PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
655 15 MAY 2013 Debate on the Address<br />
656<br />
Debate on the Address<br />
[6TH DAY]<br />
Debate resumed (Order, 14 May).<br />
Question again proposed,<br />
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as<br />
follows:<br />
Most Gracious Sovereign,<br />
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons<br />
of the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong> of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to<br />
Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has<br />
addressed to both Houses of <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Economic Growth<br />
Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected<br />
amendment (g) in the name of the Leader of the<br />
Opposition. I have also selected amendment (b) in<br />
the name of Mr John Baron and amendment (e) in the<br />
name of Mr Elfyn Llwyd for separate Divisions at the<br />
end of the debate. Those amendments may therefore be<br />
debated together with the Leader of the Opposition’s<br />
amendment. The amendments will be put in the order:<br />
(g), (b) and (e).<br />
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew<br />
Lansley): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the<br />
benefit of the House, may I ask you to set out your<br />
application of the terms of Standing Order No. 33,<br />
relating to the number of amendments to the Queen’s<br />
Speech motion that are selectable?<br />
Mr Speaker: Yes,Iamveryhappytodoso,andIam<br />
grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of<br />
order. I believe that there is a need to interpret the<br />
Standing Orders in a way that facilitates the business of<br />
the House in a developing parliamentary context.<br />
Conditions and expectations today are very different<br />
from those in October 1979, when that Standing Order<br />
was made. I must tell the House that I have studied the<br />
wording of Standing Order No. 33 very carefully. My<br />
interpretation is that the words “a further amendment”<br />
in the fifth line of the Standing Order may be read as<br />
applying to more than one amendment successively. In<br />
other words, only one amendment selected by me is<br />
being moved at any time. Once that amendment is<br />
disposed of, a further amendment may then be called. I<br />
am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—almost<br />
as grateful, I suspect, as he is to me.<br />
1.30 pm<br />
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op): I beg<br />
to move amendment (g), at end add:<br />
‘but regret that the Gracious Speech has no answer to a flatlining<br />
economy, the rising cost of living and a deficit reduction plan that<br />
has stalled, nor does it address the long-term economic challenges<br />
Britain faces; believe that the priority for the Government now<br />
should be growth and jobs and that we need reform of the<br />
European Union, not four years of economic uncertainty which<br />
legislating now for an in/out referendum in 2017 would create;<br />
call on your Government to take action now to kickstart the<br />
economy, help families with the rising cost of living, and make<br />
long-term economic reforms for the future; and call on your<br />
Government to implement the five point plan for jobs and growth,<br />
including bringing forward long-term infrastructure investment,<br />
building 100,000 affordable homes and introducing a compulsory<br />
jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed in order to create<br />
jobs and help to get the benefits bill and deficit down, legislate<br />
now for a decarbonisation target for 2030 in order to give business<br />
the certainty it needs to invest, implement the recommendations<br />
of the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Commission on Banking Standards and<br />
establish a proper British Investment Bank.’.<br />
Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. It is certainly<br />
in line with my understanding of the particular<br />
interpretation of that Standing Order, and I hope that it<br />
satisfies the Leader of the House as well.<br />
It is an honour to open the final debate on the<br />
Queen’s Speech today, and to move the amendment,<br />
which you have selected on behalf of Her Majesty’s<br />
Opposition. It is a Labour amendment that calls for<br />
decisive action and a stimulus now to kick-start the<br />
recovery, boost living standards and get the deficit<br />
down, including 100,000 affordable homes, urgent action<br />
to accelerate infrastructure investment and reforms to<br />
get young people and the long-term unemployed back<br />
to work, with a compulsory jobs guarantee.<br />
The amendment also proposes radical long-term reforms<br />
to promote economic growth and investment in<br />
manufacturing, services and our creative industries by<br />
implementing the recommendations of the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary<br />
Commission on Banking Standards, legislating now for<br />
a 2030 decarbonisation target to give businesses the<br />
certainty they need to invest here in Britain and setting<br />
up a proper British investment bank. It is a one nation<br />
Labour amendment, which stands in marked contrast<br />
to the complete and utter shambles we have seen from<br />
the Government over the past seven days since the<br />
Gracious Address—a divided coalition, out of ideas<br />
and running out of road, and a weak Prime Minister,<br />
out of touch and fast losing control of his party and his<br />
own Cabinet.<br />
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): How much<br />
more money would the shadow Chancellor need to<br />
borrow to deliver on his alternative Queen’s Speech?<br />
Ed Balls: As I said in my opening remarks and as our<br />
amendment says, we need a stimulus now. We, the<br />
International Monetary Fund, the Business Secretary<br />
and The Economist all agree that taking action now to<br />
kick-start our recovery is the right thing to do. We<br />
should borrow now to get growth moving, so that we<br />
get our deficit down.<br />
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that very<br />
question was asked of the Business Secretary on the<br />
“Today” programme just a few weeks ago. He was asked<br />
by John Humphries, “So, should you borrow more?”<br />
Guess what the Business Secretary said? He said:<br />
“Well we are already borrowing more”.<br />
That is the truth—£245 billion more. I will tell you what<br />
I want to do—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon.<br />
Gentleman’s question. I want to get the borrowing<br />
down. Under this Chancellor, the borrowing has flatlined—<br />
the same last year, this year and the year after. That is<br />
the reality.<br />
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Will the right hon.<br />
Gentleman come clean with the House: how much<br />
more would he borrow?<br />
Ed Balls: As I said, I want to see the borrowing<br />
coming down, and it is not coming down because this<br />
Chancellor has flatlined the economy. We have had<br />
almost no growth since 2010 and the result is that he is<br />
borrowing £245 billion more.