Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
As a former local government Minister, which was my first job, I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that there is nothing smoke and mirrors about core spending power. It is the metric on which the local government finance settlement is done each year and it is the main metric on which it is focused. It is going up 4.5%, which is a very high level compared with that in any of the last years. She is right about how council tax works, which is why we have put in an additional £300 million of grant on top of the existing grant. Part of that is used for equalisation and the exact way that that works is a matter for MHCLG. As is always the case, we have an equalisation element to the grant to deal with the specific issue she raises.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
First, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who has the most extraordinarily difficult job in juggling the nation’s finances at this time? I pay tribute to him for his investment in levelling up, and I also pay tribute to his focus on business, which, after all, is going to pay for all the money that he has just spent. However, will he perhaps tell me a bit about the aid budget? I have noticed 20 basis points moving from aid into defence. It is a very welcome defence budget, certainly, but at a time when aid has never been more needed in extending the perimeter of our public health to countries where the covid crisis would otherwise run wild, surely this is not exactly the right moment to be reducing those defences.
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, to which he has made reference this afternoon, clearly gives him the opportunity to opt out of the 0.7% target according to three different metrics, all of which are covered by the covid crisis? He can therefore do his reduction, if he feels it is necessary, with no change in the law whatever.
Rishi Sunak
I am thankful to my hon. Friend for his comments and, indeed, the constructive conversations I have had with him on our aid budget, our defence budget and, more generally, our place in the world, which he rightly champions, and he does a very good job at that. He is right that we should look holistically at this, and he made a good argument for why we play a role, particularly with providing security through our defence budget to many places. He is also right about the 2015 Act and the so-called ouster provision contained within it, but given that we cannot predict with sufficient certainty when exactly the current fiscal circumstances will have improved and given our need to plan accordingly, we do intend to look at bringing forward appropriate legislation in due course. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement tomorrow and can answer the question in more detail.
Coronavirus Bill
Tom Tugendhat ExcerptsMonday 23rd March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Coronavirus Act 2020 View all Coronavirus Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 23 March 2020 - (23 Mar 2020)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend makes a useful and constructive suggestion. I am in favour of doing all that is reasonably practicable to comply with the existing duty—that is the simple position that the Government should adopt. I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend. He makes a useful suggestion, which is why I also suggest that a single doctor should sign only when absolutely necessary. Even in that case, the point that my right hon. Friend makes is useful. I am sure that the Government understand concern about the proposals, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with reassurance.
Turning to the issue of law and order, I would be grateful if the Minister passed on my gratitude to the Security Minister, who has spoken to me mostly from home, where he is self-isolating, on a number of provisions in clauses 21 and 22 on the appointment of temporary judicial commissioners, changes to urgent warrants under investigative powers, and an additional measure on data retention. I understand that the biometrics commissioner supports that measure, but I hope that he can comment on and deal with those provisions in the next few days.
I also understand that action will be taken to ensure that the temporary judicial commissioners receive the appropriate training, but clearly that will have to be done on a remote basis. It is important that we maintain existing standards as far as possible.
I know that the measure on data retention is an emergency power—of course, we do not want data on people who may wish to do us harm simply to disappear because somebody was not available to carry out the national security determination—but we must say, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) did in relation to the last point, that this can only be a temporary measure. We must return to the existing deadlines as soon as we can.
Courts and tribunals are covered in clauses 51 to 55. Clearly we must look to live links and audio technology, but we must try to secure justice in each and every case. We cannot allow any court user to be in danger of being transmitted the coronavirus. The Lord Chief Justice has said today that there will be no new jury trials, but clearly some jury trials—including some very long-term ones—are still ongoing. Every step must be taken to ensure that social distancing is imposed by the judges in those courts.
Although all Members agree on following advice about self-isolation, in cases of domestic violence self-isolation can create a situation that is favourable to abusers. Therefore, where our courts are functioning, dealing with domestic violence must remain a priority.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is interesting to note that in Spain, where this issue has been considered, the Government are running a scheme where if an individual goes into a pharmacy and asks for a “mask 19”—that is the code Spain has used—they are then referred to a domestic violence unit for assistance. I was wondering whether our Government had thought of a similar idea.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
This debate has been carried out in a constructive spirit and I hope that the Government listen to all suggestions, but this issue is a real concern. If this emergency lasts—which I am afraid it is going to—and people are put in situations where they are close to their abusers, we must still have some sort of safeguards in place, particularly in our courts system.
Our prisons cannot become laboratories for transmission, and neither can our immigration detention centres—a point that I hope the Paymaster General will pass on to the Home Secretary.
The issue of burial has clearly caused great controversy. I know that the Paymaster General is one of the people who have come up with the final version on this matter, and I thank her for the efforts that she has made. This issue is clearly vital for Muslims and those of the Jewish faith. Clearly, they need to be in a position where we respect their rights about burial as far as we possibly can. The wording of Government amendment 52 is now much stronger, and I welcome that, but the Government could also communicate with local authorities as to how they want that measure to be interpreted in the days and weeks ahead.
The Economy
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I met members of the Women’s Budget Group again yesterday, and they said that 86% of cuts were falling on women. Our society remains patriarchal, and many caring responsibilities still fall to them. Cuts in social care undermine the basis of support for many elderly people in particular, and that falls on the shoulders of women. This is what austerity has done over the last nine years. We are committed to providing free personal care for everyone, and that is what we will do.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Conservatives look after their own, and I agree with him. That is why we have cut the taxes of 32 million working people. That is why we are cutting taxes on businesses that are generating growth and employment for the people of this country.
John McDonnell
Tragically for so many at the lower levels, all those tax cuts have been cancelled out by cuts in benefits and the introduction of universal credit. Some of the most vulnerable, particularly disabled people, have been forced to the wall as a result of the brutal implementation of the work capability assessment and the scrapping of the independent living fund. There is a litany of attacks on ordinary working people that Labour Members should consider a disgrace.
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that, because it allows me to remind the House that since 2010, because of the actions that we have taken, including the rise in the minimum wage and tax cuts, the average person working full-time on the minimum wage is around £3,500 better off a year—that is because of actions we have taken.
Our relationship with the EU is a critically important factor affecting the UK economy, but it is of course not the only one. Unlike the Labour party, we will never talk down Britain’s economy. The shadow Chancellor has predicted a recession almost every year since we came into office, as he was doing just a moment ago—he does it all the time—but the underlying fundamentals of our economy are incredibly strong: nine years of growth; a healthy labour market with the lowest unemployment rate this country has seen in 45 years; low and stable inflation; and an attractive environment for foreign investment.
So I am optimistic about the future, but I am not complacent. We need to prepare our economy to seize the opportunities of leaving the EU, and that is why we are putting to the House the programme in this Queen’s Speech.
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend has already addressed one issue in looking at the impact assessments of various plans. Has he done an impact assessment of what the implications of borrowing £200 billion would be on the British economy—what it would do to future investment and future pensions, and what it would actually do to the working people of this country and how it would destroy their futures?
Sajid Javid
Even my nine-year-old daughter could do that impact assessment; she would not even need a calculator. It would crash the economy, like every Labour Government do.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I remind the House of the interests recorded in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In supporting the excellent Queen’s Speech, I wish to touch briefly on just three areas: expenditure, the new borrowing framework, and what more we can do to make our capitalism inclusive.
On expenditure, the new money for the NHS and for schools is extremely welcome. With regard to the NHS, I hope it will help to relieve the pressure on our general practitioners, to get more resources into mental health and to start to fill the gap between health and social care. I hope it can do all that without involving us in yet another bureaucratic reorganisation, at any level.
The extra money for schools is particularly welcome in Kent. At long last, it addresses the inequality of funding between some of our shires and the metropolitan areas. It will mean more for primary schools in my constituency, which have been historically underfunded. As that money comes through, I hope the Secretary of State for Education will also look into how we can better protect the main schools block, which authorities such as Kent are currently having to raid to cope with the increasing demands for special needs provision.
Having welcomed the extra expenditure, given that the previous fiscal framework is clearly under some stress, I also welcome the Chancellor’s ambition to set out in his Budget a new fiscal framework for the future. I hope the framework will be clear and credible for the markets, and I also hope he will avoid some of the fudgeable targets and fuzzy definitions and classifications that we saw in the later years of Gordon Brown’s chancellorship.
I hope that, as Conservatives, we will continue to look at how we defend and refresh our capitalism and make it more inclusive for all our country. Back in the 1980s, we developed popular capitalism: 11 million people in this country held shares and had a stake in the privatised industries. Thirty years on, too many of those private industries are too poorly regulated, and we have seen share ownership in decline. Let me give an example of two of those industries.
The first industry is rail. Last year, we Members of Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) was with me—had to intervene in the timetable chaos and persuade one rail operator that shared a line with another to pick up passengers who had been stranded by that other operator. Both rail operators were subsidiaries of the same group, so why did Members of Parliament have to intervene? Where was the rail regulator to sort it out? I welcome the proposals in the Queen’s Speech to look again at the structure of the industry and ensure that it is more accountable and better regulated.
The second industry is water. Thames Water has been privatised for 30 years. It pays hundreds of millions over to its shareholders and to its parent company, yet it is behind on its leakage targets and behind other water companies on the installation of smarter meters. Because it is behind, it is bleeding the chalk streams around London, including the River Darent, with the extraction of water that it needs to top up its supplies in the centre of London.
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend has been an example in helping to bring together the various companies to realise their duties. Does he agree that there are also good examples? Greggs has done an enormous amount by pushing share ownership to employees and has massively improved the equity stake that individuals have in the product of their own labour.
Sir Michael Fallon
I certainly understand that, and my hon. Friend takes me to the point with which I wish to conclude, which is what more we can do to encourage share ownership. Some of the employee share schemes we have—I have written to the Chancellor on this—are still very complicated. The qualifying periods are still very long and do not reflect the mobility of the modern workforce. I am afraid some of the lower-paid staff simply cannot afford to participate in them. I hope that when it comes to his Budget, the Chancellor will keep looking at how we can do more to promote employee share ownership in particular, by reducing the qualifying periods and giving people a real incentive to save.
Equitable Life
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I hope they will take it in the right way when I say that their continued presence here after a decade gives me an overwhelming sense of déjà vu. Having spent a couple of years’ penance on the Front Bench, I come back to find that, despite their sterling efforts, the issue is still before us.
The Equitable Life scandal is one of the greatest failures, perhaps the greatest failure, of public oversight and regulation in modern times, so it was the right decision to act in 2010. But, sadly, to act only partially was a failure of moral leadership, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) intimated.
The ombudsman’s report in 2008 was unambiguous, as the hon. Member for Leeds North East said, in calling for all those affected by injustice and maladministration from 1990 onwards to receive full compensation. The chairman of Equitable Life himself said that the report was inarguable. The report made no distinction between post-1992 and pre-1992 investors, and nor did anyone else—not the victims, not Equitable Life, not the ombudsman and not the Public Administration Committee. The Government’s rationale was that people who invested before 1992 were not affected by the scandal. Well, I am afraid that I completely disagree. These were long-term investments that were affected by ongoing and long-running maladministration. They were affected by the continuing failings of both Equitable Life and the regulators. Moreover, as we have heard, nearly all the pre-1992 cases involved some of the oldest and most vulnerable victims—they were also probably the poorest—who have so far received only a paltry sum of money. If the state fails to regulate properly, it inevitably forces that cost on to the consumer, and it is incumbent on the Government to make that right—and make it right in full.
The ombudsman was clear that there were fundamental failings by the then Department of Trade and Industry, the Government Actuary’s Department and the Financial Services Authority. The truth is that they knew, for most of the time, that this was a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has described it as such and we should understand that Ponzi schemes are frauds—it is straightforward and simple. The Government failed to ensure that accurate returns were in the public domain; they failed to take ample opportunities to step in; and they failed to use their full range of powers. So, frankly, it seems to me that the Treasury plucked a cut-off date from thin air—there is no other way of describing it.
The ombudsman called on the Government to compensate the victims fully: to put them in the position they would have been in if the scandal had not occurred. That is the test: where would they have been if this scandal had not occurred? Leaving aside the pre’92 victims, that is a far cry from the 22p in the pound that has, in effect, been paid to many of those whom we have chosen to compensate. As has been said, this ultimately comes down to an issue of public trust. These victims were not wealthy investors. Typically, in my constituency at least, they were retired factory workers, teachers, nurses and small businessmen, who believed they were setting themselves up for at least a tolerable and reasonable retirement—I was tempted to say a comfortable one. That is a perfectly honourable, reasonable and laudable ambition for all our citizens.
As my hon. Friend made clear, the Conservative party promised in our 2010 manifesto to compensate the victims—not partially compensate them or compensate some, but compensate them. Like him, I was a signatory to that—indeed, I was heavily involved in getting it to happen. So I feel personally committed to it, too. It was right there in black and white, and it is there with my signature on it, just like everybody else’s. A failure to right this wrong will only serve to further undermine the public’s trust in politics and financial institutions
The Government say, or said then, that this comes down to an issue of “affordability”, but affordability is always a decision of priority: what comes first? The Government did not say that they did not have any money—they said they did not have enough money. What is more important than this: keeping our word, supporting the poor, upholding an institution that is important to people in the future, as well as these victims? All those things make this issue incredibly important. So in my view the affordability argument was flawed in the first place, but that was the position. Now, even that falls down, because we are supposedly, as the Prime Minister tells us, at the end of the era of austerity—good. That should be good for every citizen, but it should be good first and foremost for those who have done the right thing, for those who have looked after themselves and for those who reasonably could have expected the Government to protect them.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) for his dulcet tones and helping us get through the afternoon.
We find ourselves here because of a series of events. We must remember that the day after the referendum, the campaigns disappeared. When we got to the leadership competition, many of the competitors disappeared. When we got to the election, sadly many of our seats disappeared, and we found ourselves without a majority. Despite that, we have a Prime Minister who, thank God, has shown fortitude, devotion and duty, when so many others have, sadly, disappeared.
I have plenty of criticism to make of the way these negotiations have been conducted, and I am sure I am not alone in doing so. I think we started the wrong way round. Rather than negotiating our way down, as it were, from our existing membership, we should have admitted the truth, which is that we have left the European Union—we left when the votes came in—and we should be negotiating our way up towards the relationship we want to see in the long term. Sadly, that is not what happened.
We find ourselves now looking towards a transition. After 45 years’ membership—about the same time that Elizabeth I was on the throne or the German empire existed—it is hardly surprising that the transition to a new relationship is important. We must use this opportunity to focus on not only what the interim stage looks like, but what the future looks like. That is why I would welcome much more effort going into the future agreement. It is true that the political declaration sets out some aspects of interest, and the backstop supposedly is used as a building block, but we need to see much more than either of those.
So what are we looking at today? We are looking at a stage. We are looking at—let us be frank—the only deal on the table. We are looking at a temporary, imperfect compromise, and an uncomfortable one at that—one that, were we to ever enter the backstop, splits the four freedoms of goods, capital, services and people.
The option we have is pretty simple. It is threefold: either we agree with this compromise; or we push for a second referendum, which I think is a terrible idea, as it will simply lead to more uncertainty and more indecision; or we walk away. As I represent a community—I am blessed to represent one of the most beautiful communities in the country—that, sadly, is surrounded by motorways entirely reliant on the port of Dover, there is a danger for us that those motorways will become parking lots, as many hon. Members will have heard me say when I raised this with the Transport Secretary. I am afraid that I cannot go for the referendum and I cannot go for walking away, so I am left really with only one choice. I do not say this with any joy. However, it is not our role to shirk responsibility or to avoid decisions; it is our role to take decisions. When I have excluded the impossible, I am left with only one—and that I have to say with a very heavy heart.
The backstop is not, however, as final as many have said, and here I quote from Policy Exchange’s work by Professor Verdirame, Sir Stephen Laws and Professor Ekins, about what the best endeavours obligation in the withdrawal agreement puts on the EU. They say:
“EU conduct in breach of such an obligation and indefinitely prolonging the application of the Protocol could thus amount to a material breach of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol. Faced with this situation, the UK would be entitled to invoke this material breach as a ground for the suspension or termination of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol.”
So there is a legal way out, and the legal way out is if the EU does not negotiate with best intent. I am confident that it will, because this is as bad for the EU as it is for us, though, frankly, it is not good for anyone.
I will end simply with a word about the referendum. It was legitimate. It did not go my way, but democracies do not always reflect the way we choose. When we get through this period, the next few years of this country’s history will be truly glorious. We are on the cusp of massive investment. We have companies sitting on cash and ready to throw it into the economy. We have a huge opportunity before us, and I look forward to our grasping it.
Windrush: 70th Anniversary
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and will come later to exactly those issues, which she raises so powerfully.
Sam King said of his decision to join the RAF:
“'I as a young man volunteered to contribute and fight Nazi Germany and by the Grace of God we won. It was a close thing, for example during Dunkirk a lot of people don’t realise that Britain stood alone, for nearly two years against tyranny… we as part of the former British Empire volunteered and contributed and I am glad I did that.”
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am drawn to the hon. Lady’s speech and delighted to be here to hear it. What she says is quite true, but of course Britain did not stand alone, and does not stand alone now; we stand alongside our brothers and sisters, who have grown up with us and with whom we have grown up, who came from all parts of what was once the empire and is now the Commonwealth and who have enriched our lives and our culture every day since our contacts were first built. The Windrush generation are not a foreign generation but our own generation and very much part of us. It is to that spirit of unity that she is speaking, and it is one of pride, not shame.
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree entirely with his comments.
Windrush passengers from the Caribbean travelled as British citizens as a result of the British Nationality Act 1948, which created a new category of “citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies” for anyone born or naturalised in either the UK or any of the countries subject to colonial rule. Writing on the 40th anniversary of the Windrush voyage, Sam King described the mixed feelings of the passengers as the ship left Jamaica:
“In the cool afternoon breeze as the sun tilted towards the west, the ship gave out three or four mighty blasts and eased out of Kingston Harbour heading for the Mother Land. About half the immigrants would not look back. In their hearts they were leaving the ‘Rock’ to start a new life in England where, once settled, they would send for their children, brother, sister, mother and father. The other half gazed at the azure sky, the sparkling sea, the majestic Blue Mountain, the beautiful horizon as they disappeared from view, and pledged to go back to the ‘Yard’ within the next five to ten years.”
The arrival of the Windrush at Tilbury docks was captured by Pathé on a news reel, interviewing some of the passengers about their plans, including calypso singer Aldwin Robert, also known as Lord Kitchener, performing his specially written song “London is the Place for Me” on deck, capturing the optimism of that moment.
About 200 Windrush passengers found temporary accommodation at the Clapham South deep air raid shelter, from where they found their way to the nearest labour exchange, on Coldharbour Lane in Brixton in my constituency, to look for work and permanent accommodation. Many found accommodation from Jamaican landlord Gus Leslie, who had bought property in and around Somerleyton Road in Brixton, and they settled in the area.
The Windrush passengers found London still devastated by the war—undeveloped bomb sites were everywhere, many properties were still damaged and rationing was still in place—but the new arrivals found work. Many passengers were responding specifically to the call for nurses to work in the NHS, which was formally established in July the same year. In my constituency, they went to King’s College Hospital, further down Coldharbour Lane from the labour exchange. As we also celebrate the 70th anniversary of our NHS this summer, we must pay tribute to the enormous contribution the Windrush generation made in both building and sustaining our NHS.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am deeply honoured to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), whose passionate and fluent speech addressed so many of the questions that affect the way we are building our society today. Of course I will not agree with every one of her remedies, but the fact that she is bringing together a pluralist and multicultural society, and expressing that with such warmth and feeling, is a great credit not just to her and her party, but to the whole House and our whole nation. The voice that she expresses is clearly not just her own, but one of the British people more widely, and I am grateful that I have the opportunity to follow her.
We are talking today not about a foreign generation or distant people but about ourselves. It may seem odd for me, with my background, to say so strongly that the Windrush generation are my generation, but they are. Just as they migrated from other parts of the world, so did my family. My grandfather came from Austria in the 1920s. He was a refugee in so many ways—in that case from a collapsing state: the Austro-Hungarian empire—and he travelled and found sanctuary here. In many ways he could have been called an economic migrant because that is what he was, as were many of the Windrush generation. What he brought with him was the energy, enterprise, imagination and creativity that helped to build the structures that allowed us to win the wars. He was not alone, and he was not dramatic or unique in that in any way—except that he was my grandfather, of course. He was part of a much wider generation.
Today, in focusing on the Windrush generation, we focus predominantly on those who are of Caribbean origin, but that is where I would like to expand this conversation. This debate is not just about one people; it is about the whole of the United Kingdom, and our United Kingdom is just that—united—because it is united from peoples around the world. Whatever we may think of the legacy of empire, the richness that it has given these islands is quite remarkable. We have here, even in this city, hundreds of different nations represented. We have many different languages spoken, and like all the best investment schemes, diversity is the strongest form of success. Today, in this United Kingdom, we have the diversity that ensures the richness and depth of our success.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
While it is true that one of the better legacies of empire is the diversity of our nations and cities, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that a place does not need to have been an imperial power? In certain parts of Canada, for example, the diversity and richness of cultures is at least as much as we find in a place like London, and it has never attempted to be a colonial power over anybody.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right, although one would be hard-pressed to say that Canada was not the legacy of empire. After all, the fact that there are so many Scots in Canada is a legacy of the English and French empires that stretched into Canada 200 or 300 years ago, but I appreciate the point he is making.
To come back to talking about the United Kingdom, when we look around the United Kingdom, if we focus solely on the Afro-Caribbean community, important though it is, we miss the wealth that we get from so many others. I would like to highlight some of the communities that are not normally touched on when we talk about the Windrush community, but are just as much a part of that generation. I want to talk about the Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan and Indian communities. The subcontinent that for years—for generations—was seen as so remote brought with it, when it came to these islands, the heat, wealth and imagination of its people. It brought with it not only the spice that we now enjoy so much in our food, but the technology and imagination that its people have brought to all parts. If one looks today at Birmingham, one sees the imagination and creativity that is evident across that city. If one looks at some of those businesses that started from nothing and listens to some of the children and grandchildren of those migrants who came with £1 in their pocket, thinking that £1 might take them a little bit further than a week or two—only to realise that it would not even get them the train ticket to go to see their cousin who lived up country—one sees that the people who arrived here came with a drive and a determination that has really transformed not just us, but the world.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I apologise that I was not here for the opening of my hon. Friend’s remarks due to Parliamentary Private Secretary duties. Does he agree that there is also the entrepreneurial spirit that many brought from the Indian subcontinent? For example, I opened the National Federation of Retail Newsagents conference in Torquay on Monday, and we see the impact in that industry, in particular, of the many entrepreneurial people who came to this country from the Commonwealth.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will not know this, but I was a beneficiary of that entrepreneurial spirit. When I was learning to be a journalist, one of the papers that I worked for was Eastern Eye, a newspaper that was started by a couple of brothers in their bedroom, as it were, and is now an important voice for a major community in our country.
We are focusing on the Windrush gift to the United Kingdom, but there is a much wider gift here—a gift to the world of those people. Just as our own people, whether they come from these islands 1,000 years ago or come from these islands 10 years ago, have demonstrated the drive and energy to transform this part of the world, the connections around the world have also been transformed. This is where I think we have to focus now as a people, because too many countries today are looking inwards. Too many are seeing the borders, whether they be land or sea. They are seeing those borders as boundaries, and of course, they are not. Those borders are merely the front door to the rest; the front door to the other; the front door to our friends.
That is what we must start thinking about today as we change our relationship with our European friends, and as we change the way in which we interact around the world. We should be looking at the Windrush generation, and, of course, at all the generations, whether they are, like mine, emerging from a broken central Europe, or, like others, emerging from the heat, the sun and the light of the tropical climates from which so many came. Wherever they came from, we need to remember that the links that now tie this House of Commons, this people and these islands to the rest of the world are in no way a drag, but are, in a very fundamental sense, an enrichment.
This must be our new strategy. This must be our new approach: not just looking at the past, but looking at the future. If we can use these links of history, blood and understanding, reinvigorate them, and transform them again into the links that we all want to see—links of enterprise, energy, trade and culture—we shall have an extraordinary future for ourselves, built on a legacy that we all share, built on an enterprise that we all share, and built, fundamentally, on the memory that we are one people, one United Kingdom, and together we have a glorious future.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I really do not know how to follow that outstanding contribution from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). When we remember where he has been earlier today and what he has had to put himself through over the past couple of days, we can see that it was an indescribably superb contribution. I hope Members will not expect me to reach anything like either the depth of knowledge or the eloquence he was able to deliver.
Let me also commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate and for her initial contribution, because she put the whole thing into context: possibly the most important thing we need to remember about the Windrush generation is that they came to the UK because the UK begged them to come. There was none of this nonsense we see now about how somehow we are doing people a huge favour and we have been a wee bit too kind in letting them in. The Windrush generation were begged to come. They were pleaded with to come. It was their duty to uproot themselves from everything they knew and travel halfway around the world to a place they had only ever seen on postage stamps and posters to do a job that the UK simply did not have the people to do.
At that point the United Kingdom incurred a permanent and non-removable debt, not only to the Windrush generation but to their children and grandchildren, and to generations to come, because had the Windrush passengers not come here, these islands would have taken decades to recover from the devastation of the war—and that was only their immediate contribution. As was said earlier, all the population centres where the Windrush generation eventually settled are what they are today because of the Windrush legacy. That is particularly true of London, but also of other great cities, such as Manchester and Cardiff. North of the border, there is a significant West Indian tradition in parts of Glasgow, not from the Windrush time but from times before and after it.
It is intensely sad that the racism experienced by so many of the Windrush passengers 60 or 70 years ago, which the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood referred to, has not gone away. It is perhaps a bit less obvious and less frequent—although I know perfectly well that there is a lot of racism that I do not experience, for obvious reasons—but it is still there. Only last week, Louis Smith, as proud an Englishman as many others present—I nearly said as proud an Englishman as me!—who has won world and European gymnastics championships for England and a string of Olympic gymnastics medals for Britain, was a passenger on a train, sitting in first class, which meant that he was entitled to free tea, coffee and biscuits when the trolley came around. The guy with the trolley was entitled to check that everybody in first class had a first-class ticket. He went through the entire carriage and checked the tickets of the two black men, but he did not check the tickets of any of the white men. We can perhaps take a tiny bit of comfort from the fact that it was a white guy sitting beside Louis Smith who first noticed and challenged it. Quite properly, the rail company issued an immediate apology and promised to investigate. Imagine, in this day and age, anybody in any employment at all thinking that it could be remotely acceptable to assume that somebody was more likely to be dodging their fare just because of the colour of their skin.
Today I saw a couple of tweets from ScotRail, the main rail service provider in Scotland. Somebody had tweeted ScotRail to express concerns about the safety of the train on which he was travelling, because he had just discovered that a Pakistani was driving the train. I am proud to say that ScotRail responded by telling him to get off and walk. If that person can be traced and identified, I am sure that it will be a long, long time before they are made welcome on any of ScotRail’s services. The fact that such naked racism can still find a place in our society is something that we should all be deeply ashamed of and deeply worried about, because we know where it can lead.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is making the extremely important point that, of course, racism is sadly not dead in our society; in fact, it is not dead in any society in the world. It is a blight on the minds of humans who seek to divide rather than to unite, and it is a great tragedy that we as humans have not been able to overcome it. Is there not, though, a moment of pride—the hon. Gentleman speaks of it quite rightly—that ScotRail did not react as its predecessors may have done in the ’30s, but saw what had happened for the sin and the wrong that it was? Is it not also right that although the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke so passionately, truly and rightly about the horrors, immorality and wrongs of slavery, we should also be proud that for all the sins and errors that this country committed in allowing slavery and ever tolerating it, it was this country—this House—that abolished slavery for the first time?
Peter Grant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. The first place that made slavery illegal was actually Scotland, not England, but we will not argue about that.
Peter Grant
None of our countries can be proud of the fact that slavery was there to be abolished in the first place. In fact, I said in a Westminster Hall debate not that long ago that although I was born just inside what is now the boundary of the great city of Glasgow and consider myself to be part Weegie—by birth if not by residence—and although I am intensely proud of a lot of what Glasgow is, I can never forget the fact that Glasgow became the second city of the empire based on slavery. Where do we think the sugar was produced so that ships were needed to bring it across the Atlantic ocean? Why do we think a lot of ships were needed to bring cotton into the mills of Manchester or anywhere else? The people who produced that cotton were not given a living wage or any kind of decent working conditions. They had no choice about where they worked or what hours they worked. They were not treated as human beings; they were treated as possessions. Sometimes the machines that they were working with were treated with greater care than they were.
It was the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those human possessions who then answered the call and came over to Britain to help put us back on our feet after the war. That was a remarkable gesture, because slavery was recent enough for them to remember it. Some of the older generation who they were living with would have been slaves in their younger days. They were enslaved by the white folk. They were enslaved by the mother country—or their near ancestors were—yet they still answered the call for help and came over to help sort things out. That is something that is simply impossible to comprehend.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
It is a privilege to contribute to this debate and to add to all the great speeches today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing both this debate and the Speaker’s apartments for next week’s Windrush celebrations, organised in conjunction with Jamaica National Bank and The Voice. I agree with what she said about the Black Cultural Archives and making sure that the Black Cultural Archives receives funding, and about 22 June being Windrush Day for us to celebrate. I would also like to pay my respects to the survivors of Grenfell. I will be on the silent march with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) after this debate.
I would like to paint a picture of an expat from Jamaica named Jeff. When he landed, he had his hat, he was pressed and dressed, as they liked to say—his clothes were very smartly pressed—and he walked with his grip, which to everybody else is a suitcase. When he landed, he was shocked by the smog that confronted him, that all the houses were so close together he thought they were factories, and that there were no front or back gardens, which was very different from the green, green grass of home. And this was his mother land. As he passed the houses and the signs that read, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”, he made his way to a shared house in east London owned by a Jewish family who were great allies of the Windrush generation.
That expat was my father. His first job, which he got almost immediately, was working in a Matchbox factory making little toy cars. The factory no longer exists, but there might be some cars in the loft still that are worth some money. When that closed, he worked for London Underground. All that time, he also worked as a gigging musician. He used to tell me about singing in pubs where black people were not welcome or were scared to go.
My dad contributed greatly to this country, not only in the work he did but in breaking down so many societal barriers. Once he had made enough money, he rented a room and sent for my mother. She came to this country and was surprised at a number of things: that food was cooked without seasoning, that English people only bathed once a week and went to bath houses, and that children did not have school clothes, playing-out clothes and church clothes, which were an absolute must in a Jamaican household.
The contribution of the Windrush generation is vast and varied. They were proud not only of how they dressed but of how they were as a community, and they were proud of their mother land, as they called it. They did not know the Jamaican national anthem, because they came before Jamaica became independent. They only knew the British national anthem.
Can we imagine this generation of people, who came to this country to rebuild it with such pride not only in how they looked but in how they conducted themselves, now feeling, in 2018, surplus to requirements? After giving this country the best years of their lives, they have been told that they need to go back, that they are illegal or that they are no longer wanted. It is heartbreaking when I hear the stories of people who come into my surgery in tears, clutching as many bits of paper as they can find. It is heartbreaking when I receive emails from teachers saying, “I remember teaching the children of the Windrush generation. Is there anything I can do? Will the Government accept my evidence to prove that these people were here as British citizens?” And it is all the more heartbreaking because it was the Prime Minister who created the hostile environment. The Prime Minister was previously the Home Secretary and therefore shoulders full responsibility for the hostile environment.
Tom Tugendhat
I take the hon. Lady’s point and I hope she will take this in the spirit in which it is meant. I share passionately, as she knows, a desire for this situation to be addressed. I have written about the policy and I have condemned it very vocally, but one must recognise that this came out of a period when both parties were doing the same thing. I do not say that with any joy, but I think the shame is shared. It is certainly not with any joy, I am sure, that she will recognise that Home Secretaries under her own party also spoke about a hostile environment. Sadly, it is something the whole House has to bear, not just one party.
Dawn Butler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I take his point that parties spoke about a hostile environment. The big difference is that the Prime Minister, as Home Secretary, not only spoke about it but created policies that ensured a number of people then became complicit in creating the hostile environment: doctors, nurses, teachers and landlords. It is unusual, rare and dangerous that somebody in authority instructs people to create a hostile environment for their own citizens. We have to be very mindful of that.
It could just be a coincidence, Mr Speaker, but my decision to sit on the Back Benches and speak in this debate today has created a flurry of activity in my office. My office received a call from the Prime Minister’s office with regard to several letters I sent to which I am still waiting for a response. As I say, that could just be a coincidence. For the record, I would like to raise in the Chamber some of the points I have raised in those letters to which I am still awaiting a response.
It is very important that we know how and when cases will be expedited, what new pathways will need to be created and whether the cost of fast-tracked naturalisation—it can cost about £2,000—will be waived. We have been assured that it will. The “Life in the UK Test” also needs to be waived. The people being victimised at the moment are ageing. They are of pensionable age and they need access to healthcare. Some of that is being denied, so we need a clear timetable for when all of this will be achieved, as well as a clear timetable for compensation.
The other issue I raised in my letters is whether the Prime Minister was warned that her decision to tighten immigration controls and have a hostile environment would harm Commonwealth citizens who were here legally. I am yet to receive a response. I need to receive that response. It is very important, and not just because I am a daughter of the Windrush generation. Martin Luther King said that if you are not opposed to a system of detrimental actions or incarcerations, you then become complicit in it. I do not want to be complicit in the actions of this Government who have created legislation that is institutionally racist.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke about the injustices of slavery and the people who were enslaved. I wholeheartedly agree with everything that he said. The Labour Government will create a slavery educational trust based on the Holocaust Educational Trust—because the international slave trade was the African holocaust. We have heard lots of contributions about slavery and enslavement, and how it ended. We need more factual talk, discussion and education on the issue. A slavery educational trust will enable that to happen and quash some of the misunderstandings and misnomers.
I do not think the Prime Minister is a bad person, but I do wonder whether she really understands the emotional and generational trauma that she has created with not just her words but her actions on the hostile environment. It pains me to highlight that these policies are institutionally racist, but they are. As the Prime Minister and her Government work through the race audit that she has instructed civil servants to deliver, I hope that she will also implement section 1 of the Equality Act 2010, which talks about the socioeconomic duty of Government.
As we celebrate, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, the 70th anniversary of Windrush, we need not just to appreciate but to compensate. Martin Luther King said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.” I hope that the Minister will go some way towards talking about the right thing that this Government will do. I also hope that the Prime Minister will reflect on her hostile environment policies and do the right thing.
Budget Resolutions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. We have heard considerable pessimism from Opposition Members, but I rise to welcome the Chancellor’s statement. In particular, I welcome the increased investment across the United Kingdom, which will bring an additional £660 million of benefit to Northern Ireland. That is much needed, because it has been a difficult few years. Significant budget pressures across all Departments in Northern Ireland, combined with constricted or limited real-terms budget growth year on year, have led to significant challenges. Difficult decisions had to be made, and people and services in Northern Ireland suffered.
I fully support the principle of fiscal responsibility, but austerity has felt punishing to many. It has been particularly acute in Northern Ireland, because we have been struggling to emerge from the decades of underinvestment that resulted from a long period of violence. We have been trying to rebalance our economy, which is still too reliant on the public sector. I welcome the fiscal loosening that is outlined in the Budget. Of course, we would like to see further loosening in the years ahead, and particular reference has been made to pensions and the plight of the WASPI women. In addition, we feel there needs to be some acknowledgement that additional public sector pay award funds should not come from within budgets, putting pressure on frontline services.
In this Budget, there is an emphasis on capital. In Northern Ireland we have huge pressures, particularly in education and health, which require revenue and resource investment, along with capital. I acknowledge that capital is incredibly important in growing our economy and investing in our infrastructure, but resource pressures often impact the most on frontline services. In the years ahead, I hope that we will continue to have very positive conversations about easing those matters. As has been indicated, our public services, particularly health, need significant investment to transform and become truly fit for purpose. I suppose Northern Ireland’s situation is slightly different from that of some areas represented in the House in that we will have a Barnett consequential from this Budget, so there will be flexibility on the prioritisation of those funds—the £660 million.
There are aspects of this Budget that will benefit Northern Ireland in a positive way. For example, Northern Ireland stands ready to play its part in the technological revolution and the drive to make the United Kingdom the true world leader in this area. This is indeed the future, and Northern Ireland has an excellent offering to make. We have a very highly skilled employment base, with low staff turnover, and we have much innovation. Our universities, such as Queen’s University in my constituency of Belfast South, are prepared and determined to play a full part in this digital and tech revolution.
I welcome the fact that the Budget goes some way to acknowledge how difficult the past few years have been for many, including in Northern Ireland. The relaxation of the pay cap, particularly the welcome indications in relation to nurses’ pay, the stamp duty exemption and the increases in the personal allowance and the national living wage will bring much wanted and deeply desired financial support to many who are genuinely struggling.
Such matters apply directly in Northern Ireland, but I want to mention the Barnett consequential and the decisions that need to be made in Northern Ireland in relation to the Budget. It grieves me that there is no Executive in place to examine today’s proposals and make such decisions. We need an Executive to look at what is coming from this Budget, to listen to the people on the ground in Northern Ireland—organisations, those who benefit from public services, businesses that need to grow—and feed that back into and prioritise it for our own Northern Ireland budget.
We in the Democratic Unionist party are doing everything we can to bring government back to Northern Ireland, but we will not and we cannot be held to ransom by narrow and divisive cultural and identity politics. This is a terrible situation in Northern Ireland, and although there has been much talk in the House today about Brexit and its impact, in Northern Ireland we are in the twilight zone: we have a senior civil service in charge of Departments, with no accountability, because we have neither direct rule Ministers nor local Ministers. There is no constitutional or democratic accountability in Northern Ireland for public spending, and there has not been for 10 months. This is an appalling situation, and I urge the Government to step in and do everything they can to support the re-establishment of the Executive or to bring in direct rule Ministers, because this lack of democratic accountability cannot continue.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very important point about democratic accountability in Northern Ireland. Does she agree with the suggestion made by some that the pay of Members of the Legislative Assembly should be suspended until they manage to get together and form the Executive?
Emma Little Pengelly
I have only three minutes left, so I will not get into that specific issue, save to say that very many MLAs across Northern Ireland are working hard to try to restore government in Northern Ireland and to deliver for people in very difficult circumstances, but the entirety of Northern Ireland is being held to ransom—health and education are being held to ransom.
This is all the more important in relation to Brexit. I welcome the investment announced in the Budget today for ensuring a sensible and positive Brexit. Such a Brexit will require investment, and it is particularly important for Northern Ireland. However, because of the lack of a Northern Ireland Executive, it is incredibly difficult to make our case and ensure that we get the best possible outcome for Northern Ireland. A lot of nonsense has been spoken about this issue in recent days. In fact, what amounts almost to hysteria has been whipped up about it in the Republic of Ireland. This is vital to our economy. As has been reported today, things will be challenging on growth and productivity, but we are keen to fight for Northern Ireland through all this and get the best possible Brexit.
In conclusion, it is a disgrace that we have no Northern Ireland Finance Committee in place to examine this Budget and no Ministers to make decisions. The people on the ground are suffering, and it is because Sinn Féin is refusing to go back into government. At this time, a budget should be being brought forward for the Northern Ireland Assembly for next year. I was astounded that today, instead of examining this Budget and bringing forward proposals, our erstwhile Finance Minister, who is not in place, is standing outside Queen’s University at a student protest. That is a disgrace, as people are suffering.
I welcome today’s Budget statement and the fiscal loosening indicated within it. We will continue to raise issues of concern to Northern Ireland to ensure that we get the best deal. This is a bad situation, and the Government need to work with us to try to find solutions and deliver for all across all communities in Northern Ireland.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Stephen Barclay)
May I first congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee? As she will be aware from her Bank of England days, this is a matter for the Financial Policy Committee. Indeed, the FPC noted in its recent report that consumer credit is growing at a lower rate than it was under the previous Labour Government, but loss rates on lending remain low, as they are at present.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
T2. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will know from his time in the Foreign Office that one of the great strengths of our great kingdom is the perception of fairness we enjoy around the world. Will he talk a little about fairness in financial transactions, as the hidden taxes imposed by many companies on investment are grossly unfair on those who are saving in pensions for the future?
Stephen Barclay
There is a theme here, because I should congratulate my hon. Friend on his election as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Government are committed to the principles of transparency. He will have noted the recent Financial Conduct Authority report on the asset management market study. Indeed, we are seeing technology—in particular, through FinTech—driving the sort of transparency to which he refers.
Economy and Jobs
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
May I extend personal thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your kindness these last few days? I am particularly grateful that you have found time to accommodate me today.
May I pay huge tribute to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who has taken her place and made her maiden speech? Her passion will certainly do huge credit to her community, and I am sure that she will be a powerful voice in this House. Her predecessor, Byron Davies, was also a fantastic advocate for the beautiful area of Gower.
We took a huge strategic decision a year ago when we voted to leave the European Union. I know that not everybody in this place voted the same way—in fact, we know that the vote was extremely close. I argued that our sovereignty and influence would not be diminished by remaining, but the electorate chose a different way. I argued that the complexity of leaving would be great, but the people, in their wisdom, chose a different route. I also argued that the impact on our economy would likely be severe in the coming years, and I am delighted that the speedy actions of the Bank of England and the Chancellor have made sure that this year has gone significantly better than anybody hoped or predicted. The Government deserve credit for that.
In a bold move we have now, let us face it, jumped out of the aeroplane. I am not saying it is always a bad idea to jump out of aeroplanes—I can assure Members that there are sometimes some very good reasons to do so—but the essence of courage is not to take one bold decision but to reinforce it. When one has taken the first, one needs to make sure that the others follow. That is why I welcome this Queen’s Speech. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) in saying that the Government are looking not to legislate too much but to legislate importantly. That is essential, because if we clog this place up with legislation, we will not have time to do the most important thing, which is governing— and, of course, talking, because as we start the incredibly complex negotiations with the European Union, we need to make sure that we are ready.
That is why I argue strongly that, having taken this first step, we need to do three things. The first is to be bold. We must be bold in ensuring that we create alliances across the continent of Europe and across the world, not just with friends and with central Governments but with individuals—mayors, MPs and people representing communities that will be affected by Brexit, in many ways as much as we will. We need to hit at the micro level, because at the macro level we represent 8% of European trade, but at the micro level we represent a hell of a lot more in towns in Sweden, in villages in France and in communities in Spain and Italy. We need to make sure that the representatives of those places are on our side, because Brexit is not just about Britain; it is about Europe, so they must be part of the conversation too.
The second thing we must do is be open. Some people will rightly chide the elements of the campaigns that were negative, harsh and at some points, let us face it, bordering on racism. I am delighted to say that most people on the campaigns, including those I opposed, argued for an open, welcoming Britain—a Britain that welcomes people like the parents of the hon. Member for Gower, who came here and made a contribution to our community, and not just ice cream. The past seven years of Conservative Government have seen businesses succeed from that openness, with 1,000 jobs a day and an amazing improvement in the economy. However, that improvement is not without effort or challenge, which is why we must be honest when we mention things such as the seasonal agricultural workers scheme as a solution. Yes, it is a bit of a solution, but in reality we need such a scheme for the NHS, for tourism, and for any number of different engineering and educational places, to ensure that we do not pay for Brexit with a failing economy. I know that many people who voted to leave will agree that such openness is necessary.
The third point is that we must be honest with our people that the complexity and uncertainty we are facing today are likely to continue for a little longer. We must be honest that in reality we cannot guarantee that at the end of 18 months we will get a deal, or that our negotiating partners will agree to the terms for which we are asking. We must be honest about that, because if we are not we cannot expect those who create jobs and make wealth in our society, and those who invest, employ and grow companies, to take decisions. I ask very much for those three things.
If I may, I will also ask for one more thing, which is that we look at Brexit as a reality, not an ideology. Too often, I have felt myself back in a theology lecture hall hearing about the way to heaven, to Jannah, or to the Elysian fields, but Brexit is not paradise. Brexit is made for the people and it is an opportunity for which they voted; it is not the people who are made for Brexit.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Tom Tugendhat ExcerptsTuesday 18th April 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2017 View all Finance Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Plausibility ran through every sentence in the Minister’s speech. Plausibility ran riot, but plausibility I do not accept.
Who would have thought that a general election would be called on the day we were in this Chamber, which is packed-out, for this scintillating debate? I do not think anyone would have thought that. Only a few weeks have passed since the Chancellor’s shambolic Budget U-turn, yet today the Prime Minister has announced a U-turn in relation to the general election. We all thought the lady was not for turning, as she has led us to believe on at least seven occasions, and of course we were wrong. [Interruption.] Apparently the Prime Minister did not want an election, and clearly in the last few days she has had some sort of damascene conversion—a damascene conversion to democracy, apparently. We had the Brexit referendum last year which gave authority to push on with Brexit, but we now find that the Prime Minister says she wants even more authority. I thought we had been getting the Brexit vote pushed on us time after time, but clearly that has not been enough. The Prime Minister might possibly be feeling slightly insecure; I really do not know, but we are where we are.
As the Finance Bill is a product of the Budget, it is only right that we start this debate by offering a reminder of its contents. Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, the Budget continued the Government’s programme of tax cuts for multinational corporations and the super rich: by the end of 2021 they would have received £70 billion-worth of tax breaks, paid for by those on middle and low incomes and of course the self-employed. [Interruption.] That is a fact; it is clear from the Office for Budget Responsibility’s figures and the Government figures.
The Budget failed, however, to address adequately the social care crisis, and we are now seeing 900 adult social workers in England leaving the profession every day—and goodness knows how many GPs getting their pension statements are ready for moving on as well. It also did little to support small and medium-sized business owners, who are the lifeblood of the economy and increasingly feeling the pressure as the economy slows and inflation rises.
More importantly, the Budget demonstrates that this Government are willing to break their manifesto commitments at the drop of a hat. Despite the Chancellor’s bravado, the Government’s economic ineptitude after seven years is clear for all to see. His Government have presided over the slowest recovery since the 1920s, with growth and average earnings downgraded yet again. The Chief Secretary said in his Budget speech that the Government do not believe in “spending and promising” what they “cannot deliver” and agreed that that is an important barometer by which to judge the Government’s record. Let us look, therefore, at what the Government have promised over the past seven years and what they have actually delivered.
On coming to power, the Conservatives committed to balancing the books by 2015—a Conservative broken promise. They said that would be pushed back to 2019-20—another Conservative broken promise. Instead, by 2020 they plan to be borrowing an eye-watering £21.4 billion. Some 10 of the Government’s 14 Budget and autumn statements since 2010 have seen an increase in forecasted borrowing. This Government’s record on borrowing has been missed target after missed target, with constant upward revision. The Government pledged that debt as a percentage of GDP would start to fall in 2015; instead it continues to grow—another Conservative broken promise.
The Government’s record on growth has been one of epic failure. The OBR has now revised down economic growth for 2018 and for every remaining year of the Parliament, notwithstanding the comments made before about the OECD. The British people wait to see any benefits of growth, but the only growth they can expect to see is in the size of the Government’s Finance Bills; this one is a whopper, coming in at 762 pages, longer than any previous Finance Bill and one of the largest pieces of proposed legislation ever presented to this House. Those 762 pages are hardly riveting reading, I have to say. [Interruption.] I have read every single syllable of it, several times.
We would need to search long and hard through those hundreds of pages for anything that helps ordinary taxpayers. Instead it is replete with ever-more complex giveaways to corporations and the super-rich. But even those hundreds of pages are not enough to contain the Government’s giveaways to the rich. This mammoth Bill will be supplemented by an unprecedented number of statutory instruments, on the back of the Treasury’s already unheard of use of SIs. There were 90 in the last Session, and there have already been 88 in this one. We have heard about Henry VIII edicts, but this makes the Chancellor look like a committed parliamentarian.
The growth in the size of the legislation is matched only by the growth in the number of broken Conservative promises. Are this Government doing anything to deliver growth that benefits the average household? The Chancellor has consistently pledged action to tackle the UK’s productivity gap, but under this Government, this country’s productivity gap with the G7 has grown by a fifth, and we now have the largest gap since 1991. The Conservatives were in government at that time as well.
This Government have done little to tackle the scandal of chronic low pay and insecure work. Despite falling unemployment, workers are currently suffering their worst decade for pay in 70 years. Rising inflation is now outstripping wage growth and, according to the Resolution Foundation, real-terms pay is now falling for around 40% of the UK workforce. The Government’s promise of a £9 national living wage has been consistently revised downwards—first to £8.80 and now to £8.75—while rising inflation results in the cost of living going up for everyone. It is clear that when it comes to introducing a wage that working people can live on, only a Labour Government will deliver. This Finance Bill does little to address the crisis in living standards that many of our constituents are currently feeling. Nor does it offer support for small and medium-sized businesses, which are facing rising costs and a lack of investment due to the Government’s hard Brexit strategy—if you can call it a strategy.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that they seem to run contrary to the facts as I see them. I see businesses coming to Britain, I see investment moving to Britain, and I see opportunity starting in Britain. This all seems to run contrary to his argument, and I wonder whether he can explain why businesses see Britain as a land of opportunity and growth when he clearly does not do so.
Peter Dowd
If that is what the hon. Gentleman sees, I suggest that he needs to take off his rose-tinted spectacles.
We are all aware that the only Conservative idea for the shape of a post-Brexit economy is to turn our once pride-worthy economy into a bargain basement tax haven. That is what the Conservatives want. We have had seven years of slogans from this Government, but we still have no evidence that their negotiations on Europe amount to anything more than something written on the back of a fag packet. They are non-existent, and they have been non-existent for the two or three years since the announcement of the referendum, other than their preparation to sell us down the river to tax avoiders and dodgy dealers across the globe.
The Government make great claims on tackling tax avoidance in the Bill—we heard the Minister talk about this earlier—but it is a charter for tax avoiders, and no amount of smokescreens and bluffing can hide that fact. The Chancellor wants us to believe that measures to bring some non-doms into tax will really tackle the problem, but throughout the Bill we see measures to preserve the special status of non-doms and to privilege that group over domiciled taxpayers. Even the Government’s headline “deeming” measure is undermined because they have chosen to preserve the non-dom status of offshore trusts. How on earth is this going to get more taxes paid if non-doms are being forewarned that they can simply hide their money away in a trust and still keep it beyond the Revenue’s grasp? When is closing a loophole not closing a loophole? When it is hidden in a magic spreadsheet.
The Bill fails to introduce any meaningful measures to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, which even this Government admit are costing at least £36 billion a year. In short, this Finance Bill continues to push our country towards a low-tax and low-pay economy in which a small minority of the rich can get wealthier at the expense of everybody else.
Tom Tugendhat
It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way again. As he has brought up the NHS, I feel that it is only right for us to ask how Labour is doing on the NHS. We have to look to Wales to see how Labour is doing—not well, is the answer. The statistics from the NHS in Wales indicate that treatment is poorer, waiting lists are longer and people are less satisfied than they are in England or, indeed, in Scotland, where the SNP has, sadly, also delivered worse results.
Peter Dowd
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to waiting lists in England, where an estimated 3.8 million people are waiting for treatment. I suggest that he should be more concerned about those 3.8 million people in England than he is about Wales.
Peter Dowd
A million people in employment are on zero-hours contracts. Millions of people are in insecure work. Of course I welcome employment, but it has to be secure, well-paid, reasonable, sensible employment that allows people to sustain their families. Under this Government, millions of people are unable to sustain an ordinary life with the wages they receive. That is the reality.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Does he understand that his pledge further to increase taxes runs directly contrary to his hope for better employment? Increasing taxes and increasing the burden of the state on companies around our country would lead to employment falling, not rising. Welfare cases would rise, not fall. It would be generally bad for our entire economy.
Peter Dowd
I do not know which speech the hon. Gentleman has been listening to, but I did not refer to raising taxes.
Peter Dowd
No, I did not. I was asked earlier how I would pay for the changes, and I indicated that I would start with corporations. In effect, corporations receive £70 billion in relief over a five-year to six-year period through banking levy reductions and so on. That is the starting point for us. As far as I am concerned, the Bill takes us no closer to knowing when the Conservatives will finally meet their target of closing the deficit. A series of failures has led them to borrow more than any other Government in history, and far more than every Labour Government combined. That is the fact of the matter.