UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Economy

  • Andrew Griffith – 2023 Speech to the Lord Mayor’s Financial Literacy and Inclusion Summit

    Andrew Griffith – 2023 Speech to the Lord Mayor’s Financial Literacy and Inclusion Summit

    The speech made by Andrew Griffith, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the Mansion House in London on 12 April 2023.

    Good afternoon and thank you Lee for that introduction.

    It’s good to be here today to discuss this vitally important topic – and thank you Lord Mayor for everything you have done in a short number of months.

    On this and on other aspects of our financial services you have been banging the drum for the City of London so loudly that I’m sure it has left our competitor countries ears ringing.

    Not that, of course, we want that.

    But we do live in a globally competitive world, and, frankly, I want us to come out on top.

    Like you, I want us to be the most innovative, most international and most business-friendly economy anywhere in the world.

    I want us to prioritise growth, risk taking and wealth creation and to celebrate it for the moral good that it is.

    And as we chart our way forward in these uncertain times but with the agility of being able to make our own rules for the first time in decades, it has never been more important that financial services are at the heart of those efforts.

    That is certainly the objective that I, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister all share for the sector.

    Your theme today is Financial Literacy and Inclusion. How we ensure that financial services deliver for everyone.

    Bank accounts, the ability to borrow, a pension, savings, insurance, or the use of financial technology offer enormous benefits to their users.

    They create ladders of opportunity, the ability to transfer wealth over a lifetime, the chance to provide for our longevity or infirmity or they can shield us from some of the adverse events that life can throw at us.

    So, it is important that we do everything possible to ensure no one is excluded – whether through lack of understanding or lack of access – from financial products which could help them succeed in life.

    We can only do this by working together. You know that. It is why we are all here today.

    But let me address myself particularly to the role of government and what specifically we can do to support financial inclusion.

    I believe there are four things.

    First, we can intervene directly to help those who do end up excluded in some way.

    Second, when legislating, we can design regulations that are proportionate. Regulations that are mindful of the very real potential unintended consequences for financial inclusion.

    Third, we can support financial literacy.

    And fourth, we can create the environment in which innovators can bring forward new products that overcome financial exclusion.

    Let me take each in turn.

    On the first, I would humbly say that, although there is always more to do, this government is doing more than any of its predecessors.

    We are continuing to maintain record levels of funding towards free-to-client debt advice provision in England via the Money and Pensions Advice Service bringing their budget this year to £93 million.

    We have legislated so that every single person in this country must be able to open a fee-free bank account if they wish to.

    There are more than 7 million of these accounts open today and something we should all be proud of is that more than 70,000 Ukrainian refugees in the UK have been helped to open one of these accounts over the last year.

    Meanwhile, the Age Agreement, signed by the Treasury, the ABI and BIBA, helps older consumers who struggle to access motor and travel insurance by signposting them to appropriate insurers.

    Originally signed in 2012, I’m pleased to say it will be renewed this year to continue supporting older consumers.

    One of the largest interventions we have made is to support affordable credit.

    We’ve given £100 million of dormant assets funding to Fair4All Finance to support their work on financial inclusion, on top of a further £45 million of dormant assets funding to the organisation to address the cost of living.

    We’ve even provided Fair4All Finance with £3.8m of funding to pilot an entirely No-interest Loans Scheme.

    And this isn’t the only work being delivered through dormant assets. DCMS recently consulted on another tranche of dormant assets funding, worth an estimated £738 million over time.

    In its response, the government confirmed that youth, financial inclusion and social investment would continue as causes under the scheme.

    As the Minister responsible for financial capability, I look forward to working with DCMS in exploring how building financial education and capability can be supported in the future as an additional aspect within the financial inclusion cause.

    Finally, at the recent Budget, we extended the Help to Save scheme by another 18 months to 2025.

    We will shortly be consulting on how we can simplify to make it even better and reach more people.

    So as with Covid or energy bills, we won’t hesitate to help the most vulnerable – but most people don’t want a handout or a special product from the government.

    They want to be able to access to same products with the same features and benefits as everyone else.

    And that brings me to my second point about government’s role. Which is that as legislators, we must be careful when making regulations that they are proportionate.

    It is too easy to have well intentioned regulations which potentially increase financial exclusion.

    Examples could be client onboarding requirements which push the cost of advice out of reach for many who would benefit or mandatory affordability tests that actually reduce access to credit for some of those needing it the most.

    It’s something that my officials and I are very conscious of.

    It is why it is so important that you do respond to our consultations and it why every piece of legislation has a Regulatory Impact Assessment which is independently scrutinised.

    Perhaps a good example of where I hope we are getting it right is on Credit Unions.

    Ever since the 18th century, mutual societies have helped meet the needs of local communities.

    Given their distinct business models, credit unions face a less onerous set of regulations than non-mutual retail banks.

    For example, credit unions have exemptions from the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which enables them to offer credit at affordable rates to their members who might otherwise be excluded from credit.

    To help further the growth and sustainability of credit unions in Great Britain, the government is bringing forward amendments to the Credit Unions Act 1979.

    For example, credit unions will be able to offer products such as car finance and distribute insurance to their members for the first time.

    It’s a good example of proportionate regulation – or deregulation – being used to improve inclusion.

    On financial literacy, I know that you heard earlier from Sam at National Numeracy who deliver programmes to support the millions of people who have low confidence with numbers.

    I’m looking forward to supporting their National Numeracy Day on the 17 May and I am delighted that they are part of the Lord Mayor’s Appeal this year.

    There couldn’t be a more important issue for all of us.

    It is terribly concerning to hear the statistic that around 8 million adults in England only have the numeracy skills of a primary school child.

    We know lack of numeracy is a barrier to using financial products and it is one of the main reasons why people get into problem debt.

    The Prime Minister has been clear that numeracy is a personal mission for him too. At the start of this year, he said:

    “One of the biggest changes in mindset we need in education today is to reimagine our approach to numeracy.

    “In a world where data is everywhere and statistics underpin every job, our children’s jobs will require more analytical skills than ever before.

    “Letting our children out into the world without those skills, is letting our children down.”

    He laid out the path to introducing maths education up until the age of 18 by the end of the next Parliament.

    Many of us are worried about the growth of a compensation culture impacting the sector. It’s a growing cost and has the potential to hold us back competitively.

    Tackling some of the practices of claims management firms is one part of the solution.

    But improving the level of financial literacy and an understanding of risk by the consumer can only help us return to greater role for ‘caveat emptor’.

    There’s one final role for government. And that’s creating an environment which fosters innovation. Light touch regulation, a culture of supporting risk takers or simply regulatory sandboxes that are open for business.

    The whole UK fintech sector is a great success story, with around 2,500 firms supporting tens of thousands of skilled jobs across the country.

    In 2022, the sector attracted $12.5 billion of investment. This means that fintechs in the UK attracted more funding than those in any other country bar the US.

    Much of what they do delivers for the financially excluded. For example, through new payments options or new tools and apps helping individuals manage their budgets or better understand their finances.

    Artificial Intelligence offers huge possibilities for inclusion.

    Alternative credit scoring to develop more accurate credit profiles for currently underserved groups.

    Micro insurance to deliver low cost coverage;

    And better fraud prevention as sadly fraud often hits the least resilient the hardest.

    Let me finish with a specific example.

    Access to cash is a topical subject bringing together many of the themes I’ve spoken about.

    Nobody in this room needs reminding that as a society, we are moving increasingly from cash to electronic payments – with non-cash transactions now accounting for around 85% of UK payments.

    Nor is it just the young: 8 out of 10 people of retirement age are using contactless card technology at least once a month.

    The trend has benefits in convenience, security and for the environment.

    However, we will not leave behind rural communities, the elderly or those who use cash as a way to manage their personal finances.

    That is why, for the first time since the ancient Celts began minting coins in the British Isles, this year will see communities benefit from a right of access to cash, enshrined in law via the Financial Services and Markets Bill currently going through Parliament.

    The right will cover not just withdrawals but also the ability to make cash deposits, something that is particularly important to small businesses.

    Their continued ability to accept cash depends upon knowing they can deposit it safely. Putting this in statute is a huge step forward.

    We have already made legislative changes to support cashback without a purchase. That turns every single corner and high street shop into a potential source of free cash withdrawal.

    So, we won’t hesitate to legislate where necessary, but we delude ourselves if we believe that is the whole answer.

    Like the trend away from the horse pulled carriage or domestic coal fires, we cannot hold back change for all time.

    As I said before, innovation has a huge role to play.

    So, I pay tribute to UK Finance, their member banks, LINK and the Cash Access group who have come up with a whole series of innovations to help the vulnerable. Community cash machines, shared banking hubs and more.

    ‘Tap and go’ technology for charities can eliminate the jeopardy from losing the old collection tins and even yield higher donations.

    With the right controls, payment cards could help those with carers or in care. We have the popular ‘Go Henry’ cards for parents – why not ‘Go Harold’ or ‘Go Hilda’ for the elderly?

    Earlier this year, together with the City of London Corporation, we launched a new government-seed funded national hub – the Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology.

    They are operationally independent, but I did put to Charlotte and Ez when we last met that financial inclusion was a big agenda that would be worth their consideration.

    Let me conclude Ladies and Gentlemen by restating my commitment to work with you all on this agenda.

    Thank you, Lord Mayor and the City of London Corporation for bringing us all together today.

    The UK is immensely fortunate to have the great financial services sector that it does.

    But part of growing sustainably and reaching our full potential is making sure that we include everyone and that is why the work of everyone here today is so important.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Griffith – 2023 Speech at the Funds Congress

    Andrew Griffith – 2023 Speech at the Funds Congress

    The speech made by Andrew Griffith, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in London on 30 March 2023.

    Introduction

    Thank you, John. As a former public company CFO, it’s certainly a relief to know that you’re introducing rather than interrogating me today.

    And thank you to everyone here at the Funds Congress for having me this morning.

    I was, of course, delighted to be asked to speak at London’s largest asset management conference.

    And even better that I can be with you today in person, given this is the first time Funds Congress has met physically since 2020.

    What a lot has changed since then. But what hasn’t changed is the vital importance the asset management industry holds for the UK and the global economy.

    An engine for UK growth and long-term economic prosperity. A world leader in portfolio management and sustainable finance. The second largest asset management centre in the world with a market share higher than France, Germany and Switzerland combined. And an innovative spirit coupled with a diversity of expertise unrivalled anywhere to boot.

    Growth: The role of the asset management

    Before I come on to what we can achieve together, let us consider where we are today.

    A major source of high value jobs in the UK – employing 42,000 people directly and supporting many tens of thousands in adjacent services.

    A unique lynchpin of the UK financial services ecosystem, existing at the heart of many concentric circles of value in the industry across the UK.

    But more importantly, the performance that you deliver to help lift up the standard of living of millions, tens of millions are benefitting today as they save for a pension through auto-enrolment.

    You generate close to 1% of the UK’s GDP.

    And 3.6% of total UK service exports.

    But that data doesn’t do justice to your impact today, let alone what we could achieve.

    And while we have the legacy to lead in this space, we can’t be complacent.

    Productive Finance

    As the Chancellor outlined in his Bloomberg Growth speech, we want the UK to be among the most prosperous countries in Europe.

    We want to spur economic growth.

    And we have a plan to get there.

    I want to pay particular attention to the role of enterprise.

    Within this, I want to highlight reward for risk, access to capital and smarter regulation.

    Because enterprises need funding, just as all our long-term priorities do.

    It’s why we’ve been working hard to better facilitate investment in long-term assets that will be a crucial ingredient in the UK’s economic success over the years ahead.

    Because we all know that there are global and domestic priorities we need to tackle. It’s why we’re a leader in green finance, it’s why we are working to level up, it’s why we want to be the next Silicon Valley – but these priorities need to be funded.

    Currently, the UK has the fourth largest pensions market in the world.

    If we can unlock just a fraction of Defined Contribution pensions schemes’ capital for investment into productive finance assets, ordinary pension savers could retire with more security and money to enjoy.

    And simultaneously, we would increase the supply of private finance for innovative companies, and productive assets.

    When talking about productive UK assets I mean infrastructure, I mean growth, I mean venture capital.

    It’s why the launch of the Long-Term Asset Fund – or LTAF – is such an important step in unleashing long-term investment.

    At the beginning of December, I spoke about how, together, we have created the LTAF to help unlock access to long-term illiquid assets.

    Our conclusion is that it will lead to a significant boost to the productive capacity of the UK economy – including much-needed infrastructure and decarbonisation products.

    Because we know that client demand for illiquid investments is increasing. So it’s welcome that additional work such as the Productive Finance Working Group’s guides to illiquid investments is helping to set direction for DC pension schemes.

    And I’m excited to hear of firms that are formally submitting their LTAF applications to the FCA.

    It may sound like a niche, technical area to get animated over. But it’s far from it. It has the power to be transformative for our sector, the economy and society as a whole.

    Funds Regime

    The work on LTAFs is best understood alongside the wider work to review the UK’s funds regime.

    Here our ambition is to further build on the UK’s world-leading position in asset management by making the UK a much more attractive place for funds to domicile.

    And by ensuring the investors can access a suitably wide range of fund vehicles, so they can pursue the exciting investment strategies of tomorrow from the UK.

    With your support and expertise we will continue striving to make this a reality. We will make the taxation of funds more efficient. We will expand the range of investment products available in the UK. And we will facilitate the kind of innovation which helps investors and the wider economy.

    Global Opportunities

    My responsibility is to ensure the UK financial services industry is the very best that it can be.

    On making sure we have agile and effective regulation.

    The Edinburgh Reforms take forward the government’s ambition for the UK to be the world’s most innovative, open and competitive global financial centre.

    To drive growth and competitiveness in this crucial sector, while retaining our commitment to high international standards.

    The Chancellor has committed to move rapidly to review retained EU law over the next year to identify reforms which have the greatest potential to unlock growth in key areas, including in financial services.

    The Edinburgh Reforms themselves, of course, do not directly impact many of you here today. But what they show is our direction of travel: to use our new freedoms to tailor regulation to our industries and untether parts of our economy that have been held back.

    To what end? To becoming the most innovative, productive, well-oiled financial services sector in the world that delivers for communities across all four nations of the UK.

    I want to harness your strengths, unlocking institutional investment so that we can channel money to where it can do the most good: infrastructure, technology and innovation, the journey to net zero.

    I want our country to be the best country in the world for businesses to invest, grow and flourish.

    And I need your help in directing ever-more investment to these cutting edge-firms and long-term priorities.

    On the subject of long-term priorities, could anything be more important than our country’s security?

    It is my view that our security and freedom might just rely on our willingness to invest in defence over the long-term. So, I ask, as a sector, are we undervaluing defence and if so, what can each of us do about it?

    FSM Bill

    And the truth is we need to think long-term. We live in a globally competitive landscape. Our competitors are not taking a break.

    Our Financial Services and Markets Bill, therefore, has competitiveness baked into it, aiming to enhance the UK’s position as a global leader in financial services.

    The Bill introduces secondary statutory objectives for the PRA and the FCA to provide for a greater focus on growth and international competitiveness.

    Technology

    If we are to realise that ambition, we need to also ensure that UK financial services are at the forefront of technological advancements. To unlock the untapped potential new technology can bring to every town and city, and to grow the economy.

    It’s already enabling us to embrace green finance – on which we want to lead the world – and exploit the great opportunities provided by AI, Quantum Computing.

    And the asset management industry has the unique capability to harness the opportunities of innovative technologies, and one development I’d like to highlight is on digital assets – those made possible by the rise in blockchain technology.

    We are establishing a framework for regulating cryptoassets and stablecoins.

    This includes ensuring that the Treasury has the powers to regulate cryptoassets within the existing financial services framework which could cover those relating to the trading and investment of cryptoassets.

    Just last week, we published a consultation setting out comprehensive proposals for regulating the sector.

    At the end of last year, we made regulations to expand the Investment Manager Exemption tax rules to include transactions in cryptoassets, to remove disincentives to UK fund managers investing on behalf of overseas investors from including cryptoassets in their portfolios.

    This will provide greater tax certainty for UK fund managers and foreign investors and put the UK at the forefront of the developing global cryptoasset fund management sector.

    Sustainable Investments

    Finally, I cannot speak about the global context without acknowledging ESG and the importance of sustainable investment.

    I want the UK to be the best place in the world for sustainable finance and we have taken world-leading action to green the financial system.

    London was recently ranked as the world’s leading hub for sustainable finance for the third consecutive time.

    And I’m very proud that so many asset managers are signatories to the Financial Reporting Council’s Stewardship Code and members of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative – reflecting the importance the Government places on responsible and productive stewardship of capital.

    Conclusion

    I’ll end by repeating my thanks to you all for having me at the Funds Congress.

    It’s an exciting time for asset management and we’re depending on this trusted industry to invest in the future of the UK.

    I know we will work closely as we continue to promote growth and enable a competitive, thriving financial services sector. Thank you.

     

  • Miriam Cates – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Miriam Cates – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Miriam Cates, the Conservative MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    I am delighted that the Chancellor has set aside £4 billion to help families with young children. I am less delighted with how he is choosing to spend it. I am referring to the massive expansion of the 30-hour childcare scheme to include babies from the age of nine months. The stated aim of this policy is to get parents back into work and to grow the economy, but unfortunately it will probably fail on both counts. It will not get parents back into work, and the evidence of that comes from the current 30-hour offer for three and four-year-olds, which has had limited success, with only 40% of eligible families using their full entitlement. That is not surprising, because it is not free and it is inflexible, being restricted to only 38 weeks a year and between 9 am and 3 pm—not many jobs fit those requirements.

    Polling shows that a great many parents would understandably prefer to look after their children themselves. A recent IFS study showed that free childcare does not have a significant impact on parents’ childcare and work decisions. If these are the problems with the three to four-year-old offer, they will be even more acute with the nine months to two years offer. We are also forgetting that families in this country keep so little of what they earn that it is often not worth going back to work even if the childcare is cheaper.

    The Treasury and others keep repeating the mantra that British parents face the highest childcare costs in the western world. That is not actually true. The absolute costs of childcare in the UK are similar to those in other countries. The problem is that British families’ childcare costs are a higher proportion of families’ net income than in comparable countries. So the problem is not the childcare costs; it is the low net income. That is the result of taking so much money off parents in tax, in comparison with other countries, combined with meagre child benefits, also in comparison with other countries.

    The root of this problem is our unique individual taxation system, which does not recognise households with children and results in British families paying three, four, five, or even 10 times the amount of tax as families in other countries. It particularly penalises single-earner households or households with a large difference in earnings between the two partners. Under this policy, for example, a mother might return to work because the childcare costs are now reduced. She might earn a £20,000 gross salary, out of which she has to pay taxation, national insurance, pension contributions, student loan repayments and travel costs, while her universal credit and childcare top-ups could be withdrawn. Out of her gross salary of a little under £1,700 a month, she will be lucky to keep £290. That is an effective tax rate of nearly 80%. Some people will return to work for that, but many will not because of what they are losing in time with their children, so I do not expect take-up to be high.

    Will this policy grow the economy? It might increase GDP if more people return to the employment market, but what does it mean in real terms for real people’s lives? Will GDP per capita grow? I think that is highly unlikely, because when mothers return to work it creates more low-paying jobs in childcare and elderly care—important but low-paying jobs—which increases the gender pay gap. This has happened in Denmark, for example, which has three times the gender pay gap that we have here in the UK.

    I do not believe the policy will see mums flooding back to work and I do not think it will grow the economy in meaningful terms, but even if I am wrong, I still believe it is the wrong policy because it is the wrong policy for children. What is best for baby in the early years? The bond between mother and child is probably the strongest human relationship there is. This is not just a soppy feeling; it is a highly evolved survival mechanism, and strong attachment in the early years pays dividends in later life. There are many great people in the childcare sector, but no one replaces mummy.

    It is heartbreaking when mothers feel they have no choice but to leave their babies in childcare from a very young age because of the financial imperative. Yes, there is a cost of living problem, and many women want to work for all sorts of reasons and should absolutely be supported to do so, but the issue for many families is not the cost of childcare per se, any more than it is the cost of food or energy; it is the inability to live on one income when children are young. This is what separates many women from their children: not choice, but tragic necessity.

    The Treasury thinks the answer to our financial challenges is to send more mothers to work. I think the answer is to support all families in the early years to give parents a choice. We have £4 billion for this new policy and £4 billion for existing policies, so why not use this to fund a move to household taxation and to increase child benefits? Why not spend that £6,500 a year per child in a different way, to give parents the choice of how they spend it, perhaps on formal childcare, on informal childcare or on spending fewer hours in the workplace?

    Elite feminism might say that motherhood is drudgery and inferior to paid work outside the home, but that is only true if we believe that status and meaning derive principally from our salary and status in the workplace. “I wish I’d spent more time in the office instead of with my small children”, said no one on their deathbed ever. Those making these policies think of women with high-flying, highly paid careers, and of course those women should be supported to stay in work and maintain their careers, but that is not most women. Most women have jobs, not careers. As Dan Hitchens wrote in UnHerd last week, those advocating for these policies

    “assume that taking your little one to Wriggle and Rhyme at the public library is an unutterable burden, whereas stacking shelves or updating spreadsheets is a liberation of the human spirit.”

    It is fundamentally un-Conservative to spend £4 billion separating parents from their babies in the pursuit of marginal gains to GDP. We offer tax breaks and incentives to reduce costs for companies investing in the economy. Why not offer the same to families nurturing the source of our future economic success? I commend the amount of money being spent on the early years, but please can it be used to offer parents a choice and babies the best start in life?

  • Emma Hardy – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Emma Hardy – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Emma Hardy, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    It is good to see you back, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    This Budget has been described as being “slightly better” than the previous Prime Minister’s Budget, which crashed the economy. At least during the delivery of this Budget statement we were not watching on our phones as the pound plummeted, but what a low bar to reach above. Nothing says “clutching at straws” like the staged cheering of a “pothole fund”, whose very existence tells us that routine road maintenance has been starved of funds—another example of the managed decline that we have seen after 13 long years of Conservative rule.

    This Budget is weak and unambitious. It is a sticking plaster, an attempt to fix mistakes that consecutive Conservative chancellors have made, and it does nothing to address the real problems that people face. What does it give us? We find ourselves facing the biggest drop in living standards on record. The average French family is now a tenth richer and the average German family a fifth richer than their British counterparts. Wages are now lower in real terms than they were 13 years ago. This stalling wage growth has left British workers £11,000 a year worse off. Taxes as a share of GDP are at a 30-year high, which is the equivalent of every household paying £4,600 more tax each year than in 2019-20. The OECD has said that the UK economy is the weakest in the G7. The only other country that is set to have a lower rate of growth and more contraction of its economy is Russia.

    Why is this? The Government want to point to international factors such as covid and Ukraine, but those factors do not explain away the unique situation that the UK is facing. Yes, the Conservatives’ Brexit deal has had an impact, but these roots go far deeper. The roots of our economic difficulties go back to austerity in 2010, and the utter chaos and dysfunction at the heart of Government since 2016. The British people are literally paying the price for the internal wars within the Conservative party. Let us be honest: the Conservative party has no strategy and no plan to grow our economy, because the Conservative party no longer knows who it is or what it stands for. We are seeing that again this week as the soap opera continues, and the headlines about what the former Prime Minister did hit the newspapers instead of a real analysis of what is happening to the cost of living crisis.

    We see another example when we look at the Conservatives’ desperate attempt to form an economic plan. In January 2020 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy introduced an industrial strategy that promised five foundations of productivity. That lasted only a year. In the spring of 2021 the Budget abolished the industrial strategy and replaced it with “Build Back Better: our plan for growth”, which contained three core pillars of growth. That lasted less than a year. In February 2022 the Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—abolished the pillars and the foundations, and introduced three priorities for growth. That lasted seven months. In September 2022 the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), left out the pillars, foundations and priorities in favour of a growth plan—the less said about that, the better. It lasted four months. In January 2023 the new Chancellor brought back the pillars, but managed to increase their number from three to four. So far, that has lasted three months. What an utter farce! No wonder business investment is the lowest in the G7. There have been five plans for growth in one Parliament, and as a result of this incompetence GDP has fallen by 0.2%.

    Who are the winners? As usual, the richest 1% gain from a Conservative Budget via the changes to pensions, at a cost of £.1 billion for the rest of the taxpayers. As for the ludicrous claim that this is all about helping the doctors, I gently suggest that if the Government want to help the doctors and get more of them back working for the NHS, they should go and talk to the junior doctors who are currently on strike.

    Who are the other winners? Let us have a look at those. Research and development “claim farms” are exploiting the low level of scrutiny of tax reliefs. R&D relief is the largest co-operative tax relief, predicted to cost more than £9 billion by 2026-27. A recent report from the charity TaxWatch revealed that highly profitable finance companies are claiming millions in relief. Boundary-pushing is rife. Fraud and error in R&D totalled more than £1.1 billion in the last three years, and our HMRC is too under-resourced even to look at it properly. The Government were prepared to chase people who were accidentally overpaid in benefits and pensions more than companies that were exploiting the system.

    This Budget is a continuation of the pattern of managed decline, and it makes me so angry that our brilliant country is being let down in this way. It is a Budget from a tired, fractious, divided and desperate Government, focused so much on the enemies within and not enough on the real struggles that people out there are facing. It is a Budget with nothing to say on social care, NHS waiting lists or the millions without access to NHS dentists. It is a Budget that fails to learn the lessons of the past, with the only growth we see being in claim farms in R&D relief and in the very richest in society. Our country can be and will be so much better than this when we consign these farcical plans for pillars, foundations and priorities to the past and get in a new Labour Government who will put working people first.

  • Bob Seely – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Bob Seely – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Bob Seely, the Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    It is great to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), I will be ultra-parochial: I am going to talk specifically about the funding model in my constituency in relation to public services, and what the Treasury says or does not say about it. The issue, which I will bring up in my Prime Minister’s question on Wednesday and in my meeting with the relevant Minister in the next couple of weeks, is the funding of public services on the Isle of Wight.

    Isle of Wight Council is the only island authority in the United Kingdom that does not receive a permanent, consistent uplift in its funding that reflects the additional cost of providing services on an island separated by sea from the mainland and without a fixed link. The “Fair funding review” of 2017, which was signed off by the current Prime Minister when he was in a different job, made clear that it recognised the additional costs associated with providing Government services on the Isle of Wight. It set those costs at a fairly high level, estimating them to be the equivalent of an extra 35 miles for ferry passengers on foot and about 70 miles—the distance from London to Peterborough—for those travelling in a car or lorry.

    Since 1989, there have been six major studies of the impact of separation by sea on fair funding and public services on the Island. I shall refer briefly to two of them, the University of Portsmouth model of 2016 and a study commissioned last year by the Government, working with me, to examine the funding settlement for the Island. The University of Portsmouth, in an excellent study for which I thank its academics, confirmed that three separate economic factors were at play in making the provision of local services on the Island more expensive. The first was the lack of spill-over of public goods between the mainland and the Island, the second was the so-called Island premium—the higher prices charged by suppliers on the Island as opposed to the mainland—and the third was the additional costs to the Island that result from physical and perceived dislocation.

    Two years ago, backing up and building on that report, the Government—at my request—spent about £50,000 on commissioning LG Futures, a respected local government think-tank, to review the evidence for the “additional costs” argument in relation to the provision of public services on the Island. The Government worked through with the council and me the parameters of what the review—which they had committed to and commissioned—would be investigating. It confirmed the accuracy of every relevant study of the funding of public services on the Island: it confirmed that it cost more to deliver public services there, for the reasons outlined by the University of Portsmouth.

    In many ways I am delighted by what has been happening in the past few years, and I want Ministers to hear that. We have had a much better deal from the Government in recent years. Since I became the Member of Parliament for the Island, we have got more than £120 million of additional Government funding, including about £48 million for St Mary’s Hospital—and that does not include the £10 million for the new diagnostics centre, which is wonderful news. We have received £50 million to upgrade the railway and the Ryde railway pier. The work on the pier is under way, as is the work at St Mary’s. We have got £20 million for Isle of Wight College, and £6 million to support shipbuilding in East Cowes. All that provides much better life opportunities and life chances for Islanders, which are what I am here to try to deliver.

    However, when it comes to the provision of local government services via Isle of Wight Council, we are lagging behind other islands in the UK, and our need—which has been confirmed by all coherent and responsible academic research into the Island—backs up our argument. I shall be meeting the relevant Minister in the next couple of weeks to discuss that, because the Government have, I am delighted to say, reopened the case for looking at Isle of Wight funding. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will come to the Island in May to talk to the Islands Forum, which I helped to establish along with others, including council leaders in Orkney and, I believe, Wales. I also hope to talk to the Prime Minister about the issue in due course.

    I ask Ministers, including those at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Treasury, to look at a fair funding formula for the Island, because this is one of the outstanding issues that have still not been resolved in our efforts to secure a better deal. We have gone a long way towards delivering that better deal for health, shipbuilding, transport and Isle of Wight College, but a fairer funding settlement that takes account of the fact that the Isle of Wight is an island is still eluding us. I should be extremely grateful if Ministers could work with me on that to solve the issue this year.

  • Robert Syms – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Robert Syms – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Sir Robert Syms, the Conservative MP for Poole, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am in the parliamentary pension fund and I may be affected by the lifetime allowance changes.

    Listening to the debate today, one would be forgiven for forgetting the fact that we had the worst public health emergency for 100 years, in which the Government had to take actions to lock the economy down. I had my disagreements with my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), but you cannot say his motives were bad. He was trying to save lives and to get through a pandemic. We did not know whether the disease was going to be deadly, mild or what. That cost a lot of money and had a big impact on many businesses. If several million people are sent to sit at home for months on end while the Bank of England is printing money, it should not be a surprise if, at the end of that, inflation is high and living standards are under some challenge. The only people who could be surprised about the fact that the last 12 or 18 months have been difficult economically are those who did not think that there would be any consequences to lockdown. There were consequences. We are getting through them and things are improving, but that means there have to be some tough and difficult decisions on issues such as tax.

    On the Government Benches, sometimes we do not like to put up taxes, but sometimes it is necessary. If we look at what the Government have done, we see that they have a plan, which is working. Between now and the next general election, there will probably be five statements or Budgets. We are at stage 2, so there are another three to go. In November, there were predictions of a recession—quite a big recession, actually—in the early part of this year, a rise in unemployment and a black hole in public spending. They have all sort of disappeared, which means the Government have stabilised the situation.

    The Government have been trying to ensure that more people can get back into the labour force, with changes to childcare. They have protected a lot of capital budgets through their decisions, and their main objective in the Budget is to keep the economy growing. I understand why people quote the International Monetary Fund, but its predictions, which are always educated guesses, were produced before the German economy went into a recession at the end of last year. At the moment, neither the French nor the German economy is performing as well as the British economy.

    The truth of the matter is that we have a spike in inflation, which should come down quite rapidly this year. There will be a crossover point, somewhere around May, June or July, at which inflation will fall below the rate of pay increases. We will then start to have an increase in living standards from this summer onwards, and some of the squeezes that families are facing will be reversed. If the public finances improve as we grow, I hope that my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will be able to cut taxation. There is a lot to be said for the Budget, which is one further step in the direction of sensible economics and nursing our economy and our public and individual finances back to health, so I support what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are doing.

    I was pleased by what my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) said about nuclear, particularly small modular. It is very important that we get on with that because, as always, we need a balanced range with not just renewables and gas but nuclear power.

    I am generally pleased with what the Budget has done: I think that the outlook has measurably improved. We can still see some fragility in the world economy, certainly when we look at Switzerland or the United States, so we have to take a cautious approach, but I am sure that if we do so and nurse the economy back to health, our nation will be rather the better for it in 12 or 18 months’ time.

    I say to the Opposition: if we are right, we will beat you, and if you are right, you will beat us. I keep hearing about these 13 years of misery, but we won an election in 2015, we won an election in 2017 and we won an election in 2019. We may well win the election in 2024, but it will really be determined by whether the Treasury team get it right. My view is that they probably are getting it right; the Opposition’s difficulty is that they have to sit there and watch us getting it right. I think it is going to be an interesting 18 months.

    The hospitality sector in Bournemouth and Poole thinks that VAT is too high. The Isan Thai restaurant in Poole and the Lakeside restaurant in Poole would like to see it reduced when we can afford it, not least because many restaurants do not pay VAT on food, so the real rate of VAT at 20%, when they do not have many offsets, is quite a painful thing to pay. I told them that I would raise that point in this debate.

    I think we are going in the right direction. I think we will see an improvement as we go through the year, and it will fundamentally change the politics of our country.

  • Nia Griffith – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Nia Griffith – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Dame Nia Griffith, the Labour MP for Llanelli, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    It is good to see you back, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Today, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate science report reminds us that we are not doing enough to tackle climate change. While we continue to have a clear moral obligation to prioritise reaching net zero, we are now at a critical time for companies to invest in the technologies for the future. If the UK Government do not provide the appropriate conditions and incentives for multinational companies to choose to site their new production lines in the UK, they will go elsewhere. There will be not just one factory closure, but multiple factory closures. We will lose critical mass and a whole generation of investment. That would be a tragedy, when we think back to our role in the industrial revolution and about the world-class research and development that takes place in the UK’s great universities and leading manufacturers.

    The US Inflation Reduction Act and the European Union green deal industrial plan pose real challenges for the UK. Sadly, this Chancellor’s Budget was an extremely disappointing response to what is going on elsewhere. It prompted the CEO of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to say of it:

    “There is little, however, that enables the UK to compete with the massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”

    That is particularly galling as we do have the ideas to invest in innovation and research and development, and, at the same time, we have a desperate need for the Government to create growth. Just last week, the OECD report, “A Fragile Recovery”, repeated that Britain’s economy will have the worst performance of any advanced country this year. That is a disgrace this Tory Government should be ashamed of.

    The investment needs to be comprehensive. For example, the automotive transformation fund needs not just to support the development of batteries and electrical components, but to be available to companies such as those in my constituency investing in the development of lighter bodywork parts, which are essential for improved electric vehicles.

    That is why we need a bold investment programme, such as the one Labour proposes of some £28 billion a year, so we can lead the green revolution, and develop, manufacture and export goods from our proposed export hubs, rather than find ourselves left behind in the green technological race, with factory lines shutting down as the manufacture of current models is phased out and our manufacturing base disappearing, leaving us ever more dependent on imports and exposed to the vagaries of world markets.

    Time and again, from way before the current energy crisis, we have raised the issue of uncompetitive energy costs in industry and business. If the UK had invested considerably more in renewables, we would have been much less reliant on imported gas and in a much better position to control our energy prices. Yet this Tory Government have wasted so many years, dragging their feet on investment in renewables, with their absurd ideological ban on onshore wind in England—a ban there was absolutely no need for. We have just had a begrudging, half-hearted reversal of that ban, with no real enthusiasm and no renewed drive to accelerate the roll-out of this, the cheapest and easiest form of renewable energy to produce. And what did we hear in the autumn? Measures to curtail solar panel expansion investment. What will the Government now do to give a real boost to the transition to renewables?

    We recently witnessed the fiasco where wind energy was being generated in Scotland, but because of lack of grid capacity, it could not be transmitted to England, where consumers needed it. So there is work to be done for the national grid just to catch up with the present, never mind prepare for the future.

    I know the Climate Change Minister in the Welsh Government, Julie James MS, is mindful of the likely quantities of energy that will be generated by offshore wind in the Celtic sea. She has raised with the UK Government the vital work that is needed to the national grid to ensure that energy can be transported from where it is generated to where it is needed. Yet when I have mentioned that here in this place, I have been met with looks of incredulity from some Members of the Government Front Bench. So I ask again: given the huge potential for increasing output from both onshore and offshore wind, please can the Minister responding to the debate set out in detail what talks Ministers have had with National Grid about ensuring grid capacity will be able to transmit power from where it is generated to where it is needed? How do the Government intend to accelerate the development of the national grid?

    I turn to the Horizon programme, the EU programme that UK universities have particularly benefited from in the past, as they have been seen as attractive partners for other European countries. There was an abject failure by this Government in their Brexit negotiations not to come to a cordial agreement with the EU whereby we could, albeit from outside the EU, have collaborated on Horizon or similar programmes. Investors are now coming to the end of current programmes and unable to plan for the future.

    The UK Government keep trying to blame the EU for the delays to the Horizon association, but they should be taking responsibility for their actions in breaking their manifesto promise to broker an association. In summing up, can the Minister update us on negotiations for the UK to have Horizon associate status, and ensure that our universities can benefit and compete with the best in the world?

  • Virginia Crosbie – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Virginia Crosbie – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Virginia Crosbie, the Conservative MP for Ynys Mon, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    It is wonderful to see you in your rightful place, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    This Budget is an example of how this Conservative Government are investing in Britain and in levelling up communities across the country, including in my constituency. The £20 million for the breakwater refurbishment in Holyhead will help to support the redevelopment of the second busiest roll-on roll-off port in the UK. The support offered to individuals and households, in particular for childcare, will open new opportunities for the working-age population in my constituency, but it is the nuclear energy announcements that I believe will have the greatest long-term impact on the people and economy of Ynys Môn. It is nuclear that I have consistently campaigned on and championed. I was delighted that my constituency was mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech.

    Earlier this month, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, co-signed by 57 right hon. and hon. Friends. In that letter, I asked the Prime Minister to push ahead with a bold new programme of nuclear power construction under the aegis of Great British Nuclear and to make new nuclear energy part of the green taxonomy. Great British Nuclear and the vision of our British energy security strategy would enable this country to make enormous strides toward energy independence, net zero and a more prosperous and balanced economy.

    Every single nuclear power station online in Britain today was connected to the grid under a Conservative Government. The stations that we approve and build today will give the United Kingdom secure, reliable energy for at least 80 years. They will stand as this Government’s green legacy to our children and our children’s children. By announcing the intention to include nuclear in our green taxonomy, we open the gates to investment that was not previously accessible, and demonstrate to the world that we are committed to new nuclear. By backing small modular reactors through a competitive process, we will derive best value and drive our nuclear energy production forward in innovative ways that can tackle both national and local demand.

    Ynys Môn is one of Rolls-Royce’s four potential SMR sites. I have taken around the island SMR companies, such Last Energy and GE Hitachi, with a view to investing on Ynys Môn. But it is the outcome of all these words that my constituents are most interested in. This Budget paves the way for regenerating Wylfa—currently the site of a nuclear power plant undergoing decommissioning. I hope, soon, to see spades in the ground for the UK’s next new nuclear construction.

    In case you have not heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, alongside these exciting developments, Ynys Môn is awaiting the outcome of its bid to become a freeport and I have an Anglesey freeport jacket especially for you. The freeport would be the last piece of the puzzle that would allow us to unleash the full potential of Ynys Môn. A freeport would work hand in hand with these nuclear announcements and make Ynys Môn a thriving, successful and economically productive part of the UK. Together, new nuclear and an Anglesey freeport would unleash our potential and make us roar.

    The impact on Ynys Môn of such a step change in its fortunes would be huge—the culmination of decades of “nearly theres” for my constituents. It would bring employment, investment and the opportunity for local people to work locally. My dad had to leave Wales to find work. He could not afford to have his family in Wales. I have come back to ensure that other people do not have to leave and there is good-quality employment, right there on Ynys Môn.

    The choice for our young people on Ynys Môn will no longer be to stay in their communities on low-paid and often seasonal work, or to leave in search of a career, like my father. They will be able to stay local, train local, work local and contribute local. That is what this Conservative Government and levelling up are all about. Diolch yn fawr.

  • Bambos Charalambous – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Bambos Charalambous – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Bambos Charalambous, the Labour MP for Enfield Southgate, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Politics is about priorities. At a time when people in my constituency are struggling with the cost of living, this Budget was an opportunity for the Government to put working people first and to get us on the pathway to growth, making everyone—not just the wealthy—better off. From speaking to my constituents, it is clear that the cost of living should be the priority right now. One constituent wrote to me recently:

    “I have had enough of constantly struggling every day, day after day for months and years.”

    My constituent is not alone. Recent polling from 38 Degrees found that in Enfield Southgate, 40% of people have not been able to afford to turn the heating on when cold in the past month.

    As people are forced to choose between heating and eating, I am pleased that the Government have followed Labour’s calls to freeze energy bills for another three months, and for prepayment meter charges to be brought in line with direct debit payments. However, the cost of living crisis is not over, and inequality is growing. For people struggling with sky-high bills, rents and mortgages, I fear that the help included in this Budget will not really touch the sides. Some 31% of my constituents are worried about having to use a food bank in the next year. Charities, food banks and community organisations such as the great Cooking Champions in Enfield, which provides groceries and cooked meals for those in need, face all-time-high demand, and 26% of people in Enfield Southgate have missed rent payments in the last six months as housing insecurity compounds cost of living pressures.

    The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box last week and talked about the difficult decisions that the Government took in the autumn to deliver stability. While he and the Conservatives may dance around the issue, people in Enfield Southgate will not forget why those difficult decisions were needed, as the fallout from the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget, fuelled by an ideological fixation on failed trickle-down economics, drags on to this day. In my constituency, families face mortgage hikes of more than £6,000. That is the devastating, real-life impact of the Conservatives’ economic mismanagement—a Tory mortgage penalty in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

    In that context, I return to priorities. This Budget was an opportunity to tackle the long-term challenges that we face with the cost of living, and to begin the clean-up after 13 years of Conservative failure on the economy. Instead, while family incomes and living standards fall to record lows and working people face the highest tax burden in 70 years, the Chancellor made it his priority to spend £1 billion on an untargeted tax cut for the richest 1% and their pension pots, in the midst of a cost of living crisis. That shows what side the Tories are on.

    There are three issues that I would like to raise that were not covered in this Budget fully. First, the windfall tax was not mentioned last week, despite oil and gas giants continuing to rake in record profits at our expense. Last year, Shell reported the highest profits in its 115-year history and one of the largest profits in UK corporate history, while BP made profits of £23 billion in the same year, up from £10.6 billion. It is outrageous that the people of Enfield Southgate are struggling to pay their energy bills as oil and gas giants line their pockets. All the while, the Government sit idly by, leaving £10.4 billion on the table through holes in their half-baked energy profits levy. We needed a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas giants’ unearned profits of war—billions of pounds that could help families and businesses across the UK through the cost of living crisis.

    For renters, there was nothing from the Chancellor, despite rents in London increasing 17.8% on average last year. Every week, more constituents come to me with housing issues, from families facing eviction to people struggling to meet unaffordable rent rises. It is an incredibly worrying time for many, and this Budget did nothing to help them or to solve the housing crisis that has engulfed our country since the Conservatives took office. In Enfield, under this Government’s watch, funding for the council has been cut by 60%. Quite simply, how can councils tackle fundamental issues such as housing insecurity and shortages if the Tory Government in Westminster refuse to properly fund local government?

    Finally, I would like to mention hospices because, although there is brief respite from the energy price guarantee freeze, long-term problems remain for hospices up and down the country. I welcome the announcement of more money for charities and hospices such as North London Hospice in Enfield, but the Treasury must release the money quickly to enable hospices to meet their energy bill demands as they struggle to maintain essential clinical services for some of the most vulnerable people in our community, in the face of unprecedented price rises and funding challenges.

    Last week, the Chancellor said that “the plan is working”. If the plan is papering over the cracks of 13 years of decline, I might agree, but this Budget should have been a game changer. The people of Enfield Southgate deserve better than a tired Tory Government with the wrong priorities and nobody left to blame. It is time that they stepped aside and let a Labour Government take over and deal with the real priorities that matter to the people.

  • Edward Leigh – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Edward Leigh – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) in praising the Government for bringing a nuclear fusion site to West Burton. As I have already said, it is not 5 miles from Gainsborough—indeed, Gainsborough is the closest town. I very much hope that the Minister will support my campaign to rename the site the “Gainsborough West Burton” site.

    Gainsborough was at the heart of the industrial revolution in the 19th century, bringing in new products. This site is a chance for us to go with the flow through a brand new technology. We want to create apprenticeships and to involve the whole region. I really want to make that clear. Gainsborough is an industrial town with traditionally high levels of employment. I am delighted that the Government have given us £10 million in levelling-up funds. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for giving that to Gainsborough South West ward—the 27th most deprived ward in the entire country.

    However, there is no point one hand of the Government giving us £10 million in levelling up if the other hand is potentially taking £300 million of investment away from my constituency. As I mentioned in Home Office questions today, we have developed a wonderful deal for RAF Scampton—home of the Dambusters and the Red Arrows—creating heritage, a spaceport, a hotel and industry. The whole thing is at risk because the Home Office is now marching in and threatening to put 1,500 migrants there. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are migrants or not migrants; it is about the fact that we cannot develop the site, which is relatively developed now, if it is held by the Home Office for two years. Levelling up is at the heart of this Budget. We must have co-ordinated government—co-ordination between the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

    I want to make a more general point. Thatcherites such as myself are always banging on about the need for tax cuts. There is no point in our doing that if we are not controlling public spending. Of course I regret that corporation tax is going up, but I recognise that the public finances are in a state of crisis. I really encourage Ministers on the Front Bench to redouble their efforts to ensure that there is efficiency and economy in our public services; I speak as a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

    There is still grotesque waste throughout the public sector. I am now on the sponsor board of the restoration and renewal programme: hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted on doing nothing to renovate the building where we are now—years wasted! It is a small point, but I read in the newspapers that we are already spending about £100 million on the covid inquiry, hiring hundreds of lawyers. Right through the public sector, we rely on the Chief Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that we get good value for money.

    One of the ways in which we will eventually make the public sector work better is through more of a sense of self-reliance. I do not want to make further points about the triple lock, because I will get into trouble if I criticise it in any shape or form—it is very politically difficult—but the Government must have a strategy to deal with it. The ideas developed by Peter Lilley when he was Secretary of State are exciting and interesting.

    We cannot just go on having a national health service that consumes an ever larger proportion of national income but is riddled with waste and incompetence and delivers worse and worse outcomes. We have to be prepared and have the political courage to learn from countries such as Australia, France and New Zealand, which have a mix of public and private provision that ensures that they have what are frankly much better health services because they are unleashing people’s enthusiasm to invest in their health. The previous Conservative Government gave tax relief for private health insurance, and we should not dismiss that.

    I want to make one more point. Of course we all welcome the extra provision for childcare, but it is a massive extension of the state. It is desirable in itself—I am entirely in favour of mothers who want to work being allowed and encouraged to do so even when their babies are as young as nine months—but we must also support mothers who want to stay at home. The marriage tax allowance was introduced by Nigel Lawson. It was allowed to wither on the vine, and was then reintroduced by George Osborne in 2015, but it is not well-advertised or taken up. It is fairly derisory, and amounts to only about £1,700. If a couple earns £70,000, they are £7,000 worse off as far as the taxman is concerned if the mother stays at home looking after a child and the husband goes to work.

    The marriage tax allowance is not just for married couples but for couples in a civil partnership. The Government should be neutral about the fact that, often, it is in the interests of the child and the mother, where the mother wants to do so, for her to be allowed by the tax regime to stay at home and not to be forced by the tax regime or by her personal circumstances to go out and work. A Conservative Government believe in choice, and that is what I want to impress on the Government.