Public Sector Pay Cap

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

With respect, the hon. Lady talks the NHS down in her question. The fact is that the NHS is doing a tremendous job. We are reducing the bureaucracy so that nurses can spend more of their time with patients. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is driving an agenda of reform that is delivering better public services.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is worth remembering what would have happened had the Labour party won the first general election after the great recession: its 2010 manifesto committed to tough action on pay, including a 1% cap on public sector pay. Does my right hon. Friend think that that was because Labour does not value public sector workers, or because it understood the reality of the country’s position as a result of its mismanagement of public borrowing and bank regulation?

[Elizabeth Truss]

There is rather an issue of false consciousness on the Opposition Front Bench.

Economy and Jobs

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

What we are proposing is not a massive increase in public sector debt, but targeted public sector spend in order to increase economic growth.

We demand that the UK Government put in place a proper living wage—a living wage that people can actually live on, not a pretendy living wage. We also demand that the living wage is in place for those aged 18 and above, not just for those who are over 25.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the only international measure of the generosity of living wages is the Big Mac index? Under that index, our minimum wage is the second most generous in Europe, after Luxembourg.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The national living wage that has been put in place by the Conservatives does not provide enough to live on. It does not matter how generous it is compared with other places; what matters is whether people can live on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I will speak briefly and apply some austerity to my speech. We keep hearing the word “austerity” and the idea that somehow austerity is a choice—[Hon. Members: “It is!”] Austerity is not a choice; it is a mathematical reality defined by the level of our debts and, more importantly, the level of our liabilities. If anybody doubts that, they should look at the table from the OBR that shows predicted public spending 50 years hence. It forecasts an increase on current prices of £156 billion, which is the size of the entire NHS budget plus £10 billion. If anyone thinks that that money is going to fall from the sky, they are deluded.

We are making a choice on austerity. Our choice is to save our children and grandchildren from an age of terrible austerity, which is what will happen if we do not take the right and difficult decisions. I will vote for the Queen’s Speech to support the only party that has in its DNA and in its heart—yes, its heart—a passionate belief in generational fairness and sustainable economics for the future.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, although I remind my hon. Friend that we have embarked on an efficiency review, seeking to make a further £3.5 billion of efficiency savings in departmental expenditure, of which I have committed to reinvest £1 billion in our priorities. Getting the balance right between taxation, efficiency in public expenditure and borrowing where it is right to do so is important. I have borrowed for infrastructure investment and for productivity-enhancing infrastructure in the autumn statement. Where it is right to do so, we will borrow, but it is not right to borrow for everyday expenditure in the way that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggests.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Auto-enrolment has been a great success story for the employed, but there is a major practical barrier in selling it to the self-employed, who do not normally have one single payroll controller. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the rise of the gig economy, millions of workers are self-employed and, effectively, working for one big company? Is he also aware that, when I asked representatives of Hermes, Deliveroo, Amazon and Uber in the Select Committee whether they would be willing to consider such a scheme for their gig workers, they were very positive about the prospect of the Government bringing one in?

[Mr Hammond]

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

Equality: Autumn Statement

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

What gender impact assessment has the hon. Lady made of the effects of the 2008 credit crunch, and the record deficit that we inherited? Does she not recognise that the decisions that we have had to take were based on restoring the nation’s finances, which is in the interests of everyone, not just a narrow interest group?

[Sarah Champion]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but why do women need to bear the brunt of this Government’s austerity?

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[Sarah Champion]

I am sorry, but I am not having a conversation.

Will the Minister agree today to follow the example set by many other nations and produce recommendations on how equalities considerations can be better integrated into the policy process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will deal with those measures in a moment.

It is worth pointing out that the impressive employment numbers are accompanied by rising living standards, which last year grew at their fastest rate in 14 years and currently stand at their highest-ever level. The benefits of this affect people across our society, but the House should note the evidence of particular benefits for women and people from black and minority ethnic groups. The number of women in work has increased by over 1.2 million since 2010. Indeed, the rate went up more in the previous Parliament than in the previous three Parliaments combined. That comes as the gender pay gap falls to the lowest on record, more women are on the boards or leading businesses than ever before, and there are no longer any all-male boards in the FTSE 100.

[James Cartlidge]

On the subject of pay, I refer to the excellent intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) made on the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who spoke for the Opposition and said that the national living wage was not adequate. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only international comparator for minimum wage is The Economist Big Mac index, which shows that the only country with a more generous living wage than this country is Luxembourg?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I did not know that and I am grateful to him for drawing it to the attention of the House. The national living wage, which was brought in by this Government, disproportionately benefits women.

The number of black and minority ethnic women in work is at a near record high, with nearly 400,000 women finding work since 2010, and the employment rate for people in black and minority ethnic groups is at a record high of 64.5%, its highest level since records began in 2001.

Autumn Statement

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I recognise that the fact that we have to respond to the OBR report in the spring can easily be caricatured as swapping an autumn statement and a spring Budget for a spring statement and an autumn Budget. All I can say is that I promise it will not be like that. The intention is clearly to move to a single event each year when, in normal times, we will make tax changes, but it is prudent, especially in these times, to reserve the right in extremis to announce tax measures at the secondary event, if absolutely necessary. The hon. Gentleman poses a perfectly sensible question. My interpretation of the figures in the table is not the same as his, but I would be very happy to engage in a discussion with him offline.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Although my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is not a conduit for the Transport Secretary, may I nevertheless welcome the £80 million for smart ticketing included in his statement? He is interested in productivity and our flexible labour market. Is he aware that we have many constituents who commute three or four days a week at most and are forced to pay for a full-time travelcard? In his programme of smart ticketing, will he look at that?

[Mr Hammond]

I am aware because I was once upon a time the Transport Secretary. I am convinced that smart ticketing is the future for us. Smart ticketing allows us not only to deal with those commuters who do not travel every day, but to explore options where people might wish to travel in the peak period on some days but are able to travel off-peak on other days. If we could shift just 10% or 15% of commuters from the peak to the off-peak, we would change dramatically the pressure on rail infrastructure around London and other major cities, so that is definitely the future.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Second sitting)

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Blackford]

Maybe something like an insurance wrapper could give the kind of benefits that you are talking about—people losing their job and benefits and what they could get. There are things you could do perhaps to auto-enrolment that would give the kind of opportunities for people that we are talking about.

Ed Boyd: There is a number of ways you could do it. We have not yet got to the point to say, “This is specifically how you should do it.” We are at the stage of saying that maybe your question implies that there is an opportunity to do insurance wrappers or auto-enrol. There are a few different approaches that you could take. That is definitely one you would look at; I think that is what we would say.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Q I just wanted to ask you about the interaction with debt. You are talking about people who will potentially have payday loans or whatever. First, will there be legal protection for the savings that they have in respect of those lenders? On the other hand, it may well be the case that the most sensible thing for them to do with their savings, once they get bonuses et cetera, is to pay off some of their debt, especially if it is at a very high annual percentage rate. I wondered what sort of advice there would be.

You mentioned universal credit, where there is quite an important point. The thing that is really good here is that you are getting people into a habit but this is initially clearly for short-term savings, which I think will actually incentivise them more on the realisation that it can help them. It is a matter of how it interacts with the debt dynamic, because a lot of them will be in that area.

Joseph Surtees: That is a very good point because there is a very specific point here about the risk that these accounts are under if somebody who has one either goes insolvent or does not go insolvent but falls into debt. That will mean they are at risk both of having the money taken during insolvency proceedings or taken by a third-party debt order. In the same way that was done with pensions under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, where there was a wraparound of pension savings, it would be useful to have a think about whether the bonus, or even all the money in the account, should be protected if somebody begins to go insolvent, or is threatened by insolvency or their creditors.

On the second point, this is an ongoing conundrum. I know you are seeing Martin Lewis later and he will probably have a slightly different view on this. All of the research and lived experience of organisations such as ours show that, while it is crucial to pay back your debts, people also need some savings or fall-back for sudden shocks. That does not only do their financial position well; it does their mental health position incredibly well. It has been proven by the work of the single financial statement that you can save while paying back debt. Yes, in terms of a purely rational decision, occasionally people saving instead of repaying debt may not be 100% the best thing to do but, in terms of the common-sense best thing to do, I think it should be allowed.

Ed Boyd: Likewise, if someone has a significant level of debt and we say, “We think you should save the full amount because you have just moved into work. You’re working 18 hours at the national living wage on universal credit,” for example—the advice needs to be tailored case by case. That is why I think the training experience of work coaches as they engage with these people is going to be absolutely crucial. You can say, “This is what the advice should be,” but the people who are advising people face to face and saying, “These are your options in terms of savings, paying off debt” are absolutely crucial. It will be really important to get that interface right.

This links with a programme that is being rolled out by the Department for Work and Pensions called universal support, which is the idea that when somebody comes into a jobcentre, they will not just get advice—“This is a job you can go for and we’ll try to push you into that”—but we will try to understand the root causes of why they are out of work. Debt is often one of those causes, so making sure that people have appropriate support for debt is really important.

I do not think I can say this is how it should happen in every situation. Building up savings is important, but you would not encourage someone to save the maximum amount in their scheme they could if they were paying off lots of debs separately. You would encourage them, if they have some spare capacity in terms of income, to use that to pay off the debt as part of the repayment plan. The interface with the work coach becomes very important to make sure that the advice is right.

[The Chair]

We have four minutes now and three Members who still want to ask questions. Can we bear that in mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call James Cartlidge. Four people still want to ask questions and we have nine minutes.

[James Cartlidge]

Q In respect of Help to Save, it seems to me that there is a real crisis of people who are living week to week, who are often using payday lenders or other forms of debt which are not sustainable for them and who are near the precipice all the time. I take your point that some may not have any spare income at all, but if a savings product such as this, which is so generous, is not going to help them save for those emergency funds that give them greater independence and less reliance on the lenders, which is important, what possibly could?

Bryn Davies: You are right. The work done by StepChange and the Centre for Social Justice very much endorses much of the evidence that you received in the previous session. There is no doubt that it can help people. How targeted it is on people who do not already have a rainy-day fund is unclear. The first point is that many of those people who would take it up already have their rainy-day fund. In that sense, the extra money is not solving that problem.

The other problem is the sheer difficulty of operating on limited budgets. It is not a case of saying, “Let’s give everyone the opportunity to save for a rainy-day fund and that will solve the problem.” I think that underrates the difficulty people face in running their day-to-day budgets and the competing demands that they have. I think that reflects the point that was made here earlier.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q We are old colleagues from the TUC, so I have to say that I have great sympathy with everything you have said so far. It has always struck me that these alleged savings schemes—tax-exempt special savings accounts, personal equity plans and ISAs—help at the margin with people who are relatively comfortably off, but do not help those people who cannot save anything at all because they are too poor. Is this another of those schemes, which will help some people but not those in the most desperate need? They will be the people who are slightly better off and can afford to save something. Would it not be better to have some sort of universal state scheme for pensions, for one thing, but also, on the other hand, to have an emergency scheme where you can give more money to poor people one way or another? Raising their incomes is what the problem really is.

Bryn Davies: Yes, absolutely. These people do not save because they are poor. A hyped-up social fund would do much more directly to help people with these crisis problems. As was mentioned, it is the day-to-day grind of being poor that is the problem. It is not just crises—people are not just poor in crises; they are poor all the time. In those circumstances, there are very tough decisions to be made about how people use their money. Saving is sometimes seen by those people themselves as a luxury. They would rather run the risk than go without some relatively innocuous discretionary spending. We should, in a sense, respect their decisions. We may warn them that they are heading to a crisis but, ultimately, we need to trust people to make their decisions.

On the broader issue, you well know my views on state provision. I think that the market does fail and that it fails, in terms of saving and pension provision, for a much larger proportion of the population. There are very few people who could get by with just the new state pension. Everyone needs to save something for retirement but the market is a bad way of saving for a large proportion of the working population. I could speak on that at length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Q I have another quick question. The witness speaking before you was asked about evidence. I would ask you, what is your evidence that this will make people save? What evidence is there? You say that there is a flexibility in the system, but what is the evidence for encouraging this specific product to encourage people to save more? That was clumsy, but you get the gist.

Calum Bennie: When you introduce a product or investment that has clear advantages, as this one does, it will attract people to save. We have got quite a long experience of incentivised investment products for all sections of the community. In particular, our focus is on those with low to modest incomes. As a company with roots as a friendly society, for the last 30 years we have focused, initially, on friendly society tax-exempt savings plans. There was a clear tax advantage with those.

Twenty-five years ago, the minimum investment was £10 a month, and that attracted a substantial proportion of C2 and DE investors to put their money in those plans. In more recent years, the child trust fund was introduced. That is certainly going to help a reasonable group of people when they reach 18 with a reasonable start in life, and that has obviously then translated into the junior ISA. We were also a proponent of the insurance ISA that is no longer here, which attracted a mid-group part of the population that may have been put off by stocks and shares ISAs before.

That is why we are pretty certain that this product will also be taken up. It will not be by everyone, because there are going to be clear wealth warnings against it. If we were to introduce it, we would certainly need to make clear what you would be getting yourself into if you decided to try to access the fund before age 60—if you were saving for that length of time. But, all things being equal, savers do know what they are letting themselves in for. In our experience, a lot of savers like the discipline that they cannot touch the money. We have done focus group after focus group and that constantly comes up. That is why they like some of the products we offer—because they are long-term—and that could be a key incentive for something like this.

[James Cartlidge]

Q I was very interested in your main point. May I just clarify? Obviously there is this attraction for those who are self-employed, but are you suggesting that, perhaps because of a lack of faith or trust in pensions, even those who might actually be better off focusing on the pension side will simply be attracted to this, as it is something they have more trust and understanding in? Is that your basic point?

Calum Bennie: Yes. There are clearly some people who just do not want to touch pensions for whatever reason. The fact that we are having to force people into pensions is almost an indication that for many people, pensions are broke. We are not saying that pensions are bad and LISA is good; we are just recognising what is out there with people and that some people are very comfortable with ISAs.

We were one of the first friendly societies to introduce several ISAs in 1999 when they came out. More recently, we have moved away from friendly society tax-exempt plans, because they were inflexible, to a much more flexible ISA. We launched that five years ago. That was quite a risk. We did not quite know whether the market that we were aiming at—as I said, that is very much the low to mid-income group of people—would take ISAs, because it is a stocks and shares ISA that we market; it is not a cash ISA, because we are offering people growth potential. So there is a learning experience that people perhaps have got to think about before they invest in this, because it is a stocks and shares ISA, but it has been very successful in terms of the take-up of those ISAs.

In our experience anyway, because we are not focusing on the wealthy and well-advised, people are comfortable with ISAs; not everyone is comfortable with pensions. Therefore, this product, in the short-term perhaps—until a more holistic set of savings plans and investment plans, which perhaps has cross-party support, comes about—could attract lots of people who would otherwise not put money aside for life after work.

[James Cartlidge]

Q When this measure was originally brought in, the point was made by the previous Chancellor about the lack of consensus for the big, overarching reform, so these sorts of reforms were proposed. I do not think anyone disputes that they are not a complete answer. Of course, another part of it is Help to Save. You talked about many low-income savers. I just wonder what you think the impact will be of Help to Save on those on the really low incomes, who we want to see saving more.

Calum Bennie: We do a quarterly survey called the disposable income index survey and we look at people across the UK, and it is quite clear that particularly the 18 to 25 group are really struggling financially. About a quarter of them are spending more than their income. That is not to say that they are all in debt, because they may have other savings or family support to fall back on. Anything that can be done for them to help with a house purchase, which for young people today is a horrendous situation that they are faced with, compared with what many in this room faced when they were first buying their first house—they need all the help they can get, so Help to Save and the ISA are a boon for them.

[Ian Blackford]

Q You talk about some issues that people have with investing in pensions. Why do you think that is? You described pensions as “broke”. Can you just expand upon what you mean by that?

Calum Bennie: I said that for many people, pensions are broke. The reasons could be manifold. People I talk to have experienced problems, and their parents have had problems with pensions. They were saving in a pension and whatever has happened to it—maybe the company has gone bust, or something like that—they have not got the pension that they thought they would get. For many, final salary schemes have disappeared. The pension age has gone up. Women have perhaps been affected by the age going up quite recently, which they had not expected. It could be all those issues. Pensions have been tinkered with for quite a long time. The amount you could save and the lifetime limit had gone up, and now it has come down. Tax relief is being looked at. It is for all these reasons that some people feel, “I am just not comfortable with saving in a pension.”

Charter for Budget Responsibility

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Many voted to leave on the basis that they and their towns and regions felt left behind as a result of seven years of austerity, which have brought about high levels of poverty, lack of investment, and low-paid jobs and insecure jobs. As a result, I think there was an expression of anger in the referendum about a whole range of issues. People were saying to the Government, “We’re not satisfied with your performance, we’re not satisfied with the way we are being governed and we want change.”

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

There is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, and there are parts of the country that clearly felt angry and left out, but I found that, overwhelmingly, the reason why people were going to vote to leave was their concern about immigration. My understanding is that he supports limitless immigration—not putting controls on it—and that matters if he is going to bring the Brexit debate up in his speech.

[John McDonnell]

Let us be clear, because it is best not to exaggerate people’s positions. I think the response on immigration was a response to the concerns people had about the undercutting of wages, the pressure on public services and so on. That is why, on the development of the free movement of people, we have always argued—particularly from the Opposition side—that we should ensure there are sufficient controls, but also mechanisms to prevent the undermining of wages. That is why the last Labour Government—I praise them for this—set up a fund to alleviate the pressure on public services. I think a whole batch of grievances was wrapped up in the vote, and we have to learn from that.

One of the key grievances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, was the impact of austerity on people’s daily lives, which is caused by the adherence to a fiscal rule that we now know is virtually bankrupt and having counter- productive implications for our economy by holding back the investment that many people—even on the Government side—now feel is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I entirely agree, in relation to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, that the Treasury’s gain is the Department of Health’s loss. I will not pre-empt any autumn statement announcements on energy-intensive industries or any other area. I would point to the steps we have taken as a Government to help energy-intensive industries. We have responded to the points made to us by that sector with support for energy costs and so on. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will continue to make his case on behalf of those industries.

[James Cartlidge]

I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin). On cutting corporation tax, does the Chief Secretary not agree that the key point is that, although many people are calling for huge investment programmes by the Government, the investment we need must come from the private sector, and that if the private sector pays less tax, it will invest more?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In particular, in the context of corporation tax—after all, it is a tax on profits and on the return on investment—if we lower the rate and increase the return on investment, we would expect, all other things being equal, to see an increase in investment by such companies. In recent years, we have seen increases in business investment and in foreign direct investment. I would argue that we face some immediate challenges as a consequence of the Brexit vote, but I remain convinced—the evidence is very strong—that the steps we have taken on corporation tax will ensure that we are better prepared than we would otherwise have been.

In the context of the challenges we face, whatever one’s views—remain or leave—I think everyone predicted that a vote to leave would result in some short-term turbulence in our economy. As the Prime Minister has rightly said, Brexit means Brexit, but we have to get through this immediate period, in which some of the risks that exist will crystallise. Since the referendum, the value of our currency has dropped by a tenth compared with the dollar, and independent commentators expect to see a general slowing of investment, exports and business decisions. However, if we do all we can to stabilise our economy and set it back on a clear path, I believe we can prosper in the new circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am glad that the Minister mentioned short-term turbulence as a result of the Brexit decision—the Chancellor has already spoken about that. The Minister is a pragmatic politician, so if that short-term turbulence turns into medium or long-term problems in two, five or 10 years—not least because of the absence of trade deals with the world’s biggest trading bloc—I hope that he will turn on the pragmatic tap even more strongly than he has perhaps tried to do in the Treasury so far.

This debate is about the fiscal charter, so I will run through a small bit of history and make some other comments. When the coalition Government first introduced the charter for budget responsibility, the fiscal mandate was for a cyclically adjusted current budget to be balanced by the fifth year of a forward-looking forecast period—that was similar to the plan laid out by the Labour shadow Chancellor earlier. As the Library has helpfully pointed out—it has helped a great deal with this debate—that plan was shortened to the third year of the forecast period in the December 2014 charter update. That also focused on the current balance, which is the difference between Government revenue and current, rather than capital, expenditure. Focusing on the current Budget was designed, at least on paper, to protect public sector capital investment, which is important.

A number of speakers have mentioned capital investment today, but the real problem is that capital expenditure forecasts, and real capital investment, have been rising and falling over the past few years like a yo-yo. There is concern that the National Infrastructure Commission was designed not so much to facilitate investment and drive it on, but rather to delay some of it further—but I digress.

The previous mandate used a measure of the budget balance adjusted for the economic cycle to allow the flexibility to run a deficit during recessions and a surplus during booms. The fiscal mandate was accompanied by a supplementary debt target. Originally that was for public sector net debt to fall as a share of GDP in 2015-16, but that was moved to 2016-17 in the December 2014 update. That target, of course, was not met—one of a number of broken promises by the Government in the previous Parliament, in which debt, deficit and borrowing targets all failed to be delivered as promised in 2010.

That brings us to the current charter for budget responsibility and the fiscal mandate. The charter sets out the OBR’s role, how it performs its duties, and the required content of its publications. It lays out the Government’s fiscal mandate, supplementary debt target, and essentially the cap on welfare spending. The OBR assesses and reports on progress against those targets in the economic and fiscal outlook. Just in case anyone has forgotten, the current fiscal mandate target is for the public sector’s overall budget—public sector net borrowing—to be in surplus by 2019-20. Once a surplus has been reached, the target is for a surplus to be achieved every year. Frankly, that is impossible if we are to manage the economy in a sensible way. The other target is the supplementary debt target, where until 2019-20 the fiscal mandate will be supplemented with a target for public sector net debt to fall as a percentage of GDP in each year. Those targets, as the Chief Secretary said, will apply unless the OBR assesses there has been a significant negative shock. That is, in effect, where we are today.

If annual real growth in the economy is less than 1%, the OBR will judge there to have been a significant economic or negative shock and the economy will be out of what it calls “normal times”. If the OBR judges that a negative shock has occurred or will occur, fiscal targets will be suspended. That is the nub of the problem with these rules. If the OBR looks backwards over a 12-month period before confirming that growth was less than 1%, that might mean that changes to monetary or fiscal policy may not be delivered or enacted as quickly as they should have been to minimise the problems of a slowing economy. Likewise, if the future forecasts are overly optimistic—quite a common phenomenon in this place—necessary changes to fiscal or monetary policy required to protect jobs and growth might be delayed longer than they should be. In essence, the charter and the rules are a policy for inertia, rather than a policy for action.

Part of the charter requirements are that, should the rules be suspended, the Treasury must set out a plan to return the budget to surplus, including temporary fiscal targets. That plan must be approved by a vote in the House of Commons. One of the last acts of the previous Chancellor was to appear to suggest a suspension of the rules. I think he said—the Chief Secretary can correct me if I am paraphrasing this incorrectly—that the automatic stabilisers would be allowed to function and that corporation tax would be subject, potentially, to deep cuts. If that was the plan, it was not very detailed. I have not yet heard of any temporary targets and Parliament has not yet voted. We are about to go into recess and there is no vote on the horizon. I think that that tells us all that the charter is not fit for purpose and that the rules in place for when promised targets fail are not even remotely being adhered to. It would be better, I think, not simply to suspend the charter, but to rip it up and start again. I am rather less concerned with a plan and a charter to deliver an arbitrary surplus. More important is a plan to deliver real economic growth.

It is worth pointing out that over the past six decades or more, budget deficits have been the norm. Surpluses have been very rare. Since 1955-56, the UK’s public sector budget has been in surplus for only eight years. The last surplus was 15 years ago. The OBR suggested that the UK was set to return to surplus by the end of the decade, but that now looks unachievable—another broken promise. There is, however, a bigger problem than a surplus rule, which the OBR described, in civil service code, as

“ambitious relative to the fiscal performance of past governments”.

I will translate that, Mr Deputy Speaker: it means the Government will not meet their targets. The bigger problem is that it is designed to suck consumption out of the economy before recovery is secured. The scale of that, even as recently as the 2016 Red Book, is breathtaking: not just cutting £10 billion a year more than is necessary to run a balanced economy, but by 2020-21 cutting spending by £50 billion a year more than is necessary to run a balanced current budget.

We know where the cost of this austerity falls: it falls on the poorest in society. How do we know that? The Government have told us. As the cuts and tax rises have risen, so has the ratio of cuts to tax rises, placing the burden of austerity and an arbitrary fiscal target squarely on the backs of the poorest.

This mandate is now collapsing around the Government’s feet, along with the much-vaunted and never-delivered long-term economic plan—a plan that is a bit like a unicorn: everybody knows what it looks like but no one has ever actually seen it. [Laughter.] I used that in a previous speech, but I did not get a laugh that time. It has been said that fiscal rules can be applied in other ways, but the previous Chancellor and, I presume, the current one believe that the current level of public sector debt is too high and that running a budget surplus is the only reliable way to reduce it.

The Treasury Bench has argued that high levels of debt are too risky and too damaging for the UK, leave the UK vulnerable to future economic shocks and squeeze out other public spending through high debt interest payments. At face value that is fine, but there are other credible and fiscally responsible ways in which the deficit can come down and debt can fall as a share of GDP.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is making a detailed and, in his own way, cogent argument, but—[Laughter.] It was meant to be a compliment. The key word, however, is “investment”, and my view is that investment needs to come primarily from the private sector. He talks about the benefits of getting debt down. Surely one of the key benefits is the confidence it builds in the economy among those big international companies that we want to invest in the UK.

[Stewart Hosie]

I agree that confidence will come from a reduction in debt as a share of GDP and a real reduction in the deficit, and I have no aversion whatsoever to genuine, substantial private sector investment. Unfortunately, in the current climate, because of the Brexit decision, there is a bit of a hiatus—substantial investment is being put on hold and might be lost. Trust me, in the competitive international world, every other country in Europe will be saying, “See that £10 billion you were putting into the UK—bring it here.” They will be saying that in Germany and France, and when we are independent, we will be saying it in Scotland too. This is when the UK Government should be stepping in to make sure that any gap in essential investment is filled.

On the alternatives, others have pointed out that the UK can run deficits and allow the ratio of debt to GDP to drift down over time, arguing that the value of debt can be eroded through economic growth. We have not heard a lot about growth. For many years, the mantra from the Government was: growth alone will not solve the problem. I happen to agree, but there has been no plan for growth at all. Instead, we have had almost a fetish and obsession with austerity and cutting debt, irrespective of the growth consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this timely debate. Although the Chamber is not as full as it could be, this is an incredibly fundamental debate on the key issue of the moment.

I start by congratulating the Front-Bench team on their promotions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) as the new Financial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) as Chief Secretary. I attended a school in Hertfordshire and represent a Suffolk constituency, while he represents a Hertfordshire constituency and was educated in Suffolk. The East Anglian Daily Times was particularly excited by his promotion as a son of Ipswich. I congratulate both of my colleagues again.

I am proud of this Government’s economic record. As the Prime Minister said when she opened a fantastic performance at Prime Minister’s questions today, we have record employment once again, we have an 11-year low in unemployment at 4.9%, and we know that the deficit has been cut by two thirds—an incredibly significant achievement that cannot be underestimated. I was reassured by the Prime Minister when she said that we still aim to live within our means. That was her key point when asked about austerity by the Leader of the Opposition. I was reassured, too, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary when he said that the Government are still committed to fiscal discipline, which is so important.

As both the shadow Chancellor and the shadow SNP spokesman have said, we have been looking at this change in the fiscal target as regards a surplus. As they said, the interim fiscal mandate was for the public sector’s overall budget, more correctly known as the public sector net borrowing, to be in surplus by 2019-20 in normal times. That target was to apply unless the OBR assessed that there had been a significant negative shock. Understandably, therefore, there has been a lot of discussion about why this change, putting back the time for meeting this surplus, has come about. I found the Chief Secretary’s explanation reassuring—and the word “reassurance” is key.

My understanding is that when the British people made the decision on Brexit, it was in many ways a shock for the country. Just as the Bank of England Governor came on our television screens to reassure, talking about the steps he would be prepared to take to ensure confidence was maintained in the UK economy, so has the Chancellor of the Exchequer come forward as a reassuring presence, saying that he is prepared to take any necessary steps. I view this as part of an overall package. As the Chief Secretary said, it is of course monetary policy that has the primary responsibility when there are shocks to the economy. We have heard about the possibility even of a cut in the base rate from 0.5% to 0.25%. I see the decision about the surplus as part of the reassurance that the Government are prepared to take steps and react to circumstances.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that monetary policy is the first port of call when there is a shock. If it were deemed to be necessary, however, to invoke some kind of fiscal measure—whether it be a stimulus or anything else—does not the hon. Gentleman agree with SNP Members that the rules are so flawed that we have to wait until the autumn before the Government can even get a green light to make fiscal policy changes that might be necessary now?

[James Cartlidge]

I agree on the importance of monetary policy, and once again the hon. Gentleman makes a cogent point in his own way. Fiscal policy has been compared to a blunt instrument. It is not easy for the Government and the Treasury suddenly to make things happen in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. We need to wait on the figures. I understand that there are reports in the media today that the Bank of England’s agents have said it is business as normal out in the country despite Brexit, and I am very reassured by that. Let me be frank: I campaigned to remain. I was concerned about the economic impact of leaving, and I still am concerned. I always felt that the biggest potential impact would be on inward investment, but I think it will take time for us to see whether that is the case.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman not surprised, as I was, that the only body with a plan for Brexit was the Bank of England?

[James Cartlidge]

I will repeat the point. I think that monetary policy comes first in the present circumstances. I think that the Governor of the Bank of England is a very reassuring force in these times. He issued those warnings about Brexit because he was asked to state his opinion, and he stated it as honestly and transparently as he could. Once Brexit was the result—and it was a shock, as I think everyone concedes, even those who wanted Brexit passionately—he was a very reassuring presence for the Government.

As for fiscal policy, Opposition Members have mentioned measures such as huge amounts of investment. This may be only my personal view, but I would always emphasise that it is private sector investment that we should seek to drive, and a key part of that is the credibility of the Government’s overall stance.

[Jeremy Quin]

We hear calls for a fiscal stimulus, and I recall that there were similar calls during the financial crisis. People demand shovel-ready infrastructure projects, saying, “Let’s spend the money,” but such things always take time. The idea that a magic tap can be turned on and immediately flood the economy with a fiscal stimulus is illusory, and that is why people turn to monetary policy first. There are those who get excited and say that we need the ability to change now, but I think that that is a delusion.

[James Cartlidge]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would make one point about shovel-ready projects. We have quite an advanced business plan for a Sudbury bypass. If the Government decide to go down the Keynesian route of looking for shovel-ready schemes, we are ready in South Suffolk, and we are waiting for the bypass for which we have been campaigning for many decades.

There is an aspect of the charter for budget responsibility that has not yet been mentioned during today’s timely debate. The charter states:

“The Treasury’s objectives for fiscal policy are to: ensure sustainable public finances that support confidence in the economy, promote intergenerational fairness, and ensure the effectiveness of wider Government policy”.

The phrase “promote intergenerational fairness” strikes me as incredibly important. I hope that my Whip will show me some intergenerational fairness, and allow me a couple more minutes. I will not be long.

We have had a Conservative leadership election, and we are still having a Labour leadership election, but, as far as I am aware, no one has debated the following facts. Our national debt stands at £1.65 trillion; according to the Institute of Economic Affairs, our liabilities amount to £5 trillion; and it is estimated that, by 2062, all pensioner benefits will cost £491 billion. I was going to say a lot more about that, and there is a lot more that needs to be debated, but I am getting the hint.

[John McDonnell]

More!

[James Cartlidge]

I will end with this point, which I think will interest the shadow Chancellor. In March 1997, two months before what was a considerable low for our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) came up with a policy called Basic Pension Plus, and I still believe passionately that that is the direction in which our country should go. The cost of the state pension—which, after all, is only £119 a week—is crippling, and the cost of pensioner benefits is enormous.

We need to debate those matters. I simply make this appeal: I hope that when I have a chance to speak again—when we all do—we shall be able to talk openly about the huge liabilities and costs that we face. As it is, the charter is there, we have been debating it, and, as I have said, monetary policy is at the forefront.

Surplus Target and Corporation Tax

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As the hon. Lady knows, we still have to work out the fiscal underpinning of these arrangements, but they allow the Northern Ireland Executive to set any rate that they want. The good news about the reduction in the UK rate is that it applies to businesses throughout Northern Ireland as well, and, to put it, bluntly, makes it cheaper for the Northern Ireland Executive to reduce their corporation tax rate.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the commitment to lower the corporation tax rate, but may I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) about the need to look at our corporation tax regime in the round? I recently visited Lavenham Press, a printing company in my constituency, whose representatives pointed out that capital allowances had been cut. Given the importance of manufacturing, may I ask my right hon. Friend at least to keep the issue of capital allowances under review?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course we keep taxes under review. As I have said, my revealed preference is generally to try to reduce reliefs and reduce headline rates, which I think is the least economically distorting approach, but there are many exceptions to that. One of them has been the investment allowance, which we have increased, and which is particularly targeted at small and medium-sized businesses. It now stands at £200,000 as a permanent annual allowance, which is the highest that it has ever been.

UK Economy

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Labour has consistently presented arguments in the House about the asset sales that have taken place. In the past, they have been described as selling the family silver, but in recent years we have been selling the floorboards and the fabric of the building itself.

Investors in the rest of the world have been willing to overlook some of the fundamentals of our economy in the belief that the country is politically stable, and has secure banks and a booming property market. Overseas investors have been willing to buy assets and lend money on a grand scale as a result. Owing to the leave vote, however, that “kindness of strangers” is now in short supply. Given the uncertainty over the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world, the confidence of international investors in its position has been undermined.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s focus on this point. My biggest worry is that we are dependent on inward investment which, according to Fitch, may fall by 5% this year. Does he agree that whatever happens in the negotiation, the single most important message that must come out of it is that we are still an open economy, and will not resort to protectionism?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree. I echo the Chancellor’s statement on Monday that this country is open for business, and Members of all political parties must repeat it time and again to ensure that we retain the confidence of overseas investors as best we can.

We have to recognise that the confidence of international investors has been undermined by uncertainty over the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world. It is regrettable that the current account deficit has not been addressed so far. To address it would have required a restructuring of our economy. We would have needed an industrial strategy to develop and support our key industries. The Government must now produce a comprehensive industrial strategy to support those industries and lay a path to future growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor for their tone so far. We will support any necessary and constructive measures to bring back confidence and stability, particularly to the markets. The shadow Chancellor was right to say that we cannot hide and that we must have a robust critique of what the referendum outcome may mean. Unusually, the vast majority of the criticism that I do make today will be directed not at the Chancellor, but at those who led the Brexit campaign, who once again since that referendum are absent from this Chamber.

We will support the motion before us, although that is rather superfluous, given that there will now be no vote. We agree with much of it, particularly in respect of the decision to rip Scotland and the UK out of the EU and the huge and real risks that that poses to the economy, to jobs and to prosperity. Those risks were brought about in part by the decision to hold the referendum, but much more importantly by the failure of those advocating Brexit to have any plan if they won. It is worth noting that when we had our first independence referendum, it was based on a 650-page White Paper, a detailed plan and a clear prospectus for what would happen. What the Brexit campaign leaders—the Lord Chancellor and the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—had prepared was a few scribbled notes on the back of Nigel Farage’s fag packet. It really was not good enough.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the first referendum. He will recall that the big issue there was the currency that would be used by an independent Scotland. In the Bill being drafted, is it the assumption that Scotland would no longer use the pound and would have an alternative currency?

[Stewart Hosie]

We had better fix the problems caused by the Brexit decision and then, if we find ourselves unable to secure our place in the EU by any other means, the hon. Gentleman will be more than welcome to scrutinise whatever plans are brought forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, which I very much welcome, because it is what we should be doing. There is a lot of excitement out in the rest of the estate at the moment, but following this enormous decision, with all its consequences, we should be sitting here as a packed Parliament discussing the huge impact. I very much welcome the shadow Chancellor’s point about the need for a cross-party approach, because this is potentially bigger than any party or any leader, no matter how charismatic or experienced they may be.

[George Kerevan]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why this is an Opposition day debate and the Government did not call a debate on the economy after Brexit.

[James Cartlidge]

I am not an expert on “Erskine May”, but I understand that this slot was allocated for an Opposition day debate—[Interruption]—and there was a statement on the European summit.

I campaigned passionately for a remain vote, and I argued positively. I always set out what I thought was the positive case, but I have to say that in my view the negative case was made too often. We created a “cry wolf” situation: if we warn about some things too often, people eventually ignore us even when we are right. We must be honest and say that some of those predictions are coming true.

I believe that the country can come through this, come together and be stronger eventually, but if we are to do so, we initially have to recognise what we have lost and the strength that we have given up. The best way to look at this is to think of a very good Gwyneth Paltrow film—I do not know whether you have seen it, Madam Deputy Speaker—called “Sliding Doors”. We know what has happened: we have had the resignation of a great one nation Conservative Prime Minister; we once again, having reopened Pandora’s box, have the issue of Scotland; we undoubtedly, whatever the indices are showing, have turbulence in the financial markets; and we have profound uncertainty. The very best we can say is that we have a crisis of uncertainty. We hope that that will not be manifested as real pain in the economy, but it is quite obvious that there is a genuine risk of that and we must deal with it. As I said when I intervened on the shadow Chancellor, Fitch has issued a very serious warning of a 5% reduction in investment this year. The biggest threat is what might happen to inward investment. We must remember the current account deficit issue and the fact that the country is completely dependent on inward investment. If the big foreign firms look at this country less positively, we will pay a high price.

I mention “Sliding Doors” because if we had boarded the other tube train going to “Remainia” in the referendum —oh, how I wish that had been the case—

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

It’s the way he tells them.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman has a fantastic sense of humour himself, as does his party.

If we had boarded that tube train and gone down that route, our Prime Minister would have been in post for years to come, and our stock market, our economic confidence and our currency would have strengthened. We would not have put permanently to bed but would have very strongly put to one side the two big constitutional issues of Europe and Scotland that have bedevilled our politics for so long. Instead, we have instability again.

We have to recognise that if we had remained, we would have had a very strong position, rather than all this uncertainty and weakness. For me, whatever arrangements are negotiated for the future, they must compensate for that and restore the strengths and assets that we had, not least the fact that British has historically been seen as a beacon of trust. It has been seen as a country into which people would put their life savings, and there is a profound sense around the world that we have respect for the rule of law, and that we are stable, sound and all the rest of it. At the moment, one could forgive the world for thinking that that was not the case, as certainly seems to be true in other European countries.

How do we restore those strengths? First and foremost, when we enter into negotiations, we have to decide on the principles—just as with a Bill, we have a Second Reading debate about its principles—and we need to decide on the principles of the negotiations we will have with our European partners and on the fundamentals about how we go forwards. I want to focus on three key points.

The first point is openness, to which I referred earlier. To me, one of the most extraordinary comments during the referendum was when, after concerns were raised about steel, a key figure in the leave campaign said that if we left the EU, we could unilaterally impose tariffs on Chinese steel. There may be a strong case for doing so, but that betrayed the fact that when the argument becomes nationalistic, particularly economically nationalistic, there is inevitably a threat of protectionism. We have heard many times about how Britain would negotiate good trade arrangements, and about how, since we have deficits with the EU, its members will want to trade with us—after all, look at how many cars we buy from them. Implicitly, the point was therefore that if they did not want to trade with us, we would consider protectionism.

[Kit Malthouse]

I realise that my hon. Friend and I were on different sides of the argument, but does he recognise that the EU is a protectionist bloc? The EU is a common tariff area whose members collectively impose significant tariffs on other parts of the world, some of which are impoverished third world nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point, but the EU as a whole is a tariff-free market of half a billion people, and it is a massive asset for our economy to be part of that. In my opinion we need to remain in the single market at all costs. The principle of openness is important, but this is also about the message we send. We have all agreed that there is a threat to inward investment—this is an existential threat to our economy—and it is important to send to the world the message not just that we are open for business, but that we will be open with the principles of our economy and not resort to protectionism.

Secondly, any negotiation on our new arrangements must take place in a tone and manner of goodwill. We must seek an arrangement that is not just in our interest but in those of a strong European Union, and that is fundamental. Whoever undertakes those negotiations with our European partners must be someone who is trusted to want something that works for both parties—I worry about people going to negotiate with a body that they have spent many months heavily criticising.

My third point is about fiscal policy. Whatever we do, if we want to maintain a sense that we are sound, and win back the sense that we are a stable country in the world, we must continue with a fiscally prudent regime. We must continue to take tough decisions, and commit to balancing the books and reaching a surplus. The message that that would send will inspire confidence in our investors and help to restore the stability we all seek.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that an important start has been made on building up that mutual trust by the candour and openness with which the Prime Minister and Chancellor accepted the verdict of the people, even though it went against their own strongly held beliefs? We must carry that forward by ensuring that we observe the spirit, as well as the letter, of the people’s decision.

[James Cartlidge]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I was coming on to speak about why this decision came about. While we must accept the decision of the people, we must also understand and be honest about the prospectus on which we believe they voted. A few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the former Mayor of London, of whom I am—of course—a huge fan, wrote:

“It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so.”

However, the huge turnout that we saw in working-class areas of this country, council estates and so on, was not due to people saying, “We didn’t get a say on the Lisbon treaty”; it was because of immigration, which was pushed in an inflammatory way throughout the debate. If anyone wants proof of that, I can bring the tweets and emails that I have received, some of which were shocking and horrific—indeed, some were too shocking to read out in the House in the way that some of my hon. Friends have done.

We must accept that the campaign was driven by concerns about immigration. That makes things difficult for us, because when we negotiate we must find a way of preserving all the economic strengths to which I referred while controlling immigration from the European Union. If we boil down the explicit underlying nature of the prospectus from vote leave, it was the end of unskilled immigration from the EU. We heard that there will be skilled migration, but at the moment tier 3 is closed and unskilled workers cannot come to this country from outside the EU. Finding that balance will be incredibly difficult, but it is possible if we have good faith and show goodwill towards those with whom we negotiate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who made some fine points. I particularly liked the phrase he coined about moving from free movement to fair movement.

There is a time and a place to take a risk. I started my business in 1992. Many in the House will remember that year and, in particular, 16 September 1992. Unemployment was at 3 million; repossessions were running at 72,000—three times the normal average; and, on that single day, interest rates went from 10% to 12% to 15%. As the House will remember, the day after, we pulled out of something called the exchange rate mechanism, and that was the right thing to do. Many economists said it was the wrong thing to do—they said it was a big risk—but things could hardly have got worse, so it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Look at where we are today: we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the developed world and virtually full employment, meaning that all our young people and our older people can get a job. We had a saying in our business: hope is not a strategy. There was so little strategy from the Vote Leave campaign going beyond our exit from the EU, which was why most business organisations—the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the manufacturers’ federations, TheCityUK—said it was the wrong thing to do. Every leading economist—and even some not-very-leading economists—said it was the wrong thing to do. But of course this was seen as some kind of conspiracy.

It was not just business talking like that but the music industry, the science industry, our research organisations, our technology industry and so on. A report by the House of Lords called leaving the EU a huge risk because of the complexity of withdrawal. It will take at least two years from our giving notice under article 50, but it will take many more years to unwind all the connected legislation. A report in The Times last week said it would take 10 Queen’s Speeches to unwind the legislation. That breeds the uncertainty that businesses do not like.

This is also about trade deals, and not just about trading today with Europe but about opening new trade markets around the world. As the Chancellor said, that is a great opportunity, but businesses cannot simply move their supply and customer bases from one location to another overnight—yet that is what they are being asked to do.

[James Cartlidge]

Is not much of our trade with the rest of the world done through large international companies that locate in the UK because we are in the single market?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A good example are the Swiss banks. Despite Switzerland’s being part of the European economic area, it cannot trade directly with the EU, so it has to base subsidiaries within the EU. Happily, firms such as Credit Suisse and UBS put them in London, as do US banks such as Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and the like. That is why the head of TheCityUK said that the move could cost up to 100,000 jobs in the City of London. Yet this was never dealt with or answered by the Vote Leave campaign. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) shakes his head. The risks are huge, yet the issue has not been properly dealt with.

The impact on car manufacturers has not been properly dealt with either. This is not simply about our opening new trade markets around the world; it is about a supply chain that is deeply embedded throughout Europe. A typical drive shaft for a family saloon car is manufactured in six different countries across Europe. What are car manufacturers to do if tariffs are applied between us and the EU? Just last evening, I was talking to a multinational retailer who had 3,000 members of staff but was moving to new premises with 5,000 members of staff. These people move from London to Frankfurt to Paris just as we would move from north Yorkshire to London, but they face the prospect of not being able to do that. How have we made this decision without talking about these issues and answering these questions?

There is an even bigger issue. Looking at the European Union in such a sensitive stage, I view it as a house of cards, and if the UK pulls our card from the bottom, there is a significant risk that the whole house will implode. A domestic economic risk then moves towards becoming an international and global economic risk, along with a political risk and a security risk. This country’s economy and our prospects for national security could be hugely affected.

We should recall that only a few years ago many European member states were totalitarian states behind the iron curtain, yet they are today free and fair democracies with the rule of law and freedom of the press. The European Union has presided over those member states, making sure that they are focused on prosperity and trade, rather than looking backwards or, even worse, eastwards towards Russia.

All these issues are in play, and there are many positive reasons for remaining part of the European Union. It is about the opportunity to live, work and study right across the continent; it is about peace and prosperity; and it is about tackling some of our huge challenges and economic risks—issues such as climate change, air pollution, drug resistance and tax evasion.

Of course, free movement of people and immigration are the biggest issues that need to be dealt with. I quite understand the public concern about those issues, and I believe that this was not a referendum on the European Union, but on immigration. I understand that we need to deal with it and now we have an opportunity to do so. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, we need to deal with it in a proportionate way, and to look at the many different solutions to the problem, working together with our European neighbours.

Above all, we must have free and unfettered access to the single market, because the economic consequences of not having it are impossible—too severe—to contemplate. All the way through the referendum campaign, I wanted to remain and reform, but that option is no longer available. What we must now do is to work together with our European counterparts to make sure that we get reform. We must work collaboratively with our European partners to make sure that we have a fair economic settlement that works for both the European Union and for the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for that intervention. In the short time during which I have been in the House, I have been appalled by the extent to which party-political self-interest has slammed the brakes on vital infrastructure decisions to secure the future economic wellbeing of our nation, or even our national security. The Government should allow votes on airport expansion, on our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, and on other major, vital infrastructure projects to keep our country safe and prosperous. We cannot continue to allow such crucial decisions to be sacrificed on the altar of party-political management, not least when the attempts that are made appear to be futile.

We are not just seeing a fundamental change in the role of Britain in the EU; I think that we may be looking at the break-up of the United Kingdom. I am thinking not just about Scotland, but about the huge achievement that was made in Northern Ireland, from the Downing Street declaration under John Major to the Good Friday agreement under Tony Blair. The Northern Irish peace process itself could be put at risk because of the way in which this debate has been handled. It is troubling that, days after the referendum, there are still no answers to some of the critical questions that have been asked about how we are to move forward as a country.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech and I agree with the sentiments that he has expressed. Is it not the case that, in the best case scenario, it is inevitable that a huge amount of Government energy and time will be diverted to legal wrangling and other issues? We should be focusing on the huge issues that the country faces.

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree. I came to this House not to spend hours and hours scrutinising changes to the law to protect the rights we already have as members and citizens of the EU, but to advance new ones and to fight for my schools, my hospitals and my public services and to improve the life chances of people in my constituency. I did not come to this House to take part in a grand constitutional convention tinkering at the edges to maintain the status quo, rather than advancing the interests of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that.

[James Cartlidge]

I was there in Committee when we debated votes at 16 and foreign nationals. I made the point on foreign nationals, and it is a fact that if they had been allowed the vote, which is not the case in general elections, they could have swung the result. Even though I regret the result, we cannot underestimate how inflammatory that would have been, especially as we were not using the franchise from a general election.

[Roger Mullin]

That is a rather sad argument to make. We allowed EU nationals a vote in the Scottish referendum. Thomas and Elke Westen are as much Scots as I am and they have as much right to express their feelings about the country in which they have chosen to live. It is similar to the case of my older brother and sister who had to emigrate because they could not get the opportunities to work in their own land, which has been a big problem for Scotland. The countries in which they have gone to live have welcomed them and allowed them the vote. Excluding these people helped to introduce an element of xenophobia into the way in which the referendum has been conducted. I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman, but on that particular point, I am afraid that I completely disagree with him.

There are problems for our small and medium-sized enterprises. In my own constituency—I would be interested to hear whether this is shared elsewhere—two types of SMEs have been talking to me. The first group includes those SMEs that export, and their concerns are primarily about access to markets. Earlier, the argument was made that it was good that a falling pound would allow exports to be a little more competitive. In all honesty, I have not heard a single business person making that claim. What I have heard is that the problem will be in assuring exporters that they have access to markets. Without access to markets, the exchange rate is rather immaterial.

The second type of SMEs has included not exporters but importers. They are particularly concerned about what is happening with the currency level, and what the cost will be of bringing in the types of continental products that we have been so used to benefiting from over the past 20 or 30 years. There are different perspectives on the problem in SMEs that reflect real concerns that we will have to manage in this new situation. The Government will not be able to wait two years until an exit takes place to deal with this matter. They will have to think urgently about the kind of initiative that can be brought in to assist those SMEs that are living in a period of great uncertainty. When they have a period of great uncertainty, what effect will it have on their decision-making? They will not be going to the banks and borrowing for investment at a time when they are uncertain about how they are going to construct their future. My fear is that over time that uncertainty will lead to less and less investment, not merely by the large corporations, but by many of the small businesses at the heart of our communities.

Another issue of concern is research funding and academia in society. Many people have said, “Don’t worry. The contracts that have already been struck will not be ended,” so our great universities are safe in that regard. However, the universities’ fundamental concern is for the future of European collaboration in research. How will that happen if we have exited the EU? Will British academics have the same access to other academics and to future research projects? That is highly unlikely unless we regain our place in the European Union. What of those students in Scotland and elsewhere who have benefited from travel to continental Europe and those who benefit from the great universities of France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere? What are their prospects? Future generations will be denied the opportunities that others have had over the past 30 years. That can only be a tragedy for our society.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the revelations contained within the Panama Papers and recognises the widespread public view that individuals and companies should pay their fair share of tax; and calls upon the Government to implement Labour’s Tax Transparency Enforcement Programme which includes: an immediate public inquiry into the revelations in the Panama Papers, HMRC being properly resourced to investigate tax avoidance and evasion, greater public sector transparency to ensure foreign companies wanting to tender for public sector contracts publicly list their beneficial owners, consultation on proposals for foreign companies wanting to own UK property to have their beneficial owners listed publicly, working with banks to provide further information over beneficial ownership for all companies and whom they work for, the swift implementation of full public country-by-country reporting with a fair turnover threshold as well as ensuring robust protection for whistle blowers in this area, ensuring stricter minimum standards of transparency of company and trust ownership for Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories, consideration of the development of the Ramsey Principle by courts, implementation of an immediate review into the registry of trusts, and the strengthening and extension of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule to cover offshore abuses.

I see that the Chancellor is absent again today. Much as I look forward to seeing the various members of his Treasury team, is there a specific reason why he is not here for this important debate? I am happy to give way. [Interruption.] Is it critical? In respect of his attendance at the International Monetary Fund, he might look at yesterday’s IMF report that downgraded the growth expectations for our economy and think again about the policies he is pursuing, which fail to invest in the infrastructure, skills and new technology that our economy needs to compete in the world market. Perhaps we will send him a letter and he can say hello to the Chamber some time when he happens to be passing through.

We need to move the debate about tax avoidance and evasion on to the issue of the fairness and effectiveness of our tax system, and we need to do so as constructively as we can. The leak of documents from Panama lawyers Mossack Fonseca has provoked an extraordinary public discussion, and an entire hidden world has been brought into the light. What it reveals is profoundly unsettling.

We now know that Mossack Fonseca sat at the centre of a vast web of tax evasion and tax avoidance. The world’s super-rich commissioned its services to hide their income and wealth from the public gaze. Some of them had plainly criminal intentions. Money from the Brink’s-Mat robbery was allegedly laundered through a shell company set up by Mossack Fonseca, while the Mexican drug baron Rafael Caro Quintero held his property through a shell company established by Mossack Fonseca.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Disturbing points have been raised about Putin and the Russian regime. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the shadow Treasury spokesman, his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), raised any of those points about the Russian Administration when on “Russia Today”?

[John McDonnell]

That certainly will happen in future.

Even if they were not criminals, many of Mossack Fonseca’s clients, if not all, had the strong intention of evading or avoiding the taxes that would otherwise have been due from them.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

May I press on for a little while? I am only on the third page of my speech. This is getting ridiculous. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I have already given way a fair amount. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am generous, but I do not want to speak for too long.

Even today, we have not seen the Prime Minister’s full tax return or that of the Chancellor, and it is important that that should happen. The Prime Minister established the principle, which I advocated three months ago, that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor should publish their tax returns—not summaries; their full tax returns—but that has not happened.

However, what confronts us today is an issue far bigger than any individual. At the centre of the allegations is a single issue. The fundamental problem is not tax avoidance by this individual or that company; those are symptoms of the disease. The fundamental issue is the corruption of democracy itself. At the core of our parliamentary system is the idea that those who levy taxes on the people are accountable to the people. If those who make decisions about our taxation system are believed to be avoiding paying their own taxes, that undermines the whole credibility of our system.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I had better give way to the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) first; otherwise, he will be disappointed.

[John McDonnell]

It depends on the issue that is being addressed. Sometimes harking back to the medieval period may be the most effective way of dealing with these problems.

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I must press on. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if that is okay.

The common understanding is also that those who live here and benefit from public services will make a proportionate contribution towards them. The level of taxation may vary—sometimes it is higher, sometimes lower—but because we have a shared sense of fairness, we expect those with the broadest shoulders to carry the greatest burden in taxes. Over the last 30 years, however, we have witnessed the growth of wealth inequality on such a scale that it has undermined that basic principle of democracy. Figures from Oxfam suggest that the richest 1% own more than the rest of the world combined.

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

Let me press on for a little while. I will return to the hon. Gentleman, I promise.

Great hoards of assets, in property and in financial wealth, have been built up. According to the best available measures, the levels of income inequality in Britain today are climbing as high as they were at the time of the first world war. The share of income going to the super-rich has risen almost inexorably for three decades. We are returning to the levels of inequality that were experienced before universal suffrage—before women had the vote, and before the development of universal free education and healthcare—in a world that existed before the gains of democracy brought obscene levels of wealth inequality under control, and created a more humane society for the majority.

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

Let me press on. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The world of the Rockefellers and the robber barons is the one to which we are returning: a world in which there is immense, almost unimaginable wealth for a gilded elite, but insecurity for growing numbers. Much of that wealth is now held offshore in secretive, unaccountable tax havens. According to the most recent estimate, $21 trillion dollars, equivalent to a third of global GDP, is hidden from taxation systems in global tax havens. It is estimated that, if taxed fairly, that wealth would raise $188 billion a year in extra taxation.

This is not about a few families seeking to “minimise their tax bill”, as was claimed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It is systematic. An offshore world is operating parallel to the world in which the rest of us live. This is not an accident. The offshore world is being constructed, piece by piece, by multinational corporations and the super-rich, aided by shady offshore operations such as Mossack Fonseca, and—we must be honest about this—supposedly reputable accountancy firms here in London are also playing their part. According to the Public Accounts Committee, PwC has aided tax avoidance “on an industrial scale”. Deloitte has advised big businesses on avoiding tax in African countries. Ernst and Young act as tax advisers to Facebook, Apple and Google, and just last month KPMG had one of its tax-avoidance schemes declared illegal by the High Court. Together, the big four accountancy firms in this country earn at least £2 billion annually from their tax operations.

But it is not just them. Banks headquartered and operating in London have been particularly proficient in directing their funds through Mossack Fonseca shell companies. HSBC and its affiliates created more offshore companies through Mossack Fonseca—over 2,300 in total—than any other bank. Coutts, a subsidiary of RBS, created over 500 offshore companies through its subsidiary in Jersey. Supposedly reputable companies are aiding and abetting the systematic abuse of our tax system.

We should be clear: the City of London is being viewed by many as a tax haven in the middle of a dense network of havens created for the super-rich to avoid the taxes the rest of us must pay.

[James Cartlidge]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in 2010 the richest 1% contributed 25% of all tax, and does he welcome the fact that the Chancellor revealed in the Budget that that has now increased to 28%?

[John McDonnell]

It is not just a matter of tax, is it? It is not just a matter of income tax, either. Of course I recognise those figures, but distributional analysis has been undertaken independently of the Government. Conservative party policy since 2010 has seen some of the biggest losses for the poorest, not the wealthiest. The Women’s Budget Group put together the tax gains, the tax paid, the services cut and the benefit cuts. The poorest 10% will lose 21% of their income annually as a result of this Government’s policy—five times more than the top 10%. The analysis of the Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly shows that this year’s Budget hits the poorest 80% harder than the richest. Eighty per cent. of those cuts fall on whom? It is on women.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She made an excellent speech, at the start of which she summarised very well the feeling of public anger about an elite who seem to live by rules different from those that apply to the average member of society. I agree with her.

I want to speak along the same lines as the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who has just left the room, and talk about the underlying issues. Why is there such public anger about this issue? Tax avoidance and tax evasion have been going on for hundreds of years. Smuggling was tax evasion. When people filled in their windows to avoid the window tax, that was tax avoidance. Why has there recently been a crescendo of public anger? It cannot be simply because the Panama papers have been in the press. I argue that it is caused by underlying economics and the fissures that emerged in our society after the great credit crunch in 2008.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman might want to consider the fact that the poor people of the country are lectured constantly by the Government, who keep telling them that we are all in this together. Quite clearly, we are not.

[James Cartlidge]

We have a record low in the number of workless households. Worklessness is the single biggest cause of poverty. The Government have a very strong record on dealing with poverty, and I will come on to that.

[Debbie Abrahams]

It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way, but I have to challenge him on his last point. There are more people in work who are in poverty than ever before.

[James Cartlidge]

I simply do not agree with that. I want to start by focusing on the action that has been taken, because I do not think that the anger out there is caused by a lack of action.

[Kevin Foster]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Cartlidge]

May I just make one point first, although it is lovely to have so popular a speech and so many interventions? On the action we have taken, as my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick) have said, there has been a 50% fall in the corporation tax gap. I am sure that that is the sort of point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay wants to support me.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has already been very generous with interventions. Does he agree that one of the things that really used to anger people was that an office cleaner could be paying a higher rate of tax than a hedge fund manager who worked in the same office? That was happening not in a tax haven, but here in the UK, and it is right that it was tackled.

[James Cartlidge]

That is an excellent point. It was a fundamental injustice, and we dealt with it. In the latest Budget, we announced a series of measures to tackle tax avoidance on matters such as hybrid mismatch, VAT evasion through online sales and the general anti-abuse rule. We will introduce a new penalty of 60% of tax due in all GAAR cases that are successfully tackled. We have brought in a long list of measures on matters such as serial tax avoidance and offshore avoidance.

On the broader point about the wider economics, I founded a small business in 2004—a mortgage broker specialising in the shared ownership sector—and it was obvious to me in the build-up to 2008 what was coming down the track. I believe that the then Government were trying to tackle inequality through debt. In those days, two potential homebuyers, one of whom was relatively wealthy and well educated, and the other who had less good skills and was less able to command such a salary, could both obtain similar levels of mortgage through the extraordinary measures that existed at the time, such as self-certified and sub-prime mortgages. We all know where that led.

In terms of public debt, the then Government’s main measure to deal with inequality was tax credits, which led to a £30 billion increase in in-work benefits. We paid for that increase in benefit spending on the national overdraft at a time when the country was doing pretty well and the world economy was relatively strong.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? He seemed to be saying that less intelligent people should not be allowed to have mortgages. Is that what he was saying?

[James Cartlidge]

I think that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. I find that genuinely offensive. What I said was that the rules were very lax, and self-certification meant that someone on a low salary could get a very large mortgage, just like someone who earned a large amount. That is exactly the point that I was making. We all know that that led to a huge crash in 2008.

We have one fundamental question to answer. How, in the current economic context, do we go about trying to deliver a fairer economy, which we all want, where more people share in the growth that we have been able to deliver? We need strong measures to counter tax avoidance. We need the public to feel as though we are all in this together, and that we are all paying our fair share.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

On the point about everyone paying their way, does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that under this Government, the top 1% of earners are paying 28% of tax, which is a far higher percentage than under the Labour Government? [Interruption.]

[James Cartlidge]

There are shouts from Labour Members, because I made that point earlier, but it is worth repeating. I am delighted that my hon. Friend made it, because it is so strong.

[Callum McCaig]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I am very popular today.

[Callum McCaig]

The hon. Gentleman is exceptionally popular today. The point about the richest 1% paying the largest amount of tax has been baffed about a number of times today as though it is some sign of virtue. It is, in fact, a sign of the gross inequality that exists in the country, which needs to be addressed.

[James Cartlidge]

It is a sign that the rich are paying more tax. How does that make society more unequal?

Let me talk about the measures that we should be pursuing. Yes, we should be cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance, but if we are to help people across society to have a share, we need measures such as the national living wage, which was introduced on 1 April by a Conservative one nation Government. There are those who say that the national living wage is not generous enough. They have obviously not been reading The Guardian, which recently used The Economist’s Big Mac index to prove that the national living wage is more generous than the minimum wage in any other European country except Luxembourg. Only in Luxembourg can someone buy more burgers with the minimum wage than they can with the national living wage in this country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) asked what this had to do with tax avoidance. The underlying issue is fairness. It is about how we achieve an economy in which there is a widespread sense that everyone has opportunity and the chance to earn a decent wage.

We are delivering that in circumstances far more adverse than those that faced the Government before 2010. We have had a small majority and the first coalition since the second world war. We have had the biggest deficit since the second world war—11.5% of GDP—which we have cut by two thirds. In that context, it is difficult to grow our way out of such a problem and deliver fairness. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow South keeps chuntering, but he is not adding a great deal to the debate.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is talking about fairness and about some of the challenges that we faced with the deficit that we inherited. Is he not proud that in those circumstances, not only have we shifted income tax from the lowest paid to the highest paid, but we have helped small businesses? Through the reforms to business rates, we will take many smaller businesses out of business rates altogether while making multinationals pay more.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention small businesses. I used to say to people that I ran a small business, but measured by the amount of corporation tax we paid, we were bigger than Google. The fact is that those who run small businesses feel as though they have to comply. They cannot afford expensive lawyers. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North about the sense that there is an elite who live by different rules. We have to deal with that, but we must not run away from the key point—my concluding point—with which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary also concluded, namely that when we talk about transparency, the transparency that really matters to the public is about our ideals and our beliefs.

What do we really believe? I fundamentally believe in the free market. I believe in capitalism. I believe in individuals getting out there and using their creativity to earn their way in the world. We cannot go back to paying our way through debt and unsustainable public finances. In the circumstances, we need to maximise the tax that we get, but we also need to maximise the investment into the country from companies that we have heard the Labour Front Benchers criticise. Those big professional firms in London are massive employers in this country. We need to expand our exports from the services sector. Basically, we need a positive, free enterprise agenda with a fair sense that companies and individuals are paying their fair share, which does not denigrate the free market but creates sustainable growth to deliver prosperity for all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I have now to announce the result of a deferred Division on the question relating to employment agencies etc. The Ayes were 307 and the Noes were 241, so the Ayes have it.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but the political and philosophical point in it is that he does not believe that reducing the size of the state is necessarily in the interests of the majority. I do, and that is where we diverge, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a sense that the middle are carrying the burden and the very rich are not. However, all these things that we have been discussing, about which I have no knowledge—I wish I had money in trusts, offshore or elsewhere—are legal. If something is legal, I believe that it is legitimate. To those who believe that there is a moral component to paying tax, I say, “Get real.”

We probably need to look at the system first. Earlier, I referred to the corporation tax scandal, Google and the like. I know that the Government have made significant progress on reducing corporation tax, but corporation tax is out of date in a globalised economy. Let us just scrap it. We either make a decision not to spend £42 billion, or we move to a form of taxation that is not so easily avoidable, be it employee taxation, a sales tax or a property tax. However, the perpetuation of corporation tax in the world I see is plainly nonsense.

On the point about London property ownership, it is all about avoiding stamp duty. Scrap stamp duty. We should either not spend the £7 billion or find another way of levying the tax. Perhaps people should be taxed for ownership on an ongoing basis. Perhaps council taxes should be increased. I do not know—one can choose. However, corporation tax and stamp duty are clearly not fit for purpose and are easily avoidable.

The other challenge is intergenerational inequity. Significant sums of money are tied up in particular generations. Much has been said about the Prime Minister’s inheritance tax arrangements, which are totally to be expected—anybody with any wealth will mitigate inheritance tax. Who in that position would not? Let us not be hypocrites. The problem is that significant wealth is tied up in a particular generation, who were born post war. How will we facilitate the transfer of that wealth fairly and equitably? Answers on a postcard, please. At the moment, we do not have a system that works, and we need one.

I move on to transparency and the need for simplification. I am attracted to the Scandinavian—Norwegian and Swedish—model of publishing tax and wealth online. I support that; I have absolutely nothing—as far as I am aware—to hide. When I mention that to Conservative colleagues in particular, they worry about privacy. If that is founded—and those arguments are strong—the Prime Minister should not have published his tax returns, and nobody else should do so. It should be all or nothing. Each and every one of us in the Chamber, and indeed those watching in the Public Gallery, has a share in our democracy and in our Government functioning. For that share to be valued, we must all trust that it is legitimate and fair and that everyone is playing by the rules. I am therefore drawn to the Norwegian model, with all the necessary clarifications of legitimate application.

[James Cartlidge]

Which Norwegian model? There is one to do with the sex trade, there is another to do with negotiations for the referendum—is my hon. Friend talking about the tax one?

[Dr Lee]

Of course I am talking about the tax system. There have been some concerns about it, to do with extortion and potential for kidnapping the very wealthy. However, if the system is applied with a log in and all the necessary things that need to be put in place, I do not see a problem with it. In the first couple of years, everyone will be interested—twitchy curtains—in what everyone else is earning, but after that, things will settle down.

I have contributed today and I feel strongly about this because if we do not have trust, not just in us but in this establishment and in Government, we cannot achieve much. The challenges that the country faces with the long-term sustainability of health and welfare, particularly pensions, mean that there will be some difficult decisions for whoever is in power. For them to be implemented, we must be trusted. Everything that we do here should be about that. That is why I think that our priorities should be transparency, simplification and scrapping taxes that have long been out of date.