Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that I am always happy to debate with him, especially on the Floor of the House, which I very much prefer. He will know that at this time in the parliamentary Session, as we approach the end of the Parliament, the business managers—the Leader of the House is here—are particularly jealous of the Chamber’s time, including in respect of the sorts of debate we have had today. They had the foresight, however, to anticipate being fortunate enough to have some time today on the Floor of the House. It was right, therefore, that we agreed with the proposal, and here we are today.

As I said, we have economically re-versioned the Budget 2013 document to set out the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. As confirmed by the independent OBR, the UK economy is still recovering from the biggest financial crisis in generations, one of the deepest recessions suffered by any major economy and a decade of hollow growth built on unsustainable debt levels. In June 2010, the Government set out a comprehensive strategy to deal with the deficit, protect the economy and provide for the foundations of recovery. This economic plan combines monetary activism with fiscal responsibility and supply side reform.

The Government are making progress. We have restored fiscal credibility, thus enabling an activist monetarist policy and the automatic stabilisers to support the economy. The deficit has been cut by a third over three years and is projected to fall in every year of the forecast. The OBR has judged that the Government remain on track to meet the fiscal mandate one year early, while 1.25 million private sector jobs have been created. Employment is just below record levels and we have kept interest rates at near-record levels, helping families and businesses.

However, there is much more to do. It is important that we understand why the road to recovery has been more difficult than was first anticipated. Although Opposition Front Benchers profess an internationalist outlook, they sometimes debate economic policy as though Britain’s economy was closed off from the rest of the world and invulnerable to other countries.

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

Given that we have faithfully submitted convergence programme documents every year for a number of years, is the Minister as surprised as I am that some of our continental neighbours have not taken a bit more notice of the path that this Government have pursued or taken a bit more action to get their spending in line, as this Government have?

[Greg Clark]

In fact, some countries are recognising that, but we want to set an example. It is important that we stick to our plans and continue to benefit from the confidence that the markets have shown through the level of interest rates. We also say in our deliberations in Brussels, as well as making the point in budget discussions, that when times are difficult, belts need to tightened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are already borrowing more. We shall see the borrowing figures tomorrow, and we shall see what happens to their strategy. The deficit reduction plan has gone. It has vanished. It has totally disappeared. It is a dead plan. It is no more. It is deceased. It is incumbent on Government Members to realise that they need a different strategy for deficit reduction; they need one that will succeed.

I want to return to the first page of the Red Book, which we are asked to approve as a true reflection of the state of our economy. It states that

“the Government is committed to keeping costs down for families to help with the cost of living”.

Tell that to the typical household now being asked to pay an extra £891. People are worse off because of the measures taken since 2010—not to mention the shrinking real wages relative to rapid price rises. How about the following quote for masterly understatement? It states at the foot of the page that we are experiencing

“a more subdued and uneven recovery than expected”.

Our economy shrank in the last three months of 2012, and we will see whether we are recovering when we see the growth figures for the current quarter on Thursday. How on earth could that be viewed as a recovery? This is an exceptionally disingenuous document. Reading page 1 of the Red Book is enough to make any dispassionate observer double-take their grip on the tough realities of the world around them.

We should therefore dwell for a moment on the real-world evidence. A week is certainly a long time in the Chancellor’s political lifetime—what a week has just passed. The unemployment figures were exceptionally grim. The Bank of England’s latest release on trends in lending showed that, measured annually, the amount of lending to UK businesses from banks and building societies fell in the three months to February. The Bank of England said that lending to businesses fell by £5 billion during those three months and that the decline was broad based across all sectors. So much for funding for lending.

Way before we got to the Budget, we suggested that the Chancellor should take steps to reform the funding for lending programme, but he did not do so in the Budget. It should not take an intervention from the International Monetary Fund to prick up the Chancellor’s ears and make him realise that he needs to do something about funding for lending. Ministers will have to be far more adept and fleet of foot than that.

The Treasury Select Committee said last week that it was by no means clear that the cornerstone of the Budget—the Help to Buy housing scheme—would benefit first-time buyers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North alluded to earlier, the academic methodology underpinning the key paper written by the Chancellor’s favourite economic theorists—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff—was discredited when a graduate student found a fatal flaw in their excel spreadsheets that supposedly underpinned the whole extreme austerity course advocated by the Treasury.

Despite the usual diplomatic finesse employed by the IMF towards its affiliating member states, its chief economist Olivier Blanchard said that the Chancellor was “playing with fire”. A year ago, the IMF was forecasting growth of 2% this year, but it is now expecting growth of just 0.7%. It was a serious mistake for the Chancellor to ignore the IMF’s calls for a reassessment of fiscal policy in the Budget, and it is right to repeat its warnings. Even Christine Lagarde, not known for departing from the Chancellor’s opinions on these matters, said that the pace of fiscal consolidation

“has to be adjusted depending on the circumstances and given the weak growth that we have observed lately because of reduced demand addressed to the economy”

and that

“now might be the time to consider”

doing so.

[Mr Nuttall]

We are not talking about whether this document should be submitted to the IMF; we are talking about submitting it to the EU. If we compare our growth with that of the eurozone, the EU’s own body, EUROSTAT, is forecasting that growth in the eurozone will go down by 0.3% and that ours will go up by 0.9%.

[Chris Leslie]

To whomever we are asked to submit this document—to the IMF, the EU, the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or his mother-in-law—I would be embarrassed, if I were the hon. Gentleman, to stand behind it as a true reflection of the state of the UK economy. To cap it all, last week, we saw another humiliating blow to a Prime Minister and Chancellor who kept saying that our triple A credit rating was the No. 1 test of their economic and political credibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I shall certainly look it up.

Ministers go on and on about the importance of exports to the rest of the European Union—our Ministers did too—but they rarely talk about imports. We have a gigantic trade deficit, which is getting worse and worse every year. Even between January and February, the goods deficit with the EU rose from £4.8 billion to £5.1 billion. It now looks as though the trade deficit this year may be £60 billion. That is enormous; it is more than £1 billion a week. We are buying £1 billion more goods from the EU every week than the EU buys from us. That is not a sensible way to run an economy.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does that statistic not put the lie to all the people who claim that 3 million jobs would be lost if we left the EU?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. If we just maintained balance, we would gain a million jobs overnight. If we go back to the Bretton Woods arrangements following 1944, Keynes was concerned about trade imbalances and he wanted arrangements to be put in place across the world that would avoid big deficits and big surpluses. Also, he wanted to require those with big surpluses to appreciate their currencies, as Germany should have done a long time ago. We are just going through the motions of arrangements made years ago which no longer have any serious meaning.

Germany is now in trouble. It has faced a savage reduction of 17% in car production in the space of one month. It is in difficulty and will have to look to itself to solve that problem. George Soros has suggested that one of the ways out of all the present problems is for Germany to leave the euro and to recreate the deutschmark, which would naturally appreciate. All the countries now tied into the euro would then have difficulty. Denmark, for example, would want to devalue straight afterwards. Others are now talking about what George Soros said. There are people in Germany who want to leave the euro.

There was an extremely interesting article in The Guardian this morning, suggesting that the only way out of this is for all the countries of the European Union to recreate their own currencies and to find appropriate parities for those currencies. If a country has its own currency, it can borrow and it can print money. It may be forced into a devaluation but it manages its own economy nationally and it can adjust the shock absorbers of separate currency, which are vital. The example used is Japan, which has had serious problems but is managing its economy internally.

I draw Members’ attention to the one country that has come out of the current crisis rather better than all the others—that is, America. It is surprising, but American growth is at 2%, whereas ours is well below 1%. Although America still has serious difficulties and serious unemployment, it is doing better than Europe because it is pursuing growth policies, which necessarily mean more borrowing.

I know that hon. Members on the Government Benches are horrified at the thought of more borrowing, but I urge them to read the great book by John Kenneth Galbraith, “The World Economy since the Wars”, where he pointed out that during wars—classically, the second world war—America borrowed vast sums from its own citizens. They finished up with lots of war bonds which they cashed in, and the American economy started off as the strongest economy in the world, stronger than it has ever been because of the massive investment in manufacturing that took place during the war. Its debt was based on borrowing, which was paid back over time, as the American economy grew, with full employment.

I could go on, but I will not. Debating the motion every year is a nonsense. We ought to be looking at more sensible ways of running our economies.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is, as always, a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), if, as always, somewhat of a challenge to match his oratory. If, as will no doubt be the case after tonight’s proceedings, the Government eventually send this tome to the bureaucrats in Brussels, it would be sensible and appropriate for them to append to it a copy of my hon. Friend’s speech, which succinctly set out the Government’s achievements in managing so sensibly the British economy since they took office in 2010.

This evening, in the few minutes that remain for the debate, I want briefly to set out why I oppose, as so many have, this annual charade of going through the process of submitting a document entitled “Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom”. As always, the question is: what on earth are we converging with? Why would this country want to converge in any way, shape or form with the other countries of the European Union, when our growth, as judged by the EU’s own statistical body, EUROSTAT, is forecast to be 0.9%, the EU average to be 0.1% and the eurozone to be minus 0.3%? It is forecast not to grow at all. Why on earth would we want to try to converge with it? What is the point of submitting this convergence report every year?

I do wonder whether we ever get any feedback. Every year, the eurozone stumbles from crisis to crisis. It does not appear to take any notice of this document in which, since 2010 when the Government took over the nation’s finances, we have set out for the benefit of our European partners the way in which we manage our affairs in this country. We may have our political differences in this Chamber as to the right way forward for our economy, but those arguments are solely for this Chamber and for the other place, for this Parliament, to determine. We should in no way be beholden to the Brussels bureaucrats when it comes to British finances.

The Minister referred to the convergence programme document, saying that no time was spent in producing it. Nevertheless, there is a document. Someone has spent some time putting together this weighty tome, which this year runs to some 235 pages. It is a bespoke document, submitted in accordance with the European treaties. This evening, time does not permit us to go through the long process of how we got to the state that we are in today, but the question remains as to why we go through this annual charade. Surely it would be much better if, as I have said in previous years, we simply said to the bureaucrats in Brussels, “Look, if you are that interested in finding out what we in the UK are doing, just log on to the internet and have a look at all the documents on the Treasury’s website. You will see the Budget statement and the Red Book. That is what we are doing, and if you want to comment on it, go ahead and do so. But why on earth should we waste our time and money in submitting this convergence document to you?

What really matters is not what the Brussels bureaucrats think, but what the British people think. At the next general election, the British people will have a crucial choice to make. Should they vote for the party that has led this country through the most difficult of times and put it back on the road to recovery, taking very difficult decisions that may well have adversely affected them? They will know in their heart of hearts that the decisions were right; they were right for the British economy and ultimately they will be right for them and their families. Should they vote for the party that has put us on the road to recovery or for the party that got us into this mess in the first place? That is the crucial decision that really matters at the next election. It does not matter what the Brussels bureaucrats think about the running of the British economy.

I oppose the motion not because I oppose the Government’s economic programme, but because I oppose the idea that we should in any way be beholden to Brussels. We should not be spending our time submitting this document or any others for its consideration.

Question put.

Cyprus

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I agree that this is a warning and that it is necessary to have more robust financial arrangements in place to prevent this sort of crisis from happening in other countries. However, I reinforce the advice of the ECB that this problem is unique to Cyprus, which is particularly exposed and is in a state of particular indebtedness.

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

Does the Minister agree that what we are witnessing in Cyprus is yet further evidence of the disastrous consequences of what happens when a country loses control of its economy by giving up its own currency?

[Greg Clark]

It is perfectly clear that the problems in Cyprus are related to its membership of the euro. Thankfully, we are not part of the euro, we do not have those problems and we have control of our own arrangements in this country—and long may that continue.

Economic Policy

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am not sure I really understand what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. Yes, of course we have a difficult economic situation, because we inherited a 11.5% budget deficit and were coming out of a contraction of the economy of 6%—the right hon. Gentleman talks about flatlining but there was a 6% contraction of the economy when the shadow Chancellor was in the Cabinet. That is what we are dealing with. As I say, we have reduced the deficit, created 1 million jobs, and we have low interest rates.

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

Does the Chancellor agree that the only real way for the UK to maintain its economic credibility is to continue to cut spending in real terms and to start living within its means, so that we and our British companies can start to compete more effectively in the global marketplace?

[Mr Osborne]

We have to reduce spending and, as I have said, we will have a spending round later this year. We are reducing the share of national income taken by the state. When we came to office, almost 48% of national income was taken by the state, which was a completely unsustainable position. That position was never advocated by the Labour party when it sought office, but that is how it left the country. It now apparently wants to return to that position. As far as I understand the shadow Chancellor, who shakes his head, he does not support a single cut the Government have made.

Draft European Union Budget

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman may say “Ah”, but the reality is that when his party was in office it gave away the rebate and allowed a spending increase that permitted the EU budget to rise by another 11% this year. I do not think the Labour party’s record in government is anything that the Opposition should be proud of or crowing about.

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

Perhaps I can help the Minister. In 2010, I asked about the cost to the UK taxpayer of the reduction in rebate negotiated by the previous Government and was told that the full cost, now that the rebate is fully phased in, is £2 billion a year. Will he confirm that?

[Mr Hoban]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is spot on and it will cost this country £10 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is the disgraceful way in which our rebate was given away for some review of the CAP that never materialised.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I beg to move amendment (a), at line 15, leave out from “States” to the end and add

“notes that the UK’s ability to negotiate a satisfactory European Union budget deal has been weakened by the Prime Minister’s failure to secure allies for a more prudent settlement in this qualified majority decision; and so calls on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the 2013 Budget and the forthcoming Multi-Annual Financial Framework are reduced in real terms.”

It is always interesting to follow the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. His motion, parts of which we agree with, states that the multi-annual financial framework—a rather clumsy phrase, but essentially a seven-year spending review for EU budgets from 2014 to 2020—needs to be on a sustainable path. Of course that is true. It is also absolutely true, as the motion states, that these are times of ongoing economic fragility in Europe. However, the motion does not mention the fact that, sadly, that is more the case in the UK under this Government.

The motion mentions difficult decisions having to be taken, but falls short when it comes to the actual matters at hand. The Minister spent almost half an hour trying to throw mud and allegations at the previous Government about what happened several years ago, but said hardly a word about what he was doing about the budget settlement for 2013 and even less about the big decision on the seven-year spending review period—a decision, incidentally, on which the Government have a veto. We are coming to that critical period of time when he and the Prime Minister in particular are potentially at their most influential, with leverage over what happens with that budget, but when we tried to get a simple answer from the Minister on whether he agreed that the 2013 budget and the multi-annual financial framework should be reduced in real terms, answer came there none. He said, “Well, we’ll try our best to do the right thing.” The motion states that the proposed 6.8% increase is “unacceptable”, but that is simply too weak. Not going for the 6.8% increase is a no-brainer. Where is the Government’s backbone?

The motion was tabled only yesterday, so it is no surprise that many hon. Members may not have seen that this crucial debate is taking place.

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman has to realise that the European Union was going through a totally different era of accession countries and enlargement. Now, we are in a post-financial crisis era, in which it is absolutely clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, serious spending cuts are taking place in our domestic economy and budget. Many of our constituents want pro-job, pro-growth and pro-stimulus measures to be priorities here in the UK, and they feel aggrieved that some administrative budgets in the EU will continue to roll forward without the UK Government showing the restraint that they ought to show while they are at the height of their potential negotiating powers—hence the amendment that we have tabled.

Despite the Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s sudden animation when I asked him what exactly the Government are doing, the motion does not set out clearly the view, which ought to be and would be shared by all hon. Members, that the budget and the multi-annual financial framework should be reduced in real terms. It is a simple statement that would help the Government in their negotiations, and that is why the House should support the amendment.

[Mr Nuttall]

Some of us will oppose the amendment on the basis that it, too, does not go far enough, because it talks about reducing the budget merely in real terms. The question I therefore pose is: would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the budget increased in cash terms?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman was perfectly free to table his own amendment, and he pitches a perfectly respectable position. I thought that it was important to draw the Government into adopting a stronger stance, and a reduction in real terms is, at the very least, the place where we need to see the Government, but we could not get them even to that point. He has seen the motion; it falls short in so many ways.

Real-terms cuts are required now to the EU administrative budget, because in the UK we are in a double-dip recession, thanks in part to the Government’s failure on economic growth. The economy shrank in the last quarter of 2011 by 0.4%, and in the first quarter of this calendar year by 0.3%. Borrowing hit £18 billion in May, up £3 billion on the same month last year, and pressures on the UK’s finances are increasing: domestic tax revenues have fallen and income tax receipts are 7.3% down on the year to May. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility, in its fiscal sustainability report, cites projections suggesting that the public finances are likely to come under pressure in the longer term, and states:

“In the absence of offsetting tax increases or spending cuts this would widen budget deficits over time and eventually put public sector net debt on an unsustainable upward trajectory.”

There is much more evidence than ever before of the need for us to strengthen the Government’s negotiating stance. That is why it is just not good enough for the Government to say, “There’s not much we can do about it. It’s a qualified majority vote this year. We’re in a terribly difficult position,” and why in our amendment we have, sadly, had to point out that the Government have failed to win alliances for a tougher position on the budget. That is where we are today.

There was the phantom veto in December last year, when nothing was actually vetoed—everything went through with the agreement of the other EU countries, and the Prime Minister succeeded simply in alienating the UK’s negotiating position. Now, when we need to make strong arguments about reducing budgets, few are listening and open to ideas because of the stance taken by the Prime Minister in those negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a difficult ask for us to explain to our constituents why no money is forthcoming for reasonable projects in our areas, when we are giving money to richer areas across the European Union through the regional structural funds. That is an aberration that we should look at seriously.

We were the second largest net contributor to the European Union in 2010. Germany was ahead of us with €11.95 billion. Behind us were France with €6.48 billion and Italy with €5.84 billion. Obviously, Italy is not the richest country in the world at the moment, so it, too, is trying to do something about its net contribution. The largest net recipients in 2010 were Poland with €8.17 billion, Greece with €3.44 billion and Spain with €3.1 billion. So there are lots of fiscal transfers across the 27 member states.

Many other costs are hidden in the European Union budget.

[Mr Nuttall]

The figures that my hon. Friend quotes show that, in essence, we are transferring the entirety of our net contribution to Greece and Spain.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

If it was done as a simple transaction, that would be the case.

The Commission’s budgetary expenditure is divided into five headings. “Sustainable Growth”, which mainly involves the EU structural funds, and “Preservation and Management of Natural Resources”, which relates to agriculture and the environment, are the biggest items and accounted for 87% of EU spending in 2012. “Citizenship, freedom, security and justice”, which relates to social policy, crime and policing, and “The EU as a global player”, which involves foreign policy issues, were the smaller items of the budget. The heading, “Administration”, relates to the finances of the staff of the European Commission and other institutional expenditure, such as that of the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee and various other EU agencies and quangos.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As ever, it is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).

The facts are simple. The net out-turn figures are £9.2 billion for 2010-11, £8.7 billion for 2011-12, £6.9 billion for 2012-13 and £8.3 billion for 2013-14. At a time when we are cutting our budgets here in the UK, the fact is that, whatever happens in the negotiations, those in Europe and Brussels want the European budgets to be increased. Meanwhile, my constituents are seeing their budgets being cut. This serves to highlight the fact that we would be better off out of the EU.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

As I am not in the position of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—nor could I ever have the talent or ability to be so—that is not in my gift. We shall have to wait and see whether my hon. Friend chooses to make such a move later in the debate.

It seems to me that there are three crucial points to be made about the independence of the institution of the Governor of the Bank of England. Let me begin by saying that if the Governor were indeed appointed by the Treasury Committee, which would have the right of veto, the institution could be perceived to be tainted if the appointment reflected the politics or the political make-up of the Committee. That point was addressed by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that it was not relevant in the United Kingdom, citing the report from the Institute for Government, but anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American politics knows that appointment by committee in the American House is supremely political, and therefore potentially damaging to the role of institutions in that country. I shall make the same point shortly about the role of the individual, as opposed to the institution.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) pointed out, there is a question mark over the ability of the Treasury Committee to scrutinise the Governor, but there is also the possibility that the Governor, or the institution, might be perceived as being subservient in will to the Committee. There might come a time when there would be an impasse between the will of the Executive and that of the Committee, and that in itself could undermine the institution.

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

Surely exactly the same argument would apply if the appointment continued to be made by the Executive. Surely what matters is that Parliament—through the Treasury Committee—has the final say.

[Stephen Hammond]

I agree that Parliament must have the ability to scrutinise and that the body must be accountable, but I want the Governor to be independent as well. I am presenting some of the arguments that must be considered, or countered, if the Governor is to be independent in his operations. It is also true that the circumstance that I have just described would not arise if the Executive continued to make the appointment, because if the Treasury Committee did not have the power of veto, there could not be an impasse between the Committee and the Executive. However, my hon. Friend was probably referring to a point I made earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend anticipates a couple of the points I shall go into in more detail later.

[Mr Nuttall]

At the start of my hon. Friend’s reply to the last-but-one intervention from our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), he said that the money supply was too loose after 1997. What does he think about the Bank of England’s decision yesterday to print another £50 billion?

[Matthew Hancock]

I supported yesterday’s decision, because one thing we are dealing with now is the consequence of money being too loose, which is the deleveraging in the banking system, which is causing a huge drag on the economy. Therefore, the mitigation of that deleveraging, through loose monetary policy—low interest rates and in a quantitative sense—is something that I support. However, more strongly than I support the Bank’s decision, I support its ability to make it in a way that is unconstrained by political considerations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

It is important that the Governor of the day has the same broad strategy as the Government—but I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have one further, and chilling, example.

[Mr Nuttall]

Just to be clear, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill is about the appointment and the dismissal of the Governor and has nothing to do with broad policy?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is to do with the appointment and dismissal of the Governor, and my argument is that the broad strategy of the Governor must be aligned with the broad economic strategy of the Government, and that this Bill could rend the two asunder.

What is currently happening in the eurozone serves as a definitive example of the problems that can arise when the views of Governments and of the leadership of a central bank diverge, and it shows what could happen if this Bill were to be enacted. The history is familiar to us all, so I will not go through it again in detail. Since the start of the sovereign debt crisis, the European Central Bank has injected euros and liquidity into the system, yet monetary policy in much of the eurozone remains very tight. That clearly harms some of the countries in the eurozone. There are tensions as a result of the relatively tight monetary policy and the need for some countries to tighten fiscal policy—there are no fiscal transfers between the members of that currency. That, compounded by weak banks, means that the monetary policy on the ground is even tighter. The lack of co-ordination between the ECB and the countries and Governments in the eurozone is highlighted on our television screens many nights of the week. Greek bond deals leapt more than 10 points to more than 100% when it was announced by the Government in November that there was to be a referendum on the bail-out package supported by the president of the ECB.

We have heard anecdotal evidence so far about the impact of a governor on financial markets and uncertainty. Adam Posen, who serves on the MPC, and Kenneth Kuttner wrote a paper in 2007 which found substantial academic evidence that the appointment of a central bank governor can have a direct impact on the markets, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was speaking about. They concluded that

“financial markets tend to react to the appointment of a new central bank governor with larger-than-normal price changes, especially when a distinction is made between ‘newsworthy’ announcements…and those merely confirming an anticipated appointment.”

That is the problem that Members were talking about: uncertainty in the financial markets as a result of bank appointments becoming unclear and uncertain.

I want to take up the question of whether the Treasury Committee should have a veto. I said earlier that I am a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I am also privileged to be on the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee’s power over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is, I think, similar to the power of veto that the Treasury Committee has over the OBR. The National Audit Office is obviously not Executive but merely a provider of sophisticated information about the Government and the wider world. That distinction between providing information in an independent way, separate from Government, and taking Executive action in the broad strategy set out by the Government is crucial.

As I come to a conclusion, I want briefly to consider the international evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

In its quality, too. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that.

Among the many facts that my hon. Friend gave, I have to correct one or two. He said that only nine banks could still issue notes in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in fact it is only seven. The Bank Charter Act 1844 was the beginning of the move towards the Bank of England’s note issue monopoly, after which no new banks were permitted to issue notes and the stock of notes could not be increased. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is no longer in his place, because the last bank to issue notes was one called Fox, Fowler and Company, which was based in Somerset. Sticking to tradition is a feature of what my hon. Friend does, so perhaps that is not a surprise to him.

[Mr Nuttall]

We have heard from several Back Benchers, but is the Financial Secretary as disappointed as I am that we have not heard the views of any of our coalition colleagues the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Hoban]

I hate to say it, but I thought my hon. Friend was uncharacteristically uncharitable about our hon. Friends the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps they did not get the three e-mails that I got from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington imploring me to be here today. I answered that call, and I am sorry that more Members on his side of the argument did not do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I met representatives of the FairFuelUK campaign yesterday. We have a great deal of sympathy with its arguments, as well as with those made by families across this country, including in remote and rural areas. It is worth saying that thanks to the decisions this coalition Government have made not only is fuel tax 10p a litre lower than under Labour’s plans, but council tax is lower and income tax is lower. In the Budget in March we also saw the largest ever increase in the income tax personal allowance, all of which puts money back into the pockets of hard-pressed families.

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

7. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of EU regulations on economic growth.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The Government are taking action to reduce the burden of EU regulation on UK business. At Budget 2011, the “Plan for Growth” announced a comprehensive package for tackling EU regulation. The Government estimate that the cost of European regulations to the UK has varied from 27% to 60% of the total UK regulatory cost since October 2009.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Although British businesses will welcome the fact that the United Kingdom is not in the eurozone, and will not suffer from the loss of sovereignty and the new regulations that fiscal union would mean, they are nevertheless burdened by EU-imposed red tape, which means that it is much harder for them to compete successfully for new contracts against companies from outside the EU, which are not subject to such regulations. May I urge him urgently to conduct an investigation into and an assessment of the extent to which that is holding back the British economy?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we are taking action through the “Plan for Growth”. We want the Commission to publish an annual audit of the cumulative cost of all planned EU regulations, but assessments are not enough in themselves, which is why as a consequence of lobbying by this Government the EU has introduced an exemption for micro-businesses and is looking at lifting the burden of regulation on the small and medium-sized businesses that are key drivers of growth in our economy.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

(Nottingham East): My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked an extremely pertinent question, and I want to come back to it later. First, however, I commend hon. Members from both sides and all parties for spotting that this debate was so relevant. The motion, as framed, does not leap out from the Order Paper, and when hon. Members go to the Vote Office to find these convergence documents, they are met with a little mystification. Let us turn to page minus-2, so to speak, of the Budget Red Book.

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

This is last year’s speech.

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed, I was here this time last year making a very similar, uncannily parallel speech, but I will point it out again. Underneath where it talks about Crown copyright, the ISBN number and where it says:

“Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre”,

it reads:

“The Budget report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s…fiscal outlook, constitutes the Government’s assessment under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993”.

That is relevant to today’s debate. It is written in very small font for those who might have difficulty reading it. It mentions the European Communities (Amendment) Act, which sounds like a very British piece of legislation, but, being eagle-eyed, hon. Members will have spotted that all that Act does is refer to the Maastricht treaty, article 2 of which states:

“The Community shall have as its task…a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth”.

Of course, it also relates to article 103, which talks about economic policies being a “matter of common concern” that should be co-ordinated within the Council. These are the sorts of words that some find difficult to stomach, but the article continues:

“For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy”.

In a sense, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was right to say that this is the homework that has been set by the European Commission, and we are completing our homework today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Let me say first that the Minister is heroic to take this brief, which is—to understate the matter—a difficult one. I do not envy him his job of having to try to sell it.

There are two good reasons for not sending the Budget report to the European Union. One reason, on which the Opposition agree, is that it is not a good Budget. The other reason, on which many of us on both sides of the House agree, is this: why should we send our Budget report to the European Union? If the EU wanted a copy, it could buy a copy. It is not a problem.

[Mr Nuttall]

The EU could just look it up for free on the internet.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am not as skilled as the hon. Gentleman in using the internet. Old-fashioned though it may be, I go to shops and buy books, I am afraid.

As for the Budget, the reality is that it will not solve our economic problems. Our problems are not really about the deficit; they are to do with unemployment. Looking back, another time when we had an enormous public debt and enormous deficits was the second world war, after which the then Labour Government ran a full-employment economy, which was the way they overcame our problems. If our Budget was directed towards creating employment, we too would solve many of our problems. The important thing is to generate directly in labour-intensive areas, which are not expensive. We are talking about relatively low-paid workers in the public services or the construction sector—labour-intensive sectors with low import content, which are just the sort of sectors where we want to be generating. However, public services and construction are the very sectors we are cutting.

If we had a massive Government-driven house building programme, along with the creation of more public service jobs, we would bring down unemployment and people would be paying taxes rather than living on benefits, and over time the deficit would solve itself. That is what the Labour Government did after 1945. We were living in Keynesian times then, and I think that Keynes was absolutely right. I like to think that if he were here now, he would be saying what I am saying, albeit possibly in a more sophisticated way.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As always, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). He referred to the fact that only a few Conservative Members voted with the then Labour Opposition on the Maastricht treaty—I rather suspect that I may have been one of them at that time.

May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one matter, however? He referred to our sending the Red Book. I wish that it were so, but we are not sending the Red Book; instead we are sending the 210 pages of the “2011-12 Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom, submitted in line with the Stability and Growth Pact”. It is a specially produced document. As last year, I oppose the submission of this convergence document to the European Union.

No doubt by contrast to the previous speaker, I entirely accept that the Government are pursuing a sensible economic policy that is designed to enable this country to start to live within its means once more. Of course there is a debate to be had in the House about whether taxation is at the right level in certain areas or whether public expenditure should be reduced further and faster, but those matters are not what this debate is about. It is specifically about whether the Government assessment of our economic position should be approved

“for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993”,

which requires this country to submit an assessment every year of how well we are progressing on convergence. I object to that, as, I suspect, do many millions of my fellow Britons.

I wish to raise three questions about this convergence. First, what are we supposed to be converging with? Is it the eurozone? It probably is, and I certainly suspect that that is what the Eurocrats want us to do, but why on earth would anyone want to converge with the eurozone at present? It has a failing currency and is based on a failed idea that is continuing to survive in its current form only thanks to bail-out after bail-out and the failure of European leaders in Brussels to wake up and accept the reality that, as any sensible independent commentator can see, it is folly to try to tie together the economies of different countries with such widely divergent characteristics. Such a plan is doomed to fail.

Secondly, who are we supposed to be converging with? Surely not the struggling economies of southern Europe. Things are still going very badly wrong across the eurozone, as we saw only yesterday with the collapse of the Dutch Government because of the fall-out from the eurozone crisis. In addition, there are the economic data: first-quarter GDP shrank by a further 0.4% in Spain, and the eurozone’s own composite purchasing managers index—a useful measure of progress in the eurozone—has slumped to 47.4 in April, down dramatically from March’s 49.1, and we must note that any index figure of less than 50 means contraction. That collapse was both in services, down from 49.2 to 47.9, and in manufacturing, down from 47.7 to 45.0. Even the mighty German economy is being affected by the struggling eurozone. Its overall purchasing managers index figure is down to 50.9, with even German manufacturing at a 33-month low of 46.3. It is clear, therefore, that despite all the bail-outs and the firewalls and the new IMF fund that has just been created, the eurozone remains mired in deep crisis, and I submit that we do not want to converge with it.

Thirdly—and perhaps most importantly—why are we converging? Has anybody bothered to ask the British people if they want to be converging with the countries of the eurozone? We ought to be pursuing the policies that are right for this country, regardless of what the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels think.

[Mr Hoban]

May I reiterate an assurance that I gave earlier? We are following the policies that we think are right and are in this country’s interests. We are not going to be dictated to by Brussels bureaucrats.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am most grateful, as I am sure are all Members, for that confirmation from the Minister. That answer raises the following question, however. No doubt many officials at the Treasury have been engaged in the preparation of this convergence document, spending many hours of precious time and energy on it, but why? What a complete waste of time! As was ascertained last year, anybody who is interested in this information could glean all of it from the internet, without any need to move any paper about. This is a complete, gigantic waste of time. It is a giant, paper-shuffling exercise.

[Mr Cash]

As someone who took a very active part in the Maastricht debates, I can say that this current debate is a case of déjà vu. As my hon. Friend said, we are being required to submit this report under the provisions of section 5, even though everything has changed and it is utterly impossible for us to set out to achieve the stated objective, because it is impossible for us, in the national interest, to attempt to apply the convergence criteria. The whole thing is a complete mess, which is why we need to have a referendum on the whole issue, including our relationship with the European Union.

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both those points: first, this is a complete waste of time, and secondly, we certainly ought to have a referendum. That is not, of course, the matter before us tonight, however. Instead, this is the question under discussion tonight: what is the point of sending this document to Brussels?

The Minister admits that we pay no attention to what Brussels says to us, and that we govern our own affairs, so what is the point of producing this document? We should be honest with the people in Brussels and say, “Look, we’re not going to listen to you anyway. We’re independent in these matters, and we’re going to stop sending you this document every year.” It is a complete waste of time to send it this year—and I would be very interested to know what happened to last year’s document.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is a cruel paradox that the EU lectures member states to get their deficit down and then demands more money from them by way of public spending?

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it prompts the following: if the bureaucrats in Brussels are keeping an eye on the eurozone, something has gone pretty badly wrong because right across the eurozone nobody is sticking to the rules and regulations. The growth and stability pact went west years ago. If the bureaucrats had stuck to it a bit more closely, all the bail-outs, mechanisms and IMF funds would not have been necessary. If they had spent a little less time reading convergence documents and a little more time concentrating on the problems in the eurozone, our country might be better off because our European neighbours might be better off too and would therefore want to buy our goods and services.

There is no useful purpose to our constituents in this document being sent to Brussels, and I urge the House to vote against the motion.

IMF

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I talked about loyal Labour Back Benchers and would never apply such an outrageous slur to the hon. Gentleman, whereas it is certainly applicable to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). The distinction is not sophistry, because an IMF contribution, were there ever to be one, to a eurozone bail-out fund, would basically put that money into a eurozone pot and then the eurozone would decide how it was spent. If there is a country programme for a specific country in the eurozone, the IMF team would turn up, wherever it happens to be, impose its own conditions and do its own analysis, and that is fundamentally different. The logic of the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the IMF would never help a eurozone country, which would lead to the eurozone countries leaving the IMF, and we would then be fundamentally undermining one of the most important institutions the world has seen in the past 60 years.

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

Is it not the case that every time the IMF provides any assistance to a eurozone country, it simply demonstrates the complete failure of the European Central Bank to do its job properly?

[Mr Osborne]

The European Central Bank is of course a very important part of the equation, but one of the problems facing Ireland, Portugal and, indeed, Greece was that they were also shut out of international debt markets, and when countries are shut out of international debt markets they usually—almost always—turn to the IMF for assistance, so it would be very odd if the IMF were not there to help them.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [Lords]

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

‘(3A) It is the duty of the insurer to show regard to the principle that a burden or restriction which is imposed on a consumer through requests for particulars before a contract is entered into should be proportionate to the benefits, considered in general terms, which are expected to result from the imposition of that burden or restriction.’.

If hon. Members look at line 22 of page 1, right at the foot of the Bill, they will see a simple provision that states:

“It is the duty of the consumer to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer.”

It follows a provision in clause 2—one of the most important in the Bill—that refers to the “disclosure and representations” that consumers need to make to an insurer

“before a…contract is entered into or varied.”

I tabled an amendment in Committee that was specifically designed to challenge the Government in respect of the burden that might fall on consumers under the new provisions in this Bill.

I support the Bill; I think it is important. I want more clarity and disclosure, as the contractual arrangement needs to be clearer and more transparent. However, there is a small alarm going off in the back of my mind—I have a minor anxiety—that we might unwittingly create circumstances in which an individual faced with having to answer a barrage of extra questions, or fill in page after page of forms that they perhaps did not have to fill in before, may well think, “I can’t be bothered with this particular insurance cover,” especially if they feel it to be a discretionary area of cover, rather than a mandatory area, such as car insurance. Faced with that weight of administration and bureaucracy, those individuals might say, “I just don’t have the time or the inclination for these dozens and dozens of questions,” and might therefore go without insurance cover when that would be neither a prudent nor wise thing to do.

Faced with a constituent in one of our surgeries who asked, “Should I take out household insurance cover?”, “Should I take out contents and building insurance”, and so forth, most of us would say, “Absolutely you should. You don’t know what’s around the corner. There could be any number of things that fate could bring upon your shoulders. Therefore, you really ought to regard this as essential.” In the dreadful economic circumstances that the Government are presiding over, many hard-pressed families might decide that certain things will have to give, and I am sure that the cost of insurance is on many people’s minds. Adding to the consideration of cost the idea that people have to go through onerous processes and jump through hoops to get the insurance could take a certain category of person to a tipping point. Such a consideration could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, leading them to conclude that they just cannot be bothered to fill in the forms for that insurance cover at that point. Many of us will have been there. We will have seen a particular product and made a note in the diary to investigate it, but, when faced with the hurdle of filling in the forms and getting involved in the bureaucracy, we have found that it falls down our list of priorities. That is the point that I want to test with the amendment.

In Committee, I framed the amendment incorrectly. The amendment that I tabled at that point related to circumstances in which a consumer varies a contract that they have already taken out. As the Minister will know, when she reapplies for her car insurance, the insurer will already have details of her address and driving habits on record. Renewing an insurance contract is therefore not particularly onerous, because not all the questions need to be asked afresh. She will be able to tick a box to “re-answer” them. In Committee, the Minister explained that my amendment was unnecessary as there were ways of varying contracts quite efficiently.

I have therefore tried to reframe the amendment so that it relates particularly to new insurance contracts. It is aimed at the individual who has perhaps not had car insurance or owned a house before, and who decides to start from scratch with a new insurance contract. In the amendment—I hope that hon. Members will forgive the slightly flowery legislative language that is sometimes used in such provisions—I have proposed the addition of a new subsection:

“It is the duty of the insurer to show regard to the principle that a burden or restriction which is imposed on a consumer through requests for particulars before a contract is entered into should be proportionate to the benefits, considered in general terms, which are expected to result from the imposition of that burden or restriction.”

I know that many hon. Members have concerns about regulatory burdens, but we must be careful, because regulations are sometimes necessary for the protection of individuals and of society at large. We should always keep a watchful eye on the burdens that such regulations impose, however.

The regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the Bill shows that the costs that will fall on the consumer will not be particularly onerous, which is why I support it in general terms. In pounds, shillings and pence terms, the costs will be negligible. The assessment estimates that an additional £700,000 a year will be saved by the insurance sector as a result of the provisions in the Bill, and that if there is an extra charge to consumers, it will probably be 2p or 3p for every £100 of insurance. I am therefore not concerned about the cost as a burden. The burden that I am flagging up is the administrative burden, the non-financial burden, that might fall on the shoulders of the consumer.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who will be responsible for determining whether the new duty that the amendment seeks to impose is being fulfilled?

[Chris Leslie]

Ultimately, the courts would have to be the arbiter in relation to those arrangements. This is the kind of thing that tends to get drawn into a judicial review, although I would hope that it will not need to be tested in that way. I am simply introducing a principle that I would like insurers to have regard to when they frame the questions, the tests and the requirements that they place on the shoulders of the consumer.

Under this Bill, insurers will be made to ask questions that are much more specific than has been the case up to now. People who find form-filling particularly onerous or difficult might decide that they simply cannot be bothered to go through the process, and they are the people I am worried about. This is not necessarily about people’s literacy levels, or their boredom thresholds or their propensity to fill in forms. This amendment is quite material to the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

So, in reality, the only way for a consumer to enforce this duty would be to take the company to court; otherwise, he would be relying on the good nature of the insurance company, would he not?

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed, that is the very nature of the measure, but that does not mean that, in the course of changing the disclosure requirements, we should not try to frame the duties that insurers have to abide by. I do not know whether hon. Members have visited moneysupermarket.com or confused.com recently. They are aggregator websites on which a number of insurance companies share the questions that people have to answer in order to take out an insurance contract. The websites show the range of insurance contracts that are available. Quite honestly, I think that the way the aggregator companies will deal with the Bill is another matter, but I challenge any hon. Member to say that their boredom threshold has not been reached after they have filled in 15 or 20 pages of a form. Having said that, I think that many hon. Members—especially those who are in the Chamber at the moment—must have particularly high boredom thresholds. I know that from many hours of experience in these debates. Notwithstanding that propensity to sit through long, technical discussions, however, I believe that form-filling is quite a different matter.

My point is about the administrative burden in relation to new contracts. I want us to ensure that we protect the section of society that I have been describing. I can envisage us all being visited at our surgeries in the years ahead by constituents telling us that they did not take out insurance not because of the cost but because the form-filling was just too much for them. They will tell us that they regret that, but that there were just too many questions to answer. I hope that the Minister understands why I have framed the amendment in this way. It is an important provision, and I hope that she will address it.

Tax Avoidance (Public Servants)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Does the Minister accept that, regardless of whether someone is employed in the public or private sector, tax avoidance—otherwise known as tax mitigation—is actually legal, whereas tax evasion is illegal?

[Danny Alexander]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on the point of fact. It is fair to say that this Government have taken strong action to deal with both tax avoidance, where we wish to remove schemes that people use to minimise the amount of tax they pay, and tax evasion, which, as he says, is illegal. We announced an initial £900 million in the spending review for HMRC to invest for that purpose. As a result, we are, for example, quadrupling the number of court cases for tax evasion, to ensure that we make an example of people.