Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

As I said earlier, the cost of Spads has started to fall in the current Parliament. It is also important to remember that the total amount of Short money and policy development grant comes to dramatically more than the cost of Spads or anything of that sort.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Government, and the Conservatives, have form when it comes to rigging the electoral playing field. The Conservatives may have broken the law by spending more than the legal limit at by-elections. They are ramming through one-sided changes in the funding of political parties, while leaving in place their ability to raise huge sums from hedge fund managers. Now they intend to slash the Short money which ensures that Opposition parties can hold Governments to account. Can the Minister guarantee that the cuts will not be the final chapter in our transition from a multi-party state to a one-party state in which Robert Mugabe would be at home?

[John Penrose]

I do not know where to start in trying to rebut some of the absurd assumptions in that question, but I think that the short answer to all of them is “No.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend asks a salient question. The FCA is investigating this matter, and he will be aware that new rules—the markets in financial instruments directive II—will require firms to keep information for a considerable period, but this is the subject of ongoing discussions.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

23. Will the Minister agree that one of the biggest problems with the banking culture is that banks are too big to fail, and will she consider the issue of diversity in the sector, including, for instance, new lending platforms and market disruptors? In particular, will she consider new primary duties on the FCA to consider the issue of diversity?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the announcement we are expecting on Wednesday from the Bank of England, the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority about their working together to back innovation in the financial sector. A key part of our long-term economic plan is to back competition in the banking sector, which is why I am pleased there were eight new entrants to the banking sector in the last Parliament. In this Parliament, we are aiming for 15.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On present trends, if I were to call everybody, as I aspire to do, it would take another hour and a half. That is rather long, from which Members should deduce—whether they are Back Benchers or the esteemed Chancellor—that pithiness is the order of the day. We will be led in that mission by Mr Thomas Brake.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to scrap tax credit cuts. Does he intend apologising to the people who were unnecessarily scared by his original plans, and does he intend disciplining his peers in the House of Lords who, had they supported the Liberal Democrat motion there, would have saved him from this embarrassing U-turn?

[Mr Osborne]

I said that I would listen and I have—I thought the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that cuts in this Parliament under this spending review will be half what they were in the previous Parliament. Now that we are freed from the shackles of the Liberal Democrats, we can invest even more in our public services.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

There is no need to take just my word for that; it is precisely what Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said—that it is arithmetically impossible for the Government’s offsets, which I have just listed, to compensate for the losses that these hard-working families in all our constituencies are going to face. The Government know that that is true, which is why they have been so absent from the television studios in recent days. They do not need to hear the truth from me: they know it.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On the issue of offsetting losses, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in my constituency, for example, 4,000 families will be affected, losing £1,000 each, which amounts to £4 million being taken out of the local economy. Has he considered the impacts of that?

[Owen Smith]

I have considered the impacts. I think that reducing aggregate demand by taking money out of the pockets of working families—the people with the highest propensity to spend money locally in the economy—is a foolish thing to do. It is a false economy. We know that to be true economically, so why on earth would the Government want to do it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. At last, Members have risen to show that they want to speak. It is very confusing for the Chair if you do not stand up at the beginning of the debate, because I cannot tell how many people wish to speak. At the moment, I can see approximately eight people—

[Tom Brake]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

I spoke the other day about how tax credit reform is part of moving to the higher wage, higher productivity, higher opportunity economy that the Government are building. I have been talking to the Chancellor behind the scenes about welfare reform for many months, and he is listening. Welfare reform is, however, an essential part of the broad package of reform that is helping to return our nation and its people to a sound financial future. The Opposition offer no alternative.

In my professional life before becoming a Member of this House, I was involved in the pensions and savings industry. I know how important saving is in building people’s future and their economic resilience. I believe that reforming national insurance contributions and entitlements is a good way to further incentivise work, deal with the hurdles to advancing at work caused by high marginal tax and benefit withdrawal, and provide scope in the budget for transitional arrangements. That could address the impact of tax credit reform on those with the lowest regular income.

Insurance businesses work by taking premiums from people and investing them over long periods, usually in dividend-paying and other shares that grow substantially in value over time to generate returns that are then available to those who need to claim on the scheme. Unfortunately, our national insurance contributions are not invested in the same way but are spent year in, year out on the claims of those using the NHS or the state pension, or are lent out to other Departments for their spending. We should add major savings reform to what we are doing, by reforming national insurance to create a genuine low-cost defined-contribution investment scheme that people can use to supplement their entitlements under the state pension system and that can be made available, under certain circumstances, ahead of retirement age. Credits could be offered to the lowest paid even if they did not meet the threshold for payment of traditional national insurance, to kick off their contributions and get them used to saving. They could also be used to supplement some payments by employers or to provide transitional funds, which could be substantial.

The investment scheme could also be available to others who wanted to make a contribution. I believe that it should be accompanied by tapering the threshold for the payment of traditional national insurance contributions, and the rate, to make the marginal incentives to work more efficient while letting people keep more of their earnings. That could be paid for by tapers on the higher limit and rate of national insurance obligations and entitlements for those on the highest incomes, particularly the entitlement eligibility of very high income retirees. I note that the principle is already established that state pension entitlement cannot pass in its entirety from spouse to spouse, and that entitlement to state pension is not an asset. I believe that that measure could make available several billion pounds.

Tax credit reform is not an option, but is essential in moving to a higher wage economy that will better provide for the future of all of us. Reform of national insurance is a neat solution that is not inconsistent with our manifesto. Nor is reform of the working tax credit system, as part of our overall package of reform.

[Tom Brake]

I support new clause 1, although it is still not entirely clear to me what the Labour party’s position is on this question. In this place Labour has tabled new clause 1, which is in effect a fatal motion, whereas in the other place Labour would only support transitional protection. I assume that the Labour party is now fully opposed to the tax credit cut.

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I will not give way, as I have to finish at 2.57 pm.

Tax credit cuts will hit 4,000 families in my constituency and 7,000 children. Collectively, some £4 million will be lost. The cuts will hit hard-working families who are struggling to make ends meet and, perhaps most importantly from the Government’s point of view, the changes will reduce the incentive to work, which I thought the Government favoured. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said, I do not think that tax credits are a pat on the head. They are essential in supporting families.

[Paul Scully]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I will give way briefly.

[Hon. Members]

Typical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to talk about this, but does he not agree that when I spoke about a pat on the head I was talking about the original tax credits, which were received by nine out of 10 families, including those with salaries up to £60,000 and not just low income families?

[Tom Brake]

Indeed, and changes were made to tax credits to take that into account. However, tax credits are now needed to support people who are in low-paid work and will not suddenly see their salaries rise dramatically to compensate them for the loss of those tax credits. The cuts are regressive and should be opposed by the House. I hope that that will happen in the vote that is about to take place on new clause 1.

[Damian Hinds]

I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) to his new position and I wish the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) well in her new role.

These amendments intend to prevent the Government from making future changes to control welfare spending and we cannot support them. The Government’s approach is clear: our mission is to get wages up, taxes down and welfare under control. New clause 1 seeks to revoke the 2015 tax credits regulations and new clause 8 seeks to delay the introduction of the regulations unless and until the Government put in place a scheme of transitional protection for existing tax credit claimants for a minimum of three years. The House will recall that the Government tabled the regulations for a vote on the Floor of the House on 15 September, rather than their being scrutinised upstairs in Committee, to allow wider discussion on the regulations and to allow all hon. Members the opportunity to debate and vote on the issue. This House voted in favour of the regulations.

The House further discussed the regulations in the Opposition day debate on Tuesday 20 October and again voted in favour of them. However, as the House will also be aware, last night unelected Labour and Liberal Democrat Lords voted against tax credit regulations, raising constitutional issues that the Prime Minister will address.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats will not support the charter tonight. Whatever the machinations in the Labour party, our reasons for opposing it are clear: the charter is just as much about fantasy economics as was Labour’s magic money tree. We remain committed to abolishing the structural deficit by 2017-18, and to seeing debt fall as a percentage of GDP in the following years. We will not, however, abandon the critical need for continued investment in infrastructure, and we will ensure that our economy remains competitive in the medium and long term. We are for sound and stable economic policy—something that sadly has been abandoned first by the official Opposition and now by the Government.

The charter is a trap set for the Labour party into which it has fallen headlong, and I suggest that it is also a trap for the Government over which they risk tying themselves in knots. What will happen if the Chancellor discovers that the Government are on course to miss their surplus target but growth is just ahead of 1%? Which of his rules will he break? Economic credibility means that markets, businesses and other investors have confidence that the Government will do what they say, and the charter manifestly fails that test. We will vote no tonight because the charter will simply not work. Its purpose is purely political, and parliamentary time should not be abused in this way.

The Economy

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on his forceful and good speech, and on his resilience in coming here and facing the House with such dignity and distinction. I, too, pay tribute to the way in which he fought for his principles and his cause in the election. Indeed, it causes me slight annoyance that in the leadership election that has broken out in the Labour party, some of the people who a month ago were his greatest admirers, his most loyal colleagues and those closest to his cause are now busily detaching themselves and attempting to scapegoat him for the problems that the Labour movement experienced.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, the right hon. Gentleman fought a very good election campaign. It was much better than anybody expected, because of the expectations that the tabloid press had raised. I thought he put the message across very well. I thought the message was wrong, and that was the judgment of the majority of constituents in my constituency and my part of the world. It is not the case that his performance had anything to do with the result. Apart from the great events in Scotland—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Apart from the remarkable, almost bizarre, events in Scotland—the SNP is equalled only by Syriza in Greece on economic policy—and the very welcome events in the south-west, which were also very unkind because I lost many good colleagues in government as a result, the underlying basis of the majority that we won, to most people’s surprise, was the judgment of sensible people on economic competence and our record on the economy.

I do not think the election campaign made very much difference to the result one way or the other. My part of the country, the east midlands, is thick with marginal seats. We won all of them and added gains by taking back Derby North. In the end, people saw what we had inherited economically and what we had done over the previous five years. They recognised our economic competence and accepted the message that the job had to be completed. When listening to the Labour party’s message, however it was presented, they simply decided that they could not take the risk of changing the Government. When the problem arose that the SNP would apparently be able to hold a Labour Government to ransom in what was bound, because of the tsunami in Scotland, to be a hung Parliament if Labour won, that made a little bit of difference, but the result was mainly down to economic competence.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that in individual constituencies, particularly Liberal Democrat-Conservative marginals, the fact that his party was often outspending my party by a factor of perhaps five to one made any difference to the election result?

[Mr Clarke]

I look forward to a little party political debate with the right hon. Gentleman again. As I have said, what decided the election was the coalition Government’s extraordinary record. It was a particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, closely assisted, as he said, by Danny Alexander, the former Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who was an excellent Chief Secretary, in getting the affairs of the nation back in order and steering us to some of the most successful economic results in the western developed world, which is what we have now.

What concerns us now, in this Parliament, is what judgment the public and history will make of this Government when they look back in five years’ time, or whenever. That will crucially depend on whether we finish the job and deliver the modern, more balanced, competitive economy that will give our children and grandchildren greater security and a better quality of life. That is the task we have set ourselves, and it is not going to be easy.

At the moment we are all enjoying the hubris of victory, as far as my party is concerned, or the relief of being back here just opposing, as far as the Opposition parties are concerned. On the surface the task looks easy, because at the moment our economy is growing more strongly than almost any other in the western world, employment is soaring because of our flexible labour market, which we should keep that way, our inflation is low, and real pay is at last beginning to rise as the benefits of recovery get through to every level of society. However, it would be a false assumption to think that it is plain sailing from now on, that everything will continue in that way and that the risks have vanished domestically and abroad, so we can take easy measures to reward those who voted for us. The world is not like that.

I take encouragement from what I took to be the Chancellor’s message. He has announced a July Budget, because he wants to take the opportunity while the economy is growing to take some of the tough and difficult decisions that the Government still have to take. I certainly encourage him to do so. In my part of the world—Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, the east midlands—the people who voted for us knew that there were still tough and difficult decisions to take. They were not seduced by the speeches of those whose only examples of what they intended to do were ways of spending money or rather short-term popular things. The sooner we get on with tackling the underlying problems—including, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has reassuringly just confirmed, the debt and the deficit—the better we will be able to get on with all the other things that need to be done, which will enable our economy steadily to get back on to a stronger and more secure footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me early in this debate and for selecting the Liberal Democrat amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on delivering a flawless maiden speech, and I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for delivering such a gracious speech, particularly given that he has not had much practice over the last nine years when it comes to delivering a speech from the Back Benches.

I want to speak briefly about a couple of matters that are mentioned in our amendment. First, I want to try to clarify the reason for the Conservative party’s opposition to the Human Rights Act. I think that it boils down to just two issues: foreign prisoners and prisoner voting. Members will know that the Home Secretary famously tried to kick-start her own leadership bandwagon with a Tory conference speech in which she promised to deport an illegal migrant whose removal was said to have been blocked by the courts on the basis of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which concerns the right to a family life. She said:

“We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act...about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat.”

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

She was making it up.

[Tom Brake]

Hold on. “But”, we are told,

“a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said the pet had ‘had nothing to do with’ the judgement allowing the man to stay.”

So, unfortunately, it was just that: a story about the Human Rights Act—a story which just happened not to be true. If there are other aspects of the Act that the Government want to get rid of, such as the right to life or the right to privacy, I think we are entitled to know that, but at present there is no real clarity about the nature of their concerns.

I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is no longer in the Chamber. I do not agree with him that it makes no difference how much a party spends on its campaign, particularly if there are ways of spending that get around the constituency spending limits, but I do agree with what he said about the European convention:

“I personally think it is unthinkable to leave the European convention on human rights…It is the way we uphold the values we strive for which are the rule of law, individual liberty, justice for all, regardless of gender. The convention is the bedrock of that.”

I also agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) that the European Court of Human Rights is,

“on a daily basis, producing decisions of great importance in improving human rights in Europe which are inevitably ignored here because they tend to concern countries in eastern Europe”.

I agree with those respected Conservative politicians that scrapping the Human Rights Act and leaving the convention would be a disaster for the United Kingdom’s credibility. It would send countries such as Belarus and Russia the message that it is possible to take or leave, or pick and choose, human rights as if they were favourite dishes on a Chinese restaurant menu.

Let me now say something about the snoopers charter, which clearly has business implications. Start-up businesses would be required to collect and store data in a way that would not be in their interests. As we know, David Anderson has been examining the current surveillance and intercept laws. He handed a report to the Prime Minister on 6 May. I wonder whether the Government had time to take it into account when they presented their proposals for an investigatory powers Bill. We need to see what is in that Bill, and we also need an explanation of why the United Kingdom Government are proceeding with proposals that the Americans have just rejected. The Americans have no mandatory communications data retention requirement for communication service providers, and I think we need to know why this country has such a requirement. Do the Government believe that the Americans are putting the lives of their civilians at risk?

I fear that the new report by Sir Nigel Sheinwald may well not be released, but I urge the Government to make a copy available to the public, even if it has to be redacted. It is quite possible that the report will show that there is no need for a snoopers charter, and that an international treaty could be used instead, allowing countries to agree to release data if required to do so by the security services.

Finally, let me touch briefly on the issue of the right to buy. During the general election campaign, there was clear agreement that we needed to build more homes, but I am afraid that the Government’s proposals are very unlikely to achieve that. When asked about the right to buy, the Mayor of London said that it was

“obviously one of the issues…that it would be potentially extremely costly to this body”,

meaning the Greater London Assembly. He added:

“We would have to make up the difference. Housing associations are private bodies, as we all know. It would involve massive subsidies.”

However, in a tweet—I think that he was tweeting as the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip rather than as Mayor—he said that the right to buy was a very good policy, and that the Conservatives’ proposals were

“a good way of ensuring it is funded.”

We need some clarity, but I suppose that those with two jobs often have to contradict themselves, and that is obviously what the Mayor has had to do.

Time does not allow me to touch on other matters, such as the Liberal Democrats’ free childcare and tax threshold. I should love to have an opportunity to discuss them on another occasion.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris White.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

It was clear that the future jobs fund was not cost-effective in helping young people, and we have found that the work experience programme is 20 times more effective. We have introduced a range of measures to help young people find work. We have already talked about the increase in the number of apprenticeship places, the number of people being helped by the Work programme and the number of wage incentives in place through the youth contract. We are going to see more voluntary work taking place and more job experience. Those are the practical measures needed to tackle youth unemployment.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

2. What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage investment and growth in the manufacturing sector.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The Government have taken a number of steps to support manufacturing industry, including: reducing corporation tax rates, with the main rate falling to 22% by 2014, which is the lowest in the G7; introducing a new above-the-line credit to support research and development in the UK; and introducing the patent box to reduce tax on profits from patents.

[Tom Brake]

Was the Chief Secretary as shocked as I was to hear the shadow Chief Secretary say on “Newsnight” that she opposed the coalition Government’s corporation tax cuts? Will he set out what particular measures could help businesses such as Monument Tools, a manufacturer of tools in my constituency that is able to compete with Chinese competitors?

[Danny Alexander]

I was indeed shocked to hear the shadow Chief Secretary say on “Newsnight” that she opposed the cut in corporation tax. I would have thought that the Labour party would welcome such a measure, as it is designed to increase investment in British businesses and support economic growth—that is something that Labour Members say they want to see. The constituency firm to which my right hon. Friend refers could benefit from the national loan guarantee scheme and the credit easing scheme that the Chancellor announced at the Budget, and it could participate in the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has announced, whereby £125 million is being spent to help manufacturers improve their performance.

Amendment of the Law

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We know that the NHS is in for a torrid time in the months and years ahead, and he has identified another problem that it has to tackle.

The combination of regional pay and the unfairness in the Budget contradicts the coalition’s rhetoric about making work pay and rebalancing the economy, sucking even more money out of areas such as Hull and the north in favour of the wealthier areas, mostly in London and the south-east.

I am also worried that regional pay could mean that some of the brightest and best, for example, teachers—we need the brightest and best teachers in areas such as Hull—will not come to Hull if the pay is not the same as in some other parts of the country.

Let me comment on the Liberal Democrats’ spin to the effect that this is a Robin Hood Budget. It joins the long list of broken Liberal Democrat promises. We had the abolition of tuition fees, which were then tripled, and education maintenance allowance was axed. The Liberal Democrats promised 3,000 more police but we are getting 16,000 fewer. They promised opposition to VAT, but we how have higher VAT. They seem to have dropped the armed forces pay increase and many more of the opportunist promises they made before 2010, when they had full knowledge of the deficit that would face them. The tycoon tax is just the latest Lib Dem slogan. Increased stamp duty is all very well, but it hits only the minority who sell the property in any year. It needs to be matched by a clampdown on general stamp duty avoidance.

The other major announcement is to cut the top rate of tax. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats have no defence on that.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

What did you do in 13 years?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not shout across the Chamber at somebody who is speaking. If he wishes to intervene, he should do it in the normal way. That applies to all hon. Members.

Women in the Church of England

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Chope. I commend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who set out carefully and clearly the reasons for the debate, and what, perhaps, should come out of it. It was pleasing to hear, for once, that on the issue in question we are not moving too far and too fast, although clearly the Opposition think that we are doing that with many other issues.

Faith matters have been prominent in recent weeks, with debates about prayers in council meetings and Parliament, and about same sex civil marriage. My view on prayers in council meetings or Parliament is that it is not right for them to be an integral part of the proceedings. I have no objection to their happening immediately prior to the meeting or proceedings, but those who do not participate should not suffer any detriment for that.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In this world.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that semi-serious intervention.

The Government are consulting on how to introduce same sex civil marriages, and I hope that eventually we will introduce legislation to allow those faiths that want to celebrate same sex religious marriage to do so. Clearly, however, we are not at that point. The Government’s consultation is about same sex civil, not religious, marriages. If in the future same sex religious marriage is considered, as with previous measures, compulsion would not operate, but there would be flexibility and scope for faiths that wanted to proceed down that route.

I am not convinced that, as a man and an atheist, I am the best placed person to comment on the issue of women bishops. Indeed, as I walked up the steps to this debate, I tripped quite dramatically, as if there were some sort of intervention, seeking to restrict my comments. However, I welcome interventions from Church leaders on political matters, and I think it is therefore legitimate for politicians to comment on faith matters.

On 8 February the Synod voted clearly for women bishops to have full autonomy, without co-bishops. I welcome that—it is not a party position. However, I recognise that it will send shock waves through some sections of the Church of England. It is a brave decision, which—if it is ultimately passed—would not leave women bishops as second-class citizens in the Church. My view is that it will happen in the near future anyway. Given that 290 women and 273 men were ordained in 2010, at some point this decision will be taken. The Church of England is at a crossroads. It can go down a more liberal route, with the risk, highlighted by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, that that will lead more followers of the faith to leave. However, there is an inevitability about these things. Following a traditional route will lead to the same sorts of challenges, and as more and more women are ordained, pressure will grow for women bishops to be able to operate independently and in exactly the same way as male bishops, and it will happen eventually.

I welcome the decision taken at the Synod and hope that the House of Bishops, the clergy and the laity will accept that there was a strong vote in favour of allowing women bishops into the Church as equal partners with their male colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the previous Government maxed out the country’s credit card. Worse still, they want us to hand on those debts—their debts—to our children and grandchildren. The reason that we have been able to enjoy lower interest rates for our borrowing than countries such as Ireland is that the markets know that we have a plan to get our public finances back into shape. That is benefiting this country every day.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability of the economy, promote growth and jobs, reform banking and manage the public finances so that Britain finally starts to live within her means.

[Tom Brake]

More than 1,500 people in Sutton will be taken out of paying income tax altogether from next month as a result of the increase in the tax threshold. What estimate has the Chancellor made of the number of people who will be taken out of paying tax altogether in 2015, when the tax threshold is increased to £10,000?

[Mr Osborne]

I think my hon. Friend is getting a little ahead of himself. The commitment is to a real-terms increase in the personal tax allowance in each and every year. People will have to wait for the Budget tomorrow. The increase of £1,000 in the personal tax allowance has taken 900,000 people of out of tax.