EU Council and North Africa
Stuart Bell Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. When you consider how much money the EU has put into a country such as Egypt—something like €500 million over the last three years—those are exactly the sorts of things that we should be insisting on, which I think are tests of a civilised society.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
May I tell the Prime Minister that the 17 member states of the eurozone will be quite comfortable in dealing with safeguarding the euro into the future? He was right to refer to the single market in his speech in Davos last week, as 60% of our trade is with the European Union, but I urge him not to treat the EU as à la carte, only with trade; it must also cover the environment, immigration and energy security—that is to say, menu fixe.
The Prime Minister
I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: 50% of our trade is with the EU, and 44% with eurozone members. We want a healthy eurozone, but if a menu fixe means that we have to join everything, including the single currency, frankly, count me out.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Stuart Bell Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of my amendment. We are talking about alternative vote systems. He is describing alternative voting systems, which could embrace proportional representation, but they are not covered by the clause or by my amendment. I shall not respond further to his intervention, because I am sure that I would be ruled out of order.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Would not the hon. Gentleman’s proposal put the voters in London in a difficult situation? If all this were to go through, next year, there would be one system of alternative voting for them, but in the mayoral elections the following year, there would be a different one. Is it not the case that there would be two AV systems available to the people of London?
Mr Chope
That would be the case if the Bill remained unamended, if there were a referendum and if the yes vote in that referendum were successful. That is a lot of hypotheticals and I hope that we shall not reach that ghastly outcome, but it is better to be wise before the event rather than to complain afterwards. In anticipation of the difficulties ahead, including the inconsistency that would result from having more than one type of AV system operating in this country, I believe that there is a lot to be said for ensuring that any system put forward in a referendum is of the same type as the one that has already been experienced by many electors. I hope that the Minister will tell us why we are going for a different system from the one that is already operating in London. Up to now, I have heard no justification for that decision.
Chris Bryant
I gave way rather too soon, as that was precisely the point I was about to make. If people decide not to cast a second or third preference, it is perfectly possible that the winner will not have achieved 50% plus one of the total number of votes originally cast. The winner will have acquired 50% plus one of the votes of those still expressing a preference at that stage, whereas under the hon. Member for Christchurch’s proposal more often the individual elected would not have got even close to 50% plus one of the total number of votes cast. That is why I disagree with the system he proposes.
I fully understand the point made about the term “alternative”. I am one of those irritating people who regularly objects when the word “less” is used when “fewer” is meant. I am annoyed when Marks and Spencer uses it—a pretty depressing state of affairs. I have noticed, however, that although I keep on saying this and correcting people, it wins me no friends—it just irritates people; it has not changed anybody’s practice. It is absolutely true that in Latin—most of us do not speak it much of the day, although the Mayor of London might—alternative means one or the other out of two. Sometimes in places such as Wales there are just two candidates—Labour and Plaid Cymru—but for the most part the number of candidates is considerably higher. There have not been many unopposed elections for many years, either.
If we end up with an alternative vote system, whereby people can express their preferences on a full list, the number of candidates standing will probably increase. There will probably be candidates standing for parties that do not expect to win, but they may be able to persuade their voters by saying, “Well, it is all right to give me your first preference, but when you want to plump for the person you would most like to win, as opposed to the person most likely to win, you can do so”. I understand that this is not the view of all Opposition Members or indeed of the majority of Government Members, but to my mind that would have a positive effect on British politics, enabling more people to engage in the political system.
Sir Stuart Bell
My hon. Friend is making his usual fluent speech with great confidence, but how can he say that this will provide a better system? I do not want to go too wide of the amendment, but how can it possibly be right that seven votes are required to end up with a majority of 50%? If there are seven candidates, people will vote seven times. How is that a fair result in a democracy?
Chris Bryant
A significant difference is that in Australia voting is compulsory. Exactly the same argument could be used about Chile, but it also has more political parties taking part in elections, and consequently ends up with a rather broader way of doing politics.
Sir Stuart Bell
This intervention relates directly to the amendment, Ms Primarolo. I am grateful to Lord Campbell-Savours for pointing out to me that the alternative vote as described in “the Chope amendment” is Labour policy as recommended by the report of the Plant commission. It was described as the supplementary vote, and was devised by Lord Campbell-Savours and Professor Dunleavy. In fact, Labour policy entirely conformed with the amendment.
Chris Bryant
Lord Plant is a very eminent and splendid man who has contributed much to the Labour party and to the movement, but I do not think that the policy that we advocated before the 1997 general election necessarily binds us in this evening’s vote. [Interruption.] I note that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) is worried about people standing by commitments that they made in 1996. His party cannot even stand by commitments that it made earlier this year, so I am not sure that he is one to talk.
My simple point is that I think it likely that if Britain ends up with an alternative vote system, not as recommended in the amendment but as recommended in the Bill, we will end up with fewer safe seats in the sense in which many people understand it. It may well be that the historical reality of safe seats is changing anyway because many more voters now adopt a pick-and-mix approach.
Chris Bryant
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has received another note from Lord Campbell-Savours, but of course I will give way to him.
Sir Stuart Bell
Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Committee that when he talks of being in favour of a change in the voting system and of getting rid of safe seats, he is expressing a personal opinion, and not the opinion of the Labour party?
Chris Bryant
I said at the outset that I knew that my personal support for the alternative vote was not necessarily shared by all those sitting behind me. I am glad that my hon. Friend—my knighted hon. Friend—has given himself an opportunity to put on record his scepticism about the policy being advocated. I am only sorry that he does not agree with me, but I know that he agrees with me about many other matters.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Stuart Bell Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Laing
I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I recall very well, as I am sure the Committee does, what the Deputy Prime Minister said when he was answering that very question at the Dispatch Box. The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely right to expect that there will be a referendum—there will be one—but its terms and the date on which it is held are a different matter. I wish to protect him from the position in which he finds himself, because I am sure that he would also wish this referendum to be fair and to be seen to be fair. If he were here to listen to these arguments, he might change his mind and decide that in order to have a fair referendum it would be better to hold it on a date other than 5 May 2011.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech, which is holding the attention of the Committee and, like the best speeches, comes from the heart. May I suggest, by way of gentle persuasion, that instead of saying that she might vote against her Government, she say that she will do so?
Mrs Laing
Of course the hon. Gentleman may suggest that to me, and I am examining my conscience carefully in that respect. I have a lot of respect for him and he is doing well in persuading me. I am sure that he would be the first, among most Members in the Chamber this evening, to agree with me that our first loyalty must be not to our party, but to this House, to the democratic process and to the workings of our democracy, which have made ours the strong, great and fair country that it is. Our first loyalty must be to this Parliament, which has exported its fair and decent way of doing things and spread democracy around the world.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Stuart Bell Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Having listened to what happened in that parliamentary Conservative party meeting—a meeting of the 1922 committee, which was formed on the breakdown of a coalition Government way back in 1922—and heard that the deal breaker was a referendum on the alternative vote, I wonder why the Conservatives made a deal at all. They were eight short of an overall majority. They could have easily formed a Government and would have had a big majority in the House over other parties, although not an overall majority. They could have easily formed a Government and taken to the country the question of how we deal with the deficit. That the Conservative party should sell itself to the 1922 committee by going back to 1922, when the Conservatives pulled out and the coalition failed, and then go back into a coalition on that premise—a premise that is so false and empty, even from the Liberal party, which fought for a different system in the general election—is a wonder to behold.
We are now in the odd situation where we have one part of the Bill, which should be one Bill, on whether there should be a referendum on the alternative vote, and another on changing the distribution of seats.
Mr Donohoe
Was my hon. Friend aware that in the ’20s, the Liberal party in government—would you believe?—was opposed to any form of proportional representation?
Sir Stuart Bell
Times have changed since 1922, but it is a mystery to behold how we are in the current situation.
As one hon. Member has said, 72 Members wish to speak this evening. Early on in the debate, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made a remarkable and impassioned speech, saying that we should at least be thankful for small mercies. The small mercy was that the Bill is not a Bill for full-blown proportional representation. Tomorrow he should read the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister—who slipped it in very nicely—when he said that the Bill was a minimum requirement. The Government are not out of the woods on proportional representation, and someone should ask him—and we will ask in Committee—whether the Bill is the first stage on the way to proportional representation or an endgame.
Sir Stuart Bell
There are nods from those on the Liberal Front Bench. This Bill is even more of a pig in a poke. What we are voting on this evening has not been made clear to the British public or even to this House. The Bill is the first stage on the way to a different system of voting. That is quite remarkable. We have to be careful, not just about what is before us, but about what is not before us.
The point has been made many times that the Labour party in opposition supported a referendum. We do support a referendum—we committed ourselves to it, and we are the only party that did. The Conservative party committed itself to first past the post. The Liberals wanted a different voting system: the single transferable vote system. The Conservative party said that it wanted to change the distribution of seats by 10%. The point has been made: why 10%? Why not another figure? However, that was the only element in the Bill before us that was actually put to the British people. Nothing else was. The Liberal party did not put the alternative vote to the British people—we did put a referendum on the alternative vote to the British people—and neither did the Conservatives. We therefore have a Bill before us that has no manifesto commitment in it from any of the parties.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand the manifestos. Our manifesto certainly did argue for a more proportional system, but we are not in favour of making the best the enemy of the good. We still think, as we have often said, that the alternative vote is a better system than first past the post. He cannot possibly be under any illusion from the debate so far that the Conservative partners in the coalition would support a more proportional system, so he cannot possibly believe that the proposal is a stalking horse. The only party that supported AV was his.
Sir Stuart Bell
I have not read the Liberal party manifesto in detail, but I am aware that it advocated 500 seats in the present Parliament and a single transferable vote system. That is what was put to the people by the Liberal party—
Sir Stuart Bell
It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The Liberal party fought the general election on a series of commitments. We are talking about a minor commitment that the Liberal party has abolished. The Liberals also had a commitment to get rid of five Trident submarines. That disappeared. They had a policy to ensure no further nuclear industry. That disappeared too. What we are seeing is part of the disappearing act of the Liberals, and then they come to the Floor of the House and say—
Sir Stuart Bell
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He should read his own manifesto and see what it says.
Let me ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question—does he believe in the doctrine of mandate? We have heard a lot about that doctrine tonight, so does he believe in it?
Sir Stuart Bell
Yes, I do. That is why Labour Members support a referendum on the alternative vote. What we do not support is mixing this Bill with what should be in another Bill, as was said earlier, for the purpose of the redistribution of seats. That proposal gets rid of the requirement for public inquiries that enable all constituents of an area to put their views on the basis of history or geography. Such inquiries also enable local councils to put their point of view, but all of that goes.
I was interested to hear the statements made at the weekend by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, who said that they were giving power back to the people. They are not giving power back to the people, they are taking it away from them. They are giving people no right to discuss how the seats should be distributed. They are offering the people either no consultation or a very brief consultation and they are allowing them no second opinion. If they can get their way, they are pushing through an Act of Parliament, which is effectively a gerrymander. The gerrymander has been mentioned several times in this House, and it is what we are discussing on the Floor of the House now. The gerrymander is having one Bill on an AV referendum, which we could support, another Bill on changing the distribution of seats, which is debateable, and putting the two together. The Government have done that because they knew that they could not get those measures through on their own. They knew that they would not get a Bill on AV through without the support of Labour Members because they knew they did not command enough support from their own Benches. That is why they mixed the two Bills together, giving rise to the agonising problems that we now see expressed by those on the Conservative Benches. Some say that they are not for the Bill or the AV referendum, but that they are obliged by their party to support it. If Conservative Members believe in the doctrine of mandate, they will not support the Bill.
The doctrine of mandate and the gerrymander go even further because we have a Prime Minister who says, “Well, I am putting this measure before the House, but I will not campaign for the alternative vote. I will be on prime ministerial duties.” Likewise, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party will be on deputy prime ministerial duties and will go to the United Nations when his party meets in conference. He is not going to stand there and explain to his own party why he forged a coalition on the terms he did: he will take the plane instead. The Prime Minister will do the same, having put before the House the proposal for a referendum on AV—a proposal in which he does not believe, as he himself says, and on which he will not campaign.
We have a grotesque parliamentary situation here, in which the doctrine of mandate and the commitment to the electorate disappear and where the sovereignty of this House is impaired. This House exists to hold the Executive to account. That is what we are here for—that applies to Labour and Conservative Back Benchers—but Conservative Back Benchers cannot hold their party or Government to account because of this legislation.
Debate on the Address
Stuart Bell Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am grateful to you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). Having been a parliamentary candidate in a rural area, I can commiserate with him. I understand the various problems that such areas have.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was very generous in his remarks about Ashok Kumar and David Taylor. Both were close friends of mine, and they are greatly missed. I am glad that the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) is still in his place, as he will see the generosity of spirit that passes across the House when Members from different sides talk about parliamentary colleagues.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Watford mentioned immigration, which is a subject that we encountered on doorsteps all the time. For me, it is a conundrum. What is immigration? Are we talking about the asylum seekers who come to our country and claim asylum, or about the Europeans who come here under the European programme? Or are we talking about the problems caused to housing and services such as the NHS?
All parties have taken the question of immigration on board, but I am not yet entirely sure how we can deal with it. I notice that the Government have mentioned a cap on immigration, which would probably apply to immigrants from Commonwealth countries. The issue needs to be taken seriously and cautiously: the Government must try to meet the demands of the public, yet at the same time give some leadership on the matter.
The hon. Member for Watford also mentioned the alternative vote system. I am very glad to see the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) in his place. He will know that I have fought long and hard for the first-past-the-post electoral system, and that I am not a supporter of proportional representation. The Liberals may have wanted that system since 1923, but their ardour has cooled somewhat.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the alternative vote system was a step on the way. Scripture says, “In My Father’s house are many mansions”: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is moving from the mansion of first past the post to the alternative vote and, in his best hopes, to proportional representation. I often wonder why the Liberal Democrats want to have a change in the voting system when the present system has put them in government.
Sir Alan Beith
There are indeed many situations in which my party would not benefit from a different system, as there are areas where we get more seats than the votes would justify. The same is true of the Labour party in the north-east, but the number of seats should reflect the numbers of votes cast. When people go to vote at the polling station, they should know that the outcome will reflect the actual votes cast.
Sir Stuart Bell
I have heard that old argument over many years. The question of fairness in the voting system goes back to Jeremy Thorpe in 1974. We will have many arguments on the subject but, if the Conservative party has an ideology and a belief in itself, it will want to become the majority party again one day.
The Labour party is a social democratic party. We will evolve our social democracy, and we believe in governing on behalf of what we believe in. Neither the Conservative nor the Labour parties would put themselves in a situation of permanent coalition with the Liberal Democrats. They might support the Conservatives this time, but they might support the Labour party at another election, as has happened in Germany. Therefore, I join the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in his campaign against the alternative vote system.
I am very glad to see that the hon. Member for Watford is still in his seat. He is learning to stay in this House of Commons beyond the person who speaks after him. I took a particular pleasure in listening to him, as I spent some of my childhood in Watford. I remember Gammons lane, Leavesdon aerodrome, Watford station and, of course, Watford football club. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Watford has changed enormously since I went there as a child. I am sure that the diversity to which he referred is a great benefit to the town.
The hon. Gentleman spoke extremely well, if I may so without flattery. He must remember Adlai Stevenson’s remark to that effect that flattery is fine as long as one does not breathe in. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will hear much flattery in this House but, on the occasion of his maiden speech, he will find that it is genuine. I shall give the hon. Gentleman some advice, however—the best speeches are those that come over well in the House but also read well in Hansard. One can sometimes make a very fine speech in the House that does not read very well in Hansard. The speeches that read well and come over well in the House are the finest ones.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley said that the hon. Member for Watford did not use notes, but he also had his speech in his hand. That is a fine thing to do, as speaking on the Floor of the House is not a memory test. In his early days, the great Winston Churchill made a long speech but, 35 minutes into it, he forgot what he wanted to say. He did not have the speech with him, and he was stuck. From that time on, he always had his speech with him. Even when one does not refer to the text much, it is a comfort to have it in hand.
When a young man called Tony Blair first came into the House, I told him, “It’s not a memory test. You’re here to make a point. Therefore, while you may rely on your memory, you should always have a note somewhere.” That is the last advice that I shall give to the hon. Member for Watford. The other piece that I would have given him was to make his maiden speech early, but it is too late for that now. He has done it and got it out of the way, and that is fine.
The hon. Member for Watford is fortunate in one sense and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will understand this. When I made by maiden speech in 1983—and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred to me—the Deputy Speaker who is in the Chair now followed me, and I have his words yet. The hon. Gentleman will remember this occasion in the years to come. One’s maiden speech is probably one’s best, but I do not want to discourage him yet.
In these debates, I normally follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), but I have not had that opportunity today. He gives wonderful lectures in classical economics, and I have heard the same speech many times over many years. Ronald Reagan could have done no better. The Laffer curve was alive and well: reducing the rate of taxation increases the revenue that comes from it—we have heard all that before, many times. If we had followed his advice during the recession, I do not know where we would be today. It is probable that 500,000 jobs would have been lost, with more to come, but I do not want to get into a debate with the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of a new Parliament. I have a great admiration for him, and he renders a great contribution.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham talked about this being a new Parliament. Those of us in the Chamber this afternoon who were in the previous Parliament will know how shabby it was in the end, and how disreputable it had become. We dishonoured ourselves in the eyes of the public and ruined our reputation.
We are now in a new Parliament, and every Member of Parliament has a new mandate. The people who voted us in expect the highest standards from us, and that is what we will give them. We should put the past behind us and become the kind of Parliament that we ought to be and will be in the future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East also made that point.
The hon. Member for Watford spoke about his constituency. Since the last Queen’s Speech, the constituency next door to my own has suffered the closure of the Corus steel mill, where the blast furnace has been mothballed. That unfortunate development cost 1,600 jobs and caused great anger in the local community. That anger was directed at the previous Labour Government, with people wanting to know what was going to be done about the matter. Nationalisation of the plant was suggested, but that was not open to the former Government, just as it is not open to the new Liberal-Conservative coalition.
The former Member of Parliament for Redcar, Vera Baird, paid a heavy price for all that went on. She lost a 12,000 majority on a 20% swing, and a Liberal Democrat was returned with a majority of 5,000. I wish him well, but I also convey my sincere regrets to Vera Baird. She was a fine Member of this House: she was Solicitor-General and she did not deserve her fate. However, her story is a great reminder to us all that our constituency interests are very important. I remember that she missed many meetings in Redcar because she had to be here for a vote in the House. It is extremely important that we link ourselves to our constituents and stay close to them. That is one of the lessons to be taken from what has happened, and it is of great importance for our constituencies.
I mentioned Corus, but I should also like to mention One North East, our regional development agency. The new Business Secretary has said that he will keep it, and we are very grateful for that. A programme worth £60 million was introduced on the back of the mothballing of Corus, and that money is very important for us. The programme is going ahead, although I have been told by way of a last-minute message that the £1.5 million pledged by the previous Labour Government to help Corus employees through the Teeskills bursary may be reconsidered. That would be a grievous blow to the people who have been made redundant.
In the speech that the Prime Minister made on the steps of No. 10 Downing street just after he became Prime Minister, he talked about how he would look after the frail, the elderly and the poorest. It was a noble statement on his part and we will keep him to it. One can hardly say that the Government have not hit the ground running in this post-election period. We had the statement from No. 10, the original coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats, the formal agreement and now today the Queen’s Speech. I almost forgot the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, in which he reduced the deficit—or whatever the right hon. Member for Wokingham wants to call it—not by £6.2 billion, but by £5.7 billion net.
We have heard many comments about the deficit and the reasons for it. The Governor of the Bank of England has been invoked to support the Government, saying that it is important that we show the world how we intend to reduce the deficit. We have heard a great deal about the Greek economy, although I have no idea why the Greek economy came to the forefront during the election. The Greeks had a problem with the euro, which was not our problem. The Chancellor said that we had a greater deficit than Greece, which just goes to show what you can get away with saying—of course we have a greater deficit than Greece, because they have 2 million citizens and a very small economy. Why would we wish to link our deficit with those in the eurozone when we are not a member of it? Indeed, the right hon. Member for Wokingham vaunted that fact, saying how wonderful it was that we had stayed out of it, now that it was having a crisis. It is not a crisis, but a difficulty, and its members will come to terms with it.
Angela Merkel put forward a proposal for budget controls for European member states, with which—much to my surprise—the right hon. Gentleman agreed. But President Sarkozy does not agree with that, and nor do I. I do not believe in treaty changes, and it was peculiar that the Queen’s Speech said that no more treaties would be ratified without a referendum, because no more treaties will come out of the European Union. No one wants a treaty, including Sarkozy and the French, the Dutch—anyone you ask. So it is an empty promise.
I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been to Europe and that they both realise that our future is in Europe. Whatever the criticisms of the European Union and the euro—whether we should be in or out is an argument that died a death a long time ago, so the concession by the Liberal Democrats was an empty one—the eurozone will sort out its problems. As the Prime Minister said, it is in our interests that it does so.
We had an interesting speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East. I have welcomed the hon. Member for Watford, and I also wish to welcome the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who is not in her place but happens to be the sister of my right hon. Friend. I wish her a great career here and I am sure that she will enjoy every moment.
The Queen’s Speech began by saying:
“My Government’s legislative programme will be based upon the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility.”
Who on earth would disagree with that? They are fine social democratic principles. As Max Hastings wrote in the Financial Times, we are all social democrats now. He argued that there will never be another right-wing Conservative Government. Remarkably, this coalition has squeezed the right of the Tory party and the left of the Liberal Democrats. My guess is that, as the years pass, the Liberal Democrats will be very squeezed in the middle. Those who wish to go the Conservative way will do so, and those who want to come the Labour way will do so. However, they are experiencing the aphrodisiac of power at present, and we wish them well. They are well meaning, and we hope that they succeed in what they set out to do. We will follow events with great interest.
We support in the main much of the essence of the Queen’s Speech. The attacks on the public service—and 300,000 jobs are in the frame under the proposals set out in the Financial Times today—in the statement yesterday, and that are likely in the Budget on 22 June and the spending review in September, will contain a lot of pain. That pain will be felt in the public sector. The Government have not yet understood the balance between the public sector and the private sector. The private sector has lost out in the global economy over many years and our manufacturing is down. On Teesside, we are looking into green technologies with the £60 million coming from One North East. As that imbalance has been created, work has been found and jobs created in the public sector, and that has helped the private sector. If it is the philosophy of the Government to modify that arrangement again—the recalibration that we saw under Labour—there will be more unemployment, and that will not be good for the country. Lord Lamont, when he was Chancellor, said that unemployment was a price worth paying. We are getting the same message now, and we will counter it, argue against it and expose it.
We wish the Government well. I want them to succeed, because I want the country to be stable. We do not want a political crisis on the back of the financial difficulty. We will give them a fair wind, and I know that they act with great sincerity in all that they do. Of course, we will also be Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We will be strong and alert in Opposition, and we will hold the Executive to account, as will their Back Benchers. This is a new Parliament and a fresh beginning for us all. It can be an exciting, great and a noble undertaking, especially for all 232 of the new Members. I wish them all well.