Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Neil Carmichael

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I did say that, but let me be clear: I think that Laura Kuenssberg was the first person after I spoke to raise the issue outside. The Government have always been clear, as I said on Wednesday evening and on Thursday, many times, and the Prime Minister said on Thursday evening, that we have always regarded the legislated tax locks as being the commitment we were working to. Our whole approach in the Treasury—all the work we do—is based around the tax locks that are in place. I accept, however, that there is a gap between the specific tax locks that were legislated and the wording that was used in the manifesto. We have today accepted that the more expansive interpretation should be the one that prevails, and that is why I have made the statement that I have.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I certainly welcome this statement because it underlines very strongly the case for fairness and also salutes the important work that self-employed people do. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that if we enter a period of turbulence for whatever reason, it is fundamentally necessary to have a strong fiscal basis, and that is what he is achieving through acting in this way?

[Mr Hammond]

As I said in the Budget speech and previously in the autumn statement, we are seeking to do three things: to keep Britain on track for balancing the budget as early as possible in the next Parliament through fiscal discipline; to invest in Britain’s future to raise our productivity and ensure a decent standard of living for everybody across this country, on which we made further steps in this Budget by investing in skills; and to ensure that we have enough fiscal headroom in our fiscal position to allow for any events that arise over the coming years. We need the ability to manoeuvre as we go through what will be a period of unusual uncertainty in the planning of our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We will continue to invest in our economy, and the distribution of that investment will be in accordance with the Government’s priorities. The hon. Lady should look at the industrial strategy paper that we have published and at statements the Government have made, including on the national productivity investment fund we announced in the autumn. We are committed to infrastructure development in all the regions of the UK. It is a key element of our productivity agenda.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

23. In order to support infrastructure investment effectively, we will need to upskill our workforce to deliver the projects we need, especially hi-tech projects. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that we need investment in the post-16 arena quite quickly to ensure we fill that skills pipeline?

[Mr Hammond]

I will take that as a Budget representation, and yes I do agree with my hon. Friend. We set out in the autumn statement how we would increase investment in infrastructure. That is one of the challenges we face in raising this country’s productivity. Skills is another.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I think the answer to that is yes.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

T2. How does the strategic defence spending review provide the Foreign Office with new tools to deal with the situation in Syria, particularly relating to wider strategy and co-ordination?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

T5. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the best way of bringing a long-term solution to the migration crisis is to work with our partners to ensure good governance and economic growth in the middle east?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Yes. Not only in the middle east but in all countries of origin, the long-term solution is to improve conditions and seek stability, security, good governance, the rule of law and economic growth.