Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

For six years now, we have had Budgets made on the basis of targets and rules announced by the Chancellor, which have then informed the Government’s spending choices. Each time, the Chancellor has set out his targets as an iron necessity, suggesting that any deviation from them meant that those guilty of the deviation could not be trusted with the public finances, yet time after time, the deviation has been his. The traps he has fallen into have been traps of his own making.

The Chancellor began in the last Parliament by telling us that he would eliminate the deficit within five years. He failed to do so. His strategy of austerity was so successful that he announced it would be necessary to carry it on for two Parliaments, rather than just for the intended one. Instead of eliminating the deficit, he roughly halved it. That was the same pace of deficit reduction that Labour had asked for, but which he dismissed at the time as irresponsible profligacy.

Then, in this Parliament, there were three rules. First, there was a welfare cap designed to show how tough the Chancellor was on welfare. It lasted barely six months after the election. He was forced to break it, in his U-turn on tax credit cuts in the autumn statement, by the justified anger at his hitting the working poor who were trying to do the right thing by themselves and their families. His second fiscal rule involved a pledge to reduce debt year on year. Another fiscal rule made, another one broken. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s verdict is:

“The Budget measures make little difference to net debt in 2015-16, so we expect that target still to be missed.”

That leaves only his target for a surplus in 2019-20, which the OBR rates his chances of meeting as no better than 50:50.

This was supposed to be a Budget that did not frighten the horses, yet it has fallen apart in a matter of days. Whatever the motivations of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), he has exposed the reality of the approach of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to Budget-making: make up a rule, then pick on the same group of low-income people to pay for it time after time. The right hon. Gentleman has described the measure as “unfair” and “divisive”, but perhaps his most damning statement is that he believes the Chancellor targets the non-pension part of the Department for Work and Pensions budget because it relates largely to a group of people who do not vote Conservative.

The Chancellor says that we are all in this together, but we cannot all be in it together if the Budget is a series of tax giveaways on thresholds for higher earners, capital gains tax cuts and other measures that, in the main, go to the better-off while disabled people are expected to take a £4 billion hit. The cuts to the disabled have been abandoned, at least for now, but the bigger impact involves not just one spending measure. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor prided themselves on fashioning a one nation compassionate Conservatism, but that claim has now been turned to dust by this Chancellor’s Budget. This is not a reformed Conservative party; it is the same old Conservative party, rewarding those it thinks will vote for it and punishing those it thinks will not. It is not just one spending measure that has been killed; it is the whole project of one nation compassionate Conservatism.

European Union Referendum Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I think I have just addressed that point. We cannot waive privilege and disagree with the amendment for other reasons. We therefore need to engage financial privilege, but I am taking the opportunity of this speech and this debate to make sure that those other issues are given an airing as well. I hasten to add that there is nothing new in this. There is a long-established precedent in this House. I shall leave it to the procedural experts to lecture us all on the historical antecedents of financial privilege. We are not creating any sort of unusual precedent here.

I have not sought to repeat or rebut every argument. As I said, the subject has been debated many times in the Chamber already. I have, I hope, given everybody a taste of the issues and stated the Government’s position. The House has expressed its view on this matter many times, and I ask us all to repeat that once more.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose the Government’s proposal to reject Lords amendment 1 and to support the amendment passed by their lordships which extends the franchise for the European referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds. There is an ongoing, more general debate about franchise extension, but today I want to concentrate on the case for extending the franchise to younger voters for this particular referendum. Constitutional referendums are not like general elections, which come about every five years, or local elections, which come about every year. It is 40 years since this issue was voted on in this country. Major constitutional referendums are a once-in-a-generation choice, perhaps a once in a lifetime choice, about the country’s future direction. Our contention is very simple: it is that the young people of this country deserve a say in the decision that will chart our country’s future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Why did the right hon. Gentleman’s party not choose to move this amendment before their lordships decided to impose it on us?

[Mr McFadden]

We moved it both in Committee and on Report, so I think that the hon. Lady’s memory fails her on this occasion.

On the first point about younger people having the vote, every British citizen, by virtue of the passport that they hold, has the right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, to live, work and study anywhere in the European Union. That right has opened up opportunities for millions, and it is used by the many British people who live and work elsewhere in the European Union. Those driving the argument that the UK should leave the EU have at the heart of their proposal the idea that the free movement of people should be stopped and withdrawn. Whatever they are for—it is often not easy to figure that out—they are certainly against that. However, if we do withdraw and go down that road, then reciprocal action will be taken against British citizens. Therefore, the rights, opportunities and futures of our young people are on the ballot paper.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency, people aged 15, 16 and 17 are telling me that they will vote in the next general election, that it is very important to them whether we are in or out of Europe, and that they want this vote because it determines their future. Next door in Gower, where the majority is only 27 votes, people are telling me that if their MP does not vote for them to have a vote, they will vote against him, so this will have a far-reaching impact on the general election as well.

[Mr McFadden]

I entirely agree that young people have an interest in this issue, for the reasons I have been setting out.

The argument is not only about the legal rights that we hold. This referendum, one way or another, will affect future trade patterns in our country. It will have an impact on investment, on funding for our universities, on our farmers, on regional spending, and on very many other areas of national life. It will say a huge amount about how we view ourselves and how the rest of the world views us. This is very much about the United Kingdom’s future, and we believe that young people, including young people aged 16 and 17 at the time of voting, should have a say in that future.

Then there is the question of practicalities. We already know from the experience of last year’s referendum on Scottish independence that 16 and 17-year-olds can successfully take part in a national poll. Young people there were able to engage in discussion and debate and to exercise their democratic choice in the same way as anyone else. Arguments about their lack of capacity to understand or engage were proven not to be the case. The post-referendum report by the Electoral Commission said:

“109,593 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland were registered to vote at the referendum and 75% of those surveyed after the poll said they had voted.”

Importantly, it continued:

“97% of those 16-17 year olds who reported having voted said that they would vote again in future elections and referendums.”

So we know that young people can take part and that, given the chance, many of them will do so; the issue is whether the Government will give them that chance.

This should not be a partisan choice. There is nothing intrinsically Conservative, Labour or nationalist about extending the franchise. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives has described herself as a

“fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club”.

Some Conservative Members, as far as I recall, supported this proposal when we debated it in Committee and on Report, yet Ministers are still standing in the way.

The Government have said that extending the franchise in this way will cost £6 million, which has been enough to define the proposal as engaging the financial privileges of this House. But of course Ministers could ask this House to waive our privileges and accept the amendment. That is what has happened many times in the past when the Government have supported amendments. It could also happen now, and it is a course of action that we would support. In the end, this is not about the proposal being unaffordable; it is about the Government not wanting to do it. According to the autumn statement, total public spending in the next financial year is estimated to be £773 billion—£773,000 million, and the Government want to deny young people a vote for the sake of six of them. They would not even have to spend that amount every year; after all, this is a once-in-a-generation choice.

Let us be clear what this is about. Let us not make a constitutional crisis over a small amount of money or use an argument about what is, in the end, a straightforward policy choice in the Government’s wider campaign to neuter the House of Lords. The issue is this: do we believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the vote in this referendum because they have a right to have a say in the future direction of our country? We do, and that is why we support the amendment that was added by their lordships and will vote for it when the House divides.

[Mrs Main]

I rise to support the Government in this matter. I do not think it is reasonable that their lordships should decide to open the chequebook of this House for whatever amount. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) seemed to think that this is a fiddling amount of money of no consequence. I think he is missing the point somewhat. It is important that the will of this House is seen to be done, and the will of this House, as we have debated many times, is not to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.

I listen with interest to the regular contributions of Scottish Members who say, “We gave young people the vote in the referendum on whether Scotland should be independent, but this House is not giving them the vote in the wider referendum on the EU. If it’s good enough for Scotland, how do we explain to them that they cannot have it in this situation?” I remind Scottish Members that they cannot have it both ways. What they choose to do in Scotland is up to them, but they cannot then use it as a wonderful precedent to insist that we operate in the same way. Something that has just been done in Scotland with which I fundamentally disagree is the provision in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 whereby every young person under the age of 18 must have a “state guardian” appointed who will be expected to assess a child’s wellbeing under eight key indicators, including their being safe, healthy, included and respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I will leave aside my own opinions on this point. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have strong views, which I will develop during the campaign, about why we should leave, but we already know from speeches made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that there is a presupposition that a reformed Union is the way to go. The test to be applied is whether the reforms amount to much, which I do not think they will, and meet the test of changing our relationship with the EU, which is also relevant. On these questions there will be much debate, but anybody with a fraction of judgment, in respect of this huge landscape and the trust to be placed in the voter to make the right decision, will have to consider whether there is any significant bias in the reports. We have already been through the whole of the purdah debate, which was about using the civil service machinery. If I may say so, I think we won that one. There should not be a back door to achieving the same objectives relating to a report of this kind.

On that note, I give notice that I propose to withdraw my amendment. I want to know from the Minister whether or not he is prepared to accept my point about impartiality and accuracy. He knows perfectly well what I mean, and he is more than capable of giving us a decent answer.

[Mr McFadden]

I shall speak briefly, particularly now that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has indicated that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lords amendments 5 and 6 quite closely reflect amendments that Opposition Members tabled in Committee and on Report. Amendment 5 calls for information and a report on the Government’s renegotiation process, while amendment 6 calls for a report on the rights and obligations entailed in membership of the European Union and invites the Government to outline the rights and obligations of certain countries that have relationships with the EU, perhaps through the EEA agreement, but are not members of it.

I refer Members to the recent Policy Network pamphlet on these issues, entitled “What does ‘out’ look like?”, which I think would make a great Christmas present for the Minister and for anyone considering these issues. I have some copies available if the Minister would like to see them. This is not the same as the purdah issue. We are talking about something that is 10 weeks out and we are not in the absolute heat of the campaign. We are not talking about a leaflet that is to be distributed to every household in the country or anything like that. What we are calling for is for the Government to publish information on both aspects—the renegotiation and what “out” might look like. That should give the public the best information possible on a very important decision.

The Government and the Prime Minister have placed great emphasis on the renegotiation itself, and we have seen the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the European Council, who published his initial reply yesterday. We know there will be some discussion of these issues at the European Council next week, but probably not a conclusion until the European Council in February next year.

It remains to be seen what the outcome of these renegotiations is going to be. We had some indication in the letter from the President of the European Council yesterday. Many Opposition Members do not place the same weight on this renegotiation as the Prime Minister does, because we think there is a broader case for membership beyond the four points that the Prime Minister outlined in his letter of last month to the President of the European Council. It is obviously also the case that many Government Back Benchers place no weight at all on the renegotiation, because there is nothing in it that could get them to change their minds about the outcome of the referendum. I believe it was the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) who asked during questions on a statement after he had seen the contents of the Prime Minister’s letter, “Is that it?”

[Mrs Main]

I understand that last point, but it is all part of the debate. What is being asked and the response to what is being asked are all part of the calculations being made by many people who may be considering what “in” looks like, as well as what “out” looks like. If the negotiations are not treated with the respect and gravity they deserve, even though they may be quite modest, that sends a big message to those of us who have concerns about our ongoing membership.

[Mr McFadden]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but different people will look at the renegotiation in different ways. The point I am making is that there is a broader case about membership of the EU that goes well beyond the four items listed in the Prime Minister’s letter and the four cases in President Tusk’s reply. If, for the hon. Lady and for some voters, it is all about those four points, that is a fair judgment for them to make, but what I am saying is that for most Opposition Members there is a broader case for membership outwith the renegotiations. I would venture to suggest that when it comes to the referendum and voters actually casting their vote on whether we should remain the EU or leave it, it will not in the end be the finer points of the renegotiation that are in their minds. It will be the broader case either for in or out. That is what people will vote on.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

It seems to me that the Opposition are yet again falling into the trap of thinking that it is possible to trade with the EU only if we have a special arrangement with it, like Norway or Switzerland. Yet all the world’s countries trade with the EU, and the very badly drafted Lords amendment invites comment on all those different arrangements, many of which have no special deal at all.

[Mr McFadden]

I am not saying that the Norway example is the only one out there. There are others, but Norway is a real live example, which I think is relevant to our debate. Moreover, some in the campaign to leave the EU have drawn attention to it as a model, while others have drawn attention to Switzerland as a model. It would be good to understand from the Leave campaign exactly what model they seek to support. It is right that in advance of the referendum, the Government should publish as much information as possible so that the voters are clear about what is involved.

The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stone calls on the Electoral Commission to be the marker, as it were, of the Government’s homework, but the Electoral Commission has said clearly that it does not want to do that. It accepts that there is an appetite for more detailed information, but it states that

“we would not have the capabilities to do so…nor the required expertise to judge a report to Parliament”.

That is very clear.

[Damian Green]

I want to give the right hon. Gentleman another chance to plug his pamphlet. In it, he sets out the various options that would be available to this country. In the context of the Government providing information, this is quite a difficult ask. It is inevitably hypothetical; nobody can know what the divorce settlement would be. The Government would certainly not know. What the amendments are effectively asking the Government to do is to stick a finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. It is quite difficult to call that “information”.

[Mr McFadden]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views on this matter, but I am afraid I disagree with him. The amendments are not asking the Government to stick a finger in the air and speculate on what the UK’s arrangements would be after withdrawal. Amendment 6(b) shows that this is about

“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union but do have other arrangements with the European Union”.

That is not speculation; those examples already exist. We can study the obligations on countries subject to these arrangements. They have been there for some time, and those countries have negotiated specific details with the European Union. That is not a matter for speculation; it is out there for us all to see.

I am pleased that the Government have, in effect, accepted requests that we made in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons. It is important for voters to be clear about the renegotiation, clear about the results of that renegotiation, clear about what being in the European Union is like and what it requires, and as clear as possible about what being out might look like. A referendum is a choice between two futures, not an opinion poll on only one future, and that is why the amendments are important. It is right for us to have access to reports of this kind, and it is right for the maximum amount of information to be made available to the public on what will be a crucial choice for the country.

[John Redwood]

I put my name to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) because I thought that Lords amendments 5 and 6 were ill considered and unwise, and that we needed to debate them for that reason.

Lords amendment 5 is easy to deal with and I have no particular problem with it, because it states the obvious—namely that, when the negotiations have been completed, the British Government should share their view of the outcome of those negotiations with Parliament and the people. Well, of course they will: it will happen naturally. There will be a statement, and I dare say there will be a written text as well. I therefore think that the amendment is an unnecessary addition to what was a simpler Bill before their lordships got hold of it.

Lords amendment 6 is far more worrying, because it is so sloppily drafted and because it leads to all sorts of arguments that are properly arguments for a referendum campaign rather than for good legislation to set up the referendum. The first part of the amendment says that the Government must publish information about the

“rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law”

from our current membership. As has already been remarked, if that were done properly it would result in a very long book, given that we are now subject to so many legal restrictions and obligations as a result of an extremely voluminous consolidated treaty and thousands of directives. I think that to fulfil that remit properly, the Government would have to set out all the directives, and explain to the British people why there are now very large areas of law and public practice that we in the House of Commons are not free to determine as we see fit and as the people wish. While that might be a useful thing to do, I fear that the Government might fall short because they might not wish to give a comprehensive list of our obligations, and it is not good law to invite people to do things that they do not really intend to do.

I look forward to hearing the Minister clarify whether he will be publishing a full list of the thousands of legal restraints that now operate on this Parliament in preventing us from carrying out the wish of the British people, and also on the British people, who must obey these laws as they are translated into British law, or else obey the directly acting laws. Of course, all these laws, and our own laws, can be construed by European justice through the European Court of Justice, which, rather than this court of Parliament, is now the true sovereign in our country because we have submitted ourselves to the ultimate judgment of the European Court.

Euro Area

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir David, for your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) on securing the debate. It is a particular pleasure to end the term by debating some of these issues with my old friends on the Government Benches.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham chose his usual neutral language to describe the report of the five presidents as a plot to take us on a wild ride to a European superstate. I want briefly to discuss the report and pose two questions, not so much directly to the Minister but for consideration in the debate. First, is what the report outlines a threat to the UK, and secondly, will the measures in it happen? Let me elaborate on both of those points for a couple of minutes.

Of course, it is timely to be discussing how the eurozone moves forward in the wake of what we have seen in Greece in recent weeks, but it is also instructive, as has been said, that throughout all the difficulties, and even in the wake of the referendum that was held a couple of weeks ago in Greece, a majority of people both on the yes side and on the no side wanted to stay in the euro and the eurozone. That was not a referendum about breaking with the European Union.

The discussion about how the eurozone moves forward and tries to resolve some of the difficulties—weaknesses, one might say—in its architecture that have been exposed by the crisis is not a plot. It is not surprising that this discussion is happening. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has said time after time that members of the eurozone will inevitably come closer together in the wake of the crisis and what it has exposed. The report does set out major changes—I will not detail them all, because the right hon. Member for Wokingham set them out—such as convergence, mutualisation, risk sharing and so on, but it is not a plot, and the direction of travel it sets out for the eurozone is not surprising in the wake of the crisis. As I said, the question for us is whether it is a threat. Surely it is in our interests that the eurozone sorts itself out, eases the unemployment that Members have referred to, secures better economic growth and becomes a stronger trading partner for our exporters and businesses. In fact, whether we were inside or outside the European Union, it would be in our interests for the eurozone to resolve its economic difficulties.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to be discourteous to him, but I have only a couple of minutes, so I ask him to forgive me for not giving way to him today.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham and many others Members who have spoken in the debate have used language about seeing all this as a dastardly plot and a threat to the UK. I will not comment on each of the specific items in the five presidents report, but I argue that in a general sense, it is in our interests for the eurozone to sort itself out economically and become a stronger trading partner for the British economy. I do not see this as a zero-sum game in which a stronger eurozone is somehow a threat to the UK—not given that we have been a member of the EU for 40 years and it is our biggest trading partner, our biggest source of exports and the source of half our inward investment. However, continued economic weakness in the eurozone and a failure to resolve the problems that have been exposed in recent years would certainly not be in our interests. I therefore take a different view from the right hon. Gentleman.

The second point, which is related to whether the report represents a threat, is that although most of the report concentrates on the eurozone, some of the measures apply to all 28 member states. An example is the capital markets union, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. That is being governed by Lord Hill, our own Commissioner and his party colleague. The UK is the member state with the strongest financial sector, and it has a world-class cluster of associated services such as accountancy, so that poses opportunities for the UK, not just challenges. We must not see everything that happens as a threat.

Let me move on to my second question—whether all this will happen. To an extent, I echo the question that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) asked. Germany may well resist mutualisation because it involves taking on risk in other states, and other countries may resist subscribing to common rules. Although the five presidents report has a grand title, I suspect that the issues that it raises will be debated for some time to come, and it is not at all certain yet that everything it sets out will happen.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Budgets, perhaps more than anywhere else, are where rhetoric meets policy. Rhetoric is an inescapable part of politics, but Budgets are the hard end of policy, where we decide our tax rates and revenues, decide on the benefit position and hear about the national accounts. I will spend the few minutes allocated to me discussing those two sides of the Budget.

First, when the Conservatives were elected in 2010 as the lead partner in the coalition, they pledged to get rid of the deficit in five years. We fought that election on a pledge to halve the deficit in five years. That policy was derided as the height of fiscal irresponsibility, but what the Chancellor announced in his Budget last week was that the Government had halved the deficit over one Parliament. They followed the Darling plan, rather than the Osborne plan when it came to the reality of deficit reduction in the last Parliament. They claimed success for their deficit reduction plan, but it was so successful that it now requires austerity for two Parliaments, rather than one.

Secondly, there is a clash between rhetoric and policy in respect of the next five years. The Conservatives fought the election just a couple of months ago on what the Office for Budget Responsibility described as a “rollercoaster” pattern of public expenditure cuts, with the deficit to be eliminated in 2018-19. Yet last week it was announced that the rollercoaster had been ditched, deficit elimination was to be put back a further year and there would be a smoother path of deficit reduction. Again, that is much closer to the plan on which Labour fought the election.

The third area is the mixture between taxes and cuts. The Conservatives fought the election saying that there was no need for tax increases at all and that the deficit would be dealt with entirely by expenditure cuts. Yet this Budget has been audited independently and it will result in a net increase in taxation of £6 billion a year—exactly the kind of plan that they would have denounced at the election.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not welcome the fact that the Budget closes tax loopholes and helps to make our tax system fairer? Surely that is something that we can unite across the House in supporting.

[Mr McFadden]

I do welcome parts of the Budget, but I do not welcome a party fighting an election on a platform of denouncing one set of policies and then adopting them right after the election.

To continue with my list, the Chancellor’s most blatant example of shopping around was lifting wholesale the plan to deal with the tax status of non-doms—something that was never mentioned by the Conservative party until we raised it in the election campaign. Fifthly, we fought the election on a plan for a staged increase in the national minimum wage over this Parliament—another policy that has been adopted by the Conservative party.

There are parts of the Budget that I welcome, particularly those that the Conservative party roundly denounced when they were being voiced by someone else before the election. However, it is not all agreement, because we have to consider the Budget in the round rather than just individual measures that we agree with. We cannot agree with a Budget that has been denounced as regressive because it attacks the incomes of the working poor, leading 3 million families to lose £1,000 a year. That will cause real hardship for families in my constituency and in many others like it. We cannot agree with priorities such as increasing the inheritance tax threshold for people who already have assets, while at the same time abolishing student grants, which are targeted at low-income families, making it harder for young people to pursue higher education and gain the opportunities that they deserve.

We also have to question the abolition of housing benefit for people under 21. I recently met the YMCA in Wolverhampton, and many similar charities deal with the most vulnerable young people. How will the Government ensure that those young people are not forced into destitution, and that the work of such excellent charities is not destroyed by the change?

Overall, the Budget is regressive. It is not just a march on to Labour territory, as we have read in recent weeks, but a plan that will attack the working poor and hurt incentives to work rather than increasing them. As we have heard, being in opposition is not just about blanket opposition. Shouting “Fight the cuts” is not enough. If we did not learn that over the past five years, we should certainly learn it now. Our attitude to the Budget should be to welcome the parts of it that are stolen from us and that we can agree with, but to oppose firmly the parts of it that are not in the interests of the country and our constituents.

Looking forward, the next few years will not just be about the fiscal path. They will be about equipping young people for the future, because too many of them are denied opportunities; about making sure that an economic recovery can be shared by every part of the country, not just based on a property-fuelled boom in one part of the country; and about our place in the world. On all those issues, we will be a sensible Opposition. We will not abandon the ground that we hold because the Conservative party walks on to it, but we will stick up for what we believe in and oppose firmly and with determination where it is deserved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Productivity is the pressing economic challenge of this Parliament. Unless the country addresses productivity, especially the widening gap in output per hour between ourselves and our main competitors, wage levels and living standards will not rise, and our competitiveness and position as a leading economic nation will be severely under threat. It is welcome that the Chancellor himself has now acknowledged the issue. In his Mansion House speech on 10 June he said:

“Britain must address its poor productivity.

We don’t export enough; we don’t train enough; we don’t save enough; we don’t invest enough; we don’t manufacture enough; we certainly don’t build enough, and far too much of the economic activity in our nation is concentrated here in the centre of London.”

I hope to address all those points in my speech, and ask how the Budget will address them.

Today is the first day in debate on the Budget that the House is able to consider the Government’s productivity plan, which was published on Friday. It is curious that the plan was not published alongside other documents at the time of the Budget statement, as is the norm. That suggests either that the Government fancied another hit in the 24-hour news cycle 48 hours after the Budget or that the productivity plan was not ready for publication on Budget day, and that Whitehall was trawled in a desperate attempt to scrabble together some half-baked measures in order to publish something—anything—in the immediate aftermath of the Budget. Indeed, the plan is littered far too much with phrases such as “will be published shortly”, or

“the government will set out more details of these reforms in the autumn.”

That suggests that the productivity plan has not been thought through as much as the Government would have liked.

On the question of exporting enough, it is a huge concern that there was nothing in the Budget to help to increase the number of firms exporting, or to address the persistent structural trade deficit. The Red Book shows that that is getting worse: in 2014, exports grew by 0.5% but imports grew by 2.4%. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that net trade this year is going to be more of a drag on GDP growth than it predicted even in the March Budget. The Red Book predicts a widening gulf between growth in world trade and growth in UK exports in every year of this Parliament. This country is not taking advantage of the growing opportunities throughout the world, and the Government should be helping to address that.

The productivity plan states:

“The government will remodel its delivery on trade, exports, investment and prosperity”,

but it does not give much else in the way of explanation. I hope that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee can play a role in helping to shape that aim to ensure the Government meet their targets of £1 trillion by 2020 and 100,000 more companies exporting—an important aim that I am very keen to see the Government achieve, but I fear that it is looking increasingly unlikely.

[Mr McFadden]

While my hon. Friend is on the subject of exports, can he tell us how he thinks withdrawal from the European Union would help our export drive?

[Mr Wright]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend who speaks eloquently on these matters. With regard to our largest trading partner, I certainly think that withdrawal would not be conducive to hitting our export targets. I hope that the Select Committee will look at the costs and benefits to British businesses of EU membership, which will be important in the run-up to any referendum.

On the matter of there being enough training, the apprenticeship levy is a welcome step, although businesses, training providers and learners need more clarity. The Red Book says that the levy will support all post-16 apprenticeships in England and that

“firms that are committed to training will be able to get back more than they put in.”

What will that mean in practice? Given that the apprenticeship levy will be confined to large firms, will small and medium-sized businesses—which often find it difficult to train apprentices on the grounds of size, capacity and uncertainty over the order book—also benefit from the “get more out than you put in” principle? What happens to excellent large companies that are already exemplary when it comes to apprenticeship training, such as Nissan—in my region—Rolls-Royce and Airbus? Will the levy apply to them? I think it will and, if so, will the levy be used to cascade skills through prime companies’ supply chains, so that entire sectors are as competitive and productive as possible?

I mentioned Airbus a moment ago. The Red Book states that the apprenticeship levy applies in England, so how will it take into account large companies such as Airbus, which has a multinational operation throughout the UK, including at Filton in England and Broughton in north Wales? Will the levy apply to trainees in Filton in the south-west of England and in Broughton in north Wales? In addition, how does the levy link in with existing post-16 provision of education, skills and training, particularly in relation to further education cuts, which undermine colleges’ capacity to provide the training that firms want? Does the Minister anticipate that the levy will offset in full the proposed cuts to further education provision?

On the matter of investing enough, I really want to praise the Government on the measure to make the annual investment allowance permanent and at least £200,000. This is a very welcome step to encourage more firms to invest, with certainty in the long term. Hopefully, it will do much to boost productivity. However, more could be done to encourage innovation, product design, development and manufacture here in the UK. I would therefore have liked to have seen consideration of the expansion of the R and D tax credit, too.

To make us more competitive and productive, it is essential that we have a modern infrastructure. The Red Book and the productivity plan both prioritise road building. There is also mention of airport capacity and broadband connectivity, but for an island nation there was a striking omission. UK ports handle about 95% of all UK import and export tonnage, and 75% of all trade by value. Our ports are vital to our export capability, yet I find it odd that there was no mention of them in the Chancellor’s statement. Will the Minister explain how ports will play a part in boosting productivity? What do the Government intend to do to ensure our ports are as competitive as our rivals’ ports across the continent?

I am keen to see this country at the forefront of innovation, business creation and growth, and for the Government to provide a framework for competitive and productive firms employing highly skilled and well-paid employees. Where the Government have done the right thing to help to achieve that, such as with the annual investment allowance, I will say so, but I am afraid the Budget does not do enough of what is needed to address our massive productivity challenge.

European Union Referendum Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on her maiden speech—she has an incredible family history.

It is a great honour to make my maiden speech on my 41st birthday. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I know—I don’t look it. Birthdays are important occasions in our calendar year. For many of us, Christmas is also an important annual milestone. With that in mind, I would like to talk about my predecessor, otherwise known as the House of Commons Father Christmas. Ed Balls spent a number of years entertaining children as Father Christmas, in stark contrast to his public persona. I always found him personable. We ran positive campaigns and treated each other respectfully. We often discussed our shared love of music. At the election count, he was incredibly gracious. He wished me good luck and said that I would do the job very well. I know it must have been an incredibly difficult evening for him and his family, although it should be noted that, back in February, he called for an extension to paternity leave. The moral is we should be careful what we wish for.

But seriously, Ed Balls progressed to the highest levels of Government, holding the positions of Economic Secretary to the Treasury and Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. I genuinely wish him well and thank him for his 10 years in public service.

Morley and Outwood is a diverse constituency, and each of its settlements has its own rich history. Morley is perhaps the most patriotic town in Britain. Its St George’s day celebration attracts more than 10,000 people. It is worth going to see St George on horseback. It has been home to many famous people, such as the Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, pioneering female cyclist Beryl Burton, and Bridget Jones author Helen Fielding. I was tempted to mention ladies’ big undergarments.

Asquith is perhaps Morley’s most famous son. As the Chairman of Ways and Means will be aware, it is 100 years since he was forced to shore up his Government with the Conservatives in a coalition. Fortunately, with the boot having been on the other foot over the past five years, I am pleased to say that no shoring up is required today.

West Yorkshire’s famous rhubarb triangle is centred on my constituency—it once produced 90% of the world’s forced rhubarb. According to the Morley Heritage Centre, which I am glad to be involved with, England’s first Viking Parliament was held in Tingley. Nearby East Ardsley was the birthplace of comedian Ernie Wise. The village of Robin Hood is named after Yorkshire’s best-known folk hero. Robin Hood was a champion of the taxpayer—he made sure the workers got to keep more of their hard-earned money, and might well have sought to fight Morley and Outwood for the Conservatives had he been alive today.

My journey to becoming a Member of Parliament was quite unexpected, but sometimes fate can lead us on a new journey. I experienced career diversity at a young age through my father. He began his career as a lorry driver, then set up his own transport company. In later life, he became something of an inventor, designing walking sticks for the blind and a dog lead that turned into a portable seat.

My career was equally diverse, from a beginning on the shop floor at 16 as a Saturday assistant in a bakery, to having a career in retail management, to running my own business, and then becoming a music tutor in schools. My father taught me that life is what we make it, and that it is not where we come from that matters, but what we do in our lifetime and how we personally contribute to society.

It was the loss of my father in 2011 that led me to be here today. He went to a local hospital for a routine operation but tragic circumstances led to him catching a hospital infection and he passed away a few months later. I became involved in the health charity sector and became a trustee of MRSA Action UK. I championed better standards in our hospitals and campaigned on the importance of finding new antibiotics. I am pleased that our Prime Minister and the chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, are leading a global campaign on antimicrobial resistance.

I graduated just last year as a mature student. I studied economics at the Open University and my dissertation was on comparing healthcare systems around the world: their per capita spend and whether it has any correlation with health outcomes. At the same time, I studied international relations at the University of Lincoln. My dissertation asked the question: is British foreign policy endogenous? Does it exist in its own right, or is it influenced by party politics and their leaders? I charted the parties’ policies in three key areas, from 1945 to date, which included looking at Britain’s relationship with Europe. That is one reason why I chose to make my maiden speech during this debate.

In the past two years, the topic of the European Union has proven to be of great importance to my constituents. Research into my university thesis revealed that the Conservatives have held a consistent foreign policy view on Europe: to be part of a European trading entity, but not a fully integrated political union. The pro-European-with-a-realist-caveat stance was led by Churchill in the 1940s, peaked during the 1970s, and is still true today of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

My research also revealed that the Labour party has had a somewhat inconsistent view on Europe, demonstrated by its manifestos and the actions of its leaders. Its views changed to a more pro-European stance in the mid 1990s, and further integration has been its policy since. In the past few weeks, Labour has again demonstrated an inconsistent standpoint, changing from being against having a referendum and giving the public a voice, to now being in support of it.

I am unhappy with our current relationship with Brussels. There is a lack of transparency on where taxpayers’ money is being spent, and on further integration and political union. I am a proud Brit, a proud Englishwoman and a proud Yorkshirewoman. I stand here today on behalf of my constituents in full support of holding a renegotiation, reform and a referendum. Like many of my Conservative colleagues, I want the best for Britain. We trust the British public to decide.

The Conservatives have the right policy. We must look into renegotiation first. We cannot unsteady the markets and put pressure on our economy by holding a referendum tomorrow. We need to plan to ensure that in two years’ time we hold a referendum and that the British public are given a choice to be either part of a much-reformed European Union or have the option to come out altogether. I, for one, trust my constituents to make this choice. I will fight to ensure they have the opportunity to do so.

Before this year, Morley last elected a Conservative MP in 1931 and some parts of the constituency have never had one. I stand here, in memory of my father, wanting to make a difference in people’s lives. I hope that over the next five years I can prove to the residents of Morley and Outwood that we are a perfect fit, and that my upfront, passionate Yorkshire style resonates with theirs so I can truly become another strong Yorkshire voice in Westminster.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I shall speak to amendments 4, 5 and 6 on the publication of information, and amendment 54, in my name and those of my right hon. Friends, on the application of purdah.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) on her maiden speech. She enjoyed a famous victory at the election and she is entitled to enjoy it. She spoke very movingly about her father and I wish her well for her time in the House.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on her excellent maiden speech. She reminded us—it was a good reminder —of the reasons why people come to these shores, and of the wonderful chances and opportunities that this great country can bring to people who do come to these shores. I know she brought with her some very distinguished and very welcome guests to watch our proceedings.

Another week has brought more European troubles for the Conservative party. Last week, we had the debacle over collective ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister was first reported as saying that it would apply, then that he had been misinterpreted, and then that no decision had been taken on the issue. This week, we have had the tabling overnight of an amendment saying that in response to pressure, from the Opposition and from elsewhere in the House, the referendum will not take place in May next year in combination with other important elections that will be taking place throughout the country. We welcome that change of heart from the Government, but I must point out to the Minister that his amendment deals only with the issue of May next year and not May 2017. That is an issue to which we will want to return. There have also been reports overnight that the Government may have something to say about purdah. I will question the Minister more on that as we go.

Amendments 4, 5 and 6 concern the provision of information for the public on the implications of Britain leaving the EU. I say at the outset that this is not the same as a discussion about purdah, which is dealt with by amendment 54 and others. Amendments 4, 5 and 6 deal with information that we feel should be provided at least 10 weeks before the referendum takes place, not in the final four weeks of the campaign.

The UK has been a member of the EU for more than 40 years, so we know what membership means in terms of trade, legal obligations, costs and so on. Of course, the Prime Minister has set out on a renegotiation process that may change to some degree the terms of that membership, but all of that will be made public well before the referendum takes place and people will be able to make a judgment on whatever he achieves in the negotiations. What is less clear, as was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) on Second Reading, is what being out of the EU would mean. The amendments are intended to inform the public debate on this issue.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I have some sympathy for providing as much information as possible during the referendum campaign, but is my right hon. Friend aware that probably the most definitive assessment of the costs and benefits of leaving the European Union has been provided by Open Europe? It says that on the one hand there may be benefits and on the other hand there may be disbenefits, depending on what assumptions are put into the calculation. How does he expect the Government to come down on one side or the other, and which assumptions would go into that assessment?

[Mr McFadden]

I have read the work by Open Europe. My hon. Friend is right to say it has made an assessment, but it is one assessment among many—there have been many others. As I go, I will explain why I think there is merit in Government Departments taking a proper look at this.

There has been much talk of whether the UK would adopt the Norwegian model, the Swiss model or some other model of being outside the EU. The Committee will be glad to know that I am not going to go through all the costs and benefits of those models today, but they all raise questions about being outside the EU that have not yet been answered.

Amendment 4 calls for a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility on the implications for the public finances of a British exit. Few would dispute that since the OBR was established it has gained a reputation for both independence and quality. The reports it produces on the Budget and the autumn statement are valued across the House and have helped to inform the debate about fiscal policy in the past five years. In the run-up to the recent election, my party called for the OBR to assess the tax and spending promises of each of the main parties, a demand supported by the Treasury Committee in the previous Parliament, although there was some debate about whether the request had come too late in the Parliament to be brought into being in time for the election.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has mentioned some of the work of Select Committees, but he will also know that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has done some work on the possibility of Britain leaving the EU and following the Norwegian or Swiss models. Will he find a way to ensure that those ideas and findings are brought into the national debate as well?

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. All these models need to be examined to see what their strengths and weaknesses might be.

Aside from its regular work on the Budget and the autumn statement, the OBR already produces a longer-term fiscal sustainability report on future trends and pressures, the latest edition of which was published just a few days ago, so it already ranges more widely than the work we are most familiar with on Budgets and autumn statements. Our amendment asks the OBR to produce a report on the implications for the public finances of a British exit. For example, can we assume that the UK would save all its budget contribution to the EU, as claimed by the advocates of exit, or could we expect to contribute some or most of that in return for continued access to the single market? Some countries outside the EU but part of the European free trade area have to make substantial contributions for access to the market. Are there other effects to take into account, such as the implications for the public finances of any migration changes as a result of exit? Would exit have any impact on the long-term demographics of the country that might in turn impact on the public finances? There are a number of issues that the OBR might want to consider that could impact on the public finances.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he and his party objected to my Bill in the last Parliament calling for an independent audit of the economic costs and benefits of our current membership of the EU? Is that not the most fundamental issue about which the public want to be informed before the referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

We know the costs of being in. The point of the amendments is to assess the costs of being out. Amendment 5 calls for each Secretary of State to produce a report at least 10 weeks before polling day on the possible consequences of exit for their area of responsibility. I will resist the temptation to get back into the issues of collective responsibility by saying that a report from each Department might test that. That is not the point of the amendment; the point is that EU membership touches many parts of what the Government do, and the public have a right to know about them.

Most obviously, there are the trade issues. What would exit mean for exports, inward investment and some of our great companies that operate across borders? For example, Airbus president Paul Kahn has said:

“If after an exit from the European Union, economic conditions in Britain were less favourable for business than in other parts of Europe, or beyond, would Airbus reconsider future investment in the United Kingdom? Yes, absolutely.”

Vodafone chief executive Vittorio Colao said recently:

“As a company we think it is in the interests of our shareholders and our customers that Britain does not leave the EU.”

ManpowerGroup Solutions UK managing director James Hick said last week:

“Our position on Europe is clear: leaving the EU would threaten jobs and harm Britain’s prospects”.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. Excuse me, but I thought we were discussing amendments, not the views of certain businessmen about the EU. Surely we should stick to the amendments.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Chair can decide what is in order and what is out of order, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

[Mr McFadden]

Of course, some Members do not like hearing these warnings and find them unpalatable, and people are entitled to disagree with them, but there are fundamental implications for trade and investment that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and other Departments with an interest in investment, jobs and trade should study and make information available about.

It is not just about trade, however: what would exit mean for the employment rights that millions of people have today? I think, for example, about the right to paid leave or to be treated equally as a part-time worker, and about the TUPE rights, which apply when a company is taken over and which stem from the acquired rights directive? What would happen to those employment rights, many of which were agreed at the European level, if we left?

Then there is the important area of universities and research. We have some of the best universities in the world, and not surprisingly they do very well when bidding for EU research funds. EU funding provides an additional 15% on top of the UK Government’s own research budget. Funds for research projects requested by UK higher education institutions from the European Commission rose from £424 million in 2008 to £714 million in 2012. My local university, the University of Wolverhampton, receives £3 million a year for research work and £20 million a year for knowledge exchange and work with businesses from the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

Thank you, Mr Jenkin. We do not need any applause. We can save that for another occasion.

I was giving the right hon. Gentleman some time, but we now need to get on to the amendments. As important as Wolverhampton is to him and me, I am sure that discussion of the amendments would be more welcome in the Chamber.

[Mr McFadden]

The point is that right across the piece— whether trade, university research or farming and agriculture —there is a strong case for each Department producing a report on the implications of exit, as amendment 5 calls for.

Amendment 6 deals with the Bank of England assessment. As we know, the Bank is independent, but we also know, thanks to a stray finger that sent an email to a journalist rather than a Bank staff member, that the Bank has begun work on Project Bookend, its own internal assessment of the consequences of a British exit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), the shadow Chancellor, said a few weeks ago, we would expect the Bank to carry out an assessment, but there would be significant public interest in it, so the amendment asks that the Government publish it if they receive it from the Bank.

[Alex Salmond]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that the Bank of England is independent—in my estimation, it is one of the relatively few public authorities in the UK that keeps to that independence—but that creates a difficulty. If the Bank were to make an assessment coming down heavily in favour of the UK remaining part of the EU and warning of alarming consequences if it left, but the electorate voted the other way, the Bank would be left trying to deny its own previous warnings about the credibility of the currency and a range of other things. Its independence gives it a difficulty in making predictions.

[Mr McFadden]

I am afraid I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not surprising that the Bank is carrying out an assessment, but now that that is known, it will be difficult for the Bank to keep it quiet, and the demands for it to be published will grow.

Amendment 54 deals with purdah. Since the Bill’s publication, there has been a great deal of debate about this issue and its application to the referendum. As has been said, the history goes back to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Purdah applied during the referendum on the alternative vote in 2011 and the referendum on Scottish independence last year. The Bill proposes to suspend this provision, which means there would be no purdah period and no restriction on what Ministers can produce or say during the referendum period. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) questioned the Prime Minister about this last week, he said there were two justifications for taking the course proposed.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments with interest. Is he aware of any other election when purdah has been suspended?

[Mr McFadden]

I am not aware of any other occasions.

When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham asked the Prime Minister, he gave two justifications. First, he said that,

“because the European issue is so pervasive, I do not want a situation where, in the four weeks before a referendum, Ministers cannot talk about the European budget, make statements about European Court judgments, respond to European Councils and all the rest of it.”

He then said the second issue was a bigger one:

“When the negotiation is complete and the Government have taken a clear view, I do not want us to be neutral on this issue; I want us to speak clearly and frankly.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1179.]

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said:

“Everybody in the House would agree that the referendum must be fair and must be seen to be fair, but at the same time the Government—any Government—are entitled to argue their case.”

He had said a few moments earlier:

“It would not be sensible for any Government to find themselves constrained from explaining to the people the Government’s view, because the people are entitled to hear from the Government of the day”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1059.]

The Foreign Secretary sought to reassure the House, telling a fellow Member that if his concern

“is that the Government are thinking of spending public money to deliver doorstep mailshots in the last four weeks of the campaign, I can assure him that the Government have no such intention. The Government will exercise proper restraint”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1055.]

We read overnight that the Government would have more to say on the issue, and we wait with interest to hear it. How will they reassure the House that there will not be abuse of the lifting of the purdah provisions, and that there should be the legal framework that has been called for by the Leader of the Opposition? Our amendment does not seek to reinstate the purdah provisions in full, but it does seek clarity on what exactly the Government intend to do or to publish during the referendum period. More clarity is needed than has so far been made available in ministerial statements. What form will expressing a view take, and what form will it not take? The Government need to provide more information, more clarity and more reassurance.

[Mr Jenkin]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for the pertinent questions that he is putting to Ministers. They and I have been engaged in similar discussions. May I ask, however, why his party has decided not to support amendment 11, which would reinstate purdah, until he has received those assurances? Why is he letting the Government off the hook—or is it part of a Euro-stitch-up to rig the referendum?

[Mr McFadden]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said on Second Reading, we do not object to the Government’s taking a view, but we want to see a fair referendum.

Will the Government agree to publish a report, a document or a code of conduct, or to provide the clarity that we seek in some other way? If so, what form will that information take? Will it set out clearly what kind of reports or statements the Government think they may need to make? What assurances will the Minister be able to give us about the use of taxpayer funds, beyond the funds that are channelled to the official yes and no campaigns in the normal way, through the Electoral Commission?

[Alex Salmond]

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not propose to support an amendment that would reintroduce the very protections that his own party introduced back in the year 2000?

[Mr McFadden]

I am speaking to my own amendment, which calls for clarity on the Government’s intentions.

There is an important relationship between the issue of purdah and the amendments relating to whether the referendum can be combined with other elections. The Government have tabled amendment 55, which rules out a referendum in May next year but leaves open the possibility of combining it with other polls in the future. If that were to happen, would purdah not operate in the case of both the referendum and the other elections, or would it be suspended for the European referendum while operating for the purpose of other elections taking place on the same day? I believe that, when Members start to think about those questions, they will realise that the Government did not think them out fully, and that the issues of purdah and the date on which the referendum is held—and, specifically, the issue of whether it will be held as a stand-alone poll—are linked.

Let me now say a few words about amendment 16, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). As the right hon. Gentleman said, the amendment requires a majority vote for a British exit from the European Union not only in the United Kingdom as a whole, but in each of its constituent nations.

The United Kingdom joined the European Community, as it then was, as a single member state. Of course there will be different votes in different parts of the country, but we believe that we remain one member state, and that we should make this decision as one member state. Elections and referendums in this country are based on the principle of a majority of one. The Bill proposes not four separate referendums, but one referendum throughout the UK. For that reason, we will not support amendment 16.

--- Later in debate ---

I am sure, as is the right hon. Gentleman, that if these reports are produced, the people I know in the Bank of England and in the Office for Budget Responsibility would agree with the right hon. Gentleman and me about the implications of leaving the European Union, but my right hon. and hon. Friends would shout, “Counterfeit! Fraud! Political fiddle!” and the damage to the reputation of those two institutions would be fatal. So, tempted though I am to support this rare excursion into trying to have some enlightening information on some of these difficult subjects, I do not think the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments will suffice.

[Mr McFadden]

Briefly, on the issue of the Bank of England, we know that it is preparing such a report anyway. The issue is whether people will see it or not.

[Mr Clarke]

Precisely. If I were the Governor of the Bank of England—some might say thank the Lord I am not, though it is quite an interesting job—I would not feel I wanted to publish such a document because I would suddenly find myself in the middle of the most emotional political debate going on in the country, and that is not where the Bank of England should be. On that serious ground, I think the amendments are interesting and I hope I discover what the views of the Bank of England are. They will probably be leaked, although central banks should not leak. I do not think we should enjoin the Bank to produce what would inevitably be ferociously controversial documents.

I conclude as I began. I find all these debates a little bewildering. I have not the slightest doubt that the British public will not allow this referendum to be run on any basis other than that of reasonably fair objectivity on both sides, and we should beware of making the mistake of slipping into the Bill rigidities which, if we are not careful, will start causing totally undesirable results when the reality of the referendum takes place.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 6, line 6, after second “period”, insert—

“of not less than 16 weeks”.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the referendum period lasts for at least 16 weeks.

Amendment 20, page 6, leave out lines 23 and 24.

Amendment 28, page 6, leave out lines 23 to 31.

Amendment 24, page 6, leave out lines 25 to 31.

Amendment 53, page 6, line 33, at end add—

“(ix) the total number of permitted participants shall be limited to a number specified by the Electoral Commission to ensure broad equality of resources between those campaigning for each of the outcomes of the referendum and those taken into account for the purposes of this provision will be the first persons to give notice under section 106(1) of the 2000 Act.”.

The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to ensure that during the referendum campaign, the total spend of the campaign on either side of the referendum would be broadly equal by limiting the number of participants, taking into account moneys spent by business, government, the European Commission and the campaigns themselves.

Amendment 32, page 6, line 33, at end add—

“( ) Nothing in this Schedule alters the law governing charitable organisations in any part of the United Kingdom to confer an entitlement to participate in a referendum which would not have been possible prior to the coming into force of this Schedule.”.

Amendment 29, page 7, line 5, leave out “any of sub-paragraphs (v) to (viii)” and insert “sub-paragraph (v)”.

Amendment 22, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 19.

Amendment 30, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 23.

Amendment 26, page 7, leave out lines 20 to 23.

Government amendment 14.

Amendment 33, page 12, leave out lines 18 and 19.

Amendment 41, page 12, leave out lines 18 to 25.

Amendment 37, page 12, leave out lines 20 to 25.

Amendment 10, page 12, line 38, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of paragraph 6 of Schedule 15 of the 2000 Act a permitted participant must not accept a relevant donation, irrespective of whether or not it meets the requirements of the 2000 Act and this Act, if the donation is funded directly or indirectly in whole or part from moneys, resources or support disbursed or allocated by or at the direction of the European Commission, its agencies or any related European institution to the donor or via other parties to the donor.”.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no funds or support provided directly or indirectly by European Union bodies have a bearing on the outcome of the referendum.

Amendment 45, page 12, line 38, at end add—

“( ) Nothing in this Schedule alters the law governing charitable organisations in any part of the United Kingdom to confer an entitlement to make a donation during a referendum which would not have been permissible prior to the coming into force of this Schedule.”.

Amendment 42, page 13, line 6, leave out “any of the paragraphs (c) to (f)” and insert “paragraph (c)”.

Amendment 43, page 13, line 10, leave out “any of the paragraphs (c) to (f)” and insert “paragraph (c)”.

Amendment 36, page 13, leave out lines 12 to 16.

Amendment 44, page 13, leave out lines 12 to 22.

Amendment 40, page 13, leave out lines 17 to 20.

Government amendment 15.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Mr McFadden]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I seek your guidance. The Committee has just agreed to Government amendment 55, which states that the referendum will not take place on the same day as elections in May of next year, but other amendments that we did not get the chance to discuss fully this afternoon also deal with the date of the referendum, including amendment 3, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Can you give the Committee any guidance on whether there will be time to debate those further amendments on Thursday?

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to amendments 3 and 7—I think he is—it will be a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider them for debate on Thursday. I think the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes, there is the opportunity, or there is likely to be the opportunity, for debate.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his kind words of welcome. He is correct to say that we are not doing this purely for price reasons. It is important to take into account the wider economic impact. That is why I am grateful to the Governor of the Bank of England for highlighting the ways in which a banking sector free of public ownership will allow more capital, more restructuring and more competitive characteristics in our economy.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Minister to her post. In her statement, she rightly draws attention to the scale of the bail-out of RBS. For the avoidance of doubt, will she give the House a quote from the Chancellor, who was shadow Chancellor at the time, criticising either the bail-out in principle or the share price paid by the Government of that time?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words.

As the Chancellor made clear in his Mansion House speech last night, he was responsible for the decision point yesterday and for articulating a future path away from the situation he inherited. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Treasury predictions at the time of the interventions were that they would cost the taxpayer between £20 billion and £50 billion overall. The situation has moved on and the economy has recovered substantially from the largest recession in our peacetime history. It is time to put the banking sector into a new settlement, and to have a new settlement for our financial services.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

That is correct. I sent him draft clauses with an offer to reach a cross-party agreement around those. There are two ways in which we can approach these things. We can try to see off each other, or we can try to forge that consensus, and it is not too late. So let us give it another go.

The timetable issue has been raised by several hon. Members. The head of the OBR has told me that if we can reach cross-party agreement on the details of how we can take forward this role for the OBR during the summer, he would be content for the underpinning legislation to be put in place in the autumn. It is commonplace for Governments to move forward on a policy, to agree the details and modalities, while putting the legislation in place. He would be content with that, which brings me to the key timetabling issue.

A number of detailed procedural issues will clearly need to be worked through if the reform is to go ahead this year. When we met in February, following his discussions with the Select Committee, the head of the OBR told me that in his view we would need to have the discussions on the details concluded by the end of the summer. He said that that would be possible only if we could achieve in-principle agreement to proceed by the early summer, by the end of June.

I know that the head of the OBR is pessimistic that it will be possible to get that in-principle agreement, as we heard from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) a moment ago. If there is no in-principle agreement to do this, it will not be possible to proceed in this Parliament. But I told the head of the OBR that we were having this debate today and that we still sought to achieve that consensus, and I asked for his view. He confirmed to me last Friday that his view at the beginning of the year is still his view today: that if we can reach agreement in principle to proceed by the end of June—in the next few days—we can work out the details over the summer, complete those discussions by the end of the summer, and put in place the legislation in the autumn, during which time the work of the OBR could commence.

I understand the view of the Institute for Government, which says that perhaps we should give up and do this in the next Parliament, but I do not want to do that because we owe it to the public to do the right thing. The head of the OBR’s view is that if the Chancellor and those on the Treasury Front Bench are willing to come along today and agree in principle to proceed, we can go ahead. There is no issue of timing and timetable to get in the way.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

May I get to heart of the point about timing and consensus? We have already heard some quotes from Robert Chote. This is what he said when he gave oral evidence to the Select Committee and was asked whether this could be done by the next election: “It would be difficult but by no means impossible. The key thing that you would need to have is agreement in principle across the parties that it was a good idea to do it. At the end of the day, if Parliament wants us to try this, we will do it to the best of our ability given the resources and the time we have available.” Given that those statements are on the record, does my right hon. Friend agree that if this does not happen, it is because there is not a political consensus? I hope that the Minister will not say that this is about timing but will be up front about why the consensus is not there, and admit that she and her colleagues are blocking it.

[Ed Balls]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we, as a House, decide to proceed in a cross-party way today, and in the coming days, this reform can be agreed over the summer, the legislation to back it can be put in place, and we can have independent audits of manifestos at the next election. It is not a matter of timetabling, because the head of the OBR says that it can be done: it is only an issue of political will. If, in the end, the Chancellor—who has not turned up—does not want to do it, it is not going to happen. It is not going to happen not because the OBR will not do it, because we will not do it, or because it cannot be done, but because Government Front Benchers do not want it to happen.

amendment of the law

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I am very interested in the figures that my right hon. Friend is reading out. What does he think the implications are for the Government’s policy to sell the student loan book?

[Mr Denham]

If I may, I will come to the student loan book in a moment, because that is a serious point.

One final point from the model that I have outlined is that the average amount paid back by each graduate would fall by £5,000 in total. On this model, usable university income would rise by at least £650 million a year.

The current approach is astonishingly wasteful in terms of public money and private graduate contributions —and that is not the end of it. As he said in the autumn statement, the Chancellor wants to encourage an additional 90,000 students, funded by the sale of the income-contingent student loan book. I do not object to the principle of selling the loan book. I tried to do it myself for two years when I was a Minister, but I became convinced that value for money was impossible to achieve. Buyers face such unknown risks on future inflation, earnings and the level of evasion that either the loan book has to be sold at a massive mark-down on face value or the buyer’s income has to be guaranteed through taxpayer subsidies—the so-called synthetic hedge, which is not so much plastic privet as guaranteed private profit. Selling a capital asset to fund hypothecated revenue spending is a short-term fix that exposes higher education to unsustainable costs when the money runs out. The Public Accounts Committee has said that it has no confidence in the ability of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to work out what is value for money.

This cannot go on. Universities are pressing for higher fees, and Ministers have refused to rule out an increase, but the financial futility of that is now clear. Every time fees go up, the cost and rate of debt cancellation will increase. Graduate repayments will rise, yet fewer and fewer graduates will repay their debts. The Prime Minister’s former head of policy, Paul Kirby, recently suggested closing 25% to 40% of all university courses—all those where graduate incomes are not enough to repay fees. Higher education is not simply a private benefit; it is a public benefit and a private benefit. It is now clear that we can reset the system so that there is a fair partnership between the state and the student. As my modelling has shown, we could have lower fees, lower borrowing and lower debt cancellation, with higher usable incomes for universities, within the current envelope of public spending. Only the ideological dogma and blinkered embarrassment of this Government stands in the way of doing just what is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Chancellor told the House last week that his policies had been vindicated. His basic case is that austerity is working so well that we need it for two Parliaments rather than one, as was planned. Of course, it is welcome that we have economic growth after so many lean years, but the inescapable fact is that the targets in the growth and spending plans set out at the beginning of this Parliament have been missed by huge margins. The cumulative effect is that cuts will last years longer than planned, and an extra £190 billion is being borrowed, compared with the figure in the plans set out after the election. If Labour had borrowed £190 billion more than was planned, I am not sure how Government Members would describe it, but I doubt whether they would be reaching for the term “success”. The return of growth cannot hide the fact that the outcome of the strategy pursued in the past four years is that one of the Government’s fiscal targets has been missed, and the other—the five-year rolling target—continues to be pushed into the future.

The increases in investment allowances are welcome, but let us be in no doubt: this is a U-turn from the Conservative manifesto and from the 2010 post-election Budget. At that time, when the Chancellor was talking about the “march of the makers”, he cut support for investment in manufacturing by £3 billion a year, and called it getting rid of complex allowances and reliefs. Rhetoric and policy were pulling in entirely different directions. I therefore welcome the U-turn, and on this point at least, rhetoric and policy are now pulling in the same direction, although needless barriers were placed in the way of investment by the policy previously pursued.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the investment allowance was reduced, corporation tax was reduced, which did not benefit manufacturing but benefited the banks?

[Mr McFadden]

That is absolutely right: a cut in support for manufacturing was used for business as a whole.

Although it makes sense to support investment decisions through the tax system, we should not kid ourselves that investment allowances alone will be enough. The UK’s export performance has been routinely described as disappointing in report after report by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Speak to any manufacturer and they will most likely say that their key challenge is skills. If companies cannot get the right people with the right skills, they cannot innovate, they cannot meet orders in time and they cannot operate as efficiently as they want.

If the Government are really serious about supporting UK manufacturing, they should heed the call coming from their own Back Benches today to stop chasing UKIP and putting in place policies that stop the brightest students and workers from around the world coming to the UK. The Government’s arbitrary net immigration target is a barrier to our accessing the best talent in the world, and the exclusion of such talent is not in the interests of UK businesses or the economy; nor is the threat of withdrawal from our biggest export market, the EU. It is no good supporting investment decisions through the tax system with one hand, and threatening to pull away from our biggest market with the other. The stance the Government have adopted on this is a complete failure of leadership: it is party management first, and the interests of the country second. No amount of support through investment allowances would undo the damage that pulling out of our biggest market would do. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the announcement he made a couple of weeks ago, exercising leadership on this issue and rejecting the option of following the Government down this path.

Perhaps enough has been said about beer and bingo in recent days. As someone whose father was a labourer and whose mother worked in a local authority children’s home, the only thing I would add is that a more serious working-class aspiration is an education system that opens up opportunity to all; social mobility that is not based on but challenges closed elites; and a path to rising living standards that has been sadly absent in recent years. I suggest to the Government that a poster based on those things might have been truer to the heart of working-class aspiration than the one that was produced.

I echo some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on the pension changes. There has been an attempt to reduce this proposal to the question of whether people can be trusted with their own money. Of course people can be trusted in that way, and empowering them to make their own decisions is a good thing. It is something that we should support in politics. Choice in public services empowers people. It has worked well in the area of personal payments for social care, for example. As my hon. Friend said, however, what is in question is not trusting people but trusting the financial services sector that sells people these often complex financial products. I serve on the Treasury Select Committee, and we have seen many mis-selling scandals in recent years, ranging from endowment mortgages to payment protection insurance. We should have learned the lesson that there is often a serious information mismatch between those selling those financial products and those buying them, and that customers are not well served when things go wrong.

How do the Government propose to address that issue? Simply shouting that we should trust people with their own money is not enough, given that the PPI compensation alone has had to be set at £20 billion; and nor is it the philosophy that has been pursued on a cross-party basis for auto-enrolment into the pensions systems. If customers are to be well informed, they need good advice and alternative products in which they can trust. It is perfectly reasonable—indeed, a duty—for a responsible Opposition to ask questions about how that is to be achieved, and to point out the dangers if it is not.

The recent economic growth is welcome, but if it is being funded by consumer spending, people will rightly ask how can we ensure that it has solid foundations and is not simply the froth from another unsustainable housing boom, and how we can ensure that Britain remains engaged with the world and does not turn away from the trade and exports that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Yes, I do. I find that view deeply depressing, although not in the least surprising. The right hon. Gentleman is a good old-fashioned socialist and I respect him for that. I wish that more of his colleagues were as clear in their views as he is. I happen to take the view, however, that Mr and Mrs Retirement Person should be allowed to do what they like with their pension funds and that if the financial services sector misconducts itself, we should prosecute it or take regulatory action against it. We should not act to prevent the vast majority of individuals from doing what they think best for their financial future, either pre-retirement or post-retirement, simply because we fear that there might be one or two bad hats in the financial services sector. If those of us who are about to retire wish to invest our pension funds in property or in stocks and shares—

[Mr McFadden]

rose—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I fear that I am limited to one free hit, and the right hon. Gentleman may not have one. Perhaps he should see his financial adviser instead.

If those of us who are about to retire wish to invest our pension funds in property or in stocks and shares—or in buying an annuity—let us do it. Let us be allowed to make informed, adult decisions. Yes of course we must build protections into the system to prevent people from being mistreated or misled, as the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement, but we must allow them to make their decisions from a position of knowledge. For goodness’ sake, let us not imagine that Mr Whitehall Man, or even Mr Labour Cabinet Minister, is better able than anyone else to decide how I should lead my life. I really object to that form of nanny state—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

Let me begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their contributions this evening. I will do my best to respond to as many of the points raised as I can.

I will start by saying this: of course the Government, and everyone in the Chamber, want to see our economy growing and our living standards rising. The best way to achieve that is by ensuring that more people are going to work every morning and that those people are keeping more of the money they earn. That is exactly what last week’s Budget will help everyone to achieve.

Let me turn to the comments made in this wide-ranging debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), in setting out his support for the Budget, mentioned the fact that we need more productivity. He also mentioned the need for investment in skills, as did other hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) talked about a sense of opportunity for the youth of this country and a sense of security for older people. He welcomed the freezing of whisky duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) set out his support for the development at Ebbsfleet and mentioned neighbourhood plans, which he said were key, explaining that it was Thame in his constituency that launched the neighbourhood plan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) talked about Labour always raising taxes—how very observant he is—and set out the help for businesses that the Chancellor announced last week and the successes in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) talked about the support that the Government are giving air ambulances, as well as the support for tax-free child care, for which 1.9 million families will be eligible. She also mentioned the record numbers of people in work, including women.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) talked, as other Members did, about the support that the Government are giving energy-intensive industries, and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made a bid for the Alan Turing institute to be based in Milton Keynes. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science will have noted that plea. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said that he was in favour of freedom for those with pensions to make decisions that are right for them, which was a key cornerstone of last week’s budget.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) made a terrific speech about falling unemployment in his constituency and the great work that he has done on jobs fairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) welcomed the Chancellor’s announcements about Ebbsfleet, of which I know he will be a great champion.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) talked about the cuts in cider and beer duty, which he rightly said were good news for pubs and brewers. He also mentioned that the mother-in-law of my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury lives in his constituency. I am not sure whether there is any connection with cider and beer, but perhaps that is how those in Herefordshire like to spend their time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) mentioned funding for flood defences and the repairing of potholes. The Government have introduced a £6.5 million severe weather recovery scheme to support local authorities, including for highway infrastructure repairs. The scheme is now paying 100% of local authority costs above the threshold, rather than the usual 85%, and the threshold has been reduced for all county councils and unitary authorities to make it easier for them to claim support. Of course, we have also provided a further £140 million to help repair roads hit by weather damage and, in the Budget, £200 million for repairing potholes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about the importance of new homes and, like other Members, rightly pointed out that the rise in house prices is not universal across the United Kingdom. There is a particular impact in London and the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned the rise in the personal allowance, which the Government are proud to have delivered, and financial support for exporters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), the founder of the Million Jobs campaign, talked about the work that he has done, including on the Braintree jobs fair, and said that more growth needs more jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned the Labour newsletter put out in his constituency about Labour’s economic policy. I wonder whether he would like to share it with Opposition Members, particularly the shadow Treasury team, because we did not hear much about that today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) mentioned the recovery, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) just has. He reminded us that a year ago the Opposition said that there was no recovery. Now, of course, it is the wrong kind of recovery. To say that it is hard to please them would be an understatement. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) talked about the important reductions in corporation tax and employment allowances.

I turn to the speeches that Opposition Members made. I must congratulate them on one thing—at least most of them talked about the Budget. That is remarkable given last week’s Budget response speech by the Leader of the Opposition, in which I think he failed to mention a single Budget measure. I have to say that listening to Opposition Members is like watching arsonists making a call after they have started a fire and saying, “Please, the fire’s not being put out quick enough.”

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked various questions. I probably do not have time to go through all of them, but it is interesting to note that Tower Hamlets, one of the poorest boroughs in London, has received £49 million from the new homes bonus, compared with £6 million for Wokingham, so he is not entirely right to say that money has been taken from the poorest authorities in the country. He also asked about the Financial Policy Committee’s remit on monitoring the housing market. The latest remit was published last week, on 19 March, and, as the FPC has said, it will monitor in particular developments in house prices,

“relative to indicators of affordability and sustainability.”

The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) talked about student loans and debt. I do not think he is in his place now, but—[Hon. Members: “Yes, he is.”] I am sorry, I missed him. I ask him just what Labour’s policy is on student loans. I represent a large university in Loughborough, and the vice-chancellor would like to know.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) spoke about fuel price cuts. Average pump prices under this Government’s policies will be 16p per litre lower than under the plans of the previous Government. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), who sadly is not in his place, blamed the entire financial crash on Lehman Brothers, but I point out to him that Northern Rock collapsed before Lehman Brothers.

The hon. Members for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), talked about protecting pensioners from themselves, which I think is deeply patronising.

[Mr McFadden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No, I will make some progress. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) talked about exports. Exports to countries outside the EU continue to grow, rising by 23% since 2010. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) talked about the referendum on the EU damaging investment. That is a common theme on the Labour Benches, but the Government believe it is time to trust the people and ask them about important issues. Labour Members clearly do not.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) talked about support for energy-intensive industries, which she and I have discussed before. She encouraged us to make strong representations to the European Commission for the extension of compensation, and I take those points on board. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) spoke about the carbon price floor, and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) talked about the north-east needing more support. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) talked about Euston station.

The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) talked about Olympic-scale investment under this Government, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned productivity. He is right; the job is not yet done. That is why we do not think that anyone should entrust the keys to those who crashed the car. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) missed the fact that this Government are already spending £5 billion on child care, before we get to tax free child care.

I welcome the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) to the House. I know this was not his maiden speech, but if he can raise a laugh after five hours of a Budget debate he is a welcome addition to the House. He mentioned reform of air passenger duty. That is what I was discussing with his predecessor just before Christmas, and I look forward to continued discussions on that.

My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West and for Brentford and Isleworth said that we need greater business investment, and they are right. Investment has been too low for too long, and it has held back growth. Had business investment increased by just 10% in 2012, the level of GDP would be £12 billion higher. We must create an environment that encourages business to invest.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. A number of charity groups involved in the debt advisory sector share those concerns. However, most of them agree, especially in the light of emerging evidence from other countries such as Australia and from certain parts of the United States, that it is possible, if researched properly, to set a cap at a level that can protect consumers but at the same time prevent extortionate costs. That will be the job of the FCA when it looks at the matter, and I know that it will take it very seriously.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Following on from the previous question, surely the Minister agrees that we can do better than offer people a choice between having their legs broken and interest rates of several thousand per cent. Government Ministers accepted that logic in their recent announcement about an interest rate cap. Surely it is possible to bring in a system that gives some measure of protection to the consumer without driving them into the arms of illegal loan sharks.

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is certainly possible to have a better system than the current one. There will be a number of changes, including the moves towards a cap and the change of regulator from the Office of Fair Trading to the FCA, which set out in October some of its planned measures with regard to continuous payment authorities, roll-overs, advertising and affordability. Those are all part of a package that will help to protect consumers in the sector.

National Infrastructure Plan

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I think Stonehenge has been there for more than several generations, and I do not intend to remodel it at this Dispatch Box or anywhere else. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to one of the issues on that route. We are conducting the feasibility study to work out what are the right steps to take at every stage. I am sure that his concerns will have been heard by colleagues in the Department for Transport, and I will certainly make sure that they are taken on board, as the feasibility plan is developed.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Chief Secretary paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). I hope that he will also condemn the stupid, destructive briefing against him that has been coming out of the Government in recent days.

I do not know whether the Chief Secretary has ever seen the film, “Groundhog Day”, but if he has not, I recommend that he go home and watch it later. Infrastructure spending fell by 3.7% in the third quarter compared with a year ago, the CBI has said that progress is too slow, and most of the projects in the top 40 list were begun under the Labour Government. Can he give us a simple answer to the simple question why we should believe this statement any more than those that he gives every year at this time?

[Danny Alexander]

I have seen the film, “Groundhog Day”, and listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s Cassandra-like remarks, it feels a bit like that in the House, because he has made them before. The plan is based on a detailed pipeline worked on with industry and with Government, and he should have a great deal of confidence in it. On the first part of his question, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who is doing a fantastic job in leading the campaign to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom. I very much hope that we will continue to work together in making sure that this country stays together.