Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Yes, I have made it clear on many occasions that when we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, we will also leave the single market and the customs union. Those are matters of legal necessity. My focus is on ensuring that thereafter we put in place the closest and deepest possible partnership with our European neighbours that will allow us to continue the patterns of trade and business, patterns of security co-operation and patterns of educational exchange and scientific and research collaboration that we enjoy now. That is the best way to protect Britain’s prosperity.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Unsecured borrowing has rocketed, and lenders warn that default rates on credit cards and other products this summer will be at their highest level at any point since the height of the financial crisis. Instead of simply passing the buck to the Financial Policy Committee, what are the Government going to do in public policy to alleviate the serious risk of a household debt crisis?

Economy and Jobs

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

If the Chancellor is so proud of his economic record, why did the Conservatives not discuss it during the course of the election campaign? Is it possibly because, after seven years of this Government, the Prime Minister stood before the electorate resembling that great baddie from “The Chronicles of Narnia” promising always winter but never Christmas?

[Mr Hammond]

I have not got to it yet, but the hon. Gentleman will hear an elaboration of our record since 2010 in just a moment.

I was talking about the 1970s, a decade when the lights literally went out, when inflation was in double digits, the country was crippled by strikes and bully-boy union power, and the Labour Government were forced to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a bailout. The pretence of fiscal credibility is gone from Labour’s offer. The new pretence is that the cost of its spending spree would fall on someone else—the rich, corporates and foreign investors—but it would not. The cost would fall, as it always does when Labour gets its hands on the British economy, on ordinary people trying to get on with their lives.

If the Shadow Chancellor would put down “Das Kapital” for a few minutes and read an elementary economics textbook, he would understand why. Take Labour’s proposed corporation tax hike. The IFS analysis is pretty straightforward. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the IFS, but it said that

“much of the cost is likely to be passed to workers through lower wages or consumers through higher prices”.

The IFS is not alone. The shadow Chancellor’s predecessor, Mr Ed Balls, agrees. He says:

“The argument from this Labour manifesto that only the rich will pay, I don’t think it stacks up. From opposition, you can say, ‘Don’t worry, someone else will pay’–but you can’t do that in government.”

He might have added, “not if you seriously aspire to be in government”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), and then I must make some progress.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way to me a second time. I think he has presented a range of procedural barriers that could be overcome in a negotiation to ensure that Britain remains in the single market and the customs union, as other non-EU members do. Does he accept that anything less than membership of the single market and the customs union will not give Britain as good a deal as the one that we currently have? He knows that that poses a risk to our economy, and one that none of us in the House should entertain.

[Mr Hammond]

No, I do not agree with that. I think it is perfectly clear that it should be possible to negotiate an agreement with the European Union that provides for mutual, reciprocal access to each other’s marketplaces, and for frictionless arrangements for goods crossing the borders. That would not be membership of the single market or membership of the customs union, for all sorts of legal reasons, but it could have, to a very large extent, the same effect over a transitional period. I think that that is possible to achieve.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I said in the Budget speech and previously in the autumn statement, we are seeking to do three things: to keep Britain on track for balancing the budget as early as possible in the next Parliament through fiscal discipline; to invest in Britain’s future to raise our productivity and ensure a decent standard of living for everybody across this country, on which we made further steps in this Budget by investing in skills; and to ensure that we have enough fiscal headroom in our fiscal position to allow for any events that arise over the coming years. We need the ability to manoeuvre as we go through what will be a period of unusual uncertainty in the planning of our economy.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

More than 10,000 people in Ilford North will welcome the Chancellor’s damascene conversion to the novel idea that parties might keep the promises in their manifesto. What does it say about the competence of this Government, on a day when they reveal that there are no costings for a hard Brexit, that this year, on his watch, we will have two Budgets, two policies on national insurance in a week, and a £2 billion black hole in his Budget? Whatever happened to the long-term economic plan?

[Mr Hammond]

I have set out our long-term plan. The hon. Gentleman knows the fiscal figures, because they were published last week. As I have said, I do not resile at all from the commitment that I have made that we will, overall, be broadly fiscally neutral. I will introduce additional measures—[Interruption.] Well, it would not be appropriate for me to do so today, but I will bring forward additional measures in the autumn Budget to address the cost of the changes that I have announced today. By the way, if I could just give him a piece of advice, before he goes in too hard on keeping manifesto promises, he might just want to check his own party’s record in government on that particular score.

Budget Resolutions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I want to make one more point about the other aspect of the Budget that I struggled with a little bit—cutting the dividend-free income for savers. We have talked a lot in this Chamber and in the Government about the importance of encouraging people to save, given the challenges of debt, credit and household debt more generally. I want to ensure that we are not sending the wrong message with this change, when we actually want to incentivise and encourage savers.

I am therefore very honest and upfront about the challenges. The problem is that all the things we want—from the extra money for social care for the vulnerable, to the extra money for skills to drive forward social mobility, to extending the personal allowance to cut income tax—have to be paid for. I welcome, support and reinforce the Government’s inclination to face difficult decisions head-on and to make sure that we get the balance right, rather than just having a Budget that satisfies newspaper headlines but does not stand the test of time. The Government therefore have my support, and I know that they will want to look at the nuances of some of these measures.

In contrast, I was very struck by the speech from the leader of the Labour party yesterday, because it did not put forward any credible alternative. It rather felt like he was tilting at socialist windmills—like he was somehow lost in a field ranting at the wind. The tragedy for the Labour party is that, on some of these issues, where there are genuinely choices to be made, it has no credible alternative. That is what I think the public will see: a Government bracing themselves and taking difficult decisions, and a Labour party, under its current leadership, that has talked about £500 billion of extra spending that it cannot fund.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), the former shadow Chancellor, who rightly pointed out that satisfying those spending commitments would require us to double income tax, double national insurance—there was no mention of that from Labour Members—double council tax and double VAT as well. I am not sure, therefore, that Labour Members are really in a position, in the absence of a credible alternative, to start picking holes in one or another aspect of the Budget put forward by the Government.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman my three points; I will look forward to hearing his intervention after that.

There is also the whole concept of people’s quantitative easing—the idea that the Bank of England should print more money to spend on some of these ivory-tower, socialist-pipedream projects. That is the Mugabe school of economics; it is deeply irresponsible. Again, if we are talking about difficult decisions, that would be far worse for savers than any of the difficult decisions that have had to be made in this Budget.

Finally on the alternatives put forward by the Labour party, the leader of the Labour party is actually on record as being amused about the possibility of raising the basic rate of income tax by 5%—I have the quote here, but I will not embarrass Labour Members by reading it. Honestly, of all the tax rises in the world to contemplate, a rise in the basic rate is deeply irresponsible, not just economically but socially.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Given the remarks I am about to make I should declare that I am still an elected councillor in the London Borough of Redbridge, and, as seems to be the case with many other hon. Members in the Chamber, I am an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association. Perhaps we should declare if we are not honorary vice-presidents of the LGA. I should also say that I am sorry I was not able to be here at the beginning to hear all of the speeches made by the shadow Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business. Unfortunately, I had to attend an extraordinary meeting of the Treasury Committee. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to your predecessors in the Chair, for indulging me.

Yesterday we learned that the Chancellor has a sense of humour, but by the time he sat down my constituents and the country at large had very little to laugh about. In fact, I would wager that the Chancellor himself was not laughing when he read this morning’s newspapers. It is striking that there have been more Opposition Members than Government Members speaking in the Budget debate this afternoon. Presumably, this is because so few Tory MPs are willing to turn up to defend the Chancellor’s Budget: a Budget balanced on the backs of the self-employed; a Budget that failed to address the big challenges facing our schools and hospitals; and a Budget that failed to prepare Britain for Brexit.

This was a Budget that was bad for business: the high street business clobbered by a rise in business rates; the small businesses burdened by quarterly reporting to HMRC, even where they are not liable for VAT; and the self-employed saddled with higher national insurance, even where they earn as little as £16,250 a year. These are the people I was sent to Parliament to represent: the shopkeepers in Barkingside, Woodford, Hainault and Gants Hill who kept their businesses going even as other shops on the high streets were boarded up during the recession; and those who were brave enough to take the plunge and start a business even as the high street was still plagued by recession. I was sent to represent the family businesses wondering whether they will be able to pass on their firms to the next generation, because times are increasingly tough and they worry about the long-term future of the family trade; and the self-employed, who take the risk by taking the plunge and going it alone, taking an idea and turning it into a profit. This was a Budget that hit the traditional economy of the high street and the gig economy of the entrepreneurs. It was good for accountants and bad for small businesses. No wonder that, this morning, so many people woke to read the papers asking why on earth a Tory Chancellor would want to attack enterprise, entrepreneurialism and aspiration.

The Chancellor has said that this is an issue of fairness. Policy wonks in the Treasury and elsewhere in the world of think-tanks will argue that a class 4 national insurance increase is progressive. That is a powerful reminder of what happens when people who understand spreadsheets fail to understand the real economy.

The National Careers Service website suggests that London taxi drivers can earn between £14,000 and £20,000 a year. In a good year, if they are willing to put in excessive hours working the streets, as they often do these days, they may earn slightly more. A triple whammy of rising costs, increased congestion and unfair competition has driven down their wages. Is it progressive to ask taxi drivers, who are already struggling to pay the bills, to pay an extra £240 a year in national insurance? Is it progressive to ask the young tech entrepreneur starting out to find an extra £20, £30 or £45 a month in their early careers? Is it fair to ask people who receive no holiday pay, and who have little job security and the everyday pressures to bring home the bacon, to pay more to the Chancellor when it is small change for him and a big deal for them?

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome, as I do, the improvement in the pension scenario for the people about whom he is speaking, which is worth about £1,800 a year, and which if bought could be worth about £50,000? It is not all one way.

[Wes Streeting]

There have been improvements at the margins, but that does not compensate for the loss of earnings that those on low to medium incomes will feel as a result of the decision taken by the Chancellor in the Budget.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s point about taxi drivers. I commend him for his work with the all-party parliamentary group on taxis and for standing up for his constituents. I have had similar experiences speaking to taxi drivers in my constituency. Does he agree that the problem is not only the costs he mentioned, but additional charges—they are often subject to differences in regulation—and the rise in the price at the pump?

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is not just taxi drivers. More than 10,000 people in my constituency are self-employed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East rightly pointed out, those people do a range of trades with a range of challenges and additional costs, and very few employment rights and protections. Why have they been targeted by the Chancellor in this Budget?

While I am asking about priorities, why can a Tory Chancellor always find tax giveaways such as the cut to inheritance tax for the 26,000 wealthiest estates in the country, at the expense of the strivers, the makers, the builders and the creators, who account for Britain’s 5 million self-employed people?

[Mr Jackson]

While we are asking questions, is the hon. Gentleman embarrassed about the fact that a Conservative Government have brought about a situation in which 1% of taxpayers fund 27% of tax revenues? At the same time, £140 billion in uncollected taxes that the Labour Government did nothing about have been collected in the past seven years to fund our public services.

[Norman Lamb]

Did the hon. Gentleman pick up the comments of Charlie Bean, formerly of the Bank of England and now of the Office for Budget Responsibility, who said that consumer spending is unsustainable and based on record debt that is going back to the levels we saw before the crash?

[Wes Streeting]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. Unless we get to grips with that, not only will those people suffer as they fall below the line and can no longer keep their heads above water, but the economy itself will suffer. Even the sluggish growth over which the Government have presided since they took office has been driven by an increase in household debt. What happens to those families, and what happens to the economy, when the money dries up—when there can be no more lending, or when families can no longer service their debt? Of course, it is not just national insurance or, indeed, income tax that the poorest pay. Other forms of taxation have a disproportionate and regrettable impact on them: VAT, council tax, and other unprogressive tax measures are causing them to become the very worst off.

If that were not bad enough in itself, it was explicitly ruled out in the Conservative manifesto, not just once but four times. It is a bit rich for the Chancellor to come to the House and talk about the small print produced by companies, and for his Ministers to tidy up the mess the next day at the Dispatch Box by talking about the small print in the National Insurance Contributions Bill. This is a broken promise, plain and simple. Not only was it in the manifesto; it was a central line of Tory attack. The Tories were wrong to warn at the last election that a Labour Government would somehow cause chaos and instability. Look at the mess they are presiding over now, and look at what they have done to the country in the short time since that election!

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has referred to the Conservative manifesto. That was the same manifesto that committed the Government to staying in the single market. The lesson, surely, is that Conservative manifestos are worth nothing, not even the paper they are written on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for making that point. He will be pleased to know that I shall return shortly to the issue of Europe and the future of our economy.

[Mr Jackson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wes Streeting]

I shall return to the subject of Europe, and the hon. Gentleman may want to intervene later. I am conscious that other Members are waiting to speak. There are still a number of them on the Labour Benches, even if there are none on the other side of the House.

This is a case of all pain and no gain. If it were not bad enough that the Conservative Chancellor arrived yesterday to clobber the self-employed, he is also failing to put right the public services on which people depend. We were told that the crisis in the NHS and social care required an additional £6 billion by 2019. While the £2 billion announced yesterday may be welcome, it is wholly insufficient to meet the demands of our rising population, our ageing population, and the people who want to be able to rely on the NHS and social care when they need it most.

Having been a local councillor for nearly seven years—I will stand down next year—I have to say that the situation facing local authorities is dire. When faced with a choice between child protection and adult social care, councils will of course prioritise keeping children safe, along with keeping the elderly and disabled alive and well. However, such choices have consequences: increased council tax for people who can ill afford it, and cuts that affect the services on which people rely and for which they pay their council tax. I only wish that the Government would have the courage to accept, 75 years on from the Beveridge report, that the model for health and social care in this country is no longer fit for purpose and no longer sustainable unless it receives the funding that is so badly needed. I cannot understand why Ministers have not had the courage to ask Members on both sides of the House to help the Government come up with a plan to make the NHS sustainable for the 21st century.

[Peter Dowd]

Was my hon. Friend as shocked as I was to find that it was being trailed today by the Government that unless Tory MPs backed down, social care funding would be under threat?

[Wes Streeting]

I entirely agree. I am not sure how many experienced, wise leaders of the NHS and local councils could come forward and warn the Government about not just an impending crisis, but a crisis that is affecting hospitals and care services in each of our constituencies today. What more will it take for the Government to show the courage, and find the money, to fund social care? Imagine what a cross-party commission led by the likes of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) or the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) could do to build a health and social care model for the 21st century.

Was it not a travesty that, as schools in our constituencies faced cuts in their budgets, the Chancellor chose to arrive yesterday with a funding package that would benefit a small number of pupils at a few selective schools? What do Ministers have to say to headteachers and parents in my constituency, or to the pupils who attend the vast majority of schools in my constituency, about the fact that they face on average a funding cut of £188 per pupil per year? I do not need an opinion poll to tell me that there are a few things that people, whether they vote Labour or Conservative, expect the Government to do, and among them are to make sure that we have decent hospitals and well-funded schools. It is a scandal that so much of the educational progress made in my city and across the country, led by the last Labour Government and following on since then, is being put at risk because of swingeing budget cuts to schools. What sort of Government choose to cut education for the next generation while also cutting the tax bill for the very wealthiest?

The flimsiness of the Budget Red Book—for once it did not take long to get through—betrays the fragility of our economy. In the long list of supposed good news the Chancellor arrived with yesterday, a few facts were missing. This was the ninth Budget by a Conservative Chancellor since 2010, and what do we have to show for it? We have the only developed economy that has a growing economy but falling real wages; rising costs of living, but wages still at pre-crash levels; a widening productivity gap holding back growth and depressing wages; a weaker currency fuelling inflation that households and businesses can ill afford; a failure to meet the Tories’ own targets for debt and deficit reduction because they have never understood the need to balance spending cuts with investment for growth; and a failure to meet their own welfare cap because of their failure to tackle unemployment, under-employment, casualisation of the labour market and exploitation by unscrupulous employers, which leaves a welfare system that lacks the confidence of the majority of the public but also fails the people who need it most. That is the very worst of all worlds, and even now, in the wake of a Brexit vote driven in large part by the votes of people who have been left behind, we have a Government willing to preside over rising child poverty, public services at breaking point, and an economy ill equipped for the challenges that lie ahead.

It should not take dragging a former—Conservative—Prime Minister out of retirement to tell this Government that the way they are handling the single biggest issue facing our country, the departure from the EU, and the path they have set us on is putting the economy at risk. What John Major said was very straightforward:

“There is a choice to be made, a price to be paid; we cannot move to a radical enterprise economy without moving away from a welfare state. Such a direction of policy, once understood by the public, would never command support. It would make all previous rows over social policy seem a minor distraction.”

Sir John Major could have been reading from the Labour party script on this issue. There we have it: a former Conservative Prime Minister holding up the truth that we on the Labour Benches know, which is that unless the Government negotiate a smooth and sensible exit from the EU, they will consign this country to being a small tax haven off the north-west coast of Europe, unable to meet the needs of their people and unable to make sure that prosperity is shared.

Of course, it is not just John Major who has concerns: the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), told the House that this Government have chosen not to make the economy the priority. When so much of this country’s economic success relies on trade abroad, when we have the largest single market in the world on our doorstep, and when being a member of the customs union gives us access to more trade agreements than are enjoyed by any leading economy in the world, for a Government to decide not to make the economy the priority is reckless and irresponsible.

[Mike Gapes]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He mentioned the former Chancellor’s remarks, and the Government’s position is clearly that immigration is the priority. The Government’s target of a reduction to 100,000 seems a bit strange, however, given that the forecasts in the Red Book are based on the assumption that 185,000 migrants will come into this country in 2021; that is the Office for Budget Responsibility statistic on which the forecasts are based. How can the Government reconcile the 100,000 and the 185,000 figures, and surely the economy will be in a worse position based on those facts?

[Wes Streeting]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard calls for a real debate on immigration, but a real debate requires an argument. There are undoubtedly real sensitivities and concerns about immigration in communities across the country, not least when people feel that their own wages have been depressed because employers are able to bring in cheaper labour from abroad to undercut the pay, terms and conditions of local workers. For me, that is an issue of social injustice that Governments need to tackle. However, we have an ageing population and a shrinking working-age population, and we can barely afford the pensions bill. We need a greater working-age population to come to this country, do their work and pay their taxes. Any politician who says that immigration is a price that this country cannot afford must also come to the House and tell us how they plan to pay for the public services on which every citizen in this country relies.

We must grasp the reality of the immigration debate. If we continue to fail to address the genuine and well-founded concerns about immigration while pandering to the myths about it, we will set this country on a course that will make us poorer, and that would be the worst possible response to the EU referendum. If people went to the ballot box and voted to leave the European Union because they felt left behind by globalisation in a world that was changing around them, imagine the betrayal they would feel if, having been sold the promise of a brighter future, they found that jobs were drying up, the economy had been left behind and the public services on which they relied were being decimated. That is the real risk of a botched Brexit.

In the context of a rapidly changing global economy in which jobs are changing, huge digitalisation is taking place and a new industrial revolution is sweeping the country at a pace and scale that we have never seen before, the purpose of the Labour party has never been more relevant or more urgently needed. More than 100 years ago, the party was founded to champion the interests of labour over the interests of capital. In a future of deregulation and a loss of jobs because they no longer exist in huge sectors of the economy, it is the job of the Labour party to protect the interests of labour.

When we look at what this Budget does to the self-employed, the strivers and the people across the private sector who make up the backbone of the economy and at what it does to public services, and when we look at how the Government are botching Brexit, we can see that it is long past time for the Labour party to take this lot apart. People across the country are counting on us to be an effective Opposition and an alternative Government. That is the job that we must face up to, and we need to start doing it sooner rather than later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

I would be delighted to invite the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) to our conference—I am sure that he would have a wonderful time. He will find out more about our proposals very soon but, to take up his challenge, I share his view that we have to be responsible by arguing how spending should be paid for. We intend to be fully responsible, and I hope that that reassures him.

I will focus for a moment on the consequences for ordinary people of the state of our NHS and care system. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has talked a lot about support for people with long-term conditions, and the NHS now has to cope with a dramatic increase in the number of people living with long-term chronic conditions. The NHS estimates that the number of people living with three or more conditions will increase by 50% over 10 years. What we are now witnessing is completely unprecedented, but failure to meet their care needs will have disastrous consequences for many of those individuals.

In the past few weeks I have taken up the case of an adult in my constituency who suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He has been referred by his GP to an adult ADHD clinic, so I wrote to the mental health trust to ask what the waiting time for his treatment is. I was told that the current waiting time in Norfolk is two years. What on earth is that individual supposed to do in the meantime? I am afraid that there is still complete inequality between access to mental health treatment and access to physical health treatment. There is discrimination at the heart of the NHS, and we will never address it with the current inadequate levels of funding.

A nine-year-old boy in my constituency has been referred for a possible diagnosis of autism. His family was told that the waiting time for that diagnosis is up to three years. I just assumed that something appalling was happening in Norfolk, but when I asked the National Autistic Society for more information, I was told that such waiting times are very much the case across the entire country. What are we doing to our children? We know that with early help we can make a massive difference to their life chances, yet we are telling them that they are supposed to wait two to three years for a diagnosis, let alone treatment. This is scandalous. We are letting down some of the most vulnerable people in our country. The really awful thing is that people who have money can circumvent these awful waiting times—they can get a diagnosis for autism, and they can get help for their son or daughter—yet people who do not have money are just left waiting. That is unjust and unacceptable, but it is happening in this country.

[Wes Streeting]

Not only is this a grave injustice to young people, but it is hugely costly to the taxpayer. If we fail young people in their formative years and fail to break down the barriers that prevent them from getting a good education, we pay more in the longer term in terms of unemployment, further mental ill health and the breakdown of social life later on.

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman—this is an absolute false economy. We know that 75% of mental ill health starts before the age of 18. In the coalition’s final Budget, we secured £1.25 billion over a five-year period for children’s and young people’s mental health, yet a YoungMinds survey from just before Christmas shows that in 50% of clinical commissioning group areas, not all that money is getting through to be spent on children’s mental health because it is being diverted to other parts of the NHS that are under impossible strain. That is scandalous. It is outrageous that children with mental ill health are being let down in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

It’s a one-way street.

[Jane Ellison]

No, we have said that it is 20% of the fund, but the vast majority of the national insurance fund pays towards the state pension, which, as has been made clear, is now available to the employed and the self-employed. That is part of an important and necessary step to level up what benefits people get. It is also important and necessary to level the playing field when it comes to what people pay in.

The Prime Minister has asked Matthew Taylor to look at the important issue of employment rights. We will get the Taylor review later this year and will return to look at those important issues. Whether people are self-employed or an employee, if they do a similar job, get a similar wage and receive similar benefits, they should pay a similar tax. That is actually recognised by Labour’s shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

I really hope that the hon. Members for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) are not disowning the self-employment review and commission that was launched last November by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who said that one of the five principles of Labour’s self-employment commission was that self-employed NICs should rise towards employee levels. She went on to say:

“We cannot expect employees to continue to pay more into the system while offering equality of entitlements across employment status.”

I realise that Labour’s Front Bench rotates with dizzying speed—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

What I can do is give my hon. Friend a guarantee that I will follow all proper procedures. Unfortunately, I cannot give him a guarantee that that will necessarily lead to the outcome that he seeks.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), has said that withdrawing from the single market would be

“the biggest single act of protectionism in the history of the United Kingdom”

and that the Government have chosen not to make the economy the priority. Is the former Chancellor launching a soft coup, or has he got this Government absolutely bang to rights for their economic vandalism?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman understands very well that being a member of the single market was not an option for the UK given the clear views expressed by the electorate in the referendum, but having comprehensive access to the single market will deliver the great majority of the benefits that he seeks from single market membership.

Autumn Statement

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

That is absolutely right. We made that commitment in our election manifesto; it was a commitment on which we were elected. Despite the difficult fiscal circumstances, we will deliver on that commitment.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for agreeing to the request made by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to reintroduce the distributional analysis of the Budget. I have looked at that analysis and, in spite of a bit of tinkering with the methodology, it is clear that, as a result of the tax and welfare changes in this autumn statement, the bottom three deciles—the lowest-income households—will be left worse off than the highest earning group of households. How can he possibly justify that? As well as helping the “just about managing”, will he commit to helping the people who are barely managing or cannot manage at all?

[Mr Hammond]

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

EU Draft Budget 2017

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 General Committees

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The EU budget as a whole is a matter for the United Kingdom and, as I say, there is regular communication. This time last week, I was in discussions with the Finance Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and issues relating to EU funding were relevant to those discussions. The position of the United Kingdom in respect of the EU budget is determined by the United Kingdom Government.

On our position on this year’s proposal, let me make it clear that what the Commission proposed is consistent with the seven-year multiannual financial framework, which was agreed in 2013. That was a significant achievement, because it reduced the EU budget for the first time. Some felt that the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, would not be able to achieve that, but he did. That was consistent with this proposal.

The negotiations are live, so it would not be appropriate for me to give away our position prematurely, because that might reduce our chances of achieving the outcome that we want. The Government’s approach will be the one we have always taken in such circumstances: we will continue to push for maximum budget restraint and value for money to minimise costs for taxpayers. I hope that will have the support of all Committee members.

Scrutiny of the annual budget takes place on the Commission’s proposals. The proposals move very quickly and frequently, so timescales do not allow for a further round of scrutiny. The motion sets out the Government’s overall approach of seeking the best possible value for money, and I hope it has the support of all members of the Committee.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck.

I want to follow up on consultation. The Minister outlined the way that the Government are interacting with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but will he outline what the formal mechanisms are for consultation with the Mayor of London? Clearly, a range of issues relating to our impending departure from the European Union will have a huge consequence for London and, as a direct result of that, will reach right across the United Kingdom. It is only right and proper that the Mayor of London or a suitable representative has a seat at the table.

[Mr Gauke]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is touching on issues wider than this debate. I suspect that he is not specifically asking about consultations with the Mayor of London on the EU budget proposal for 2017, about which, as far as I am aware, the Mayor of London has not expressed an opinion, but I may be wrong—perhaps I should check that.

On the wider issue of the EU, Brexit and the position of London and its Mayor, all I can say today is that there are regular conversations between the Treasury and the Mayor. Without revealing too much about the diaries of the individuals concerned without their permission, meetings occur, and there is one in the not-too-distant future.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for the reply. To bring us back firmly within the scope of the budget, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about analysis of the EU budget’s regional impact. Obviously, there are longer-term questions about replacing expenditure that currently benefits the regions and nations of the UK. What plans do the Government have to publish their analysis of the regional benefits and risks presented by Britain’s membership of the European Union, and of the risks presented by leaving the European Union, so that we can have an informed debate? A seemingly endless number of Government debates have been scheduled, but we will have those debates in the dark, as the Government seem reticent about publishing any relevant information about the benefits or risks of the negotiations.

[Mr Gauke]

I point out that the Government published a lot of information during the referendum debate. That information was made available to the British people, and I do not want a repeat of that debate. The British people made a decision, though it might not have been the decision that the hon. Gentleman or I campaigned for, and we have to respect that. The Government are looking at various options, so that we can make a success of the decision that the British people have made. There will be different regional implications, one assumes, of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, but the Government are determined to ensure that this is a success for every part of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and every member of this Committee supports that.

[Wes Streeting]

This is my final question, I promise. I suspect that like me, the Chief Secretary campaigned to remain in the European Union, but accepts the result and now wants to get the best possible deal. As parliamentarians and the general public determine the best possible deal, can we take it that all Treasury documents published prior to the referendum—including all their figures and assumptions—are ones that we should stand by and use to inform the debate?

[Mr Gauke]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman wants to take me down a path that is a little way away from the motion in front of us. We are in new circumstances. The determination of the Government is to ensure that we deliver the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations with the European Union and in our relationship with the EU and other parts of the world, post-Brexit. That is our focus.

Finance Bill

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

I hope that we trigger article 50 as soon as possible. This is another reason why we should not rush to impose higher, crippling taxes on energy saving, because it is something we want to encourage. It is another incentive for us to get on with actually leaving the Union. A bigger cash incentive that is relevant to Budget matters in this Finance Bill is that we would soon be able to get back the £10 billion a year. Remember that every month we delay getting out of the European Union we have to raise another £850 million through a Finance Bill such as this to send away and not get back. I urge the Minister to take the matter seriously and to say that this Government have absolutely no intention of increasing VAT on energy-saving materials unless they are legally forced to do so. Will she confirm my view that the sooner we are out, the sooner we can have a rational policy on this most important matter?

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I rise to address amendments 180 to 182 and new clause 19, tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. As a relatively new Member, I want to place on the record my enormous thanks to the staff of the Public Bill Office, who over the course of the summer assisted in the production of not only these amendments, but more than 30 amendments to the Higher Education and Research Bill. I have been busy, but I have been keeping them busy. As a new Member, I have perhaps been slightly more demanding, so I am grateful for their time and support.

As the Minister acknowledged in her opening remarks, amendments 180 to 182 arose from concerns reflected right across the Treasury Committee about the nature of appointments to the most senior offices and the dismissal of post holders. The Office of Tax Simplification has an important public duty. Many of us want the tax code to be simplified, but we know that constraints are inevitable because the tax system is as complicated as life and will therefore always have a degree of complexity. However, we also know—particularly those of us with a large number of small and medium-sized businesses in our constituencies—that the more complicated the tax code, the more complicated it is for businesses to understand what it is they should and should not be paying. Companies with the means to get a great deal of expensive advice on how to make enormous savings are at a great advantage.

During the course of yesterday’s Finance Bill debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) spoke about the widespread practice of aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations. If the tax code were simpler and clearer, that sort of aggressive avoidance would be harder. That is why there is such parliamentary interest in the work of the OTS and a determination to ensure that Government appointments to the most senior posts have an appropriate degree of parliamentary oversight—primarily, but not exclusively, through the Treasury Committee.

I welcome the Minister’s constructive approach and the agreement she made with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who does a sterling job of batting for all members of the Committee and on behalf of both sides of the House. This is a good example of how the Government and the Select Committee system can work together effectively to reach the right outcome. I do not intend to press amendments 180 to 182 to a vote this afternoon, because we have received sufficient assurances from the Minister and I look forward to that process continuing under successive Governments.

Turning to new clause 19, even newer Members of the House are familiar with the regular display and theatre of the Budget. In this modern age, there is an inevitable degree of briefing, counter-briefing and misleading in the run-up to the event in order to misdirect the Opposition and to enable the Government to be fleet of foot on the day and to save the best headlines for the Budget. On the day itself, we have the routine announcements about the business that needs to be conducted in any Budget and then, of course, we get the inevitable rabbit out of the hat. Once the smoke has cleared and the mirrors have been packed away, the real analysis begins of the consequences of each Budget item for the people whom we are sent here to represent. Even members of Select Committees or Bill Committees, who follow the scrutiny of Bills closely, know that trying to penetrate the real impact of a Finance Bill or any fiscal event is a significant challenge.

I must say that that challenge has been made more difficult by the decision of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), to move away from his commendable practice of publishing alongside the Budget the distributional analysis of the impact of tax, welfare and public spending changes. The first question that all hon. Members face when presented with a Budget is about the impact on our constituents. Those of us who are committed to social justice are more interested in the impact on the poorer household than the wealthier household. In fact, the right hon. Member for Tatton described the analysis as the

“most comprehensive and robust assessment available”.

That is why it was so disappointing that he decided to abandon that practice following the general election. The move was condemned at the time by a wide range of anti-poverty charities as a serious mistake. We could spend a lot of time debating why the previous Chancellor chose to abandon that practice at that particular moment, and we could have our usual exchanges about the priorities of Conservative Governments and Labour Governments, but with the appointment of a new Prime Minister and a new Chancellor I hope that we can instead debate the merits of the principle which we believe any Government, whatever their priorities and political shade, should follow.

The Chair of the Treasury Committee wrote to the Chancellor to express concern that at last year’s summer Budget the Treasury

“replaced its previously excellent budget distributional analysis series with a manifestly deficient substitute.”

Since her elevation, the Prime Minister has made great fanfare of the commitment she made outside No. 10 Downing Street to lead a Government who work

“not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.”

I would dearly love to have a debate with the Government about the means by which we achieve social justice and about whether it is a good thing in and of itself, but I certainly agree with the Chairman of the Treasury Committee that a

“high level of transparency about the effects of tax and welfare policy on households across the income distribution would seem to be a logical, perhaps essential starting point.”

That is what motivated the tabling of new clause 19.

It is important that all Governments are clear and transparent about a Budget’s effects to enable proper parliamentary and public scrutiny of decisions—as happens in the Chamber, in Select Committees and in conversations around kitchen tables up and down the country. Knowing that the analysis is being produced and seeing it form as the Budget is prepared helps to concentrate the minds of Ministers and civil servants. It asks the question and gives the Chancellor, before he or she stands at the Dispatch Box to announce their Budget, an opportunity to reflect on the Budget in its entirety.

Successive Governments and Chancellors have once or twice fallen foul of public opinion by realising that the Budget as a whole is not necessarily as great as they thought it was when each part was being considered. Having the analysis in place as the Budget is prepared will not only aid public and parliamentary scrutiny, but enable Ministers to make the right judgment about how Budgets should be balanced. The Opposition believe, particularly when difficult judgments are to be made about tax and welfare changes and public spending, that the books should never be balanced on the backs of the poorest. I hope that we can find agreement in that area with the new Chancellor and Prime Minister, particularly given her stated aims, but whoever occupies the highest offices of this land, we can surely agree that parliamentary scrutiny is vital.

We should also agree that, as the Treasury has the evidence to hand and we are not asking it to do additional work—the analysis already exists—simply requesting that it be put in the public domain is not too much to ask. I welcome the fact that this afternoon the Minister has left the door open and says that this area will be considered by Ministers. On that basis, I accept that Ministers, the Chancellor and the Treasury will consider it. I assure the Minister and the Chancellor that we will return to this issue, through the Select Committee and at future fiscal events, if a change is not made. On the basis that the Government have an open mind and open ears on this issue, I am prepared not to press new clause 19 to a vote.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this stage of our consideration of the Finance Bill. I was interested to hear the carefully constructed arguments of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). Let me pick up on the point he made about wanting to see social justice from this and future Budgets, and to see it at the heart of the Government’s agenda, as was made clear on the steps of No. 10 by the new Prime Minister. He also talked about the impact on the poorest households, which is the focus of new clauses 2 and 3 and the reviews that they propose. As ever, it was also interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), and to listen to his thesis on post-factual analysis, be it on the Labour leadership contest or on this Bill. He mentioned roads, so perhaps he should come down to Enfield and give us a post-factual analysis of the cycle lanes that are planned in my borough to see whether we should continue with that expensive proposal, given the need for best value.

Let me return to the matters at hand. First, I wish to speak to new clause 2, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Sadly, the latter cannot be here as she is leading her Health Committee on a visit, although she would want to be here to support this new clause. I hope and expect that across the House there is support for the principles of wanting to carry out a proper review of the impact of the duty regime, particularly in relation to high-strength cider, although I very much welcome the Minister’s comments. She will know all too clearly from her previous role in public health of the impact of alcohol and high-strength alcohol in particular, including cider, on the poorest and those most in need of our attention. I welcome the hint that a wider, more coherent view of the relationship between alcohol duties and harm could be taken, which was mooted by the previous Prime Minister but seemed to get kicked into the long grass—it has never returned. The Minister will be well aware of the permutations and the different interests across Government in relation to that review and its final outcome. The previous Prime Minister was talking about minimum alcohol pricing in terms of when not if, but this has now gone back to an if. I look forward in future Budgets and future consideration to a wider review and factual analysis of the relationships to harm and the impact on behaviour, particularly among the poorest.

New clause 2 hones in on an area that is about not just health harms, although that is the core of the argument, but an anomaly in our treatment of cider and of beer.

Finance Bill

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

The Chair of the PAC has corrected me. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right; it is almost a double whammy. Customers of such companies pay for their services in good faith and expect, as both taxpayers and consumers, big companies to play fair by them and by the country in which they operate.

The PAC is not alone in worrying about how such companies organise themselves. Around the world, people and their Governments are questioning the loopholes and convoluted legal arrangements that create inaccurate descriptions of multinationals’ trading activities in individual countries. The problem is not confined to tech firms such as Google, but their massive global presence has exposed the fault lines of an old-fashioned tax structure that has not kept up with today’s online business world. Many of today’s high-tech household names were not always so big or so profitable. The investigation into Google began under the previous Labour Government, and the coalition Government continued the work to get on top of these relatively new business models, both nationally and internationally. Tax policy is not easy. Once one tax loophole is closed, another one opens up.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I commend my right hon. Friend’s work on this issue over a long period of time. Does she share my concern that even when the Government have tried to take the initiative, such as through the diverted profits tax—the so-called Google tax—that has not delivered the expected revenues? Indeed, Google does not pay a great deal through that tax. A measure such as that proposed by my right hon. Friend would clearly help to make companies do the right thing.

[Caroline Flint]

I hope so, because transparency is an important ingredient in ensuring that the rules we apply have some bite. It sometimes seems as though we are trying to catch jelly.

The whole debate has brought into question the legal and moral difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Companies often rightly defend themselves on grounds of working within the rules, but politicians and civil servants are often caught out by clever manipulation of those rules. That is not illegal but cannot be said to be in the spirit of what was expected.

I have no illusions about having a perfect tax system. Keeping one step ahead is a never-ending task for modern tax authorities. I welcome the Government’s introduction at HMRC of country-by-country tax reporting, which is now up and running, and I agree with the Minister’s summer announcement that those who advise individuals and companies on their tax affairs will be subject to greater accountability for their actions when wrongdoing is exposed.

However, public transparency can make a real difference in ensuring fair taxation and fair play. That is why, with the support of PAC colleagues and cross-party support from across the House, I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill in March to legislate for public country-by-country reporting. The backing I received spurred me on to try to amend the Finance Bill in June, gaining the support of eight parliamentary parties: Labour—I thank Front-Bench spokespeople past and present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), for their support—the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party, the United Kingdom Independence party, the Green party, the independent hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and a number of Conservative MPs, too. Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children, ActionAid, the ONE campaign and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development joined our efforts, adding an important and necessary dimension to the argument for public country-by-country reporting.

UK Economy

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We are going to face some big questions about providing support to the institutions, regions and sectors that have been receiving European Union assistance, most notably the regional support that has been provided to areas such as south Wales, the ongoing support that the EU provides for research in our universities and the support for our farming community. We in the House of Commons are going to have to address all those issues in the coming months and possibly beyond. However, at the moment we remain a member of the European Union—I shall talk about the procedure for our departure in a moment—and the European funding and grants will continue to be made. We are looking specifically at areas where questions have been asked about long-term uncertainty in relation to particular projects, and I will keep the House updated. This is a challenging question, which we have to answer, and we are looking at it very intensively now. But at the moment nothing has changed and we remain a member of the European Union.

That brings me back to the question of trying to resolve as quickly as is practical the uncertainty about the new relationship we are seeking with the European Union and our European neighbours. We need a bit of realism and we need to offer reassurance. It is apparent that the uncertainty will be fully resolved only when we as a country have negotiated an agreement with our European partners on the relationship we now want to have with them. We know what the broad options are. The Government spelled them out and set out the different relationship models over the past few months in the Treasury and Cabinet Office papers that were produced in advance of the referendum. We could join the European economic area, like Norway; we could forge a new negotiated bilateral agreement with the EU, like Canada; we could adopt the Swiss model; or we could rely on World Trade Organisation rules.

As the Prime Minister set out at this Dispatch Box, the Government have established a new unit at the heart of Government made up of some of the best civil servants, reporting to the Cabinet, that will help us as we make that decision. I stress, however, that Members of Parliament and other organisations can feed in to the work that is taking place, so that we have the fullest possible information on the decision that we will have to take collectively as a Parliament on our new relationship with Europe.

My view is clear that we should move towards an arrangement that provides us with the closest possible economic ties with our European neighbours. Close to half of our exports go to the EU and millions of jobs are supported by our trade with the EU. Leading industries, such as car manufacturing, farming and our services industry, are reliant on that relationship, and we should be moving towards an arrangement under which—if we reach it and can negotiate it—the trade of both goods and services, including financial services, is as free as possible. In the meantime, returning to a point I made earlier, UK firms continue to have exactly the same status as any other EU firm. Business continues in the City and elsewhere, including for euro-denominated trading in our financial markets.

However, I am a realist—we have to be realistic about this—and we must acknowledge that we cannot have all the benefits of the EU without accepting any of the costs and obligations. It will be for this Parliament to decide what the accommodations and compromises should be.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

So much of the leave argument was predicated on shifting our focus to the world beyond Europe. If the Chancellor agrees with that assumption, we need to ensure that we can get there. Given that Heathrow expansion would deliver a £16 billion privately financed shot in the arm, up to £211 billion of economic growth—predominantly outside the south-east—180,000 jobs and 10,000 apprenticeships, I urge the Chancellor to commit to giving Government Members a free vote safe in the knowledge that there will be sufficient votes on the Opposition Benches, irrespective of whipping arrangements, to deliver that result.

[Mr Osborne]

We await the work that is being done on air quality around the airport. When we discussed the matter some months ago, people were a bit dismissive, but to be fair to the new Mayor of London, he raised air quality issues during the London mayoral contest that resonated with voters’ concerns—the hon. Gentleman would know that as a London MP. Before Parliament makes a decision, it is important that we have addressed the issues, concerns and questions about air quality. It will be nothing new if I tell the House that the decision will be controversial when we come to take it, so it is important that no one cries foul over the process. We can then make a decision on the merits of the case. People know my view, which is that we need additional runway capacity in the south-east of England, but where that capacity should come from must be a matter first for the Government and then for Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I was going to say that it is a pleasure to speak in this afternoon’s debate, but that is not really how it feels. I am not the baby of the House, but I am among its younger Members, and for the 33 years in which I have been alive I have grown up in a country that is part of the European Union. Part of its character is a confident, open, outward-looking nation that looks to the world with optimism, confidence and strength.

Although I respect the result and the verdict of the voters last week, I cannot disguise my bitter disappointment with the result. It has put this country on a fundamentally different course for this century from the one we were previously on. We have already seen the economic impact of that decision, and we have seen some of the political repercussions of it, too. Probably more worrying than anything else about last week’s result is the sense that our political leaders have yet to find adequate answers to the questions that have been thrown up by the leave vote.

I represent an outer London constituency on the Essex border, and many of the people I represent travel in on the Central line to work in the City of London, and many of them will be worried about the future of their jobs. We have already seen the announcement of thousands of jobs potentially moving abroad into the eurozone, and we hear rumblings about other jobs set to go elsewhere. Communities, including those that voted overwhelmingly to leave, are seeing the consequences of their decisions, with a loss of the inward investment that delivers jobs—whether it be investment in car manufacturing in the north-east or investment to bail out the steel industry in Neath Port Talbot.

Without feeling too bitter about the result or finger-wagging at people who have reached different conclusions, I cannot but say—and am deeply sorry to say—to those who attacked Stronger In and its advocates for prosecuting “Project Fear”, especially those in the House and in the officially designated Leave campaign, that it looks increasingly likely that it was “Project Fact”, whether we are talking about instability in the currency or the markets, or about decisions that have already been made in the space of a few days that will relocate jobs, change people’s lives, and affect communities for the worse.

As far as I am concerned, the Conservative leadership contest cannot come soon enough. I relish the prospect of seeing the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) at the Dispatch Box, because I want him—along with his right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and other Conservative Members who prosecuted those arguments—to live up to the promises that were made. I want them to live up to the promise of £350 million for the national health service, the promises about immigration, and every other promise that they made to the British people, which, in good faith, those people believed when they voted leave. This place must deliver accountability if we are to place any trust or any faith in politics.

When those Members assume the reins of power—and some of them are already in that position—they should expect Labour and, I suspect, Conservative Members to hold them to account for the promises that they made. If I had been a leave voter and I found that my job was at risk, or that immigration had not changed substantially in the way I had been promised, or that there was not £350 million for the NHS or anything remotely like it, I would feel very betrayed and let down—and so many of those who are members of my generation or younger do feel let down, because they will bear the consequences of this decision for longer than anyone else.

I cannot recall any other issue on which there has been such an overwhelming economic consensus, among this country’s leading economists and economists around the world, that in the longer term this country will not be as well off as it might have been: not poorer than it is today, perhaps, but certainly not as well off as it might have been. Why should we be concerned about that? If our country is not as well off as it might have been, in communities like the one in which I grew up—in communities like my council estate in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, and other working-class communities throughout the country—it will not be the wealthiest who feel the impact in their pockets, but the poorest.

When businesses do not have as much custom, as much trade or as much inward investment from around the world, it will not be the mighty global players that are affected; they will simply take their business elsewhere. It will be the small and medium-sized enterprises. It will be the hard-working people who take the risk, who take the plunge and set up a business, who work their fingers to the bone, day in day out, to turn a profit and provide a home and an income for their families. Those are the people who will pay the price of this decision. So forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I feel somewhat angry about that.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his powerful and effective contribution to the debate. I also congratulate him on what he said about airport expansion during the Chancellor’s speech. Whatever our future constitutional position, we shall need to make whatever decisions we can to get the country moving, to show that we have momentum, and to encourage inward investors back into the UK.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for that intervention. In the short time during which I have been in the House, I have been appalled by the extent to which party-political self-interest has slammed the brakes on vital infrastructure decisions to secure the future economic wellbeing of our nation, or even our national security. The Government should allow votes on airport expansion, on our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, and on other major, vital infrastructure projects to keep our country safe and prosperous. We cannot continue to allow such crucial decisions to be sacrificed on the altar of party-political management, not least when the attempts that are made appear to be futile.

We are not just seeing a fundamental change in the role of Britain in the EU; I think that we may be looking at the break-up of the United Kingdom. I am thinking not just about Scotland, but about the huge achievement that was made in Northern Ireland, from the Downing Street declaration under John Major to the Good Friday agreement under Tony Blair. The Northern Irish peace process itself could be put at risk because of the way in which this debate has been handled. It is troubling that, days after the referendum, there are still no answers to some of the critical questions that have been asked about how we are to move forward as a country.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech and I agree with the sentiments that he has expressed. Is it not the case that, in the best case scenario, it is inevitable that a huge amount of Government energy and time will be diverted to legal wrangling and other issues? We should be focusing on the huge issues that the country faces.

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree. I came to this House not to spend hours and hours scrutinising changes to the law to protect the rights we already have as members and citizens of the EU, but to advance new ones and to fight for my schools, my hospitals and my public services and to improve the life chances of people in my constituency. I did not come to this House to take part in a grand constitutional convention tinkering at the edges to maintain the status quo, rather than advancing the interests of our nation.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am almost reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow, which is magnificent, but he mentioned the Northern Irish peace process. May I ask him to comment on the fact that the EU was one of the key components of the Good Friday agreement, just as we worked with Washington and with Dublin? The EU and peace 1, peace 2 and peace 3 are essential components of the architecture of the peace process. The possibility of customs posts from Derry to Dundalk is not some fanciful nonsense; it is a reality. Is he aware of the negative impact that this is having on the people of Northern Ireland?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend has a great deal of expertise in this area and we take seriously his warnings. I would feel less aggrieved by what he says if it were not for the fact that in the run-up to the referendum these very questions were put to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We were told, “Don’t worry”—which seemed to be the blank cheque; it was said with every promise of the leave campaign—and now we find that we should very much worry.

We should also worry about the reason people voted to leave the EU. Much of it was not about the Lisbon treaty or where decisions are taken. Many people, even with this British Parliament as sovereign as it is today—and as sovereign as it was last week by the way—still do not feel that they have control over their lives and their destiny. I would hazard a guess that when the analysis is done we will be able to map community by community those places that voted leave and those places that have had the hardest time because of the unequal nature of our economy. That should worry us more than anything else. Many people voted leave out of desperation, in the vague hope, in the belief that their circumstances could not be worse than they are today and that our immigration system and the flow of people into this country make them and our economy less well off, rather than better off. That concerns me deeply.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I represent one of the areas that overwhelmingly voted out. Thirty-six per cent. of my constituents earn the living wage and believe that this decision will increase their salaries, yet 7,000 of my constituents are employed in an industry that is already looking to see what happens next, is unstable and is stopping investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to get strong answers from the Government to protect future investment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

We do need those strong answers. We also need to accept that it is not just about our economy as it is today; it is about our economy as it will be defined in the future. This country now faces choices about the structure of our economy and about how to compete in a globalised world. With respect to Members on the Government Benches, it is my belief that there is a risk, under not just the current Government but the next Prime Minister, that the future will be about a race to the bottom, further casualisation of labour—a race to the bottom in terms of wages and terms and conditions —because outside the protection of the single market that is the only way for this country to profit in the way those at the top of society want. That makes me even more worried for our country’s future. That is why we desperately need a change in Government.

More than 100 years ago, working people, socialist societies, friendly societies and trade unions came together to form the Labour party because they knew that the way to improve the lives of working people and their conditions was not by marching through the streets demanding change but by marching through the corridors of power and delivering that. The Labour party has a great history, whether it is the creation of the national health service, homes fit for heroes, the white heat of technology, the creation of the Open University, the introduction of the national minimum wage, or the improvements in education standards that let this council estate boy from Tower Hamlets make it to university and to this place. Successive Labour Governments are the only vehicle for delivering progressive change in this country.

I urge Members of my party to think very carefully about whether we prefer the futility of opposition to the ability to change people’s lives through power. The pursuit of power is not about our careers; it is about the life chances and opportunities of the people the Labour party came into being to represent—and if they do not have confidence in the Labour party and its leadership to be that change, we consign this country to decades of Conservative Government, just as we did before when I was growing up in the 1980s. That should hang heavily on the consciences of the skeleton Front Bench of this party, because until we start providing effective opposition now, that lot will get away with it. That is why we should remember above all else that the Labour party is a cause, not a personality cult, and it is time some people put the interests of the people the Labour party was founded to represent at the forefront of their judgments about their futures and do the right thing so we can get on with taking that lot apart and delivering a Labour Government.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the powerful and eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting); I feel somewhat like a dull bank manager following on from his act.

Perhaps unusually, may I welcome not just the subject of the motion, but also the wording of it? I congratulate those on the Opposition Front Bench on bringing this motion forward today.

I must confess that the decision made by the voters of the UK to leave the European Union came as both a surprise and a shock to me. I spent my time holding debates across my Bexhill and Battle constituency so that constituents could hear both sides of the argument and then come to their own conclusion. I never sought to influence their votes one way or the other. This position of balance also permitted me to speak to 25 schools—both secondary and primary—over the last week of the referendum campaign. It troubled me greatly that young children whose parents were originally from the EU were asking if their parents would have to leave the UK or whether Britain would go to war if we left. At least it gave me the opportunity, with balance, to do my best to reassure them.

I would contend that the campaign themes and sometimes extreme scenarios that were being asserted were causing these concerns to be raised and it is little wonder to me that some votes appear to have been irrationally cast. Had the remain side recognised, perhaps in more balanced tones, that there were positive reasons for the UK to leave the EU but even more positive reasons to remain, I wonder whether the UK population would have so readily lined up to give the establishment opinion-makers the thumbs-down.

All this is for historians to deal with in due course. We are where we are and it is my belief that we in this place have to lead from the front and get the best deal for the UK in order to preserve the rights that our population has enjoyed from the EU while delivering the semblance of democratic control which the public have demanded of us through this result.

While I have concerns about the economic implications in the short term, I believe that, with the right civil service negotiation team in place, we can get a good deal from our European partners. I do, however, believe that this will take determination, good grace, hard work, focus and an ability to work with our European counterparts. Thumbing our noses, as Nigel Farage did so disgracefully in the European Parliament this week, not only demonstrates that he should not be let anywhere near this process, but also demonstrates that vitriol and triumphalism rarely bring out the best in negotiation counterparts.

My rationale for this is borne of my experience working at Lehman Brothers over a 15-year period, for seven years with the small team that was unwinding what became the world’s largest bankruptcy. I was running a legal department the day Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. During the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford North, there was a time when I wanted to come over and give him a cuddle, because there was great fear in 2008 just like the fear for his generation that he was describing. There is great fear right now, but I remember that fear back in 2008, from a personal perspective because I had my mortgage on that institution, and my friends and colleagues for many years worked for it. Despite what people say about investment banks, they include not only bankers, but cleaners, secretaries, and people who do not earn a great wage, and they lost not only their job, but their sense of pride and security in that institution.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the support staff and cleaners who make those businesses function, but it is also worth mentioning the fact that, although the people who work in financial services have been guilty of all sorts over the years, including bringing our economy almost to its knees, the financial services sector still generates enormous investment in this country and creates jobs. It would be foolish to allow that great industry to go by the wayside, given all the benefits that it brings and the tax receipts that we invest in public services. We should not let those people off the hook, but we should never pretend that financial services are not an asset to this country.

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There were some who really needed more punishment than they got, while others took a huge amount of punishment, but those services are still a great exporter for UK plc.

The events on that day in 2008 were an enormous shock, and I remember them well. I worked with a guy from another bank—the largest international and commercial bank—who was in control of its legal department. He said he had spent that weekend dealing with Lehman Brothers as it fell over. He then spent the following week dealing with one of the other largest banks as it fell over. The week after that, his own bank fell over as well. Back then, those of us who were there remember feeling that money was just not safe in any financial institution at all. People might be fearful right now, but I ask Members to cast their minds back to 2008 when things felt even more uncertain.

I also ask the House to recognise that, in the past six years, the economy in this country has got better. We have recovered. Who would have thought we would reach a position in which 2 million new jobs could be created? Perhaps the decision on the European Union has been such a great shock because we have once again got used to a form of stability.