Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I do see the point he makes. As he knows, the focus has been on dogs and other pets that we keep in the home, but I am happy to speak to colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to get back to him about what we think of his suggestion.

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

The Justice Secretary is working with the Law Commission on bringing forward a new corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime. There are concerns that the offences will be downgraded to regulatory offences, rather than those involving criminal sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be criminal sanctions if we are to have a true deterrent against this terrible crime?

Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have heard quite a lot the argument that Scotland did not vote to leave the European Union, but that is not how the votes were added up. This was a national, United Kingdom vote. Those were the terms of the referendum, which were voted for in this House. That is how the entire nation voted, and we are leaving the European Union. Some of us will be less happy about that than others, but nevertheless, that is what we are instructed to do and what we should do.

For the Opposition, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said time and again that the Government were irresponsible in these negotiations. Can I just remind her that there are two sides to this negotiation? There are two sides, and I would ask which side she is on, because she is not representing the national interests in the way she is discussing these matters and blaming the Government for being in this position at this stage. Of course—and I am in business today—every business in this land would have liked the situation to be done and dusted last June, as we had hoped. However, there are two sides to this negotiation, and it has to be said that the European Union has been difficult in these negotiations.

If the hon. Lady does not believe my words about that, she should listen to one of the most reliable commentators on her Benches, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), in his speech on 14 September. He was talking about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and he said that

“I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Government’s argument: exit summary declarations should not be required for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. When Wrightbus sells one of its wonderful buses to a transport operator in the UK, why is the form needed and what is the EU going to do with the form?”

On goods at risk, he said that

“surely it is possible to reach a pragmatic solution, because a lorry load of goods destined for a supermarket in Belfast can hardly be described as being at risk of entering the European Union.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 64.]

Yet those are some of the matters that the European Union was negotiating on or on which it was trying to negotiate hardball.

I ask again: who does the hon. Lady think, and who does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for the SNP think, is being difficult in this negotiation? Is it purely the United Kingdom? Of course it is not. Why are there no words of criticism for the European Union’s position and for leaving it this late before agreeing what should be a simple trade deal to arrange and negotiate? It has negotiated similar trade deals with many other countries around the world, and we start from a similar position with our regulations and customs duties.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Identical.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

From an identical position. This should have been an easy trade negotiation, but of course it is not, for the reasons that we know. Of course, there is politics behind this negotiation, and the politics in this place should be united on one side, in the UK’s national interests, but they are not. Too often, Opposition Members have represented the European Union’s negotiating position in these negotiations.

Deaths in Mental Health Care

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 30th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Stringer; it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) who introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He spoke of the case of Matthew Leahy. It is a terrible tragedy, and I pay a huge tribute to his mother, who has campaigned for years through the pain, which is without limit.

We all sympathise, I am sure, but as the hon. Gentleman said the case of Leahy is not the only one at the Linden Centre, Chelmsford. There have been several others, all tragic, including my constituent Richard Wade. I held an Adjournment debate on the case of Richard Wade in October. At the start of that debate, because the HSE case was live, a much stricter sub judice ruling was given, which meant there were things I could not say in the Adjournment debate that I feel able to say today.

I have a very short period of time and I do not have time to give the full details of Richard Wade’s case. The key point is that, on the day he was found hanging in the Linden Centre in Chelmsford, there is strong evidence that his parents have seen—not just documentary evidence, but other evidence that has come to them, including from people who have worked at the Linden Centre—that when his body was first discovered hanging, still alive, the clinicians who found it either panicked, or for some other inexplicable reason left it hanging, locked the door and allowed some minutes to pass before he was discovered a second time, this time with his parents nearby. At that point he was given resuscitation and urgent medical treatment. We do not know the impact of those crucial minutes on his eventual fate several days later, when he passed away. Essentially, his is a life that I believe could have been saved and a death that could have been avoided.

I will not repeat all the points I made about Richard Wade’s case in my Adjournment debate, other than to say that although he died in May 2015—in fact, I met him going to vote in Great Cornard in May 2015, a few days before I had the great privilege of being elected for the first time, and he was dead several days later—in February 2015 another man, who I believe was called Beecroft, also died by ligature in the Linden Centre in Chelmsford, in the very same bathroom where Richard Wade hanged himself that May. The extraordinary thing is that, when the trust reported on Richard Wade’s death in December that year, it never mentioned that there had been a hanging in the same bathroom three months earlier—as if it were a common occurrence or something. It is quite extraordinary.

When the Care Quality Commission came to investigate, because of course, by April 2015, it had taken over from HSE, I am afraid it did not handle the case well. The CQC did not investigate it initially, because, in the words of the report it issued to the Wades in July, the inspectors effectively did not realise that they had taken over statutory responsibility from HSE. It is a catalogue of failures; the Wade case alone would merit an independent inquiry, but there are also Beecroft, Leahy, Morris and potentially other cases.

At the end of my Adjournment debate my hon. Friend the Minister, who was being covered for at the time because she was isolating, announced an independent review into the deaths at the Linden Centre. I was very grateful for that, because I know she has taken huge interest in the matter and very sincerely so. I hope that that can be a full, robust, independent inquiry, like the one we had last week into the Dixon case, which can uncover the truth and can go into places that other mechanisms cannot.

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

These are terribly tragic cases; sometimes they cannot be avoided, of course, but at times they are due to the performance of the trust and perhaps of the management of that trust. Where that is the case, does my hon. Friend agree that the leadership of those organisations must be held to account for their performance?

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, echoing the concluding remark from the hon. Member for Hartlepool, and he is absolutely right that there must be accountability. However, when we go into an independent inquiry, there is a danger of saying, “Well, it must be a statutory public inquiry,” and getting into the semantics of the mechanism we use.

I think what my constituents the Wades want is the truth. They simply want to know the truth about what happened to their son. We now have a tangible offer from the Department of Health of a mechanism that all the families can use to get involved, to shape the terms of reference and to help us to deliver something in the public interest—as, again, the petitioners seek—to the benefit of the whole country in terms of wider mental health. Above all, that will bring some sense of accountability to all the families who have suffered so tragically at the Linden Centre in Chelmsford, including the Wades and the Leahys. I believe that the Minister will now act and I give her all my support in doing so.

British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, rise in support of the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) on bringing it forward. I am also going to mention those dreaded words “levelling up,” as they are a key part of this. It is something that many of us have been banging on about for years. We did not call it “levelling up” then; we called it “a fairer deal for the north” or something like that. Having said that, I fully concede that this is not just about the north; it is about every region in the UK. It is about spreading both facilities and jobs throughout the country. It is great to hear that the north-east is doing well in terms of DCMS funding. That has not been particularly apparent in my trips around the north-east—perhaps it was north-east London.

[James Cartlidge]

It is about the economics sector, not the spending of the Department. In terms of the growth in the DCMS sector within our economy, the second fastest growing part is the north-east.

Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2)

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to be called in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth).

I have lost count of the number of times in my travels through the beautiful constituency of Thirsk and Malton when I have been approached by people saying, “What on earth are you lot doing down there? Why can’t you simply sort it out together?” The reality is that there are three reasons why we cannot do so.

The first is, of course, that there are an awful lot of remain MPs in this Parliament, and I speak as a remain Member of Parliament. I voted to remain and if there was another referendum I would vote to remain again, but I do not advocate a referendum. I have had my fill of referendums. I also voted in this place to give the people a vote to decide whether we stay or we leave. Nevertheless, if people are straightforward, when push comes to shove, a number of MPs in this place do want a second referendum, whatever they might say.

The second reason is party politics, and the Leader of the Opposition is of course the worst culprit. He claims now that to leave the European Union with the wrong deal would be catastrophic, despite the fact that for decades he campaigned to leave the European Union on any terms possible. The reality is that when the previous Prime Minister’s deal came back before the House—a fair deal, in my view—90% of my colleagues on the Government side of the House voted to pass that deal, while only 2% of Labour Members voted for it—five Members of Parliament. Too much party politics got in the way of a sensible deal.

Finally, on Brexit perfection, 10% of my colleagues on this side of the House, for whatever reason—the deal was either too hot or too cold—did not vote for that deal. It was not seen as the Goldilocks deal. Some people said that it was not Brexit. Some said that the people had voted for a completely clean break. The reality is that the Vote Leave campaign said clearly in its manifesto that there is a European free trade zone that stretches from Iceland to the borders of Russia, and when we left we would be part of it.

It is quite reasonable for people to expect a deal when we leave, which was why the previous Prime Minister set out her red lines and brought back a deal, which respected the promises that were made before the referendum. To settle the issue, Opposition Members often ask for a people’s vote. Now is the right time for a people’s vote.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend is making a brilliant point. The only sadness about proroguing is that we will not have the Treasury Committee chairmanship elections. Many members of the public are opening their front door and finding on the doormat a Labour leaflet that says, “We want a general election, and we want it now.” Is that not confusing for them?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is very confusing. I, too, regret that we will not be here on Wednesday to complete the final election process for the Treasury Committee.

Nevertheless, now is the perfect time for a general election. If Opposition Members are right and the public do not want deal or no deal, the public will vote in their favour. They will return a coalition Government or another Government who can take their choice forward. If they feel that they want to move down the track of deal or no deal, they will vote for the Conservatives and their policy of delivering Brexit on 31 October this year. Now is the right time to trust the people to make that choice. Is it simply political advantage that is getting in the way of that? There are two imperatives in keeping the deadline of 31 October. The first is getting a deal with the European Union with that deadline of 31 October, and the second is that when the deal returns to the House—I believe the Prime Minister can deliver that—Members across the House will have a choice either to vote for a deal or to vote for no deal. Surely they will choose a deal and we will leave on 31 October.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

That needs no further comment—it was brilliantly put, as always, by my hon. Friend. I look forward to hearing from him today, as we so often do on private Members’ Bills.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to the principles that lie at the heart of the Bill and this particular part of it in terms of equality, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), but there is something else as well. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) read out the note from his constituent—I think he said she was a councillor—and she used the words, “We would have chosen”. Is not the principle choice and freedom? Today more than ever we should absolutely make sure that we reinforce that principle at the heart of the Bill.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent contribution and he is absolutely right. It is interesting that the Bill brings not only choice, but responsibility. We are not talking about some sort of libertarian agenda. The Bill provides a chance to have a choice and also to bring greater stability to people’s lives and for the children that they may have, so that is a very good point.

I want to make one more point about my researcher, Councillor Steer, whose testimony on this important matter I read out. It is fair to say that she is not a Brexiteer and that she sees certain advantages in marrying a Swede—although, of course, that is not the reason. I raised that point in intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the promoter of this very good Bill, because it is important and will bring focus in future to what happens on someone’s nationality if they have a civil partnership as opposed to a marriage, and so on. However, there are finer legal minds in the Chamber today to comment on these matters, and I will leave that to them.

On timing, it is interesting that my researcher would have chosen the option under the Bill. The sooner that it can be available, the better, because there really are people on whose lives the Bill would impact and who would choose to go down this route. It is satisfying to know that the very latest that the provisions may be used is new year’s eve. I imagine that if that is when there is the first civil partnership under the Bill, there will be quite a party.

Finally, I note that amendment 1 refers to the “financial consequences” of civil partnership. In my experience, there is a lot of complexity around inheritance tax regulations, pensions and so on, and I hope that others may be able to clarify the implications of some of those points. I am very happy to support the Bill. Not only is it a very good Bill in the areas that it covers, such as marriage certificates and others, but I think it will be historic and in future standard practice by which people cement commitment and show their love for each other in a way that is no more or less worthy than any other.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Some powerful arguments have been made on both sides about the 18 threshold. Is my hon. Friend at least reassured that, as I understand it, parents of those over 18 would be covered by the “reasonableness” provisions?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who made an excellent speech. I join him and others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on introducing the Bill.

While this has been a cross-party effort—I congratulate everyone who has contributed—I am particularly proud to be part of a cohort of heart-on-sleeve-wearing compassionate Conservatives who have done their constituents and their country proud by delivering change in an area that really matters to people. The cost of the Bill is tiny, as we have heard, but the cost to people who experience bereavement is immeasurable. I hope that I never experience such bereavement. Indeed, I regard myself as incredibly fortunate to have had four healthy children.

I rise to speak to amendments 22 and 8, and briefly to amendments 21, 24 and 25 on the cut-off point. On amendment 22, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke extremely well about the way in which the period of leave will be taken and the need for flexibility.

I have four children, and I was a self-employed company owner. When I had the first two, the company was basically just me, so I did not really take leave. When I had Nos. 3 and 4, I was fortunate that the company had a few more staff, so I was able to take proper leave— Nos. 3 and 4 came at the same time, meaning there was somewhat more need for my support. That period soon ran into the selection process for my constituency and a lot of time pressure, so I was pleased to be in that position, but of course many people are not.

The consultation, entirely reasonably and rationally, says that in considering the structure of the time block for this leave, we will consider the existing arrangements for maternity and paternity leave. Whenever we legislate, it is entirely rational that we look at existing measures so that we do not reinvent the wheel. Page 13 of the consultation says:

“The Bill has mirrored existing provisions for family related leave and pay rights where possible and, in particular, Paternity Leave and Pay. But where the detail is left to be set in regulations, the regulations could be different to those for existing rights.”

This is the key point:

“Paternity Leave and Pay cannot be taken in separate blocks of a week: a father or partner is merely able to choose whether to take just one or both of the weeks available.”

I have been particularly moved by the arguments made today that underline why bereavement leave is very different from paternity leave, and why the circumstances could require extra flexibility.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran gave good examples of why we might want flexibility. She talked about court hearings—I think there is a different phrase for inquiries in Scotland—and the fact that more flexibility might be needed in such circumstances. It is important that what we do in this place mirrors what happens in the real world.

In contrast, when I think back to being a new dad, it seems rational that paternity leave is taken in a single block, ideally when the child is born, when help is most needed. With my first child—my daughter—I well remember the intensity of those early days, when I prayed every hour that the baby would at some point sleep through the night. There is an early period of intensity that a parent sincerely hopes will reduce, which is why there is sense in taking the block together. That is a rational position. We have heard powerful examples from hon. Members about the need for flexibility on bereavement leave, however, so I hope that the Minister will respond to them.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. It might not seem that we have best reason for taking this approach; as he rightly points out, the flexibility required in the circumstances of bereavement is entirely different from that needed in the case of paternity leave. However, the difficulty we are dealing with relates to processes in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and its ability to deal with statutory pay. The bureaucracies that support the decisions we make in this House should not necessarily drive our thinking, but they are a consideration to which we must pay due regard.

[James Cartlidge]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the point. Indeed, I did note that from the consultation document, which referred to that fact that the benefit itself limits the flexibility. We all know how difficult it is to change systems, and we can well imagine the difficulty in the social security system, with employer software and so on, in giving out the benefit on the basis of sporadic days. However, there would still be merit in someone having the ability to take unpaid one-off days. I think most people would rather have that freedom, even if it is not possible for it to be covered by the statutory pay they would receive because of the limitations of HMRC’s and other systems.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Underpinning all this are the general principles and our expectation that employers would be understanding, sympathetic and flexible in how they deal with this situation. We are setting out the minimum requirements, but we would expect employers to show that compassion and flexibility when dealing with how people take the leave.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful for that intervention and do agree with it. If we were to have the single block but there was an exceptional reason to grant an additional day—or even that—at a future point, most employers would be prepared to do so. In most cases, employers will act reasonably as long as a reasonable request is made.

Amendment 8, which was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), is important as it touches on defining the employment status that someone must have to be eligible for these new rights. Proposed new section 80EB (1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states:

“an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations”.

That prescription therefore relates to the type of employment, with the word “employee” being crucial. The issues arising from the Taylor review and the changing nature of employment have already been mentioned, and we have to discuss the extent to which these rights would be available to employees in those newly growing, ambiguous areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) referred to the self-employed, but of course we are not talking about a homogenous group. Before the general election, when I served on the Work and Pensions Committee, we held an inquiry on the gig economy—this growing army of the self-employed. We heard evidence about cases in which people are, to all intents and purposes, employees. On this amendment, my question for the Minister is: in defining jobs and defining people as an “employee”, are we able to award these benefits—these rights—to those defined now as “workers”? I refer to those people in between employment and self-employment. Are we able to do that, or do we need to introduce separate regulations to do so?

That is an important point, so it is handy that I have a copy of the Taylor review. The Bill amends the primary piece of legislation to which it relates—the 1996 Act—and we are dealing with the important distinction between an employee and a worker. I remind the House that the 1996 Act states that an

“‘employee’ means an individual who has entered into or works under…a contract of employment.”

I will not go into the detailed definition in the report, but a worker is someone who has some form of contract.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

10. What recent progress has been made on reducing the deficit.

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

15. What recent progress has been made on reducing the deficit.

Tuition Fees

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). I congratulate her on her maiden speech, which was very moving and powerful, particularly in relation to suicide. We all share her sentiment and hope to see greater progress on that. It is a terrible tragedy that so many still choose to take their own lives.

Having stood on many a football terrace, I am familiar with the Blaydon anthem, but I do not think that the edited lyrics to which I have been subjected are repeatable in this Chamber. I welcome the hon. Lady to the House.

This debate is on an important subject. Having intervened earlier on the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), I have great sympathy for her. She has maintained her composure in the face of her party’s policy wobble over historical student debt, but, if we look at what the Leader of the Opposition said to the NME prior to the election, we cannot form any conclusion other than that he wished to wipe out historical student debt. He said that he would “deal with it.” Those were his words. What other conclusion could we form?

The politics of this are quite cynical. Talking about helping students means helping a large number of people, but it is a limited base. Spreading policies to all graduates with historical student debt, however, means appealing to a vast number of people, so to renege on that so clearly is disappointing and deceptive.

Equally, we all have to accept that people are worried about levels of student debt. I have four children and worry about them, should they ever get to university, racking up enormous debts. Who, as a parent and a human being, would not be concerned about that? However, we have to think rationally about the issue.

There are measures that can be used to ameliorate the situation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chairman of the Education Committee, mentioned interest. Of course, student debts are packaged and bought on the basis of securitisation. I want to understand more about how that works, including the redemption penalties and whether it is possible to change those contracts without huge cost to the taxpayer. We would all benefit from knowing more about that. Perhaps my right hon. Friend’s Committee could take evidence on it.

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

My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the level of interest on debt and securitisation. He will accept that, because of the high proportion of that debt that is written off, it is in effect a grant, so the interest rate will need to be higher to make it attractive to people who want to take on that security.

UK Economy

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[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.

Productivity

Debate between James Cartlidge and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It is also a pleasure to speak after the excellent maiden speeches we heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden).

It is important to look at productivity in the context of the overall economy. Productivity is not a means to an end, but an end itself. We must look at the reasons we have difficulties with productivity. We must avoid short-term thinking, let the positive effects of the past five years take hold and take a long-term approach to making progress on the issue. The overall economy is doing well; employment is up by 2 million since 2010, and in 2014 ours was the fastest growing major economy. On 8 June the CBI said that we should expect

“solid, steady and sustainable growth”

with rising incomes. Business investment is making a strong contribution to growth. It is important that we do not damage what we have already achieved. We need to look at the facts behind the data, including the fact that oil and financial services are skewing the figures on overall economic and productivity gains.

The key determinants of productivity are competition, regulation, investment and education. In my experience, the best way to drive productivity, efficiency and innovation is by encouraging competition. When a business person is faced with stiff new competition, time and again they raise their game, work harder and motivate their staff. Some 70,000 new private sector businesses were created in the previous Parliament, creating 2.3 million jobs. The Government are doing what they do best: setting the stage and letting business get on with creating the jobs.

On regulation, there is now less red tape in this country than there was five years ago. In 2010 we had the second highest level of red tape in the G7, but we now have the lowest. Some 50% of businesses want the Government to focus on reducing regulations. Labour introduced six new regulations every day. We must have a Government who understand business. This Government want to cut the costs of red tape by £10 billion over this Parliament.

We need to encourage investment. We must invest in human capital, have better links with schools and universities and move over time towards the living wage. Tax credits are an employment subsidy, and subsidies create complacency and inertia. We need a long and stable tax regime. Capital allowances must be consistent, because businesses need a long-term understanding.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point about tax credits. As a small business owner, I was shocked to receive a call from one of my staff saying that they did not want the pay rise I had just emailed them about because they would lose so much in tax credits. Is this not a crazy dependency culture that is holding back productivity?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Absolutely. We need to move towards a living wage over time. Rushing to a living wage too quickly might put jobs under pressure, but I believe that we should move towards a living wage over time and in consultation with business.

We need low and consistent corporation tax, which is what the Government are delivering. Governments should do less, not more, and the tax regime should be the same not only in one year’s time, but in 10 years’ time. Of course we need investment in infrastructure, such as roads, railways and broadband. That is particularly important for those in the hardest-to-reach areas, because rural businesses want a level playing field with those in urban areas. The VAT threshold of £82,000 is prohibitive, because businesses that want to invest but do not want to go over the threshold do not take on new employees and do not invest in new technology for fear of losing a significant amount of their profits.

In conclusion, statistics are important, but they are no substitute for judgment. Our judgment, and the judgment of the people of Britain, is that things are getting better. This is certainly the most business-friendly Government I have ever known. They have done the right things to give businesses the chance to start, grow, prosper and produce more.