---

Policy for Growth

Absolutely. The green investment bank will be critical to the transition that we need, but it absolutely has to be a real bank, not just a fund in the Treasury with ““bank”” attached to it. It has to be a genuine bank that can lend money, raise money, raise bonds and so forth. Dropping the GDP target is not anti-jobs; it would allow us as a country to develop the measures and targets that reflect the immense complexity of our economy and society and put people's well-being at the heart of policy making. Many people talk of ““sustainable growth””, but we should unpack that phrase, because it is clear that on a planet with finite resources, the infinite production and consumption of natural resources simply is not possible. Efficiency gains will help, and technology will need to play a vital role, but there is a very real risk that with a rising population and understandably rising expectations from a growing middle class throughout the world, those efficiency and technology gains will be undermined by overall growth. Behaviour change will therefore have to be a part of truly sustainable development, but that does not mean a less fulfilling quality of life. To the contrary, it is far more likely to lead to a better quality of life. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that although GDP growth has more than doubled in the past 30 years, our well-being and happiness have not. They have either stayed the same or, according to some indicators, even declined. Finally, I commend to the House the report from the Sustainable Development Commission, called ““Prosperity without growth?””, by Professor Tim Jackson, which explores those issues clearly and makes the case that countries such as France, and even President Sarkozy, are beginning to look at those issues carefully. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for raising this important question, and I hope that we can deal more critically with the idea of green growth.