Exiting the EU: Costs

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that considerable work is taking place across Government, but it would be wrong to cut across our negotiators in the deal they are seeking to strike. It is in our country’s interests to reach the point where we are talking about our long-term economic relationship with the European Union.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend should not pay more than we owe, but she should be confident that, whatever that is, it is a bargain against the cost of staying in.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Were we to stay in, the costs would be considerably higher than any amount we are talking about as part of our negotiations.

Budget Resolutions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I hope to find an early opportunity to speak out on what is the right level of defence spending to meet the threats that our country faces, and to do so more freely than the constraints of government allowed, but today I want to focus on the Budget before us. It is the first Budget of this Brexit Parliament, and I warmly welcome it.

It is extraordinary that we still have no answers from Labour Front Benchers on the amount of additional borrowing they would undergo, or indeed, 24 hours later, on the amount of additional interest that they are prepared to rack up. Those are legitimate questions. This is not trite journalism. A shadow Chancellor should be able to tell the House exactly how much more he would be spending and borrowing.

I particularly welcome the additional money for the national health service and the measures for long-term investment in our infrastructure, but that long-term investment will need to be accompanied by other and deeper structural reforms. How can we be encouraged to save again rather than to spend on credit? How can we reverse some of the more pernicious side-effects of quantitative easing, which seem to benefit those who already hold significant assets?

The fall in unemployment has probably been the greatest single achievement since 2010. Unemployment has fallen not because of one single policy, but because of the cumulative reductions in taxation and regulation that have taken place over the last seven years, almost every one of which was opposed by Labour Members. The 5 million small businesses and nearly 5 million self-employed people are the real wealth creators. They are the people who work every hour that God sends, and who invest—and risk—their own money to create, in turn, the tax revenue that funds our public services. I hope that, over the current Parliament, we will continue to cut the form-filling and let them keep more of what they earn.

There are four areas in which I hope we can make even more progress. The first is low-paid work. No Government have done more for the low-paid than this Government, who have introduced the national living wage and taken so many more people out of tax altogether, but we need to keep going. Is it logical to go on raising the personal allowance but not the national insurance threshold? A full-time worker on the national living wage pays almost as much in national insurance as in income tax. Those who are working part-time—for example, 25 hours a week—and earning between £8,000 and £11,000 a year miss out as we raise the thresholds. I hope that Ministers will look at that again.

Secondly, I particularly welcome the steps to tax the global digital companies more effectively.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the leadership of the Government of which he was a part in driving that particular agenda internationally?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I certainly recognise that, and it is important for these matters to be approached internationally.

Our constituents do, of course, benefit from the greater convenience and efficiency that digital retailers provide, but it cannot be right for our high streets, small shops and local businesses to bear all the pain of local rates while giants such as Amazon pay rates on a handful of warehouses. Their staff, too—Amazon staff, Google staff and Facebook staff—need well-funded schools, good local services and a proper NHS. It is right that they should pay their proper share of local and national taxes, and I applaud the steps that the Chancellor is taking down that path. One nation should mean one economy, for large and small businesses alike.

Thirdly, if we want to be one economy, more of our people should have a stake in it. In the year when Margaret Thatcher left office, 11 million adults in our country held shares. Today, although the population is significantly larger, only 8 million do so: a quarter fewer. When I privatised Royal Mail, I offered free shares to each of its 150,000 employees. Despite union advice—or possibly because of union advice—99% of the employees took up the offer. We deliberately skewed it towards small investors, and, as a result, 20% of Royal Mail is now owned by its staff and by small investors.

That is what we should be doing with all our remaining shareholdings, including the banks and the new social enterprises, and we should go further. Employee-owned companies are more productive and more profitable. Is not higher productivity the golden fleece for which Ministers keep searching? We need not just one John Lewis Partnership, but 1,000 John Lewis Partnerships across our economy. Existing schemes such as Sharesave and share incentive plans are not increasing the number of share ownership companies.

Budget Resolutions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

That is absolutely right. Merseyside police will have suffered cuts of £183 million by 2021 and is 1,000 officers and 700 support staff down. It is little wonder that crime levels are now the highest in a decade. Madam Deputy Speaker, I could go on, but I think you get the point. Austerity has exacted a brutal cost from the most vulnerable.

This Budget takes place against a backdrop of unparalleled uncertainty and danger for our country because this Government are paralysed by their own disagreements over Brexit. They are unable to resolve their own internal contradictions around the Cabinet table, let alone chart the path to a successful conclusion of the article 50 negotiations in Brussels. We have a Prime Minister who puts the interests of her party above those of her country, and half of the Tory party would rather that we crashed out of the EU without any deal than stay in a moment longer.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not acknowledge that preparing for no deal is an essential ingredient of securing a good deal? Has she ever bought a second-hand car? Did she go in and tell the salesman that she had to leave with a car and yet expect a discount?

[Ms Eagle]

I would certainly buy a second-hand car from the right hon. Gentleman.

The Chancellor, who is regarded with the utmost suspicion by the Brextremists on his own side, was warned at the weekend that he had to produce a game-changer of a Budget or his career would be over. They want rid of him because they do not think he is Eurosceptic enough. The Prime Minister has already shown her faith in him by making him disappear for the entire recent general election campaign. After his outing on the Sunday politics shows at the weekend, when he claimed that no one in Britain was unemployed, we can see what they are worried about. It is no wonder that he declined to get in the driverless car that they were going to put him in for a pre-Budget high-tech photo-op.

The Conservative party is responsible for the slowest recovery from recession since the Napoleonic wars and the largest squeeze on living standards since Victorian times, and it is presiding over record levels of wealth inequality. That is not a record to be proud of. The Budget has done nothing to address those abject and fundamental failures. Since the crash, GDP per head has increased by just 2.4%. During the 1990s recession, the comparable figure was 21%. Meanwhile, driven by the significant decline in the value of the pound after the referendum vote, UK inflation rose to 3% in September, which is double the rate in the eurozone. Growth in the UK is anaemic by historical trends and is on a downwards path, as shown by the OBR today.

In real terms, wages are lower now than they were in 2010, and the living standards squeeze has returned as prices are outstripping wage increases once more. The public sector has seen a decade of falling wages, which is causing real hardship. The TUC has calculated that, as a result of the public sector pay freeze, paramedics and NHS dieticians are £3,800 a year worse off since 2010, firefighters are £2,900 a year worse off, and Crown prosecutors in our courts are £4,400 a year worse off. The TUC’s polling shows that 15% of staff in our public services have skipped meals in order to make ends meet.

Meanwhile, in Tory Britain, workers are not only struggling with stagnant or falling pay levels; they are also experiencing a huge increase in job insecurity. One in 10 of the workforce—3.2 million people—now face insecurity at work, including: 800,000 on zero-hours contracts; 760,000 on non-standard forms of temporary working, including agency and casual work; and 1.7 million in low-paid self-employment, earning below the Government’s modest so-called living wage.

It is little wonder, then, that tax receipts are falling as employers take advantage of tax structures that incentivise less secure forms of employment. It is little wonder that Bank of England figures show that household levels of unsecured consumer debt are rising at their fastest rate since the global financial crash—up by over 10% last year and now higher than they were in 2008. The Budget contained nothing to address any of those important concerns.

However, there are a few people who are doing really well out of the current system. Pay ratios between FTSE 100 CEOs and the rest continue to widen. They are now paid a staggering 160 times more than the average worker. That means they made more money by the first Wednesday of 2017 than the average worker could earn all year. Some 5% of households now own 40% of all the wealth in Britain. Is that really the kind of society we wish to create?

Boosting productivity is the key to economic growth and pay increases, yet over the past decade the UK’s productivity performance has been the worst of all G7 countries. Since 2010 the Government’s failure to invest in infrastructure and in skills has seen our productivity flatlining so that we are now 15% lower than the G7 average. So bad has been this Government’s record on productivity that the OBR has revised down its assumptions about future growth from productivity gains. The UK has the lowest level of investment in the G7. Driven by the Government’s failure to invest, business investment has grown slowly over the past 10 years—by only 5%. That is nowhere near enough to retool our economy and make it fit for the future. Addressing that problem must be at the heart of any Government’s industrial strategy.

This Budget might have been the time when the Chancellor decided to tackle the regional disparity in economic performance, when he took the opportunity to invest in our infrastructure and skills base, and when he finally gave Britain the pay rise it so badly needs. But he did not. This is a Budget of missed opportunities. Once more there is nothing on social care. It is a bits and pieces Budget that fails to rise to the huge challenges that this country faces.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), but her speech shows that the Labour party has learnt nothing about how to run a successful modern economy. The Chancellor referred in his speech to the Labour party increasing our national debt by £500 billion. The easiest thing in the world is to spend more and borrow more, which is precisely the situation the Labour party left us in back in 2010, which is why we have had to have austerity Budgets over the past few years.

Indeed, I recently went to a lunch and met a director of one of our major banks—[Interruption.] Opposition Members ought to listen to this. He said, “Our focus of attention has changed from Brexit. We will cope with whatever politicians throw at us with Brexit, but our focus of attention has changed to political risk: the risk of a Labour Government ruining the economy.”

In contrast, what we saw today was a prudent Budget from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has said, it was a fiscal loosening Budget, but at the same time we have been able to stabilise our national debt and put more money into our public services, particularly the NHS and education, and into infrastructure, and we have been able to deal with some of the tax evasion. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, so I was particularly pleased to see that its recommendations on VAT fraud have been taken up. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for their hard work on that.

The recent Government White Paper on housing said that the UK needs to build 250,000 new houses a year. It certainly does, because if one asks the teachers or nurses in the Cotswolds where they live, nine times out of 10 they will say that they do not live in the Cotswolds, and that also applies in other areas of high house prices. Anything that can be done to stabilise the housing market and produce more housing for lower-paid people must be a good thing.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

In my parliamentary division, the difficulty is that private builders will not address that proportion of the market where the need is greatest: the bottom and the mid-market. Equally, such is the increase in supply that is required to drive down the price, it is questionable as to whether it would be in the interests of independent builders to secure such a reduction in price. The greatest increase in the market was achieved through public sector building; does my hon. Friend see that as a possibility?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The need to build more houses is about providing houses for those who cannot afford to buy and get on the housing ladder. There are lots of ways to do that in the affordable housing sector, such as affordable rent-to-buy, staircasing and many other methods. That is what we need to pay attention to. I shall say something about the planning system in a moment.

The structure of house ownership has changed in the past 10 years, in which the number of under-45s who own their own homes has dropped by a million. That is something we need to address, so I find it extraordinary that Labour Members should be carping about the welcome announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the stamp duty exemption for first-time buyers for homes under £300,000, with a £500,000 limit in London. They carp about it as if it is somehow going to increase the market for first-time buyers, but the cut in stamp duty is likely to way exceed any consequential increase in house prices, so we should welcome it.

We should also welcome the measures the Government are introducing to build more houses, particularly the use of new town development corporations, which were used successfully by the Conservative Government in the 1980s to create whole new towns such as Milton Keynes. The legislation is still on the statute book. The corporations are partnerships formed among the Government, local authorities, the private sector and the social housing sector to build more houses. They worked in the 1980s and we should use them again, and we should make sure that new town development corporations are able to access more land.

I have two suggestions as to how we should alter the planning system. First, we need to alter the material-start system so that when builders get planning permission it is in all cases for only three years. Secondly, they should always have to build out a site in its entirety for services. That would stop house builders from sitting on land—land banking—for an unacceptable period and put an end to the practice of house builders using a vacant site as a bargaining tool to gain planning permission on other sites. Those would be important improvements.

The hon. Member for Wallasey touched on the Brexit divorce bill—the biggest liability this country faces for the next few years. It has been rumoured that we are going to pay £38 billion, which of course includes our obligations for things such as outstanding budget contributions, financial programmes, agriculture, overseas aid, pensions liabilities and decommissioning liabilities. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) so rightly said, in a negotiation for a second-hand car, one does not go in and pay an excessive price; the clever negotiator pays the right price—the minimum price that they can get away with. That is what we ought to do with the EU. To put it into perspective, is not just about that £38 billion; it is about our promise of two years of payments after we leave, which is an additional £8 billion a year or £16 billion in total. That takes us up to some £54 billion, which is more than our entire transport budget and almost as much as our entire defence budget. That is what we have to think about with regard to those very large figures.

In 1945 the USA loaned us £2.2 billion—£87 billion in today’s money—as war reparations, and it took us more than 50 years to pay it off. I hope at the very least that we will do two things with this payment, if we actually agree it with the EU. First, it should be paid over a significant number of years. Secondly, it should be linked to our ability to earn money from it—that is, through a trade deal and other deals, which will help us earn and pay it off.

Technology is really important if this country is to remain competitive with our foreign competitors and our productivity is to increase. Thankfully, this country has experienced huge growth in digital innovation. However, we have a shortfall of about 40,000 people with the necessary skills in science, technology, engineering and maths to meet the demands of our economy. My hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation is present. I am delighted to learn that maths is now the most popular subject in our schools, and I am delighted with the extra money to encourage even more children to take maths at A-level. I am glad that the Chancellor announced that our national infrastructure fund will rise from £23 billion to £33 billion, and I am delighted that the main R and D tax credit to enable our firms to invest in even more infrastructure will be maintained. The Chancellor said that a new high-tech company emerges every hour, which is an amazing figure, and that he wants to cut it to every half an hour.

On education, I was pleased to learn earlier this year, having led a long campaign, that primary and secondary school funding will be maintained so that every child in this country gets a budget that increases in real terms every year, and that the secondary school budget would move up to £4,800 per pupil by 2020, which will begin to eliminate the gap between the lowest funded authorities, such as mine in the f40, and the highest funded authorities such as those in the middle of London. Our commitment to spending the extra £1.3 billion that we announced in our election manifesto has given the Cotswold School £450,000 more than it would have got under the old proposals. That is a welcome boost.

The Chancellor had a very welcome announcement for small businesses. There are 5.5 million small businesses in this country and, as he made clear, they are the engine of jobs and growth, so we need to make sure that they prosper. I welcome the fact that, contrary to the leaks about the Budget—thank goodness that leaks are often wrong—we are not going to reduce the VAT threshold, because that would not only introduce more bureaucracy for small businesses, but bring them within the making business digital threshold, which would, at a stroke, introduce even more bureaucracy for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), although I fear that my speech will take a slightly different view. I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register.

The Chancellor faced a pretty difficult task today—he was said to be between a rock and a hard place—but this is a sensible and pragmatic Budget. I think he will be well content with that analysis.

I want to start with the midlands, because I represent part of that area. We are very pleased that we now have the second devolution deal. The support for the automobile industry—for driverless and electric cars—is enormously important. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, how much that matters in the west midlands. The midlands is at the centre of this industry. We are leaders in technology, design and production internationally. We very much welcome that support, more of which I think is to be announced later this week.

The £200 million that we receive for cleaning up brownfield land is now being spent, thanks to the vigour and effort of Andy Street, our Mayor. He is doing a very good job. I hope the Treasury will consider providing more funding when that £200 million has been used. The importance of spending money on cleaning up brownfield land is immense, because it means that we do not have to build on the green belt. We should only ever do that as a last resort. We in the west midlands are delighted that we are to be part of a national pilot of Housing First, which is a particular priority of our Mayor, Andy Street. The pilot will allow us decisively to address rough sleeping across the west midlands, and we are determined to do so.

I express my gratitude to the Government for the announcement that resources will be made available for the children’s emergency medicine and paediatric care centre at Birmingham Children’s Hospital. Many of us have campaigned for that, and the news is excellent.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

If I may, I will take my right hon. Friend back to housing for a moment. Does he agree that the Budget needs to be seen in the round with other Government announcements, particularly the opportunities in the White Paper for local authorities to build once again?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend makes his point exceedingly eloquently.

I want to underline to the House the fact that free enterprise and open markets have been, and continue to be, the greatest engines of social and economic advancement known to man. We need to stand up for those things more than we have done recently, against the opposing views espoused by the shadow Chancellor and, indeed, by large numbers of young people who were not around to learn some of the pretty basic economic truths that many of us learned in the 1970s and ’80s.

Having said that, capitalism has always required Governments and regulators to set boundaries to human activity and, inevitably, human greed, and that point chimes in very well with the activist views that our Prime Minister has expressed since she took up the job. I want to point briefly to three areas in which I think such regulation of capitalism is of the greatest importance. The first, which we have debated in the House, concerns open ownership registers, particularly for the British overseas territories. That was an initiative of the Cameron Government. We in Britain have imposed such transparency on ourselves, and we need to do so for the overseas territories. Many in this House care deeply about the matter, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). It is important that the Treasury recognises that point in the Finance Bill, and I very much hope that it will do so.

Energy prices are the second area in which regulation is important. The Government are absolutely right to pursue that, because the current monopolistic situation works against the interests of consumers. The right way to deal with it is by regulation rather than by nationalisation, which is entirely unnecessary because of the regulatory regime.

Other Members have mentioned the third area in which regulation is required, but I will make the point again. A recent study of the annual reports of FTSE 100 companies shows that average pay for chief executives rose from £5 million a head in 2014 to £5.5 million in 2015. I find it offensive and totally unjustifiable that that is 140 times the average salary of their employees. It is noteworthy that only a quarter of FTSE 100 companies pay the voluntary living wage to their employees. The scale of that inequality, which is vastly greater than it was, gives capitalism a bad name. At a time when inequality more generally has fallen, with income inequality at its lowest rate for 30 years, this is something that the Government need to address through regulation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am always very open to receiving from colleagues around the House ideas for specifically targeted taxes. If my hon. Friend has such an idea I would be very pleased to receive it.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

As we look ahead to the GDP figures out tomorrow and to the Budget in a month’s time, my focus is on the three key challenges we need to meet as we seek to build an economy that works for everyone: first, protecting the economy by managing short-term uncertainty; secondly, achieving a good Brexit outcome; and, thirdly, addressing the longer term productivity challenge to ensure that real wages, and thus living standards, can continue to rise. Everything my Department does will be focused towards those three objectives.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

What revenue has the privatisation programme raised and what would be the cost of nationalising the utilities?

[Mr Hammond]

I refer my right hon. Friend to the analysis of the Opposition party’s proposals, if we can call them that, done by the Conservative party at the time of the general election. The Government’s policy is to sell assets when there is no longer a policy reason to retain them and to reinvest the proceeds of such sales in policy priorities. Nationalising assets would increase public sector net debt, which would increase our debt interest bill and divert public spending away from more valuable areas. It would also mean that the future investment needs of any nationalised industries would have to compete for capital with our public services.

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Government’s acceptance in full of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in relation to its maladministration with regard to Equitable Life; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been had maladministration not occurred; further notes that the overwhelming majority of victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses directly attributed to regulatory failures; regrets that the Government made no further funding available in the Spring Budget 2017; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation to victims of the scandal as the economy continues to recover.

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the co-Chair of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders.

This saga has been going on for more than 25 years. There have been debates in this House on many occasions. I am delighted the Government took action as early as 2010 to provide compensation for the victims of this scandal. This is a unique scandal, and there are three sets of individuals involved. For the benefit of all Members, I will in due course briefly go through the issues faced by those three sets of people.

It is clear that this is a unique case. When I stood for election in 2010, individual candidates made relatively few promises and pledges, but one of the pledges I made was to seek full compensation for Equitable Life policyholders, and I can assure those affected that I and my colleagues will continue this fight until every policyholder has received the full compensation they are due.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Given the failure of the regulator to identify, let alone expose, the problem, what information was in the public domain that a savvy investor could have taken into account and that might have alarmed him?

[Bob Blackman]

That intervention goes to the heart of the matter. The reality is that people who were investing their life savings in pension schemes, from the time when it was possible to take out personal pensions, were persuaded by unscrupulous Equitable Life salespeople to transfer those life savings—their hard-earned money—into a Ponzi-like scheme. They were promised bonuses that were unachievable, and the regulator knew they were unachievable. All was well while enough money was coming in, but eventually, as we know, the money coming in was insufficient to pay the bonuses expected, and disaster loomed. The key point, as my right hon. Friend points out, is that there was no information in the public domain, and individuals could not have known that they would be affected, but they were none the less. The regulator, who should have been overseeing this, knew what was going on, and the Treasury knew what was going on, but no one took any action. This was hidden because the cost of collapse to the public purse was so immense that this could not be allowed to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), both of whom deserve great credit for the work they have done. My hon. Friend also deserves credit for securing the debate. I would call both of them friends outside this Chamber. They have worked tirelessly on this issue.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East just said, the vast bulk of Equitable Life losers were modest people who had bought in to what successive Governments of all parties had told them was the right thing to do. They were told to save for their retirement, to put something aside, and that they would benefit thereafter. Why did they lose because of catastrophic errors by the company and a catastrophic error of regulation? The Government create the regulator and the regulatory system. The Government, ultimately, must bear the responsibility for that failure. I do not mean that in a partisan sense, but morally they must be prepared to do so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I have hitherto resisted the case for full compensation on the basis of two arguments. One of them was that if the returns were too good to be true, investors ought to have spotted that. However, I have begun to wonder whether that argument is sustainable, because if the benefits were too good to be true, the regulator should have spotted it. This is a regulated market in which ordinary investors ought to have had confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to those who secured the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the victims of the Equitable Life failure.

Equitable Life policyholders have been failed by three bodies. They were failed, first, by the life insurance scheme in which they invested; secondly, by the regulator; and thirdly, by the Government, who have not done enough, although I acknowledge that this Government and the previous Government moved to do something. The point of the debate is that they have a duty to do more for moral reasons, as other hon. Members have said. They should also do more, again as others, particularly the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), have said, in order to underwrite confidence in the financial sector throughout the United Kingdom.

In Edinburgh South West, the financial sector is extremely important. Many of my constituents work in it, and Edinburgh has the second largest financial sector in the UK outwith London. However, quite a number of my constituents are victims of the collapse of Equitable Life and I want to say a little about the personal experiences of two or three.

Others have already dealt more eloquently than I can with the nub of the issue. Basically, it is the shortfall: the difference between the amount in the scheme that the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), created—£1.5 billion—and the total loss, which he admitted was £4.1 billion. There was therefore a difference of £2.6 billion. In the great scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money, especially when we consider it against the principles that should govern such a situation.

The Government initially attempted to exclude all those who took out schemes before 1992. That would have excluded some of the oldest, most vulnerable, and most incapable of making their voice heard. The Government’s sticking plaster on compensation for the pre-1992 scheme holders—an extra £50 million—does not cover the full amounts lost and continues the unfairness to those least likely to be able to continue the fight against the injustice. The Government’s choice—it is a choice; every Government have to choose their priorities—not to compensate fully those who are unlikely to live long enough to provide the sustained pressure necessary to reverse the decision is most unfortunate.

This is not the first time that the Government have failed on compensation or regulation. Like other hon. Members, I have been present in the Chamber for the debate on the losses of investors in the Connaught Income Fund. I have constituents who suffered as a result of that. Of course, there is also the ongoing issue of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Those women invested in their future according to the rules that they understood to apply at the time. During the debate, I have received messages from WASPI women, reminding me to mention them and emphasising that they have suffered a similar injustice to those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life.

I want to say something about the effect on three of my constituents. I will not name them for reasons of personal privacy. I will call them Mr A, Mr B and Mr C. Mr A started to run his own business in his 40s and at that time, he took out three personal pensions with Equitable Life, two for him and one for his wife, who was a partner in the business. When Equitable Life was unable to deliver what it had promised, Mr A and his wife lost their guaranteed annuity rates as the company tried to avoid liquidation. That meant that they were getting only 50% of the rate that the company had guaranteed them. When the coalition Government announced their planned compensation scheme, Mr A expected to be reimbursed to a degree that would at least allow him to lead the sort of life in his old age that he had hoped for when he took the schemes out in the 1980s. However, when he was compensated, he realised he had received only about 4% of the money owed to him. His appeal was successful and was upheld by the independent panel, but the recalculation has never been carried out, despite the strenuous efforts of my predecessor, the previous Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South West.

Mr A still does not have the 50% compensation that he expected to receive, which means that he and his wife have very much had to lower their expectations of old age, and have had to use the equity release scheme to release funds on their home to help them to manage. They would never have expected to have to do that, and indeed had planned against doing so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

The second argument I have used to resist full compensation is that we would be requiring taxpayers, many of whom would never have been able to afford such investments, to compensate the annuitants—I accept that the annuitants were also taxpayers. However, the evidence about the modesty of so many annuitants has affected the argument. Equally, I wonder whether it is sustainable to subject justice to a means test.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously thought this through carefully. The conclusions he has come to with his first concern, and the conclusions he is moving towards with his second concern, are very wise. As another hon. Member pointed out, the purpose of having a regulator is to spot when what is promised is not realistic. In a democracy such as ours, with checks and balances and regulators, ordinary investors are entitled to assume that the regulator would say, “This is nonsense and dangerous”, even when a well respected and reputable company had made those promises—these were not fly-by-night investments as far as my constituents were concerned, but investments in a very old and well respected company.

Mr B is quite elderly—he is in his 80s now—and his memory is fading a bit. He was a shopkeeper, which is just the kind of small businessman and entrepreneur that the Conservative Government purport to support. The Scottish National party, too, very much encourages entrepreneurialism and small business—it is in the interests of all of us to encourage entrepreneurialism.

Mr B took out his Equitable Life policy about 40 years ago and has suffered hugely. He told me that, whenever he thinks about what has happened to him and the losses he has sustained, he finds it very hard to describe the pain it makes him feel. He ran a shop in an area of Edinburgh where a lot of his customers were professional people who had also invested in the scheme and told him it was a good thing. He proceeded with all due caution.

Mr B has told people in my office that he is not looking for very much. He wants his rights and his reasonable expectations to be respected. He wanted me to make it very clear today that the current under-compensation underlines his belief that the ideas of trust and bond, which he says used to be so important to investment, seem to have no place in the modern world of financial transactions. It is unfortunate that an elderly gentleman such as Mr B, who has worked so hard all his life in his own business, should have reached that conclusion. He is anxious that, at this stage, late on in his life, if he is unable to pay the debts that the Equitable scheme should have covered for him, he will lose his house—the home where he lives.

The losses of Mr C, another constituent, are substantial —he told me that he believes his losses to be upwards of £200,000. Mr C was a shopkeeper too. He believes that, as he is getting very old, any year could be his last, and that time is quickly running out to find the justice he deserves.

I am making a heartfelt plea to the Minister on behalf of constituents such as Mr A, Mr B and Mr C to look at this again. I wrote to the Chancellor in advance of the last Budget. The Minister was generous in his reply and dealt with matters in detail. I realise that, to a certain extent, his hands are tied, but I make a plea to him to go to the Chancellor to revisit this issue, so that the compensation payments—I use the word “compensation” loosely, as we have discussed—can be considerably increased for all our constituents, but particularly for gentlemen and women in the position of Mr A, Mr B and Mr C. To echo what others have said, it is the right thing to do and the moral thing to do, but it is also in all our interests, because it would increase and underline confidence in the financial sector, which is so important to the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

First, I should like to associate myself with all the comments that Members have made about the dreadful events that occurred yesterday. I send my condolences to the families of those who died and I wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured.

This has been an incredibly thoughtful and considered debate on both sides of the House. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing this subject before us today. He has devoted a huge amount of time and commitment to this issue over the years. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) have pursued it doggedly, and I would like to thank them for that. The hon. Member for Harrow East set out the situation clearly today. Words such as “scandal” and “confidence” have been thrown in during interventions, and they sum up the issue for many people. I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the landscape for us today.

I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, who said that there was a moral duty to compensate the hundreds of thousands of people who have been affected over the years. He said that this was a moral issue and a question of trust in the state, and I think that that resonates with many of us. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) reminded us that people had been encouraged to save, and that that was the right thing to do. He said that they should not be dis-benefited as a result of that now. He also talked about the catastrophic regulatory and company errors that were made—I shall say more about that later—and about the alarm bells that were ringing. He said that the Government’s providing the necessary resource would be a gesture of confidence for the public.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) also raised the issue of the failures in the system, and said that the unfairness was continuing. She spoke movingly about her constituents’ experiences, and about the trust that people must have in the system. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) talked about equity, and I think that he probably meant equity not only with only a big E but a small one. He said that the regulations should not only be carried out but be seen to be carried out. He also talked about confidence and trust in the system, and the question of long-term security through confidence in the regulatory process.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It is alleged that when Gordon Brown was put under pressure by members of his own party in the early 2000s to compensate the policyholders, he retorted, “These aren’t our people.” Whether that is true or not, would the hon. Gentleman accept that they are very much his people, as indeed they are ours as well?

[Peter Dowd]

I have no doubt whatever that these people are all our people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about cross-party support and about the appropriate action that the Government need to take. He said that policyholders were still being short-changed. He, too, talked about the restoration of trust and confidence in the system, and referred to the WASPI women. He said that the erosion of confidence could cost more in the long run, and that justice delayed was justice denied. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) talked about her now elderly constituents who are in distress, and about the failed and toothless regulatory system. That saga cannot continue. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about his constituency and looked to the Minister for solutions, saying that people are justified in their pursuance of full compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

I was going to cover the issue of Icelandic banks later, as might be expected, but there is a big difference between the two. Those ex gratia payments were different from the Equitable Life scheme in that the Government expected to recover, and indeed did recover, all the money paid to UK depositors as the banks were wound up. It is not fair to compare the two.

I will now address some of the specific issues that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said that the payments were not transparent. Transparency is one of the core principles of the scheme, and the methodology of calculation was published in full along with a simplified explanation for the layperson. I am also aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury has met EMAG to discuss the matter and found there to be no errors.

My hon. Friend sensibly asked why the Government cannot commit to paying Equitable Life policyholders in full when the economy has fully recovered and the debt starts shrinking, and it is right that the Government balance the needs of affected policyholders against those of taxpayers, and of public service users more generally. The Government have to tackle a debt of nearly £1.7 trillion, or almost £62,000 for every household in this country, which is a salient point. He also said that the cost of paying the pre-1992 annuitants would be less than £100 million. No assessment has been made of the pre-92 losses, but the Government recognised the hardship faced by the group so paid lump sums of up to £10,000, at a cost of around £50 million. That was new money over and above the original £1.5 billion.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), mentioned the failure of regulation and the need to stand behind any failure in a financial services group. It is fair to say that this Government, and the coalition Government before us, have fundamentally reformed financial regulation, including, importantly, through the expansion of the financial services compensation scheme.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East, who has moved places and is confusing me only very slightly, said it was unfair that we excluded pre-92 policyholders. I have every sympathy with the position such policyholders find themselves in during retirement, but the policies commenced before any maladministration could have affected investment decisions. Pre-92 policyholders have instead been affected by falling comparative annuity rates in the light of the issues at Equitable Life. I have already referred to the ex gratia payments of £5,000, or £10,000 for those in receipt of pension credit, that were made in December 2013.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said that the Government have not done enough—a point also made by others. I sympathise with the plight of her constituents. I am glad she recognises that the coalition Government did more to address the issue than any Government who preceded them. She asked about the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he was clear in his spring Budget that the scheme is closed and no more money is forthcoming.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made some eloquent points about regulation. I agree that trust is vital, and I am proud of the reforms made to the regulatory system. Many people say we have too many regulations; I always think that financial services are there for everyone so it is important that we provide an appropriate level of protection for everyone, big or small.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) suggested that the Government had ignored the ombudsman’s recommendations. The ombudsman’s report was the foundation of the payment scheme. As I said, the ombudsman subsequently wrote to the all-party group. Whether or not we agree about the term “incompatible”, the ombudsman said that the Government’s decisions on affordability and eligibility cannot be said to be incompatible with her report. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the 2010 manifesto. It is worth saying that payments were fair to both the taxpayer and policyholders, with the most vulnerable groups receiving 100% of their losses. The whole scheme is based on the ombudsman’s report.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I hate to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but I wish to take him back to my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the regulator’s failure to identify problems. My hon. Friend said in response that the Treasury itself was aware of Equitable Life’s problems long before they emerged; does the Minister know whether that is true?

[Simon Kirby]

It is fair to say that there were a lot of issues and that a lot of things were done that we would do differently today. All that was taken into account in the vast number of reports and inquiries, and is now represented in a fair and equitable scheme for payments.

Connaught was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. As I understand it, I will be meeting her in the very near future to discuss that issue, and I am very pleased to do so. The matter is currently being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his understanding. He made a very thoughtful contribution in which he mentioned children. I say to him that we must be careful to strike the right balance and that we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with unfair levels of debt. It is about making sure that those people affected receive a fair amount.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) set out cases in which constituents have a reduced annuity in their retirement. I have a great deal of sympathy with them, as I know the difficulties that a reduced income in retirement causes. The Government recognised that, which is why annuitants should receive 100% of their losses.

I will, if I may, finish with some figures, because I need to clear up the confusion. To date, the Government have paid out £1.12 billion. They will be paying out another £355 million, totalling £1.47 billion, leaving a balance, for those who can add up, of £25 million. We intend to provide a safety net to ensure that payments to the most vulnerable are maintained as they live longer—let us hope that they all live longer—and so I do not recognise the £140 million figure that was cited.

In conclusion, I appreciate that some policyholders who have carefully invested for their retirement are now not receiving the income they expected, but we have done more than any other Government to resolve the Government’s part in the Equitable Life issue. We have committed £1.5 billion. We have paid out the £1.12 billion, with more to come, and we have struck the right balance, which is fair to the British taxpayer and supportive to those most vulnerable policyholders.

Money Laundering: British Banks

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Does the commitment expressed in our hosting of the anti-corruption summit not a year ago still exist to drive forward its agenda?

[Simon Kirby]

Absolutely. This Government are fully committed to ensuring that taxpayers are fully protected and that we do all we can to stamp out illegal money laundering activity.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, we will include looking at auto-enrolment in the broader review that we are going to undertake of the differences in treatment between employees and the self-employed, which is clearly a significant area.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I make a germane point of order?

[Mr Speaker]

It is quite a proud and ambitious boast of the right hon. Gentleman that his point of order will be germane. The first thing to establish is that I will exceptionally take points of order now if they flow directly from the matters with which we have just been dealing. Otherwise, they will have to wait.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot instruct Members on which sentence they should read, but I rather suspect that if Members wish to return to these matters, they may choose to do so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

But it has been heard, and I do not wish further time to be taken up by a Division of the House. Now we must hear the point of order from Sir Desmond Swayne.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a slavish supporter of the Government, I am in some difficulty. My article for the Forest Journal, robustly supporting the Chancellor’s earlier policy, is already with the printer. [Laughter.] Having been persuaded of the correctness of the course that the Chancellor is now following, I merely needed an opportunity to recant. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that, by a wanton abuse of the point of order procedure, he has found his own salvation. We will leave it there for now.

I am glad that the House is in such a good mood, and I am sure that it has an insatiable appetite for the next statement. However, I have just been advised that this might be a convenient moment at which to announce the result of deferred Divisions. We are building up a sense of anticipation for the Secretary of State for International Development.

I have now to announce the result of the day’s deferred Divisions. In respect of the question relating to social security, the Ayes were 292 and the Noes were 236, so the question was agreed to. In respect of the question relating to the Crown, the Ayes were 464 and the Noes were 56.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Budget Resolutions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I hope that the good humour continues, Mr Speaker, but we will see. I admire the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for his creativity at all times in raising matters.

You and I, Mr Speaker, have watched Budget debates in this Chamber for more than 20 years now. As you probably know, I have referred to the iron law of Budgets: the louder the cheers for the Chancellor on Budget day, the greater the disappointment three days later at the weekend. I am revising that iron law—this Budget did not last three days; it lasted less than three hours.

I will address some of the main policy announcements in the Budget, but I believe that overall the Chancellor’s statement evidenced a fundamental difference between the values of our two parties. What we saw yesterday was a Conservative Chancellor boasting about tax cuts to corporations and the rich while refusing to effectively tackle the crisis in social care for the elderly, refusing to properly fund the NHS, and increasing the national insurance burden on many middle and low-income self-employed earners, while at the same time breaking a clear manifesto promise.

Our values are these: we believe in a fair taxation system, in which everybody, no matter how rich and powerful they may be, pays their way; and we believe that through a fair taxation system and collective endeavour, the elderly and the disabled should be cared for, the sick should be treated and children should be educated to develop their talents to the full. That was not what we saw in yesterday’s Budget statement. In addition, we adhere to manifesto promises.

On the state of the economy, I saw from the Chancellor’s press briefings that all the talk before the Budget was about the aim of providing a positive backdrop for Brexit. That is not the real-world experience of millions of people. Yesterday the Chancellor boasted about economic growth, but what is positive about Britain being the only large developed economy in which wages fell when economic growth returned? What is positive about rising GDP if most people are worse off? What is positive about the national living wage being revised down again? What is positive about yet more downward revisions to wage forecasts?

How can anyone describe an economy as “match fit”, as the Chancellor did, when people in that economy are seeing their standard of living fall and fall again? Wages are still worth less than they were nine years ago. The disposable incomes of non-retired households are less than they were before the financial crisis. The official forecasts are clear: working people, as a result of the Government’s choices and this year’s Budget, will be worse off. According to official forecasts, they will be £500 a year worse off in 2021 than was predicted in the autumn statement. Average earnings are expected to be £200 lower by 2022 than they were before yesterday’s Budget. According to the Resolution Foundation, average earnings are set to return to their pre-crisis peak only by 2022 at best.

The Chancellor claimed in one press release that ours is an economy built on resilience; it is, to be frank, an economy built on sand. The fact that unsecured borrowing by households has shot up to levels not seen since before the financial crisis should be a warning sign to us all. Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts show unsecured household lending rising to a shocking 47% of household income by the end of the decade. For many people, such extra borrowing will be done out of desperation—as prices rise but wages fail to keep up, many people dig themselves deeper into debt just to get by. The Chancellor says that he does not want to put the economy on a credit card, but that is exactly what he and his policies are doing—forcing ordinary people into dependence on their credit card.

There is no resilience in an economy that is failing in its fundamentals. Business investment fell over the past year for the first time since the depths of the last recession. Companies are cancelling planned investments because they are so terrified of what the future holds under this Government, particularly with the risk of Brexit. They have seen seven wasted years pass without the investment or industrial strategy that they need from the Government, and they are now fearful of the Government’s plans for Brexit.

Productivity growth—the engine of prosperity—has stagnated. We now lag far behind similar economies. A typical British worker takes five days to produce what their German or French counterpart produces in four. The Chancellor, in a moment of lucidity, recognised the scale of the problem, but he failed to provide any new funding to deal with it. Worse than that, public sector investment will be £2.3 billion less over the next five years than was planned in the autumn statement.

Yes, people celebrated International Women’s Day, but while there were calls for a Budget that works for women, they have been ignored. Women are still bearing the brunt of this Tory Government’s failed austerity agenda, with 86% of cuts falling on women—that figure is unchanged since last year—and the Government have yet again ignored the hundreds of WASPI women who turned up yesterday to lobby Parliament. Things are just as bad as ever for women under this Government. Labour calls on the Government to publish urgently an analysis of the true impact on women of their Budgets and spending announcements, and to explain how they intend to reverse this disproportionate impact. Under a Labour Government, all economic policies will be gender-audited to ensure that we have an economy that works for all.

Let me turn to some of the policy announcements in the Budget, such as on self-employment. The Chancellor’s decision to push a £2 billion tax rise on to low and middle earners who are self-employed makes little sense.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I would be the first to say that we need to find new ways to reward entrepreneurs and risk takers in our tax system, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the difficulty is that at present there is no way of distinguishing between such a person and a professional such as a journalist who has sought an arrangement with their editor to be paid as self-employed? On the low-paid, 60% of people who are self-employed will see a reduction if we take into account the change in class 2 contributions.

[John McDonnell]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about bogus self-employment. We thought that the Chancellor might have mentioned that in his statement, but he never referred to it. That needs to be addressed, because many people are forced or manipulated into self-employment. Bogus self-employment needs to be tackled, and we have campaigned for that along with a number of organisations, including several trade unions and the Federation of Small Businesses.

We saw middle and low earners hit yesterday. Someone on £20,000 will lose about £250 a year, while someone on £40,000 will lose nearly £650 a year—those are the consequences. I do not think that those people are high earners; they are middle to low earners. They should be protected, particularly at a time when, to be honest, there is frailty in the economy, with consumer spending just dipping on the latest figures. Those at the forefront of the impact of the dip in consumer spending are largely existing sole traders and small traders—the window cleaners, drivers and others—and they will be hit. The policy is wrong, and this is also the wrong time to put their careers and jobs in jeopardy.

The justification for yesterday’s policy just does not stand up. The Government cannot demand more taxes from people without offering something in return. The Labour party are fully behind looking at how the labour market is changing—the right hon. Gentleman is right about that—and the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), spoke last year about the principles that should guide such changes. We have regularly raised the problem of bogus self-employment.

Leaving the EU: Financial Services

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point and I will come on to the issue of passporting later. I believe that businesses really want certainty, which is why it is right that hon. Members raise issues in the House.

In my own fabulous city of Leicester, almost 7,000 people are employed in financial and professional services, including by HSBC, Santander and Hastings Direct. Those people are not the extremely wealthy bankers or hedge fund managers that we often read about in the papers. They are ordinary people on modest wages who work in customer services, call centres and office administration, and who pay their taxes and spend their money in the local community.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I do not want to diminish the importance of the financial sector, particular that which operates and needs to continue to operate in Europe, but overwhelmingly domestic financial services have no involvement with the continent at all. Their export potential is virtually nil, in the words of the Commission itself. To what extent does the impressive list of employees that the hon. Lady has given divide between those that are involved entirely in the domestic market and those that are involved in transactions overseas?

[Liz Kendall]

The businesses in my constituency and those that I have talked about so far are deeply concerned about losing their membership of the single market and their passporting rights. I care about those jobs and the contribution that those companies make to our economy. It is right for us to raise questions, and it would be wrong to suggest that leaving the European Union does not give rise to serious concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important issue. As he will know, the European Central Bank has already had one go at trying to prevent euro-denominated clearing from taking place in the UK, and it is no doubt a very iconic issue for many of our European partners. It is an important part of the overall financial structure in London and it is not easily separated from the other activities that operate in London, but in terms of the jobs and value attached to it, it is a relatively small part of the total.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T4. What is the Chancellor planning to do with Bradford & Bingley’s assets?

[Mr Hammond]

Following the announcement at Budget 2016, UK Asset Resolution Limited has launched a programme of sales of the Bradford & Bingley mortgage assets that it holds. That will be designed to raise sufficient proceeds to repay the £15.65 billion debt to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and, in turn, the corresponding loan from the Treasury. It is expected, subject to market conditions and ensuring value for money, that this programme of sales will have been concluded in full by the end of 2017-18.