European Union (Finance) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Part of the calculation of member states’ contributions is based on the size of their economy. That means that bigger economies pay more and smaller ones pay less. As an economy becomes relatively bigger, it makes a bigger contribution. That is the factual situation; that is how it works.

I referred earlier to the corrections and the small reductions in the contributions from Denmark and Austria. The UK has always supported the principle of budgetary corrections set out at the 1984 Fontainebleau European Council, which gave us our rebate. In the absence of any meaningful reform on the expenditure side of the budget, we believe that those member states that make disproportionately large net contributions to the budget in relation to their prosperity, such as the UK, should receive corrections.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), will the Minister explain whether there has been any change as a result of the recalculation of gross national income as the European Union has moved from the European system of accounts known as ESA95 to the later ESA2010, which I believe includes more of the black market? Has that move had the effect of making our economy bigger?

[Mr Gauke]

That is not a matter that is related to the Bill. The own resources decision uses the same formula for this financial framework as it did for the previous one. The revisions to GNI to which my hon. Friend refers are a separate matter. The element relating to the hidden economy has on occasions been somewhat overstated in this debate, but yes, there was a correction of our GNI estimates and that did require an additional sum. He will be aware of how this Government negotiated to ensure that we did not have to pay that sum up front—we were given much more time—and that the rebate applied to it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that this own resources decision is based on ESA95, as the last one was, rather than on ESA2010, which has been adopted for other purposes.

[Mr Gauke]

The own resources decision—the ORD—contains an element that is based on GNI. There may be different ways of calculating the GNI as it is updated. This is not related to the Bill, however. The formula remains essentially the same, and the element that comes from GNI has not changed, although there may be changes to the way in which the GNI works. Indeed, there are changes on an annual basis, because there are revisions to the number.

This new ORD requires the approval of each member state, in accordance with their own constitutional requirements, before it can come into force. The Bill will therefore give UK approval to the Council decision. The passing of the Bill will be the final action necessary in delivering the deal secured by the Prime Minister in 2013. As a result of the deal, EU spending was cut in real terms and UK contributions are forecast to be lower in every year compared with the final year of the Government’s seven-year deal, by on average around £1.3 billion. In addition, our rebate, which is worth around £5 billion per year, is protected. This agreement is in our national interest. It represents a good deal for the taxpayer now and over the coming years.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to what the Prime Minister said in 2013. After the EU budget negotiations, he said:

“Working with allies, we took real steps towards reform in the European Union.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 571.]

Hon. Members will need no reminding that reforming the European Union is one of the key objectives of this Government. The Prime Minister has already had constructive talks with EU leaders on how best to address the UK’s concerns about how the EU is run. These concerns are not unique to the UK. Many in Europe agree with us that the EU is too uncompetitive, too democratically unaccountable and too inflexible to the concerns of citizens in its member states. They agree with us that reform is needed, and the Prime Minister, in turn, is confident that he can and will succeed in negotiating to reform the European Union and our relationship with it.

In February 2013, we saw the positive results of working with partners to achieve real change in Europe. We saw what can be done when we are tough, positive and determined in negotiations with our European partners. Our vision of an open, prosperous Europe can be achieved only on the back of financial discipline. That was the principle on which we negotiated in 2013, and that is a principle we will continue to apply. The agreement that will be implemented by the Bill will be good for Britain and good for Europe, too. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Excellent. If we are going back in history, I guess I should share with the hon. Lady the fact that from 1999 to 2009 I was not in this House, but in the European Parliament. I sat on the budget and budgetary control committees, watching Labour Members of Parliament and Labour Ministers at the time not particularly bothering at all about EU spending, so I am delighted with the change of heart, because there is a need for focus on this area.

I do not intend to speak for too long because I know that a number of hon. Members want to make their maiden speeches. Small though the Bill is, it is, however, important and it deserves to have a decent amount of scrutiny by the House, which I am pleased to see that it will receive. The sole purpose of the Bill is to approve and implement the EU’s own resources decision, setting into legislation how the EU budget is to be funded, including the EU rebate. That is a big deal for us, because we stick in a massive contribution to the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2015 economic and fiscal outlook report gives the net contribution figures for our country to the European Union. I had a debate in the Tea Room with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who thinks that the figures are downplayed slightly, but they are the ones that I have to hand at the moment.

The net contribution for 2013-14 from Great Britain to the European Union was £10.2 billion; for 2014-15 it was £9.2 billion; and for 2015-16 it was £9.9 billion. Those are significant sums of money.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is right to use the net figure, or the gross figure after rebate, because with the net figure the spending that is netted off is spent according to the requirements of the European Union; it is not necessarily spent in the way that a British Government would wish to spend it.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is completely right about that, so I thought I should also share with the House the gross contribution figures given by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its March 2015 economic and fiscal outlook report. The gross contribution figures were £14.1 billion for 2013-14, £14 billion for 2014-15 and £14 billion for 2015-16. We are talking about massively significant sums and this Bill therefore needs some scrutiny, because it is the one that tells us how the EU budget is funded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a wonderful coincidence—a fortuitous concatenation of circumstances—that I am able to congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), because I stood as the Conservative candidate in Central Fife in 1997, and I know that what he says is true: it is a constituency of wonderful people. They were incredibly kind to me. As hon. Members may have noticed, I am quite English—I come from Somerset. They could not have been more kindly to a young Conservative who they were pretty sure had no chance of winning. When the hon. Gentleman was singing the virtues of his constituents, I know he spoke the truth.

I now know—I did not know before—that, when I enjoy a glass of Pimm’s during the course of the summer, which I hope to do on occasion, it was made in Glenrothes. It is a wonderful constituency and it has a brilliant representative. I just hope the hon. Gentleman becomes a Conservative one day—the only way we will get a Conservative in Glenrothes is if somebody crosses the Floor.

We have had a cornucopia of excellent maiden speeches today. Sticking with the Scottish National party theme, the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) made his maiden speech from the Front Bench. I do not know who the last Opposition spokesman to do that was, but I know that the last Minister to do that was Harold Wilson, who made his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box in 1945. The hon. Gentleman is in very fine company, and made a very fine speech, with detailed points on the European Union, which I look forward to cross-examining closely in further debates.

The hon. Gentleman also revealed the extraordinary generosity of benefits in Scotland when he told us that he is eligible for a bus pass. Clearly, the age at which people get bus passes in Scotland is much lower than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I will not go on to the Barnett formula and how come bus passes for such relative youths are paid for.

It was a particular joy to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) make his maiden speech. He comes from a most distinguished parliamentary family—his uncle was the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster—but I am very reassured that he will claim the high ground for parliamentarians against paternal judges. Although paternalism is in many ways a very good thing, the supremacy of the House must be reasserted, even in the Tugendhat family.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend thinks he is going to test Hansard. He will soon come to know that there is no test he can set Hansard that they do not manage to pass with flying colours. However fast the bowling or however good the batting—to go back to the Tonbridge theme of M. C. Cowdrey—Hansard always catch the ball or take the wicket, depending which side they are on.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) took us on a charabanc tour of her constituency. I have a slight concern—she referred to the “first” constituent she reversed into. I wait for her further speeches and interventions in transport matters, or perhaps health matters, to discover how many of the hospitals locally have been filled with injured constituents. What a tribute it is to her electability that, despite her mowing down constituents right, left and centre, she has still been returned triumphantly. Even better, when she arrives at the House, she models herself on George III. It may come as a surprise to her, but I was listening to her opening paragraphs, and she said she gloried in the name of Briton. That was exactly what George III said—exactly his sentiments. How nice it is to have his late majesty at least alluded to in this Chamber.

I must not speak for too long, and after these pourparlers I must get round to talking about the European Union, because hon. Members may know that my favourite activity on a quiet Thursday afternoon is making speeches on the European Union. If the House is not debating it, I do it at home and make members of my family listen to my views on it.

Of course, we have to start with the basics. There is a fundamental failing in the Bill in its very title, because it refers to “own resources”. It is not “own resources”; it is our money. It is British taxpayers’ money. It is not some fantastic European lottery win that has suddenly been found, and it is not like the gold that the kings of Spain found in Latin America of old. It is not made-up money; it is real money earned by British taxpayers running to the tune of £14 billion a year.

We have to be incredibly careful about how that money is spent and how willing we are to award it. We have already heard that the accounts have not been signed off for 20 years. One may think, “Well it may just be some minor error that means they have not managed to sign them off.” Actually, it is because they think that about 5% of expenditure has not been properly accounted for; roughly speaking, a third of our contribution is not properly spent, or they do not have the right receipts for it. This House has a duty, one of our most ancient duties, to ensure that the Government spend money properly and, when they give it away to international bodies, those international bodies also spend it properly. On whether it is spent properly, I will give the House a note on how the EU categorises spending given to overseas bodies.

The EU, for the purpose of signing off the accounts, says that if it gives £1,000 to a United Nations project and the United Nations project is worth £10,000, and that of that £10,000 in the project £9,000 was stolen, it will maintain that 100% of the money it has given to the project has been correctly spent, because if a percentage correctly spent is equal to or greater than the EU’s contribution, it deems it entirely properly spent. So when the accounts are not being signed off because there is 5%, or just under, of fraud or dishonesty or error, the figure is actually understated. We must push on that continually to make sure our money is properly spent.

There is a lesson for the Government in their success. In the previous Parliament, from time to time—although not as often as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall)—I did not do as I was asked to by the Whips. On one occasion, however, I was loyal. I was the proper sycophantic fellow that people hope I might be and I supported the Government. When the Labour party—in its wisdom, on this occasion—tabled a motion saying that the Government must come back with a reduction in the EU budget, I thought that that was impossible. I thought we were asking the Prime Minister to go and argue for something that simply could not be done, but he did it. He got a reduction in the EU budget which will feed through to a reduction in our gross contributions—a real achievement. This is the lesson for the Government: it was a real achievement because the Government were bold and ambitious, and willing to try something in the European Union that was thought bound to fail. We are coming to a renegotiation and what one hears so far about the width of that renegotiation is not encouraging. Let us hope the Government learn from where they have succeeded. The message to the Government as we consider the Bill must be:

“Ask and ye shall be given. Seek and ye shall find”.

When they try, they can achieve things people do not expect them to achieve.

This brief Bill is actually at the heart of what Governments do. What we take from our constituents to spend must always be spent carefully. The £14 billion that we spend is essentially a reiteration of our overseas aid budget: it is money going from a rich country to a poor country. It is not going to subsidise the Germans, for example; it is going to the poor countries in the European Union. We are now looking at a total for overseas aid in the order of magnitude of £26 billion. We have a duty to make sure that that is spent correctly. We have a duty to try to reduce it if possible and the Government must be encouraged by their past successes.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. I am sure the relevant Committees will take a close interest in this matter, because it is obviously a very large public investment. In terms of the liability side of the equation, he will be aware that there are a number of different pending regulatory matters that affect RBS. He will also be aware, as I think it says in the Rothschild report, that the market is aware of these things and will factor them into the price of the shares.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to her post? I also welcome the shadow Chancellor, although I think we rather miss the more rambunctious approach of his predecessor. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) illustrated the fundamental investment fallacy of not selling things on the basis of an historic price. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the only reason the Opposition can take this foolish position is that clause IV may be out of their rulebook but it remains within their hearts?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very good point, very well made. It is absolutely the case that we are responsible for ensuring that, as we go forward from this decision point, we get the best possible value irrespective of what the previous Government paid, which was, in retrospect, too high.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Unfortunately for the hon. Lady, the Labour party had 13 years when they had a Labour Chancellor standing at this Dispatch Box able to introduce all these things she talks about. As I have said, we are looking very seriously in the Budget at what further action we can take to tackle not just those who evade their taxes, but those who facilitate that evasion.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does this question itself show the danger of eliding tax avoidance and tax evasion? There is no obligation on anybody to pay more tax than the law requires and even the most respectable families have schemes of arrangements to minimise things like death duties, whereas tax evasion is a very serious criminal offence which should be come down on with the full force of the law.

[Mr Osborne]

rose—

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

In a second; not in the middle of a sentence. That 0.2% a year improvement in the underlying growth of the economy would, by the end of the period, bring in £15 billion a year more in tax revenues. So the trend of growth has gone in the wrong direction under this Chancellor and the key for the next Parliament, as well as spending cuts and tax rises, is to improve the underlying growth of the economy. If we can do that, we can bring in the revenues. If, on the other hand, we fall short in the next Parliament under the same Chancellor in the same way as we have in this Parliament, that would lead to over £110 billion in extra borrowing. If we are going in the wrong direction on growth and wages, the revenues do not come in and the deficit does not come down. We have got to improve the underlying growth potential of the economy. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and I agree on that, but I do not think that this Chancellor understands the point.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is not the shadow Chancellor making the Chancellor’s case for him: that the first thing to do is get fiscal stability, and then we get a growing economy and tax revenues come through? Tax revenues are always a lagging indication of economic performance, and they will come through because of what this Chancellor has been doing.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we support the role that the OBR plays. The Government proposed an independent OBR, a reform that we supported, and in that spirit we want to extend its role, as happens in other countries. It is not unreasonable, and it would exactly help with the issues of trust to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am not entirely unsympathetic to what the right hon. Gentleman asks for, but is not the fundamental problem that even a shadow Chancellor as powerful and influential as he is does not have complete control over the shadow Cabinet, or even of his leader, who make spending promises that are not part of the finance and budgeted proposals made by the shadow Chancellor?

[Ed Balls]

I could ask the hon. Gentleman why on earth he thinks I want to have this independent audit: to make sure it is all done through the proper process. Perhaps I should say that. Actually, the shadow Cabinet has been exemplary in not setting out uncosted promises that cannot be delivered. We have made no claim to abolish inheritance tax. That is not a commitment in a manifesto that we have to renege upon. Nor have we made a commitment to abolish tuition fees. So the hon. Gentleman raises some issues here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me say for the last time that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to pray in aid evidence from a conversation that he had last week, he should have put it in writing and presented it to the House, or placed it in the Library.

If we ask the OBR to recruit additional staff, what will they do between elections? I do not know whether Labour Members have considered the fact that what they propose would involve a radical change in the rules governing civil service contact with the Opposition. I do not know whether they have fully explored the primary legislation that would be required to make this happen, just as I do not know whether they have considered how the demands of Opposition parties would be balanced against other Government priorities.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

Yes, of course I will.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I think that the shadow Chancellor has just proved the Government’s case. These references to private conversations are politicising the OBR in exactly the way that frightens the Government. I think that the shadow Chancellor is hoist with his own petard.

[Nicky Morgan]

As always, my hon. Friend has summed up the position brilliantly and eloquently. I was particularly impressed when he intervened on the shadow Chancellor and forced him to admit that the purpose of the Opposition’s proposal was to stop the shadow Cabinet making spending commitments left, right and centre.

I was referring to other Government priorities. I am thinking of, for example, Budget preparations. The time when those preparations are being made is one of the busiest times of the year for the OBR, during which specialist and other staff resources are already occupied.

As I have already said today, what I will not do is stand here and say that the problems are insurmountable, or that a solution could not be found in future. However, if we want to ensure that the OBR’s independence and influence are preserved, the issue merits much fuller and much more careful consideration than is represented by the Opposition’s proposals. That brings me to one of the most important points. We need to remember that the OBR is a very young organisation. We believe that it is doing an excellent job—as, clearly, does the shadow Chancellor—but it has not, as yet, been subject to any major review.

It was announced in last year’s autumn statement that, as required by legislation, the OBR would launch an external review of its publications during the current year, and that its findings would be published in September. The Government have also announced that following the outcome of that review, and following the general election, they will hold their own review of the OBR. I think—I am sure other Members will agree—that until those reviews of the OBR’s current responsibilities have been completed, we should not throw extra responsibilities at it. I consider it sensible for us to wait until after the OBR’s review, our review, and the OBR’s first general election before considering this issue further.

Unlike the Labour party, I do not want to pre-empt the OBR’s review, but I think it safe to say that, through its creation, the coalition has changed the way in which Budgets are made for ever and has created an independent office that has restored public confidence in the numbers that underpin the Budget. In its first four years, the OBR’s independent forecasts have supported the credibility of our long-term fiscal plans. Between now and the general election, the OBR should remain focused on doing that job. It should remain focused on ensuring that, as we fix the mess left to us by the Labour party, the numbers underlying our long-term economic plan are correct. That plan is making a real difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The Government are absolutely right to be cautious about allowing the Office for Budgetary Responsibility to be caught in the middle of a political trap. The virtue of the OBR is its political impartiality. It was wonderful to hear the shadow Chancellor—it is always wonderful to hear the shadow Chancellor in his marvellous speeches—explaining how cross-party he was. I looked up a quotation in which he said how terrible it was to brief against fellow MPs. He said that it was snake-like politics in which he would never indulge. That created a wonderful image of him as this purer-than-the-driven-snow gentlemanly creature who would never indulge in underhand party politics and who solely has the national interest at heart. How maligned he must feel when he reads newspapers that sometimes suggest otherwise. It is one of the great tragedies of modern politics that that should be allowed.

Unfortunately, underlying the shadow Chancellor’s speech was sheer party politics. The OBR is there to deal with that which is entirely governmental: that is to say with the Budget, which is passed through a Finance Bill that is a matter of fact, and with an autumn statement that also deals with facts. Against that, we have a series of promises, propositions and theories that do not come out at two clear points of the year, but dribble out, sometimes in draughty halls in obscure parts of the country, as shadow Ministers go off and make spending commitments to meet the latest demand of a newspaper article or a difficult question asked by a journalist. Depending on who we ask, the bankers’ bonus tax has been spent 11 times.

[Mr Love]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no one has the good order of the OBR—its credibility and independence—more at heart than the OBR itself, and it is in favour of this proposal? Will he therefore accept that it is Government opposition that is stopping it happening?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That rather proves my point. Once again, we see the OBR immediately being drawn in to political controversy, and I want to free it from that.

[Mr Newmark]

My hon. Friend is a great wordsmith, but I want to lance the boil of what the Opposition keep saying. The OBR is not in favour of the proposal. The OBR used the word “could”.; it said not “it would”, but “it could”. It is the word “could” that is of importance here, and the OBR has not supported what the Opposition are saying.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is extremely wise in his observation. The OBR, which is a non-party political body, has said in response to a request from the shadow Chancellor, a man of the greatest dignity who should be taken seriously by Members from all parts of the House, that if that is the will of Parliament, it will do it.

[Ed Balls]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

How could I refuse?

[Ed Balls]

I shall test the hon. Gentleman’s support for my integrity. In March, the head of the OBR told the Select Committee that if the proposal was agreed across parties by early summer, he would be content to proceed, which he confirmed to me last Friday. Is the hon. Gentleman, unlike the Minister, content to accept my word that the views of the head of the OBR in March are still the same today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is being used up. In fairness, interventions must be brief.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course I accept the shadow Chancellor’s word without question, but it is a conditional. If there were cross-party support, then a statutory body would do what a statute required of it. That is the simplest expression of the constitutional position that would apply to any statutory body. The idea that a statutory body would say, “If the whole of Parliament tells us to do something, we will blow a raspberry,” is so absurd as to be a point beneath the dignity of the right hon. Gentleman, who is far too clever to make so childish a point.

So let us come back to the real issue, the real curse of asking the OBR to do this. The spending plans of the Opposition are moveable feasts. They vary as circumstances vary. When I challenged the right hon. Gentleman, I thought the first part of his answer may have had some truth in it—that he wanted to be in absolute charge of where his party was. That may be the case, not only for him but for all shadow Chancellors at all times, and not just shadow Chancellors but whoever is responsible for economic policy among the Liberal Democrats, which is even more debatable than who is in charge in the Labour party. I am not entirely sure whether it is the President of the Board of Trade or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; I am not sure that the Lib Dems have decided, or, if they have decided, whether this has been accepted by the brethren.

A number of people make spending promises. If we ask the OBR to audit them, we make the OBR a matter of political debate because it would be approving expenditure promises that would not necessarily be part of the Budget if the party making them were elected. Are you to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that only promises made by a shadow Chancellor count? Are you to exclude the leader of the party, who has recently made certain promises to reform the benefit system? Or should you do it on the basis of GP appointments, which the leader has promised will occur within 48 hours? Has this been approved by the shadow Chancellor? Is it official policy or was it the whim of the Leader of the Opposition when he was caught out in a television studio? How are we to know? Are you so to restrict the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary or Education Secretary when they make statements? The shadow Chancellor is nodding. Perhaps this is not the bipartisan approach that we were led to believe in during his marvellous speech but a power grab by the right hon. Gentleman within his own party.

This House of Commons, this noble House, this honourable House, is debating whether the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) should be in charge of the Labour party. This is really a debate about his leadership ambitions. They may be a good thing. Members of the Labour party ought to decide that, better than I possibly could. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the support. I do not know whether I would get many votes if I stood for leader of the Labour party, but never mind.

[Mr Love]

You never know.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I don’t think they are that desperate yet, although the time may come.

The nature of opposition—and it is as true of Conservatives in opposition as it is of socialists—is that the pressure of events means that spending commitments and taxation commitments change. Oppositions are not in command of events, so the proposals that they make cannot be as solid as those enunciated by a Government. That would fatally undermine the position of the OBR because it would be dealing with day-to-day political controversy, and inherent in forecasting is the inaccuracy of forecasting. The OBR is respected more because it is independent than because it is right. Few economists manage to make forecasts more than one year out with any consistent accuracy, so the idea that the OBR were giving an imprimatur or even for that matter a nihil obstat to Opposition policies would create false certainty. It would politicise the OBR and it would have the sole advantage of making the right hon. Gentleman leader of the Labour party.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I have read previous debates and know that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in attending such debates and in following these matters. The language used in titles of various EU programmes is not a matter of choice for this Government. Perhaps a better word could be used, but it has not been selected by the Government. I take his remarks on board. I think all of us know that the eurozone has not been as strong as even those of us outside the eurozone would like it to be—it is important for our businesses and our exporters—but I will come on to show that things are looking better. The recovery taking place in the rest of the European Union is slower and it is important that we are fully aware of, and the European Commission fully monitors, the economies of other eurozone countries, even though—let me make it clear again—the Government have no intention of joining the euro.

The convergence programme explains the Government’s medium-term fiscal policies as set out in the 2013 autumn statement and in Budget 2014, and also includes Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts. As such, it is drawn entirely from previously published documents that have been presented to Parliament. With the Budget on 19 March and Easter recess timings as they were, I appreciate, as I have already mentioned, that the timetable for this debate has been particularly tight. Against this backdrop, the Treasury has made every effort to provide early copies of the convergence programme document in advance of today’s debate. The document makes clear that this year’s Budget reinforces the Government’s determination to return the UK to growth, and reiterates the Government’s No. 1 priority: tackling the deficit. As we have already heard in interventions, there are differing views on the value of submitting stability or convergence programmes, especially for the UK, given that the Government have ruled out joining, or preparing to join, the single currency.

The document forms part of the European semester process, which provides a broad framework for the co-ordination of the monitoring and surveillance of member states’ fiscal and economic policies, including necessary structural reforms across the EU. The positive value of the European semester is that it is a useful means to encourage other member states to grip the urgent growth challenge across the EU.

Budget 2014 set out the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term and budgetary position. The UK economy is still recovering from the most damaging financial crisis in generations. We had the biggest bank bail-out in the world, the biggest deficit since the second world war and suffered the deepest recession in modern times. In the face of such a daunting economic challenge, it is essential to have a clear and comprehensive plan.

In 2010, the Government set out clear, credible and specific medium-term consolidation plans to return the public finances to a sustainable path. Our plan makes clear that we will fix the economy and deal with the deficit, cut tax to encourage investment, back businesses, control welfare and invest in skills. We are putting that plan in place. We have adhered to it and we are delivering results with it. The Government’s fiscal strategy has restored fiscal credibility, allowing activist monetary policy and the automatic stabilisers to support the economy and ensure that the burden is shared fairly across society.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for outlining the excellent economic policy that Her Majesty’s Government have so successfully been following. I wonder whether she can give me the assurance that no part of that policy has been changed in any way to meet the requirements of European convergence.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am certainly not aware of any changes. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that we have led the way in Europe and the eurozone in showing exactly how important it is to return to growth and the actions that need to be taken. It is interesting to see other European countries watching what this country has done and following some of the policies that we have put in place so assiduously. It is, as I have said, very important that they return to growth for the sake of our businesses and exporters, too.

The long-term economic plan has protected the economy through a period of global uncertainty and provided the foundations for the UK’s economic recovery, which is now well established. Since last year, economic growth has exceeded forecasts and has been balanced across the main sectors of the economy. Inflation is below target and the deficit has been reduced year on year. More than 1.5 million private sector jobs have been created. Employment is at record levels and interest rates are near record lows, helping to keep costs down for families and businesses. The Government are also making significant progress in reversing the unprecedented rise in borrowing between 2007-08 and 2009-10. The deficit has been cut by a third, as a percentage of GDP, over three years, and is projected to have fallen by a half, as a percentage of GDP, by 2014-15. The OBR also forecasts public sector net borrowing to reach a small surplus in 2018-19. The independent OBR has judged that the Government remain on track to meet the fiscal mandate one year early.

The Government’s consolidation plans have been central to the reduction in the deficit, with £64 billion of the £80 billion spending reductions in spending review 2010 already implemented. The Government are continuing to take action to improve financial management and spending control. Departments remain ahead of their consolidation targets and are again forecast to underspend by £7 billion in 2013-14. The OBR judges that fiscal consolidation has not had a larger drag on the economy than it expected in June 2010, and the UK’s fiscal vulnerabilities argue strongly in favour of maintaining our commitment to deficit reduction. The OBR forecasts that the underlying structural deficit is falling, but it is falling no faster than previously forecast, despite higher growth.

The persistence of the structural challenge supports the Government’s argument that economic growth alone cannot be relied on to eliminate a structural deficit. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, the job is not yet done. More work will need to be done to tackle historic weaknesses, including low productivity, poor skills and inadequate infrastructure. The deficit is still one of the highest in the developed world and the UK needs to continue to deal with its debts. We are on the right track. The deficit has already been cut by one third. Budget 2014 is fiscally neutral, despite lower borrowing across the forecast period, with an overall reduction in tax funded by a reduction in spending. We have set out our fiscal consolidation plan and it is vital to stick to it in future years.

Budget 2014 announced that the Government are cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty to help hard-working people to be more financially secure; creating more jobs by backing small business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower job taxes; capping welfare and controlling immigration, so that the UK economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules; and delivering the best schools, skills and apprenticeships for our young people. The OBR has revised the UK’s growth forecast upwards and it is now among the highest in the EU.

As the Chancellor said, the job is not yet done and the same is true for the rest of the EU, which is the UK’s most important trading partner. Some 45% of our exports are destined for the EU, and seven of the UK’s top 10 trading partners are EU member states. Without sustainable economic growth, the EU will be unable to repay its debts, create jobs or maintain its standard of living. Much of the answers to these problems lie with national-level reforms, such as creating flexible labour markets. Clearly, the European semester has a key role to play in encouraging member states to make ambitious reform commitments. The UK has an interest in making sure those reforms happen. An ambitious EU-level reform agenda is also a key part of this equation and an essential counterpart to national-level reforms. While I can understand that some may be cautious about encouraging the UK to do more, an EU growth agenda would make a major contribution to growth across the EU as a whole and benefit the UK. Recent European Councils have underscored the strong commitment of Heads of State or Government to supporting growth and competitiveness. I know that the Prime Minister has been driving forward this agenda, along with leaders from a substantial group of like-minded member states.

Some would claim that we cannot have EU economic growth without EU spending growth. I disagree. While some areas of the EU budget, such as spending on innovation and research and development, have the potential to support growth, this in fact represents only 13% of the total EU budget. However, deploying EU-level policies in support of economic growth, such as the single market, regulatory reform and EU-level free trade agreements, can achieve maximum growth impact at the least cost.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we are a part of the EU and contribute, as a country, to the EU budget, it is absolutely right that some of that money comes back to this country—or to particular parts of this country—and we see the benefit of that financial contribution. He mentions his area of the country, and I know that EU funding in the midlands has been particularly valuable in supporting vital work on things such skills and apprenticeships.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend should be a bit careful about welcoming EU spending in this country because it was our money in the first place and it is not necessarily being spent in the way that Her Majesty’s Government would wish to spend it because it has to meet the requirements of the European Union. Therefore there is the risk of getting inefficient spending out of our own net contributions. We risk wasting money and having a bigger deficit by dong this through a third party, rather than through the actions of our own Government.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right, and he tempts me down a particular path—to say whether membership of the EU broadly benefits this country. I am sure that we could have a whole debate on that, and I know that he could go on for hours and hours on that particular subject. [Interruption.] We will not do that, Madam Deputy Speaker; I take your guidance. Of course, this Parliament is getting less money because the previous Government gave away at least a percentage, if not half, of our rebate. Over the course of this Parliament, this country will receive about £10 billion less from the EU than we would have done had we stuck to the rebate arrangements agreed by a previous Prime Minister—probably the best part of 30 years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

What we are being asked to do today is approve a document on the basis that it is an accurate reflection of what is happening in the UK economy. I am afraid that the document does not accept the fact that the Government are not on track to meet the challenge that they set themselves, and promised the electorate that they would deliver on at the last election. They suggested that, if the Chancellor’s programme of fiscal consolidation was pursued—which it was—the budget deficit would be eliminated by the end of this Parliament, and the fact that that is not going to happen goes to the heart of the motion.

However, the Government are not just off track in relation to the central promise that they made to the electorate at the beginning of this Parliament about the elimination of the deficit. The national debt is rising, and the Government are set not to meet their target of ensuring that it falls as a share of GDP by 2015-16, although anyone reading the Red Book in isolation would be forgiven for thinking that everything was going exactly according to their original plan.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am enjoying a good deal of the hon. Lady’s speech, but she ignores the crucial point: the Office for National Statistics substantially revised downwards the economic growth in 2008 and 2009, so the origins of this problem lie with the previous socialist Government, who ruined the economy. Blaming it on the marvellous work of this Government is entirely false.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he will not be surprised to learn that I wholly reject the point he makes. Government Members often try to lay the whole cause of the global financial crisis at the door of the previous Labour Government, but it was a global financial crisis that affected countries all over the world; the Labour Government were not responsible for the fall of Lehman Brothers in the United States. That is the first point I would make in response to him. The second point is that this Government have now been in power for four years and they cannot keep trying to get off the hook about their own record. The important point is that they set a target for themselves. Previous Red Books show what was supposed to happen with this programme of fiscal consolidation, but it has not proceeded at the pace the Government set for themselves. That is not spelt out clearly in the Red Book in open language that anybody could understand.

Anyone looking at the Red Book would be forgiven for thinking that these are halcyon days and everything is exactly as it was always planned to be, but that is not a true and accurate reflection of what is happening in the economy. On page 1 of the Red Book, in a section from which the Minister quoted, we see that

“GDP growth has exceeded forecasts”.

It also states that

“the deficit as a share of GDP is forecast to have fallen by a half by 2014-15 compared to 2009-10”.

Again, that implies, “Everything is okay. Move along. There is nothing to see here.”

Yesterday’s growth figures and the 0.8% growth we have seen in the first quarter are welcome, but they do not make up for the previous three years of flatlining in the economy. We have to remember that in quarter 2 of 2010, growth was at 1.2%, and in 2010 after coming into power the Chancellor said that the economy would have grown by 8.4% by now, whereas in fact it has grown by just 3.8%, which is less than half of what he forecast. Again, what has happened is not quite as rosy when compared with what was supposed to happen in terms of the challenge the Chancellor set himself. It is also not as rosy a picture as is painted in the Red Book.

Let me deal with the point about personal allowances raised by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). We see a similar flannelling about what is really going on in the economy when we look at the impact of tax and benefit changes on people on lower and middle incomes and, in particular, on the interplay with their living standards. The Red Book tells us that

“a typical basic rate taxpayer will pay £705 less income tax…in cash terms than they would have paid in 2010-11.”

Page 10 of the Red Book tells us that pressures on household budgets “have eased”, but that is simply not the experience of millions of people on lower and middle incomes in our country. I fail to see how that statement can be true at the same time as the OBR tells us that wages will be 5.6% down in 2015 compared with 2010.

Treasury Ministers have failed to admit that latter point; they have been asked a number of times to accept that the OBR has said that wages will be 5.6% down, but no Treasury Minister has ever answered yes or no to that question. I will happily give way to the Financial Secretary if she wants to confirm that that is the case, but she is looking at her papers and I think she is going to do what every other Treasury Minister and colleague of hers has done, which is duck the opportunity to confirm on the Floor of the House and for the benefit of the record that the OBR is right in saying that wages will be 5.6% down in 2015 on the 2010 level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) to her new post as Financial Secretary. It is an enormous pleasure to see her there and one of the great outcomes of the recent reshuffle. I also thank her for her courtesy to this House, which has not always been achieved by her predecessors, for holding this debate before the documents have been given to Brussels, which is an improvement. There was no suggestion on this occasion that the matter be debated in a Committee; it has come straight to the Floor of the House. I am grateful for that as it is important that this House has the ability to discuss such matters properly.

I apologise for the other members of the European Scrutiny Committee, who are meeting at this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Chairman of that Committee, can achieve many things, but unlike Padre Pio, that noted saint, he is unable to manage bilocation. No doubt, in a few years’ time, he will be able to achieve the ability to be in two places at once.

[Mr Hollobone]

Does my hon. Friend think that it is slightly cheeky or that it is just a matter of coincidence that the timetabling for this measure before the House should coincide exactly with when the European Scrutiny Committee is sitting?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that it is an unfortunate concurrence of atoms. If we had not had a statement earlier, it would have been possible to fit in both, and that is how things go at the end of a Session. I am not so cynical as to think that this could possibly have been planned.

I want to answer immediately the point about savings made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). In all that she said on savings, she missed the reclassification of savings that the Office for National Statistics has just introduced. It has roughly doubled our savings rate, because it has reclassified the amounts that private companies put into pension funds as saving rather than as expenditure. That has transformed our savings rate, and therefore the UK economy has had a much higher savings rate than the figures have captured for many years. We should be rather pleased with the savings rate that we have and that we continue to have. Her point on savings, therefore, is, regrettably, fundamentally misfounded.

I want to come on to what underlies this whole debate. People with long memories will be aware that the Government—the British nation—had an opt-out of only stage 3 of monetary union. They did not have an opt-out from the earlier stages, and that included the convergence criteria to be ready to join the euro should that be the wish of the British people at any stage. These documents are part of the convergence criteria to show that we are making headway towards the requirements set out by the European Union under a number of agreements, the latest of which was in 2011, which basically ask for a deficit to be no more than 3% and for the national debt to be no more than 60%. It is about meeting those convergence criteria so that we could if we wished join the euro. It is important to bear that in mind. I am glad about the way the Government have approached this. Had they decided to prepare a whole new set of papers, devoting a great deal of energy and resources on the matter, as the previous Government did with their eurozone entry team, which cost millions of pounds and went on running for years, they would be buying into stages 1 and 2 of convergence for entering the euro. By simply sending the rather splendidly recycled—not just 75% but 100% of the fibre in this document has been recycled—to the European Union, it shows our deep suspicion of the whole process. In the reading of the documents, I could find only two references to performance against EU targets and convergence: on page 22, which runs to a mere three lines, and in the chapter headed “Excessive deficit procedure” on page 53.

I am pleased that the Government are taking an approach of saying, “This is what we understand is happening with the British economy. You, the European Commission, can have it, look at it and chew it over, but we are not running our economic policy in accordance with the convergence criteria.” I was reassured by the Minister’s comments that our policy is not determined by the requirements of convergence, and thank heavens for that. The convergence criteria have been at the heart of the ruination of European economies. There has been one crucial thing that the Government have been able to do since 2010, which the previous Government started, and that is to run a loose monetary policy with a tight fiscal policy. That has ensured that we have been able to get the deficit down without crunching the economy to pieces and without running the risk of a deflationary and elongated depression. That is possible only because we have not been aiming to meet the convergence criteria in the midst of a credit crunch/ depression. We have been able to set our own policy because we have had our own currency and therefore have not been trying to maintain the exchange rate at any particular level. It is notable that, throughout this process, the exchange rate has acted as one of the crucial automatic stabilisers for the economy. In 2009, the sterling-dollar rate bottomed at $1.35 and is now above $1.65, and that has acted as an automatic stabiliser on monetary policy during the process of this downturn—all of which has been dependent on our having our own currency, and has allowed both this Government and the previous one to be tighter on the fiscal side than would otherwise have been possible. It has avoided the absolute disaster affecting the eurozone countries, of having a tight monetary policy and a tight fiscal policy at the same point, which has led, in some countries, to riots.

I am broadly reassured, but there are inevitably some concerns. As I have mentioned, this is about meeting the convergence criteria that allow us to enter the euro. The European Union has no specific enforcement powers, but there are certain commitments that we have made. We are obliged, as are other EU member states not in the euro, to submit a convergence programme focused on the national fiscal policy. From 2011, EU legislation on economic governance introduced a new obligation on member states, including the United Kingdom, to take due account of EU guidance issued to them in the development of their economic, employment and budgetary policies before taking key decisions on their national budgets for the succeeding years, and progress will be monitored by the Commission.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and he is making a characteristically interesting speech. Presumably one of the enforcement options open to the EU if we do not meet the criteria is not to allow us to join the euro. Will he enlighten us on whether, through his studies, he has come across any other enforcement procedures that might be brought into play if we do not meet the convergence criteria?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is always difficult to know what action can be taken until action has been taken and until the European Court of Justice has adjudicated on whether that action is legitimate. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman’s point that we could be prevented from joining the euro is brilliant and I am impressed that the Liberal Democrats are so keen to prevent us from joining the euro that they would like legal action to be brought by the European Union to prevent that.

My warning is not so much that I can see a specific threat coming down the track, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood said. There were a lot of tracks in the hon. Lady’s speech, and I wondered whether she was confused with Monday’s debate about the Government’s production of a lot of extra track in one direction or another. There is always a problem if Governments commit themselves to things that they have no intention of doing. At some later date a body comes back and says, “Actually, you agreed in 2011 that the European Commission would have the right to challenge you on how you were developing your fiscal and employment policies. That is not being done, so we want you to put your house in order.” Then we reach the question of what action can be taken to enforce that.

It is worth concluding on the glorious issue of convergence simply by saying that we are so lucky that we are not converging and that the Government have managed to make policy in this country so much more successfully than our continental friends. For example, the EUROSTAT figures—I shall cite a European body, not because I want to but for the sake of consistency, as similar figures are used across the areas covered—show that in 2013 the UK economy grew by 1.7% against 0.1% growth in the EU as a whole and 0.4% contraction in the eurozone. According to our own figures from the Office for National Statistics, we are now, according to the quarterly figures, growing almost as fast as China at an annualised rate, which is very encouraging. I never thought, even with my confidence in the Chancellor and his team in the Treasury, that we would manage to achieve near-Chinese rates of growth under this Government—emerging-market levels. We also have much lower unemployment than our continental cousins, and that applies not just to adult unemployment but, most importantly, to youth unemployment.

Let us hope that we do not converge but continue to diverge from the failures that the eurozone has inflicted on itself, to maintain our independent economic policy, to have an economic policy that thrives and succeeds because Her Majesty’s Government know what they are doing, unlike their predecessor, and can therefore boldly and with confidence send these statements to the European Commission and say to Señor Barroso and all the rest of them, “If only you had the sense to do what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing, you, too, might grow as well.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my near neighbour from Greater Manchester, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). As he and the House are aware, I agree with him on the issue of our membership of the European Union.

I want to bring the debate back to the motion, which states specifically:

“That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment”—

and so on. I will not read out the whole motion. It is purely for the purposes of complying with section 5 that we are being asked to approve the motion today—purely to comply with our obligations under European Union rules and regulations. I oppose the motion for that reason, as I have in previous years. I oppose it, but not because I oppose the Government’s financial policies—indeed, barely a week goes by without further evidence to prove that the policies are working. We could debate, as we have earlier this afternoon, whether things are going fast enough, and whether they are going as quickly as someone previously predicted, but I think all that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that the economy, by any stretch of the imagination, is growing. Things are going in the right direction.

I welcome the fact that we have the opportunity to say that, but I regret the fact that we are having to do it in the context of submitting documents to the European Union. As has been said, this is the very last day for submission of the documents. I am not sure what would happen if—as I very much doubt would be the case—the House refused to support the Government’s motion. I will be voting against it and I would be interested to know what would happen. In last year’s debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned that if the EU does not agree that we are carrying out the policies to its satisfaction, it can send a surveillance mission to the country, or even an enhanced surveillance mission. If so, I am sure that we would have great delight in meeting them, because they have a lot to learn from what this country is doing.

I do not agree that we, as a sovereign nation, should have to submit our economic policies to the bureaucrats in Brussels like some naughty schoolboy having to report to the headmaster with school work. There is no reason why we should have to go through this annual charade. It is an annual occasion when we have to approve, purely for the purposes of section 5, these documents. I see no reason why we cannot tag the motion on to the end of the Budget motions, for example, if we want to comply with this ridiculous law.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

For once, I disagree with my hon. Friend. I think it is of immeasurable importance that this debate remain a specific debate on the Floor of the House, because there may come a time when the House wants to refuse to report to Brussels and we need to preserve that right.

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely agree on that point with my hon. Friend. If I had my way, we would disagree with Europe quite a bit more often than we do. I oppose the motion for that reason and no other, because I do not think we should send these documents to Europe. As I have said in previous years, and will probably repeat later in my speech, if the European officials are so interested in our documents, they are all available online. There is no reason why we need to produce this document.

For all that has been said about the fact that we have not spent any time on this subject, we do have before us a new document entitled “2013-14 Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom.” It is 247 pages long—slightly larger than last year’s document. It has been produced by Her Majesty’s Treasury specifically for this purpose and no other. So somewhere along the line the requirement to produce the document is costing the British taxpayer money.

We must be clear that the sole reason why the UK is making this submission—I quote from the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—is:

“In order to ensure closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of the Member States”.

Why does the treaty require that? Simply because it is all part of their grand plan to forge together a single country called the European Union. That is what they want to see. That is why they want to have these documents sent in to them.

We are fortunate in this country that the UK electorate—the British people—had the good sense at the last general election to elect a Conservative-led Government with a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to put our country back on the path of economic recovery, which means living within our means.

It is instructive to compare the progress that we have made, and continue to make, with that of the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset mentioned, the European Union’s own official statistics body—interestingly named EUROSTAT— reported that the United Kingdom economy grew by 1.7% last year, compared with a minuscule 0.1% in the rest of the European Union. Even worse, there was a 0.4% contraction in the economies of the countries within the eurozone. And even that performance figure is flattered by the fact that it includes the figures for Germany and France, whose economies, EUROSTAT reported, grew by 0.4% and 0.1% respectively.

The situation is the same for the respective unemployment rates. EUROSTAT reports that the unemployment rate for the European Union as a whole was 10.8% last year, and the latest figures show that unemployment in the UK for the three months to February was 6.9%. That is reflected in my constituency. The latest figures show that in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington there are 451 fewer unemployed people than there were a year ago, which means 451 more families have the security of a regular wage coming in each week. More new businesses are being started, business confidence is growing and all the signs indicate that the plan is working and we are on the road to recovery.

The rest of Europe ought to be looking at what the UK is doing and working out how they can adopt our Government’s policies and increase their growth rates. As the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, we want our European neighbours’ economies to grow, because they are important trading nations, as I never fail to accept. The fact that I want us to leave the European Union does not mean that I do not want us to trade with it; I just do not think that we should have to pay a net contribution of £9 billion to have the privilege of doing so. It is simply unnecessary, because we trade with many other countries around the world without having to pay a membership fee to enable us to do so. Therefore, I do not believe that submitting a 247-page convergence programme document is necessary.

In conclusion, let me put two simple questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), whom I warmly welcome to her new role as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. First, what response has the Government received from the European Union on last year’s submission? Did we receive any acknowledgement from the bureaucrats in Brussels? Did they tell us that we were doing a good job and that they would use our document as a model for economic success? Did they say that they would encourage our partners to accept some of the policies set out in our convergence programme document?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly—in view of the Prime Minister’s declared aim of putting an end to the commitment, which we are presently signed up to, to ever-closer union with the rest of Europe—will my hon. Friend confirm that, as part of any renegotiation of the United Kingdom’s obligations to the rest of Europe, the obligation to submit this annual convergence programme document will be removed? Does she agree that not removing that obligation will be seen as clear proof that those renegotiations have failed?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It should be pointed out that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency has fallen by nearly 30% in the last 12 months. The challenge with the 50p rate is that it is not very effective at reducing the deficit, but it is effective at driving jobs and growth out of the UK. Maybe that is why Labour supports it.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is not Her Majesty’s Government right to consider the overall effect on the economy when setting income tax rates and not to use them as a means of squeezing the rich out of Britain? Is it not also sensible to consider the extra revenue that comes from lower rates?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. The reality is that this Government are raising more from the richest. We are doing it in a more effective and efficient way, and the 50p rate failed on its own terms.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

It is a long-established principle that there should be tax relief on pension contributions. This Government have sought to restrict that tax relief. We have lowered both the lifetime limit and the annual limit. I am not sure whether the Opposition’s proposal has taken into account the changes that we have made. I am not convinced that changing the rate of relief would alter very much the amount of money spent, because of the lower limits that we have already imposed. Speaking for myself—this is a matter that my party will be putting forward at the next election—the fact that we offer about £35 billion of relief on pension contributions every year and that more than half of that tax relief goes to the top 10% of earners is something that is worth further examination. As we continue with fiscal consolidation, which is necessary for our economy, we need to make absolutely sure that we are handling our tax system in as fair a way as possible, and not offering unnecessary tax relief to the very wealthiest in society.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

In any reform that my right hon. Friend proposes to make to the reliefs that are given on people investing in pension funds, will he remember that the money is taxed when it is withdrawn? It would be extremely unfair to tax people twice, both on putting money in and then taking it out.

[Danny Alexander]

I certainly do bear that in mind. No party in this House—certainly not mine—is proposing any change to, for example, the tax-free lump sum arrangements, which is an important part of how the policy that my hon. Friend describes is delivered. Some people would equally well say that it would be unfair for someone to receive tax relief at 40% on the way in, but only pay tax at 20% on the way out. There are a whole range of issues that require a wider debate. In this Parliament, the coalition Government have set out some reforms for pensions tax relief. We have no intention of going further than the reforms that we have already made and I think that the annual and lifetime limits are the right ways to address this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

We have said that a 50p rate needs to be the policy for the next Parliament. We make judgments in manifestos from one Parliament to the next. Tax policy should never be written in perpetuity. We have said that while the deficit is likely to be as high as it is, the 50p rate is justified. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) talked about social cohesion. While the process of deficit reduction will now have to continue well into the next Parliament, when it was not expected, the 50p rate is perfectly justified for good social cohesion reasons.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

How could I resist the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful on behalf of North East Somerset to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. Is he therefore saying that he believes that the 50p rate is a good thing in and of itself for the symbolism that it brings to bear, even if it does not raise any money?

[Chris Leslie]

I think it will raise a significant sum to help to alleviate the burden on lower and middle earners, and that is why it is important to have it. If it is there for not just a temporary period, but for a significant period, it would settle and be an important part of the tax system. But generally speaking, of course we all want all taxes to come to a lower level. I do not want to see taxes higher than they need be, but the hon. Gentleman has to understand that the context will be, I am told, a potential £75 billion deficit to be inherited by the next Government—I hope the next Labour Government—a significant amount of borrowing, hanging around the necks of whoever wins the general election, made worse by the fact that the Government promised that it would have been eradicated altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Of course the banking sector is very important. It has been dysfunctional for a prolonged period. Net lending to business has fallen consistently throughout this Government’s time in office. But I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that when the Treasury said that the levy would raise £2.5 billion, it should have got that money in. All our constituents are paying more in tax and have lost out significantly because that money has not been forthcoming from the banks, which after all owe a little bit back to the taxpayer for the bail-out that followed their reckless lending decisions in previous years.

The very least we should do is ensure that we have a functioning bank levy that brings in the expected sums. We would ensure that it raises a further £800 million. We would use that money to expand free child care places for working parents of three and four-years olds by extending free nursery care from 15 to 25 hours a week. That would also be a good way of helping parents to get back into the labour market and to get the jobs they need. A 15-hour arrangement—three hours a day—for child care does not give a parent looking after a youngster the opportunity to get into work, but 25 hours a week would make a significant difference. We could do that through a reasonable and modest change to the bank levy.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), does the hon. Gentleman recognise that an £800 million additional bank levy would reduce the ability of the banks to lend into the real economy by between £8 billion and £12 billion?

[Chris Leslie]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, not least because the shortfall in the amount the Treasury said it would raise from the levy has been so much larger than £800 million. I think he needs to speak with Ministers. If he disagrees with £2.5 billion, he needs to tell them now. The Exchequer Secretary is in the Chamber, because he is the one—unbelievably—who was responsible for designing the bank levy. He must be massively embarrassed by its total failure. Why has it raised so little? How does he explain the shortfall? I will give way to him if he wishes to offer an explanation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened with care and interest to the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), and I challenge the idea sometimes portrayed by Conservative Members that the Labour party is somehow against business and does not understand it or the value it creates for the economy. We all do. I meet many small and large businesses in my community every week. Of course I want to see them grow and employ more people. I want them to employ people on better wages with better conditions and add that value. The hon. Gentleman’s comments about people being able to buy Ferraris are revealing and go to the heart of the Government’s problem, which is that they have done so much to help big businesses and bigger earners but done so little—or indeed have targeted—those who have less, be they small businesses or individuals on low incomes. That is the fundamental difference between those on the Government Benches and those on the Opposition Benches.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Finance Bill and to support the reasoned amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) made clear, the Bill is long and weighty but will do remarkably little, if anything, to tackle the cost of living crisis facing many of my constituents. It will do much to support bigger earners and bigger businesses at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses, and small and medium income earners in constituencies such as mine. It will do very little for the bank clerk or the call centre operator working for the banks and the financial industry in my constituency. It will do very little for the cleaner taking on a second or third job to make ends meet to be able to pay basic bills. The basic costs of living, whether energy, food or heating, are rising for them. It will do very little for the shift workers working in supermarkets in my constituency.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This is a completely different Finance Bill from the one we have before us. The only decile of income that will actually be worse off in the next year is the top decile. In this Budget, there is £15 off fuel bills, a rise to £10,500 in the personal allowance, which helps the lowest paid most of all, and the freeze in fuel duty. All that helps the worst-off in society.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman fails to note that the average worker has become £1,600 worse off since his Government came to power. I am sure that he is doing relatively well, but many people in his constituency, and certainly in mine, are not. Small businesses in my constituency are struggling with energy bills and business rates.

Hard-working people across my constituency are £1,600 worse off since the Government came to power. The increase in the personal allowance is often paraded by Government Members, but that is dwarfed by the 24 tax rises that have hit hard-working people. At the same time, the Chancellor has given a tax cut to millionaires. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is not in his place, but he spoke on that earlier. The economic adviser to the leader of Plaid Cymru has apparently also supported that recently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to some of the details in just a moment.

Before they say that Labour should have done more to regulate the banks, Government Members must show some humility. The Conservatives wanted less regulation. Yes, Labour responded by boosting public spending and borrowing to offset the catastrophic collapse in private sector spending, and the £90 billion spent on the bank bailout plunged the public sector into record annual deficit, but what would they have done? Would they have allowed the banks to collapse and allowed us to go into a depression worse than that in the 1930s? Would they have allowed thousands, if not millions, to lose their houses, their pensions and their jobs? Yes, we bailed out the banks, we cut VAT and income tax and we gave 150,000 businesses more time to pay their tax bills. We put in place measures that helped 300,000 people stay in their homes and we set out how we would halve the deficit over four years once the recovery was in place.

Do Conservative Members agree with those who were on their Front Bench at that time? They opposed the fiscal stimulus and the measures to support the economy and families. They pushed for the deregulation of the mortgage market even as the crisis began and they voted against the Bill that became the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, which would have let Northern Rock fail. Where would families and businesses be now if the Tories had got their way then?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is highly questionable that Northern Rock needed to fail if the Bank of England had been willing to act as a classic lender of last resort when there was a liquidity problem rather than a solvency problem.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. At that time our Government needed to act to bail out those banks. He says that the Government need not have acted if the Bank of England had, but the reality is that the Government acted and needed to do so.

It has been claimed that before the global collapse we were spending too much, so why did the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) pledge in 2007 to match Labour’s spending plan for further three years—to match our spending on investment, jobs and growth?

The level of debt under the Labour Government before the banking crisis was lower than that we inherited from the Tories in 1997. We brought the deficit down, we brought borrowing down and, far from failing to fix the roof when the sun was shining, we invested in repairing the terrible state of our public services. People were dying on hospital trolleys before they were seen, others were waiting a year to get on the waiting list before waiting another year to have their operations, schools were crumbling, the railways were decaying and youth services were disappearing. We repaired all that, and then the bankers behaved totally irresponsibly and brought down the world economy.

Yes, there was a failure by every Government right across the world to recognise the seeds of the banking crisis, but it was not caused by Labour’s overspending, and it was not caused by Labour’s high borrowing or high debt, because none of those things was going on before the banking crisis. If we had not dealt with the crisis as we did, the whole economic and banking system in Britain would have collapsed. If our Prime Minister at the time had not worked with other world leaders to bail out banks and bring forward investment, the world would have been plunged into a depression beyond belief.

We need honesty from Government Members to acknowledge the truth. The Government should acknowledge that the national debt has doubled on their watch to £1,400 billion. They should accept that wages are down by £1,600 a year since May 2010, and that people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010. The Government should acknowledge that they have introduced 24 tax rises, that energy bills are up by almost £300 since the election, and that even though they inherited a growing economy, they squashed that growth, had three years of flatlining and have overseen the slowest recovery for 100 years.

The Government like to talk proudly about the number of jobs that they claim have been created in the private sector, so I asked them some questions about those jobs. I asked how many of the new jobs created lasted more than 12 months, but they could not tell me because they do not collect those statistics. So I asked them

“how many new jobs created in the private sector in the last 12 months were (a) unpaid workfare or internships, (b) through zero-hour contracts, (c) part-time, (d) part-time working 16 hours or less per week, (e) part-time working eight hours or less per week, (g) paid at the level of the minimum wage and (h) jobs transferred from public sector organisations.”

What a surprise. I was told:

“Information regarding the number of jobs created is not available. As an alternative, estimates relating to the net change in the number of people in employment in the private sector have been provided from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).”—[Official Report, 11 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 460-61W.]

Estimates showed that more than a third of the new jobs that have been created are part-time, and that a third of those are under 16 hours. However, the Government do not collect the figures for those people who are on unpaid Government schemes or internships, even though those are included in the number of new jobs created. They cannot tell with any accuracy the number of people on zero-hours contracts or the number on the minimum wage. They also cannot tell me how many of the jobs now designated as being in the private sector are simply jobs transferred from the public sector, even though we know there are a large number of such jobs. The proud boast that over a million new jobs have been created is based on sand. We do not know how many are really new jobs, how many are unpaid, how many are low-paid, how many are zero-hours or how many are temporary. The Government like to think that any job is better than unemployment—a job at any price—but that is causing untold misery to many.

Let me tell the House a story of a man who went to the Allerton food bank. He was absolutely made up that he had got a job in Poundland. In week one, no work was offered; in week two, still no work offered; in week three, still no work offered. At this point he and his family were existing on boiled pasta because that was all they had in their household. Fortunately, somebody directed him to the food bank. People at the food bank helped him and spoke to Poundland, who said, “Well, we can’t finish him because he may get hours next week.” In the end he had to resign from his job and take the hit from the Department for Work and Pensions because he had resigned from a job—a job in which he was never given any hours to work. He had to resign so that he could feed his family.

Zero-hours contracts are a scourge on the unemployed, but instead of cracking down on them, the Government fail to collect statistics. Other sources estimate that a million people are on zero-hours contracts; a million people who do not know whether they can feed their families or pay their rents each week; a million people who cannot get a mortgage or a loan to buy a car; a million people who can make no plans for their future. It is like the bad old days when people had to queue up at the dock gates just to be picked for a day’s work. These workers are paid 40% less than those on permanent contracts, and 20% of them have said that they have had money docked or been penalised in some other way if they were unable to work when they were called for at a moment’s notice. Half the people have said that they have had shifts cancelled at the last minute. The Government should take Labour’s lead and regulate zero-hours contracts, not allow the exponential growth that has occurred under their watch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

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

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Surely the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is forgetting that the success of the Labour party in the first two years came because it followed Conservative spending plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

Over the entire period of the Labour Government, pensioner and child poverty were lower than they were in 1997. If the hon. Gentleman examines the records from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, he will see that that is clearly the case.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bain]

I simply cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency shares part of its name with mine.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There is a union between those of us who have “North East” in the title of our constituencies, and we always give way to each other politely and gracefully.

We need to be very careful on the issue of inequality, because it turns out that it can be narrowed by having a deep recession. That surely cannot be the object of any Government’s policy. We should therefore look at the figures with care. The same is true of relative poverty—it can be reduced through a recession.

[Mr Bain]

There is a degree of wisdom in what the hon. Gentleman says. I encourage him to look at the work of the social mobility and child poverty commission, which has come up with some interesting conclusions. It is critical that there is better investment in skills. My constituency was once powered by the railway industry. The economic heart of my constituency is now the college that is across from my constituency office. That is the means by which children in a ward with one of the highest levels of child poverty in Scotland will get the skills that they need to succeed in the jobs that we want to create in a modern economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the OBR report published in, I think, March 2012, he will see that the figure was 7.7%, not 11%. I think that he should get his facts right rather than constantly regurgitating figures as if they were fact when they are clearly not.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I will gladly do that. Throughout the debate, the hon. Member for North Durham has persistently made points that have been answered by Government Members, and many of them have been incorrect. He needs to focus on the work that we have done to reduce the deficit, which he clearly has not welcomed.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and grateful, as always, for your splendid ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is confusing the structural deficit with the actual deficit. The actual deficit was 11%, although the structural deficit may well have been 7%.

[David Rutley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who is unfortunately no longer in his place, said that the Budget gave him a feeling of “upbeat optimism”. We have also just heard the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) say that we should all be smiling, as though the Budget were to be the salvation of our nation. The Conservative party will clearly go into the next election using “Happy Days Are Here Again” as its theme tune.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that “Happy Days Are Here Again” is traditionally a Democrat theme tune. I think it unlikely that the Conservatives would borrow from the left in America.

[Mr Jones]

I would not put anything past the new Conservative party, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is part of the ancient—even prehistoric—Conservative party. It is clearly part of the Conservative party’s strategy to try to give the impression that we have turned the corner and that the sunlit uplands are now before us. The public are neither so stupid nor so naive as to believe that, however, because they are living the reality of what this Government are doing to this great nation of ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree. Some particular issues that appertain to Northern Ireland need to reflect the common land border with the Republic of Ireland.

As we have heard several times this afternoon, the Liberal Democrats are trumpeting as a great thing the fact that we have increased the personal allowance. The people who gain from it most are not the poor but those on middle incomes. MPs—quite apart from some Government Members who earn a lot more than their parliamentary salaries and who will gain even more—will gain more than the low paid.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that nobody gains more than the £700 and that in the early stages the higher rate taxpayers were not included in the increase in the lower rate threshold. It was clawed back from them, so what he says about MPs is actually not correct.

[Mr Jones]

I was referring to some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues and I do not know whether he is included, as I did not look up his figures. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who was in the Chamber earlier, earned £213,000 last year on top of his salary. He will therefore gain from the tax cut that the Government have given him. The Conservative Member with the highest figure earned something like £800,000 a year.

VAT, the cuts to housing benefit, the bedroom tax and the changes to tax credit have all affected those individuals. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East also mentioned national insurance, which affects those who are on very low pay. As for the idea that the increase in the personal allowance is somehow a great gift to the low paid, it is, as somebody said earlier, simply about giving with one hand while taking away with the other.

One missed opportunity in this Budget is that of putting investment into our economy. Clearly, the narrative is about a small state and the Conservative party wants as small a state as possible. The view expressed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield gave the game away and that is, basically, that the only people who create wealth in this country are entrepreneurs and business, that somehow public expenditure is a bad thing and that spending money on services does not create any wealth at all. In the early days of this Government, the one thing that sucked more money out of the economy than anything was the cuts to public services and local councils. Councils do not sit on money, they spend it in their local communities. I know that many small businesses, including one small building company in Chester-le-Street, nearly went to the wall because their main contracts were with the local authority.

The hon. Member for Redcar used a comparison with maxing out credit cards, but the idea that the state is like an individual’s personal bank account is complete nonsense. Clearly, if the state invests in infrastructure and other things, we get growth in the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree. The hon. Gentleman should look at my record on Newcastle city council, because I always ensured that we got value for money. But there is a big difference between getting good value for money for the taxpayer and his suggestion that local authorities and public services spending money will somehow not have an effect on local economies. It should come as no surprise to anyone that taking money out of people’s pay packets, whether in local councils or public services, will have an impact on private sector jobs in local communities.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The point that the hon. Gentleman is missing is that the money that is taken out of the taxpayer’s pay packet is tax in the first place, so this is merely changing the money from being spent in one part of the country to being spent in another; it is not creating new money.

[Mr Jones]

I disagree. Were we to build a new motorway or railway line, such as HS2—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a great advocate of that vanity project—the increased speed with which people would be able to move around and do business would have an impact, so it cannot be said that that will not have an effect. We come back to the idea that somehow Governments cannot have an impact on what is happening.

Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) raised with the Prime Minister the disproportionate amount of money spent on transport in London, compared with the north-east. Interestingly, the Prime Minister rattled off four transport projects that he claimed this Government had delivered for the north-east. He was very confident about his facts, which did not surprise me, because his public school background means that he can be very confident even when talking complete nonsense—it does not really bother him, because that is the way he has been brought up. He mentioned the Tyne and Wear Metro and the Tyne tunnel—I cannot remember what the third and fourth projects were. They were all agreed by the previous Labour Government. In fact, the Tyne tunnel was finished before this Government came to office. The idea that this Government are somehow leading on those big infrastructure projects, which are desperately needed in the north-east, is ridiculous, because clearly they are not.

Housing is an issue that could be completely missed in the Budget. The way forward is clearly to encourage people to buy their own homes, and I have no problem with that, but if someone is in low-paid work on a zero-hours contract, and possibly having to work two part-time jobs, as many people do, the idea that they will ever get the credit worthiness to own their own home is complete nonsense. What we need, certainly in the north-east and in my constituency, is affordable housing for rent. The easy thing that the Government could do—it would not cost them any money—is give housing associations the borrowing requirements they need against their assets to build houses. The Government could do that, but they are not. Instead, they are creating an artificial bubble in the housing market. Look at the difference between the north-east and the south. Prices in the north-east are still £5,000 lower than in 2008; in London and the south-east, they are 77% higher. Ridiculously, housing is completely unaffordable for most people in London and parts of the south-east, with average house prices of £400,000. Even people with reasonable standards of living find it hard to buy a house.

I turn to youth unemployment, one of the great tragedies of the Government. I fear that there will be a repeat of what we saw in the 1980s—a completely lost generation of young people. They have no opportunity for a job, not only in the short term but in the longer term. Why is that important? If someone meets us for the first time, they usually ask us two things: our name and what we do for a living. Some people cannot answer the second question about a fundamental part of who they are. Some say that there are lazy people, but I am sorry—there are hard-working people struggling to make ends meet.

I will give two examples from my constituency. I met someone on a zero-hours contract working in a store, which I will not name, in the Metrocentre—that great cathedral to Thatcherite free market enterprise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who always entertains the House with his eloquence. I am sorry that he has been relatively brief today. On previous Finance Bills, he has held forth for over an hour, and I was hoping for something similar.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) started with a list of anniversaries, but he was remiss in not mentioning that today is the anniversary of the death of Eleanor of Aquitaine, which I happen to think is rather more interesting than the anniversaries he was able to provide us with.

It is a great pleasure to support the Government on this Finance Bill. It is worth looking at some of the figures that have been batted back and forth during the debate, some of which seem, to some degree, to have been invented by the Opposition. The real figures show that the Government can be proud of their record. Let me run through them, if I may. They are a mixture from the World Bank and the Red Book. GDP declined by 0.8% in 2008 and by 5.2% in 2009. I think that some people may have missed that downwards revision by the Office for National Statistics. GDP rose by 1.7% in 2010, by 1.1% in 2011, by 0.1% in 2012, and by 1.8% in 2013. The key to those figures is that since this Government have been in office, there has been no triple-dip or double-dip, as was predicted; in fact, the economy has grown because the Government have followed the right policies.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Did the hon. Gentleman feel that the predictions that the Chancellor gave to this House and the public in 2010 and 2011 were over-optimistic, or did he think they were okay? I seem to recall that the Chancellor was not predicting that level of growth.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is aiming at the wrong target. The Chancellor, in his considerable wisdom, decided to make these forecasts independent and therefore set up the Office for Budget Responsibility. That is how we know that we are competent. Indeed, Labour is desperate that the OBR should view its own figures. An independent body was set up to give these forecasts so that there was no legerdemain in what the Chancellor was doing.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If those were the forecasts of the OBR, based on the position as it saw it in 2010, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it must be the Government’s policies thereafter that have meant that those forecasts have not translated into reality?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That does not follow. It is like looking at the weather forecast on the BBC and saying that it is the fault of the newsreader if the weather then turns out to be different. The two are not the same. The forecasts were made in good faith, based on what was known of the global economy at the time. But of course, things change and responses are different. The global economy continued to be relatively sluggish, but the figures that have been achieved by the Government are enormously respectable. There has been economic growth pretty much since 2010 and, most importantly, in the past couple of years. Everyone knows that economic policies have a long-term impact. If a Government come to office in May 2010, we cannot expect the figures in June 2010 to be the result of that Government’s policies—there is inevitably a lag. The effects, as we have seen, have been positive; the economy is now growing, and growing increasingly strongly.

The problem that the Government faced when they came to office was severe. The deficit in 2009-10 was 11.2% of GDP, falling to 10% of GDP in 2010-11. That is not the structural deficit but the actual real money deficit. I happen to think that is a much better figure than the structural deficit, which is to some extent speculative, as economists try to work out what is structural and what is not. If we deal with actual fact, the figure was minus 11.2% in the last year of the socialists, falling very slightly to minus 10% in the first year of the coalition.

The reason the deficit was so high was of course in part the global financial crisis, but it was also because Government spending was simply too high. It had reached 47.4% of GDP in 2009-10, when revenue was only 36.2% of GDP. That latter figure for tax revenue ought not to be any surprise. One of the most remarkable things about this series of figures, going right the way back to Harold Wilson’s prime ministership, is that Governments find it incredibly difficult to get much more than 37% of GDP in taxation. It is interesting that, since 2010, although the Government have increased taxation and the tax take has gone up from 36.2% to 37.4%, the amount has not risen as much as was anticipated. The reason is that it is actually very hard to tax much more than 37% from an economy.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

In Scandinavia, tax receipts in previous years have been much higher than 37%.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed they are in France as well, but in our economy there seems to be a resistance at about that level. It is almost unprecedented to get much over 38%. That has been managed in two years out of the past 40. That may tell us something about our society, about the willingness to pay tax and the incentives when tax rates are set. A realistic Government therefore need to think of public spending levels of around 37%, which is the level that can actually be afforded through ordinary taxation.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does the hon. Gentleman know how much of that situation is due to the abolition of exchange controls when Mrs Thatcher first came to office, and the fact that we now have an enormous tax gap because of tax avoidance and tax evasion, much of it overseas?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The calculation from the removal of exchange controls is not one that I know or would be able to make. The effect of their removal has been to create a much larger economy for the United Kingdom, so we are talking about 37% of a larger pie rather than getting a higher rate in a closed economy. However, it is worth bearing in mind that in the years before exchange controls were lifted in 1979 we still were not getting a tax take of more than 38% of the economy. The series goes back longer than the abolition of exchange controls.

I part company from the Government to some degree on the question of tax avoidance and tax evasion. It is measurably important not to elide the two. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal—indeed, the Government come up with schemes in every Budget to encourage it. One example is saving for pensions—that is tax avoidance on people’s income. ISAs are a form of tax avoidance, as is duty free. In the Budget and the Finance Bill there are schemes for investing in films and television programmes that actively encourage tax avoidance. Such schemes become part of Government policy for growing the economy.

Governments then get very upset when people use the tax avoidance schemes, which the Government themselves have put into legislation, for purposes that the Government had not thought of. That strikes me as a fault of the legislative process and an incompetence of the legislators—I am sorry to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is our fault—for allowing such loopholes. It is not the fault of the taxpayer for using them. Any sensible, intelligent taxpayer will pay the minimum amount of tax that is legally required. To elide avoidance and evasion is, I think, against the rule of law: it undermines the rule of law by pretending that something that is innocent is nefarious.

It is important to crack down on tax evasion, which is rank criminality, but the Government should not take excessive measures against that which is legal. Instead, they should write simple tax law because, to go back to the point I was making, Governments manage regularly to raise 37% of GDP in taxation almost regardless of the taxes they levy—they change a tax here and a tax there, but still get roughly 37% of GDP. Simple tax laws can probably get us to that level without the need for complex anti-avoidance legislation that undermines the rule of law. That is the one part of the Bill about which I have my doubts.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman is making a characteristically fascinating speech. Does he agree that the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance needs to be made very clear? For example, those who pretend to be second-hand car dealers in order to avoid tax are actually evading tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Without being too hard on that specific case, I am clear that some of the cases reported as tax avoidance were tax evasion, and HMRC has taken on some of them successfully. I absolutely agree that it is right for HMRC to challenge schemes to see whether they are, in fact, evasion. Most of the schemes that gave extraordinary results seemed to be evasion rather than avoidance, but we must remember that, day by day, honest people avoid tax that they are not required by law to pay.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. The big losses from tax avoidance and evasion are to do with the corporates. The cosy relationship in recent years between HMRC and some of the corporates, particularly Vodafone, is appalling. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to talk about that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The thing about corporation tax is that a lot of corporations can be taxed almost anywhere in the world. That is why I think the Government are absolutely right to bring down the rate of corporation tax. It will help businesses to be headquartered in the United Kingdom, which is good for the UK in terms of employment and, indeed, tax revenues, by which I mean not just corporation tax revenues, but the other tax revenues paid by companies, namely business rates and employer national insurance contributions, as well as the taxes paid by their employees. We get a larger, more successful economy if we are relatively generous to corporates.

Northern Ireland Members have spoken of the particular circumstances there and the competition Northern Ireland faces from the Republic of Ireland. That is a very good case of tax competition between neighbours and it can be seen very bluntly in Northern Ireland because of the land border. We see less of it on the mainland of the United Kingdom because we do not cross borders quite so easily and we do not necessarily focus on it as much as we should. I think that the Government are absolutely right on corporation tax and that they should continue down that line.

The Government have also been right on the raising of thresholds and I hope they will continue with it. It makes sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) has said, because it is not logical for people on the minimum wage to be paying taxes. There is no point in taxing people who are low earners merely to pay them benefits with their own money. Although it was a Lib Dem policy in the last election and they deserve credit for that, it was suggested earlier by Lord Saatchi and Peter Warburton in a booklet they produced for the Centre for Policy Studies. The Conservative antecedents of the policy are pretty good and solid. It is a Tory policy in origin and it ought to continue.

The aim of the Government in the long run should be that people on the minimum wage should pay neither tax nor national insurance. In that way, the amount of benefits that needs to be paid to them will be very significantly reduced, as will the administrative burden. Roughly speaking, tax collection costs 1% of the amount collected, and benefit payments cost about 2% of the benefits paid out, so if we tax people to pay them benefits, the overall cost will probably be about 1.5% of the total amount paid and received. The policy is very good and welcome.

Another policy that must be welcomed is the change to pensions. Questions about pension funds came up when my right hon. Friend Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke. What the Government are doing is very simple: they are allowing people to keep their own money. That is not very popular among Labour Members, who seem to have the view that it is the Government’s money and should be distributed as they, rather than individuals, wish. Conservative Members and, indeed, Liberal Democrats who still have some residual liberal attachment believe that the money belongs to the individual taxpayer.

The policy has a very clear advantage for the tax authorities, because it clarifies the idea that pension saving is nothing but a tax avoidance boondoggle. It is about taxing people once, rather than twice. People are taxed when they withdraw the money from their pension fund, with a 25% exemption, rather than taxed when they put it in. It is worth bearing in mind that if that was at any point reversed, the withdrawal would be taxed as a capital gain rather than as income, and the rates that applied might be very different from those that currently apply to withdrawals from pension funds. Any Government who intend at any point—whether at the higher or the lower rate—to withdraw the benefits of saving through a pension fund should consider the ultimate pay-out, and how the policy is a fair means of taxing people and ensuring that they are not taxed more than once.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, this was a “steady as she goes” Budget. It is very impressive. The Government have not gone for cheap gimmicks, as parties sometimes do before elections; they have gone for continuing the work, which they started in 2010, of getting the country back on track. They are doing so in a way that benefits the least well-off in society the most. It is absolutely striking that the real incomes of every decile other than the highest-paid decile will rise by more than prices this year, as they did last year.

That Government achievement is helping where help is most needed: it is helping business to allow it to invest; doing more to help exporters; helping to rebalance the economy for the long term; and—gloriously, splendidly and rejoicingly—it is doing something to ensure that people have their own money. What a fine Conservative principle that is. We believe that the individuals and their families who build up society have the greatest wisdom about how they spend their money, not the tax authorities that dish it out. What is being done with pensions is the clearest statement of that. Yes, if people buy Lamborghinis, Bentleys or Porsches, they will spend it unwisely—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Buy British.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

None of them is British, unless people buy Aston Martins. We could say, “Let us all buy Aston Martins with our pension funds to save the British car industry.” If we decided to do so, we would at least be spending our own money to support Britain. If we ended up sleeping in the Aston Martin, we would have nobody but ourselves to blame; it would not be the nanny state, the socialist state or the “Let’s tell you what to do” state that had taken charge. For that, we should rejoice at the Budget and the Bill.

Fairness and Inequality

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

The speech made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd was a truly staggering intervention in the Silk commission debate, not least because only a year or so earlier, the very same Member and his colleagues voted in favour of the very same proposals for Scotland, which were in the Bill that became the Scotland Act 2012. I find it staggering that they now believe that those measures, if applied to Wales, would completely deconstruct the United Kingdom.

I could travel much further on my historical journey, but I shall end it now by giving a mention to my political hero, D.J. Davies.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The House would very much like the hon. Gentleman to continue his history lesson. It was being much enjoyed.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that observation from such a distinguished Member. I do not want to bore the House too much, but I want to give a mention to D.J. Davies, who is my political hero, and who was born in the same industrial valley as me, the Amman valley. In particular, I want to mention his masterpiece, “The Economics of Welsh Self-Government”, published in 1931. In that book, he made the case that the crusade for social justice for working people and the political empowerment for Wales—my country—were intrinsically intertwined. That position continues to be central to the position of my party, and to my personal political beliefs.

The national movements in these isles and the crusade to tackle inequalities in our communities are one and the same. In ignoring the founding principles of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish political traditions—and in its inability to tackle the gaping inequalities that exist in both individual and geographical terms—the Westminster élite is directly undermining the case for a United Kingdom, and furthering the aims of national freedom in Wales and Scotland. I should add that the Irish proclamation of independence contains an explicit commitment to equality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

It is quite simple—if we start to create jobs and opportunities for people, we will reduce inequality. I would certainly not be in the position of one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who said last week:

“If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 467.]

It does not seem to matter whether we can cure poverty—Labour Members would still be against independence because they have made careers talking about it, and handsome careers at that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s call for lower tax rates. Has he now become a tartan Tory?

[Mr MacNeil]

Devil the fear, as my old Irish mother would have said, devil the fear—no chance at all. I think the hon. Gentleman will see, as he pays more attention to the words to come, that the only Tories on this side of the House are probably the red Tories.

I listed the books I mentioned earlier for a reason. We must be aware that we do not have to reinvent the wheel to get people more opportunities and chances in life. Much of the research and science has been done, and the information has been gathered. Perhaps if we stopped, looked and learned from what is around us we would stop falling into the same traps that different generations have fallen into. Why should inequality matter—why is it important? Is it merely because a number of influential professors with Nobel prizes have written books? I would contend that they have put intellectual bones on our instinctive emotions of sympathy and empathy for our fellow people when we see them in situations that disturb us and we think are wrong. This is why nations have international aid budgets and why we give to charity. Sometimes it can be argued that the money is not always best directed, but nevertheless it is useful in the main. It shows an underlying striving for fairness and is a reproach against inequality within the broad set of people.

My first engagement with the idea of inequality was in the religious education class in Craigston primary school at the age of seven or eight, or perhaps even six, with Mrs MacCormick, God bless her. Looking back, I often think that we were really doing philosophy classes rather than RE classes. The example given was this: “If you’re given a box of chocolates at home would it be best to eat them all yourself or share them with your brothers and sisters who have not been given any chocolates?” I have to say that this scenario created a tension in my mind given my great love of chocolates. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have so much a sweet tooth as a whole set of sweet teeth. I was caught in the tension between doing what was manifestly right and what I really wanted to do on another level. The consensus quickly grew in the class that it was best to share—even among six, seven or eight-year-olds. I am pleased to see you nodding in agreement, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

Let me just mention one or two other things. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has left the Chamber, but she spoke about paying down debt. In case the House has forgotten, when we came to power in 1997, there was 43% debt, and we paid down debt as we progressed over the years to 37%.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy spoke about taxation. I do not have a problem, as he has, with a 50p income tax rate, but I do have a problem with value added tax. Our colleagues in the SNP need to be absolutely clear and honest with the people of Scotland: if Scotland achieves independence on 18 September and becomes a full EU member state, the people of Scotland will be looking at VAT on food, children’s clothing, and books and newspapers. That is fact.

The SNP is very good—and I have heard this a couple of times this afternoon—at comparing other small nations with Scotland. It is keen to mention Sweden, and all too often it mentions Norway, but the problem is that they have Conservative Governments. I do not know if that is what it wants in an independent Scotland.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brown]

I would be more than delighted to do so.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that a Conservative Government for Scotland is being a little optimistic.

[Mr Brown]

I am absolutely delighted that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I have no wish to see that either.

The one thing that the SNP does not tell the people of Scotland is just how high taxation is in those countries that they are keen to mention and with which they make comparisons. It cannot run away from that.

On how the devolved Governments have operated in the UK until now and their record on increasing fairness and tackling inequality, the Welsh Labour Government, even in tough times, have worked to protect the most vulnerable in Wales from the Tory Government with Jobs Growth Wales, which will create over 16,000 jobs for young people in Wales, and the £35 million boost to the pupil deprivation grant in the next year. The same cannot be said for the SNP Government in Scotland. A recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted that cuts by the UK Government and the Scottish Government in England and Scotland have meant that the most deprived local government areas receive £100 a head less in funding. Professor Arthur Midwinter of Edinburgh university recently concluded that

“the SNP’s budget strategy adds to the austerity agenda”.

I made a similar point in an intervention, as £l billion has been removed from anti-poverty programmes since 2008. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that cuts to the most deprived areas in Scotland are greater than those for the least deprived.

On local government and the underfunding resulting from the council tax freeze in Scotland, this is a debate about fairness and equality, so let me share with the House what we have seen as a result of local government being badly underfunded. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our communities—those who need social services or who have to pay for services—have seen an increase in the cost of services or, if those services were free, charges have been introduced. That hits the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am glad, as an Englishman, finally to be allowed to enter into this debate, because the motion refers to the United Kingdom. It is a great honour to speak in this debate, because the nationalists appear to have a very clever plot, whereby they send their best and brightest people down to Westminster to make us realise how much we would miss them if they went independent. Since entering this House in 2010, I have become more and more pro-Union, simply because of the fantastic speeches we hear from nationalist Members.

Today was a model of its kind. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) gave an absolutely brilliant speech that started with the ancient history of Wales and had the House gripped by his every word. I was sorry that I could not hear the whole speech by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), as I had to go to European Committee A for a moment, but I was relieved that he was not too brief because there was so much to be said, and he was almost still speaking by the time the Committee ended.

The motion itself, however, though presented with panache and oratory, is fundamentally misplaced. It goes completely the wrong way about tackling issues of inequality because it argues fundamentally that we should all be impoverished. It is an argument that says that inequality is the important issue, not how prosperous people ought to be. It mentions the

“underlying trend of rising income inequality”

but the problem is that the point at which income inequality has been reduced has coincided with the recession. Yes, it is easy to reduce income inequality if we ruin the economy. If we make everybody poorer, we can all be poor—and perhaps happy—together. Actually, I think the British people will not be happy if they get poorer; they will be happier if they get richer. It is of no pleasure to me that during the recession, the income of the top decile of income receivers in the United Kingdom fell by 9%, and that of the bottom decile by 2.4%. Although it could be argued that the better off are making a bigger contribution than the worse off, I do not want to see anybody’s income decline. I want everybody’s income to increase, and that requires the economic policies that this Government have followed.

[Mr MacNeil]

As our state is getting wealthier and productivity is growing, does the hon. Gentleman agree that all should share in that, and that the rent seekers at the top end should not abuse their positions as CEOs or hedge fund managers and see their wealth grow by 60% to 80%, while over a decade the equivalent bottom 90% will see their wealth grow by only 17%?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is when he fails to recognise what those very wealthy people do. By and large, hedge fund managers and corporate tycoons spend their money, and if they do not spend it they save it.

[Mr MacNeil]

They spend it on wine!

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If they spent it on wine, that would help the French, rather more perhaps than the English, but that is slightly beside the point. They might spend it on whisky, which will help the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If they spend money, they create employment and economic activity, and if they save it and put it in a bank, they provide the deposits against which banks can lend. One of the great problems of the banking crisis was that the loan-to-deposit ratio went way above 100%—I think the Royal Bank of Scotland got up to 135%. It is not practical for banks to lend when they are not taking in deposits, because they then become dependent on overnight money, which can be withdrawn much more easily, and has a tendency to be withdrawn more quickly than long-term stable deposits. When the income of the wealthy is saved, it is an economic good.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that before the crash the wealthy were not saving enough of their money and were perhaps squandering it in various ways, and that one of the main reasons for the crash was that the banks did not have enough deposits from the wealthy? Surely if it had been in everybody’s hands, it would have been in the banks.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has taken one bit of what I have said and applied it incorrectly. It is uncharacteristic of him not to listen more carefully, and I will come on to the issue of spending cuts.

[Mr Bain]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Of course I will give way to a Member who represents a seat with “North East” in its title.

[Mr Bain]

What would be the hon. Gentleman’s answer to those well-known leftists in the International Monetary Fund who have published detailed research indicating that when the gap between rich and poor gets too large in an economy, it diminishes growth and therefore living standards for everyone?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The IMF is not full of well-known leftists, but it does seem to be run, by and large, by the French, who have a very different understanding of economics, an absolutely rotten economy, and are the last people from whom I would take lessons. We will not in this Chamber go into the behaviour of the previous managing director—it would shock the viewers of the Parliament channel if they were to consider how Monsieur Strauss-Kahn had behaved. Anyway, I will not be told what to do by people who cannot behave.

I want to come back to the economic benefits of the spending and saving of the wealthy. That is what provides the employment and investment that leads to economic growth, and leads to the rising of living standards for the poorest in society. That is not done by the state. The state can indeed pass money around—it can reallocate money from pot A to pot B—but that does not increase the fundamental size of the pot. It merely reallocates what is already there, whereas the expenditure, saving and investment of individuals in the private sector grows the total amount that is available and therefore leads to cascading wealth.

This is where I must come on to the specific point in the motion calling on the Government

“to halt its further spending and welfare cuts”.

The spending cuts have been essential. The Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been a model to other countries in how they have behaved. In a cross-partisan moment, I thank the Liberal Democrats for the role they have played. It must have been particularly difficult for them to take these tough decisions, having not been in government for so many generations and facing up to more serious responsibilities than parties in opposition sometimes have to deal with. I think they deserve a huge amount of credit for the support they have given to the Conservatives. Lots of economists, some of them quoted by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, were saying that it was the wrong thing to do. Even the IMF had to eat its words a year after saying that austerity was not the right thing to do. The IMF was wrong and the Government were right. Why was that?

First, when the Government came into office there was a risk that there would be a funding crisis. There was a risk that the Government would simply not be able to raise the money in the gilt market that they needed to pay for the services that the British people wished to receive. That was the first problem. The second problem was that Government expenditure and very high debt crowd out private sector activity. If the Government had not reduced spending, businesses would not have been able to have access to the capital they needed to begin the recovery. The third problem was that by taking money out of the economy, there was a general depression of economic activity as individuals and their families had less to spend throughout the economic spectrum. It was being taken out of productive capacity and used unproductively merely on a money merry-go-round of the state.

This is, again, where I like the fact that the coalition has raised the basic threshold of income tax. I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) that this should be increased. It is absolutely barmy to tax people on low incomes and then give them their own money back in benefits. Not only do we want to get it to £10,000, we want to get it to the point where people on the minimum wage are neither paying national insurance nor income tax.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is mainly making points about redistribution and I disagree with him on that. In one of the longest parts of my speech, I made a point on the living wage and the number of people who are now working poor. He mentioned the billionaires and rich people that we have in apparent abundance around the place. Should we not be seeing people at least earning a wage that means that they do not need to benefit from state welfare to top up the lack in their wages?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The wages that people are paid in this country are set on an economically competitive basis, not just against what goes on in this country but on what goes on in the rest of the world. As a nation, we need to produce goods and services that people will buy. Then, when we have profitability and successful businesses that grow, there will be money to pay people more. We want more billionaires, because billionaires spend money. Who do we think are buying all these Rolls-Royces, Bentleys and Jaguars? In Portugal, the people buying them might be quite poor, because it has a special scheme where one can win a car if one buys a cup of coffee and makes the person selling the cup of coffee promise to pay tax, but outside Portugal—in China, India, America and the United Kingdom itself—the people who buy these luxury goods are those who are well off. We need those people to provide the good jobs.

I want to move on to the dead hand of welfare, as it appears that the feeling expressed by those on the Opposition Benches—particularly by the nationalists, although Labour is not a million miles away—is that if a Government take money and dish it out that helps people. I fundamentally disagree. I do not think that it is fair that people who do not work should be better off than people who do. Indeed, I think that is wrong. I do not think that it is fair that people should be trapped in poverty by decisions that the state makes.

One of the noblest things that this Government are doing is the reform of the welfare state. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) that if people are lifted out of state dependency, they can take charge of their lives and become prosperous. They can then contribute to the overall economy. If benefits are set too high and the percentage of its withdrawal is so high that there is no incentive to work, people are trapped.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of yesterday’s report on working poverty by the Archbishop of York. It showed that most of the people in receipt of benefits are working and the efforts people are making to earn a decent wage are not having an effect because they are not being paid properly. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman again: does he support efforts to ensure that people are paid properly so that companies are not subsidised by the state? In the United States of America, one of the biggest recipients of welfare is Walmart and we have different examples in this country.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Once again, I am sorry to say that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that specific point. It is much preferable that the state should pay benefits to people who are working and being paid the economic rate for their job.

[Nia Griffith]

Will the hon. Gentleman speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the specific issue of universal credit and its acting as a disincentive, particularly for the second earner in a family?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The basic principle of universal credit, which is that everybody should be better off in employment than not in employment, is fundamentally right and reducing the withdrawal rates is possibly the most exciting thing that the Government are doing. If we go back to 1979—I promise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this will not be a history lesson—and look at the reductions in the tax rates from 98% to 80% and then to 60%, we see that on every occasion the incentive to work increased and revenue to the Government increased too. Some of the percentages for the withdrawal rates for benefits are in the 90s. If people would not work harder when taxed at 98%, surely they will not work harder when benefits are withdrawn at 90%-plus. The model follows that if the withdrawal rates are reduced, motivation to work will miraculously be improved and increased.

That benefits the whole of society and brings me to the fundamental flaw in the motion, which is that it takes the view that there is a bottomless pit of money to be spent and that we can go on spending like there is no tomorrow, ignoring the financial markets.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend find it as surprising as I do that people on the left of the political spectrum seem to want to borrow more money and therefore make us even more dependent on the banks that they pretend to dislike? Why not put up a sign saying “Borrow more money and make us more dependent on the banks” instead of calling for more state spending, as they mean the same thing?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There must be fears that if the Bank of England goes on printing money, the printing presses will eventually wear out in an inflationary burst.

There is hope from the Opposition Benches. We heard that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar supported the reduction in corporation tax in Scotland because he thought that it would produce more revenue, more business and more prosperity for Scotland. That is the vision of fairness and of reducing inequality that we should have. It is a vision in which people succeed through their own efforts rather than being trapped by the state; in which people prosper through their own efforts, rather than being held down by the state; and in which people contribute through their own efforts to the growth of the rest of society and the economy, rather than being prevented from doing so by the state and being left unproductive .

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the state as a malign influence, but does he accept that markets have their flaws and do not work properly? Influences and biases in the markets can conspire so that the CEO gets far more, in ratio with the pay at the bottom end, than at one time he used to whereas the people at the bottom end cannot even make a living wage. There are huge iniquities in the private sector and it is not all “State bad”. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the state can be good as well and there can be big problems in the private sector.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman and I are co-religionists, and if we are not careful we will start talking about original sin and the imperfectability of mankind. It is true, of course, that there is no perfect man-made system, and that would be an interesting debate for another day, but by and large the markets work better than state direction, which essentially re-circulates money that is created in the private sector. We need a flourishing private sector if we are to help people to improve their standard of living, their lives and their livelihoods, and if we are to take them out of this awful poverty trap. There is great nobility in what the Government are doing. They do not want unfairness; they want fairness for those people and families doing their bit for society, working hard and getting on, and they want to take away the clamping down, the closing down, the almost bankrupting of the country that was being done before.

For those reasons, I oppose the motion. It is fundamentally wrong-headed in all it seeks to do, and I hope the Government stick to their guns and carry on with economic and welfare policies that enable people to become better off through their own efforts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

With respect, others wish to speak, so I will move on now to specific parts of the motion.

Let me address the issue of austerity measures and why they are in place. First, there is the fact that we have accumulated too much debt. Another issue is the ripple effects of that debt crisis. As the Government deal with the overriding debt, individual families, especially those in vulnerable circumstances, are pushed to the edge and need to go to payday lenders and other high interest rate lenders to deal with the consequences of that macro-financial situation. The individual circumstances of individual households have to be taken into account.

The other issue—again, it is the legacy of what occurred in preceding years—is the way in which house prices have become detached from incomes. Shelter is running a campaign on the issue, and although it is an interesting point to raise, I think that it is about 10 years too late. In the Living Wage Commission report, to which many hon. Members have referred, there is an interesting chart—figure 1.21—which looks at the ratio of house prices to earnings for the years 1952, 1975, 1997 and 2012. For the entire period from 1952 to 1997, the ratio of house prices to income fell. In 1952, it was five times the average income, but by 1997, it was 4.1 times. In the period from 1997 to 2012, it rose from 4.1 times to 6.7 times; 100% of that increase took place in the period to 2007. If we look at the cost of living and the cost of housing—part of enabling people to own their own home, get on the property ladder and pay their rent—we see that the issue of inequality will take time to resolve, because it took us a long time to get into that mess in the first place.

The motion refers to women and relative pay. I want to draw to the attention of the House, not by way of answer but by way of contribution to the argument, the House of Commons economic indicators report for February 2014. It looks at the gender pay gap and it makes the broad point that the overall pay gap between men and women has decreased steadily from 1997, but in considering whether the gap will be perpetuated in the future, it examines the gender pay gap by age range. For women and men between 18 and 39, the pay gap oscillates between 1.4% and 0.3%. For women over 40, it oscillates between 12% and 18%, which raises a question for policy makers such as the Minister: is that issue to do with career breaks and will it persist over time, or is it the result of a fairly good news story, with younger women and younger men on average having access to the same sort of jobs and pay, so that in about 20 years’ time the differential will go down? I do not put that forward as an answer, because I do not know the answer, but as a contribution to the debate and to broaden understanding.

There have been a number of contributions about the working poor, poverty and the living wage. We have discussed raising wages from the minimum wage level to living wage levels, but too frequently that would result in a small pay increase for the individuals concerned. It is a transaction between the employer and the Government in terms of the interaction of benefits and compensation. To contradict my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who discussed the free market in wages—it is a small difference—I would argue that if in the low-pay sector Government are topping up wages to the tune of £10,000 on a £13,000 wage, which is the case for a married person with two children earning the minimum wage, the free market is far from working. There could be a strong argument, not only from the point of view of public finances but in order to have a freer market, for urging the Government to increase the pressure on companies by removing that subsidy, which is supporting labour. However, I should be interested to hear more from my hon. Friend.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is my hon. Friend aware that someone working 40 hours a week in receipt of the minimum wage would pay over £2,200 a year in tax, which must be part of the problem? I include in that employers’ national insurance.

Autumn Statement

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I would say to his constituents, and anyone else, that times have been incredibly difficult for this country because we had the deepest recession in this country’s modern history. We had a 7% fall in GDP, which makes the country poorer. I argue that the best way to help that family, and many other families, is by keeping mortgage rates low and ensuring that more and better jobs are created in the economy, and that people can work longer hours if they want to. All those things are happening because we are standing behind our businesses and have control of our public finances. We are now investing in the next generation to ensure that that family can have a brighter future.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Somerset celebrates the fact that the iron Chancellor has shown his true mettle. Following his comments about the dynamic effect on corporation tax, will he consider whether that may have an effect on other taxes, and will he look to the dynamic effects of tax cuts in future statements?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is assiduous in his observation of these matters, and he will have spotted the first step in a quiet revolution. The Treasury has produced a dynamic model for tax reduction—in this case, for corporation tax. At the moment that sits alongside the static, more orthodox, model that the Treasury has always used. That dynamic model—which we have made available and will, of course, be subject to scrutiny—shows that reductions in corporation tax not only increase investment in this country, but as a result cost less than the scorecard method we normally suggest. We certainly intend to roll out that approach, as they say, to other taxes.