Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What a powerful start to this debate we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), laying out with passion the case that has, to some extent, not been heard by those on the Treasury Bench throughout this crisis.

I want, in part, to echo a number of the points the hon. Lady made and take hon. Members back to the start of the crisis when all of us as Members of Parliament were met with a series of increasing issues from our constituents. They were worried about not being able to get groceries from their local grocery store. They had loved ones who were overseas. They were worried about their jobs. People could not get loans to keep their businesses supported.

Time and again, those issues were sorted out by the Government to a greater or lesser extent and answers were found. At the end of all that, however, as many hon. Members will know, there was one group that remained excluded from a number of levels of support or where their ability to access that support was not sufficient—the millions of people in this country who are self-employed.

I want to go through some of those issues passionately, if I can, but also with facts. I am sure the Minister will respond with facts, and quite rightly so. She will, I am sure, mention the fact that the Government did find the right arteries, if I can call them that, to get the support to people, particularly those in the job retention scheme and others. That was a tremendous success. The ease with which people were able to access the support when they qualified was also a tremendous success.

The overall record for the Government in terms of economic programmes and international comparisons was also a great success. However, this debate is not about those successes; it is about the omissions from those programmes. A fact it would be helpful for the Minister to provide is to reconcile the difference between the Government’s assertion that 95% of the self-employed are covered and the other assertion that there are 3 million excluded. That would be a helpful reconciliation to have.

It is important for those on the Treasury Bench to understand the issues for the self-employed that have made that speed to get a response so difficult: the fact that their income is lumpy and unpredictable and the fact that they have a variety of employment structures, often taken up over the years at the request of those on the Treasury Bench, make it difficult for schemes to come into place.

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

Will my hon. Friend allow me to assert the fact that some people who are self-employed have been able to get back to work, but many involved in large industries such as culture, entertainment, film and music have not been able to because those events are not taking place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is precisely right. That is one of the three issues the Government really need to focus on as they consider their response to this debate. If we take wedding planners, theatre, live events or conferences, we see that the Government are asking those sectors to remain closed but what is their level of support? Literally hundreds of my constituents in those sectors still cannot earn an income anything like they would have earned in normal times.

I urge the Government also to consider the newly self-employed. We had issues with people who changed jobs from February to March, when the scheme came in. The Government did find some change there, but that was where someone’s change was measured in a matter for weeks. The self-employed can be measured for a matter of months and they still cannot get included because their tax returns are measured on an annual, not monthly, basis. What will the Government do, for example, for a pet care business in Biggleswade in my constituency that suffered precisely because of that?

The criteria for the self-employed were more complex than for those in any other of the schemes that businesses or individuals could apply for. It got to a point, which I will return to in my final comments, where something in what the Government were trying to do for the self-employed was beyond the issue of providing support. I had a musician from Upper Caldecote and a performer from Sandy who were not able to access the scheme because they felt they fell on one side of the criteria and not on the other. If it was good enough for the Government to think of complex criteria for the individual to claim, why could the Government not sort out the problems for people by cross-referencing their dividends so that they could say that they were genuinely self-employed?

It is important that the Government get to grips with the issue of those who feel that they have been excluded, because the self-employed provide so much for our economy. They are the innovators. They are the people who will undercut competitor prices to deliver a better product. They want to over-deliver, because for self-employed people, it is not just about business; it is about themselves. It is how they behave and how they interact with others that is so important. The UK gets so much from the self-employed. We get a quarter of a trillion pounds of contribution to the British economy. We get higher growth. We get a world-beating labour market in terms of its efficiency. We become a front-foot nation. That is why the Government need to act.

Economic Update

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I know my colleague the Financial Secretary has been abreast of this issue for a while, and he has just reminded me that we have invested £37 million in debt advisory services during this time. I also know that he is taking forward actions on our breathing space initiative, which is something that he passionately believes in, and I wholeheartedly support those efforts.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Chancellor has answered many specific questions, but I would like to commend the overall tone of his statement, which he began by saying that he would be “unencumbered by dogma”, but with

“a simple desire to do what is right.”

His responses have oftentimes mentioned the social justice imperative behind his plan for jobs, which I think will strike many in the country as absolutely right.

May I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), about the need, when we come to the fall, to look at ways in which overall debt as a burden on the GDP of the country can be brought under control?

The Economy

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

The shadow Chancellor has always been willing to work with the Chancellor and we would be very happy to engage with the Government in terms of the flexibility that we are calling for in the sector-by-sector approach. In fact, as the Government did in establishing the job retention scheme, we would encourage them to sit down with employers and trade unions to look at what support is needed, for how long and across which sectors to make sure that people come through this crisis. The challenge with what the hon. Gentleman describes is that for too many businesses it will simply be too late. When there are some businesses that are still shut down through no fault or choice of their own, it is completely unreasonable for them to see Government support beginning to wind up before they can actually open their doors to business. The public health response and the economic response have to go hand in hand. I would have thought that point would be obvious to the Government.

Part of the Government’s challenge is demand and getting consumers spending again, as we have heard, but many of the challenges are also supply side, where a cut in VAT or a £10 discount on a Tuesday night is neither here nor there. Beyond tourism and hospitality, we have seen job losses across a range of sectors in recent days and weeks. The Chancellor offered nothing for manufacturing, including for companies at risk in aerospace and automotive industries, and nothing for the businesses whose doors are still closed. We fear that the Chancellor’s refusal to accept a more flexible and tailored sector-by-sector approach to business support and job retention is a failure of judgment that will be reflected in higher unemployment figures. I would be delighted to be proven wrong on that point.

In his statement, the Chancellor said that people need to know that although hardship lies ahead, no one will be left without hope. I am afraid, as we have already heard, he offered no hope whatever to the excluded, those who have consistently fallen through the cracks of the Chancellor’s support for employed and self-employed workers. Instead, they remain forgotten. Some of this is about choices and priorities. It is not clear why many of those facing the greatest financial hardship were offered no direct financial support in what the Chancellor announced today. Those who will benefit from the cut in stamp duty will, by definition, be better off.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is moving on to this group of people. He has just been talking about extending existing programmes from which they are excluded. In addition to wanting to extend those programmes, what does he want to happen to those who have been excluded, so that that sense of being left behind no longer continues?

[Wes Streeting]

It seems to me that people who have been excluded require exactly the same sort of assistance as people who have been included, which is direct support to protect their incomes. We would be very happy to sit down with the Treasury to discuss how to bring that about.

Turning to climate change, the Chancellor promised a green recovery with concern for the environment at its heart. What we actually got today was a scaled-back ambition that fell well short of what the Committee on Climate Change and climate change justice campaigners were looking for. The Conservative manifesto promised £9 billion for energy efficiency. Today the Chancellor announced just £2 billion, which is about a fifth of what they promised people before the election. If the crisis has taught us anything, it is that there is such a thing as too late. It is this decade to 2030 where action will really count if we are to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown —not the next 30 years to 2050, but the next 10 years to 2030—so where was the green new deal? A green industrial strategy will get our country back on track to meet its climate obligations in the longer term, but it can also be the shot in the arm our country needs in the shorter term, creating new jobs and delivering improvements to our quality of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). In a debate whose title is about the economy, too much of it has seemed to be a game of Top Trumps where every fiscal measure announced by the Government is met by a demand for them to do more—too frequently without regard to whether that will help and too frequently with little understanding of how to implement it in any case, so perhaps I can remind the House of two important things.

First, the growth of the economy relies on the private sector—its decisions, its actions and the risk taking by our private businesses and our private sector. The role of Government is to incite and encourage the private sector to act to preserve jobs. Secondly, I remind the House of the limits of Government in the economy. It is well accepted that the role of Government in public health is to mitigate public health risks, not to eliminate them entirely. Therefore, the Government should be on the front foot to reopen our economy at every possible opportunity.

We should also bear in mind the limits of Government in the capacity of international capital markets to accept borrowing. It might be of interest to hon. Members to know that the quantitative easing launched by Governments around the world so far this year is equivalent to $6 trillion—equal to half the amount that was put into public markets between 2009 and 2018.

There is a limit to what Government can do in the economy in fairness to generations to come. We should not be in the role of passing on debts—enormous debts—to future generations to pay off. Furthermore, there is another limitation that we should all be aware of: the competence of politicians and the state in doing what they promise to do. Government work essentially as a big beast with a big foot in a complex jungle. Sometimes, when they put their foot down, that footprint can have big impacts on the smallest businesses in our community.

In my constituency, small businesses are yearning to be open and yearning to grow again. I applaud the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) in her campaign to open up beauty clinics and the beauty sector. That is something the Government should be doing as an absolute priority, and it would be welcomed in my constituency.

My constituency has many freelancers and company owner-directors. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done an absolutely fantastic job in responding to MPs from across the country, please, please, please bear in mind the impact of Government policies on freelancers, particularly in the entertainment and theatre sector, by coming up with a specific date on which the theatre and live entertainment sectors can reopen.

Finally, it is important that the Government move forward on their reforms to how they deliver what they say they are going to do.

Public Health England Review: Covid-19 Disparities

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

On Public Health Scotland having different results from Public Health England, we are finding this in a range of reports and it is one reason why we are not rushing to recommendations. It is important to note that the PHE review did not take into account other factors such as comorbidities. On no recourse to public funds, we have taken extensive action to support those with recourse to public funds. The range of such actions includes: protections for renters from evictions; mortgage holidays for those who need them; support for those who are vulnerable and need assistance with access to medication and shopping; the coronavirus job retention scheme; and the self-employed income support scheme. Those with no recourse to public funds do have access to statutory sick pay, which the hon. and learned Lady mentioned. Furthermore, if an individual has been working in the UK and sufficient national insurance contributions have been made, they may be entitled to claim contributory employment and support allowance. We have also allocated £750 million of funding for charities, which are providing vital support to vulnerable people at this difficult time.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Sensitivity to disproportionate risk is greater when the leadership of institutions includes representation of those most at risk. That is an issue for corporations such as Transport for London and, in particular, Govia Thameslink Railway, given what happened to Ms Mujinga. It is an issue for the NHS, where although there has historically been an over-representation of black and minority ethnic people among employees, they have been under-represented in the leadership of the NHS. In this instance, it is a case for the leadership of PHE, as I believe that not one of either the chief executive or his direct reports is drawn from the BAME communities. Will my hon. Friend look into how the Government can promote diversity in the leadership of our leading institutions?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which makes an important point. We do want to see diversity in leadership across institutions in this country, which is one reason why we asked Professor Kevin Fenton, who is a black surgeon, to lead on this review. This issue is close to my heart, and, as a black woman who is Equalities Minister, I will be looking into it as well. I can definitely take this forward and examine what is happening across our institutions.

Coronavirus Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, many thousands of people will be stranded in other countries. We need an evacuation plan, in the light of the Prime Minister’s remarks, to get them back to our country safely. I thank the Minister and the Government for their work.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise to welcome the Government’s new clause 19 and to support in spirit the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

The idea of two years was unconscionable; six months is liveable with, but three months would have been better for this draconian Bill. We need that reduction because it provides a much more reasonable basis not only to assess the unparalleled restrictions that may be imposed on people, but to enable an alignment of timeframes between our medical responses and the impact on the economy.

I wish to make some brief comments on the issue of balance between those two features. At the moment, we are passing this legislation when a monopoly of voices point in one direction—do more, go faster and impose more restrictions. What we need is an environment of balance to understand that all those measures, as we pursue with all of our hearts and heads the medical cures, the support for our NHS workers and the care for the sick, have consequences: consequences for our economy and for the mental health and well-being of our citizenry, and consequences as yet unforeseen.

A restriction in the timeframe for the legislation is absolutely crucial. Embedded in the phrase “whatever it takes” is a blank cheque that has to be paid at some point. It may not be favourable in public discourse to talk in that way. It may appear callous to talk in that way, but, at some point in the future, a reckoning for the decisions that have been made in response to this medical crisis and the economic consequences for families across the country will come. Whether the Government like it or not, the Bill they are passing today—new clause 19 that they are passing today—will become the vehicle on which they are held to account.

Let me give the Minister some suggestions that she may like to pass on to the Government for them to think about in terms of what we might be discussing in six months’ time. First, we need to set a clear goal. Secondly, we need to outline the reasonable, measurable benchmarks needed to show that we are making progress in achieving that medical goal.

We need to explain the exit strategy for our medical plan. In six months’ time, or at some other time, the Government have to say what considerations they have made if the approach to secure those medical goals has not achieved what they wanted it to achieve, and what the costs and consequences are for the economy. There are no easy answers here, of course, but as we pass this legislation at this difficult time, it is important that we understand that we will have to do that evaluation in a mood of much more balance than we can today.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of the amendment and new clauses that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have tabled. We are not seeking to divide the House, but we are keen to put our concerns on the record. In the interests of time, I want to focus on two areas—social care and the self-employed.

There is unanimity in the Chamber about the fact that exceptional times call for exceptional measures. It is strange to find myself in violent agreement with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). In these difficult, challenging times, the measures must be proportionate, strictly time-limited and with appropriate safeguards in place. I therefore welcome the Government’s concession that the Bill will be reviewed every six months, although our amendment seeks a review every three months, with a full review by both Houses. I note the concerns about whether we can amend or discard parts of the Bill in each review, and I hope that that will be taken on board by Ministers.

The Bill gives the Government sweeping powers over our civil liberties, and impacts on how we look after the most vulnerable in our society, which is dealt with in our amendment 14 and new clause 14. Social care provision is inextricably linked to NHS provision—they are two sides of the same coin. Fast and safe discharge into the community is essential to free up hospital capacity for those who are critically ill.

The system is already stretched to breaking point, and many people think that care standards are on the border line. The Bill seeks potentially to lower standards, which could be dangerously reduced, putting many elderly and disabled people of all ages at risk. Although the Secretary of State told me that the provisions seek to do the opposite by enabling local authorities to prioritise, I fear that the only safeguard is the European convention on human rights, resulting in many vulnerable people being harmed. They must not be cast by the wayside in this crisis.

The Bill has been introduced to tackle a serious threat, but it potentially raises another threat for the most vulnerable people in society. The Chancellor made it clear that he would give the NHS whatever resource it needed to deal with coronavirus. The same commitment must be given to social care, as the sister service to the NHS. Amendment 14 seeks to address that very point.

I turn to new clause 13, on statutory self-employment pay. The Chancellor has rightly stepped in with a far-reaching set of economic measures to support the millions of people across the country whose livelihoods and incomes have been decimated by the pandemic. As many Members from all parts of the House have said, the 5 million self-employed and freelancers feel that they have been completely overlooked. With over 11,000 self-employed people in my constituency I, like many others, have been inundated with hundreds of emails, from childminders to event organisers, to tradesmen and women, to musicians and those who work in the TV industry, begging for action. Many have seen their incomes dry up overnight, with no prospect of knowing when they might be able to work again.

New clause 13 seeks to provide for the self-employed on the same terms as the wage guarantee scheme for employees. I fully understand that the mechanism for delivering such a provision is not straightforward for Government, but let us not let the best be the enemy of the good. The situation is urgent for millions of people across the country who are struggling to put food on the table for their families and keep a roof over their heads right now.

In 2008, the Government stepped in to bail out the banks. Now it is time to do the same for everyone whose livelihood is under threat, whether employed or self-employed. At this time of national crisis, of course we support the Bill with an extremely heavy heart, but I implore Ministers to take on board our grave concerns, particularly on care of the vulnerable and providing for the self-employed. Let us make sure that not one single provision in the Bill is in place for a minute longer than it has to be.

Loan Charge 2019: Sir Amyas Morse Review

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. His point backs up mine. Any team that the Treasury sets up—and there should be one—to deal with people affected by the issue should treat them as people, not as numbers, which is unfortunately how HMRC has a track record of treating them.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the core points. Who is running the show here? Is it HMRC, or are the Government making sure that law on this matter is paramount? Does he not find it ironic that HMRC’s annual report this year says that HMRC wants a system that can

“be trusted and seen to be fair, with the right safeguards in place to protect customers”?

Does this case not show that it is falling woefully short of meeting that ambition?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely. This is not the only case of people being treated unfairly by HMRC. I really hope that the Minister listens to the concerns being expressed across the House, particularly about the issue under discussion. There is a wider point here about HMRC. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, it has decided to charge people retrospectively although the situation arose through its negligence. Never again—I feel this strongly—should it be allowed to adopt retrospective measures to cover its failure to get its policies in order.

Lastly, the Minister needs to make it clear, hopefully today, that the people affected by this are victims. They are struggling after following advice given to them by independent tax experts. I hope that he will look at lengthening the repayment period, commit to dealing fairly with the people affected by this, and never allow this to happen again. Ideally, he should at the Dispatch Box this afternoon scrap the loan charges affecting so many of my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is right; that is very sound advice. Everyone who has spoken so far today has been a credit not just to the House, but to their constituents, because there are far too many people—such as my constituents, his constituents and others—who are in despair because of this issue.

[Richard Fuller]

On the importance of Members of Parliament speaking up, is the hon. Member concerned, as I am, that effectively, HMRC is smearing constituents as tax dodgers and adding to their mental anguish, rather than trying to assist them through this process?

[Chris Stephens]

I am not only very concerned, but angry about some of these actions and what I have heard today about what HMRC is up to. I will speak more about that.

When constituents such as Fraser Kennedy and Jason Millington come to us to discuss this issue, three immediate things leap out at us. This has come up in the debate, including in a fantastic example from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans). In this Parliament, we really need to deal with the relationship between an employer and a worker and their status in the workplace, because it really is time to end the bogus self-employment that we have heard about in this debate and in other examples. This needs to be addressed because what this issue has proven is that the wrong people are being targeted.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that when people first come across this issue, it looks like some sort of tax avoidance scheme, and I think it is perfectly natural for someone to think that when it is first explained to them. In the back of my head, when I first heard about it, I thought, “Well, maybe I will approach HMRC as an MP and try to get the same sweetheart deal that Google got only a couple of years ago,” when it paid the equivalent of 4% corporation tax. It seems that there is a disproportionate way that the people who have been caught up in the loan charge are being dealt with compared with other people who can get a sweetheart deal. That is how I thought I could try to deal with it, because if the answer is, “Yes, it is tax avoidance”, then the people HMRC should really be going after are those who contrived and promoted such schemes, because they are the ones who are directly responsible. They should be pursued and punished, and there should not be the blunt instrument that is being used for those caught up in the loan charge.

The third conclusion is, as the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, that there have been disproportionate actions from HMRC towards the individuals who have been caught up in this and how they feel. My constituent, Fraser Kennedy, sums it up well. His employer, Winchester, assured him and HMRC that it had paid all the tax and moneys, but he is still getting chased by HMRC. He feels bullied and harassed, and is suffering from stress and anxiety because of how it has handled the matter. He believed that it was settled a year ago, but he is still getting correspondence.

Economy and Jobs

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Quite simply. It is a good question, because we wanted to scrap the tax credits and put direct investment into R&D. Some of the very advisers the Government have called upon, such as Mariana Mazzucato, have been ripping apart some of those tax credits for inefficiency and ineffectiveness. We shared the objective, but we found a different and more effective route.

We have referred in the past to the differentiation between types of investment, and the example that we have used in previous debates is stark. Planned transport investment in London is 2.6 times higher per capita than in the north, so it is no wonder that rail infrastructure in the north has been falling apart. After a decade of decline, the Government at last seem to have at least acknowledged their mistake in refusing to invest in the regions—something we have been crying out for—but we will see what scale of investment is produced after the fine words.

However, this is not just about capital investment in infrastructure. There is also a desperate need for revenue investment in the social infrastructure of our regions and nations. It is interesting that many cities and towns in the north have borne the brunt of austerity. Seven out of the 10 cities with the largest cuts in the country are in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire. That came about not by some miracle, but as the result of deliberate Government policy.

Imitation, they say, is the highest form of flattery, so I suppose Labour should be flattered that the Government are now looking to rewrite the Treasury Green Book to reorient investment decisions towards the regions outside London and the south-east—an exercise that Labour undertook two years ago. I suppose we should also be flattered by the Government now following Labour in adopting a fiscal rule that enables them to take advantage of low interest rates to borrow, which we advocated at least four years ago.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

As we are in the habit of stealing clothes, as the right hon. Gentleman would present it, the Labour Party had its election manifesto and the costings—two documents that obviously have been consigned elsewhere—but the third document was about corporate tax breaks, so does he suggest that the Government should look at existing corporate tax breaks and reorient them to support investment in other regions?

[John McDonnell]

Again, Labour undertook work to look at exactly that. We looked at the regional impacts and at how tax breaks are distributed unequally around the country. There is an important and exciting piece of work to be done, and some of those issues were considered by the Kerslake review in 2017. There will be some element of consensus on how we can direct future investment, and we can build upon that in the long term, because if anything comes out of the lessons of the past 10 years, it is that we need a longer schedule than just a five-year parliamentary process for capital investment of that scale.

Returning to fiscal rules, the Government have now advocated a fiscal rule that largely follows Labour’s advice, but it is this Government’s third or fourth fiscal rule—I have lost count. Some of them have been adhered to—no, actually, looking back at it, none of them have actually been adhered to, which largely defeats the object of having fiscal rules. It will be interesting to see how long this one lasts and how far it is achieved. The problem is that, even if they use all the headroom that their new fiscal rule allows, they are only paying lip service to the need to invest at scale and for the long term. If we are to tackle the issues of poverty, regional inequality and, yes, climate change, the amount of new investment mooted so far by the Chancellor is nowhere near the scale needed to address the dilapidation of our infrastructure outside London, and it is certainly not at the scale needed if we are to tackle climate change. From what we have heard so far, the maximum amount of increased investment talked about by the Chancellor is less than today’s estimate of the cost of High Speed 2.

The Chancellor’s idea in his Financial Times interview, of splitting the Treasury and sending some of its officials to work in satellite offices outside London, is a pale imitation of Labour’s plans not just for regional offices but to move whole sections of the Treasury to the north, to move the Bank of England to Birmingham and, similarly, to locate a national investment bank outside London. If the Government are going to plagiarise Labour’s policies, they at least have a duty to do so competently.

What all these things have in common is a failure to tackle the root causes of the problems to which the Government pay lip service: the grotesque levels of inequality in income and wealth in our society; the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few; the ownership of the economy by an elite, with the vast majority of people locked out of decision making and having no say on how the economy works or on who it works for; and an economy increasingly serving the few, not the many. There is no sign that the Government recognise the root causes of the crisis we face, whether social or environmental—at least, there is no sign of them doing anything about it.

Of course, all these investment proposals will count for very little if the Government fail to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with our EU partners that protects jobs. On that score, it is hardly surprising that businesses’ fears rose when the Chancellor, in his weekend interview, cavalierly threatened to throw our manufacturing sector under a bus, as he rejected the calls from business for alignment with the EU to ensure his own Government’s long-standing promise of frictionless trade. He casually said:

“There will be an impact on business one way or the other, some will benefit, some won’t.”

Let us be clear that if frictionless trade is not achieved in a future trade deal or, worse, if there is no deal, the bulk of our manufacturing sector, including cars, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and food and drink, will be in the “some won’t” category. One recent estimate identified that, in the past decade, we have already lost 600,000 manufacturing jobs.

Today, business leaders and unions have combined to warn the Chancellor that his promise to split from the EU will cost billions and damage UK manufacturing. Bizarrely, he blames the manufacturing companies for not having already prepared for any regulatory divergence coming out of any future trade deal, when no one knows what the deal or the rules will be. There is an element of Samuel Beckett or Kafka here, I am not sure which.

We hear that the Chancellor is the only Minister to be secure in his job ahead of the possible “night of the long knives” reshuffle in February.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

In marked contrast to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), I will start perhaps a little quieter and say a few words about my predecessor as Member of Parliament for North East Bedfordshire. Alistair Burt served the constituencies of Bury North and North East Bedfordshire from 1983 until he stood down at the last election, with a very short break between 1997 and 2001. I got to know Alistair in 1984, and on almost every political issue he and I found ourselves in accordance, with the great exception of our views on membership of the European Union. And on football—Alistair loves it; me not so much. In addition to being well respected across the House, Alistair had great knowledge and understanding of the middle east—an issue he continues to pursue—and a unique ability to be trusted by all sides.

The Register of Members’ Financial Interests has not yet been published, so, given some of the things I might say, let me I point out to hon. Members that I am a director of software companies.

A new dawn beckons, and a new Government have been formed to set the initial course for our country—a course to shape the success, or failure, of our refound independence. The most likely error that this Government will make will be to underestimate the scale of the opportunity for change, or to prefer the comforts of the known to the uncertainties of the unknown. It is that the voices of well-connected incumbents will drown out those of precocious challengers. This is not a time for a Government to take timid steps; it is a time for giant strides. Every ounce of radicalism that is lost today will be repaid in pounds of future regret for opportunities lost. Our country needs this Government to argue with the “fierce urgency of now” that President Obama summoned America to embrace a decade ago.

I wish to outline three areas from the Queen’s Speech where I believe that such radicalism can take place.

For decades, competitive capitalism has driven enormous gains in human progress, but the case for capitalism now appears tarnished by the consequences of globalisation, by regulatory capture and by repeated examples of corporate excess. This place of Smith, Locke and Ricardo is best placed remake the global case for capitalism for a new century as we define our new role in the world. At the heart of that case we must place the entrepreneurs, the small businesses, the start-ups and the innovators.

The Government should also review the primacy of shareholder value as the sole mission for our companies. We should simplify the governance code, yes, but also give oversight more clout so that excesses are more effectively curtailed and companies are more accountable for the externalities of their actions. We need measures to weaken the grip of crony capitalism: dysfunctional privatisations, public contracts repeatedly handed to the same-as-before conglomerates as the only game in town, disallowing the socialisation of losses from private risk-taking, and, yes, reviewing our corporate tax breaks.

As we leave the EU, we should not inadvertently leave out the welcome mat, encouraging lobbyists to decamp from Brussels to Westminster—or, for that matter, York. We need measures to provide people with swifter redress and greater protection from business and regulatory failure. For example, in my own area the simplest thing of a local plan not being accepted means creepy private developers trying to put in developments in that short space of time between plans, and constituents of mine in Willington, Harrold, Ravensden and Potton having to deal with a lifetime change just from one small bureaucratic failure.

The UK should make free markets and free trade hallmarks of our foreign policy. I see the Prime Minister is back from his UK-Africa Investment Summit, which was precisely the place he should have been today. I urge him to place a trade deal with Africa at the core of our new relationship, one that casts off the protectionism of the EU and reasserts the value of free trade over development aid.

An urgent imperative for Government action is the reform of markets based on the utilisation of data and, more specifically, the actions of digital platforms. The evidence of externalities in these markets is compelling: the undermining of local accountability through the impact on local newspapers; the unquantified but evident impact on mental health and wellbeing; and the unequalled political leverage dispensed by the machine-learning models, remote from inspection or democratic insight. These only hint at the scale of the potential distortion of competitive capitalism—a distortion in which we are willing and gullible participants. The extraction of our data from our actions and our preferences to enable predictive analysis to be sold for profit make British citizens in this century the equivalent of those exploited by colonial powers in earlier centuries. The new colonists, these casual exploiters of our future tense, require intelligent and more demanding regulation.

We need accountability in our infrastructure. Recent announcements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicate that he understands the need for radicalism: his proposed infrastructure fund, his commitment to changing investment algorithms to give the regions a fighting chance and his declaration that no industry should expect the state to relegate the national interest to their private interests in our trade negotiations with the EU.

May I encourage my right hon. Friend further with three thoughts? First, he should maintain fiscal discipline and not use the current experience of low interest rates as a windfall, but rather as a way for reshaping public pensions. Secondly, he should create compelling tax incentives that support local community investment in local free trade zones. Finally, he needs an early cross-departmental example of an infrastructure bid that makes sense. And I have an oven-ready deal.

North East Bedfordshire is already shouldering a substantial amount of the nation’s need for housing. Across the constituency, we see shortages of public services, such as GPs. We await announcements shortly on east-west rail. We have a long-standing need for the realignment of the A1, which will be a benefit not only for my constituents but for those in the midlands, as we heard earlier. This is the deal—this is the example that I am sure Ministers will want to point to as precisely what we need as the Government embark on the next stage in our country’s great future.

London Stock Exchange

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to one of my constituents for drawing my attention to this issue. I want to hear what the Minister has to say because, if we look at all of the recent mergers and acquisitions activity, whether between ARM Holdings and SoftBank, PSA and Vauxhall, Unilever and Kraft, or even Liberty House and Tata Steel, the Government are saying something. The Government have a view, so I think, as many hon. Members have said, it is appropriate to hear the Government’s updated view.

It is clear from other aspects of Government policy that there was no planning for post-Brexit circumstances for our country, so it is appropriate that they should have a new and fresh look at this. We need to know if our rules and regulations for competitive markets and a national interest test are suitable and up to what is needed in this new period of uncertainty in our economy. We have inherited those rules from the past, but should we rely on them as if we were part of the European Union and say they are fine and fit for purpose now, or is it appropriate for us to look at them anew?

It is also important to hear from the Government, because their crucial role at this time is to reduce uncertainty in our economy, so that people, companies and banks start investing in our country. It is fair to say that there is not a conspiracy—I do not think there is a conspiracy in the City—but when there are mergers and acquisitions involving a vast number of advisers, their interest will be focused on the deal and not necessarily on the impartiality of their advice to the Government. Without a clear review from the Government, there is a risk that the City will just let the merger through on the nod because so many people have vested interests.

Echoing my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I would like to know the Government’s role in reducing uncertainty on three specific issues. First, he mentioned a significantly increased systemic risk for the Bank of England from linking the two clearing houses, therefore exposing the UK to systematic breakdown of the euro. What assessment have the Government made of the extent of that? Secondly, as has been mentioned, on exposing the stock exchange to political risk from political groups outside the UK, what is the Government’s policy for managing that increased political risk if the merger goes through?

Thirdly, the harmonisation of business models has been mentioned by both sides during the debate. That is a way forward, but it is not the only way forward. Do the Government view the City of London harmonising with the EU as a priority, or should it better be looking to independently frame arrangements with the world?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The five-minute guideline limit for speeches will be displayed on the clocks to help the opposition spokesmen to keep the debate on time.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

However, I want to stress—I hope this reassures the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who was not on the Bill Committee—that the Bill does allow HMRC to approve a credit union to be an authorised account provider, if we decide to adopt a multiple provider model of account provision in future. NS&I has been adopted in regulations as the provider at this stage, but nothing in the Bill would preclude expanding the provider model in future. I want to assure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) that nothing precludes credit unions from being further involved in future.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I listened with interest to the points made by Labour Members about credit unions. I am a member of the Bedford credit union. Will the Minister look specifically at this issue? I think the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was saying that the Bill was an opportunity to expand the role of credit unions—they could be given almost a preferred provider status. When the Minister considers expanding the provider model beyond NS&I to include alternative providers, will she look specifically at expanding it solely to credit unions, rather than more broadly?

[Jane Ellison]

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it would be pre-emptive of me to make such a commitment at this stage. However, we have been clear that we think that credit unions have a big role to play. The primary legislation does not preclude them from being part of a multiple provider model in future. Indeed, my officials have been in constructive discussions with the credit union movement throughout the passage of the Bill. We are working with the credit union sector to ensure that the final design of Help to Save meets the needs of the target audience. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is looking forward to meeting the hon. Member for Harrow West and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) to discuss the issue further with the Association of British Credit Unions. Therefore, this is not about excluding the credit union movement. We are in regular, constructive discussion with credit unions. We just feel at this stage that the amendment would not allow us to offer that simple nationwide model on the introduction of Help to Save.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The reforms that we have announced will enable us to spend £330 million on practical support to ensure that people in the work-related activity group can work. May I point out that, over the past three years, the number of disabled people in employment has increased by nearly 600,000?

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The key insight of the Government’s productivity plan is that value can be unlocked through more timely implementation, so will the Chancellor have a word with the Transport Secretary to see how he can speed up the completion of the final part of the Oxford to Cambridge link from Bedford to Cambridge?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I will certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend. This is partly about smart delivery, but it is also about having certainty and a pipeline that allows contractors in the supply chain to plan ahead.