take an intervention from anybody on the Government Front Bench who knows who Voltaire’s giant doctor was—Voltaire’s great doctor, Dr Pangloss. It does not matter what the evidence says, it simply strengthens Dr Pangloss’s opinion that his philosophy must be right. Britain’s rock-bottom gilts? A sign of success, not a damning verdict from the markets on the prospects for growth. Rising unemployment? Not a bad thing, just creating more space for the private sector-led recovery when it finally arrives. The worse things get in the rest of the world the better for Britain, because we are the only safe haven of prosperity.

In the Chancellor’s Panglossian world, everything is working out just fine, but in the real world, with the world economy darkening, and with the UK now forecast to endure stagnant growth and rising unemployment this year, next year and the year after, this Panglossian Chancellor is making a catastrophic error of judgment, refusing to learn the lessons of history, refusing even to understand the lessons of economics, and refusing to shift to a more balanced plan. He got it wrong 18 months ago; he is getting it so badly wrong today. He is out of his depth and out of touch. Is it not time he changed course before it is too late?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I want to speak about small business—in particular micro-businesses, which are usually defined as those with fewer than 10 employees—and to thank the Government for their support for such businesses.

Since coming to power, the coalition has taken some significant steps on regulation. It has introduced the one-in, one-out policy—which Labour claimed to have introduced, but never implemented—and the red tape challenge, allowing the public and businesses to say which regulations they want scrapped. The Government have taken a number of specific steps for small and micro-businesses, and have begun to draw a clear distinction between the large multinational, the mid-size company, with a human resources department and a legal department, and the small owner-manager. The Government have created exemptions from all new UK regulations until 2013, delayed legislation on the right to request training for small businesses, extended the unfair dismissal period and introduced fees for employment tribunals. All are powerful measures, giving more confidence to small business to take on staff. The autumn statement also included an announcement on protected conversations, which, for the first time in decades, will allow a small business manager to have a chat with one of his employees without the fear of litigation. Further measures, on compromise agreements and other matters, are on their way.

I am delighted that business organisations have shown their support. I urge the Government to move swiftly with those proposals, because it is worth reflecting on who they are trying to help with those measures. Often we get a kick from the left whenever an attempt is made to reduce workers’ rights, but when we talk about very small businesses or micro-businesses, we are talking about just an owner-manager—a farmer in the dales in my constituency, for instance—setting up a business and trying to take on one or two people to help run it. We are talking about people such as Chris and Rebecca Blunstone from Pateley Bridge, who set up Helping Hands earlier this year while at the same time doing two jobs each. They also have two kids, so they were working flat out. It is people such as the Blunstones whom the Government are trying to support, because small firms and start-ups created two thirds of new jobs nationally between 1998 and 2010. They are the backbone of employment across the country, in all our constituencies, and we desperately need them to succeed and take on more people.

I understand that parts of the Government want to go further with reforms for micro-businesses, particularly in employment law. I believe that those forces are right. We need to make a strong case for rolling back the dead hand of the state on the smallest businesses in our country and make the argument that, despite the risk of having exceptions in the labour market, there are huge benefits for the economy. We cannot look at each measure through the prism of an individual impact assessment; rather, it is the cumulative impact of all the reforms that we need to move forward with. That will mean making some radical decisions on policies that our party is promoting in the areas of flexible working and the right to request training, because for very small businesses such rights legislation is a real burden and a hassle. Ultimately, the owner-manager will make the right decision—to train their staff or give them time off—and certainly does not need an edict from London.

[Bob Stewart]

In my constituency the complaint from small businesses is that they want to make a profit, not spend their time doing accounts or filling in regulation forms. We have to minimise that and, if possible, try to take it right out of the whole business—if it is small enough—because one in 10 still seems to be concerned with regulations.

[Julian Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is a controversial area, because although the Government are making great strides in shared parental leave, for example—reforms that I support—we need to look at how Whitehall is managing the relationship with micro-businesses on issues such as maternity and parental leave.

There are some exciting initiatives that did not make it into the autumn statement, but which I urge the Government to support and small businesses to show their interest in. They include, for instance, no-fault dismissal. Deciding when to finish an employment relationship as an owner-manager running a small business is really difficult. The idea of a compensated no-fault dismissal—the equivalent of a no-fault divorce in the business world—is worth looking at.

I urge the Government to have the courage of their convictions on policies like that. I would encourage micro-businesses everywhere to follow the Government on their call for evidence, as we need to make the case that expectations about workers’ rights in small firms must be different. We need the small business owner to be confident in taking on more staff. The doers and grafters need to know that this Government are getting fully off their backs.

Eurozone Crisis

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Yes.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My question is about Italy. Its interest rate is floating upwards and currently stands at about 6.5%, which is unsustainable. Will the Minister give us his views on Italy’s problems, especially with regard to its just paying off its interest rather than repaying its debt?

[Mr Hoban]

Tempted though I am to respond to my hon. Friend’s question, given the uncertainty in international markets I do not think it is helpful for Ministers of any country to give a running commentary on the finances of others.