Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Peter Grant

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I have also met the FSB. The one crucial point I would make is that I understand why businesses are concerned in these very challenging times—I ran a small business myself before entering Parliament—but we have to balance out the costs of these schemes to the Exchequer. We have to run sound public finances, not least because that engenders a platform of stability and confidence, which is in the interest of every single business in this country.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I may have missed it, but I do not think the Minister even attempted to answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) a wee while ago. How can a small retail business possibly be expected to survive if it is facing an increase of more than £100,000 a year on its overheads while at the same time its customers cannot afford to support it because they cannot afford their own electricity bills? Could it possibly be related to the news that BP shareholders are today celebrating the biggest profits in the company’s long history? Does that give the Minister an indication as to where he might look to find the tax revenue to support small businesses and householders?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have already introduced two new levies: the energy profits levy, which relates to North sea oil and gas; and the electricity generators levy, which relates to the exceptional returns that generators will have received because of the exceptional prices following the invasion of Ukraine. I said to the right hon. Member for Dundee East that he was more than welcome to write to me with the specifics of the case he mentioned, and I look forward to receiving that letter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and Peter Grant

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his policies on levels of poverty in Scotland.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)]

The Chancellor published the “Impact on households” document alongside the autumn statement 2022, containing analysis of how policy announcements affect household incomes. The results show that the autumn statement decisions on tax, welfare and changes to the energy price guarantee in 2023-24 benefit low-income households across the UK, including Scottish households, the most. The autumn statement announced further support targeted at 8 million of the most vulnerable households across the UK, who will benefit from additional cost of living payments in 2023-24.

[Peter Grant]

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that, by October this year, one in five households in Scotland had already had to go without food or without heat because they could not afford both—and that was before the recent severe cold snap. The JRF also described the Scottish child payment, introduced by an SNP Government, as

“a watershed moment in tackling poverty”.

Does the Minister have any plans to speak to the Scottish Government to find out how the Scottish child payment works so it can be introduced here? Who knows—they might give him some tips on how to avoid a nurse’s strike at the same time.

[James Cartlidge]

I am, as ever, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice. Of course, we engage closely with the Scottish Government. The latest official statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions, based on data up to 2019-20, show that, compared with 2009-10, there were 55,000 fewer people in absolute poverty after housing costs in Scotland. But I think the key point is that we are supporting everyone in every single part of the UK with their energy bills this winter. It is a challenging time, but our extraordinary help is making a real difference.

Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill

Debate between James Cartlidge and Peter Grant

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is fair to say that it is a bit of a novelty for me to be called so early, and without a time limit, in a debate. I am very grateful, not least because how we pay for healthcare is one of the single most important subjects in British politics. That is essentially what we are debating today, and I feel strongly on this subject. The core principle must be one that I have always held as a Conservative, which is that we are fiscally responsible. As with the environment, we must aim to leave things in a better condition for future generations and, with the public finances, have in mind at all times the impact on those yet to be born—on our grandchildren—so that we are fiscally responsible. That is the fundamental belief of my party, in my view.

With that in mind, there is a lot of excitement about what the OBR will say on Hallowe’en, but it has already pronounced on the matter of health expenditure. In July it published “Fiscal risks and sustainability”, a fascinating bedtime read. The crucial thing is what it says about the OBR’s estimate for the future cost of healthcare in this country. It predicts that the current spend on health and adult social care will go from around 10.3% of GDP to 17.5% of GDP in 50 years’ time. That is an extraordinary increase—almost double—and it would take up so much more of our wealth and public expenditure. The OBR’s track record is very accurate on estimating health spend. It is based on a lot of cautious variables that are obviously difficult to predict, but essentially this is, if you like, cutting the mustard in telling us the future cost we have to face up to.

To put this in context, the OBR estimates that the headline estimate for public debt that we will be passing to our grandchildren will be 100% of GDP in 30 years’ time and that in 50 years’ time it will be 267% of GDP. That is what it says in this document. If we carry on as we are, we will have a national debt of 267% of GDP because of the rising cost of what is called demographics. That is mainly healthcare but also the state pension and other aspects of the pensions system. Overwhelmingly, however, it is healthcare. Adult social care will double as a percentage of GDP as well.

I should declare an interest in the sense that I had an indirect role in the creation of the health and social care levy, and it is fair to say that I have many reservations about what we are doing today. As colleagues know, the former Prime Minister—who deserves great credit for this—was determined that we would not just have another Green Paper or White Paper on social care. He wanted to actually deliver something for the country and he introduced the cap that had been promised by successive Governments, so that although people who have saved hard and have assets have to contribute to their care, they know that there is a limit. It is incredibly important that we brought that forward, and I sincerely hope that in removing the funding mechanism for the cap, the Treasury will resist the temptation to water it down. Local authorities are not yet aware of exactly what the cap will cover, and with the funding stream gone, the Treasury must resist the temptation to water the cap down. That is absolutely paramount.

When the Prime Minister came forward with wanting to pursue the cap, it was the view of the then Chancellor —my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who I had the privilege of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to throughout the pandemic—that it must be funded, and that it could not just go on the national credit card. The social care cap on its own is massive rising liability. I have just set out what is going to happen to health costs more generally. So, how to fund social care? The most common suggestion was an increase in national insurance, for the simple reason that it applies to businesses and individuals and so raises the sorts of revenue we can get. It is not easily avoided, and it can give us the money in the bank to pay for these expensive costs that we face.

However, I submitted a paper to the Chancellor at the time and suggested that, rather than having just a narrow national insurance levy—a social care levy, as it were—we should have a full health and social care levy that should be hypothecated and appear as an explicit line on people’s payslips. It will be there on our payslips until November. I accept that we have not made the most of it, and there has been almost no enthusiasm from any quarter—possibly only from the social care sector—but with a transparent, hypothecated statement on payslips, if the NHS came back to us two years into a five-year funding settlement saying, “We need this additional big item,” we could say, “Fine, but it will come out of the levy.” That would be transparent, and it would have provided the discipline that we have terribly lacked in health spending for many years, under successive Governments. I thought it had great potential, but it is being vapourised today. The Prime Minister has a mandate for it and the whole House seems to support that view, as does the Labour party even though it does not have the foggiest idea how it would fill the gap.

[Peter Grant]

The former Prime Minister had a mandate to do what he did last year. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says the new Prime Minister has a mandate to do this. Where did that mandate come from? I do not remember Parliament being dissolved for a general election in the last couple of months.

[James Cartlidge]

The new Prime Minister would rightly say that our manifesto said we would not increase national insurance, so she can draw on the mandate of the general election. We also seem to have vapourised our memory of the pandemic, but I would argue that it changed everything. The enormous borrowing accrued to this Government during the pandemic, which everyone supported—everyone wanted even more spending and even more support for businesses and individuals, as I remember because I was the then Chancellor’s PPS—made it exceptional, and we had to balance the books. I make it clear that this was not my preference, as I would not have wanted a levy to fund the NHS and social care. Given the politics of the time, it was the best way forward.

This is my personal view about how we should move forward. The key point is that the NHS is free at the point of delivery, which means we pay with time. When something is free, people wait and there are massive queues. Of course, those queues have been massively exacerbated by the pandemic, which is why the backlogs are so big, but it is blindingly obvious that the pressure on the NHS is overwhelming. There is almost infinite demand on finite capacity.

Labour Members will say in any election campaign, as we will. “We will do everything possible to increase capacity.” The Deputy Prime Minister and Health Secretary will, of course, do everything possible through her ABCD—ambulances, backlogs, care, doctors and dentists —strategy to improve outcomes in the NHS, but when we talk about funding the NHS, when we talk about the obligation to our grandchildren and the next generation, we have to be more radical, frankly.

In my view, we need a core NHS that is free at the point of delivery, but as a country we need to drive up the use of the independent sector and of private healthcare from all those brilliant companies that are seeing take-up shoot through the roof because of the backlogs. I know some of this territory is difficult to talk about, but I will give three key reasons why we should go down this route. First, every single person who pays to go private is freeing up space on the backlog. They are also boosting NHS capacity.

Secondly, this is standard in comparable countries. The Republic of Ireland, Australia and Germany have tax incentives for people to pay for their healthcare. There is an understanding that people who go to that trouble should have some kind of rebate, because they are doing everyone else a favour.

Thirdly, this is already happening. The post-Beveridge revolution is happening, and it is happening silently. There has been a massive surge in the number of people paying privately for healthcare. The Guardian recently published figures estimating that one in 10 adults in the UK has paid for private healthcare in the past 12 months, primarily because of the backlogs. Use has surged, according to the Independent Healthcare Providers Network. The number of people paying for hip replacements was up 193% in January to March 2022 compared with January to March 2019, and the number of people paying for knee replacements was up 173%. This is a huge surge in the number of people paying privately. It is true that many of them will not have wanted to do so, and I am not suggesting that they will have been delighted. Of course, we all want everyone to be able to use the NHS without long waits—that is clearly the ideal scenario—but it is not deliverable any more, not least with the demographic pressures we face.

We should look at the surging use of the independent sector and embrace it as a policy opportunity. Research from the Independent Healthcare Providers Network shows that 48% of people in this country will consider going private in the next 12 months because they know about the waits. This is about choice, and the most important thing is to have greater tax incentives for people to use the independent sector, so that people think about making a realistic choice. We should not settle for long waits for care any more. This is standard practice in comparable European and Australasian countries.

To be very specific, going back to the OBR document I mentioned, as a country we face a huge liability for health and social care. We should target increasing the percentage of our healthcare spend that goes to the independent sector so that we have a better balance, more like the balance in comparable European countries. If we did that, we would get much better outcomes, we would have more choice and we would finally have a 21st-century healthcare system with diversity of provision, which is the best way forward.

We should recognise that the revolution is happening, and it needs to happen with the Government’s backing and support.

Leaving the EU: Customs

Debate between James Cartlidge and Peter Grant

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

I was going to say that I stand here with a sense of déjà vu, but perhaps I should say “already seen” in case I upset those who want to purge these lands of all trace of foreign influence. The SNP will be supporting the motion, but what does it say about this so-called mother of Parliaments that we have to keep going through such a ridiculous medieval charade—another French word—just to get the Government to provide Parliament with the information we need to do the job we have been elected to do?

We will debate the motion until 7 o’clock, when we now know the Government will frogmarch their obedient little minions through the Lobby to oppose it. The motion probably will not be carried, but even if it were carried, we would spend the next six months raising points of order to argue over 14th-century precedent as to whether the Government actually need to pay a blind bit of attention to anything this Parliament might say.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman has just been advised of how little time there is for debate. If he has his name down to speak, he will get his time. If he has not put his name down to speak, I am sorry, but those who have put their name down get precedence.

Would it not be so much better if the Government were simply prepared to trust Parliament with that information in the first place? The Government’s response was not only predictable but was so predictable that I wrote what I am saying now before they responded. They say there is a long-established convention that Cabinet papers are confidential. They say routine publication would prejudice the smooth and efficient operation of Government. They say that publication would place in the public domain sensitive information that could compromise our negotiating position.

I accept there are occasions, maybe the majority of occasions, when any or all of those considerations should predominate and the balance of argument should be against disclosure, but the motion before us does not ask for the automatic release of everything the Cabinet ever does; it asks for the release of some papers in relation to Brexit that the Opposition, including the SNP, believe need to be made available to Parliament in the unique circumstances in which we now find ourselves.

The Government keep telling us we are in an unprecedented situation, and then they ask us to be dictated to by precedent in a situation that is unprecedented. Yes, the confidentiality of Cabinet papers is an ancient convention. In fact, we are reminded that the convention goes back to the days of King George III—that great, wise and all-caring monarch whose glorious reign has been immortalised in film as “The Madness of King George”. What better metaphor could we have for the Brexit process?

If the Government are so thirled to sticking to the fine detail of these honourable conventions, why on earth has the Foreign Secretary still got a job? He has earned more red and yellow cards in two years than Vinnie Jones did in his entire career, but he is still on the pitch—the Foreign Secretary is not on the subs bench just now, obviously—arguing in public with the manager over what the team tactics should be, while some of his colleagues try desperately to calm him down before he gets suspended permanently. In the interests of strict accuracy, I should say that Vinnie Jones is only ninth in the world record list for red cards—or 10th, if we include the Foreign Secretary.

We must also consider the argument that releasing these papers would not be conducive to the smooth and efficient running of Government business. We do not need to release Cabinet papers to prevent the smooth and efficient running of Government business, as the Cabinet is perfectly capable of doing that for itself. The main Opposition party tabled this motion because it is becoming terrifyingly clear that those in the Cabinet are making a bigger mess of the Brexit process every time they meet to try to fix it.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I will give way this once, as the hon. Gentleman has been very persistent.

[James Cartlidge]

That is very kind. Does the hon. Gentleman think the Scottish Government should disclose all of their confidential papers?

[Peter Grant]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard me make it clear that I am not arguing, and neither is the motion, that this should be regarded as routine, automatic or standard practice; this is a request in a specific instance. I will explain why in this instance and on this matter those in the Cabinet have shown themselves incapable of fixing it by themselves. We do not need a Humble Address to mess up the smooth and efficient running of Government business; we only need Cabinet Committees and Sub-Committees in order to do that, as they can do it perfectly well. The Government’s arguments might carry some weight if they could point to some kind of progress—there has been some but not nearly enough. Almost two years after the decision was taken to leave the EU, and five months before, as we know, we need agreement on the Government’s preferred solutions, we do not know even what their preferred solutions are, because they cannot agree on them. Those in the Cabinet are too busy fighting among themselves, jockeying for position for when the Prime Minister goes, willingly or unwillingly. Almost the only thing they can agree on is that this mess is everybody’s fault but their own.

As for the Government’s non-plans for our future customs relationship, here is what we know: we know that the Prime Minister’s plans are “crazy”; we know there are “significant question marks” over whether they can be delivered on time; we know that the Foreign Secretary is undermining the negotiations; and we know that thousands of people in the car industry could lose their jobs if the Government get it wrong. We know all that because it is what Cabinet Ministers are already telling us in public. If what they are saying in private is more damaging to our negotiating stance than what they are saying in public, heaven help us. Those quotes have come from serving Cabinet Ministers within the past 10 days—that is what they are saying in public. It is hard to believe that what they are saying in private can be so much more damaging that they cannot be allowed to say it—