Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his work. Many of us have a treat on a Friday when we go into our fantastic schools and meet lots of children. The early career framework, which was introduced last year, is focused on trying to ensure that we support teachers, particularly in the first five years, so that we retain more of them. The figures show that the risk of retention is in those first five years, so we have put a lot of work and effort into making sure that we support them more during that period.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Of course, recruitment and retention of teachers is important, but all hon. Members will prioritise keeping schoolchildren safe from sexual predators. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, detailing the horrific allegations from a number of witnesses to events at Edinburgh Academy and Fettes College by an individual referred to as Edgar. I have a number of constituents who have complaints against Edgar. This man has admitted to inappropriate behaviour and is currently fighting extradition from South Africa, where he has been publicly named. There is a precedent in England where another alleged abuser living in South Africa, whose extradition has been sought, has been publicly named. We now know that dozens of boys have come forward to the police with allegations against the man referred to as Edgar. It is important that others who were abused by this man can come forward. It is right that his crimes against children are named and it is also right that he is now named. It is for this reason that it is in the public interest that the real name of Edgar—that is, Iain Wares—is now publicly known.

[Gillian Keegan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime and the Government are sympathetic to the victims and survivors of such abuse. As set out in November in response to the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, it is important that due process is followed to allow investigatory and legal processes to take place to maximise the chances of conviction.

Points of Order

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That resolves that problem.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give me some guidance? Twice in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister referred to Alex Salmond and talked about him being one of our own, which is quite disgraceful. Alex Salmond has nothing to do with the Scottish National party. He is the leader of—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but I want to hear the point of order, because I have to answer to the question. I must hear the question.

[Ian Blackford]

Alex Salmond is not a member of the Scottish National party. Indeed, he is a member of another party. Moreover, the SNP has made it quite clear that no parliamentarian is permitted to appear on RT. To be traduced in the way that we were by the Prime Minister is simply unacceptable and he should withdraw his comments.

[Mr Speaker]

You have absolutely put it on record that Alex Salmond is no longer the leader of the SNP. That was many years ago and, as I understand it, he is now a member of the Alba party. That has now been corrected and I am sure everyone is aware of it.

Budget Resolutions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

This was a dull Budget, although I do not necessarily say that as a criticism, because it was meant to be dull. The Chancellor did most of his heavy lifting in the autumn statement, in which he amassed a war chest by borrowing more than £120 billion. The criticism of the Budget is that rather than using that war chest now to raise productivity and improve education, he has put it aside because he does not know what will happen after the Brexit deal is done.

The Secretary of State for Education made a reasonable fist of trying to explain the new T-levels. If her explanation had lasted for two or three minutes, I would have believed her, but after half an hour, I began to think that she was arguing a little bit too hard, as if she did not really believe it herself. The T-levels were one of the more innovative parts of the Budget—I do not demur from that—but if we want a technical education of the standard that exists in Germany or the Netherlands, we must have the schools, and the workshops, computers and machinery in those schools, to do the teaching. In fact, the equipment in the schools has to be better than what people will find in the factory after they have graduated. The way to raise productivity is by training in schools at the highest and most advanced technological level.

If the money that the Budget gave to increasing selective education had been put into technical schools in line with the investment that takes place in Germany and the Netherlands, I might just have believed what the Government said. However, the T-levels are yet another blind by a Government who want to pursue selective academic education for a very narrow stream of people, which will not solve the problem of productivity.

The one significant change in the Budget that had the biggest impact was the rise in national insurance for the self-employed, so let us try to connect that to the whole question of educational productivity. Rather than Members listening to me, let us take the evidence of two companies: a construction and investment company called Chiswell; and a building company called Castlemead. Does anyone know who these companies are? They are both owned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To give him his due, he put those companies into a blind trust in 2010. He is an honourable man, so there is no question of him influencing these companies at the moment, unlike certain Presidents of the United States who we might mention.

It is interesting to see what these companies are thinking about the economy, productivity and skills. The 2016 accounts of Castlemead say that the building industry is

“suffering from supply bottlenecks, particularly of skilled tradespeople, driving up costs.”

What does the building company Chiswell say? It states:

“The scarcity of good quality and committed subcontractors is still an issue”.

The company is considering going back into house building. Of course, this skills and supply bottleneck is largely seen among the self-employed. To sum up, the Federation of Master Builders says that 60% of SME construction firms are struggling to hire bricklayers and carpenters.

The Secretary of State claims that the increase in technical training will help to supply some of this much-needed skill demanded by Chiswell and Castlemead. At the same time, however, the Chancellor is removing the incentive to work and to take up training because he is raising the taxes of the very workers whom his companies say they need. In other words, the Chancellor is so short-sighted that he is hurting not only his own businesses but, sadly, everybody else’s.

This is not just a dull Budget because, at its heart, there is a ticking timebomb. The OBR forecast about what happens next is interesting, as it relates to whether the money will be there to provide the training about which the Secretary of State has spoken. The Chancellor was concerned to tell us that, under his chancellorship, growth has been very strong in the past 12 months. Growth in this country has been powered by consumer borrowing. If we drill into this, we find that the OBR says that in 2016 the savings ratio in the UK hit a historical low—it has gone to zero and below. People are dissaving. If people are not saving, ultimately the funds are not there to finance the investment that will raise productivity. Moreover, because saving has collapsed, the OBR does not think that there is a potential for consumer borrowing and consumer expenditure to continue to carry the economy. The OBR predicts a downturn in the availability of consumer funds over the next 12 months, so the dissaving cannot continue.

Most of the boost to consumer spending last year was a hangover from 2015, when inflation was fairly low. As real incomes were rising—a rare occurrence in the previous 10 years—people felt that they were a bit better off. However, now that inflation is rising, because the pound has tanked, we can expect consumer borrowing to disappear, so how will the economy meet its growth targets? The OBR says that the borrowing will be replaced by a rise in business investment. When I asked the OBR officials who appeared before the Treasury Committee yesterday why they thought that—where was the evidence that business investment would rise?—they had a wonderful answer, which quite took my breath away: “Business investment has been so low for so long that it is bound to go up some time.” [Laughter.] That was what they said; Members can go and read the transcript.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Things can only get better.

[George Kerevan]

Indeed, but I will believe that when I see it, and I will believe that pigs can fly.

[Ian Blackford]

May I amplify the point that my hon. Friend is making? On page 7 of its book, the OBR states that investment intentions have been put on hold, but when we turn the page, we find that business investment is forecast to grow by between 3.7% and 4.2% between 2018 and 2021. It simply does not add up, does it?

[George Kerevan]

Not only does it not add up, but it means that we will not have the investment in plant and machinery that will raise productivity. We will miss our productivity targets yet again. Since the Chancellor has amassed his war chest, he should be using it. He should not wait for two or three years to see what happens after Brexit—no general does that. What is needed is investment now. Let us get on with the T-levels. Let us invest in English schools. I think that that would be a good thing to do, but it is not what the Budget says.

[George Kerevan]

I accept that proposition but, having spent 25 years of my life teaching in further education, I know that £300 million for the whole of England and Wales becomes a tiny amount when we drill down to all the individual institutions. Can the Government not confront reality? If we want the productivity levels of Germany, we should not be talking about £300 million; we should be talking about £30 billion. If the Government do not want to spend £30 billion, that is fine, but they should not pretend that small amounts of money somehow solve the problem.

[Ian Blackford]

I learned a lot from my hon. Friend because about 35 years ago he was my economics lecturer.

We have delegated responsibility to the Bank of England through the quantitative easing programme, and that has led to a lack of balance. We have seen £435 billion of QE that simply has not worked, but we have not seen enough fiscal responsibility from the Government to create the circumstances that will deliver sustainable growth.

[George Kerevan]

My hon. Friend is right. However, it is important to pin the blame where it is deserved, because perhaps the Chancellor gets too much of it. The blame actually lies in Downing Street with the Prime Minister. When she launched her bid for leadership of the Conservative party on 30 June 2016, she said:

“If before 2020 there is a choice between further spending cuts, more borrowing and tax rises, the priority must be to avoid tax increases since they would disrupt consumption, employment and investment.”

Yet now we have a Budget that will raise the taxes of the self-employed and entrepreneurs—the people whose motivation is required for growth in the economy and an increase in productivity. It is the Prime Minister who has reneged on her leadership promise; the Chancellor is only doing her bidding.

This Budget claims to address the questions of education and productivity, but it is actually about selectivity and privilege for the narrow few. Let me tell the House what it has not done. For the first time in 100 years, the millennial generation is earning less than its parents. The Budget does not deal with that, because the Chancellor has sat on his war chest. Home ownership among middle earners is falling for the first time in 50 years. Mrs Thatcher would be turning in her grave if she heard that that was happening under a Conservative Government. By 2020-21—the end of the forecast period—average incomes will be a fifth less than they would have been if growth had continued at pre-crisis levels. There will be £5,000 less for every household.

The Conservative Government have not delivered a return to wealth for the ordinary person. The Chancellor’s freeze on universal credit and housing benefits means that one person in seven will have a lower real income in five years’ time. This is a Budget that does not address the real issues of inequality in this country. It is a Budget for inertia and complacency, and I will vote against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

This Budget was a missed opportunity to help deliver confidence and growth. The OBR has stated that the future is uncertain and that any central forecast is most unlikely to be fulfilled, which is a damning statement as it is ultimately the Government’s responsibility to create certainty.

Brexit approaches us like an enormous black cloud threatening stormy weather, which is perhaps not all the Chancellor’s fault. After all, the Prime Minister sets the direction. As the storm approaches, in the modern parlance of giving names to impending storms, we should call it Storm Theresa. This Budget was another missed opportunity to deal with the unfairness of the steep rise in women’s pensionable age over too short a timeframe. That from a Budget delivered on International Women’s Day. The irony is not lost on the WASPI women.

As thousands of WASPI women demonstrated outside Parliament, making such a tremendous noise that we could hear them clearly in this building, the only man who apparently could not hear was the Chancellor—deaf to the legitimate demands of the WASPI women and desperately hoping that their calls for fairness and equality would go away. Well their calls will not go away. Like the message communicated last week, the volume is going to be turned up. The campaign is gathering momentum and the Government will have to listen.

Some 245 Members of Parliament have lodged petitions asking for action on the WASPI women. There was a debate in Westminster Hall on 9 February, and the Chair accepted the challenge that the House had not considered the effect of state pension changes on working class women after a woeful and disrespectful response from the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery, the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). The fact that, following the challenge to the determination of the motion, the matter has not come back to the Chamber for determination is disgraceful. We will continue to pursue the matter.

Of course, the debate followed a Division in this Chamber on 1 December 2016 in which the House divided by 106 votes to two against the motion that this House had considered the acceleration of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s. There has been no Government response to that vote. The Government are choosing to ignore the message that this House delivered.

In all our discussions on the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the focus has been on the 2.6 million women who are supposedly affected—the Government have continually referred to that number—but a freedom of information request that came to light last Friday now alleges that the actual number is not 2.6 million but 3.48 million women. If those reports are accurate, nearly 1 million more women than originally thought are set to miss out on their pension entitlement. It is absolutely outrageous if that is the case, and I ask the Minister to give us clarity on that matter in his summing up.

What is the figure, and why the discrepancy? Why at this stage do the Government not appear to know the exact number of women affected by the changes? We have had the farce of it taking successive Governments 14 years to communicate formally with any of the women affected, and this latest twist adds insult to injury. If the reports are true, how did the Government get the figures wrong? We need answers from them today.

The UK Government must recognise that pensions ought to be a contract, not a benefit. The Budget presented an opportunity for them to live up to that contract. It is clear that delivering fair pensions is not a high priority for the Government. With inflation spikes forecast, the Budget was completely devoid of any mitigating measures to future-proof pensioner incomes. We need a clear commitment that the triple lock will remain in place beyond 2020 and that mitigation will be put in place for the WASPI women. The SNP has already published a paper that explains how the Government can push back the timescales for increasing the pensionable age for women, at a cost of £8 billion in this Parliament. That is affordable, given the £30 billion surplus in the national insurance fund. Why did the Government not take that opportunity in the Budget? What is it going to take for them to act?

There is talk of another referendum on Scottish independence; I wish to make it clear that pensioners in Scotland would get justice and fair pensions from an SNP Government—things that are sadly lacking from the UK Tory Government. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook is a damning indictment of Government policy over the past few years and demonstrates the lack of vision from the Government on our economic future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The Government’s intention, whatever side of the referendum debate individual Ministers took, is that the will of the British people has been clearly expressed in a referendum with a very high turnout, and that the House voted by an overwhelming majority to enact the European Union Referendum Bill and hand that decision to the British people. That mandate from the British people now needs to be respected.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

2. What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the Standing Orders of the House.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)]

Standing Orders undergo frequent revision. The Procedure Committee, the Clerks and the Government monitor their use to ensure that our Standing Orders reflect how business in the House is conducted in practice.

[Ian Blackford]

Yesterday, the Leader of the House announced a review of last year’s change to Standing Orders, which implemented the absurd English votes for English laws process, which disfranchises non-English MPs. Will he restore equality for MPs by removing the over-convoluted and shamefully partisan EVEL procedure from Standing Orders, and make sure that all MPs in this House are equal?

[Mr Lidington]

I shall take that as a first contribution to the consultation that the Government have initiated. I am disappointed that Members from the Scottish National party seem unable to comprehend that it is a matter of justice that legislation affecting only England should command the support of a majority of Members of Parliament from England.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain).

What a dismal failure of a Budget from a failing Chancellor. We heard yesterday that there are to be additional spending cuts of £3.5 billion in 2019-20, as austerity is forecast to still be with us 12 years after the financial crisis. Yet we hear that, among other measures, capital gains tax is to be cut. Let us contrast those two measures: tax cuts for the wealthy, and ongoing austerity for everyone else. That demonstrates once again that austerity is no more than a political choice by this Government.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that this Budget contains more cuts than a Bates motel shower curtain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Indeed it does. This Government have missed an opportunity to create hope for a better future, with investment in our economy and people.

When the OBR tells the Chancellor that growth forecasts are below expectations, he finds room for tax cuts and balances the books with further spending cuts. He said yesterday,

“nor as a nation are we powerless. We have a choice.”

No kidding! He is choosing to punish the poor again with the choices he is making. He also said that

“productivity growth across the west is too low”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 951.]

He made no analysis of why that is, and he did not reflect on why productivity in the UK, which we were told was central to the long-term economic plan, has been flatlining for so long.

There is no long-term economic plan. It is a myth and a meaningless soundbite from a Chancellor who does not have a plan to deliver sustainable economic growth. His only plan is to move out of No. 11 and into No. 10 Downing Street as soon as possible. Without a plan to drive productivity, we cannot drive sustainable economic growth.

Let us look at what the Chancellor is changing in the pensions world. We need predictability and a high degree of certainty if we are to encourage savings in this country and make sure that people have security and dignity in their old age, but the Chancellor carries on fiddling with the arrangements and undermines confidence in pension savings. The Chancellor’s abandonment of radical reform of tax relief in the Budget was a missed opportunity to rebalance the system and instil fairness at the heart of pension savings. The current pension tax relief regime is regressive, because it benefits higher-rate taxpayers exponentially, while modest earners miss out. The Financial Times last week ran a story with the headline:

“How to double your money instantly using pension tax breaks”,

adding:

“Welfare for the wealthy has rarely been so generous in the UK”.

That is the reality from this Conservative Government. The SNP support the offering of incentives through tax relief, but we want that to be done in a way that supports equity and fairness.

It is wholly remarkable and unacceptable, when we are told that welfare must be cut—when the poor have to pay the price—that pension tax relief, which is skewed towards helping higher tax-rate pensioners, is left untouched. Just where are the Government’s priorities? We are incentivising the wealthy and squeezing the poor; that is the Chancellor’s Britain.

The Chancellor has sat on his hands on tax relief in the week in which the Select Committee on Work and Pensions has published its report on the communication of state pension age changes. It is worth highlighting that the report’s conclusions and recommendations state:

“We recommend that, if the Government is subsequently able to allocate further funding, it should commission an independent assessment of the merits of the following options: slowing the increase in the state pension age to 66; revising the timetable for increases in the state pension age to reach 65 by April 2019 and 66 by April 2021…and a transitional pension benefit.”

Why has the Chancellor not reflected on that in the Budget, and why is he refusing to do something about frozen pensions? I tabled an early-day motion asking that we look at the issue of frozen pensions, because 550,000 foreign pensioners have paid into Britain, but their frozen pensions mean that they cannot benefit fully from that. The Government have to answer this charge. We are going into a European referendum. If the Brexiters win the day, an additional 400,000 British citizens will lose the automatic uprating of their pensions. That is something that the House must address.

Why does the Chancellor not look at redirecting some of his funds from pension tax relief to benefit the women born in the 1950s who are suffering inequality? This is a Budget that could do far better than it has done.

Online Retail Delivery Charges

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

I thought I had stepped out of place there and that I had done something wrong.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important consumer issue that affects individuals’ rights across the United Kingdom, but most particularly in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the highlands and islands of Scotland. I am indebted to Kellin McCloskey in the Gallery from the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland and David Moyes of Consumer Advice Scotland for all their hard work on this issue. I thank the Minister this evening for being prepared to respond and recognise that on this issue, a continued and concerted effort is required to effect the changes necessary to bring a level playing field to consumers right across the United Kingdom.

On 30 June, I put a question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills:

“Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to consider last week’s report from the Northern Ireland Consumer Council, which highlights the barriers to online consumers getting postage to Northern Ireland, the islands or the highlands of the United Kingdom? What steps can the Secretary of State take to create, dare I say it, a ‘one nation’ consumer market where the inhibitors and the barriers are removed once and for all?”

In response, I was delighted to hear from the Secretary of State:

“I have not yet had an opportunity to look at the report, but now that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it, I shall certainly do so, and I shall then be able to respond to him on the issue that he has raised. He may be interested to know, however, that just today it was reported that consumer confidence throughout the United Kingdom had hit a 15-year high, which means that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1336.]

I am delighted that consumer confidence was at a 15-year high, but I suspect the following figures I seek to rely on from the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland’s report are just not as encouraging to read.

When a constituent of mine contacted me about an online purchase, he explained how initially delighted he was to read that not only had he found a good deal online from a reputable site, but that delivery was advertised as “Free in the UK”. It was only at the final pay page that he discovered that the free delivery he had been promised was for mainland UK only, and that to proceed with the purchase he was required to pay an additional £5.99. Unclear as to whether this was an isolated issue, another constituent who works in east Belfast explained that he had faced a similar problem. Using eBay on this occasion, the inducement of free UK postage and packaging was quickly withdrawn when he supplied his postcode. To proceed with the purchase, he had to phone the retailer directly and agree a fee of £14, representing an additional 10% of the item cost.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing this most important debate. As he rightly said, it affects constituencies right across the United Kingdom and certainly in the highlands of Scotland.

I note that a survey from Citizens Advice Scotland, published today, shows that average delivery prices across the UK have increased from £4.99 to £5.01 over the past three years—a decline in prices in real terms—yet over the same time the average highland surcharge over and above that has increased form £12.10 to £14.23. When we consider that online shopping is 15% of the retail market in the UK, consumers in rural areas are facing a massive increased cost to participate in this growing market. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must protect consumers in rural areas from being exploited, and that, it is a first step, via a division of the universal service obligation, to take into account the growing importance of parcel delivery in the modern world?

[Gavin Robinson]

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps uniquely in my short experience in the Chamber, this Adjournment debate has struck some interest from the more peripheral parts of the United Kingdom. I do not wish to be mean or unkind, but it is important that I do not accept interventions from across the Chamber, to give me the opportunity to put forward my points. I should note that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), the chairman of the all-party group on the Isle of Man and the all-party group on the Channel Islands, has taken a keen interest in this issue. I am grateful to Members from across the Chamber who have highlighted the importance of this matter.

The Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, following its survey, indicated that 33% of online retailers applied a delivery exclusion to Northern Ireland. That can include higher delivery costs, longer delivery times or a refusal to offer a service at all. Other peripheral areas of the UK face high exclusion rates: 42% in the Channel Islands, 38% in the Isle of Man and 31% in the Scottish highlands and islands. Regrettably, and astoundingly, the figure for Northern Ireland as a whole stands at 33%. That is in stark contrast with the rest of the UK: 3% for the entirety of Scotland and Wales and only 1% for the entirety of England. Half of all online retailers in the UK fail to offer the same delivery options across the country, 17% refuse to deliver at all, 20% apply higher costs and 18% take much longer to deliver. The average one-off cost is £10 when free delivery is withdrawn, so while free UK postage and packaging is advertised, £10 is the average additional cost levied on a Northern Ireland consumer. An additional £2.71 is sought when the standard price for delivery is unavailable.

It is easy to try and give a reason for this. I will not use the vocabulary contained in this tweet, but this evening, when I announced that this Adjournment debate had been accepted and that we had the opportunity to raise this issue in Parliament, I got a rather caustic reply saying, “Well, of course it’s more expensive. You live on an island. What do you expect?” Of course, that goes some way to explaining the nature of the issues, but it does not answer or resolve the frustration facing consumers.

Unlike for letters, there is no universal regulated service for parcels. Standard delivery operators prefer to offer their services in densely populated and urban areas, and in offering retailers a contract price, they limit their own costs, and of course no one is forced to proceed with their purchase, should they not find the terms attractive.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this Adjournment debate. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) are disappointed that I am replying to the debate rather than his new friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. She was due to be here, but is on her way to “Question Time”, where she may well meet the right hon. Gentleman again. I shall do my best to respond to the debate on her behalf. If I do not adequately answer any of the detailed questions that have been posed, I will make sure that she writes to hon. Members with all the details.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) on securing this debate on an important subject that has been raised with me by constituents in a number of emails and letters over the past few months. I am glad she acknowledged that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a very beneficial free-trade area, and that her fine country and the entire United Kingdom rely on trade and have benefited from trade over centuries and generations. Indeed, we think that we are quite good at it and that we usually benefit more even than our trading partners from its expansion.

The Government are confident that the agreement will produce huge economic benefits on both sides of the Atlantic. Outside the EU, the US is the largest export market for British goods and services, and a successful deal could eventually boost our economy by as much as £10 billion each year. That is a large and abstract number, but it translates into additional disposable income of about £400 a year for the households that the hon. Lady and I represent. More money in people’s pockets, cheaper goods and services, more jobs, and new markets for small and growing businesses—those are the things that we are talking about when we talk about this agreement. It is not an abstract or technical process established by elites; it is an opportunity for people up and down the land to benefit.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The Minister made an interesting point about a £10 billion benefit to the United Kingdom economy. Where did that figure came from, and what analysis was undertaken to produce it?

[Nick Boles]

I do not have that information in my pack, but I shall be happy to provide it. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise will reply in writing to any detailed questions that Members may have.