Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). Listening to her speech, and indeed that of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I was reminded, given recent events in Ukraine, of the charge of the Light Brigade in the first Crimean war, which we fought some years ago. They were very game, very determined and, in complete denial of the situation in which they found themselves, carried on regardless. It was fascinating to listen to the shadow Chief Secretary’s amazing negativity about the changes the Government have made. The Government have turned around the very difficult situation that they inherited.

The hon. Member for Bolton West seems to have a somewhat short memory, to put it gently. She was quick to blame the problems on everyone else, but slow to acknowledge any responsibility on the part of the previous Government. It is important to remember that there were problems in the UK’s banks due to the extremely poor and dislocated regulatory system put in place by the previous Prime Minister. There were problems with this country’s finances, and not just since the 2008 recession, because the previous Government ran a structural deficit from 2002 onwards, which left this country massively exposed. They said that they managed the crisis so well, but the UK, as some of us recall, had one of the largest budget deficits in the developed world. They spent the good years introducing more welfare and more spending, rather than controlling welfare and spending and making sure the UK’s finances were in a good state while the sun shone.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman, who was not a Member in the House at that time, belongs to a party that throughout that whole period was calling for less banking regulation, not more. I know that he is one of the new Members who have been programmed to think that way by Tory central office, but the facts are that the GDP debt in 1997 was 42% and by 2008 it was down to 35%. Those are the facts, irrespective of what Tory central office tells him. He cannot deny the facts.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that his Government ran a budget deficit for a very long time. Running a budget deficit is understandable when coming out of recession, but not in a time of economic success. The previous Labour Government’s irresponsibility left this country badly exposed.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must look at history. The previous Conservative Government ran a budget deficit for about 16 of their 18 years in office. In 1997 the deficit was nearly 8%. He has to look at the facts. The previous Tory Government ran a deficit even in good times.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Let us talk about those good times. Before the downturn in the ’90s, the national debt was at least 10 points lower than before the latest crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Indeed.

There was Labour’s crash. We hit the wall in 2008 and were left overexposed in a bad place with an economy that had been run very badly for a long time. Then the Labour party has the cheek—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have given way quite a lot. I think we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman for a minute. Will he allow me to develop my points?

The Labour party, having learned nothing and forgotten nothing, has the gall to say that when we woke up in spring 2010, with a new Government, everything should immediately have been fine. Recessions are not like that; they continue for some time. It takes time to fix the car after it has been driven into the ditch. The absence of any sense of responsibility from the Labour party for the difficulties that it left and the toxic legacy that the Government inherited is, frankly, extraordinary. Government Ministers have done great work to turn things around and fix things. We cannot hand back the keys to the people who crashed the car when they remain in denial as the Labour party does today.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Lord Beamish and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I welcome the Budget, which is a continued step in the right direction. To understand the road that has been travelled, we need to understand where we have come from. There seems to be more than a whiff of denial from the Opposition regarding the difficulties facing the country.

I should start by saying that at first, the Labour Government ran the economy along broadly sensible lines and stuck to the previous Conservative Government’s spending plans. Until about 2001, everything was going well and the economy was being run responsibly. Overspending and excessive borrowing began from that time onwards, and that is where the rot set in. The former Chancellor—and later Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), had the opportunity to have his way and pursue his economic policies, and that is where things went wrong. There was too much debt. Too much growth was illusory and too much borrowing took place. When the music finally stopped in 2008, it hit this country very hard.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but if he stops listening to central office party propaganda and remembers the history, he will know that the former Chancellor actually paid down debt, for example, through 3G licences. At no time in opposition did the hon. Gentleman’s party argue for less public expenditure in a single area.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Debate between Lord Beamish and Charlie Elphicke

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is objecting to the arrangement and that he has obtained some kind of victory for the future when he has not. I am sorry to say that what was wrong was the fact that the Government intervened by imposing an arbitrary cap and then saying to the ombudsman, “Sit down and negotiate your pay.” He has obtained something for the future but it is not going to affect the starting salary or the situation now. He is asking whether it would have been wrong for his Committee to have suggested something, but it could have proposed a mechanism that would have possibly increased a larger salary. If it is okay for Bernard Gray at the MOD to be paid £250,000 a year plus bonuses, why are the Government not having consistency across the board? This is a very important job, as it involves independence from the Government and from Parliament, and it is wrong for the Government to be interfering.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Government there was a lack of ability to check pay and keep it to the correct level. As a matter of policy, it is right, in general, that officials should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the failure and misunderstanding of the policy in this particular case relates to the fact that the ombudsman’s role is akin to that of a High Court judge, and her office means that she should be treated in the same manner as a High Court judge. That is what I hope Ministers will consider, and will perhaps reflect upon and act upon.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he is living in hope if he thinks that any future Government are suddenly going to throw money at individuals once the salary has been set; he is being a bit naive to say the least. He makes an interesting point about the figure of £142,500. The policy is that nobody should earn more than that. Why? Where has that come from? We know where it came from. It came from the soundbite machine at the general election, from this Government and from a Prime Minister who does not need the salary in any case, because he has independent wealth. If someone could argue that that was the proper level for the job, that would be fine and I would have no problem with it. However, no evidence is being put forward to support that figure of £142,500. That is an absolute fortune, and most of my constituents could only dream of earning anything like that, even in 10 years, let alone in one year. None the less, I would have more respect for the Government’s approach if there were an evidence base to suggest that that figure was the norm, rather than people plucking it out of thin air and then trying to give an impression that it is the norm and capping the pay of the ombudsman—the one post that it should not have been applied to—while having different arrangements for other positions, such as the MOD example that I gave, and others.

I opposed bonuses when I was a trade union official, and the hon. Gentleman is right about our approach. The last Government used them all the time; we tried to say that we were keeping civil service pay down but we were paying bonuses instead. I was always against bonuses because they do not accrue in terms of pensionable entitlements. Let us be honest and say that the Government should try to get away from this whole idea.

The Government have put forward the same argument in respect of local government. The idea that cutting the salary of the chief executive of Durham county council by £5,000 a year or £10,000 a year will actually make a difference in delivering £140 million-worth of cuts over the next three years is completely bonkers. It is nice for the newspapers and it is a nice soundbite at elections, but it does not do the job. What we need in all these situations, as we need in any organisation, is well-thought-out remuneration structures. I am not happy about the cosy relationship between the Chair of the Committee and the Prime Minister in determining the salary of this individual. What the Committee should have proposed are the proper, thought-out, independent salary review processes that we need. As I said before, all Governments try to ignore them when they do not quite fit what they are arguing for, but that is what we need in this case.

The Government have done the ombudsman a huge disservice by intervening in such a way. I feel sorry that she is now lumbered not only with this salary but with a feeling that she somehow has to negotiate her own salary. The Committee did not pull its punches. It said:

“We believe that this is neither a sound nor desirable way to proceed.”

One of the many things about the Government that concern me is the fact that they are completely ignoring processes in devising any type of policy. That leads not only to inconsistencies but to changes that will have an effect, over time, on how the ombudsman service is seen.

My final point concerns the motion. We will agree a salary of £152,000, which the motion says is

“within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries”.

It is and, as I have already demonstrated, it is not. There are some who are on possibly £100,000 more than that and who are eligible, as the ombudsman is not, to receive annual bonuses. The hon. Member for Dover is right. On some occasions in the Ministry of Defence, I could never quite work out which targets some people got bonuses for meeting. Bonuses were used as a way of avoiding giving pay increases.

The motion says that the salary should be subject to

“any relevant increase…recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and…after the end of the current…freeze, 1% annual uprating in lieu of performance pay”,

and that the House considers

“that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner…should be agreed by the Prime Minister”.

That is fine for the future, but why 1%? What is that figure based on? Trying to do something at the end is not very satisfactory. Although the motion will be passed tonight, the Government have a lot of questions to answer about why they have intervened in such a way.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and correct point. There is concern in this House that it does not control the laws of the nation, because so many laws come from Europe. That brings me to my key concern.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman stated that he wants to revisit our membership of the European Union. I know that he is a new Member, but he stood for election in May on a manifesto—perhaps he opted out of this part of it—that stated:

“We will be positive members of the European Union”.

It also stated:

“We believe Britain’s interests are best served by membership of a European Union”.

It went on to say:

“A Conservative government will play an active and energetic role in the European Union to advance these causes.”

Did he not believe in that part of the manifesto when he stood in May?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Allow me to explain. I did not say that I believe that we should pull out of the European Union tomorrow—[Interruption.] I did not say that. I said that underpinning this debate is a question about our future membership. I do not believe that I should be responsible for pulling us out of the European Union; that is a matter that the British people should decide in a referendum, if and when such a referendum is ever put to them. I reject entirely the idea of a European federation that mimics the United States, and of an autonomous legal system that governs that federation and is imposed automatically, as a corpus, on every member state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Personally, I believe that it is wrong to see EU law as having primacy. I underline again that the UK Parliament is sovereign, and has decided to be part of the EU and allow its laws into our national life through the medium of the European Communities Act 1972. Equally, it is abundantly clear that the UK Parliament could change that position. To my mind, clause 18 amounts to a codification of that principle, which is clear from the Factortame case and from the metric martyrs, Thoburn case. In the latter case, as Members will recall and as paragraph 107 of the explanatory notes explains, it was argued that EU law

“includes the entrenchment of its own supremacy as an autonomous legal order”.

That argument was rejected. It is an important principle to understand: there is no autonomous legal entrenchment from the European Union. It is taken into account and part of our law only because we have made it so.

I can do no better than quote Lord Justice Laws, who hit the nail on the head. He said:

“Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the European Communities Act.”

When I was a law student, studying my books, I always viewed Professor Dicey’s principle as giving voice to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It is quite simple—I always thought of it as: the last Act to hit the statute book takes precedence. If it says anything different from a previous Act, the latter is discarded to that extent.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is not it also important in the case of the metric martyrs, Thoburn v. Sunderland city council, to note that it reinforced the fundamental point that European law could not limit Parliament in enacting legislation? The judgment reinforced the sovereignty point.