Royal Mail Takeover
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I start by thanking the Minister for advance sight of his statement? Before I get into my questions, can we take a moment to thank every postman and postwoman up and down this country for their hard work, particularly at this time of year? In all the challenging weather, they are out there putting letters through every letterbox in the land and collecting thousands of letters from the red pillar boxes in every corner of our country. I take the opportunity, especially in this Christmas season, to say thank you on behalf of all of us.
Every colleague here will recognise the importance of Royal Mail, both as an institution and as a provider of a vital nationwide service. It has been in existence for more than 500 years, and it has seen a lot of change over those years, but the one consistent thing is that it is still a service on which we all depend every day. It is not the only way we communicate any more, but it is a vital one, and it will continue to be needed, including by Government. What a shame it is that one of the biggest postal deliveries done by Royal Mail this year was from the Government. It was a letter to many pensioners—often on low incomes—cancelling their winter fuel payments.
The dwindling number of letters sent has eroded the base on which the success of Royal Mail was built. The inevitable consequence is that Royal Mail has been facing serious financial challenges, and amid those challenges the service received by people across Britain has become worse, whether that is deliveries missing their deadlines, letters going missing or occasionally, in some areas, people going weeks at a time without post. The example of that failure was shown last week by the fines that Royal Mail received. The cost of this poor service cannot be overstated, whether it is for those who subscribe for services by mail, those who rely on business deliveries or those who miss appointments with their general practitioner, impacting their health and costing the Government. That poor service cannot be allowed to continue.
The inward investment into the service announced today will be scrutinised by shareholders, but given that they are the golden shareholder, I have questions for the Government. What guarantees has the Minister received about the service provision? What commitments has he received about the level of jobs across Royal Mail? How much of Royal Mail do the employees themselves now own? In some places it has been reported that the commitment to the tax residency guarantee is for five years, but I heard the Minister say at the Dispatch Box that it was perpetual. Can he clarify that?
What ongoing role will the Government have in making sure that Ofcom ensures that Royal Mail delivers the service expected by customers? The fines do not seem to be doing it. An important part of the service offered by Royal Mail is the universal service obligation, which now requires post to be delivered six days a week and parcels to be delivered five days a week. When the Royal Mail is working well, the universal service obligation provides an outstanding service. However, Royal Mail wishes for it to be reformed. Does the Minister believe that the obligation must be maintained in its current form? Can he confirm what discussions he has held with EP Group about the obligation? Will he confirm whether there is a sunset on the obligation? He mentioned that there potentially was with a transfer of ownership.
The value of Royal Mail goes far beyond the universal service obligation. Can the Minister outline whether he expects any of the other services provided by Royal Mail to be impacted? For example, can my rural constituents continue to count on their letters being collected from every post box? What risks has he identified with the takeover itself? Although the Post Office and Royal Mail are separate entities, they are closely tied. Just over a month ago, the Government announced that more than 100 post office branches were at risk of closure, with hundreds of jobs lost. Can the Minister explain what assessment he has made of the risks facing the Post Office and how they will be impacted by the sale of Royal Mail?
Royal Mail faces the same headwinds, often created by this Government, as other businesses. Whether it is Labour’s employment regulations or the national insurance jobs tax, businesses have warned that they may be forced to put up prices and cut jobs, because of the very actions of this Government. Finally, can the Minister confirm whether Royal Mail has expressed concerns over the Budget or the Employment Rights Bill?
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, and I start by joining her in thanking all those postal workers who throughout the year—not just at this time of year, when it is particular busy, but 12 months a year—come rain or shine, sleet or snow, deliver those much-needed communications from friends, family and loved ones. I was pleased to be able to go to my own depot in Ellesmere Port last Friday. I will go to another one in my constituency, in New Ferry, this Friday. All hon. Members should be encouraged to make those visits, because they really show how much we appreciate the work that our postmen and women do.
The hon. Lady is right that the Royal Mail is a service that we all depend on. I agree that performance has not been good enough in recent years. That is why we have had a number of discussions with the company and with Ofcom about how we will get things back on track. That is why the agreement is so important, because the deal will get in the investment needed to try to drive up that performance.
I turn to some of the hon. Lady’s specific questions. On guarantees of service provision, the legislative framework is already there for the universal service obligation, and I see the takeover having no impact on that. It has not been part of the discussions—it is an entirely separate issue—but Parliament will have its say on that if needed. Next year, Ofcom will have a consultation on the universal service obligation. I think it is recognised that an awful lot of work is needed to bring standards up to the level that we would like, and one of the protections in the agreement will hopefully deliver on that.
On jobs guarantees, the hon. Lady will be aware that the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has spoken positively about the agreement reached. He believes that sufficient assurances have been given on jobs. On employee engagement, she asked whether the employees will own the company. That is not the case, but they will have a say in governance in future as a result of an agreement between the Communication Workers Union and EP Group. That is to be ratified by the Communication Workers Union executive, but that will be a groundbreaking arrangement that we did not have previously. She also asked about tax residency in perpetuity, which is what the golden share does indeed intend to deliver.
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Some of the most successful small and medium-sized businesses, which truly think long term, are owned by families, so why does the Secretary of State think that it will help his long-term growth mission for the Government to start taxing those businesses when they get passed on to the next generation?
Jonathan Reynolds
With respect, I hear a lot of calls from the Conservatives to cut taxes and increase spending, but still no account of how they would do that. I appreciate that sometimes the initial transfer into opposition can feel exhilarating, but there is a responsibility that comes with it. I would like to see an account from the Conservatives of how they would pay for it.
For all tax changes across the board, we can still say with real confidence that the UK has a competitive tax system—benchmark our corporation tax, and the allowances on it, our capital gains taxes and, in this case, our inheritance taxes. The mistake that the Conservatives make is that they forget that the adjustments to specific reliefs for businesses and agricultural property are on top of the existing inheritance tax thresholds. Frankly, a little less scaremongering from the Opposition and a bit of focus on what is really at stake would be welcome.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
One of the ingredients for a successful high street is having a post office in the mix. The Government have inherited a network of 11,500 post offices, and that number has been stable since 2010. Will the Minister commit to supporting high streets by maintaining the scale of the post office network in this Parliament?
Gareth Thomas
Yes, we are determined to maintain and, indeed, strengthen the post office network. I suspect that the hon. Member will recognise that we inherited a Post Office with huge problems, which we are working with the new leadership of the Post Office to begin to tackle. We are looking at what new commercial opportunities there may be for the Post Office, and banking appears to be the most significant one. We are also working with the Post Office to identify some of its infrastructure problems, not least in developing a replacement for the Horizon scheme.
UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the urgent question. Let me also welcome the Minister back to Parliament, as well as to his place on the Front Bench.
As the hon. Lady said, the human rights abuses taking place against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang are egregious. In government we took robust action, leading international condemnations and sanctioning individuals and an entity involved to tackle the problem at source. We also took further measures to ensure that British companies were not involved, including the introduction of export controls and financial penalties for organisations that fail to meet their obligations under the Modern Slavery Act. Those measures must be retained, and indeed reviewed, to ensure that British companies and consumers do not indirectly support the human rights abuses.
The Minister said that the new Government were committed to the measures introduced by the last Conservative Government. He also mentioned that two weeks ago the Prime Minister held a bilateral meeting with President Xi. In the read-out from No. 10, however, there was no explicit mention of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, which is disappointing. Can the Minister elaborate on exactly what was said at that bilateral meeting? Were human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang explicitly raised? If the Minister decides to meet his Chinese counterpart, will he commit himself to explicitly raising those human rights abuses? Indeed, will all Ministers across the Government always raise this issue in all their bilateral meetings?
The Government made a manifesto commitment to carry out an audit of our relations with China. Can the Minister confirm that the audit will cover trade and the issue of goods in the UK supply chain that are produced in Xinjiang? Can he tell us whether the impact of the accelerated roll-out of electric vehicles and solar panels and the 2030 decarbonisation target will also be audited? Given the Government’s so far unsuccessful mission to grow the UK economy, will the Minister agree that that growth must not come at the price of restricting our condemnation of human rights abuses in China?
Mr Alexander
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for her characteristically kind and generous words in welcoming me back to Parliament and, indeed, the Dispatch Box.
There is a tension between the first two questions we have heard, with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham observing that there is a need for radical transformation in the legislation and, on the other hand, the Opposition spokesperson asserting that it is adequate, although she drifted into demanding a review of her own legislation after only five months in opposition. We should try to find common ground, rather than score points.
I assure the hon. Lady that the Government stand firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. That includes raising our concerns at the highest levels with the Chinese Government, and co-ordinating efforts in international fora to hold China to account for human rights violations.
The hon. Lady asks specifically about where the treatment of the Uyghurs has been raised as a human rights issue. During the recent session of the Human Rights Council in September, the UK signed a US-led joint statement on Xinjiang, called out China’s persecution of Uyghurs and restriction of civil society, and urged China to engage meaningfully with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and to implement the recommendations made in its assessment. Where possible, the Government also conduct independent visits to areas of major concern and support non-governmental organisations in exposing and reacting to human rights violations. On previous occasions when I have visited China as a Government Minister, I have of course raised the issue of human rights, and I will continue to endeavour to do so.
On the hon. Lady’s rather ungenerous observations about the growth mission, it is perfectly possible for a Government to set themselves a clear ambition to raise the UK economy’s trend rate of growth, and to continue to be a strong and powerful advocate for human rights in China and elsewhere.
Draft Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It is important for the UK’s international business reputation that we should have a public companies register, and its transparency is important for dealing with economic crime. However, we accept that having personal information on the public companies register can put individuals at risk of fraud and other harms; I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of such cases. This statutory instrument widens the range of circumstances in which individuals may apply to the registrar to protect their usual residential address where it appears on the companies register by ensuring that the registrar is able to decide not to display that address publicly.
It is good to see the Government carrying forward our broader package of measures from the “Corporate transparency and register reform” White Paper published in February 2022. The White Paper and ensuing measures are important for supporting corporate transparency, which is vital to the UK because of its ability to attract investment, tackle fraud and build confidence.
We support reforms to create a more secure system that allows certain individuals to apply to protect their usual residential address from public disclosure. We are pleased to hear that progress is being made on the pledge from the last Government of a total of £63 million to support the reform of Companies House—about £20 million in additional budget per year, which is important.
We do, however, have some questions about this instrument, including its impact on fraud and public scrutiny of companies. We are not going to oppose the regulations, but I would appreciate it if the Minister replied to the following questions. The explanatory note says that Companies House has been “inundated” by requests to go into the undisclosed part of the register. Will the Minister assure the Committee that Companies House has sufficient resources to deal with the potential step change in workload that the regulations will create?
Does the Minister foresee any issue in people not being able to check whether a company is legitimate? What potential unintended consequences might there be? Could this instrument make it more difficult for people to check, or to see at all, whether their own address is being used for fraud? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that investigations into companies, such as shell companies locating at one address, are not hampered by this legislation?
In summary, will the Minister describe his ability to scrutinise the registrar’s own decision making process with regard to this statutory instrument? How much guidance can he exert in terms of the registrar’s discretion? How does he expect discussions to go with the Foreign Office given its work with some of our overseas territories to ensure greater transparency and disclosure of their registers?
Export and Investment Guarantees
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I want to start by saying “Exporting is GREAT”, and UK Export Finance, as the Minister just outlined, has done a tremendous job over many decades in supporting great British exporters, so we support these changes to the export and investment guarantees. As the Minister said, we financed £8.8 billion in export support last year, and that helped 650 UK companies to fulfil their potential by growing their overseas sales.
Today, I would like to probe the Government’s attitude towards exports, and I would particularly like to hear the Minister put on record his support for free trade at this time. The UK is now in the enviable position that almost 50% of our products can now be exported tariff-free, thanks to the tireless work done under the previous Government to increase the number of markets that our exporters have access to. That compares with the EU figure of some 27%. Raising the level of exports to a target of £1 trillion would be truly tremendous for the growth of this country. It would support higher-skilled jobs and raise profitability, productivity and tax contributions, so in the view of the Opposition, the Government cannot do enough to support the growth of exports.
I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about specific policies. Will he be continuing the previous Government’s programme of having trade envoys around the world helping with the export connections for our exporters? Are the Government planning to take forward the discussions between the previous Government and the previous Trump Administration on a free trade agreement with the US? Will the Government be taking forward the work that was done at state-by-state level to increase trade access for UK exporters into US states?
Turning to the specific measures in front of us today, has the Minister considered amending the Act itself so that the possibility could exist to increase resources by more than the 5,000 million special drawing rights that are currently covered by the legislation? The previous Act says that this mechanism can be used only three times, so I wonder what provisions the Minister has in mind for the next time the Government want to increase support to exporters through UKEF.
As far as other export initiatives are concerned, can the Minister confirm that he will continue to support the “Exporting is GREAT” campaign and the GREAT campaign generally, given the incredibly good feedback that they tend to get around the world? Lastly, can he confirm that he will remain on the side of our exporters, our wealth creators and the many businesses across this country that do so much to raise the prosperity of the United Kingdom?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gareth Thomas
I welcome the opportunity to close the debate. I thank the hon. Members for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their comments and questions, which I will try to answer before I make some final remarks about the statutory instruments.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire asked if the UK Government support fair and free trade. I reconfirm our absolute commitment to supporting fair and free trade. We have made it very clear that trade is one of the key planks of the work of the Department. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, reporting to the Secretary of State, is leading work on a trade White Paper, which we will bring forward in due course. I am sure the hon. Lady will see the Government’s commitment to fair and free trade reflected in that document.
As the hon. Lady knows, when we were in opposition, we supported accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are working to agree a number of free trade deals, for example with Switzerland, India and South Korea. She asked me about the trade envoys programme. We are sympathetic to such a programme continuing. We are looking at it closely, as she would expect, and we will bring forward an update to the House in due course.
The hon. Lady asked me about our views on trade with the United States. We recognise that the US is already a key export market for many British firms, and we want to look at all opportunities to increase trade with the US. I will come back to legislative reform more generally, but she is right to underline the message that we have to be on the side of wealth creators in this country if we want to see growth, more jobs and better pay for those in our communities. Winning export orders is fundamental to delivering growth, so a substantial amount of time in the Department is being spent thinking through what else we can do to support British businesses to win export orders overseas. UK Export Finance is one part, but not the only part, of that story, and we will bring forward our plans in due course.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I understand that Crawford Falconer, who had been in charge of a lot of the trade negotiations, is leaving the Department. Will the Minister tell the House what his plans are to fill that role?
Gareth Thomas
I pay tribute to Crawford Falconer for his work for the Department and the country. He has already fed into the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security is leading on the trade White Paper. Others in the Department are actively leading negotiations with a number of countries in support of our free trade negotiations and our ambitions for new free and fair trade agreements.
The hon. Lady asked me whether there is a need for further legislative reform to UK Export Finance. The Secretary of State has instructed UKEF officials to explore how we can increase the organisation’s overall financial capacity. That work is under way. We are committed to ensuring that UKEF can support British exporters now and into the future, but these statutory instruments are key in the short and medium term to helping it to continue to do its job.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) gives me the opportunity to plug International Trade Week, which is taking place this week. I am glad to see that he at least has taken the advice that I wrote out for every Member of the House, encouraging them to reach out to exporters in their constituency, to support what they are doing already and to make them aware of further help that the UK Government could give them to win new export orders overseas. One message that we have sought to get across during International Trade Week is that we are absolutely committed to a reset in our trade relationship with the European Union. There is no doubt that the poor-quality trade deal with Europe that the previous Government negotiated has held back many British businesses from winning export orders in Europe. We need to reset the trade relationship with Europe in very practical terms. We committed, for example, to negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, and to exploring more opportunities for mutual recognition of professional qualifications. We see next year’s trade and co-operation agreement review as another opportunity to look at what we can do to reduce the difficulties that businesses face in trading with our nearest neighbours.
The Conservatives talked down the opportunities for British businesses to win export orders in our nearest overseas markets. That was a huge mistake; businesses have told us so. We are actively looking at what we can do to change that.
If the hon. Member for Wokingham gives any message to the representatives of the company that he is visiting tomorrow, let it be this: please encourage them to look again at Europe. We recognise that there are difficulties, but we want to work with business to sort them out, because we genuinely believe that there are real opportunities. He asked whether I would meet him and representatives from Wokingham businesses. I would be very happy to. In that spirit, I commend the draft orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Export and Investment Guarantees
Resolved,
That the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Exports and Insurance Commitments) (No. 2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.
That the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Exports and Insurance Commitments) (No. 3) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.—(Martin McCluskey.)
Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
As the Minister has set out so clearly, the instrument intends to give effect to the EU common charger directive, which applies in Northern Ireland, as is required under the Windsor framework agreement signed last year by the Conservative Government. We will therefore certainly not oppose this legislation. Accepting this regulation upholds the Windsor framework and contributes to the free-flowing trade within the UK, while protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our United Kingdom, and it safeguards the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
I note that the Minister mentioned the Government’s plans to consult on a UK-wide common charging solution for electronic devices. I am sure, from a consumer convenience point of view, that we will all welcome a world in which we can be sure to find the right charger at the right time. I welcome what he said about the impact on the environment, because over time, there will be less plastic waste sitting in our drawers in our homes. However, I encourage the Minister, as he looks at the consultation responses, to consider our ability to remain independent from the EU by not blindly following this regulation across the whole UK and by consulting appropriately with all the businesses and retailers that will be affected.
Despite all the years that we were a member of the European Union, we still seem to have a situation where we all have different plugs. It is very much on the consumer’s side to welcome progress towards a world where we all have the same charger, but at the same time, I know that market forces may enable that outcome. We do not propose to oppose these regulations.
Budget Resolutions
Harriett Baldwin Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I know it has not been long since the autumn statement, but we have heard today that the Leader of the Opposition has no plan. It has not been very long since the last forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, so it is interesting to read today that, in the just over 100 days since its last forecast, there has been a lot of change for the better in the UK economy. In particular, the OBR is expecting a better inflation outturn than it had expected just over three months ago. It is expecting and has noted the sharper fall in the interest rates that we all pay on the national mortgage, and it has said that it expects the British people’s living standards to recover more quickly than it previously forecast. That is information that we can all welcome.
There will be a range of views across the Chamber on the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility. We all know, of course, that all forecasts are likely to be wrong. The Treasury Committee will scrutinise the Office for Budget Responsibility next Tuesday morning, and we look forward to asking questions about its assumptions. My view is that it is a bit like that quote of Sir Winston Churchill about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried: although all economic forecasts are likely to be wrong in some way, and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts are often not the most accurate, they are a lot better than the alternatives of either the Treasury marking its own homework or having a Budget with no forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility. I think the OBR’s forecasts reassure the markets on which we are so dependent for our borrowing.
There has obviously been good progress on inflation since the peak of over 11% after Putin’s evil invasion of Ukraine, and it is vital that all of today’s Budget measures are seen through the lens of inflation, because we do not want anything that could prevent that progress towards the 2% that the Bank of England expects by the middle of this year.
The Chancellor told us that he was looking through that lens in announcing today’s measures, which contain a range of things that will really help, including continuing the 5p off fuel duty at the pumps for another year, which will be very helpful to drivers in West Worcestershire and elsewhere in the country. The freeze on alcohol duty will be welcomed in pubs in West Worcestershire and across the country. The public sector productivity plan is crucial to ensuring that we get value for money from our public services.
On the second economic objective of growth, we can all welcome the fact that employment growth has been so strong. The economy has created more than 800 jobs a day over the past 14 years. We have seen steps taken in previous fiscal events to grow the size of the UK’s productive economy. Now that we are at full employment, productivity becomes incredibly important, because it helps to sustain non-inflationary growth.
To stimulate all-important investment in the economy, last year’s big announcement of full expensing was made permanent in the autumn statement. Today, we have heard that full expensing will be extended to leased assets. The BBC fact check noted that when the measure was first announced, it was expected that the economy would benefit greatly. The Chancellor said that its impact on the economy would be huge, and the Office for Budget Responsibility said that it would increase business investment by 3% a year. The policy came into force on 1 April, and in fact business investment for the whole of last year was 6.1% higher than in 2022.
Today we heard about further welcome steps to increase business investment and other investment in the UK economy—tax reliefs for some creative industries, British individual savings accounts to encourage more long-term investment in our economy, the back-to-work plan, the childcare plan, and many other measures that will unlock growth.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Is the Chancellor, and indeed the hon. Lady, being a little complacent about investment? Although it is true that business investment is higher than it was in 2010, our business investment is still the lowest in the G7 and among the lowest in the OECD. Why did we not see more public investment from the Chancellor today? We know that public investment will crowd in private investment, so why have we not seen much bolder and more ambitious work on investment? That is what the economy is crying out for.
Harriett Baldwin
We heard the Chancellor talk about how strong the growth in UK investment has been. We heard about additional investment in the productivity of our national health service and, crucially, about measures that will increase the attractiveness of investing in some of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), representing the Green party, did not welcome the £270 million for advanced manufacturing in clean aviation and clean vehicles, and the £120 million for clean tech manufacturing? That is the UK investing in the technology of clean growth, is it not?
Harriett Baldwin
It is indeed, and I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes that, even if it was not welcomed by the representative of the Green party.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I want to take my hon. Friend back to what she said about investment in childcare. I remind her that this week brings International Women’s Day, and the cost of childcare is such an important issue for so many mums in this country. Of course, it was the Conservatives who rolled out 30 hours of free childcare, and who are rolling out free childcare for two-year-olds and nine-month-olds. We absolutely must welcome that additional investment in childcare, and indeed the investment in families through support for child benefit, which will help mums get into well-paid jobs.
Harriett Baldwin
I wholeheartedly endorse what my right hon. Friend said. She is right to highlight the importance of investment in childcare in helping female employment growth, which has been remarkably strong in the past 14 years. I am confident that the measures announced will allow us to make further progress with the increasingly non-inflationary growth capacity of the UK economy.
Other measures announced today will help on the growth front. Cutting national insurance is also a smart way to help growth. It not only puts more money in working people’s pockets—27 million people across this country will see an extra £900 a year in their bank account—but will make work more attractive. We have heard from the Office for Budget Responsibility that cutting national insurance has the biggest marginal impact on bringing people back into work; the figure from the last cut was 94,000. It will be interesting to see whether the OBR continues to expect this to have a significant impact. It is a really smart way to cut taxes for working people—and the measure is UK-wide, so the effect will be felt in Scotland as well.
I turn to the issue of debt falling. We can see that the bond markets have stabilised, and OBR numbers confirm progress on debt. I draw the House’s attention to a report that our Committee recently published on the Bank of England and its quantitative tightening. It is selling £100 billion of gilts into the market this year, and it has acknowledged that that increases the cost to the Exchequer of borrowing by between a tenth and a quarter of a percentage point. Our Committee wanted to flag up the impact that that could have, and to send a message to the independent Bank of England about some of the ways in which quantitative tightening has an impact on the real economy. As a cross-party Committee, we were obviously never going to agree on the level or scope of taxes, but one thing we have unanimity—
Harriett Baldwin
Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene on the fact that the rate of tax is higher in Scotland?
Ian Blackford
I wish to raise a point about quantitative easing, which the hon. Lady mentioned. Obviously, there will be a very significant supply of gilts in the coming period, which will have an impact on yields. That will influence what the Bank of England does on the interest rate cycle, and crucially, it will make it difficult to see any material growth in the money supply, particularly in M4, in the coming period. That will have an impact on growth, given where we are.
Harriett Baldwin
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that income tax is higher in Scotland, but he makes a good point about quantitative tightening and its impact on the real economy. It is potentially a factor that can have a real impact, and our Committee will watch it closely.
As I was saying, as a cross-party Committee, we were never going to agree on the level and scope of taxes, but we do agree that the tax system is too complicated. We have a very complicated tax system in this country, and well over 1,000 different tax reliefs. Despite the abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification, there have been some major tax simplifications under this Chancellor. We have heard about the way in which he eliminated, in the autumn statement, the national insurance class; about how he has simplified the lifetime allowance for pensions; and, today, about how he has started to tackle some of the perverse cliff edges, high marginal tax rates and disincentives to work in the tax system. By raising the VAT threshold, he has helped small businesses, which might otherwise have held back because they did not want to go through that threshold. On universal credit, we have done so much over the years to reduce high marginal tax rates and disincentives.
It was great to hear the Chancellor really focus today on addressing the high-income child benefit charge. When we introduced it—I voted for it at the time—£50,000 a year was a high rate of income. With the progress on higher incomes, the median income has increased from about £22,000 in those days to about £35,000 now. These days, £50,000 is not more than about 40% over the median income. It was right for the Chancellor to recognise that today in his Budget statement. He has made the taper that much less of a disincentive to taking on work above that income level. Of course, I would have loved him to have done even more, but I am very grateful for all that he has done.
Let me come to a rapid close by saying that it is clear that the Conservatives have a plan. It is clear that there is a plan to get inflation down; to increase the growth rate and the growth capacity of the UK economy, without sparking inflation again; and to get debt falling. I think we can all see that the plan is working. We should stick to that plan and not go back to square one.
Several hon. Members rose—