Budget Resolutions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

I would have liked to have heard at least some sort of plan about the single market and the customs union. I would say—I shall diverge a little, if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker—that those of us who are concerned about Brexit have been unfairly attacked as remoaners when we simply want to get the best deal for the country as we leave the EU. Some £3 billion has been put aside for Brexit, but we heard nothing from the Chancellor about £350 million per week for the NHS. Perhaps the Chancellor wants to drag the Foreign Secretary here to talk about where that £350 million is, because I have not seen it. While he is at it, perhaps he will talk to the nurses.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Patrick Minford has worked out that if we move to free trade, the £350 million will be available for the NHS, but only when we leave the European Union, which has not happened yet.

[Chris Evans]

I respect the hon. Gentleman as a parliamentarian, but he is wrong about this. He knows that that was a false statement made by the leave side to try to con people into voting leave. There is no point in standing by that claim anymore.

The thing is that we heard nothing in the Budget about Brexit; all we heard is that it will not be dominated by Brexit. Well, I am afraid the Chancellor is wrong: every Budget from here on in will be dominated by the consequence of leaving the European Union.

The Budget went on and on and on. There were terms that the Tories would love. We heard about a strong Government and that we will be resolute in our determination to bring about a strong economy. It took eight pages before we got to the real story of this Budget: quite simply, productivity growth is down and is continuing to fall. The Chancellor is the first since world war two—this is something he should be proud of —who has stood at the Dispatch Box and said that growth will be below 2%. It gets worse: the figure is 1.5% in 2017, 1.4% in 2018, and 1.3% in 2019 and 2020. It will hopefully then pick up to 1.5% and, finally, to 1.6% in 2022. At the same point, debt will be at its highest level ever—and there the Government are being over-optimistic.

If we are not going to talk about Brexit, we should at least talk about the fundamental weakness in our economy: productivity. Productivity has failed to return to pre-crash levels, and it does not look like that is going to happen any time soon. The OBR has revised its estimates of Britain’s long-term productivity gains and economic growth. It claims that this means that Britain’s economy will not bounce back from the financial crisis, and output per worker probably will not recover to its pre-crisis rate of 2.1%.

Our productivity crisis will mean larger budget deficits in future years. A downgrade in productivity, and therefore depressed earnings, will mean that future tax revenues take a serious long-term hit. The downgrade will create a £20 billion black hole in the UK’s public finances, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

We cannot hide this problem anymore. The Government should not be so timid and so scared of their friends from Ireland. We need radical solutions. Things have not worked. We cannot go on all the time with this rhetoric that things are going to improve. We have to take action, and that must happen now.

For me, the most fundamental error the Government have made since they came to power in 2010 is failing to get to grips with the banking system. We need to boost business investment through a network of regional banks. Germany has thousands of banks, including vibrant state-run and co-operative sectors, many focused on lending specifically to small and medium-sized businesses. In Britain, just five banks hold 85% of all current accounts. The Chancellor could learn from the German model by enabling a new generation of mutually owned building societies and savings banks to focus on driving long-term investment, rather than short-term dividends for their shareholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am sorry that I have not been in the Chamber for the whole debate, Mr Speaker. I have been at a meeting of the Exiting the European Union Committee debating one of our reports. We have been firmly excising split infinitives, and making sure that apostrophes appear in the right place and that Humble Addresses are preceded by the correct indefinite article. All those important matters took me away from the Chamber.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), who is always so interesting on such matters, although we disagree very firmly about them. I thought it might be worth looking at how much better the figures are than they were expected to be. In the context of Brexit, we are always told that the end of the world is nigh, the writing is on the wall and all will be terrible, and yet when we look at the Red Book, the figures that we have had so far are better—in spite of the Treasury and others saying that it will all be a disaster. Paragraph 1.36 of the Red Book states:

“Borrowing in 2017-18 is £49.9 billion, £8.4 billion lower than forecast at Spring Budget 2017.”

Why? Because receipts are higher and more money is coming in, which is indicative of the economy’s strengthening. The following page indicates that that is down to spending decisions and tax decisions that have been taken in the Budget.

I have one specific question for Ministers on the Treasury Bench about the Red Book. This may have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), but it is of considerable importance. Page 82, which I think is copied from page 114 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, states that in 2022-23 there will be a £3.5 billion “own resources” contribution to the European Union. Now, I cannot believe that the wise figures in the OBR or in Her Majesty’s Treasury could have made the schoolboy error of just assuming that money paid out in one year would continue indefinitely, but it misses the point that we will have left the European Union by 2022-23, that the implementation period will have ended, and that the whole concept of “own resources” will have ceased to exist. It is rather like spotting an error in “Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack”, which is very rare, and indicates a failing that I hope will be put right. I hope that we will discover that it was unintended, because if it is intended, that means that we will not in fact be stopping our contributions to the European Union, which would be very strange. To have this described as “own resources” is even more peculiar, because that assumes that we are still members of the EU. I think there is an error there.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

To respond to my hon. Friend’s point about the forecasts, they are made by the OBR. The OBR was provided with the Prime Minister’s Florence speech—the basis on which we are negotiating with the EU—and it is up to the OBR to make its own independent forecasts. My hon. Friend will have to speak directly to the OBR about that, but my understanding is that it has used an average of other independent forecasts.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that that quite works for the “own resources” figure, because the OBR has made assumptions relating to our net contribution to the European Union and has assumed that those moneys will be spent domestically in the United Kingdom, and that therefore there is no fiscal advantage. However, there is still a £3.5 billion negative income from “own resources”. It is hard to think that the OBR would have taken that from other forecasters, because that is a matter on which the Treasury can give an authoritative view, and it would be odd if the Treasury had not explained that “own resources” will end at the point at which we leave the European Union. They have to, because only member states of the European Union can make “own resources” contributions, for obvious reasons, although I have always disliked the term “own resources”, and I have always been with Margaret Thatcher in that it is our money and we would quite like to keep it, thank you very much.

All that ties in with a point made eloquently by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans): the key to this Budget has to be Brexit. What we are doing currently is in the context of leaving the European Union, and this Budget is inevitably encompassed by Brexit and by productivity. That is where the challenge lies. The OBR’s gloomy productivity forecasts suggest a reduction in potential output in 2021-22 of 3%. The challenge for the architects of our economic future is how to make Brexit work to ensure that we get a productivity boost.

That is where I was so encouraged by what the Chancellor had to say about this Government being a free trade Government, and that the real opportunity that comes from Brexit is freely opening up our markets to the rest of the world. We must remember that the customs union, in which the hon. Member for Nottingham East is so keen to stay, is actually a protectionist union that stops people in the United Kingdom from buying the cheapest available goods and that, by and large, it protects industries that the UK does not have. The overwhelming majority of the protections under the customs union are for things such as German coffee processors or Spanish orange growers—the types of things that we are not doing. Our industries receive marginal protection from the customs union, but at a very high cost to British consumers—it is thought that the cost for food is 20%, and that the next highest level of tariffs is on clothing and footwear.

The opportunity for the poorest in our society to see their standard of living and real wages rise is quite fundamental. Their weekly, monthly and annual expenditure will be reduced and their real incomes will rise, making funds available for other expenditure, or indeed for saving and reinvesting in British industry. Equally, the loss of cosy protectionism means that we will cease to subsidise inefficient continental businesses. It will also ensure that we concentrate on what we are best at. That ought to lead, of itself, to a boost in productivity. Indeed, that is the lesson of history when we move to free trade and remove not only formal tariffs, but non-tariff barriers.

That, if the correct policies are adopted, is how the £350 million a week can ultimately be provided for the national health service. Figures produced by Professor Patrick Minford and his distinguished team at Cardiff University indicate that there will be a boon of £135 billion between 2020 and 2025, and £40 billion a year after that, which will make it possible to have tax cuts and to fund the health service. It is encouraging that the Chancellor has already started that process and is making more money available for the health service now, because it is important that politicians deliver on the spirit of their promises, as well as on the detailed, pettifogging, nitpicking, small-print elements. It is right that that should be made possible, and having a free trade development of economic policy will be crucial to that, so it was welcome that the Chancellor included it in his Budget statement.

The other issue of greatest importance to voters is that of housing, and here I would encourage the Chancellor to go further. The Government are absolutely right to be supporting more house building, but the key will be reform of the planning system. The thing that makes housing in this country so expensive is the fact that supply is controlled. As the Chancellor rightly said in his Budget statement, actions to help demand are merely likely to push prices up. What we need is to see prices coming down, at least in relation to incomes, and that means not only increasing supply, but increasing the supply of housing that people want to live in.

The one question that I will therefore raise on the Budget is this. The Chancellor said that he would look to ensure that the housing was primarily in an urban setting, but when we ask people what housing they want to live in, 80% say that they want to live in houses with gardens, and that means we will have to build on green fields. It would be wise to review the green belt, because some parts of it are not actually essential to life and the pursuit of happiness. What we really want is a succession of Poundburys across the country, because that is the type of housing that people want to live in, and I think that the Conservative party should be on the side of not only the Prince of Wales, but the people.