Amendment of the Law

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

We had a culture-themed—if not cultured—introduction to the debate, and this is a remake Budget. It is certainly not “Chariots of Fire”, more “Upstairs Downstairs”. Upstairs, a £3 billion handout and the tax level down to 45% from 50% for those earning more than £150,000 per annum. That is £10,000 for 300,000 people and £40,000 for 14,000 millionaires. What does that buy? I refer Members to the fees for the Conservative party donor club. It is £10,000 for basic entry, but for £50,000 people can get a seat at the captain’s table. They get to meet the Prime Minister himself. I do not know why people were being asked for £250,000, because those figures were in the statement from Tory party headquarters.

Downstairs, there is the highest unemployment for 17 years. As for the working poor—they are what downstairs is all about—many, many people will lose more in benefits than is offset by the rise in the basic tax allowance. Then there are the changes in housing benefit such as the bedroom tax—a cut of up to 25% for having more than one bedroom. I know a widow who has been waiting eight years for a smaller house near her family. She has two extra bedrooms and so faces a 25% cut in her housing benefit because of this Government.

Then there are tax credits. I was on the Committee that debated the Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2012 on 8 March. Section 4 provides that if an income falls by £2,500, no increase in tax credits will be paid. So if someone is on short time or their company has problems and they lose £2,500, they will get nothing extra. That means poverty for many people and will leave them unable to feed themselves and their children. There is also a general tax credit cut of £3,700 for most people and child benefit cuts for middle-income families. There is also the threat of regional pay for public servants.

That is all in this Budget package. Not content with attacking working people, the Government have also introduced the gran and grandad tax—not just granny tax—through cutting £3 billion of support in tax allowances for over-65-year-old citizens. That is what they are—citizens who have paid into this country for all that time. I am talking about 370,000 Scottish pensioners. It will not just be a Tory wipe-out at the next election; it will be a Liberal Democrat and Tory wipe-out in Scotland next time round.

And of course there was a sleight of hand. There have been £500 million in NHS efficiency savings. Is that going back into the NHS to pay for increased services? No. It has been taken by the Treasury. That will mean a £50 million cut in the Scottish budget because of the Barnett formula and the £500 million reduction in spending on the NHS in England.

These attacks are not justified by any benefits to the economy. The Government admitted that they will have to borrow £150 billion more because of the rising level of unemployment and the failure of the economy to grow. On the Budget prescriptions, credit easing has been running for six months and not one single business has taken up the credit easing that is now the Budget’s panacea for businesses.

What about operation Merlin? Some £10 billion less than was borrowed before has actually been borrowed in the last year by small businesses. I have found in my constituency that banks are foreclosing on deals they have already made with small business to get some of their debts back.

The Budget will not stop the crash. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that business investment will fall by 6.8% this year and by a further 2.5% next year. This might, in fact, be a remake of “Titanic” rather than just “Upstairs Downstairs”.

Eurozone Crisis

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I am not a constitutional lawyer, for my blessings, but it is plainly necessary to establish the legal basis for any such action. I am not aware of what the Commission has said, and I think it very dangerous for us to engage in speculation on the subject.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is obvious that, like many other Members in the Chamber, the Minister has not read the Lisbon treaty, because the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) is right. I give way to no one in my support for the IMF—as is clear from the way in which I voted—and my support for the recapitalisation of the banks, but the reality is, surely, that the ordinary people of Greece will go through a massive amount of pain, whereas the bankers, both here and there, will walk off with the money. We are looking after the banks, not the people, so is it really surprising that the Greek people may want to reject the proposal that the Government were involved in placing on their backs?

[Mr Hoban]

We all recognise that difficult decisions are involved in the tackling of fiscal deficits, and those decisions must be made. It is owing to this Government’s actions that our interest rates are similar to those of Germany, while our deficit is at the same level as that of Greece.

Eurozone Crisis

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said to the House, Britain should not be part of eurozone bail-outs. We got ourselves out of—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. On coming to office, on the Sunday after the general election, the Labour Government committed us to being part of an EU bail-out of the eurozone. We have now got ourselves out of that, which is very important. We are also not contributing to the eurozone bail-out of Greece, which has just increased in size; nor are we going to contribute to any special purpose vehicle or fund that might be created. We are absolutely clear about that. When it comes to IMF resources, like every other country in the world that is a member of the IMF, including China, Thailand, Guatemala, the United States of America, Canada and Brazil, we of course contribute to its resources for the 53 programmes that it is currently carrying out across the world, and we will continue to do so. However, we are not prepared to see—and the articles of the IMF do not allow for—money from the IMF being put into a special purpose vehicle. So I think that the position is pretty clear.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I would think much more highly of the Chancellor if he would actually admit that one reason that the banking system in the UK is not under threat is because the last Government and the people of this country bailed out the banks.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, as Hansard will show, I asked him last time about the possibility that they would require a £2 trillion fund, which most economists say they will, and that the so-called haircut—more Sweeney Todd than Vidal Sassoon—would be 60%. Surely we must be in the IMF and involved in funding through the IMF; otherwise the big bazooka that the Prime Minister has talked about will say “Made in China”.

[Mr Osborne]

I am happy to acknowledge that the previous Government recapitalised the British banks. They were obviously under enormous duress at the time—[Interruption.] It is simply not the case, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East has just suggested, that the Conservatives opposed that. We supported it at the time; indeed, we were advocating it in advance of it happening. However, I completely recognise that it was a difficult decision for the previous Government to take.

On the question of the size of the fund, of course there are those who would like it to be even larger. We should welcome the significant progress that has increased its size severalfold to, potentially, around €1 trillion, which is a significant sum. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) also asked an interesting question about what was happening during our time as Members of Parliament to the balance of economic force and power in the world. I suspect that we are going to spend many years talking about that in the period ahead.

Eurozone

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, I can confirm that. Moody’s was explicit in saying that that was not a reflection of financial conditions in the UK or the financial strength of the Government. Rather, it was a recognition of the fact that the current Government are trying to move away from the taxpayer either implicitly or explicitly standing behind our largest banks. That is sensible policy, and I hope it commands support on the Opposition Benches.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Returning to the eurozone rather than our domestic concerns, I agree with the Chancellor about the difficulty that would arise if Greece were to leave, or be forced out of, the eurozone. Although he will not tell us his policy, will he give us an estimate in respect of the secure fund for the eurozone? It has been said that €2,000 billion would be required for that fund. How great a contribution from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is the Chancellor going to argue for in order to bolster the ability of the eurozone to see itself through the crisis and save Greece from being pushed out?

[Mr Osborne]

We are not arguing for an increase in IMF resources as part of the Greek programme, but I did make reference to the broader resourcing of the IMF. That is increasingly an issue because of its flexible credit lines to Poland and Mexico—neither country is in the eurozone, of course. The truth is that after taking into account the IMF’s existing commitments and the buffers it needs to maintain in order to operate as an institution, it does not have a huge amount of resources—although by most people’s standards it does have a huge amount, of course. Its resources amount to about €400 billion, but that is not as large as some people imagine. There is therefore a debate about whether to try to increase the IMF’s resources, but we are not discussing a possible increase of resources in the IMF programme to Greece.

Finance Bill

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

No, I was just wondering whether my hon. Friends had that in mind, knowing how much they treasure the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and knowing that such bold statements were made in the Orange Book by no less than a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who presumably knew the price of everything and the value of some things, and who would want to ensure value for money.

I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench consider the wider issue that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. How do we get extra resources and money spent on health in a friendly and sensible way, on top of the very great and important NHS, which my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley, for Christchurch and for North East Hertfordshire rightly back? If not by their route, what route? May we please have some numbers? The proposal could be a good-value buy, but that depends very much on how much cost would be taken out of the NHS.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I have one or two things to say about this debate, and I was stirred into standing up by the previous speech, because either woolly-headed logic was being used by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), or he was making a deliberate statement to try to cover—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a matter for me. I have just come into the Chair myself, as I am sure you observed, Mr Heald, so I am the last one to criticise anyone for just coming in and talking.

[Michael Connarty]

You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is amazing technology in this place. Members can sit in their offices and, if they wish, not watch the tennis but follow the debate in detail, and come down to the Chamber when they think it might be useful to add something. I recommend it to Members: turn off the tennis, turn on the Chamber.

The point I was making is that the logic used by the right hon. Member for Wokingham was possibly deliberately to convince the public that the proposal is an effort to add extra resources to the health services by encouraging people to put money into private health insurance. The logic, of course, is that such private health insurance is available to some people when they are in employment, but is denied them when they retire. If that is the kind of employer that people have, it is a shame that they are deluded into thinking that insurance is a substitute for taxation-based health services.

The right hon. Gentleman stated that resources are not finite, and that somehow this money would bring new resources rushing into the health service. Everyone who has studied the health service over the time I have been in elected politics, which is since 1977, knows what happens. The consultant and the surgeon choose whether to work in the private sector or in the public sector. Sometimes they choose to work in a mixture of those. I commend those who decide to work entirely in the public sector, because they give the best value to our constituents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said when, in an intervention, he cited the number of operations for cataracts.

However, the reality is that only a limited number of people get to the top of the elitist profession that is the medical profession, particularly to consultant level, because we do not train enough people to do the work that is required in the health service.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in countries that have a bigger private sector on top of a large public sector, there are more doctors and nurses in relation to the population, because there is more money?

[Michael Connarty]

The right hon. Gentleman leads me to my next point. He recommended that we look at the EU system. I am glad that in reply to an intervention from one of my hon. Friends he said that he objects to the idea of a comprehensive, insurance-based health service in this country. I, too, have looked at that on the continent and in EU countries, and I have seen that it does not work.

In fact, other EU countries do have a larger number of doctors—there are more doctors per head of population in most of them than in this country—but that is because of the elitist structure of the medical profession in this country. That structure keeps the numbers down and pays huge bonuses to people once they get to the higher gradings. Many of those people are the very same ones who moonlight in the private sector for additional personal financial gain.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Insurance-based health systems such as that in the United States may have large numbers of doctors, but those doctors are not accessible to the large proportion of the population who do not have private health care.

[Michael Connarty]

The figures in the US are—

[Frank Dobson]

Forty million.

[Michael Connarty]

I hear my right hon. Friend say that 40 million people in the United States of America exist without adequate health care insurance or provision. A friend of mine tried to set up a dental care service in New England based on Medicare, and found that the money was not available. Many people in New England are denied any form of dental care when they end up in private nursing homes in their old age. Something is seriously wrong with that. I commend President Obama’s attempts to at least moderate that.

Let me return to the debate. People should not be deluded into thinking that the proposal will encourage more resources into the health service. It will encourage more companies to demand the services of the limited number of available surgeons to carry out operations for their private patients, instead of allowing the surgeons to do the job they should be doing. I would commend a scheme of private health care payments that provided the NHS with new equipment, doctors and other staff on top of those already trained in this country to work in the NHS.

Those who say that this proposal could do that should look at what happened with a hospital built for the private sector on the west coast of Scotland. The idea was to build a huge hospital with private money and to have people come from around the world to use it, but eventually it had to be sold to the Scottish Government when Jack McConnell was First Minister. We bought the hospital at a knock-down price because, in reality, the private sector could not generate new and fresh talent and equipment. That is not going to happen. It will just suck out resources needed by my constituents, who believe that the NHS should be paid for through taxes.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not about restricting choice, but about prioritising finite resources and ensuring that any available money goes into front-line NHS services, rather than into a tax giveaway to a small number of people who are already accessing private health care?

[Michael Connarty]

I could not have put it better myself—I commend my hon. Friend for helping me with his analysis.

The Labour Government were right to encourage people to provide resources that the NHS could access using taxpayers’ money where it would be more efficient. That was an excellent scheme that enabled people in my constituency to go to hospitals where beds were available over Christmas for operations that were not being done and could not be fitted into the schedules of hospitals that were short of resources. That was a good initiative, but this proposal is not; it is the opposite. It would be a damaging initiative if it encouraged people to take out private health insurance and so divert resources from the NHS, where they are needed.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I have found it odd recently that some private health insurers will pay those whom they insure to use the NHS. If that is the habit of private health insurance, where does the hon. Gentleman think the saving to the taxpayer is in allowing this tax relief?

[Michael Connarty]

I did not want to cite that example, although it is a good example of what happens when people use private health care and take resources away from the NHS. I find it appalling that through private health care people can actually buy organs donated to the NHS by paying for the hotel care and all the rest of it. They are not allowed to buy the organs any longer; instead they buy the ancillary health care and then use resources that people might have donated thinking they would go to NHS patients, but which end up being used for private care. But that is an aside from this debate.

The new clause would encourage more private money to suck out resources and money needed in the NHS. The right hon. Member for Wokingham kept talking about cash increases. We should not pretend that this is not the same Member who reminded us all of the real effect of cash increases when inflation is running higher than the increase. He was—how can I put this?—dodging the issue unnecessarily and treating us as though we were stupid. Cash increases will not keep the resources at the level they are at, and the new clause will in fact take out resources that the NHS does not have to give.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I can scarcely believe that the hon. Gentleman is making that case, given that the previous Labour Government paid consultants and general practitioners respectively 27% and 44% more for doing less work, hid billions of pounds off balance sheets with dodgy private finance initiative schemes, which have reduced taxpayers to penury, and foisted independent sector training on primary care trusts, meaning that they could not plan for patient numbers or the money needed to run those centres.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interventions must be brief; otherwise we might find ourselves sitting until the early hours of the morning.

[Michael Connarty]

If the hon. Gentleman proposed a motion suggesting that all those things should not have happened, I would vote for it. I am a socialist. I did not like the Labour Government overpaying people and changing their hours in such a way that my constituents got less of a service. It seems that even some Conservatives realise that paying people huge amounts of money and asking them to work fewer hours in this elitist organisation—I am very critical of the consultancy-led health service in our country—is something we should be looking at seriously. Our constituents need value for money, which many of the schemes the hon. Gentleman mentioned did not provide. However, it is interesting that this Government have done nothing to change the tax laws, despite 23% of PFIs now being owned by foreign companies that are still getting the tax breaks in this country. Part of the idea of PFIs was that they would bring in tax money, yet 23% of the companies are abroad and put nothing into this country’s economy.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I can confirm that the Opposition oppose new clause 1. The Prime Minister spent the years in the run-up to the general election and the year since trying to convince us that he valued the NHS, that it was “safe in his hands”. Sadly, however, given the current shambles over the health Bill, which has yet again returned to Committee, it is safe to say that he and his Health Secretary have spectacularly failed. On current evidence, it seems that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to persuade his Back Benchers—it seems that they now want to reinstate a policy introduced by Baroness Thatcher’s Government.

As we have heard, new clauses 1 to 4 would introduce a tax relief on medical insurance for over-65s. The hon. Members who tabled the new clauses stood on a manifesto that proclaimed we “believe in the NHS”. It turns out that they believe so much in the state that they think even private sector provision should receive state funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

The transferable allowance would help to reduce those costs, and would therefore be an investment very well made. The £550 million cost of the partially transferable allowance proposed by the Conservatives prior to the general election represents just 1.3% of the direct costs of family breakdown, as calculated by the Relationships Foundation—[Interruption.] And just 2.16% of the direct costs of family breakdown, as calculated by the same organisation—

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Lady give way, in this so-called debate?

[Fiona Bruce]

No. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I will not. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Lady should carry on.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Fiona Bruce]

I am going to conclude.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Fiona Bruce has made it absolutely clear that she has no intention of giving way at this stage. I am sure that she will make it clear if she changes her mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I do not believe that there is an inconsistency in relation to this matter, although, with respect, I would disagree with certain other proposals relating to the benefit system.

[Michael Connarty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I regard him as such—for giving way. I share his warmth about marriage, having spent the past 41 years married, although I am not sure that my wife would be quite so enthusiastic. He has, however, strayed beyond his own guidelines. He said that the provision was not about people marrying for a payment, yet he is now arguing that that is what he supports. Surely this should be about the responsibilities that people take on as a couple, especially when they have children, because that is the most burdensome time when they need the most help from the tax system. This is not about whether they decide to have one kind of a relationship or another. Whether they are married or unmarried, if they decide to be together and have children, they will be burdened with other costs.

[Jim Shannon]

I can tell the House that when I married, I married for love. I am one of those old-fashioned boys; that is just the way I am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

In the contributions that I have heard via the live feed and in the Chamber, sadly there seem to have been moral overtones that echo speeches in a Victorian Parliament. If moral judgments are behind those arguments and people think that they this is a moral vote, I am quite sad about that. It might be a political strategy, however. Many political strategies were put forward by the Conservative leadership at the election, but hopefully they will not be reflected in the legislation put though this House. I hope that the contribution from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is more reflective of the coalition, which means that the Government will not do what the new clause proposes.

It is very important that people listening to this debate realise what the proposals are. After the advances that this country has made, in the recognition of civil partnerships, for example, this proposal is about spouses and spouses alone, not civil partners. It is attacking the progress that has been made, which is now being copied across Europe. It does not relate to people of the same gender in firm and committed relationships, which shows that it is not a forward movement at all. It is an attempt to throw out and make a moral judgment on the things that have been done by the joint agreement of this House to advance society’s value of firm and committed partnerships. That is what is important.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Connarty]

Not yet.

It is not just a matter of putting a marriage partnership or a firm partnership ahead of any other. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke strongly and has worked hard on single parenthood, but I happen to believe, in most cases but not all, that a partnership provides a much stronger place for children to grow up in than that provided by any single person—male or female—who has to go it alone. Therefore, our society has a lot of value when we can encourage partnerships.

We still have the oddest situation in Europe—and among many other countries outside Europe—because we do not recognise de facto partnerships. De facto partnerships are not civil marriages but agreements by people without either a civil or Church marriage to remain in a relationship and to commit to themselves and to any offspring.

My son lives in Australia, and he shared a de facto partnership for a number of years, recognising that if he or his partner had died their pension would have transferred to the other. In this country I have friends who, like me and my spouse, have been together for 41 years. They have had to get married because they might be coming to the end of their lives—not for a long time, I hope—and their pensions would have died with them.

That was a moral judgment which the previous Labour Government made, and it was shameful, because we should have had civil partnerships for all who wished to have them, and we should have recognised de facto partnerships as much as same-gender partnerships. That is how we should have looked at things, but we should not give cash incentives, as the new clause seeks. Indeed, that was the contradiction in the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he said that he was not about incentivising partnerships through finances and then spoke on behalf of the new clause—which would incentivise partnerships.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Connarty]

I have a call from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) first.

That is what is wrong with the new clause. It is about spouses, it is backward looking and moralistic and it will not help children at all. It is sad that one in five marriages breaks down and that civil partnerships break down, so we must encourage people through the way we finance them and help them to keep their relationships together, because finances as much as personal fall-outs break down relationships.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I agree wholeheartedly that families come in different shapes and sizes, and we need to respect and reflect that in public policy. Is not that why the previous Labour Government were absolutely right to target limited resources on tackling child poverty, irrespective of the child’s family background?

[Michael Connarty]

My hon. Friend has made that point before, and he puts it better than I could.

My mother, who now has sadly passed away, was soured by the Labour Government very early on when we took away the additional money for single parents. From then on, every time I went to her house on a Sunday, she would start by saying, “Welcome,” and then she would say, “You and your Tony Blair,” and for the rest of my visit berate me for what we had not got right. She was a great touchstone, however, because she saw that the defence of children and the future of children were important, not the rest.

The new clause is a backwards step, but I am hopeful that the Minister will not support it and that such legislation will never get through. It states that only marriage—not any other relationship—is good enough or as good as we would wish.

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman is experienced in European affairs, given his chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee and his general interest in European matters, so I have a question. Why do France, Germany and Italy all recognise marriage in the taxation system? Indeed, let us widen that question. Why do only 24% of OECD citizens live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the taxation system? Has he ever asked why our European neighbours recognise marriage but we do not?

[Michael Connarty]

People must ask those Governments, but many recognise de facto partnerships as well, and their recognition is based on not just the marriage to which the new clause refers with “spouses”. That is the point. This is about one small group that we in this country used to see as a backward thing. We have moved beyond that now, and it is time we put it behind us. Perhaps others will catch up with us soon enough when they realise that it is partnerships that matter, not specifically spouses in a formal marriage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My final point is that there is a read-across between the new clause and the conundrum that the Government face in the debate about the withdrawal of child benefit from families that comprise at least one higher rate taxpayer. That issue is causing a lot of angst among our constituents, particularly for parents in single income households in which one parent stays at home to look after the children. As I have said in correspondence with the Minister, in some cases one parent stays at home to look after a disabled child. If there is one parent who is the breadwinner and he is a higher rate taxpayer on an income of about £45,000 or £50,000, he will be above the threshold and will be deprived of his child benefit.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Chope]

I will give way in a minute.

In comparison, a household with two people earning between £35,000 and £40,000 each, which has a much higher income, will keep its child benefit. That is not fair. In response to correspondence, the Minister has said that there has to be a bit of rough justice and that to introduce a system of transferability of allowances and entitlements would be very complicated. However, that is exactly what was proposed by the Prime Minister with the transferability of tax allowances, and that is what is proposed in the new clause. That is of significance, because there is a read-across from this other thorny policy issue that faces the Government.

I hope that we will have a positive response from the Minister, and that he will spell out in detail when and how the Prime Minister’s pledges to the country will be implemented.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), because he talked about something that should be discussed more in this place: the plight of the people who are suffering problems because of their own Government’s mismanagement. My Eurosceptic colleagues on the Labour Benches are still against the common market—they are not really against the European Union as such—whereas the Eurosceptics on the Government Benches are, honourably, against the EU as a project. As they know, the problem I have with this whole debate is that all these manifestations have nothing to do with our being in the eurozone; they are to do with the failure of Governments to use the money that they had available, their own economic powers and the money made available to them by the EU in their period of transition into the EU to do the right things and invest correctly in the skills of their people and in the supply side of their economy, rather than spending the money on large economic projects.

For example, when we go on a cheap holiday to Portugal we can drive on excellent motorways directly from the airport to the place where we will lie in the sun, and the hotels and large boulevards will have been paid for by EU money. However, the young people of that country fail to get a decent education, proper skills and university places. The reality of these countries is that they have under-invested in their own people. That criticism cannot be levelled at the UK.

The eurozone offers these countries a way out of their dilemma that, as a socialist, I do not particularly find attractive; they will be asked to cut further their budgets, which should be invested in their social infrastructure and the supply side of their economy. That will cause them great harm, but that offer will be made to them by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and so on because it is the capitalist model. That model says, “When you are in trouble, slash your budgets in the public sector.” Now, where have I heard that before? I have heard it from those on the Government Front Bench and from every Government Back Bencher. They have been told that every time they get up they should use the mantra about how they have to slash and burn the economy of this country—thus denying the young people of this country the chance to look for a better future—because of the problem of debt.

That situation will be the consequence for Greece, Portugal and Ireland. It is what is happening in Ireland, and the young people in Spain are worried that it will happen to them. That country is a good example of a place where major infrastructure projects have been financed by the EU and the supply side of the economy has been run down. I have met many young people in Spain who say, “It was easy to leave school at 16 and get a job building houses, but nobody can afford to buy them now. It was good money, the sun was shining and everything was going to be fine.” Suddenly, these people find that they have no skills, no jobs and no future.

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Michael Connarty]

I will give way in a moment.

Everything I am discussing is the consequence of the things that the Governments of these countries did; this was not about the EU being in existence and not about their being members of the eurozone. These things were done by those Governments. The offer is that the IMF, the World Bank and the eurozone countries, mainly, will bail out those countries.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I am about to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). A small part of the bail-out will be a fund, to which we have signed up, that will give a loan to those countries to help them to get over this unattractive prospect of having to face down their own people and cut their own services because of the lack of good Government management, so that they can be bailed out.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see that these countries are locked into a currency at a rate that makes them completely uncompetitive, which is why they have mass unemployment and why lending them money does not get them out of the mess?

[Michael Connarty]

I do not see that. What the right hon. Gentleman says may be a good indicator of where this debate is coming from. This is not about the European mechanism; this is about wanting to destroy the euro, to see it bust and to see it fail. If that is what it is about, people should stand up and say so; they should not lie to the people of the UK or mislead them by saying that it is about something else. People should be told the truth. I know that some Labour Members would certainly like to see the European monetary project and the euro completely collapse. If that is the agenda of Members on the Government Benches, they should say so.

The prospect I was describing is not one that I find attractive. In the modern world economy we clearly need to have a large trade bloc, probably united in some way around a monetary discipline, that faces down the problems coming from the United States of America, which is in the most unbelievable debt to the rest of the world. That country is run on the basis of its economy always being indebted to other countries. What will come from China and from Africa? That is part of this whole issue, and I hope that one day we will have the courage to move into that area, but what we are talking about is a very small loan of £4 billion, which will come back to the people of this country eventually when these countries are resettled in a new economic environment.

We hear hon. Members go on and on as if they are doing something wonderful in defending the UK, but they are not. We are talking about “beggar your neighbour” politics here and I am not prepared to vote for that. I applaud the Government for being honest and sincere about the fact that this European project either collapses or it is supported by all of us in different ways. I believe that the interest of the people of the UK lies in maintaining the eurozone and the euro, and helping countries when they fall into indebtedness. I hope that the Government will persuade hon. Members to reject the proposals before them.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Wicks]

Such policies have regressive implications and I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question—a not dissimilar one could be asked of VAT contributions. Deeply regressive changes to how we gather money in from the wider community are taking place.

Although the contributory principle has for many years, and arguably for several decades, been withering away—it certainly looks tired and rusty—we need it in the 21st century. One reason why is that if we are to maintain our broader welfare state and social security system as an instrument for redistribution and for tackling the emerging needs of this century, not least those associated with long-term care and the ageing of our population, we need an ethical foundation to underlie social security, rather than bits-and-pieces mechanisms that can be hard to communicate to a wider public.

One basic concept in that respect is that of citizenship. What is it to be a citizen in the 21st century? What are our rights as citizens? Equally importantly, what are our duties and responsibilities? For me, in moving from that simple piece of social philosophy into policy mechanisms that work, we would do away with or neglect the social insurance contributory principle at our peril. That principle says that when people are able to work and to contribute to that community chest, they should do so. That is a duty. However, as of right as citizens, people should be able, at certain times in their life cycles or at times of social need, to draw out not means-tested benefits, but benefits that they have earned through their contributions.

Of course, that was the principle underlying the Beveridge report—that great Liberal—and the one that the 1945 Attlee Government sought to introduce after the war. I am arguing that we should today try to bring about a renaissance of belief in that principle, and to make it an underlying concept of our social security system.

The principle is well understood historically. Long before the advent of the modern welfare state in the 20th century, there were friendly societies, building societies and co-ops, and trade unions emerged. It was well understood that members had rights, but also that they had duties and responsibilities. People paid contributions to trade unions and building societies—interestingly, that was in the early days, when building societies actually built houses—and to friendly societies. As of right, they could then draw benefits when eligible.

It is no coincidence that when we wander through Members Lobby, we see great statues of pioneers of the national insurance system. We could even argue which party has done most for social insurance, as it used to be called, or national insurance. Churchill can lay claim to have done much of the work in the pre-war years, and Lloyd George had more than a hand in it, as did Clement Attlee and his 1945 Government. Our entitlements to claim social security, and our rights and duties, are not simply technical matters that should be detailed somewhat obscurely in social security manuals, but a social philosophy foundation stone that folk in this country can understand as fair.

Of course, the national insurance system as devised in the modern era by the Beveridge report and the Attlee Government was not perfect. Rightly, it was subjected to critique by women’s organisations and feminists, who said that it had more to say about a typical man’s life cycle than a woman’s. Past Governments have done their best to rectify the inadequacies of the system when a mother leaves her career, which happened for quite a long period in the past, to care for her children, and to deal with what happens to the insurance contributions of family carers, who are usually but not always women, who have had to leave the labour market. Labour Governments and others have done their best to modernise the national insurance system, but not with total success. I am therefore saying, not that the principle of national insurance has worked perfectly historically, but that it is a basis on which we should build.

One of the biggest difficulties with national insurance over recent years has been that increasingly our friends in the Treasury—both Ministers and officials—have regarded national insurance as just another form of taxation. To be blunt I would point my finger at Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments. The Treasury has lost sight of the Beveridge report and the philosophy of citizenship. When considering how to raise revenue, it tends to ask, “What share should come from income tax, corporation tax or VAT, and what share should come from the national insurance system?” That is illustrated by the fact that when, a while ago, the two major parties were having that ding-dong—that argument—about whether extra revenue should be raised by VAT or national insurance, that is how it was viewed. There was very little in that debate about what national insurance should be about and how it should relate to a modern social security system. One reason why the contributory principle has grown rather tired-looking is a failure of communication and presentation. Governments have not gone out there to argue, as I hope to do—albeit inadequately—that social insurance and the contributory principle remain valid foundation stones for this aspect of our social policy.

The other aspect of the contributory principle I want to raise concerns the plans set out by the Department for Work and Pensions and, in particular, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), to move towards a far simpler state pension system in which everyone would be guaranteed a certain state pension. On paper, that looks like an interesting concept. I understand that, in theory, everyone is in favour of greater simplicity, but let us consider the matter in relation to the social insurance principle. I am alarmed by bits in the DWP document, “A State Pension Age for the 21st Century”, which was mentioned in the Budget. Although it states that in the future people should get the new simple pension after 30 years of qualifying, which addresses the issue about women—so far so good—it seems to imply, unless I have seriously misunderstood it, that no one would get more than a pension to which they had contributed for 30 years.

The Government are at pains to tell us that more and more people will have long life expectancies and will work longer in the labour market. What happens, therefore, to those who work 40 or 50 years? I might have misunderstood, but I was alarmed by paragraph 96 of the document, which reads under the heading, “Impact on individuals”:

“Groups who would expect to build up more significant amounts of State Second Pension, such as those with longer working lives and higher earners, would not be able to do so under this option.”

Well, why not? Is there not a danger of being so besotted with the idea of simplicity that we undermine the idea that if someone contributes more through their working life because they are working harder, they should be able to get more out of it at the end through a decent state pension scheme? I have serious concerns about that. Although there are many doubting Thomases in respect of social insurance, we must bear in mind the principles underlying it, such as citizenship and its common-sense nature: people can understand that they should make a contribution when they can and draw out of a community pot when they need to. If we sacrifice those things, we sacrifice a lot in our social security system.

I want to touch briefly on a matter that relates to a paper I published on my website last week. I question whether we are in the right place when it comes to raising the state pension age in the light of increasing life expectancy. May I say first and foremost that I am signed up—not least as a former pensions Ministers—to the reality of increasing life expectancy for most people. It cannot be right that we stick to state pension ages and occupational pension ages devised 40 or 50 years ago, given that more and more of us—hopefully—will live into our 80s and 90s.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Hear, hear!

[Malcolm Wicks]

My hon. Friend wants to become one of the centenarians. Indeed, to warm us up for difficult decisions, the DWP is now telling us, courtesy of statistics from the Office for National Statistics, that 11 million people alive today can expect to live to 100. That is an extraordinary piece of demography. I accept the logic, therefore, that most of us should expect to leave the labour market, retire and draw our state and occupational pensions at a later age. However, the main reason for raising this matter in the House today is that this is insensitive to, and has no understanding of, social class variations. There is an assumption that these broad figures about life expectancy apply equally to all of us, regardless of geography, constituency, whether people live in the north or the south, or the kind of work undertaken.

When I looked at some of these issues in the light of social class, I am afraid that, not for the first time, socio-economic status reared its ugly and unequal head. Nineteen percent—almost one-fifth—of men from social class 7, which encompasses those with routine occupations, such as cleaners, packers, van drivers and unskilled labourers, many of whom have been in work since the age of 15 or 16, are dead before 65. They never live long enough to draw their state pension. That compares poorly with those from the professional and business classes. There is a difference for women as well, but it is not so stark. I question, therefore, whether a one-size-fits-all scheme of increasingly raising the state pension age—the Government now want to consult on raising it even further to 68—is a sensible way ahead in this area of social policy. Furthermore, a second pension penalty is, of course, paid by the poorest men and women in our communities. Although most people from those social classes reach pension age, they enjoy far shorter pension lives than those from the better-off social classes. So a second pension penalty is paid.

The arguments for raising the state pension age across the board are based on the assumption that the labour market is sufficiently dynamic and flexible to provide the jobs for those people. Again, however, this ignores social status and the realities of many people’s working lives. It can be no coincidence that many who compete in a kind of macho competition to say how late we should draw our state pension—66, 67, 68, why not 70?—tend to be people from big business, the political class or the media, who may be able to continue their working lives almost indefinitely, writing articles, having portfolios, doing consultancy or, if they are unlucky, in the House of Lords. These people might be able to continue their work, but what about the van driver, the bus driver, the woman who cleans offices, the steel workers, the people with creaking backs and aching limbs, who come their 60s need to retire in a very old-fashioned sense?

The DWP would need to work on the details, but surely we could say that people in those social classes who typically started their working careers not in their early 20s, which will have been the lot of many of us, or their mid-20s, which will be the lot of many of our children and grandchildren with postgraduate qualifications, but at 15 or 16, and who often have worked hard ever since, once they have worked for, say, 50 years—we could check that in national insurance, tax and employment records— deserve a rest, in an old-fashioned sense. They need to retire. Given that the demography shows that those people are, sadly, likely to die four years before the average age, it would surely be only fair and just if they could draw their state pensions four years earlier than most of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Despite what the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) has just claimed about the Bill’s great achievements, I am afraid that the Liberal Democrats will be remembered for only one thing—the fact that they all, including their leader, pledged not to raise tuition fees. That is never going to go away, and everything else that they say will be seen in the light of that betrayal of the future of our young people in this country.

I was pleased to hear the thoughtful contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) on the proposals on pensions, and particularly on pension ages. If we look back at the history of the actuarial analysis that was used to set the pension age at 65, we see that it was set at that age because most working-class people—there were many more people in heavy industry then—died before they reached the age of 65 years and six months. The calculation was made to minimise the amount that would have to be paid to the working class for their pension contributions. The change that is now being introduced adheres to that same principle. It does not involve earned rights through contributions. Rather, as my right hon. Friend said, it is seen as an imposition if someone without an adequate income lives too long, and has to rely on the state for support.

I am going to disappoint my right hon. Friend now, because I am going to return to the subject of the oil and gas industry. The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) was important but, like that of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), it related to the upstream industry—the oil and gas exploration and production industry. I shall quote from the June report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which the Government do not seem to have read. It says:

“The oil and gas industry operating on the UK continental shelf currently faces a quadruple whammy of high costs, low prices, lack of affordable credit and a global recession. Unless the fiscal and regulatory regime is well designed and highly attractive then the likelihood is that the UK may not recover anything like as much of its reserve as would be desirable.”

The Committee did not realise that there was another spectre to add to the quadruple whammy—a predatory Chancellor who did not even consult the industry when he brought in a £2 billion rise in the tax burden. This is not so much about the level of the rise as the method of its introduction. Changing a tax regime overnight without consultation creates uncertainty, which increases risk. According to the economists with whom I trained when I was studying, when the net present value calculations are made when looking at board bids for investment, such activity can reduce the investment’s attraction. We heard that again and again from the Members who spoke about the upstream industry.

I have been pursuing the so-called responsible Department with questions about the downstream industry—the UK oil refining industry. I tabled an early-day motion on 29 March drawing attention to the fact that two oil refineries were up for sale. They have since been sold to overseas investors. I said at the time that 150,000 jobs were involved. Those jobs are now genuinely under threat.

We have looked at the opportunities as well as the warnings, however. One opportunity involves the fact that there are massive deficits in low-sulphur, high-quality diesel and in aeronautic fuel in the EU at the moment. With the right incentives, it would be attractive for someone to invest in those. The Budget proposals that the Government are putting forward in the Bill should therefore provide those incentives.

It is interesting to note that an opportunity was spotted by Mr Ifty Nasir, who owns Essar, an Indian oil company, which bought a refinery at Stanlow. He said on 11 April 2011 that he intends to expand Stanlow’s shipping terminal in the Mersey to provide a UK entry point for diesel and petrol produced at the Vadinar refinery in India—one of the biggest refineries in Asia, which is in the midst of a £1.7 billion expansion that will allow it produce euro high-quality, low-sulphur diesel. That is the very opportunity that should exist for our refineries, for our companies and for British workers.

I wrote about this to the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). I asked what future support for our refineries in the UK would be forthcoming. In his reply of 5 April, he said:

“We work closely with the downstream oil industry and its representatives to understand the impact of policy on the sector and to ensure this understanding is shared across a range of Government Departments.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 536, c. 886W.]

We had an hour and a half’s debate this morning in Westminster Hall about oil refining. I come here tonight to ask Ministers about the Treasury’s understanding of this issue and what its response has been, as I can find no indication that the Chancellor is joined up to the real world in any way in respect of his Budget proposals that will affect the UK refining industry.

Let us consider the background to oil refining. When the climate change levy and the EU emissions trading scheme were brought in, they were to have an impact on manufacturing, but were also to be tax-neutral. The scheme was about redistributing energy-reduction incentives in other parts of the economy, and it is about to become the European trading system mark 3. It puts £15 million a year on to the cost of refining oil in Grangemouth, a refinery in my constituency, alone. That is a high price to pay, but the industry accepted that environmental standards meant accepting it.

What we have effectively is a 15% disadvantage in EU refining, of which we are part, in comparison with the rest of the world, including India. If we bring in the new carbon tax, which the hon. Member for Bristol West seemed to be lauding, it will add another 10% disadvantage on top of that 15% one—and for UK refining alone. We will be disadvantaged in Europe by 10%, and in the rest of the world by 25%, in terms of the environmental taxes we pay. The cumulative cost to UK manufacturing business in general—we should remember that the Government said that they were going to “rebalance” the economy with their taxes and incentives—will be £9.3 billion. That price will not be faced by other parts of Europe or other parts of the world.

I want to know from Treasury Ministers what thought went into this policy. What extrapolation did they make? What cost-analysis or impact-analysis did they do when they thought up this scheme? The scheme does not attract me, when 1,350 jobs are at stake in the refinery in my constituency. Beyond that, another 4,000 or 5,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on that downstream work. About 150,000 people working in the refinery industry can see someone coming over from India to import a product that is refined in India where the pollution standards are much lower than here, yet the Indian owner does not have to pay either the emissions trading scheme costs or the carbon floor price. I want an explanation of why that tax is in this Budget.

Let me illustrate what happened on the day of the Budget because of the announcement that a carbon price will be introduced in 2013. A forward pricing exercise run by Heren shows what happened to electricity prices on that day. The electricity price for 2013 went up by £2.20 per megawatt-hour because of the fear and risk that had to be factored in. We spoke of the same thing earlier in connection with the impact of the Government’s decision to plunder the profits of the offshore industry. The price has now risen by another £3 to £56.50. That 5% increase will affect all industries that are heavy electricity users. The oil refining industry cannot pass it on, because its margins are so small. The Government said that they would rebalance the position in favour of the manufacturing base of our economy, but instead they have laid that burden on it.

The second tax that I wish to discuss is the carbon reduction commitment, which was designed by the Labour Government as a tax on office spaces and other entities that could not be reached by the emissions trading scheme. It has since been simplified, and we understand that it will also apply to the manufacturing industry and to United Kingdom refining. The UK Petroleum Industry Association has described it as no more than another general tax. Will the Treasury exempt manufacturing industries and the UK refining industry from that tax? If not, it will impose another burden on the UK’s manufacturing capability.

[Sammy Wilson]

Not only has the tax been extended to a wider range of bodies, but the Treasury has removed an incentive for firms to reduce energy consumption. Some of the money that they had paid into the scheme used to be returned to them, but that will no longer be the case.

[Michael Connarty]

The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That incentive has gone. Ports such as Grangemouth, in my constituency, cannot pass the tax on to those who rent or are sublet property. It will not make people who rent property more energy-conscious, although it was originally designed by the Labour Government—who employed an excellent methodology involving a great deal of consultation with the industry—as an incentive for the reduction of energy use.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is probably partly responsible for matters involving the oil refining industry, although it seems to be burying its head in the sand and kicking that responsibility over to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The two Departments are supposedly engaged in a study of the cumulative impact of climate change and energy policies. However, the Treasury must be involved as well, and it must take responsibility for the damage that it will do if it does not moderate its carbon taxes. Specifically, anyone who pays the costs of the European emissions trading scheme should be exempt from them. It has been calculated that the carbon price in the UK is likely to reach €54 per tonne, while the price on the European mainland will be only €36 per tonne. We are therefore at a disadvantage in relation to Europe, let alone the world.

There is a further tax that the Treasury consistently hang on to. Those who import a fuel oil must pay tax on what they land at the depot or terminal. If, for example, Grangemouth refinery supplies the terminal in the north of Scotland by tanker, it will pay tax on the amount of product that it puts into the tanker. However, an evaporation factor places an additional burden on every tanker load, so no one with any sense will convey fuel from a UK refinery to any UK destination. INEOS in Grangemouth prefers to import it from Lavera in France, because it pays less tax on the same tanker load, because of evaporation. Regardless of which party is in Government the Treasury has retained that tax, but it is time to reconsider. If we want products to be made in this country and taxed in this country, we must have a tax system that gives incentives to industry rather than punishing it.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

As I said, we had six years when we did not even increase the price of fuel by inflation, so there were real-terms price falls. The number of increases in all sorts of duties tends to expand the more one is in government. We will see what this Government do in the Budget next week.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The difference in our approach is that we are looking to help people across all parts of the economy. Surely the people at the Freight Transport Association who have been campaigning solely for a fuel duty rise not to be imposed, which would benefit them, should realise that they must build an alliance with other people by campaigning for the striking down of the increase in VAT to 20%, which is hurting everyone, including not only themselves as the people who deliver goods, but the people who have to purchase those goods.

[Ms Eagle]

It is clear that increases in fuel duty have knock-on effects on petrol prices, and that fuel prices in general have complex knock-on effects in an economy. The Government have to think about that as they approach the Budget.

Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend should be aware that under the mechanism there will be no liabilities if no request for assistance has been made.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Does not the Financial Secretary think it worrying that, when the Irish Government consistently say that they do not require a bail-out, the speculators in the bond market—the hyenas who used to attack our currency—try to bring down the Irish Government’s financial position? Is not it right to support Ireland and the euro, of which it is part?

[Mr Hoban]

As I said before, it is important that Britain stands ready to support the Irish Government to resolve those problems.

European Union Economic Governance

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I know that that paragraph has caused some interest, but many people stop reading after

“by a new legal framework”.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend did not fall into that trap. The provision is based on existing treaties, and it is about macro-economic surveillance. A number of organisations conduct macro-economic surveillance of the UK economy, and there is nothing new in that.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I hope that the Financial Secretary realises that we are here to support him in a sensible approach to economic surveillance. Does it not seem rather silly for people to say that a country that is in partnership with many other countries should not be interested if any of those countries are profligate? Clearly, good surveillance and good economic policies throughout the partnership are good for the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Given that the process is very straightforward, I begin to wonder why it is causing so much excitement. The reality is that the information is already available and the recommendations do not apply to us. The enforcement mechanism applies to eurozone states; they are subject to sanctions, but we have a carve-out from that because of protocol 15.

[Michael Connarty]

May I suggest to the Minister that one of the attractions of the new procedure is that every country in Europe will have to carry this out? They would find out well before any crisis—as we saw in Greece, for example—that they were in trouble. It is a little bit of information to give and a lot to get back. I think that the “Euro-loony party” contingent should leave the Conservative party, so that people with some common sense can deal with Europe sensibly.

[Mr Hoban]

I am not going to go down that route, but it is important that information be available. Over the course of the financial crisis—not just in the EU, but globally—we have seen the importance of understanding structural imbalances and their impact on other economies. This is an important strand of debate and it will be continued when the G20 meets later this week. It was certainly an important strand in the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting last month, and, indeed, in the IMF’s annual meeting in October. There is nothing new in discussing these issues.

There is an existing mechanism for surveillance in place through the broad economic policy guidelines, but the warning mechanism has been used only twice: it was used for Ireland in 2001, and Greece received a warning in February this year. An improved mechanism would help towards achieving greater economic stability and it is particularly important for the eurozone, where the effects of imbalances and instability have a greater impact on its members, as has been apparent in recent months. That is why eurozone member states support a sanctions regime, penalising eurozone members whose economic policies undermine the stability of the currency and the eurozone economy. The sanctions do not apply to us, as I have said. I give way—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

First, I wish to put on record what we are supposed to be debating, because Members have wandered all over the place. We are debating a series of six documents sent to the Government by the European Scrutiny Committee, on which the Government have now taken a position. Four are about the stability and growth pact—our Committee reference numbers for them are 32036, 32043, 32044 and 32047. The other two relate to the excessive imbalances procedure—documents 32045 and 32046.

In the main, those documents make no difference whatever to procedures that the UK has to carry out. However, a lot of heat has been made about the fact that they affect other countries, and that if the conspiracy theory of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) is borne out, they may affect our Government, who will have to give up their fiscal veto. The same was said in the exchanges on the recent urgent question asked by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). However, we are quite clearly protected in the Lisbon treaty and do not have to go down that road.

The documents will not have any effect on us, because we are not a member of the eurozone. They can be read in detail, and Members will find that the coercive measures set out in them do not relate to anyone outside the eurozone. The Government’s position is therefore to note the documents.

On 27 October, the Government made their position clear in response to the hon. Gentleman’s urgent question. The Financial Secretary quoted the report of the taskforce on strengthening economic governance in the EU, which has been referred to today as though it were a conspiracy document. It states that

“strengthened enforcement measures need to be implemented for all EU Member States, except the UK as a consequence of protocol 15 of the Treaty”.

That is quite clear. The hon. Gentleman reiterated that

“we will not agree to any changes to EU treaties that move more powers from this country to the EU. The UK’s exemption from the sanctions proposal will be explicit, and there will be no shift of sovereignty from Westminster to Brussels.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 319.]

It is important that we are clear about what we are trying to do.

We should be sensible in our debates, and I say to Members to whom the EU is anathema, or who are Eurosceptic to a great degree, that they should not diminish what they have to say about important matters relating to the Government’s position on the EU by arguing that somehow we are selling out if we do what is asked in document 32047, which is about the surveillance mechanism in the reporting regime. If we do not know what 26 of the 27 countries are doing in their budgets, we must agree on a proposal for everyone to put in information, so that both we and the Commission know what other Governments are doing. If we had done that we would have known how badly Greece’s economy was faring when it was suddenly found not to be putting accurate figures in to the European Commission.

[Mr Jenkin]

Just for the convenience of the House, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the numbers of the documents that he has read out do not correspond with the numbers in the Government’s motion, because those are the documents that we are scrutinising?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

The Government use the nomenclature of the EC reference and I am giving the Committee reference. When people want to find things, it is much easier to look at what the European Scrutiny Committee does under its numbers than to try to find it in EU documentation. They are, in fact, the same documents.

There is a very good advert on television—“Calm down, dear, it’s only an advert.” To people who try to say that this motion is a major sell-out by the Government, I say, “Calm down, dear, it’s only an information exchange.” Frankly, if there is a vote tonight, I will be voting with the Government. I will not be voting for any of the absurd amendments that have been tabled. The Government are doing the right thing. I am not out to score points on behalf of my party against another party. Our relationship with the other 27 countries with which we do most of our trade is far too serious for that. We must not kid people. The hon. Member for Hertsmere, with whom I sit in the European Scrutiny Committee, did not complete his quote from paragraph 34, page 8 of the taskforce report, which said:

“taking into account the specificity of the euro area.”

Paragraph 35 talks about the Commission conducting in-depth analysis and surveillance missions

“in liaison with the ECB for euro area…states.”

It is quite clear that these documents are about the eurozone. I know that there are problems in the eurozone, but when signing up to the euro one takes on such responsibilities.

[Mr Clappison]

rose—

[Michael Connarty]

Given that we are trying to let people speak, I will not give way.

Let us be sensible. To give and exchange information is sensible, as is surveillance. Without any wish to criticise anyone in this or the previous Government, I say that when comments were being made about our imbalances, perhaps our Government should have listened, and then we would not be living in such straitened times.