Autumn Statement Resolutions

Debate between Drew Hendry and Liam Fox

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Unsurprisingly, the hon. Lady was both incapable of answering the question and unable to do so. The question was, “What was the cause of inflation?” It was inflation that drove up interest rates. I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) made: the Fed rate is 5.5%, while the Bank of England rate is 5.25%. I presume the hon. Lady thinks that—in her words—my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) crashed the American economy too. It is complete nonsense; it is a bogus economic analysis.

We all know the impact that inflation has. We know that it hits the poorest people in our society hardest, which is why the Government, along with the Bank of England, were willing to see the pain of higher interest rates applied. Inflation does not help anyone. What I wanted to know, which I did not get from the hon. Lady or from her Front Benchers—surprise, surprise—was what they thought was the external responsibility for that inflation. We do not have an answer from Labour, and therefore we have an Opposition who have no credibility on one of the most basic questions: what causes inflation? If they do not know the answer, they cannot possibly be trusted to be in charge of this country’s finances.

One of the other things that I welcomed today is that we are moving slowly—still a little too slowly, I would argue—towards a lower-tax economy. The Chancellor set out the reasons why a lower-tax economy is a good thing. It is not just an abstract economic argument; it fits with Conservative ideas of individual responsibility, reducing the size of government, giving individuals greater choice, and providing incentives for those who will generate the wealth on which our future public services will depend. By emphasising the importance of creating prosperity, rather than the sterile debate about whether we should spend less or tax more, we are getting back into the right territory for a Conservative Government.

I was especially pleased to hear the measures for small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) recently had to endure my previous speech on this subject recently, in which I pointed out that, unlike what you would believe if you listened to the Labour party, public sector and private sector jobs in our economy are not in balance. The public sector produces only about 17% of the jobs in our economy; it is the small businesses and the private sector that produce the jobs and prosperity on which our country depends. We have had too high a tax burden on small businesses as they have come out of the pandemic, so I welcome the measures today.

I still have trouble with this term “growth” that goes around. I do not believe that growth as measured by the standard definitions is appropriate for a UK economy so highly geared towards services compared with goods. I know that it is the accepted norm, but I think we need to find better ways of describing it.

I welcome some of the moves towards improving capital availability, because if our businesses face one real problem, it is the lack of capital available for growth in our economy compared, for example, with the United States. That is because our economy is still too heavily geared towards the banks, and not enough towards private equity. We need to look at the breadth and depth of the private equity or venture capital industry in the United States and find out how we can replicate that in the United Kingdom if we are to give even more help to our small businesses.

I very much welcome the incentives to work that the Chancellor announced. Again, getting people back into work is not just an economic exercise; it is what I would regard as a moral imperative. If the only value people know they have is what the state gives them to do nothing, how can they possibly know what value they could be to themselves, their families and their communities if they were allowed to realise their full potential? Getting 200,000 more people back into work is a socially progressive thing to do, and if we are able to get more disabled people back into the workplace, so much the better for them, not just for the economy. I welcome what the Government have announced, because the best way to tackle poverty is to get people into work, and it is not just financial poverty but poverty of aspiration and poverty of hope that we are addressing by making this important social change.

There were one or two other elements on which I would have liked to have had some more detail from the Chancellor. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister might be able to provide that in responding to the debate. One of the problems right across the economy, particularly for small businesses, as the Chancellor stated, is late payment. However, one of the most important culprits in late payment is local government. Local authorities are spending the taxes that we in this House have to raise, in addition to the taxes they raise themselves, and surely it is not acceptable to us that the taxes we raise are spent in a way that actually adds an extra burden to small businesses. It should be a requirement on local authorities that they pay all their bills to small businesses on time. I hope the Government will look at that, because I believe there would be widespread support across this House for measures that compelled local government to do so.

I very much welcome the additional £20 billion investment over the next decade. That will help to address the one problem that has bedevilled our economy more, I think, than any other factor: productivity falling behind that of our competitors. Improving the horizon for freeports by up to 10 years will give additional stability, and again I hope we can look at how we can have a deregulatory exercise in those areas. That could test exactly how much we would get were we to expand the concept of freeports. I hope we can look more at the experience of countries such as the United States, where freeports have greater freedoms than they have in the United Kingdom. The Government are moving in exactly the right direction, but let us move further and faster on that.

The Chancellor talked about other supply-side reforms to the economy, one of them being the speeding up of improvements to the grid so that we can take advantage of the investments that have been made, for example, in renewables. I do not expect a response to that in the wind-up today, but I introduced a private Member’s Bill exactly to ensure that individuals impacted by the speeding up of improvements to the grid would have access to an independent arbitration programme, and not have National Grid deciding whether they should get compensation and how much they should get. That was an unacceptable position. We have not yet seen the regulations that will produce that independent arbitration, and we need to see them quickly. If we are to see the roll-out of an improved grid, it will impact more people, and we have to see a fair, equitable and affordable system where individuals can seek redress if they feel they have been dealt with unfairly.

I will briefly mention the continuing whinging victimhood of the nationalists. When they were talking about the ridiculous position that they are put in by being part of the Union, they just forgot to mention—I am sure it was an omission—that the block grant has now risen to the highest level since devolution began, at £41 billion this year. For every £100 that the UK Government spend in England, the Scottish Government receive £126 per person in Scotland.

[Drew Hendry]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Member gave his side of the case. I am just pointing to the fact that individuals in Scotland do extremely well out of their membership of the Union. If SNP Members want to see a crash, they know exactly which way to go about it, although I fear that the electors of Scotland at the general election will ensure that they do not get the opportunity to test their mad theories to destruction.

I was glad that we had a Conservative financial statement today that sets course for the spring Budget and the chance to set out genuine differences of ideology when we get to a general election. We believe that we should have a smaller state; we believe in lower taxes, public sector reform, and getting better value for money for the taxpayer. The Labour party will want to increase spending, increase borrowing and pass it on to the next generation. As with all things, the primal difference between socialists and Conservatives is that we believe in equality of opportunity; they believe in equality of outcome and equal mediocrity for all. What we want to see is the betterment of the United Kingdom for the sake of all its people.

Economic Growth

Debate between Drew Hendry and Liam Fox

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not hold out much hope of enlightenment from this debate, and it is fair to say that I am underwhelmed. This is a truly zombie Government, so bereft of ideas and talent that they have scoured the sheds of Chipping Norton to find a former Prime Minister who, along with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners, set most of the economic woes on their way for Scotland and the other nations of the UK, and resurrected him into their Cabinet. What a signal; what a shambles.

It is to the shame of Westminster that the Government spend so much time reliving past failures, continuing to do the same thing over and over—culture war rhetoric, punishing the vulnerable, and ignoring the suffering of the most vulnerable and the poorest. One of the many former Prime Ministers of this failing Government—although, to be fair, an elected one—used to talk about those people “just about managing”. I have news for her and for this place: they ain’t just about managing any more. They are struggling. Many more each day are failing to get by. Food bills, energy bills, mortgages and rents are crushing them.

Given the misery that the Government have wrought through austerity, the infamous mini-Budget and everything else, they should have put the cost of living at the forefront of the King’s Speech. They should have listened to those struggling to pay their electricity bills, put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Instead of talking about tents, they should have been talking about rents. While they pound the slogans of division by saying “stop the boats”, I trust the public will ensure that all they do for this terrible Government is stop the votes. Of course, being accountable and elected is not an issue for this place. The Tories and Labour will always simply create another Lord to do their bidding if they need to do so.

In a time so obviously marked by escalating living costs, the No. 1 concern on the doorsteps of Scotland—and, I contest, the other nations of the UK—is the cost of living. The King’s Speech glaringly overlooked the need for policies to assist households grappling with food and energy costs, mortgages and rents. While the Scottish Government have made a concerted and targeted effort to shield Scots from the brunt of Westminster policies, the omnipresent shadow of these often cruel Westminster directives remains inescapable.

The King’s Speech starkly underscored the unreliability of Westminster Governments in serving Scotland’s interests, with both the Tories and Labour wedded to a low-growth, Brexit-anchored economy. Independence and a return to the European Union, where all partners are treated as equals, is the only viable path for the prosperity of Scotland. The Scottish Government, within their limited capacity, strive to cushion Scots from Westminster’s harshest policies, yet Scotland’s full potential remains constantly stifled under the UK’s policy regime—a theme I will return to shortly.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s logic, if Brexit is the impediment to growth, why is it that since pre-pandemic times Britain has grown faster than either France or Germany?

[Drew Hendry]

Tory Members keep peddling this line, but what they know, and what everybody else knows, is that they started from a lower base because they tanked the economy in the first place. They have to live up to that responsibility. They claim higher growth from a lower point of entry. [Interruption.] They can try to shout me down, but I will make progress.

The King’s Speech, which was alarmingly brief on tackling the cost of living crisis, was a missed opportunity to offer concrete measures for relief. It paid lip service to reducing inflation and easing living costs, but lacked substantive policy proposals. Labour, too, is offering little on the cost of living crisis. Where are the measures that could be taken now to help people in their homes? Completely absent. Of course, that is just part of Labour’s “don’t scare the Tory voters” approach to securing office. The UK’s economic stagnation, which is evidenced by recent data, underscores a systemic failure to foster growth, post financial crisis. There is nothing in the King’s Speech to help support people, our food and drink industry, or our tourism and hospitality sector. That is something the Chancellor will need to correct before next week.

In a UK battling—unlike what the Government claim—rampant destitution, the failure of the King’s Speech to prioritise poverty reduction is indefensible, with millions, including a shocking number of children, unable to meet their basic needs. The situation in the UK is dire. Scotland’s lower destitution rate is a testament to SNP policies such as the Scottish child payment, but there is no attempt to replicate that anywhere in this House or to suggest that we do so. The eradication of poverty remains a more distant prospect under the current Westminster regime. Labour’s stance, echoing Tory rhetoric and policies, leaves independence as Scotland’s only hope for a fair and dynamic economy.

Trade Bill

Debate between Drew Hendry and Liam Fox

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The original intent of the Lords amendment on genocide was to bind the Government, to ensure that their trade policy was not actively engaging in propping up the economy of a country that was committing genocide. The SNP regarded that as being reflective of the bare minimum standards of what should be our commitments to human rights and global citizenship. I say “bare minimum” because much more power should be given to that commitment than was contained even in that amendment. We should see an approach along the lines of a comprehensive cross-departmental strategy aimed at preventing atrocities and binding the Government in their behaviour and intent. The original amendment from Lord Alton was a bit hingum-tringum; despite the fact that it was not nearly strong enough, we supported it, as it was at least a step in the right direction. Make no mistake: as we debate the text of this Bill, we are very far away from even that place.

Any idea that we are actively debating accountability on human rights, even on the terms originally intended, is blown apart by the very Government texts that the House is now considering. The Government have maintained that they do not need the law to reflect their commitments to human rights, and that they would not do anything to compromise them. Furthermore, they maintain that their so-called compromise amendment facilitates a new level of commitment, but as soon as one Minister pours honey in the public’s ears, another drops the mask and lets slip the poisonous truth that condemns those warm words as cozenage.

It is clear from the remarks of the Foreign Secretary, who is also the de facto Deputy Prime Minister, that there is absolutely no substance to the Government’s rhetoric about their being champions for human rights at every turn; shamefully, they are willing to actively pursue an unethical trade policy. If there was ever any doubt about the hollowness of the maxim of global Britain, it has rung out loud and clear in the Foreign Secretary’s words. The amendment backed by the Government is completely inadequate in checking their actions. It would bind them to naught, and it is crystal clear that in reality the Government would rather not be subject to any moral position or restriction on their trade policy.

The Government could have committed in the Bill to maintaining existing consumer and labour standards; they turned that chance down, and the public should ask why. The answer is because they are all too willing and ready to sacrifice them to get a deal—any deal. Anyone naive enough to think that that is not the case should look at what is happening with the NHS and human rights. The Government could have taken the opportunity to ensure the protection of all aspects of the NHS from private foreign procurement, but they turned the chance down. Why? Well, in a sign of the times, they have been busy allowing the sale of NHS GP practices to US companies, with the US health insurance giant Centene Corp quietly assuming control of the care of half a million patients in recent weeks. Donald Trump may mercifully be gone, but few will forget the rare moment of honesty when he confirmed that the NHS is on the table in a US-UK trade deal. We all know that it very much still is. His Tory cohorts are still here and have earned zero trust over their deeds and actions.

We now see the Government looking to shirk their commitments on matching their trade policy to our values on protecting human rights. Why? Again, we know exactly why, thanks to the words of the Foreign Secretary. The cat is not only out of the bag, but running feral, alerting the world to the fact that human rights abuses will not matter to the UK. This Government will forgive almost anything in their haste to get a deal—any deal. They turned down the chance to do the right thing. We can hear loudly and clearly that behind the scenes, this does not matter to the Government; publicly, we can see the Government retreating from their legally binding manifesto commitment to international aid spending. The amendment does not do justice to the intentions of Members from all parties who have sought to meet that commitment head-on.

The Government’s empty words on global Britain have no bearing on virtually any aspect of their policy on protecting the most vulnerable around the world, on how we determine any notion of responsibility for who the UK sells arms to, or now, apparently, who we trade with. If this issue were not so serious, it would be laughable that this Government are trying to rest on laurels that simply do not exist. They should wake up to the reality that the UK’s moral standing is already badly damaged. This legislation makes matters worse. With their actions today, the Government have done nothing to repair that standing; they are solely responsible for bringing it into such disrepute.

Today, as the UK Food and Drink Federation publishes details of how exports of beef, pork and cheese to the EU have been savaged, having fallen by more than 80%—for salmon it is 98%, which is in effect an utter wipeout of a major Scottish export—another poll shows that the people of Scotland have had enough of this attitude; it confirms majority support for independence, as does the long-term poll tracking. The people of Scotland see for themselves the economic and moral vacuums being created by this Tory Government. When they look at this shameful situation, they know that the only way to protect our international trade reputation, and to be represented in the way that they want, as global citizens, is if Scotland once again joins the international community as an independent nation.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Following that speech, I will return to the subject we are discussing. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her generous words and her accurate quotation. None of us actually believed the process would take quite as long as it did when we began. On the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), I am extremely distressed that she should feel frightened by the intervention of a foreign power in her actions in the House of Commons. Given the level of cyber-intrusion in the United Kingdom in general, it is perhaps something we should all be afraid of.

There are three brief reasons why I support the Government’s position, and I have set them out before. First, I do not believe we should make generic law on the basis of specific cases. The history of our legislation is littered with victims of unintended consequences, which come about when we make law in that way. We should have specific actions for specific issues, such as the actions set out by the Foreign Secretary today on the atrocious way the Chinese treat the Uyghurs. That is the appropriate way to proceed.

Secondly, I believe that the House can vote down any free trade agreement through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process. If a preferential free trade agreement with China was proposed that gave China greater access to the United Kingdom market than it would have under World Trade Organisation regulations, we would already have the ability to block it; but I do not believe, for a range of reasons, that we are likely to see that any time soon. The trade conditions, never mind the human rights conditions, mean that is not going to happen.

Thirdly, I do not believe we should restrict the right of the elected Government and the House of Commons to implement policies on which a Government were elected. That is the point of principle that I have raised in every single debate we have had on this issue. The House of Commons should reject unwarranted intrusion, whether by an unelected Lords Committee of senior judges or the courts, on to the rights of democratically elected Governments to implement the policies on which they have been elected. This House should not put limits on what they can do, or, moreover, allow elements outside the House of Commons to do so. That would set a constitutional precedent that we would come to regret in time, whatever the good reason was for considering those changes.