Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

We are acting to tackle single-use plastic waste at source by introducing a world-leading tax on plastic packaging. The tax, which I announced at the Budget, will provide a clear economic incentive to business to use recycled plastic and, alongside the reform of the plastic producer responsibility system by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it will transform the economics of sustainable packaging. The Government recently published consultations on the detail of both measures, alongside consultations on consistent waste collection and a potential deposit return scheme for beverage containers. We are determined to be the first Government who leave the environment in a better state than they found it in.

[Mark Pawsey]

I hear what the Chancellor is saying, but in setting policy will he recognise the positive role that plastic packaging plays in reducing cost to consumers by protecting goods in transit and in reducing the environmental burden of food waste by keeping food fresher for longer?

[Mr Hammond]

The points my hon. Friend makes are well made, and of course this is about getting the balance right. The Government recognise that plastic packaging can play an important role, but we want to reduce the environmental impact of single-use plastic waste and encourage more sustainable forms of plastic packaging that can be recycled. The packaging tax will encourage businesses to use more recycled plastic in the production of packaging and will therefore drive a more sustainable packaging industry.

Spring Statement

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The public sector pay freeze has been lifted: we have removed the 1% cap, so it is up to departmental Secretaries of State to make appropriate recommendations and provide appropriate evidence to pay review bodies. But we do expect them, where they recommend settlements above the level they are already funded for, to use workforce management measures and efficiency improvement measures negotiated with the workforce, to ensure that over time increases are self-funded through higher efficiency and productivity.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

The Chancellor is right to focus on how the tax system might be used to encourage improvements in the environment, and I know that the packaging industry recognises the need to reduce waste and will respond positively to his call for evidence. I ask for it to include two things: first, that it is people who cause litter, and the Chancellor spoke about the need for behaviour change; and, secondly, will it recognise the important role packaging has in reducing food waste by keeping food fresh for longer?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, of course, and the point of having a call for evidence is to make sure that the decisions we make are based on full knowledge and full information. My hon. Friend makes a very important point: it would be massively shooting ourselves in the foot to make a change in relation to packaging that then massively increased food waste and the energy cost of food that was wasted.

Economy and Jobs

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Let me make a little more progress.

All that is before we even get to the £500 billion borrowing splurge that Labour has promised us over the next 10 years—£250 billion over the course of a Parliament.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hammond]

I will in just a moment.

Then there is the nationalisation programme. Let me explain these plans, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they are important. The Labour party wants to nationalise gas and electricity, water and Royal Mail. They would borrow a fortune to do it, and it would deliver no economic benefit whatsoever.

First, a Labour Government would have to buy up the shares of publicly listed companies on the stock exchange. Taking over just the single largest company in each sector would cost close to £44 billion, and the Government would have to pay a market premium on top, because a programme to buy the shares would drive up the price. Moreover, the taxpayer would take on those companies’ debts; that is another £26 billion. So that is £70 billion of public debt. When the Labour Government were done with the publicly listed companies, they would have to strike deals with scores of private investors and funds to buy the rest. All told, we are looking at more than £120 billion. [Interruption.]

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington says from a sedentary position, “You do not understand. It is a financial transaction, so it does not need any money, and it does not require us to go out and borrow any.” He is simply wrong. Financial transactions add to public debt—[Interruption]—and that is before we even get to the railways, which he has been chuntering about. I have deliberately left the railways out of my equation, because his proposals for those are more complex.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I want to make a little progress, but I will give way in a moment.

I have set out our record, but the British people did not get where they are today by admiring their achievements. We have work to do: we have to negotiate our future relationship with the EU; we have to enhance our global competitiveness through raising our productivity; we have to rise to the challenge of sustaining our public services in the face of demographic pressure; we have to address the needs of our population for affordable routes into home ownership; and we have to show the courage and vision to grasp the opportunities ahead. We will meet those challenges head on, as we have always done, with a plan that builds on the strengths of our economy, not one that denigrates them.

Let me say something about our public services and their funding. We all value our public services and the people who provide them to us. Health and social care, education, roads, local authority services, police, fire and rescue, defence and the many, many other services we enjoy all form part of the vital fabric of our society and contribute to the vibrancy of our communities. The challenge of funding those public services is accentuated by the changing age profile of the population, which necessitates a proper debate about how to make the funding of public services sustainable not just next year, but over the decades of demographic change to come. We have to be clear about the choices and what they mean because there are no free lunches or money trees in the real world, and all decisions have consequences.

There are three ways for the Government to increase spending on public services: higher taxes, higher borrowing or higher growth. Higher taxes have a cost in terms of business investment, economic growth and take-home pay. Conservatives are instinctively in favour of keeping taxes as low as possible so that business can continue to create high-quality jobs and hard-working people can keep more of the money that they earn. That is why we reject Labour’s manifesto plan, which would, according to the IFS, take taxation to its highest ever peacetime level. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is not listening, but—[Interruption.] Pay attention. If he wants to make the case for higher taxation to fund public services, will he at least make this a grown-up debate? Will he at least ask voters whether they want to pay higher taxes to fund public services, not whether they would like someone else to pay higher taxes? As Ed Balls reminds us, in the real world, it is ordinary people who pay.

When we already have an eye-watering amount of debt, higher borrowing makes our economy vulnerable to future shocks. With £1.7 trillion of national debt outstanding and an annual interest bill of £50 billion, even at the current low rates, we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. However, borrowing means something else, too. It means that we are asking the next generations—our children and our grandchildren—to consume less in their lifetimes to pay for our consumption today. That is simply not fair; it is the opposite of sustainable.

[Mark Pawsey]

The Chancellor rightly mentions the interest bill. Will he tell us what would happen to interest rates if the Opposition’s policies were introduced? What would be the impact on the average family’s income?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have already said, if it were ever to look like the shadow Chancellor was anywhere near having his hand on the lever of power, I suspect that his programme, given what we know about his values and principles around the management of the economy, would lead to a pretty sharp rise in interest rates.

We must continue the job of getting our public finances back in order, over a sensible period of time, so that we are living within our means. The shadow Chancellor referred to the decision in my first autumn statement to push back the date on which we will reach fiscal balance. I made that decision to protect our economy during a period of uncertainty due to our exit negotiations from the European Union, therefore giving ourselves a little more headroom to respond should the economy need support. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman welcomed that measure.

The only fair and sustainable way to fund better public services, higher real wages, and increased living standards—[Interruption.] I say to the Opposition Front-Bench team that that is absolutely not the way to do it. The only fair and sustainable approach is to increase economic growth through higher productivity. Our plan will support our public services and living standards.

Autumn Statement

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Our intention will be to try to ensure the fairest distribution possible. I welcome the debate that the hon. Gentleman and others have stimulated on the appropriate way to present distributional analysis—the issue is not completely cut and dried or straightforward—but I say this to him: we were elected on a manifesto commitment to get welfare under control. Working-age welfare had spun out of control between 1980 and 2010. We have now got it back under control, which implies that we have had to take some tough decisions. We have taken them. I will accept and explain the consequences of those.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

To support those who are just about managing, there need to be more affordable houses. Is the Chancellor pleased to see the welcome from the chief executive of the National Housing Federation for today’s measures that will enable an additional 40,000 such houses to be provided? With planning consents running at the highest level for years, does my right hon. Friend look forward to the sector getting spades into the ground very quickly?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. One of the attractions of funding affordable housing is that it is a tried and tested and generally pretty efficient delivery method. I am afraid that while I stand at the Dispatch Box, I am not digitally enabled, as they say: I was not aware of the welcome that my hon. Friend refers to. However, I am delighted that this has gone down as I hoped it would with the relevant people.

Afghanistan

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said already, the Afghan constitution guarantees the human rights of the citizens and their right to freedom of worship. The Afghan Government made pledges to respect human rights and freedom of worship at Tokyo. However, we are not naive: we recognise that there can be a gap between what is written on a page of the constitution and what is delivered on the ground, and we will focus on that in the months and years ahead.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the future of Camp Bastion. Will he say something about the equipment that may well be left behind and the steps being taken to ensure that it is put to good use by the Afghan security forces?

[Mr Hammond]

Most of the equipment in use in Afghanistan—the big kit, as it were, or the serious bits of equipment—will be brought back to the UK. Indeed, the vast majority of it has already been brought back to the UK, rehabilitated and brought back into core for the future use of the British Army as part of its Future Force 2020 posture. If equipment cannot be brought back but is of sustainable use to the Afghans, which means that they can sensibly use and maintain it—it is no good leaving them kit that they cannot service and maintain—then it will, where appropriate, be gifted to them. Equipment that fits into neither category will be destroyed so that it cannot possibly fall into the wrong hands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I do not want to speculate on how close Iran could be to developing any kind of warhead, but I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government support the process of engagement with the Iranian regime to test whether it is serious when it says that it wants to negotiate with the west.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Given previous failures, the Government are rightfully changing the framework for defence procurement, which generates a £22 billion turnover. Will the Minister confirm that under the new arrangements there will be more opportunities for small businesses to get their fair share of that expenditure?

Reserve Forces

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The FSB has of course been involved in this process. My hon. Friend’s point is absolutely valid. It will not be right or practical for all SMEs to employ a reservist, and we must recognise that fact. It will be easier for larger businesses. Many SMEs, perhaps including some very small ones, will be keen to employ a reservist, perhaps for a particular reason. We have to be flexible and tailor our package to respond to the needs of individual employers and employer types.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May I express my disappointment at seeing on the list of surplus sites the Territorial Army centre at Edward street, Rugby?

I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the representations on reservists by businesses, particularly small businesses, many of which stand to lose a key member of staff for a substantial period. I particularly thank him for his provisions regarding greater predictability of call-up.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry about the disappointment regarding Rugby. As he will know, the reserve unit there will be consolidated at Coventry—another example of consolidation to create critical mass.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that predictability of liability for call-up is one of the key issues for smaller employers. If, at the beginning of the year, we can give them proper notice of training periods, and as lengthy notice as possible of a period of high liability for call-up, they can plan accordingly.

Future Reserves 2020

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend rightly points out that many of our reserve units will be on parade this Sunday, taking a full and active part in the commemorations. As he will know from comments I have already made, I cannot give unit-specific assurances, but I can say this to him: in the restructuring of the Regular Army, a deliberate decision has been taken to reduce manpower disproportionately in logistics, engineers and REME, which will require a disproportionate growth in the reserve strength in those three areas. I think he can probably work out the rest for himself.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

As someone who ran a small business, I can tell the Secretary of State that there will be strong support on this from small businesses, but they will need to plan for the absence of people, many of whom will be key members of staff. Businesses will be looking for a lengthy period of notice about planned deployments, so can he reassure the House as to his proposals on the matter?

[Mr Hammond]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. Yes, we are saying the period of liability for deployment will be determined in advance and will be of broadly fixed duration. There will be a broadly fixed period of immunity before deployment again, and there will be longer periods of specific notice of any given deployment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady is right. We have received the military advice on the outcome of the exercise and Ministers will now consider it and make a final decision on the deployment of ground-based air defence systems. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, when a decision is taken, an announcement will be made first to the House, but I will ensure that the Army engages with residents who live in close proximity to the site to ensure that they are aware of all the ramifications of any decision to go ahead and deploy.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, to ensure effective interoperability between the emergency services and the armed forces, all parties involved with Olympic security will use a common communications platform?

[Mr Hammond]

The arrangements for effective command and control will involve military commanders being embedded with police gold commanders in their headquarters. I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee that they will use a common communications system, but the key decisions will be made by people sitting in the same room. They will then be passed down the respective chains of command.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Pawsey and Lord Hammond of Runnymede

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am not aware of the written answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I will look it up when I return to the Department, and I will write to him.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

T6. In my constituency, an average of 27 people a year are killed or seriously injured in crashes involving young people. That includes a tragic accident over the Christmas period involving a friend of my son. Graduated driver licensing, enabling a new driver to proceed to a full licence over a period, has been shown in many countries to reduce the number of casualties in that vulnerable group. What discussions has the Secretary of State had about introducing such an approach to improving road safety in this country?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend will know that the United Kingdom actually has an enviable record on road safety. Many of the countries that operate graduated licensing suffer worse safety records than the UK. Our policy is to avoid additional regulation whenever possible, and we would be very concerned about imposing any regulation that reduced the mobility of young people who had acquired driving licences, because of the impact that it would have on their participation in the labour market and in further and higher education.