Industrial Action

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am here to respond on what happens in the United Kingdom, but if the figures on days lost in France are easily available, then of course I will supply them.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, in principle, I am in favour of the Bill. Obviously, while we must preserve the worker’s right to take industrial action, no responsible person is going to go on strike with consequences that might even threaten the life of fellow citizens if this is taken too far in some public services, such as the health service, at the moment. One would hope that in even the bitterest industrial dispute both sides would have in mind that their argument over whatever aspect of pay, terms or conditions they are at odds on should not lead to serious harm to the greater public good and, in particular, vital things such as people’s health and safety.

I am listening to this debate with interest to see how that essential level of service is to be determined. If we ever face a situation in which strikers are being totally unreasonable and trying to cause immense damage to further their pay claim, that raises all kinds of problems about martial law and everything else to try to keep things going. However, if an employer sets out the minimum level of service in their area—as will be required—how objective will that be? What judgment will be made about what is essential? In theory, could an employer say that all employees should stay at work to maintain an essential level of service? Is there a requirement for some consultation about that level? Can any challenge be placed to the level the employer sets down, short of legal challenge and an attempt for judicial review?

In the present circumstances, we would all like to be reassured that the bitter disputes going on in the public sector, which we all hope will be resolved, will not threaten people’s safety or vital national interests. However, how exactly will we check that the powers of the Bill will not be abused, with some public or private sector employer deciding its own definition of a vital level of employment? In debating the Bill, we will need to have considerable detail and give considerable thought to what it will mean in an industrial dispute in practice, day by day and on the ground, and how it will be applied.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I welcome my noble friend’s support for this legislation in principle. I am happy to reassure him that the minimum service level will not be set by employers; it will be set by Parliament through affirmative regulations. Of course we will consult widely on those regulations. There will be regulations in each individual sector because, as he correctly states, the level varies from sector to sector. This House will vote on those regulations when we bring them forward, but it is our preference not to have to bring them forward. As I mentioned earlier, the nursing unions are very responsible and agree minimum service levels already—voluntarily—so we therefore hope not to need to legislate there, but of course that is not the case for ambulance drivers, where we may need to take action.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, we have listened to many moving and powerful speeches from right reverend Prelates and noble and learned Lords about the abstract principles raised by this Bill and, particularly, by Part 5. They are very important principles. It is a particular privilege to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lordusb Dodds, which has been the first to spell out the practical implications for people’s livelihoods if the withdrawal agreement is not applied in the spirit of the promises made by both sides—the United Kingdom as well as the European Union—to all the people of Northern Ireland. There are practical and constitutional consequences, which somehow have escaped the notice of every single noble Lord who has spoken up to this moment.

At Second Reading, I asked a question which I make no apology for repeating: what should a state do if it finds that its obligations under one treaty conflict with those under another treaty or with its own fundamental constitutional laws? No one in your Lordships’ House has explicitly addressed that question. Maybe that reflects how difficult our hybrid procedures make the proper and effective interchange of ideas and debate in this House, but maybe it was also because most noble Lords have framed their positions in absolutist terms: we must obey international law, full stop.

By implication, there can be no circumstances in which legal obligations under one treaty can clash with those under another or with a country’s fundamental domestic laws. However, as I pointed out before, that is not the view that other countries take. The European Court of Justice itself spelled out that, although the European Union seeks to comply with its international legal obligations,

“it would be wrong to conclude that, once the Community is bound by a rule of international law, the Community Courts must bow to that rule with complete acquiescence and apply it unconditionally”.

It also says that,

“although the Court takes great care to respect the obligations that are incumbent on the Community by virtue of international law, it seeks, first and foremost, to preserve the constitutional framework created by the Treaty.”

I do not think it is wrong to say that. If I wanted to carry forward the European Union, I would have that order of priorities, but I want to carry forward the United Kingdom, so my priorities are put first and foremost—the fundamental constitutional laws of this country, when and if they clash with an international treaty.

The German Constitutional Court has ruled that if treaties—even European Union treaties—conflict with basic German constitutional law, the latter prevails. The strange thing is that, when the EU or Germany set aside any aspect of international law that clashes with their fundamental internal laws, no one suggests that they are putting at risk the entire international framework of law or rendering themselves international legal pariahs. Why is it so contentious when we suggest that we might need to do likewise when it is not contentious for them?

Although no noble Lord in the debate explicitly answered my questions or addressed these issues, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who opened both this debate and the debate on his amendment to the Second Reading Motion expressing regret, implicitly addressed the issue in his summing up of the debate. He acknowledged:

“‘We may need these powers at some stage.’ Maybe we will; I hope not. If we do, it is perfectly open to the Government to come back to us, to Parliament, to put before us emergency legislation and … proposals, and, if they are satisfactory, to endorse them.”—[Official Report, 20/10/20; col. 1431.]


But surely, once we accept that powers regarding overall aspects of the withdrawal treaty may be necessary in future, the enabling measures in Part 5 cannot be wrong in principle. Whether we take the power now or reserve doing so for a later date in a separate Bill becomes a procedural and tactical issue, not one of principle. My own view is that having the enabling power on the statute book makes it less likely that the European Union will refuse to negotiate “in good faith” and with respect for the other party’s “legal order”—wording used in our agreement with the EU—on the issues in Part 5 and the planned finance Bill.

I have the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and not just for his mastery of the law but for the objective and non-partisan way in which he approaches these issues and every other. He has been kind enough to correspond with me about these issues. Like him, I hope we never need to invoke the powers in Part 5 to override the withdrawal Act, be they the powers in this Bill or in the emergency legislation that he envisages. But like him, I recognise we may need to if the EU refuses to resolve these issues by negotiating in good faith and out of respect for our internal legal order—particularly, the Act of Union, which guaranteed free and unfettered trade between Great Britain and Ireland, and the Belfast agreement, which promised no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the acceptance of both communities.

Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I accept that if such a problem does emerge, we should try to resolve it by the procedures within the withdrawal treaty. If we cannot agree in the Joint Committee, those would most obviously include activating Article 16. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, these powers in this Bill will be necessary even if we invoke Article 16 of the treaty. That would not enable the Government to act without legislative authority, so it is important to have that legislative authority on the statute book—indeed, it is essential. Again, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I hope it will not be necessary.

There ought not to be any conflict between the withdrawal treaty and our fundamental laws, as long as both sides negotiate, as they have promised to do, the remaining internal contradictions in the withdrawal Act in good faith and with respect for each other’s constitutional orders. I was not alone in mentioning the potential clash between the withdrawal treaty and our fundamental laws. So did my noble friend Lord True in his brilliant closing speech at the end of the Second Reading debate, when he referred notably to the need to uphold the Act of Union, which ensures unfettered trade between parts of the United Kingdom, and the Belfast agreement.

I hope noble Lords will ponder these things and, most of all, the summing up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that it may be necessary—though let us hope it is not—for us to resolve a conflict between the withdrawal treaty and the Act of Union and Belfast agreement. It is sensible to have that legislation on the statute book. But we are not, by doing so, rendering ourselves international pariahs or doing anything that any other country would not do in similar circumstances.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a rather remarkable experience, as quite a new Member of this place, to find myself taking part in such an extraordinary and unusual debate, loaded with such significance and ethical and legal issues. It was a pleasure at Second Reading to follow a debate in which the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and many others was extremely persuasive. I followed their speeches, which came to a dramatic conclusion when I found I was taking part in Divisions in which the Government suffered their biggest defeat in this House for over 20 years on a resounding and distinguished cross-party basis.

My first reaction was to think that, before we got to this stage, the Government would react in some constructive, positive way. I may be new here, but I have been a few years in government, and in the past, the problem would have been regarded as a fairly extraordinary one. Efforts would have been made to give the unfortunate Minister, who had drawn the short straw of defending the Government in this House, some material and opportunity to persuade, reach a compromise and perhaps move to the more pragmatic approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, because this should all be resolved in a common-sense way.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I find it difficult to express how strongly I am amazed and deeply dismayed that any British Government of any complexion should produce before Parliament a Bill which contains the provisions of Part 5 of this Bill. I never expected in my parliamentary career, which has not been a short one, to find myself reading a Bill of this kind presented for parliamentary approval. It has already been said, and will be said many times in this debate, that it appears to give the Government unfettered power to break, in any way they find necessary, particular provisions of a treaty upon which the ink is barely dry. I will not attempt—I do not have the time—to compete with the undoubted eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Howard, who have expressed the shock which everybody who has any regard for the rule of law in this country undoubtedly feels.

I move on to my more familiar field, though I am a long practiced and experienced lawyer, and shall talk about the politics which underlines this, which I also find quite bizarre and completely inept. The origins of the need for this Bill are quite extraordinary. It all arises from the decision taken shortly after the referendum that Brexit would involve leaving the single market and the customs union. I strongly disagreed with that, and think that we could have left the European Union and remained. I actually moved a Motion in the House of Commons and got within six votes of a majority for staying in the customs union, which, unfortunately, is nearer than the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, got to achieving anything. But that is not the issue today. I accept that we are committed to leaving the single market and the customs union, and I accept the judgment of Parliament and the population, but it does give rise to all the problems that the Government do not know how to solve.

Once you leave the customs union and the single market, you need a customs frontier between your own internal market and the rest. That is wholly in accordance with all the ordinary practices of international trade in modern times, WTO rules and all. Everybody knows that at Dover this could create a very considerable problem, and we are preparing to recruit the people, get the lorry parks, handle the traffic, and get people to prepare for the paperwork that is involved. The problem of course arose in Ireland, which no one seemed to have thought about very clearly, until they realised that to do the same in Ireland would totally undermine that extremely important agreement for the security of the United Kingdom and the Republic, the Anglo-Irish agreement. The solution was determined that Ulster should stay in the customs union and single market, and Great Britain should leave, which means that we have a customs frontier down the Irish Sea.



This was not a sudden or ill-considered thought; it was argued about vigorously. The Democratic Unionist Party, otherwise firm Brexiteers, opposed the whole agreement on that basis but the fact remains that we have committed ourselves to having a frontier. The proper thing to do now is not to go back on our word with no solution—it is quite unclear what the Government really propose by way of essential customs controls that are still compatible with the agreement—but to minimise the necessary delays, as I hope we are doing in the negotiations with the EU. If we insist on changing standards, we should have equivalence of standards and arbitration procedures to settle disputes, and we should make sure that there are as few disruptions to trade, delays to the border and costs as possible. As I said, it is not quite clear what would happen if you just left a hole in the controls between Ireland and GB.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend has reached his time limit.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I realise that I have only four minutes to talk on this matter. That is one of the bizarre arrangements in this Chamber that I am getting used to. No other parliament in the world would think that people could do justice to the contents of this Bill with people having four minutes to speak in the way that we are doing. However, I have added my voice and will oppose Part 5, in particular, in every way in which my membership of this House permits.

Honda in Swindon

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

For over 30 years, Japanese companies investing in our automotive sector have been able to count on a bipartisan commitment to talking about the advantages of investing in Britain: our skills, our commitment to innovation and the efficiency of our operations. Members on both sides of the House know that I and my colleagues have worked intensively, including with trade unions, to ensure that we get investments that recognise those advantages. I hope that we can send to companies considering investment a clear determination, across both sides of the House, that we will continue to keep faith with that tradition of stability.

I think it was evident in my remarks that I share the dismay of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) at the decision and the consequences for the excellent workforce in Swindon and their suppliers. We will do everything we can to ensure that they have good opportunities in future.

The hon. Lady asked about Brexit. The company said that the decision was not about Brexit and clearly we must accept that. She asked about its market share. In truth, it has a small market share in Europe compared with the markets in which it said it was expanding. Those are the reasons that it has given. However, I have always been clear with the House that the motor industry, Japanese investors and particularly Honda have made it clear for many months that Brexit is an additional worry at a difficult time. They have been instrumental in shaping the deal that has been negotiated. If there is one message all of us in the House can give that they want to hear it is that the deal should be ratified.

Ford Motor Company said:

“A no-deal Brexit would be a catastrophe…It’s important that we get the agreement ratified that’s on the table at the moment.”

Aston Martin said of the deal,

“it’s obvious that… it meets the needs of all the requests we put forward as an industry and as Aston Martin”.

McLaren said that the withdrawal agreement would

“provide urgently-needed certainty and an implementation period that allows us to plan for the future”.

Toyota said:

“We welcome the announcement of a deal. It would provide business with the certainty”

that it needs. I could go on. The clear message from the automotive companies is that we should get on and ratify the deal.

The hon. Lady asked about the industrial strategy. She will know that our commitment to it, and through it to the future of mobility, has been at the heart of our policy and has been widely recognised. The £250 million investment in the Faraday challenge to make Britain the best place in the world for new battery technology has resulted in the national battery manufacturing centre being established in the west midlands. We already have the biggest-selling electric vehicle in Europe—indeed, one in five electric vehicles in Europe is made in Britain. The fact that Honda’s R&D facility will continue to be in the UK and that companies such as Ford are moving their R&D to the UK underlines the strategy. The London Electric Vehicle Company is making taxis powered by electricity, not just for London but for export around the world. Aston Martin has invested £50 million in its new electric engine facility in Wales. Cummings is investing £210 million in its R&D in the automotive sector.

The hon. Lady asked about the charging network: £200 million is being invested in new, fast-charging networks for electric vehicles. Our reputation for automotive innovation and exports is strong and growing. That is one of the reasons why it is particularly frustrating that Honda has made this decision, when other companies are recognising the fruits of those investments and investing in Britain.

The announcement comes at a time of disruption and change in the industry. Veterans of the industry say that this is the biggest period of change in most of their careers. That reinforces how right we are to invest in the future and in promoting Britain as a place to develop the next generation of vehicles. I hope that in the weeks, months and years ahead, the whole House will support us in promoting those advantages, not just for Honda, but for other companies that can invest in this country.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I accept, as the Secretary of State does, Honda’s statement that Brexit played no significant role in the decision. We must avoid a childish debate every time there is an industrial announcement, whereby one side or the other leaps on how far Brexit has been involved in complex decisions. However, the fact remains that when I served at the Department of Trade and Industry under Margaret Thatcher, and at the Treasury under John Major, I was involved in pursuing the policy of those Governments to draw foreign investment to this country to revive our manufacturing base by presenting Britain as the most attractive and business-friendly country in the European Union, through which companies could gain access to the single market. The Blair Government pursued that policy with equal vigour. As my right hon. Friend has just said, it is no good people ignoring the warnings of every leader of the car industry, most of our foreign investors and all our business leaders that we must seek to retain that reputation. Will he therefore confirm that, in line with the withdrawal agreement, we are pursuing a customs arrangement and a regulatory alignment that will not put new barriers in the way of trade with our biggest, most important market? If we fail to do that, there will be a succession of announcements of this kind, and Britain will cease to be of any particular attraction to international investors seeking a European market.

[Greg Clark]

I acknowledge my right hon. and learned Friend’s contribution as part of a succession of Ministers on both sides of the House who have given confidence to investors from Japan and around the world. A particular admiration has been accorded to Britain for the stability and predictability of our arrangements. In a turbulent world, the sense of continuity that we have been able to offer, especially to investors who invest for the long term—and any automotive investment is for the long term—is important. It is essential that we recover that.

It is also important that we listen to and respect the evidence of people who employ hundreds of thousands of our constituents. We have consistently done that. In my response to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, I set out the almost unanimous view of investors that the deal that has been negotiated meets their needs. That is not a surprise because they have been consulted during the negotiations. However, this is a moment when the House needs to reach a resolution. The Japanese ambassador is very active on these matters. He summarised his views in a letter to the UK and the EU:

“What Japanese businesses in Europe most wish to avoid is the situation in which they are unable to discern clearly the way the Brexit negotiations are going, only grasping the whole picture at the last minute.”

We should heed that advice. We have the opportunity to bring negotiations to an orderly conclusion. I hope that, for the sake of jobs in constituencies throughout the country, we will do that.

Former Steelworks Site in Redcar

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Williams]

Is that the same Steve Gibson who, during my campaign to be elected as the Labour MP for Stockton South, endorsed the Conservative candidate?

[Mr Clarke]

And the same Steve Gibson who endorsed the Labour candidate for the mayoralty of the Tees Valley in those self-same elections that spring. He has done more for our local economy, local football team and local identity than any of us has ever done. He is held in the highest regard and esteem by thousands of people across our area, and he should be listened to on these issues.

Likewise, after the 2017 Budget, the then-managing director of Trinity Mirror, Bob Cuffe, had cause to say:

“Breaking News. Yesterday Teesside was at risk of an outbreak of optimism and hope. Families wondering if potentially good news had broken out. Thankfully Loyal Labour Forces came out quickly with Party Gloom Blankets to try and extinguish the hope.”

Today I add my voice to their pleas: let us draw a line under this before real damage is done. Let us focus on the undoubted opportunity that lies ahead and work together to build a better future for the Tees Valley.

[Mike Hill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will, although that was a peroration if ever there was one.

[Mike Hill]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am an enthusiast for the Teesside area in my own right. Could he please bury what is rapidly becoming an urban myth, that the Mayor’s Office—Ben Houchen’s office—is separately funded by Government to the tune of £1 million?

Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has more than 6,500 people employed in his constituency in good jobs, and many more in the supply chain. Members from all parts of the House have constituents whose prosperous careers and excellent opportunities come from working in this important sector. Let us be clear: this sector is one of our proudest strengths and it is expanding. The opportunities around the world grow every year and the excellence that we have needs to be nurtured and cherished. I take seriously the representations of all businesses because we are talking about not speculation or visions of the future, but the reality of the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people across the country, which is important.

It is the case that we should listen to businesses. Of course, what Airbus has said was consistent with what it has said before and consistent with what it has said to Select Committees of this House. Very importantly, it was addressed equally to the European Commission and to member states of the European Union. It is very clear that, in order to have the agreement that we seek, it is necessary that both sides of the discussions should participate. Airbus has been clear that it is in the interests of the whole country and the whole company that that should be the case. I hope that that message will be heard in Brussels as well as in this country.

The hon. Gentleman asked questions about listening to business. All Government Members recognise that the livelihoods of millions of people, and the prosperity of our country, depend on business being successful. We will not always agree with everything that businesses say, but they have the right to be heard. The hon. Gentleman was rather one-sided in his representations; I think that he should direct some of his recommendations to his own Front Benchers, who have not been a picture of clarity on what they would like from these negotiations.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain to some of his Cabinet colleagues and others that it is simply not going to be possible to opt into most of the benefits of the single market and the customs union, while rejecting every trade rule and regulatory arrangement that the member states of the EU accept as part of that deal? Does he also agree that if, at the end of our negotiations, we start erecting new tariff barriers, new customs procedures and new regulatory divergences, it is perfectly obvious that we are going to deter inward investment from companies such as Airbus, BMW, Siemens and many others, with long-lasting damage to our economy?

[Greg Clark]

It is imperative that we do not do that. I am actually more optimistic than my right hon. and learned Friend about the prospects of a deal that will avoid that. Part of what this company and others have said is that it is strongly in the mutual interest of this international business that there should be an orderly agreement that allows a very successful company to continue to trade without friction. I think that that is in prospect.

We are leaving the European Union; that decision has been clearly taken. The task before us is to make an agreement that implements that decision and which, at the same time, ensures that these avoidable threats of frictions and tariffs do not take place. That is absolutely within our grasp and it is what the whole House should back during the months ahead.

Budget Resolutions

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I am afraid that time will prevent me from following the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) too far in some of her analyses. I shall certainly resist the temptation to go into her rewriting of history, in which she glossed over a Government who carried on borrowing money during an entirely artificial boost in tax revenues, at a time of an artificial credit boom, and then found themselves hopelessly in debt at the time of the crash, leaving the 2010 Government with a colossal deficit and a huge burden of rapidly mounting debt, which they have managed strongly so far. I wish to look at where we are now and to look ahead. I should certainly resist the temptation to start re-fighting the battles on how the Labour party ruined the economy of the 2000s.

[Ruth George]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

Having been partisan, I shall give way.

[Ruth George]

In spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman just said, I wonder whether he agrees with the organisation Full Fact, which says that for most of Labour’s last term in office public sector national debt was down and that it was 36% in 2008-09. Yes, it then went up to 65% in 2009-10, but that was as a result of the global economic crash and the subsequent recession, which happened globally.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is not a speech.

[Mr Clarke]

In its period of office, the Labour party was so out of control and so wrong in its reaction to events that early on it almost started to repay the national debt at the time of the dotcom boom, which boosted tax revenues to an extraordinary extent. The Labour Government found that their tax revenues had been boosted for reasons that they did not properly analyse, and they just carried on borrowing on top of that. The figures looked quite respectable until suddenly the floor fell away. There was the credit crunch. Down went the tax revenues. They were left exposed, with an accumulation of errors that led to the soaring deficit and the soaring debt that are a burden on us now and will be a burden for our children.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

No. I said that I am not going to re-fight the politics of the 2000s and I am not.

This was a strong and sober Budget that I am glad to welcome, just as I welcome the industrial strategy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It was not dramatic. Some Budgets have plenty of glittering prizes and dramatic changes. This was not exactly a non-event, but it contained quiet, small and valuable measures. That was what we needed. Indeed, it was a sign that the Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted some of the ridiculous lobbying he faced from all sides of the public sector and some of the ridiculous advice he was getting from those who wanted him to buy political popularity or to believe that reckless spending can solve all economic problems. This was the Budget of a competent Chancellor of the kind that this country very much needs at this difficult time.

Luckily for the Chancellor, the background to the Budget was made a little more gloomy by the OBR’s choosing this Budget to change the forecasts that it had, unfortunately, got wrong, and most people did not realise it. There were not many people who pointed out at the time that the OBR was going to be wrong, but the OBR took on a more sensible productivity projection, which gives us considerable problems for the years ahead. The Chancellor has also delivered a Budget at a time when growth has slowed because of the initial impact of the Brexit vote: devaluation and the effect of that on consumer demand.

The background is also one in which monetary policy is not of much assistance. Because of the actions the independent Bank of England had to take after the crisis, we are still being sustained by the aftermath of quantitative easing and quite artificially low interest rates, with the Governor having little opportunity to move rapidly to get back to something like normality. Those interest rates are actually having a distorting effect on some aspects of the markets inside this country. Consumer borrowing is rising to worrying levels and we are now beginning to see demand ease because of the effect of inflation on prices and on the ordinary customer, so it was hardly the kind of Budget that one would envy the Chancellor’s being faced with giving. He faces a lot of problems, and he had also to deal with the uncertainty over the next two or three years.

Uncertainty extends beyond our domestic obsessions: there is great uncertainty globally. We could be threatened if oil prices continue to rise—that has had a dramatic effect on our economy in the past. We are currently being helped by rapid growth in some of our most important markets. The US and eurozone economies are growing at strong rates, and they are important markets to us, particularly the second. Both look fragile, though, and I do not think anybody would guarantee that that growth is going to be sustained for the next two or three years.

The Chancellor and the Government must be careful because, quite plainly and indisputably, the reality is that we do not yet know what form our exit from the European Union will take—this is not the day for debating that—and we do not know what kind of trading deal we will have in a couple of years. As the Governor of the Bank of England confirmed yesterday, if, by mistake, we have a hard Brexit, or a deal-free Brexit—I am talking about mistakes on both sides of the channel because no sensible person would want that —it will be quite a serious shock to the economy of the western world and to this country in particular. Therefore, a prudent Budget was what was required.

Nevertheless, the Chancellor was able to relax fiscal discipline a little—it was rather more than one expected, but he did not lose control. He resisted all the lobbies that were piling in from every public service, with some really quite distinguished public servants giving dramatic descriptions, as they quite often do before a Budget, of the effect on their services. Tens, if not hundreds, of billions will be put in. He was able to ease some of the financial pressures on the national health service within a reasonable level. He rightly found some resources for housing, because we have a dysfunctional housing market. However, he would have been extremely reckless and irresponsible had he gone any further than the slight fiscal easing that he carried out.

How the Chancellor must have wished to give the traditional first Budget of a new Parliament. A Chancellor facing a new Parliament with a decent parliamentary majority does not set out to do a popular Budget— they do the tough and difficult things. One judges a Budget not by whether it makes good headlines the next week and whether everybody is getting very excited about it, but by its impact on the performance of the British economy and on the daily lives of its citizens in two or three years. Had we had a reasonable majority, the temptation would have been to take some tough and necessary decisions, which would have made it easier to shift into other areas. One day, we will stop a fuel tax freeze. One day, we will address the anomaly whereby self-employed people—if they can get themselves so categorised—pay far less in taxation than people in employment doing similar jobs. However, the idea that we can have a majority for either of those measures in this particular Parliament is, regrettably, an illusion.

Dare I say it, but one day, someone will address some of the happy gifts that I receive from the Government as a man past the ordinary retirement age still in full-time work, earning rather more than the national average income? I have just received my tax-free, cash present before Christmas, with which Mr Gordon Brown tried to buy my vote, and the winter fuel benefit. I get my free bus pass of course. I am receiving a retirement pension, which is protected by the triple lock, so that part of my income is rising much faster than that of most of the people I know. When it comes to paying taxation on my salary, which we all receive in this House, I pay less taxation than most people sitting in this Chamber because I pay absolutely no national insurance. Now that is very nice. If I could remember which party gave my generation all those bribes, I would probably vote for the one that gave me most of them, but I cannot for the life of me remember who put them in various Budgets over the years. I could go on.

There is a serious point. Before we all start making reckless promises for—dare I say it?—the next election that absolutely nothing of that kind will be touched by a future Government, we should remember that there are younger people who are in a less fortunate position than I am who are paying taxation to pay for all that and that there are constraints on the Government who would like to spend some more money—as we all would—on very important public services when the opportunity arises. The generational injustice—to use a rather corny phrase that is now very fashionable, but it sums up the problem—which exists in these affairs in this country will one day have to be addressed.

We are still able to do some adventurous things. The industrial strategy of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy shows that, looking ahead, the right things are being addressed and the right priorities are being chosen. We are seeking to advance those changes that have to take place in our economy that will give the next generations the best prospect of making this country, once again, one of the most rapidly growing and prosperous nations in the world.

I applaud the priorities that have been chosen. Plainly, we must invest more in infrastructure. However, I add, as we all agree that we should spend more on infrastructure, that we should avoid believing that all infrastructure spending is automatically a good thing for the environment. Successive Governments of the past have gone in for prestige projects or politically useful ones in marginal seats and so on. All of them need to be appraised sensibly with the help of the private sector and a good business case, so that we prioritise in our infrastructure spending those things that actually boost the real economy and manufacturing and services in this country.

I welcome all that has been said about continuing to address the kind of education required for a modern economy and about dealing with the productivity problem, which has baffled most people. We are not the only country that has found that productivity—for some unforeseen and, actually, not totally understood reason—has failed to rise in the aftermath of the crash. I think that the two things to concentrate on are education and skills training. We have to be sure, and I am not sure myself, that we are going to have the right human capital for the kind of economy that we wish to develop. I represent an east midlands seat, and it has to be conceded that it is particularly in the midlands and in the north of the country that we need to get our schools’ education standards up to the norm in the more prosperous areas. We also need to get skills training of the quality required to provide attractive employees in the kind of sectors of the economy that the Business Secretary described.

Skills training is probably the biggest problem facing the country, except perhaps housing. I have been here for a long time—as I am occasionally reminded by Mr Speaker when he is in the Chair—and we have known for decades that this country has a skills problem. Successive attempts have been made to tackle it, and we are still talking about the same things. It is the quality of the skills training and the relevance of the skills training to the local employment market that we still have to get right.

Finally, a big gap that we still have to address is retraining. Most people will not have one career for their whole life. Even people in work will want to improve their skills or their education to prepare themselves for the next step.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I am running out of time; I do apologise.

We are still extremely weak in this country in providing the opportunities for reskilling and midlife training that future workforces will require.

I conclude as I started. This was the right kind of Budget. It shows that we have a competent Government. The Chancellor is the nearest one gets to the strong and stable Government that we promised before we started. He keeps his head, and that is what we require. He has a view to the national interest and a very considerable resilience to the short-term, silly pressures to which he is subjected, particularly by an Opposition who, as never before, go through every problem that is mentioned by saying that the only thing we need to debate is the quantity of money being spent on it. They promise untold billions of unfunded spending in an apparent belief that there is no question in the whole field of government that is not soluble by a little more borrowing and a little more printing of money. That just makes it more important that this side of the House gets it right. The Chancellor and the Business Secretary are getting it right, and I hope that they stay steady on the course they have set for the country.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has just confirmed that the Bill is necessary only because the Government have announced their intention to leave Euratom. I voted against the proposal when it was put to the House before the last general election, and I have yet to hear a rational reason for our leaving Euratom. As all our previously satisfactory arrangements for nuclear safeguarding are set aside, all our existing agreements with the IAEA are put in difficulty. Safeguarding is necessary to comply with the non-proliferation treaties, to which we apply a great deal of importance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be the Father of the House, but that does not allow him to make a speech when everybody else is waiting. He has more experience of this House than I will ever have, and he ought to use it.

[Mr Clarke]

Will the Secretary of State give an argument in favour of abolishing a satisfactory arrangement that has lasted for almost 50 years?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It might have been helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had asked that question to begin with, rather than giving a speech.

Higher Education Funding

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

No, I certainly will not commit to abolishing tuition fees. They are a strong policy success in many ways and an unsung one. They have enabled us to allow more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university than at any point before. They have enabled us to lift student number controls. That is a critical argument for holding on to a system that shares the cost of funding fairly between the individual student, who goes on to have far higher lifetime earnings, and the general taxpayer.

We keep the system under careful review. As the Prime Minister set out in Manchester, we will make further announcements in due course about the rest of the student funding system.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the steps he has taken to try to get the balance right and welcome what he said about keeping this rather startling interest rate under review. I urge him to continue to resist the inevitable populist pressures to sweep away the whole system, which play very well to today’s students but would create great problems. In hindsight, I was lucky enough to have people in low-paid jobs paying taxes to maintain me to meet my living costs when I was studying and being trained to be a reasonably successful barrister when I emerged from university. Therefore, will he resist claims that taxpayers at all levels of income should pay for the costs, which would never be repaid by some of the students, although others will go on to achieve very considerable incomes?

[Joseph Johnson]

I can certainly assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we will continue to bear in mind carefully the taxpayer interest. It is critical to remember that the Labour party’s proposals, were they to be funded out of income taxation, would add about 2.5p to the basic rate of income tax, so it is vital that we bear taxpayers’ interests in mind and we will continue to do so. He mentioned the interest rate, which we of course keep under careful review. It is worth remembering that this is a heavily subsidised loan product overall. The Government write off about 30% to 40% of the student loan book. That is a deliberate investment in the skills base of this country, not a symptom of a broken student finance system. The interest rate cannot be looked at in isolation.