Oral Answers to Questions
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)
Oxford, Cambridge and, of course, Milton Keynes are part of a globally significant area with world-leading technology, life sciences and space sectors. However, their growth potential is constrained by poor connectivity, a lack of lab space and high housing costs. The Government are committed to working with local authorities and other stakeholders to unlock growth. The first section of East West Rail is in construction and will bring benefits to my hon. Friend’s constituency in 2025.
Iain Stewart
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. A few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and I hosted an event for the East West main line partnership to launch its report, “Building Better Connections”, which sets out the wider economic benefits of the arc as a whole and the rail line in particular. I urge my hon. Friend to read that report and assure me that any investment decisions will be based on the wider economic benefit, not just on a narrow cost-benefit analysis.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his fine words and welcome. We will consider that report with interest, and I was glad to hear about the event that he hosted with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as a long-standing champion not just of the East West Rail connection, but of the wider growth opportunity that links in with that. This is such an important area not only for international competitiveness, but for the UK economy. As he knows, the first section of East West Rail is already in construction and we will set out the next steps on the later stages shortly. I reassure him that we recognise the significant economic growth that the project could unlock by increasing connectivity and supporting the region’s high productivity sectors.
Mr Speaker
In that case, let us bring in Daniel Zeichner, as the other party.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I hear the answer, but this issue is so important not just for the arc, but for unlocking the transport and housing issues in a city such as Cambridge. On different days of the week, we get different views from different Secretaries of State. Can we hear what the Treasury’s view is on the importance of restoring the rail link?
James Cartlidge
As a fellow East Anglian MP, it is great to see the hon. Member working in partnership with colleagues on these important matters for his constituency. He will know that the region was singled out by The Economist in August 2022 as being vital to invest in if the UK is to achieve growth and proper investment, and that East West Rail was a key recommendation in the National Infrastructure Commission’s 2017 report to unlock the potential of the Oxford and Cambridge area, including Milton Keynes. That has not changed and we are committed to it.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)
The Government keep the approved mileage allowance payment rate under review. As the rate is set using an average, it is more appropriate for some drivers than for others. Employers, including public sector employers, can agree to reimburse a different amount that better reflects their employee’s circumstances.
Dan Jarvis
Petrol costs are up by a third since January, but mileage rates for keyworkers have now been frozen for a decade. That means, for example, that midwives attending home births, social workers safeguarding vulnerable children and palliative nurses providing end-of-life care cannot afford in many cases the petrol they need to do their jobs. Will the Minister look to increase the mileage allowance payment rates?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I think we are all conscious of the general increase in costs faced by keyworkers and all our workers, but let me make this point about the specific HMRC-approved mileage allowance payments rate. He will appreciate that, ultimately, it is there as an administrative convenience for both employers and employees. The employer can choose to pay more, though of course they would have to check the tax impact with the employee. We do sympathise about the cost of fuel, but that is why we took that crucial measure in the spring statement to cut the rate of duty on petrol and diesel by 5p a litre for 12 months. That is worth £2.4 billion for everyone who uses an internal combustion engine, whether in the public or the private sector.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am sure that I am not the only Member to be concerned that, as MPs, we get considerably more than care workers doing domiciliary care visits. Can we try to even that out, so that some of the lowest-paid people in the public sector get a decent allowance?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In my capacity as a constituency MP, I recently met with a domiciliary care company, and it is clear that this cost of running its vehicles is significant. I repeat the point that these approved mileage allowance payments are really there as an administrative convenience, so that employers can support their staff. Employers can pay more, but, obviously, there may be tax implications. The crucial point is that we have cut the tax on both petrol and diesel, and that tax cut was significant. It was only the second time in 20 years that we cut both the main rates of petrol and diesel.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)
The energy profits levy was introduced from 26 May in response to sharp increases in oil and gas prices and to help fund cost of living support for UK households. It is an additional 25% surcharge on UK oil and gas profits. The Government have calculated that they expect the levy to raise more than £7 billion this financial year. All taxes are kept under review at all times.
Claire Hanna
Households and businesses are being crippled by energy costs, with support non-existent in the case of the Northern Ireland energy scheme. At the same time, Shell has reported quarterly profits of £8.2 billion and BP of more than £7 billion, but, under current rules, Shell is not expected to pay any windfall taxes in this year. It is encouraging that there is word that the Government are intending to extend the scope of the windfall tax, and it is not before time. Undoubtedly, there are difficult financial decisions to be taken, but this is not one of them. When even Shell is saying that this tax should be embraced, we know that the policy is in the wrong place. Will the Chancellor commit to increasing the scope of the levy and to closing loopholes on timing, share buybacks and the investment allowances that allow tax to be avoided by diverting profit into polluting and unsustainable fuels?
James Cartlidge
To be clear, the levy is an additional 25% surcharge on UK oil and gas profits on top of the existing 40% headline rate of tax, taking the combined rate of tax on those profits to 65%. The hon. Lady is right that the levy contributes to the support that will be going out to Northern Ireland; it will come in a month later, but will be backdated to 1 October, and it will include businesses as well as households.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)
We are committed to developing floating offshore wind to support our energy security and net zero ambitions. The contracts for difference scheme has already supported the first-of-its-kind TwinHub project off the coast of Cornwall, which will deliver enough energy to power 45,000 homes. The floating offshore wind demonstration programme provided £31 million in grant funding to support many other new innovative projects.
Stephen Kinnock
Floating offshore wind has the potential to transform the economy and jobs market in my Aberavon constituency and across south Wales, but it will only happen if floating offshore wind substructures and other components are manufactured and assembled locally. There are two concerns: first, the Crown Estate is putting in place leasing criteria that seem to be about the highest bidder rather than maximising local value and content, and secondly, there are rumours flying around that the Government may be cancelling the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, which will be fundamental to facilitating the whole programme. Will the Minister confirm that he will urge Crown Estates to maximise local content in the criteria and that the Government are 100% committed to the FLOWMIS programme?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman is a staunch campaigner for his constituency’s ability to take advantage of this exciting new technology, and I pay tribute to him for that. As he knows, the Crown Estate works independently to manage the seabed and has an important role in the deployment of floating offshore wind. Its approach for the 4 GW leasing opportunity in the Celtic sea is focused on ensuring the development of this new technology market in the UK as quickly as possible. But, to be clear—cutting to his point about content—the Crown Estate has announced that for the first time it is reforming the tender process to consider supply chain plans, sending a clear signal to the market that UK content is important.
Wera Hobhouse
Many renewable energy projects are limited by a lack of grid capacity. We have more wind farms ready for investment in the coming decade than the rest of the world, but the grid is not ready. For future offshore wind projects, who will be paying for the grid connections?
James Cartlidge
This issue has certainly captured the imagination in East Anglia, where the hon. Lady may be aware that there are certain proposals to bring forward improvements in the grid, although that is ultimately the responsibility of National Grid. We need to address the grid, but I hope she will agree that the country has already made enormous progress in increasing capacity from offshore wind. She may be aware that in 2011 renewables made up just 9% of our electricity; that figure is now over 40%.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Floating offshore wind is emerging as a major new industry, both globally and for us in the UK, in places such as the Celtic sea. The key question for us is how much of the real economic value of that new industry stays here in the UK. To that end, I encourage my hon. Friend to meet Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers and the Crown Estate, to ensure that the leasing rounds are properly structured and that the contracts for difference process and other policy tools, such as the FLOWMIS port funding and the freeport policy hopefully coming to south Wales, are all properly aligned to deliver British content.
James Cartlidge
I repeat the point I made to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) about content. I hope that addresses some of my right hon. Friend’s concerns, but I am more than happy to meet him first and then feed back to other Ministers and see what more we can do. He is absolutely right that this is an extraordinarily positive opportunity and, if we seize it, it will deliver for parts of our country such as his constituency.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The BP Mona wind farm, 20 miles off the coast of Anglesey, will generate 1.5 GW of electricity and provide more than 1,500 construction jobs and £3.5 billion of investment in an area desperately in need of good-quality jobs. Will the Minister urge his colleagues in the Senedd to invest in the Holyhead breakwater so that BP Mona can move the project forward, and will he confirm that investment in Holyhead port is the responsibility of the Welsh Government, not the UK Government?
James Cartlidge
I cannot think of a colleague who champions energy investment in their constituency quite as much as my hon. Friend. I can confirm that the port of Holyhead is a very important part of the wider transport and economic infrastructure of the UK. I know that the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Security has written to her and specified quite clearly whose responsibility that is, and she is absolutely correct.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
The Government allow offshore wind but are still banning onshore wind. Ending the ban would give us a vital tool to reach net zero, make Britain a clean energy superpower, and open up new investment and growth opportunities. Keeping the onshore wind ban will make energy bills £16 billion higher between now and 2030. Why on earth are Ministers undermining green growth and cheaper energy by maintaining the self-defeating ban on onshore wind?
James Cartlidge
The Government are committed to delivering cheaper, cleaner and more secure power. That is why we included onshore wind in the latest auction round for contracts for difference, which have delivered a 50% technology cost reduction since 2015. The Government recognise the range of community views on onshore wind, and it is important that we strike the right balance between community interests and securing a clean, green energy system for the future. That is why we have committed to consulting on developing local partnerships for supportive communities in England who wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)
Further to my previous answer, the Government are serious about delivering cheaper, cleaner and more secure power. That is why we included onshore wind and solar in the latest contracts for difference auction round, and we will include them in future rounds. The Government recognise the range of community views on onshore wind and the need the prioritise our most productive farmland for food production. It is important that the Government strike the right balance between community interests, food security and securing a clean, green energy system for the future. That is why the planning system is designed to take account of those issues.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
James Cartlidge
Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a rural constituency, where probably the majority of households use heating oil. As he knows, the alternative fuel payment will ensure that all households that do not benefit from the energy price guarantee receive support for the cost of the fuel they use. We are currently consulting the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the timing and delivery mechanism for the alternative fuel payment. We are committed to delivering it this winter.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend, like The Sun newspaper, is a champion of motorists, hauliers and all those in his constituency who rely on petrol and diesel vehicles for their—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but my hon. Friend is standing up for his constituents and doing the right thing. He is absolutely right to highlight the huge tax cut we put in place in the spring statement, worth £2.4 billion, through 5p a litre off the duty rate on petrol and diesel for 12 months. Of course, I cannot make fiscal decisions at the Dispatch Box, but we do keep these matters under review.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Bedford to Cambridge section of East West Rail is rated “unachievable” by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and a “waste of taxpayers’ money” by the Business Secretary, and growth in the Ox-Cam arc does not depend on it. Can the Chancellor use the autumn statement to finally clear the uncertainty around this deeply flawed project?
James Cartlidge
I paid tribute to my hon. Friend’s huge business experience and his time at the Treasury on Second Reading of the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill. Perhaps we should both read the report that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to earlier, because as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) knows, we strongly support the growth potential of the Ox-Cam arc. After all, that part of the country is internationally competitive, so it is the sort of place that we need to grow if we are to compete internationally.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Government advice to sit in the shade is not enough to protect our skin. Sunscreen products need to be more affordable. Will the Minister work with me and support my VAT Burn campaign to save the NHS money, keep more cash in our constituents’ pockets and help to protect our skin from melanoma and non-melanoma cancers?
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The noble Lord Berkeley in the other place has estimated that scrapping HS2 would save the British taxpayer £147 billion—more pessimistic estimates have the saving at £100 billion. With a day of difficult decisions coming up on Thursday, surely scrapping HS2 is an easy one?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is consistent on this point. We are always keen to hear savings suggestions from colleagues, but to be clear, HS2 is a long-term investment that will bring our biggest cities closer together and boost productivity. It currently supports 29,000 jobs and will create 2,000 apprenticeships. Through better connecting the country, it will open up new employment and leisure opportunities for millions of people.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor just mentioned my good friend Lord Alistair Darling. He should also look at the recent speech made in Huddersfield by another former Chancellor, Sir John Major. His analysis of what has happened to our economy since the Conservatives took over in 2010 is an absolute masterclass in what has gone wrong and what needs to be put right. Will the Chancellor read it and think about it before Thursday?
UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]
James Cartlidge ExcerptsTuesday 1st November 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 View all UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (1 Jul 2022)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)
I begin by saying how grateful I am to all the Members who have contributed today; it has perhaps been more a case of quality than quantity. When we talk about the funding of this important bank, it is a case of both quality and quantity. We are talking about billions of pounds of investment for two crucial priorities for this Government and this country: levelling up and net zero.
Let us be clear that that work is already under way, with the bank delivering very important projects to date, as we can see when we consider the following: £107 million for the redevelopment of the former Redcar steelworks site on Teesside, which will drive forward the offshore wind sector and create 800 jobs; 4,000 more jobs unlocked by investment in green transport in Birmingham, connecting its city centre, Solihull and Birmingham airport through a zero emissions corridor; spades already in the ground to ramp up solar and meet our energy needs, with plants opening in Newport, south Wales, and Strensham, Worcestershire; and fast, affordable and reliable broadband to 8 million homes across 285 towns and cities in England and Wales by 2025, with a further investment to deliver ultrafast broadband to businesses and households in rural Northern Ireland.
Let me turn to the comments made by the Opposition spokespeople, as I am grateful for their support. I could not tell at times whether it was enthusiastic or slightly reluctant, but either way I am very grateful that we have a consensus in this Chamber on the importance of delivering this Bill, including from the SNP, whose support I am also grateful for.
Both the hon. Members for Ealing North (James Murray) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) spoke about our record. Let us be clear about something: between 1990 and 2019 our carbon dioxide emissions in this country fell by a staggering 44%—they fell by almost half. I do not think there is any other industrialised economy that can compare on that. In the same period, our economy grew by three quarters, because we can have growth and cut emissions—we are proving that. That is why the bank has the dual mission to deliver on net zero and on investing in local and regional economic growth. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sefton Central chunters from a sedentary position. He was critical of our efforts on offshore wind and renewables, but we have the largest capacity of offshore wind in Europe. I am proud, as the MP for South Suffolk, of the extraordinary contribution of offshore wind off East Anglia and what it is doing to drive forward this country’s journey to net zero. The difference here is that we are doing it in the real world. Let me put that in context. Renewables in 2010 made up just 7% of our total energy, whereas this year the figure was up to 43%. We have seen extraordinary growth and we should all be very proud of that.
Both the Labour spokespeople asked the specific question on worker representatives. I understand where they are coming from, but we do not believe this amendment would be necessary. We have asked the bank to abide by the corporate governance code to the extent appropriate to the UK Infrastructure Bank, which specifies that the board should engage with the workforce through either a director appointed from the workforce, a former workforce advisory panel or a designated non-executive director. The bank has appointed a NED, Marianne Økland, who will take on this role. I hope that that answers that question.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central asked about our commitment to levelling up, so let me be clear. The levelling-up fund has already awarded £1.7 billion, and there is £2.6 billion from the shared prosperity fund, £3.2 billion from the towns fund and £5.7 billion from the city region sustainable transport settlements. I call that a commitment to levelling up, and we on the Government Benches are proud to be pushing that forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) speaks on these matters with great expertise; not only was he a Treasury Minister, but we must not forget that in the real world he was a successful businessman in his own right. He posed some very good questions, including one about the target rate of return. I can be clear that in the framework document for the bank, a target return of 2.5% to 4% by the end of 2025-26 is set out. We think there would be problems were we to state that target in law—one can imagine the potential downside—but to ensure transparency there will be a review of the bank’s operations within seven years. The review will look specifically at additionality—the degree to which investment is additional—because although we support the bank, we all have to defend the interests of taxpayers. We look to them as I look to you as I speak, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend also asked about green finance leadership. I can confirm that according to the latest global green finance index compiled by Z/Yen, London is once again classed as the greenest finance centre in the world. Rumour has it that a certain Treasury Minister might well be in Egypt next week promoting that very point.
On the power of direction in clause 4, no one should get too excited; we are not talking about a return to the good old days of socialism. I confirm that the bank is operationally independent. The Treasury can already issue directions to the bank under companies law and as set out in the bank’s framework document. Clause 4 simply puts the existing power on a statutory footing for transparency and accountability.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) for his welcome and for his discourse on rolling stock. As the son of a father who was into model railways, train sets and all the rest of it, it brought back some memories. He and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) both spoke about devolved issues. All I can say is that we at the Treasury have had very positive discussions with the devolved Administrations, and the bank itself has of course spoken to both the Development Bank of Wales and the Scottish National Investment Bank. I am sure we will have further discussions and a very positive relationship. On specific investment, I say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr that the bank is operationally independent, but I am sure it will take into account the points he put on the record today.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) made a very good point when she spoke about the sheer scale of the investment needed to deliver net zero. We in His Majesty’s Treasury are well aware of that. That is why it is so important that the funding capacity from this bank will be £22 billion, crowding in a further £18 billion. That is a huge step forward, but we know there is more to do, which is why it is important that the Bill is before the House. It is the next step in a necessary but exciting journey of transformation of infrastructure projects in our country. It will establish the bank in the market and ensure its longevity in the future.
As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening speech, we have designed the bank to be a long-lasting institution to deliver long-term priorities and projects on which we all depend and, above all, net zero and levelling up. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Uk Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 22 November 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.— (Jo Churchill.)
Question agreed to.
UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]: Money
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Treasury; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided; and
(2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums payable out of the Fund by virtue of the Act.—(Victoria Atkins.)
Question agreed to.
Economic Responsibility and a Plan for Growth
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. Can she confirm that whatever her policy on windfall tax is, the overwhelming majority of her energy support package would have been paid for by borrowing?
Rachel Reeves
The point is that the Government are leaving billions of pounds of unneeded and unnecessary borrowing on the table. Why leave that money on the table when even the energy giants are saying that they have more money than they know what to do with? All that money has been put on borrowing and debt to be paid back by current taxpayers. Tens of billions of pounds have been left on the table by this Tory Government.
It has always been a question of who pays for support with bills. The Conservatives always put it on the never-never, but in the end it is working people who pay the price. In August, Bloomberg reported that the Government’s estimates of energy company windfall profits in the UK over the next two years could be £170 billion. The last Chancellor disputed that and so did the one before, but neither of them confirmed the actual figure. Why not?
Labour’s fiscal rules would protect the economy and protect families. We should not borrow a penny more than is absolutely necessary. That is why our motion
“calls on the Government to publish the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts immediately alongside Government estimates of windfall profits for the next two years from energy producers in the UK.”
Doing so is in the public interest. Refusal to publish will only confirm that the Government are again putting the profits of energy giants ahead of the sky-high bills for families, pensioners and businesses.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend the new Member for Southend West makes a very important point. We are absolutely committed to investment zones. I wish her success in her campaign to attract one to Southend-on-Sea. As the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has noted, this will be a transformational programme for the whole United Kingdom, and I hope that many Opposition Members get behind it and seek to attract such zones to their own constituencies.
We are continuing to deliver support for families by cutting national insurance, and we will save an average of £330 for 28 million hard-working people. We will deliver reforms to boost housing supply and accelerate infrastructure projects across the country, enabling growth where it is needed the most.
James Cartlidge
Last week, we considered the Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill. I spoke in the debate, and said that I hoped that the repeal would not lead to the cap on social care being watered down. As I understand it, the cap may now be delayed or even not come into force at all. We should all be very concerned about that. One of the greatest achievements of the previous Prime Minister was finally introducing a tangible policy on social care. Does the Minister accept that when we repealed the levy it would have been better had we known then that it would have a material impact on social care policy?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes his point typically strongly. He, like me, will look forward to hearing the medium-term fiscal strategy shortly. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) asked what we will do to protect households with their interest rates and mortgages.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
A report out today shows that 60% of people across the nations of the UK are worried about their household financial prospects. The same report shows that nine in 10 people have delayed putting on the heating due to concern about the cost.
Members across the House will have received emails and calls from people who have never before been moved to contact their MP and who are now feeling those concerns for themselves. When those who have felt relatively comfortable start feeling the pinch, imagine what it means for those on the rungs of the ladder below. Then imagine what it means for those who were not getting by at all, who were already suffering from poverty and who had £20 a week cut from their universal credit. It is crushing them. It is destroying families. It is clearing out food banks. It is moving third-sector and support service staff to tears with the feeling of futility. And it is destroying the health of children.
The actions of this Westminster Government have left vulnerable households abandoned, betrayed and cast aside. This Government laid bare their ideology during the chaotic period of the so-called mini-Budget. Make no mistake, while they were doing that damage, they simply pulled back the curtain on their core ideology. Their error was being so obvious, so blunt, that political spin could not cover it. Their focus has always been on making the rich richer. When their key policies result in poverty but mean £40,000 extra each year for those earning £1 million a year it is a bit of a giveaway, is it not? Only those earning more than £155,000 a year were net beneficiaries of the mini-Budget.
Of course, this month’s Chancellor has had to scrap this unfunded giveaway to the most well-off, not through genuine contrition but because he was forced to do so. Limp and clearly insincere apologies do not fool anyone. The parachute Chancellor has dropped in to try to close the curtain and return to the drip, drip of chronic austerity that is the usual modus operandi. People now see through it.
With inflation above 10%, the poor are facing the hardest choices. Food inflation is higher than 10%, which means they have really tough choices. The Chancellor has taken away the two-year energy price cap. Although the cap is welcome, it still means a doubling of prices from last year. Ominously, there will be a review in six months. There is no certainty for increasingly desperate people, while rich bankers will still see their wages rocket, as the cap on their bonuses has been removed.
James Cartlidge
On the subject of banking, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that current SNP policy is that Scotland, were it to become independent, would have a currency with no lender of last resort?
Drew Hendry
Let me deal with two issues. First, no amount of deflection by Conservative Members will take away from the fact that they are punishing the poor and they have trashed the economy in recent weeks. Secondly, on the prospectus for independence, people in Scotland should have a choice: to have those questions put before them and to vote on them. It is the hon. Gentleman’s Government who are denying democracy in that case.
Drew Hendry
No, I am going to make some progress.
The Chancellor has ominously set that cap up for a review in six months, providing no certainty for increasingly desperate people, while rich bankers will still be able to see their wages rocket, as I said, with the cap on their bonuses removed. The energy crisis is even more galling for my constituents, and many more across Scotland, as they see their energy being produced from their backyards, yet folk in the colder climate of the highlands pay more per unit for electricity than people anywhere else in the UK—renewable energy suppliers are charged more to connect to the grid than those anywhere else in the UK, and the picture is particularly bleak for those who are off the gas grid.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and his little shop of horrors, and it is a pleasure to be called to speak on this Labour motion. There is one thing missing from it, because the Labour party normally wants an impact assessment. One thing I have concluded about politics is that we always miss out one impact assessment: the impact of our measures on those who have least of all. When I say least of all, I mean those who have literally nothing—no money, no assets and above all no voice—because they have not been born yet. I am talking about the impact of the decisions we take in government today on those who are to come. In other words, I am talking about the national debt. For me, as a Conservative, it goes to the core of everything I believe in that, as with the environment, we should leave the public finances in a better condition for our grandchildren.
It is fair to say that I warned in the summer that the unfunded measures that were proposed constituted a high-risk strategy. I was dismayed when they were announced and not surprised at their impact. I was, however, delighted by the new appointment to the Treasury of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt)—I had the privilege of being his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Health Secretary and Foreign Secretary—and of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is an excellent appointment.
I want to reflect on the wider idea of unfunded tax cuts or spending. There are those in the Opposition who have called it libertarianism. It is certainly not conservatism, in my view. Neither is it libertarianism, because the unfunded measures were not matched by spending reductions—in other words, a smaller state—but the money was simply to be borrowed. There is an argument for saying that it is socialism, and it is certainly what we would have expected from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). But really, when people promise stuff without saying how they would pay for it or making any difficult decisions, it is populism. This is not new. Where we are with the economy has implications for all of us, from all parts of the House. Whatever steps we now take and whatever measures we announce, we will have to say how they will be paid for. We will have to level with the British people.
I had the great privilege of being PPS to the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) when he was Chancellor. Throughout the pandemic, I never got a single email from a single colleague, no matter how left-wing or right-wing they were, calling for less support. There were only calls for more spending, more tax cuts, more generous support, more debt.
Many, including some Conservative Members, argue that we can borrow because it creates growth. The beauty of that position is that they do not have to say who loses out. That is the hard thing in politics, and we now have to face up to the reality of our position. It will have massive implications for parties on both sides of the House. Even the SNP, in relation to the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, announced a policy to be paid for from the surplus in the national insurance fund, which, though an accounting reality, does not exist as surplus money in the Government accounts that can be committed for years to come. We have all heard such commitments.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about accounting and balancing the books. Perhaps he and his colleagues would like to come up to Scotland and take lessons from our Government, who are having to fill the black holes that his Government have created, because we actually have to balance the books in Scotland. Forget trickle-down economics; it is trickle-down tragedy that I am seeing in my constituents in Livingston being pushed under by the absolute chaos at the heart of this Tory Government.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady was not here when I intervened on the SNP Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I asked if it was true that were Scotland to be independent, its policy would be to have a currency with no lender of last resort, and he did not deny it. It is the most extraordinary proposition, exceeded in its stupidity only by the old idea of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, to be enforced at the same time as unilateral nuclear disarmament—in other words, making nuclear conflict more likely while denuding ourselves of the ability to deter it.
I turn to social care, which I care about passionately. The social care workforce do one of the toughest jobs in the country, and I never take them for granted. They care for the most vulnerable, particularly those with dementia. We all know that they are facing a difficult period, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly knows that.
Last week, I was one of only two speakers on the Conservative Benches who spoke in the debate on the Bill to repeal the health and social care levy. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) that his predecessor as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, our right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said several times that, despite the repeal, there would be not a penny less for health and social care. We now know that the social care cap may be delayed, or may even not happen—I sincerely hope that that is not the case. Had I known that last week, would I have changed the way I would have voted had a Division been called? My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood has been a Health Minister and knows the importance of social care. He needs to reflect on the commitment given last week. I can tell him right now that I would have been sorely tempted to vote against the Bill had I known then what I know now.
The whole point of the levy was to deliver a solution to social care and to help to fund the NHS through these difficult times. It was one of the great achievements of the previous Prime Minister that, after all these years of social care Green Papers and White Papers, not taking decisions, and yes, commitments to spend with no explanation of where the money will come from—perhaps a wealth tax, although that would not get the revenue—we got a policy, and one that was credibly funded. The method of funding it was arguably not perfect, but it would have delivered a cap for those who otherwise face no limit on the costs they can incur if, for example, a loved one in their senior years has dementia. I think that our policy priority must be ensuring the dignity of our most senior citizens at the toughest time of their and their dependants’ lives.
It gives me no satisfaction to make these points about the importance of sound fiscal policy, balancing the books and having regard to future generations. That has been the core of every Conservative Government I have served in, and I know it is back at the core with our new Chancellor, who I am sure will deliver market confidence. But we all need to understand that the era of making unfunded pledges is over. That will have implications for all parties, as we will all face greater accountability, but for my grandchildren—if I ever get them—it is a good thing.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am pleased to conclude the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I welcome the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury to his position. His colleague the Exchequer Secretary is an old-timer: she has been in post for six weeks. No doubt she is sitting at the Treasury talking about the old times back in September.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. We have heard many powerful speeches about the impact of inflation and rising energy costs, the pressures on business, the UK’s international reputation and the impact of rising mortgage rates. If you will forgive me, however, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to single out the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who not only spoke about his own health issues, but added his voice to those of Conservative Members calling for the Prime Minister to go.
This country has been through very significant economic damage in recent weeks: a run on the pound, a spike in gilt yields that has increased the cost of Government borrowing, emergency interventions from the Bank of England to prop up the country’s pension system, and a spike in mortgage rates that will add to the household costs of millions of people to years to come. All of it has been self-inflicted—not an act of God, not the result of global conditions, but the result of using the country for an ideological experiment. To deal with the argument that the Financial Secretary made at the beginning of the debate—essentially, that this is all global—I will quote from a letter from the Bank of England to the Treasury Committee. If any Conservative Member wants to intervene to say that any of it is wrong, they can be my guest.
Immediately after the mini-Budget, there were two days with the biggest daily rises in gilt yields in 20 years. Over four days, the rise was twice as large as the biggest rise since 2000. The Bank of England says that
“the scale and speed of repricing…far exceeded historical moves”.
Following the mini-Budget, gilts moved more in one day than in 23 of the past 27 years. No such moves happened in gilts in dollars, euros or other major currencies. There were global factors before the mini-Budget, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, the global context was a reason not to act in such a rash manner, not a reason to behave with all the restraint of a couple of trigger-happy pyromaniacs.
This crisis was not born of global conditions, but made in Downing Street. It has destroyed the Conservative party’s claims to be the party of economic competence and of sound money. The real-life impact of what the Government have done has been to place a Tory risk premium on the country’s borrowing costs and a Tory premium on people’s mortgage rates.
James Cartlidge
I asked the shadow Chancellor earlier whether it was correct that Labour’s intervention in energy support would be almost primarily funded by borrowing despite its pledges on the windfall tax. Is that correct?
Mr McFadden
We have never argued that there was no need for borrowing. The point we made was that much more of this could be funded by a windfall tax. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is some sort of revelation, I can only ask him where he has been living for the last few months.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of September behaved like student pamphleteers. When the Prime Minister stood up at her conference and attacked
“vested interests dressed up as think tanks”,
it was an announcement worthy of the gold medal for lack of self-awareness, for never has there been a Government more symbolic of the failure of think-tanks on influential thinking than the one that she leads.
The Prime Minister and her ideological soulmate got the keys to the Treasury Ferrari, took it for a joyride and then crashed it into a ditch. Now, belatedly, by commissioning the OBR report and singing the praises of an independent Bank of England after spending all the summer undermining it, they have signed themselves up for the speed awareness course; but it is too late, because people will continue to pay the price of what they have done.
We have now had two fiscal events with no report from the OBR. This was not just about what was done, but about how it was done. The whole country is paying a price for the Conservative party’s contempt for the institutions that safeguard our economic credibility. And where does it all leave the Prime Minister? The mini-Budget was not a surprise to her; it was not imposed on her; she was 100% its co-author. It embodied her beliefs, her world view, the central core of the campaign on which she fought and won the leadership contest. Now everything she believes in has had to be burned in front of her to try to keep this zombie Government carrying on. This is not a case of “too far, too fast”, as she has claimed, or of a minor policy U-turn. It is a repudiation of everything that she stands for. It is a total and utter reversal.
The one surviving policy that the Prime Minister keeps praying in aid, the energy price guarantee, is the one policy that she campaigned against throughout her leadership campaign, saying that she was opposed to handouts. The question now is, what is her premiership for? Is it for the policies that she really believes in—those in the mini-Budget, now rejected and lying in ashes—or is it for the revenge of the orthodoxy that she so disdains? Each dose of the medicine she takes entails embracing that which she has so publicly rejected. Her argument, in effect, is “Please keep me here so that I can be what I am not.”
Economic Update
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Hunt
Those comments have not been coming from the Government since I have been a part of the Government. I cannot talk about what happened before, but what I will say is that I am working extremely closely with the Bank of England, and we are both absolutely aligned on the need for stability.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and welcome him to his post. Is a crucial point not that one weakness of the plan for growth is that fiscal and monetary policy were, in effect, contradicting one another? When we talk about working with the Bank of England, what that really means is fiscal and monetary policy working in lockstep so that we deal with inflation, which is the biggest economic challenge we face.
Economic Situation
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have already set out how there have been global trends over the past six or nine months, with higher energy prices, higher inflation and a cycle of increasing interest rates around the globe. In particular, I set out how the monetary tightening in the United States, at 300 basis points over the past nine or 10 months, is one and a half times higher than the fiscal tightening in the United Kingdom, which has been 200 basis points over the same period.
In relation to the hon. Lady’s questions about balancing the books over the medium term, the medium-term fiscal plan will set that out. We do intend to control public spending—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Well, just listen to the answer—for example, to stick within the spending review 2021 spending limits. I would point out to the House that those SR21 spending limits do see real-terms increases over the three years, but we are going to be sticking with iron discipline to those spending limits, not increasing them, and we will also show spending restraint in the years ahead. However, showing spending restraint is different from real-terms cuts.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is very welcome that, a few minutes ago, the Chief Secretary said that the effect of the statement on 31 October will be to show that the Chancellor is 100% committed to fiscal responsibility. That is very welcome to colleagues on all sides, I think, but can he confirm that that means all the previous unfunded tax cuts will now be funded in that statement?
Chris Philp
What the statement will set out in the round is how we will get debt as a proportion of GDP falling in the medium term. That is the critical metric, and that is what the medium-term fiscal plan will deliver.
Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill
James Cartlidge ExcerptsTuesday 11th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 View all Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 October 2022 - (11 Oct 2022)
Chris Philp
I do not think I should trespass into the realm of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Deputy Prime Minister. She will make her own views and policy on that issue without intervention from me. We are ensuring that the NHS is well funded so that it can provide the treatment our constituents need. Our commitment to NHS funding is undiminished.
Let me turn to the Bill, which repeals the health and social care levy. Members will recall that the health and social care levy was originally announced in September last year, and the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 20 October last year. The levy had two phases: first, a temporary 1.25% increase for employers and employees in the current tax year; and then from April 2023 a formal surcharge of 1.25%, which would have affected not just those of working age but also those of state pension age. The Bill repeals that Act with elegant simplicity. Clause 1 states simply:
“The Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021 is repealed.”
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the Chief Secretary on his appointment. What he said on the energy support for my constituents and all our constituents is very important, and I very much welcome that. However, on repealing the levy, he is of course aware that one of the most important things that it was going to fund was the welcome cap on care costs introduced by the Government, which had been promised by successive Governments with many a White Paper and many a Green Paper. How will we now pay for that?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We are long-standing colleagues, and I look forward to working with him for many years to come. To be clear, the funding that was to be provided via the levy for both health and social care, which in the case of social care amounted to £5.4 billion over the three-year spending review period, is completely unaltered. There is no change to that funding at all.
My hon. Friend asked about funding for social care. The funding envelope for all public services will be set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 31 October via his medium-term fiscal plan. We will ensure that we are responsible custodians of the public finances by sticking to the spending plan set out in spending review 2021. We will be disciplined about doing that. We will ensure that we generally exercise spending restraint, mindful of the fact that we cannot have public spending forever increasing at faster and faster rates. We will be disciplined about how we manage the public finances.
I also point to economic growth. If, or rather when, we are successful in delivering the growth plan’s mission to elevate trend growth from 1.5% to 2.5%, with an extra 1% per annum over a consistent period of time—for example, five years—by the fifth year that additional growth will deliver about £47 billion of extra tax revenue, as set out in the table on page 27 of the Blue Book that accompanied the growth plan. I hope that gives my hon. Friend a hint about our thinking, but really the medium-term financial plan on 31 October will provide the most complete answer.
Chris Philp
I am spoilt for choice; I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge).
James Cartlidge
I am lucky to have a second intervention already. I know that as a former businessman, the Minister cares passionately about growth, and I respect that. However, as a businessman, he must also know that the single most important factor for business is confidence and stability. When we speak to businesses at the moment, we hear that they are worried about the lack of stability. They want certainty and confidence. He needs to explain the basic question about the £17 billion of revenue from the levy to fund social care and the NHS. If the levy is going, surely that implies that borrowing fills the gap or some other change fiscally. Is it the case that that will be confirmed on the 31st?
Chris Philp
Yes, it is. My hon. Friend is asking entirely reasonable questions, but we have to look at this issue in the round across the entirety of public expenditure. The Chancellor will set that out in detail on 31 October to the House, accompanied by the OBR scoring.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Just over a year ago, Opposition Members stood in this Chamber urging the Government to drop their plans to hike national insurance contributions and to introduce a new levy on working people and their jobs. It was not just my Opposition colleagues and me making the case against this tax rise; the Government were warned by so many others, from the Federation of Small Businesses to the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and the TUC. Ministers were warned from all sides of the harm that their approach would cause. The Government were warned by their own Back Benchers. Ministers at the time even warned themselves. The tax information impact note on the tax rise was signed off by the Minister who took the original legislation through Parliament, and that note said:
“There may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce.”
In relation to businesses, it said:
“Behavioural effects are likely to be large, and these will include...business decisions around wage bills and recruitment.”
Yet the Government pressed ahead with the tax rise, supported in the Lobby by the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Government kept supporting it until the then Foreign Secretary became Prime Minister and decided to perform a U-turn.
We welcome this U-turn, as it puts an end to a tax rise that we said was wrong from the very start. It is, of course, not the only U-turn that we have seen under this Prime Minister. Just last week the Government U-turned on their damaging and misguided plan to cut the top rate of tax for the very highest paid, so our current message to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is to keep on U-turning.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? Would he keep the social care cap and the spending on the backlog, and if so, given that he supports repeal, how would he fund that?
James Murray
The truth is that we are having this debate as part of a wider Government economic strategy that has caused economic chaos, and contains no plan for growth and no plan to fund public services. Even when we were discussing the original Bill last year, there was no plan for social care: there was no guarantee that a penny of the money would go into social care. So I will not take lectures from the hon. Gentleman.
James Murray
I am going to make some progress. I may let the hon. Gentleman intervene again in a few moments.
As I was saying, right now our message to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is to keep on U-turning. They need to U-turn on their whole disastrous approach to the economy, which the Chancellor set out just over two weeks ago. That Budget—in all but name—was the most destructive, unfair and irresponsible fiscal announcement in a generation.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor should now U-turn on their decision to lift the cap on bankers’ bonuses. They should U-turn on their refusal to ask oil and gas giants to put some of their eye-watering excess profits towards helping keep to people’s energy bills down. They need to U-turn on their discredited, dangerous trickle-down approach to the economy. It is time for them to reverse their disastrous kamikaze Budget, which has unleashed an economic crisis that they made in Downing Street, and which working people are paying for through higher mortgages and prices.
James Murray
The Minister must not have been listening carefully enough to the shadow Chancellor setting out Labour’s plans, because we have set out how we would scrap the non-dom status, which it is completely irresponsible to keep in the current context, and to use some of that money to set out our plans for investment in the NHS. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Government make promises and use throwaway comments about how they might fund this with general taxation or through extra borrowing, whereas when we set out our pledges, we set out exactly what we will pay for. They are fully costed, fully funded and paid for through fairer taxation.
James Murray
No, I am going to make some progress.
We have set out that we will not borrow for day-to-day spending and that we will not ask working people who are already struggling to foot the bill. That is what we mean when we say we are the party of economic responsibility and the party of social justice. The Conservatives have shown themselves to be the party of a failed approach to the economy. After six so-called growth plans from the Government that have all failed, the drunken gamblers of Downing Street have rolled the dice one last time, putting their faith in the ideological mantra that if they just slash taxes and regulation, they will unleash business investment and growth. They believe that wealth is created only by a few at the top, when the truth is that it comes from the bottom up and from the middle out.
The trickle-down economics of the Prime Minister and her Chancellor are wrong. Their approach will not work and it is not fair. It will hit working people’s spending power, undermining prospects for growth, and it ignores the need for the Government to be a partner for business to grow—something that is more important than ever with the turbulent, changing, challenging outlook that we face. That is why the next Labour Government would do things differently. We would bring together businesses and trade unions through a national economic council. We would support businesses to grow, through our modern industrial strategy, and we would use a national wealth fund to invest in the new green industries of the future. That is our approach to the British economy: pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth.
The Government are making the wrong calls again and again. They were wrong last year to introduce the national insurance rise on working people, just as they were wrong last month when they tried to cut tax for some of the highest paid in society and to hide the OBR report on their plans. We welcome the Government finally admitting that they were wrong to raise national insurance on working people and businesses in the middle of a cost of living crisis, but their wider economic approach is one that is characterised by ballooning borrowing and a discredited trickle-down approach to economic growth.
The Prime Minister and her Chancellor are gambling with the livelihoods and wellbeing of people across the UK. Their gamble is dramatically worsening the cost of living crisis, with higher costs and mortgage payments for households across the country. It is shredding any reputation for economic competence the Conservatives might once have claimed to have, and it will fail to deliver the growth we need after 12 years of stagnation.
Throughout the cost of living crisis, Labour has forced the Conservatives to U-turn time and again. By repealing the national insurance rise and levy and by halting their plans to cut the top rate of tax for the very highest paid, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have shown that they have it within themselves to make a U-turn. Our message to them is clear: do not stop there. The Government must U-turn on their whole economic approach and reverse their disastrous kamikaze Budget. Our message to the British people is also clear: this is a Tory crisis that has been made in Downing Street and is being paid for by working people. Only Labour will fix the damage that the Tories are doing. Only Labour will deliver economic responsibility and social justice. Only Labour will be a Government that are on your side.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is fair to say that it is a bit of a novelty for me to be called so early, and without a time limit, in a debate. I am very grateful, not least because how we pay for healthcare is one of the single most important subjects in British politics. That is essentially what we are debating today, and I feel strongly on this subject. The core principle must be one that I have always held as a Conservative, which is that we are fiscally responsible. As with the environment, we must aim to leave things in a better condition for future generations and, with the public finances, have in mind at all times the impact on those yet to be born—on our grandchildren—so that we are fiscally responsible. That is the fundamental belief of my party, in my view.
With that in mind, there is a lot of excitement about what the OBR will say on Hallowe’en, but it has already pronounced on the matter of health expenditure. In July it published “Fiscal risks and sustainability”, a fascinating bedtime read. The crucial thing is what it says about the OBR’s estimate for the future cost of healthcare in this country. It predicts that the current spend on health and adult social care will go from around 10.3% of GDP to 17.5% of GDP in 50 years’ time. That is an extraordinary increase—almost double—and it would take up so much more of our wealth and public expenditure. The OBR’s track record is very accurate on estimating health spend. It is based on a lot of cautious variables that are obviously difficult to predict, but essentially this is, if you like, cutting the mustard in telling us the future cost we have to face up to.
To put this in context, the OBR estimates that the headline estimate for public debt that we will be passing to our grandchildren will be 100% of GDP in 30 years’ time and that in 50 years’ time it will be 267% of GDP. That is what it says in this document. If we carry on as we are, we will have a national debt of 267% of GDP because of the rising cost of what is called demographics. That is mainly healthcare but also the state pension and other aspects of the pensions system. Overwhelmingly, however, it is healthcare. Adult social care will double as a percentage of GDP as well.
I should declare an interest in the sense that I had an indirect role in the creation of the health and social care levy, and it is fair to say that I have many reservations about what we are doing today. As colleagues know, the former Prime Minister—who deserves great credit for this—was determined that we would not just have another Green Paper or White Paper on social care. He wanted to actually deliver something for the country and he introduced the cap that had been promised by successive Governments, so that although people who have saved hard and have assets have to contribute to their care, they know that there is a limit. It is incredibly important that we brought that forward, and I sincerely hope that in removing the funding mechanism for the cap, the Treasury will resist the temptation to water it down. Local authorities are not yet aware of exactly what the cap will cover, and with the funding stream gone, the Treasury must resist the temptation to water the cap down. That is absolutely paramount.
When the Prime Minister came forward with wanting to pursue the cap, it was the view of the then Chancellor —my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who I had the privilege of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to throughout the pandemic—that it must be funded, and that it could not just go on the national credit card. The social care cap on its own is massive rising liability. I have just set out what is going to happen to health costs more generally. So, how to fund social care? The most common suggestion was an increase in national insurance, for the simple reason that it applies to businesses and individuals and so raises the sorts of revenue we can get. It is not easily avoided, and it can give us the money in the bank to pay for these expensive costs that we face.
However, I submitted a paper to the Chancellor at the time and suggested that, rather than having just a narrow national insurance levy—a social care levy, as it were—we should have a full health and social care levy that should be hypothecated and appear as an explicit line on people’s payslips. It will be there on our payslips until November. I accept that we have not made the most of it, and there has been almost no enthusiasm from any quarter—possibly only from the social care sector—but with a transparent, hypothecated statement on payslips, if the NHS came back to us two years into a five-year funding settlement saying, “We need this additional big item,” we could say, “Fine, but it will come out of the levy.” That would be transparent, and it would have provided the discipline that we have terribly lacked in health spending for many years, under successive Governments. I thought it had great potential, but it is being vapourised today. The Prime Minister has a mandate for it and the whole House seems to support that view, as does the Labour party even though it does not have the foggiest idea how it would fill the gap.
Peter Grant
The former Prime Minister had a mandate to do what he did last year. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says the new Prime Minister has a mandate to do this. Where did that mandate come from? I do not remember Parliament being dissolved for a general election in the last couple of months.
James Cartlidge
The new Prime Minister would rightly say that our manifesto said we would not increase national insurance, so she can draw on the mandate of the general election. We also seem to have vapourised our memory of the pandemic, but I would argue that it changed everything. The enormous borrowing accrued to this Government during the pandemic, which everyone supported—everyone wanted even more spending and even more support for businesses and individuals, as I remember because I was the then Chancellor’s PPS—made it exceptional, and we had to balance the books. I make it clear that this was not my preference, as I would not have wanted a levy to fund the NHS and social care. Given the politics of the time, it was the best way forward.
This is my personal view about how we should move forward. The key point is that the NHS is free at the point of delivery, which means we pay with time. When something is free, people wait and there are massive queues. Of course, those queues have been massively exacerbated by the pandemic, which is why the backlogs are so big, but it is blindingly obvious that the pressure on the NHS is overwhelming. There is almost infinite demand on finite capacity.
Labour Members will say in any election campaign, as we will. “We will do everything possible to increase capacity.” The Deputy Prime Minister and Health Secretary will, of course, do everything possible through her ABCD—ambulances, backlogs, care, doctors and dentists —strategy to improve outcomes in the NHS, but when we talk about funding the NHS, when we talk about the obligation to our grandchildren and the next generation, we have to be more radical, frankly.
In my view, we need a core NHS that is free at the point of delivery, but as a country we need to drive up the use of the independent sector and of private healthcare from all those brilliant companies that are seeing take-up shoot through the roof because of the backlogs. I know some of this territory is difficult to talk about, but I will give three key reasons why we should go down this route. First, every single person who pays to go private is freeing up space on the backlog. They are also boosting NHS capacity.
Secondly, this is standard in comparable countries. The Republic of Ireland, Australia and Germany have tax incentives for people to pay for their healthcare. There is an understanding that people who go to that trouble should have some kind of rebate, because they are doing everyone else a favour.
Thirdly, this is already happening. The post-Beveridge revolution is happening, and it is happening silently. There has been a massive surge in the number of people paying privately for healthcare. The Guardian recently published figures estimating that one in 10 adults in the UK has paid for private healthcare in the past 12 months, primarily because of the backlogs. Use has surged, according to the Independent Healthcare Providers Network. The number of people paying for hip replacements was up 193% in January to March 2022 compared with January to March 2019, and the number of people paying for knee replacements was up 173%. This is a huge surge in the number of people paying privately. It is true that many of them will not have wanted to do so, and I am not suggesting that they will have been delighted. Of course, we all want everyone to be able to use the NHS without long waits—that is clearly the ideal scenario—but it is not deliverable any more, not least with the demographic pressures we face.
We should look at the surging use of the independent sector and embrace it as a policy opportunity. Research from the Independent Healthcare Providers Network shows that 48% of people in this country will consider going private in the next 12 months because they know about the waits. This is about choice, and the most important thing is to have greater tax incentives for people to use the independent sector, so that people think about making a realistic choice. We should not settle for long waits for care any more. This is standard practice in comparable European and Australasian countries.
To be very specific, going back to the OBR document I mentioned, as a country we face a huge liability for health and social care. We should target increasing the percentage of our healthcare spend that goes to the independent sector so that we have a better balance, more like the balance in comparable European countries. If we did that, we would get much better outcomes, we would have more choice and we would finally have a 21st-century healthcare system with diversity of provision, which is the best way forward.
We should recognise that the revolution is happening, and it needs to happen with the Government’s backing and support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Richard Thomson.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Before I get into the Bill, I want to note some of the remarks made by the Government on their energy package and the speed with which that was brought forward. Given that this is the first opportunity we have to discuss these financial matters, I want to record that it felt during recess as though almost every day in August people were begging the Government to act, and they did not. We waited and waited, while they had an internal debate when they could have acted. For 12 years, in fact, it has seemed that the British economy has had both deep-rooted problems and significant shocks. Given the situation before us and the chaos we face, would not any Government want to act?
That brings us to today’s Bill, which is essentially a U-turn. As colleagues have said, the Government are showing here that they can U-turn, but what we need now is much more significant action. We can say with certainty that the Chancellor has already made a considerable impression on the economy. He inherited a cost of living crisis and for good measure added a cost of borrowing crisis, an interest rate crisis, a mortgage crisis, a sterling crisis, a Government bond crisis and a pension funds crisis.
Inflation was already at its highest rate in 40 years, devouring household wages and savings; Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron recorded their highest ever profits and household energy bills doubled within a year. Thanks to this Government, the pound has slumped to its lowest value against the dollar since Britain went decimal in 1971, and the Bank of England has been forced to launch an emergency £65 billion bond-buying scheme that, as we saw yesterday, has barely stopped the chaos.
Thanks to this Government, in the blink of an eye the average homeowner now faces a monthly mortgage payment that is £500 more expensive and food bank use has soared to such an extent—[Interruption.] Do not say it is global. The food bank increase is not global; it is a feature of the UK economy, and it has soared to such an extent that volunteers will need either to turn people away or to reduce the size of emergency rations. That is the situation we face, and that is why this Bill must not represent the last U-turn from this Government.
We have heard from various Conservative Members that they are the party of tradition, so let me commend the Government on respecting a long-standing Conservative tradition in their conduct relating to our economy. Just like on 16 September 1992, Conservative Governments always end up sacrificing family finances to pay for their chaos.
This Chancellor, in his airy disregard for experts, produced a Budget so complacent, so unfunded and so unconvincing to the markets that the cost of our long-term borrowing soared. His doubters are now not just the members of the Labour party; they include bond traders, the currency markets, the civil service, the OBR, the Bank of England, the IMF and the British public.
The Conservatives have pierced a hole in the British economy, and the effects are widespread and severe. Pension funds were brought to the edge of collapse and, before the Bank of England intervened, we risked falling into a self-perpetuating spiral,
“threatening severe disruption of core funding markets and consequent widespread financial instability.”
To be so ignorant, so high-handed and so willing to risk impoverishing people is unforgivable.
It is some small comfort that today the Tories are reversing their own rise in national insurance. U-turn follows U-turn and we return to square one. However, this zig-zagging incoherence is not just a waste of parliamentary time and energy, but damaging to our stability and our credibility. No matter whether they raise taxes or lower them, high-quality public services and economic growth will continue to elude the Conservatives. That is because, as has been said so often, economic strength does not come just from the top; it starts in the everyday lives of working people right across our great country. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) explained well what is happening right now for people trying to work. Thanks to the Conservatives, record waiting lists see acute conditions becoming chronic and more and more people having to leave the labour market. Do not crow about unemployment being at historically low levels when inactivity—people simply unable to work—is shooting up again, as we found today.
James Cartlidge
Just to clarify, what I said was that it was due to the pandemic—not entirely, but everything the Labour party says now is airbrushing out of history the greatest post-war trauma that the country faced, when there was an enormous surge in borrowing, which we all supported, to fund the support for businesses and people in our constituencies. At some point, will Labour recognise the impact that had and the action we had to take, which has led to decisions such as these tax increases?
Alison McGovern
The impact of the pandemic on our labour market and our health service has been profound. It should inspire us to see the capabilities of the people within our health service, and it should show us the undeniable truth that there will be no economic health in this country without securing the health of the people of this country. That is what the pandemic shows us. I simply ask that the party in government today, the Conservative party, learns that lesson.
If we look at what is going on with our labour market, we see that part of the growth plan must be to secure our health service, get waiting lists down and get people back to good health. We have heard that funding for health and social care services will be untouched, so let me assure the Government—already so elastic with their commitments—that their promise on the health service will be under heightened surveillance in months to come.
The Government say that they have a growth plan to end their cycle of stagnation and to radically overhaul what has been dragging us down, but that plan simply has no credibility. It is delayed and delayed. Until we see what they truly believe can help this country grow, all we see is the cost of borrowing growing, inflation growing, mortgage payments growing, food bank use growing and child poverty growing, while the true opportunities that this country has—its people and their talents—are left wasted.
Who asked for this? Who nodded happily at higher mortgage repayments? Who wanted public services to be slashed or spiralling inequality? There is no consent for this, as we have seen—not even consent on the Tory Back Benches. The resulting damage to our economy is immediate and sharp, but there is another danger that emerges slower but is just as great: the risk to our relationship with the British people.
I worry that we have short memories in this place. Only three months ago, more than 60 Ministers fled the Government of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). For some time, that Government were viewed with real anger by the public, who overcame the pandemic through shared sacrifice, only to feel cheated, insulted and taken for fools by their Government. Well, the British people are not fools, Madam Deputy Speaker. They understand that this winter, whether it is due to soaring energy bills, surging inflation or the war in Ukraine, shared sacrifice is needed again. In return, they are owed compassionate, responsible leadership and a Government who can look them in the eye.
This is not a time for economic hobbyism—for testing pet theories like schoolboys in the common room—and ignoring the country. Not even two people in every 1,000 voted for the Prime Minister or her Chancellor. Britain did not choose to be experimented on in this way. When the Chancellor delivered his crazy Budget on 23 September, everyone in this country was united in experiencing that act of economic vandalism. When children are hungry, pensioners colder and families fearful, the Chancellor avoided the profits of energy giants and signed off unfunded tax giveaways for millionaires. In waving through bigger bonuses for bankers, he took a torch to our social contract. Instead of shared sacrifice, this gang of fanatics on the Treasury Bench turned to casino economics and gambled away public trust.
It is an old, old saying that you can judge a person by what they choose to do with power. After 12 years of the Tories in power, the veneer has worn off, revealing the same old ideas that have been tested to destruction in this country: run the country on the cheap, leave public services crumbling and make working people pay the price. The big society—remember that?—has been and gone, one nation conservatism is a painted shell, and the façade of levelling up has been abandoned, as they cut taxes for millionaires and look set to cut benefits for the poor. It does not matter whether it is this Prime Minister or whoever soon replaces her—this is the Conservative project and it has been there all along.
It is the single greatest privilege in this country to sit on the Treasury Bench. Instead of living up to that honour, the Conservative party is hopeless, reckless, callous and weak. There is no consent for this Government’s ideas, and they should be driven out of office. If they really are such a confident group of free thinkers, surely they have nothing to fear from taking their pitch to the country.
The Growth Plan
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kwasi Kwarteng
My statement announced measures to help people across the income scale. We are very focused on growth. What I said is that we should not indulge in a fight on redistributing something small that we should be trying to grow—that is where our focus is.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and his new position. He knows that to increase output he needs capacity in the labour market, which is extremely tight, so he will come under huge pressure to loosen immigration rules. May I urge him instead to focus on the economically inactive to ensure they get support? Is it not the case that if those who have been written off, because of mild mental ill health, anxiety and all the rest of it, get the right support, it is in their interest and in the interest of their self-esteem to get back to work?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a huge pool of talent that needs to be brought into the labour market. Every Government, and our Government in particular, should be focused on trying to bring more people into the labour market.
Employee Share Ownership Schemes
James Cartlidge Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir George Howarth
My hon. Friend must have read my mind. I will come on to that very point shortly.
As I was saying, the number of employees granted a new SAYE option in 2021 was 380,000, which was a bump up, but the last time take-up was that low was in 2011-12. In 2020-21, employees in 480 companies were either awarded or purchased shares, a figure that has fallen steadily over the past decade. For example, in 2011-12, there were 570 such firms. There are several reasons for that, but the problem is that SIP and SAYE, which were developed 22 and 42 years ago respectively, have barely changed in all that time and no longer reflect the modern workplace. The period that employees typically spend at a company has markedly reduced. Indeed, young people are often encouraged to move jobs more frequently to secure career advancement.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I have long cared about employee share ownership schemes. I recently had the privilege that the company that I set up before I became an MP awarded shares to staff that it has had for many years—the first time that the company has done so. My experience is that all such schemes are terribly complicated. Companies have to spend a lot on accountants to get them to work, especially if they are small or medium-sized enterprises. In the submissions the right hon. Gentleman received from external groups, were there any proposals to simplify the schemes? That may help to increase uptake.
Sir George Howarth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. Simplicity is always the key to the success of any scheme, particularly in complicated financial matters. He makes a good point.
As I said, young people are encouraged to move jobs more frequently to secure career advancement. Expecting staff to make a long-term commitment to investing in share plans when they do not expect to stay at a firm for that long—the SIP, for example, requires a five-year minimum investment period to ensure maximum tax efficiency—is no longer realistic.
Employee share ownership plans operate particularly well when a significant number of employees at a company participate. Research demonstrates that where levels of participation are relatively high companies enjoy positive returns, including increased staff engagement and loyalty, enhanced financial resilience for participants and increased productivity. The fact that the Government offer tax advantages to employee share ownership plans is, of course, welcome. However, the risk, which grows greater by the year, is that without reform the plans could become increasingly obsolete.
I worry about being too prescriptive about which changes are required to stimulate an increase in interest and participation, but some relatively simple changes could be made. For example, reducing the commitment required from SIP participants from five years to three years to achieve maximum tax efficiency. ProShare, which is the body that represents the ESO sector, has proposed such a change. Its research shows that many people are put off by having to make a five-year commitment, but would be prepared to make a three-year investment. Employers say the same: more companies would offer the SIP to staff if it was three years not five. Those that offer SIPs say that participation levels would increase.
Employee share ownership has been more widely supported by diverse organisations such as the CBI, the Social Market Foundation, the TUC and the Co-operative party. The CBI states:
“The moral case for financial inclusion is a compelling one—people have a right to their dignity and financial exclusion denies them that right. But the business case also speaks for itself—with people living in the poverty zone producing five to six times lower quality work than their colleagues.”
The Social Market Foundation suggests:
“As the UK economy emerges from the Coronavirus pandemic, now is a good time for government to push for higher rates of employee share ownership. With productivity growth in the UK lagging, a shift towards ownership structures which bolster innovation, employee effort and corporate long-termism should form a key part of the economic recovery plan.”
The TUC said that it
“supports employee share ownership, subject to conditions”.
I will quote three of those conditions. First,
“shares or share revenues should be allocated free of charge and equitably to all staff to avoid share ownership reinforcing existing pay differentials and excluding the low paid (the principles expressed a preference for collective schemes)”.
Secondly,
“employee share ownership schemes are not a substitute for decent pay or collective bargaining”.
Thirdly,
“workers and their unions should be involved in the running of the scheme, which should go hand in hand with the involvement of the workforce in company decision-making”.
As we face a cost of living crisis and higher levels of inflation, we should be looking at creative solutions to support people in work. Why not free companies to support lower-income employees by allowing offers of free shares to this group only, which would relieve legitimate financial concerns?
Coming back to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) made earlier, why not create a one-off SAYE that lasts for just one year, instead of the current three or five years? That would enable people to make regular savings but allow them to take their savings back if they struggle to pay the bills. At the same time, it offers a potential return at the end of the year in the form of either interest or a share price increase.
There is a conversation to be had about how we can develop a new type of scheme that would allow the more than 4 million people who operate in the so-called gig economy to join a share plan and own a stake in the organisation they work for. As the Minister will know, the current plans are exclusively for those on PAYE but, as our workforce changes, we need to design new plans that do not depend on regular monthly contributions and are accessible to those in less regular forms of work. I therefore urge the Government to consider undertaking their own consultation on these plans.
As the Minister will be aware, the Treasury is already consulting about reforming two other discretionary share plans: enterprise management incentives, or EMIs, and company share options, or CSOPs. These plans are typically offered only to a relatively small group of people, usually in managerial positions. It seems the Government are looking at these plans to help increase participation and benefits to participants. “About time too,” some might say. The CSOP has not changed or been updated in any way since the 1990s but, at the very time as we are facing a cost of living crisis, the Government seem to be choosing to reform plans that are already popular and typically benefit only those on high incomes. SIP and SAYE, which benefit some of the poorest paid workers, must surely be a higher priority for reform.
I hope the Minister will address that point. It has been made repeatedly to the Treasury over recent months, so far without any satisfactory answer. There are many examples of people participating in share plans and achieving significant gains on their savings and investments. Employees of Pets at Home, mainly shop-floor staff working in retail, who participated in the company SAYE recently made an average gain of £21,000 each, which represents a healthy return on their investment and achieving the financial resilience that is going to be so necessary in the months and years ahead.
As for the SIP, the recently issued annual survey from ProShare shows that the average value of a participant’s SIP holding at the end of 2021 was £10,294, a vital financial lifeline that can be drawn on when times are tough. These stories of millions of ordinary people making regular contributions, getting into the habit of putting something aside each month, building up a nest egg to help support their families, which millions of people up and down the country have done over the last 40 years, must not be lost by becoming obsolete.
If these plans are to operate successfully in future, now is the time for the Treasury to act and to identify what is needed to ensure that they remain relevant and compelling, and to guard against them disappearing. It cannot do that alone; it must consult far and wide, speaking to experts such as ProShare and the CBI, yes, but also to people who participate, in order to understand why they do so. After all, those are the people the plans are intended to benefit, and I would like to see millions more do so.
Finally, in what I hope would be a Treasury-led consultation, I urge it to update the excellent 2007 research by Oxera, commissioned by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which demonstrates the productivity benefits of the plans. I know from my conversations with those in the industry that, when they make suggestions for the share plans reform, such as the reduction in the SIP-holding period from five to three years, they are asked to provide evidence of the impact on productivity. May I constructively suggest that the Treasury is best placed to make that assessment? I would like to know whether it intends to do so in the near future.
The Minister might not know her fate over the next 24 hours, and I wish her well. If she remains in this position, I hope she will give this matter serious consideration, or otherwise draw it to the attention of whoever succeeds her. I look forward to hearing from her.
Lucy Frazer
I appreciate the points that the right hon. Member has made. Stakeholders and employees may not otherwise intend to remain with their current employer for five years, which is why the tax relief is designed to encourage a long-term commitment, but I appreciate the suggestion of a one-year SAYE and less regular contributions.
James Cartlidge
On that point, what the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) said is very compelling, because the labour market has changed and there is more churn. I was persuaded that a shorter qualifying period, perhaps with other conditions, would be reasonable, given that the employee may have the best intentions of staying longer but the labour market has changed.
Lucy Frazer
I thank both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Knowsley for their interventions. I was going to say that if evidence could be presented of the impact of that on people taking up the scheme, I know that the Treasury would be very interested in looking at that. As my hon. Friend said, it is important that the schemes are as simple as possible, and I would welcome any suggestions on that point.
With its current restrictions, SIP remains popular. We see people making use of the greatly beneficial tax treatment, with a total value of £780 million in shares purchased or awarded under a SIP scheme in the financial year 2020-2021. We continue to evaluate the schemes to make sure that they are incentivising the behaviours that I have outlined. We keep these important and advantageous schemes under review to make sure that they provide value for money for the taxpayer, support the wider aims of the economy and help employers to drive commercial success.
We launched a review at Budget 2020 to ensure that the EMI provides support for high-growth companies to recruit and retain the best talent so that they can scale up effectively, and to examine whether more companies should be able to access the scheme. At the spring statement, the Government concluded that the current EMI scheme remains effective and appropriately targeted. None the less, the scope of the review was expanded to consider whether the company share option plan should be reformed to support companies as they grow beyond the scope of the specifically targeted EMI. I know that these companies might want to make use of other discretionary schemes, such as the CSOP. While our inclination is to support those companies in doing so, Members will understand that we want to build the evidence base before committing resources, which is why we have expanded our review to include CSOP.
As part of the Government’s duties to evaluate tax reliefs and their value for money on an ongoing basis, we are currently reviewing the broader share scheme landscape. We will keep these important and advantageous schemes under review.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]
James Cartlidge ExcerptsWednesday 5th January 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 View all Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 44-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (25 Nov 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
Let me start by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Before turning to the specific points raised during the debate, I join other colleagues in recognising that this Bill is ultimately about public sector pensions, and comes at a time when our teachers, nurses, police, judiciary, and the entire public sector workforce are once again being tested by the ongoing challenges of the pandemic. I join others in expressing my profound thanks to all those working so hard on the frontline, particularly—as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), has quite rightly just said—those who have not been able to work at home. They have been out there, risking their health for our benefit, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. That is why this Bill ensures that those who deliver our valued public services continue to receive guaranteed benefits in retirement on a fair and equal basis.
However, of course, the Bill also includes provisions to help address the resourcing challenges facing the judiciary. I wanted to start with this crucial point about capacity in our justice system, not least because it gives me an excuse to offer my profound congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on his honour in the new year’s honours list. It is richly deserved, and as the Minister responsible for court recovery, I hope that a particular part of that honour was due to the massive effort that my right hon. and learned Friend put in with the Lord Chief Justice to keep jury trials going in this country against all the odds. That was incredibly difficult when the pandemic started, because let us be clear: 2 metre social distancing and jury trials go together like a fish on a bicycle, to put it bluntly.
If anyone is in any doubt about this very serious point, they should look at the situation in Wales today, because I can confirm to the House that the new 2 metre social distancing rule in Wales could have profound implications. It is our calculation that, of the 17 Crown courtrooms in Wales, five could be out of use if 2 metre social distancing is enforced strictly, and the two we were planning to open could not be opened. In other words, that would lose seven out of 19 courtrooms, or almost 40% of capacity. My right hon. and learned Friend is of course very familiar with the Welsh criminal courts, where he cut his teeth. I have been able to speak to the Counsel General for Wales, who is my opposite number. We had a good discussion this afternoon, and officials will keep talking, because there may be ways to mitigate this, but it really outlines why we have a capacity issue. When the pandemic hit, it slashed the capacity of our courts to hold jury trials, and it was in the Crown court that this was so crucial.
To give the mathematical quantification, in January and February 2020 we averaged about 8,000 disposals per month. I am pleased to say that last year we were averaging about 8,000 disposals per month from January to October, so we have been getting back to pre-covid capacity. However, in April 2020 there were just 3,000 disposals, with 4,000 the following month and 5,000 the month after that. The massive hit to capacity initially was to physical space—courtrooms and so on.
Therefore the initial focus, led by my right hon. and learned Friend, was on Nightingale courts, which are particularly good for bail cases; the use of IT, so that we had remote hearings; and of course the super-courts, which have been so important for multi-handed cases, where, with multiple defendants, social distancing is even harder. All those measures were about capacity in terms of physical space or using the internet in effect to increase our capacity, but the key thing, as we have got near to pre-covid capacity, is that the labour force has become the issue. That is why the Bill is so important for the judiciary and for our constituents, because it is all about the backlog.
We have active recruitment programmes. We are doing everything possible to recruit more magistrates, more judges and more recorders—our fee-paid judiciary—to sit, which is incredibly important, but ultimately this measure is one way for us, relatively quickly, to bring some very experienced labour to bear to help us to bear down on the backlog. That is why I am grateful that all of my colleagues have welcomed the increase in the MRA to 75. Is my right hon. and learned Friend intervening? [Interruption.] I thought he was, but I apologise.
Sir Robert Buckland
No, but I am happy to intervene. I do not want to make this too oleaginous, but the point my hon. Friend makes about capacity is a huge one. We do not have enough recorders or judges, no matter how many the Lord Chancellor signs back in after retirement. That, I am afraid, is because there has been a bit of a crisis in confidence, and therefore a lack of people coming forward to do these important roles. I reiterate what I said in my speech, which is that we need a world-class independent judiciary, and that is why the Bill is so important.
James Cartlidge
Perhaps in the days without masks it would have been easier for me to tell whether my right hon. and learned Friend was actually intervening, but he is absolutely right.
I can answer the question posed about the lifetime allowance by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and by the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). To clarify, the legacy judicial pension scheme is unregistered for tax purposes, so the lifetime allowance tax charge does not apply to accruals under that scheme. The new judicial pension scheme, to be introduced from 1 April, will also be unregistered for tax purposes, so no lifetime allowance tax charge will apply to that scheme either. I hope that answers the question, which is a very important one.
Diversity, which was raised by several colleagues, is incredibly important. Just as in education we have been asking teachers to return to schools to help out and at the start of the pandemic the health service had many thousands of nurses and others returning to clinical roles, we are in effect doing the same. When we do that, however, we obviously cannot directly influence the diversity of the people who are returning to a profession or being retained for longer. As the Chair of the Justice Committee said, it is about reaching out to the recruits of tomorrow. We are taking many steps: for example, since 2020 we have been funding a two-year pilot programme of targeted outreach and support activity by the Judicial Appointments Commission, providing advice and guidance to potential candidates from underrepresented backgrounds, including those from BAME backgrounds, women and the disabled, and soliciting candidates for specific senior court and tribunal roles. In terms of magistracy, we will be launching a new online magistrates recruitment programme in the coming weeks to encourage applications from younger, more diverse cohorts. This is an important point.
The former shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, and the shadow Work and Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East, asked the important question of where the £17 billion will ultimately be coming from. The cost of the remedy is estimated to increase pension scheme liabilities by £17 billion, so it is the scheme liabilities that increase. However, that liability will be realised over many decades. It also represents a small proportion of the total savings of around £400 billion that will arise from the wider reforms to public service pensions. To be absolutely clear, the liability will fall on the Exchequer. I hope that offers clarification.
The shadow Work and Pensions Minister asked for clarity on the issues around the ceiling breaches and so on. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made clear in his opening speech, no member will see a reduction in their benefits as a result of the 2016 valuations. I hope that provides some reassurance to the shadow Minister. UK asset resolution schemes currently pay out benefits of about £530 million per annum; this is a cost the Government already bear. The policy creates a more efficient situation for paying these pensions and ensuring the current schemes will have a stable benefit.
The question asked by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and the shadow Work and Pensions Minister about the so-called pensions trap and the issue around the police has been raised with the Government by police representatives and we have been considering it. The Home Office is consulting on detailed regulations to implement a prospective McCloud remedy for the police pensions scheme, but the Government must not take action contrary to the intention of this Bill to remove discrimination identified by the courts by inadvertently introducing new unequal treatment and discrimination.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and the shadow Chief Secretary both raised an important point about advice and guidance, and they were right. These are potentially complex issues. Perhaps one important point is that for many members this will hopefully be relatively straightforward; they will be presented with two options, one of which will be financially more generous. Hopefully, therefore, it will be relatively straightforward, but of course it is important that we provide guidance. Providing sufficient guidance for members to make informed decisions about their pensions is of the utmost importance and as such the Bill already requires that schemes provide members with remediable service statements containing personalised information about the benefits available to them. This will include details of the benefits available to them under the legacy scheme and the benefits available to them if they elect to receive new scheme benefits or choose for a period of opted-out service to be reinstated. These statements will be provided to active members on an annual basis.
The hon. Lady also raised the important issue of women and the general point about fairness. The Government agree strongly with the need to ensure that the impact of the Bill is fair on members of public service pension schemes with protected characteristics, including women. A full equalities impact assessment of the Bill was conducted and published alongside the Bill’s introduction. In addition, when making the necessary changes to their scheme rules to deliver remedy, pension schemes will carry out any appropriate equalities analysis for their specific schemes in compliance with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
I am grateful for the support of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), on lifting the retirement age and, we hope, its impact on capacity issues. He put his specific point well in saying that his suggestion is the very opposite of politicisation. The Government have made their position on boycotts clear. We do not hesitate to express our disagreement with foreign nations whenever we feel that it is necessary, but we are firmly opposed to local boycotts that can damage integration and community cohesion, hinder exports, and harm foreign relations and the UK’s economic and international security. Local authorities should not undertake boycotts that could undermine foreign policy, which is a matter for the UK Government alone. The Government therefore remain committed to our manifesto pledge to ban public bodies from imposing their own boycotts, disinvestment or sanction campaigns, and we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He has just said that the Government will legislate as possible; this is the opportunity to legislate. Of course, there might be a BDS Bill at some point later in the Parliament—we do not know; there will always be pressures on the legislative timeframe—but even if there were, this is the appropriate Bill to handle the situation, because the issue arose in the 2013 Act, to which this Bill is essentially the successor. I do not expect my hon. Friend to make a commitment here at the Dispatch Box—it is clearly something that we will all have to consider in the weeks ahead—but this is the moment at which to make the amendment, should the Government wish to do so in this Parliament.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, matters of parliamentary business are above my pay grade—a very humble and new one—but I hear his point, and I think he made it very well. I am sure that he has a great deal of sympathy for our position, and I simply repeat that we will legislate when parliamentary time allows.
Let me finally refer to the points made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon, about the independence of the judiciary. They are right: this Bill, including the important parts that deal with the judiciary—I make no apologies, as a Justice Minister, for focusing on those in the winding-up speech, not least given all the backlog issues—sends a powerful signal about our support for the judiciary. I believe that the independence of the judiciary is part of the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. The reason people buy our insurance in the City or trade with our banks and our service sector is that they trust this country, and they trust us because they trust the contract and they trust English law, and we should all be very proud of that.
On the basis of the contributions made today, I believe that the House agrees with the principles underpinning the Bill. I am grateful for the support of the shadow Chief Secretary and the Labour party, and indeed for that of the Liberal Democrats and other parties. I think we all agree that we must make certain that those who deliver our valued public services continue to receive guaranteed benefits on retirement on a fair and equal basis, and in a way that ensures that pensions are affordable and sustainable, and that we must also support our world-class judiciary to enable it to meet the demands of the present day and of the future. I extend an invitation to all Members who may wish to discuss these issues further with me and with the Chief Secretary before the Committee stage. I look forward to that further discussion, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 1 February 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords] (money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or a government department; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided; and
(2) the charging on, and paying out of, the Consolidated Fund of any sum payable under or by virtue of the Act to or in respect of the judiciary.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords] (Ways and means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the making of provision under the Act in relation to income tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax or stamp duty land tax in connection with—
(a) pension schemes established under provision made under the Act for persons who are or have been members of occupational pension schemes of bodies that were brought into public ownership under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, or
(b) the transfer under provision made under the Act of any property, rights or liabilities of any such occupational pension scheme or any such body; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)
James Cartlidge ExcerptsTuesday 8th December 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 View all Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
I have heard quite a lot the argument that Scotland did not vote to leave the European Union, but that is not how the votes were added up. This was a national, United Kingdom vote. Those were the terms of the referendum, which were voted for in this House. That is how the entire nation voted, and we are leaving the European Union. Some of us will be less happy about that than others, but nevertheless, that is what we are instructed to do and what we should do.
For the Opposition, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said time and again that the Government were irresponsible in these negotiations. Can I just remind her that there are two sides to this negotiation? There are two sides, and I would ask which side she is on, because she is not representing the national interests in the way she is discussing these matters and blaming the Government for being in this position at this stage. Of course—and I am in business today—every business in this land would have liked the situation to be done and dusted last June, as we had hoped. However, there are two sides to this negotiation, and it has to be said that the European Union has been difficult in these negotiations.
If the hon. Lady does not believe my words about that, she should listen to one of the most reliable commentators on her Benches, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), in his speech on 14 September. He was talking about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and he said that
“I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Government’s argument: exit summary declarations should not be required for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. When Wrightbus sells one of its wonderful buses to a transport operator in the UK, why is the form needed and what is the EU going to do with the form?”
On goods at risk, he said that
“surely it is possible to reach a pragmatic solution, because a lorry load of goods destined for a supermarket in Belfast can hardly be described as being at risk of entering the European Union.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 64.]
Yet those are some of the matters that the European Union was negotiating on or on which it was trying to negotiate hardball.
I ask again: who does the hon. Lady think, and who does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for the SNP think, is being difficult in this negotiation? Is it purely the United Kingdom? Of course it is not. Why are there no words of criticism for the European Union’s position and for leaving it this late before agreeing what should be a simple trade deal to arrange and negotiate? It has negotiated similar trade deals with many other countries around the world, and we start from a similar position with our regulations and customs duties.
Kevin Hollinrake
From an identical position. This should have been an easy trade negotiation, but of course it is not, for the reasons that we know. Of course, there is politics behind this negotiation, and the politics in this place should be united on one side, in the UK’s national interests, but they are not. Too often, Opposition Members have represented the European Union’s negotiating position in these negotiations.