Autumn Statement

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Citizens Advice office covering my constituency will be grateful for that fact that the local housing allowance has been changed. The people who supply drink, and drinkers, will be pleased that alcohol duty is being frozen, at least for the time being. That will help drinkers, and will also not increase inflation.

I am glad that the Chancellor pointed out to the shadow Chancellor that the only time the Labour Government did really well was when they obeyed the Conservative rules between 1998 and 1999, before they let go of the valves and drove the economy to the point at which, when we took over, they were spending £4 for every £3 of Government revenue.

May I now ask the Chancellor to respond, not today but in time, to an injustice done to 500,000 pensioners overseas? Anne Puckridge, who was born five years before the Chancellor’s father, served in intelligence in the Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force during the war, and retired to Calgary on a pension of £72 a week. It is still £72, instead of £156. That is an injustice which needs attention, and I hope Anne Puckridge will get it and we will have proposals that will enable us to change this bad situation.

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank the Father of the House for his comments, and I will look into the issue of overseas pensioners as he requested. If I may, I will write to him, but I am also happy to talk to him about it. May I also thank him for his comments about what happened in 1997? Then as now, the Labour party was trying to say that its economic policies were basically the same as those of the Conservatives, but the reality was quite different. Because Labour did not fix the roof when the sun was shining, the recession after the financial crisis was much worse.

Cash Acceptance

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am perhaps giving my age away, but I came in with decimalisation. I recall the ready reckoners that my elderly relatives had for me to play with as a toy many years ago. An education programme would be helpful. In 20 to 30 years from now we will be in a different place, but here and now there is a real demand for cash, particularly for many vulnerable groups, such as disabled users who need cash and may not even have their own bank accounts.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Just in case the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) was referring to those of us with more experience, I should say there was a time in 1971, when I was selling coin-operated tea and coffee machines, when someone wrote in saying, “The elderly will find the new coins difficult. The elderly don’t live forever; could the change be postponed until they’re all dead?”

The more serious point, which will be shared throughout the House, is that people should not be excluded from being able to buy or pay for things just because they do not have a card or an account. Many people rely on the use of cash. Those businesses that do not need their custom ought to be told, “You should have it because you should not exclude people just because they aren’t up to date or a 14-year-old with a debit card.”

[Martyn Day]

The Father of the House makes a valid point, and one that I shall echo a number of times as I make progress through my speech—if there are no other interventions.

Zachary Stiling, creator of the more recent petition, told me:

“We must protect the individual’s right to use cash in all physical transactions. While there are many obvious advantages to digital payments, it is not suitable at all times or for all people…There are dangerous political implications with going cashless, as instances of banks and financial service providers closing accounts for political reasons are not unprecedented and are clearly at odds with liberal society’s cornerstone of freedom of belief.”

As we have heard from a number of interventions, freedom of choice is a central tenet of this issue. To be clear, the choice to use cash is still one that many people wish to make. Indeed, 95% of respondents to the Petitions Committee survey ahead of this debate stated that they preferred to use cash to pay for things over other means of payment. I know from my own experience that I would be happier using cash when I am in a pub or a restaurant than when I am shopping. It is different horses for different courses.

Figures from the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce 2022 cash census showed that 96% of people withdraw cash at some frequency, with 83% having cash either in their wallet or at home. Furthermore, figures from the Financial Conduct Authority’s 2022 “Financial Lives” survey showed that 6% of adults in the UK had used cash to pay for everything, or for most things, over the 12 months from May 2021. That is a significant number of people.

Alcohol Duty

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. To be clear, this is good news for every single part of our alcohol industry and for those who drink in our pubs. Crucially, it gives certainty to the industry. The hospitality industry employed 2.1 million people at the latest reckoning, so it is a huge part of our economy and we want to do what we can to support it.

The hon. Lady mentioned a U-turn. To be clear, we said that we would introduce a radical reform of alcohol duty, and we will introduce that reform. It will come into effect next August. That reform could not have happened if we had not left the European Union. It will introduce, for the very first time, differential duty rates on tap and in the supermarkets. The public want that, because they value their pubs and understand the importance of pubs to their communities. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady intervenes, having sat down. She talked about her local pub. Obviously, we want to assist her local pub, and all pubs up and down the country; that is why we have put in place an energy bill relief scheme worth £18.1 billion, which is a huge intervention.

The energy bill relief scheme is very generous, but it is expensive, and we need to ensure longer-term affordability and value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we are carrying out a review of the scheme, with the aim of reducing the public finances’ exposure to volatile international energy prices from April 2023. We will announce the outcome of the review in the new year to ensure that businesses have sufficient certainty about future support before the scheme ends in March 2023. We should remember that this energy-related support comes on the back of the enormous support that we put in place during the pandemic. There were grants, bounce back loans, and of course furlough for all staff working in the hospitality sector.

We are proceeding with this ambitious reform package next year. We felt that it was appropriate to give the sector certainty as soon as possible that it would face only one uprating. That is the right thing to do, and it shows that the Government are supporting the hospitality industry.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Like the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who speaks for the Opposition, I support what has been announced today. I declare an interest: I drink most things, except super-strength draught cider.

On wine, using an average rate of 12.5% is right; stepped rates would not have worked, because growers do not know what strength a wine will be—the strength fluctuates naturally. A revenue-neutral level makes sense. I hope that this approach will continue beyond the 18 months.

I hope that the Minister will consider whether farm-gate concessions can be made for the growing number of vineyards in this country. I hope that between now and the Budget the Chancellor will calculate the price and tax elasticity, because often, when duty rates are frozen, revenue goes up. There have been times when the rate has gone up and the revenue has gone down, which is perverse.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the Father of the House for his question—I do not think that I will ever get another that mentions both elasticity and high-strength cider; it was an interesting combination of points. He made a very good point about wine. I have enjoyed engaging with all the main alcohol sectors, mainly in November, in the run-up to the making of this decision. As he knows, we are requiring all wine between 11.5% and 14.5% ABV to be treated as though it were 12.5% ABV for the purpose of calculating the duty rate. That will apply for 18 months, so there is a transition. We have to ask ourselves: if that were made permanent, would it not undermine a regime that is ultimately based on taxation by strength? I understand my hon. Friend’s point and will continue to engage with the sector on it.

Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill (First sitting)

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Graham]

Sure, but what I am trying to ensure is that that option is not ruled out where one small co-op could benefit from merging with a couple of others to remain mutual, rather than demutualising. That is the key point.

We have seen that in a slightly different way with credit unions. I helped merge a small credit union in Gloucester with a number of others in Gloucestershire to create one single Gloucestershire Credit Union. That enabled it to survive for another decade, although, sadly, it has now failed.

The key thing is that there are moments when even a mutual can benefit from additional scale by merging with other mutuals—specifically so that it does not need to demutualise. That is really my point, and I am sure the Minister will be able to shed light on the issue.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I will raise a few points, but I am happy for the Minister to write to me afterwards, rather than trying to respond to them straightaway.

One question is whether the Bill applies to credit unions. I doubt it does directly, but I would say in parenthesis that the Minister ought to consider referring to the Law Commission the law on credit unions, to see whether there are ways in which we can fill the gap between credit unions, whose interest rates are strictly controlled, and other private lenders, whose rates can be enormously high. It seems to me that giving credit unions freedom to do more of their work more effectively and for a greater number of people is important. I also believe that it should be possible to confirm whether the law could be such that people could give money to credit unions as though they were giving to a charity.

Some of the questions that have been raised today are actually dealt with by the terms of friendly societies, co-ops and the like. They can transfer their assets to another one, if they fail. That is not covered in this Bill; this Bill gives permissive power, as the hon. Member for Preston told us. It does not deal with the challenge that it is possible to persuade members of a co-operative, mutual or friendly society to change their regulations to allow distribution—I think that is still within scope—but it means more difficulty.

In the LV= situation, members were asked to approve something; they could also be asked to change the rules. As far as I understand it, if a society, mutual or co-op uses this Bill when it is enacted, its provisions can be undone by the members. They are not fixed in concrete forever, but it means that those who intend to preserve the assets and stop them being given out can put a first roadblock in the way.

Autumn Statement

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Chancellor will have noticed that Labour Members laughed when he talked about stability, growth and public services. Those who are watching our proceedings will have noticed, as will he, that when he was making his announcements about how we will ease the burden on the poorest and give opportunities to those who most need them, those Members were silenced. People around the country will give backing to his approach. We may have arguments about details, but the key point is to get stability and growth, and to defend public services.

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend the Father of the House. He is right. What I have discovered in the short time that I have been doing this job is that although one might arrive thinking that decisions about money are about numbers and spreadsheets, they are actually about values. Today, I have tried to express our values not just as a Conservative party but as a country. That means protecting the most vulnerable.

Financial Statement

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her reply. She raised several points that I will come to in due course, but listening to her speech it sounded as though covid, and the huge damage it did to our economy and public finances, had never actually happened. It sounded as though we did not have to introduce furlough, support businesses and provide emergency funding to schools, councils and, yes, the NHS. While her party supported all those policies at the time, it now seems unwilling to pay for them. There is a pattern there. Labour is always happy to spend taxpayers’ money, but not to take care of it.

On some of the hon. Lady’s specific points, it was telling that she opened her statement by yet again calling for a windfall tax. On this side of the House, we want to encourage more investment in the North sea, and we want more domestic energy and more jobs for the UK. A windfall tax would put that off, which is why the Prime Minister will bring forward a comprehensive energy security strategy in the coming weeks to address that.

The hon. Lady talked about business rates and supporting businesses. In just a week’s time, small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector will get a 50% discount on their business rates bill. It is the biggest cut to business rates outside of coronavirus since the business rate system was created—£1.7 billion. I know that she has said that she would like to abolish business rates. She also says she has some fiscal rules, but I have not quite figured out how she will pay for the £25 billion of tax cuts that that would involve—I look forward to hearing it. She talked about defence spending. It is all very well to talk about the size of the Army. At least Labour now seems to think that we should actually have an Army, which is a welcome conversion. It is because of how seriously we take the nation’s security that in 2020, when we had decided to do short-term spending settlements for most Departments, we singled out one Department for special treatment and gave it a four-year settlement in advance of everyone else—that was the Ministry of Defence. In that settlement it received £24 billion of new cash, the largest uplift to defence spending since the end of the cold war, ensuring that we are not just the second-largest spender in Europe in NATO but the fifth largest in the world, a record of which we on the Conservative Benches are very proud.

The hon. Lady talked about pensions. Again, thanks to the actions of Conservative-led Governments since 2010, we put in place the triple lock—not something the Labour party ever did when it was in power. It means that pensions are now £2,300 higher than they were in 2010 and £700 more than if the triple lock had not been in existence during that time. I am pleased to say that the state pension, relative to earnings, is now at its highest level in over 30 years. This party will always be on the side of pensioners.

Turning briefly to the hon. Lady’s comments on tax—fair enough, it is a short time in which to have to respond, but I am not sure if she fully understood the implications of the tax cut announced today. The increase in the national insurance thresholds to equalise them fully is a £6 billion tax cut for 30 million UK workers. It is the largest increase in thresholds ever, the biggest personal tax cut in a decade, and it is worth £330 for those workers. I do not know whether she realised this, because she talked about the levy and making sure that we direct our policy at those who need our help, but there is a reason the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies called this increase the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system: 70% of workers will pay less tax, even accounting for the levy. It is more generous than the policy she is advocating. Combined with the other tax cuts we have announced today, this plan represents the biggest net cut to personal taxes in a quarter of a century.

Let me conclude by saying this. The plan we have announced today has only been possible because we have taken tough decisions with the public finances. They have not always necessarily been popular, but they always been responsible and always honest. It is two years to the day that the country first entered lockdown and suffered the biggest economic shock in over 300 years. An unprecedented collective national effort was undertaken and two years later this Government have not only fixed the public finances but people are back in jobs, debt is falling and taxes are now being cut. No Government can get every call right. We learn from our mistakes and we strive to improve. But even if they will not admit it, Labour Members will recognise this day as an achievement that we all can celebrate. I have said it before to the Labour party and I will say it again: there is a fine line between reasonable criticism and political opportunism, and in my experience the British people can always tell the difference.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I think the shadow Chancellor’s remarks will be best remembered for pointing out that the Conservatives won the 2010 election and the 2019 election. It is probably a very good thing for the country that we did.

The Chancellor has met the major obligations on public spending which helps the economy to grow and which allows for more jobs and more Government revenue. As he pointed out just now, the changes to national insurance do the things that Martin Lewis, as well as the institutes, would applaud. Those three sources of support—he has my support, too—are very welcome.

May I ask the Chancellor to remember that pensioners do not just have the state pension? Many have fixed pensions on top and getting inflation down as fast as possible is vital to them. They cannot go for a bigger pay increase if they are not at work.

Finally, some areas of public spending do not make it easy to have efficiencies. If teachers’ salaries make up most of the cost of education, it is very important to ensure that we do not squeeze education and wreck our schools and our pupils’ future.

On cladding, when amendments to the Building Safety Bill come from the other place, can my right hon. Friend please not keep his purse completely shut? If money needs to be advanced so that homes can be safe and saleable, will he please consider that openly?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support and he is right to highlight some of the independent commentators who have supported the policies announced today. I will touch on one of the things he said, which was about education spending. I agree that it is vital for our country’s future that we support our teachers and children. That is why the Prime Minister announced, in total, £5 billion of catch-up funding to help children to recover the learning they lost during the pandemic, why we are raising per pupil cash amounts by £1,500 over the Parliament, and why we are raising teachers’ starting salaries to £30,000, as our manifesto committed to doing.

Covid-19: Government Support for Business

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister has talked about some of the costs that will be reduced. The problem with the reduction of Christmas cheer, especially in the hospitality and entertainment industries, is revenues.

If I listen to my publicans, restaurateurs and hoteliers, I know they will want to hear after the meeting this afternoon how their revenues can be lifted, how they can treat their staff properly and how the loss of revenue from those events that cannot be postponed will in some way be made up to them. That is what matters most in most constituencies, including mine.

[John Glen]

I thank the Father of the House for his comments, and point out that there is £250 million of funds still to be given to businesses through the additional restrictions grants. Three out of four local authorities have between 5% and 40% of their funds unallocated. However, I recognise that this is a distinct new challenge, and that is why I and the Chancellor will be having meetings with representatives from the affected sectors this afternoon to see what more needs to be done.

Budget Resolutions

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I think the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was saying thank you for the extra £4.5 billion that will come to Scotland as a consequence of the Budget. I think he was also probably saying thank you for the eight allocations of UK-wide growth funds, with bids in Scotland between Aberdeen and Glasgow.

When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the support for his party, the SNP, in the polls, I am not sure whether his memory goes back to June 2017, when the SNP in Scotland got less than 37% of the vote, way behind the 44% that the Tories got across the country as a whole.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say, through you, to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister: thank you for the content, thank you for the delivery and thank you for the hope that things will go on getting better in the future. We need to have the resilience to face the unknown problems that will come, but we also need to face the known problems now. I think the whole House will agree—certainly given the reaction from the Labour Benches during some of the announcements, including on universal credit—that the Chancellor has found an imaginative way of giving help to people before the end of the year. I think that there will be a great deal of approval for that.

I would like to say something in tribute to Frank Field, who spent a long time working on child benefits. As and when there is extra money for children, I would give it through child benefit. I would not give it through the extra provision of services all the time, because parents would like to make their own choices. I believe in expanding holiday provision and activities, but I do not think that a child taking all their meals outside the home outside of term time is a good idea. Families should be able to look after themselves, and they need the resources to be able to do that.

I do not want to speak at length because of the time that has been taken up by the leader of the SNP, although he is often worth listening to.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I will not at the moment.

The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) spoke for the Opposition, and I thank her for her speech, but it was not absolutely clear whether that speech had been drafted for the Leader of the Opposition or for herself. I felt that there should have been some spaces left in it so that she could pick up on what the Chancellor actually said. It seems to me that the Chancellor has been criticised for the opposite of some of the provisions he read out to the House.

I welcome the extra attention to the first 1,001 days. The earliest stages of life, and of parents preparing to have a child, matter, whether it is health, economic security or housing.

I thank the Chancellor for his commitment to returning to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid. I hope he will be able to announce that the spending will not suddenly go from 0.5% to 0.7% in two years’ time but will move from 0.5%—if we have got down that far, and I hope we have not—up to 0.6%, 0.65% and then 0.7%. It is ludicrous to think that we can suddenly pile an extra 40% into a programme and expect it to be used effectively, so please try to plan ahead.

My right hon. Friend spoke about the cladding money, and he and the Prime Minister must have a top-level forum with the cladding groups, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform to get an understanding that leaseholders, people at the beginning of their household life, are faced with bills of £20,000 and sometimes £100,000, which they cannot afford. Some people are having their equity wiped out when their flats are forfeited because they cannot afford to pay these charges. We need to find the problems, fix the problems and fund the problems, and then we need to get the money back.

As part of the £5 billion, I ask that potential claims on behalf of leaseholders, which might have to be made by landlords, can be made by an agency that has the power to go to the builders, developers, surveyors, architects and building control people, some of whom are the Government’s people although most are not, and their insurance companies. In time, the money has to come back from those who are responsible. The one group we know are not responsible are the leaseholders who do not own a single brick of the building.

As a life member of the Campaign for Real Ale, I thank the Chancellor for what he has done on the draught beer tax. In Worthing, which has a good reputation for hospitality, the business rates relief will be greatly welcomed by 90% of businesses. Some people think of Worthing as a place that is not only represented by a mature MP but has a lot of mature people. They are wise people.

We have had one of the youngest mayors and council leaders in the country. As Dan Humphreys prepares to stand down after six and a half years, I thank him for doing the kinds of things that the Government are trying to do. He has increased digital capability, sought regeneration funds that work, worked and shared offices with other councils to get the best value for money and provided the kind of leadership and quiet, undramatic provision of local services that gives local government a good reputation.

If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor can continue doing sensible things that get support from both sides of the House, as he has today, we will be glad that he has joined that company, too.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is quite clear that the hon. Lady did not read the statement, which I sent to her in advance, and she clearly did not listen to it as I read it out. She is clearly determined to create a divisive atmosphere around race in this House and this country, and we will not stand for it. We continue to push for a fairer Britain and for levelling up. Labour Members continue to look for division. They continue to stoke culture wars and then claim that we are the ones fighting them.

I completely reject all the assertions that the hon. Lady has made—many of them false and many of them hypocritical. Whose party has been determined to be institutionally racist by the Equality and Human Rights Commission? It is not my party; it is hers. She and many of her colleagues are the ones who are complaining about their party’s Forde inquiry and claiming that their party has anti-black racism. Why do they not look at resolving the problems in their own house, instead of trying to spread them around the rest of the country?

I will acknowledge some of the questions the hon. Lady has raised and seek to answer them. She asked who wrote the report. The commissioners wrote the report; that is because they were independent. It is simply not true to claim that other people wrote the report. The commissioners have put statements on the—[Interruption.] I am afraid I cannot hear myself speak because of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). It would be nice if she stopped heckling from a sedentary position. Her mouth is covered, so I cannot even hear what she is saying.

If we look at the statements that the commissioners have made on the gov.uk website, they have been united. They have not broken ranks. They have not chosen to dissociate themselves from the report. The only thing that is happening is that Labour Members in particular continue to misrepresent what is happening. Why, for instance, will the shadow Minister not condemn the racist abuse faced by the commissioners? Why will she not condemn her own colleague, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who posted a picture of the KKK in response to the commissioners? Does she think that that is appropriate behaviour? It is the subject of a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

We should go back to the substance of what this report is saying, rather than continuing to try to slander the people who have written it. These are professionals and distinguished individuals who gave up their time, and I commend them for their work. I am very proud of it, and of course we will not be withdrawing the report.

It is clear that today’s Labour party is functionally innumerate and does not like to see statistics and evidence, so rather than focus on the numbers and the data, they run away. They just want to continue having discussions on racism, which is where they think they are strong, but I am afraid that they are not strong on this issue. We will not sit back and allow divisive rhetoric and misrepresentation to be the story on race. We are determined to create a positive national conversation about this issue based on facts and evidence, fraternity and fairness, not on nonsensical accusations.

So I reject the hon. Member for Battersea’s assertions. We will not withdraw the report. We will look at what recommendations to take forward. The Government have still not provided a response, but there are many issues around that structural inequality that we want to have dealt with. However, I reiterate that, just because there is a disparity, it does not mean that discrimination is the cause. If we continue to identify discrimination right from the beginning without looking at the root cause, we will continue to offer solutions that do not improve the situation. I am very happy to commend the commissioners and I reject the hon. Lady’s very divisive rhetoric and assertions to the House today.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The House and the country will be glad that the Government have come forward with this positive statement in support of Tony Sewell’s and the other commissioners’ report.

The commission had to put out a statement on 2 April contradicting most of the ill-informed criticisms. At the end, it said:

“The 24 recommendations we have made will, in our view, greatly improve the lives of millions of people for the better if they are all implemented.”

The second sentence of the first paragraph said that the report

“stated categorically that ‘we take the reality of racism seriously and we do not deny that it is a real force in the UK.’”

That seems plain and clear.

I came into politics in 1971, when the ethnic minorities in the area where I lived in south London were denied the chance to take O-levels because left-wing goodies asked why people should be forced to take O-levels in the fifth form. I said it was so that they could go on to university. With two West Indian mothers on the governing body, within three years, the first of our black pupils went on to medical school. I think we can dedicate ourselves to making life better.

I say to the Minister that later—not today—I would like to come and talk to her about the treatment of Gurpal Virdi, a very good Sikh officer who four times was badly treated by the Metropolitan police. The fourth time, he was prosecuted for a week and a half for something that could not have happened, following an investigation that should not have happened.

That is one of the things that would help to give weight to the recommendations of the Sewell commission —if things are treated fairly, when they go wrong, they are investigated properly.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the Father of the House for his question and for his comments, which I completely agree with. The issue he describes around education back in the day is actually something I experienced myself. There is still much to do, but we have come a long way from 25 years ago when I first immigrated to this country. On Gurpal Virdi, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to fully understand what happened and to see what the Government can do.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Let me run through the hon. Lady’s questions in turn. She asked about my favourite hoodie. I can tell her that it is not the one in the picture, but actually the kickstart hoodie that was given to me by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which I wear with pride.

The hon. Lady asked about the self-employed and again mentioned this number of 3 million people. I would like to address this point properly. It is not a number that I recognise, and I do not think that it is right to describe those people as excluded, as 1.5 million of those people are not majority self-employed; they are people who earn the majority of their income from being employed. That decision was taken to help target the support at those who really needed it. We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about support being targeted, especially regarding the self-employment scheme. That decision was made because if someone earns the majority of their income from employment, it is reasonable to assume that they will benefit from the furlough scheme, and that is how the majority of their earnings come in. That principle was supported at the time by every trade association that I spoke to when designing the scheme. In fact, those conversations were supportive of a much higher threshold than the one that we adopted, which was just “a majority”; others said that 60% or two thirds would be reasonable.

I hope that it is also of comfort to the House to know that the median amount of self-employment income that those 1.5 million people who are not majority self-employed have in their returns is somewhere between £2,000 and £3,000, so it is not the overwhelming part of their earnings. At that level, the universal credit system and other support that we provide will be significant in making up the difference.

The hon. Lady asked about welfare and again mentioned universal credit. I guess it is worth reminding the House that the Scottish Government have plenty of powers over tax policy and welfare policy—and, indeed, have used them in the past. I hear that there is to be a Scottish budget. We look forward to seeing what the Scottish Government decide to do with the powers that they have over both tax and welfare decisions.

The hon. Lady asked about jobs and talked about the OBR. I am glad that the OBR has today joined the IMF and the Bank of England in commending the Government’s economic response and recognising and stating explicitly that the interventions that we have put in place have reduced the level of unemployment and saved people’s jobs. I think that the OBR actually quantified that in its report today, putting the number at hundreds of thousands and confirming what the IMF said—that our response has held down unemployment.

The hon. Lady asked about young people. We are determined to help young people. They have borne the brunt economically of this crisis, which is in part why we created the kickstart scheme—an ambitious programme under which, I think, 19,000 fully funded placements have now been created for those under the age of 24 who are at risk of unemployment. We also provide a cash bonus to businesses to take on new young apprentices. All those things will make a difference to our young people at what is, without question, a very difficult time.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The House will be glad that the Chancellor has met the needs of the poorest, that he is going to maintain the increase to the state pension and that he is ensuring that people get opportunities to get back into work if they have been out of it. He talks about the £250 minimum for the lowest-paid people in the public sector. May I ask him whether that includes people working in local government or just national Government? That would be useful to know.

There will be a welcome for the increase in spending for schools. There are also many other things that people will think are sensible and that could—or should—have been done as the Labour Government went through the crisis in 2008, when they also implemented a public sector pay freeze. May I put it to him that it would be incredible if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority were to force a pay increase on Members of Parliament when others do not get it? One way or another, will the Government—and perhaps you, Mr Speaker —talk to IPSA and ensure that that does not happen? I have the view that MPs’ pay should only be adjusted after a general election; that may be a minority view, but I think it would be wrong for us to have pay forced on us when others cannot get a pay increase.

Let me turn to overseas aid. When the Departments were merged, the Foreign Secretary said that the 0.7% figure would be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was elected in 2015, as I was, under a commitment to meet 0.7%. We were re-elected in 2017, and the only difference in 2019 was that the word “proudly” was put in front of that commitment. I am proud of that commitment. I will work with anyone across the House to make sure that a change of percentage does not happen. Obviously, with our GNP coming down by 10%, the amount that goes on aid will come down automatically. I fight to maintain the pledge that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and I made at the last general election.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not like being brought into the situation on pay. What I would say is that there is no decision on pay; there is no award to MPs. There is a big mistake out there somehow that there is an amount that has been given. Let me reassure the Father of the House that that is not the case. It will not even be looked at til next year—probably later, towards Easter.