UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2017

  • Theresa May – 2017 Speech to DrugFam Reception

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, to the DrugFam Reception in Downing Street on 27 November 2017.

    Good afternoon everybody and it’s a great pleasure to welcome you all here to Downing Street today. And, as you have heard, we are all here to recognise and celebrate the work that DrugFam has done over the last 11 years – years of real achievement and I’ve not only seen the charity grow over those years but also the impact the charity has made. But, I think we can say that the past year has been exceptional even for DrugFam.

    This year:

    – you have received the Queen Award for Voluntary Service – the highest honour a charity can receive
    – you held a major service of celebration and hope at Westminster Abbey – which I am very sorry I was not able to attend,
    – and of course Elizabeth received her MBE from Her Majesty the Queen – an honour which was richly deserved

    As you’ve just heard, I have known Elizabeth for well over a decade and she is, of course, a constituent of mine. I remember coming to your home, Elizabeth, and hearing you tell the story of Simon and Nicholas and, sadly, the loss of Nicholas. I think I had tears in my eyes as well as you, as you were telling that story. I’ve heard Elizabeth speak at events subsequently and I’ve seen the impact it has on people, when they hear that story, that tragic story, that brings home to people so clearly the impact that drugs can have not just on the individuals but on their whole family as well. What you’ve built here following the loss of Nick is something of huge value, improving the day to day life of others.

    I was proud to serve as a patron of DrugFam before I was appointed Home Secretary. The work you do makes a huge difference. You ensure that families, friends and partners affected by a loved one’s addiction get the support they need.

    Because when families have to face addiction, they really do need that support. And I think that was one of the elements is that, often for families, it is very difficult to know where to turn, to know what to do for the best. Sometimes, through love, families take steps that they think are the right ones but sadly sometimes are not. And it is for those feelings of helplessness, of shame, of isolation and fear that DrugFam exists today to show people there is someone to help, there is someone there to turn to.

    And what has really enabled DrugFam to do that has been the dedication and commitment of all its volunteers, and I am delighted that so many of you are here tonight. Without your generosity and the gift of time which you give to DugFam nothing it has achieved would have been possible.

    So I want to say a huge thank you to all of the staff, trustees, volunteers, patrons, ambassadors, donors, friends and supporters of DrugFam for everything you do. Including Sarah Cooper and her team, who I just met, who fundraise and deliver the fantastic Summer Ball on an annual basis.

    DrugFam volunteers gave over 7,000 hours of their time last year – manning the helpline, volunteering in support groups, and helping with fundraising and governance.

    But what is particularly striking is that half of the volunteers have previously accessed DrugFam support themselves – so DrugFam was there for you, and now you are there for other people. You are doing wonderful work and it is hugely appreciated.

    We know that we face a huge challenge as a country in overcoming addiction. The Government’s Drugs Strategy seeks to protect the most vulnerable, and I’m pleased to say the Home Office minister Victoria Atkins is here at the reception tonight, and to help those with drug dependency to recover and turn their lives around. But no one knows better than the people in this room just how difficult that can be.

    There are no quick solutions or easy answers. And for those affected by the addiction of a loved one, the impact can be immense and can last a lifetime. That’s why DrugFam’s work is so essential – providing long-term support and advice at every stage.

    So, Elizabeth, you can be justifiably proud of what you established all those years ago. From your personal tragedy has come a strong charity that is doing so much good in helping the lives of others. But thank you to all those that have joined Elizabeth along the way, some of you who through your own personal tragedy have come to give DrugFam the support it needs to be able to help others. You have achieved a tremendous amount in these last eleven years – and there is so much to celebrate and I am very pleased we have been able to invite you here today to do just that. With the support of everyone here in this room, and many who are not, I am sure that you will go on to achieve even more and help even more people in the future. Thank you.

  • Michael Gove – 2017 Speech to Rural Business Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to the Rural Business Conference on 28 November 2017.

    Introduction

    I wanted to begin by reflecting on the past. The CLA has been around for around 110 years now. And as I’m sure every single person in this room knows, the CLA was originally founded following the publication of a pamphlet called the ‘Land and the Social Problem by a man called Algernon Tumor. Now, Algernon had been a private Secretary to Benjamin Disraeli when he was Prime Minister. In that pamphlet in 1907 he argued that British agriculture was going through a time of huge change. Of course the political backdrop at that time was a debate about whether or not we should pursue more free trade agreements with countries in far flung regions or whether we should integrate more closely with our European partners. And at the same time as Algernon was making the case for this period of change he also excoriated politicians for their failure to show provide sufficient leadership when it came to charting a clear course for those who own, manage and work on the land. How very different things are, 110 years on. I think the role that you in the CLA have played for over a hundred years has been wonderful. You have been leading the debate over how we use our oldest and most precious national asset – our land. In the face of social, political, economic and technological change, the CLA has always been pioneering new ideas, you have supported imaginative approaches to land management, you’ve helped us to sustain the rural economy, growing health, guaranteed employment for hundreds of thousands and you continue to shape a progressive future for the countryside.

    I want to say a particular thanks to Ross Murray for his leadership and Tim Breitmeyer for his continuing leadership. You are uniquely fortunate in having two such distinguished individuals who understand the reality of the rural economy, who speak with authority and such candour to those in power and are an asset to this country and also to you, the membership of the CLA.

    Even in the brief opportunity I had to mix with some of you after lunch earlier, I was again struck by the way in which CLA members lean in. The way in which CLA members embrace the future. When I was talking to Ed Barnston earlier about the work he is doing in south Cheshire I was struck by the fact that he is ambitious for the future investing in an increasing determination to grow and produce more high quality food. And when I was talking to Peverel Manners, I was struck by his desire to clock up the air miles, go out to Australia and further afield to ensure that Great British produce was on foreign kitchen tables. It is that degree of ambition for the future which has always characterised the CLA and one thing that will always be true about land ownership and land management in this country is that we need to be ambitious for the future when it comes to continuing to produce the very best food and drink in the world. Because demand for British food has never been higher.

    Food and drink

    Our exports now surpass £20 billion for the first time, up by nearly 10% on the last year. That growth has been built on the reputation for quality built by people in this room.

    And we know, that the food chain brings £110 billion to the UK economy. Food and drink is our biggest manufacturing sector. That is why I am so delighted that in the Industrial Strategy published by my colleague Greg Clark yesterday recognised the vital importance of food and drink, with a new Food and Drink Sector Council. This Council will help pair the way for a for a food and drink sector deal in order to ensure that responsibility for effectively marketing and supporting primary producers and others is at the heart of the government’s industrial strategy.

    When we talk about the industrial strategy it is important to recognise that we are not just world leaders in the way in which food and drink has grown as an export in the course of the last couple of years. We are world leaders in terms of quality. We have the world’s highest animal welfare standards, we are moving towards having the world’s most ambitious environmental goals and also embedding the most rigorous approach towards sustainability,

    All these are good in themselves but it is also the case that they can provide us with an advantage in the marketplace for food and drink. Increasingly consumers – not just in this country but across the world – are demanding higher quality food. Consumers want to know more about the meat they buy, the milk they drink, the provenance of their vegetables, the carbon cost of production, the weight of the footprint left on the planet by particular farming methods and the circumstances under which animals were reared during their lives. Not to mention the way in which their lives end.

    The more specific the story we can tell about the care invested in the food we produce the more we actually reinforce our competitive edge Because if we make quality our hallmark we can secure farming’s future.

    So when it comes to finding an edge in an ever more competitive world of food and drink, we need to recognise its in goods recognised for their exceptional quality and special distinctive provenance that will become market leaders.

    Let me give you one example. As I was searching for an example I was spoilt for choice, thinking about producers in this room who have shown how provenance and quality can give you a marketing edge. So I didn’t want to favour anyone by making them teacher’s pet. I wanted to choose an example not relevant to anyone in this room but very close to my heart. Whisky.

    When I was growing up whisky was produced – in industrial quantities – using industrial methods – for an industrious population – that meant that when you bought your Whyte and Mackay or Bell’s or Black and White it was pretty much the same product, the differentiation was price.

    Now, whisky is sold more and more not on the basis of price but provenance, not cost but quality. Instead of relying on industrially-produced blends, the Scottish whisky trade is moving to carefully crafted single malts, with water drawn from particular springs, peatiness inculcated from particular islands and delicate flavour notes imparted by ancient sherry or port barrels for the fastest market growth.

    And Since 2000 there has been a 218% increase by volume and a 415% increase by value in malt whisky exports. The Macallan, Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, Laphroaig and others have become global brands. All by stressing their local, and artisan, origins.

    I believe that by stressing the local and the distinctive, whether its lamb or beef, cheese or bacon, cider or beer, bread or jam, that products will become the best in the world. The more the story behind the product speaks of provenance and tradition, attention to quality, respect for the environment and the highest ethical standards, the bigger the commercial opportunity for all of us.

    But if we are to continue to strengthen our position as a world leader in quality food production we need to concentrate not just on provenance but also on productivity.

    Productivity and technology

    And that means investing in the technology of the future.

    Today you have already heard from the world-leading academics at Harper Adams University. On a recent visit there I saw for myself the ground-breaking work that they are undertaking.

    From the fit-bit for cows that tracks their health and diet, to the ‘hands-free hectare’ technology, these latest advances will shape farming in the future and also demand of the next generation of farmers a familiarity with robotics and data analytics alongside an understanding of animal husbandry and soil health.

    We are on the cusp of a new agricultural revolution.

    There is a critical role for Government to play. We need to support the innovation that you will use to reshape agriculture. Scientific breakthroughs in other countries in areas as diverse as nuclear, biotech and digital have been stimulated by Government investment and government ambition.

    There is no reason why Britain cannot be the world leader in drone technology, robotics, laser treatment of weeds and pests, the deployment of big data, and also responsible genomics. All of these have the capacity to improve productivity and enable environmental enhancement. And I hope to say more in coming days about how we will advance these technologies.

    Of course, we already help farmers, landowners and rural entrepreneurs through the Rural Development Programme, which is supporting thousands of projects in areas as diverse as innovative cheese making and also the deployment of artificial intelligence. Funding is granted to ideas that improve productivity, generate growth and provide additional jobs in rural areas.

    Today I am pleased to announce that applications for grants from a further £45 million will open this Thursday, 30th November. Grants will be awarded to projects that support business development, food processing and, in addition, rural tourism infrastructure projects.

    Recently, we have also put £60 million into the Countryside Productivity scheme, which makes large grants for projects that add value to farm produce and improve farming productivity. This money can also be used to buy tools like precision slurry application equipment, which reduces ammonia emissions, delivers savings on fertiliser and ultimately helps the environment.

    Tools like this are exactly what we want to support when we say you can boost productivity and enhance the environment at the same time. And that brings me to the final and most fundamental aspect of a successful rural economy: environmental stewardship.

    As custodians of the landscape, farmers know, and have known for centuries what the rest of us are only just beginning to properly appreciate: without a healthy environment we have nothing.

    To take just one example from many, over the last 200 years we have lost 84% of our fertile peat topsoil in East Anglia. It is estimated that what remains, unless we take action, could be eradicated in the next 30-60 years. The rate at which vast stores of carbon held in these soils is being lost is nothing short of an emergency. We know that in many cases this damage is due to the short-term thinking which governed past patterns of intensive agricultural activity.

    We know that 95% of food production relies on healthy soil, antibiotics come from soil, a quarter of the world’s biodiversity comes from soil, so it is clear that we need to think and act together more sustainably. To everyone in this room, soil is a fundamental asset and its degradation costs us money. So Defra must, in its future agricultural support funding prioritise the health of our soils.

    History teaches us that civilisations can survive incredible challenges. Coups, revolutions, secession from empires, all these are survivable, sometimes even beneficial, but one change is fatal. The degradation of our environment. We have only one set of natural resources. We have to protect them and manage them sustainably to make sure our children can enjoy their fruits. No country can withstand the loss of its soil.

    At Defra we have made a commitment to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. And if we want a better environment we must protect all our habitats, enhance our biodiversity and safeguard the beauty of all our rural landscapes. And it is for that reason we said we will change the way in which we invest in our countryside. The public money which we, rightly, allocate to land owners to help them manage the land is there, ultimately, to secure public goods. And the pre-eminent public good is environmental enhancement.

    We all know that the current system of support for farmers and landowners shaped by the Common Agricultural Policy is inefficient, ineffective, inequitable and environmentally harmful.

    The environmental damage generated under the CAP has been striking. EU-inspired systems of agricultural production have damaged our soil.

    CAP-inspired and sponsored methods of agricultural production in the UK have led to soil degradation which costs us £1.2 billion a year according to Cranfield University.

    The damage is more than just towards soil. Since we joined the EU the number of farmland birds has declined by 54% while the populations of priority species overall have declined by 33%. And also, in recent years, intensive agricultural production systems of the kind driven by the CAP have reduced the numbers of pollinators. With a 49% decline in some specific bee populations, scarcely mitigated by a 29% increase in others.

    All of this has happened under a system where the majority of financial support allocated to farmers and landowners has comes under “Pillar One” of the CAP and has all been related to the size of productive agricultural land-holding rather than any wider benefit.

    And even though Pillar One funding has recently been changed to incorporate explicit environmental goods – the greening of CAP, the evidence that Pillar One funding encourages genuine environmental improvement is slight. In a recent paper by Alan Matthews for the RISE Foundation he pointed out that Pillar One funding had done little to improve land use.

    “The maintenance of permanent grassland requirement and the crop diversification obligation have led to minimal changes in land use, and the fact that the great majority of land enrolled in EFAs is used for productive options are pointers to that the additional environmental benefits, relative to the pre-greening baseline are likely to be low”

    The lion’s share of current support for land owners is, clearly, inefficiently allocated. It does not secure the public goods the public wants and needs if you want to provide resilient habitats, richer wildlife, healthier rivers and cleaner water, trees and peatland to absorb carbon and provide a home to precious species.

    We do know, however, that, public money, properly allocated through agri-environment or environmental land management schemes, can secure significant gains.

    Analysis of how farms in one particular set of Higher Level Stewardship schemes have done over the years are encouraging. There is no perfect single measure of biodiversity but the Farmland Bird Index is one of the best. And it has shown that in farms operating countryside stewardship schemes there has been an increase in the Farmland Bird Index of up to 165% even as the numbers nationally were in decline by 24%.

    Effective environmental land management schemes can do so much to protect our countryside. It can help protect moorland and heathland, encourage tree planting and wildflower meadows, mitigate the impact of flooding and climate change, improve water quality and lock in improved soil health and fertility. But it is still the case that of the money we allocate from Defra to the CAP, only around one fifth of the goes on environmental land management schemes, around 80% goes on the inefficient and ineffective pillar one payments.

    I believe that has to change. And I know that one of the major reasons why there has been such a relatively low take-up of appropriate environmental land management schemes so far has been the dreadful way in which we in Government have actually administered them. Natural England does many many good things but I have to say that Natural England and Defra scarcely deserve medals for the operation and administration of the Countryside Stewardship scheme.

    That is why I have asked Andrew Sells, Natural England’s brilliant Chairman, and James Cross, The Natural England Chief Executive, working with the Rural Payments Agency, to overhaul delivery of the scheme. The first part of that reform is a simplification of the application process and the creation of four new, hopefully much more streamlined offers, which I hope will be routes to securing support. These changes will, I hope, encourage more land owners and managers to adopt stewardship schemes but I, and the leadership team at Natural England, know there is still much more to be done.

    Because as everyone here knows – if we can get more investment in environmental land management schemes we can generate more economic growth. Studies of rural development spending have shown that schemes with an environmental focus have a very good return on investment, with each pound spent generating £3 in return. Natural capital analysis shows that the priority habitats which environmental land management schemes protect and enhance provide more than a billion pounds of economic benefit every year. And, of course, that investment, properly directed, also helps support food production. Wildflower margins which attract bees and other insects not only help pollination they also attract the predators who deal effectively with crop pests.

    In addition, as everyone here will also know, rural tourism is a vital, and inevitably growing, element in driving rural economic growth and wise environmental land management is critical to encouraging that tourism. Whether people are drawn by the chance to see rare flora and fauna, enjoy green space, appreciate the wild and untamed, follow traditional country pursuits or go glamping within easy reach of a gastropub, the quality of the environment is a critical factor in bringing visitors, and money, into the countryside. The consultancy GHK has estimated that 60% of rural tourism is dependent on high quality landscape and wildlife, generating around 5 billion pounds a year and supporting at the moment nearly 200,000 jobs.

    Conclusion

    As we prepare to leave the European Union we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to refashion how the state supports farming, what we pay landowners and what we want from the land.

    Government I believe has a vital role to play. It’s our role to champion food production, it’s our role to help you invest in new technology and it’s our role to pay you if you enhance the environment. Because ultimately our landscapes are beautiful and special not because the state or any Minister decrees it so but because those, you, who work on the land love what you do and where you work. Which is why we in government are grateful to all of you. Thank you.

  • David Lidington – 2017 Speech at Launch of TheCityUK Legal Services

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, on 23 November 2017.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today at the launch of TheCityUK’s Legal Services report for 2017, and can I add my thanks also James to you and Herbert Smith Freehills for hosting this event.

    Every year, your report holds a mirror up to our legal services sector. In doing so, it allows us to reflect upon the strengths and successes of this country’s formidable and world-leading legal services.

    This year I think the findings of the report should serve as a source of great pride and satisfaction for those who work in our legal services. It is also an important reminder to all of us, of the enormous contribution legal services make – not just to London, but to all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom – and I welcome in particular the focus of the report on the wider contribution the sector makes to the country. It’s particularly apposite given that the new Lord Mayor in his speech to the Guildhall last week part of his role should be to promote the City.

    We can look at the contribution of the sector in a number of ways:

    – to jobs: legal services employ over 300,000 people across the country, two thirds of these outside London. James mentioned Belfast but he could just as readily have mentioned Edinburgh, Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool.

    – to the economy: directly contributing around £24 billion last year with a trade surplus of £4 billion, and more broadly, underpinning the wider business and financial sectors.

    – but I don’t think either we should neglect what I would term the contribution to the UK’s soft power, our global reputation: our legal services market is one of the top, most admired and respected anywhere in the world.

    Legal services and EU exit

    Now for the government, we are committed to protecting and promoting the legal services sector – the benefits that its energy and vibrancy bring to the economy and the country.

    The report rightly raises the potential impact of EU exit on our legal services. I understand there is a real appetite from the sector for the government to make more announcements about where we are in the negotiations. I get that from your clients’ perspective, one of the biggest deciding factors on whether to use English law to govern their contracts is the enforceability of decisions.

    I’ll say now what I said when I spoke at TheCityUK Advisory Council earlier this month, the government is committed to securing continuity and certainty for business as part of the exit negotiations. And that includes taking seriously, and giving a high priority to securing, market access for the legal services sector, and ensuring we have ongoing civil judicial co-operation after we leave the European Union – something that I believe is profoundly in the interests of families and individuals in this country but to the corporate sector and tens of thousands of families in the EU too.

    I recognise that, as in any negotiation, there is uncertainty about the precise outcome that will be secured, but I want to reiterate the government’s commitment to ensuring that we have an outcome that protects and promotes our legal services. In particular, that means seeking an outcome that replicates the existing principles with the European Union, for example by incorporating the Rome I and Rome II regulations into domestic law and by continuing our participation in the Hague and Lugano conventions.

    And I am highlighting to my counterparts across the EU27 – and shall do so again at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in early December – how vital this is for individuals, families and businesses across Europe.

    Legal services are built on firm foundations

    As we go through these negotiations, we should not lose sight of the fact that our legal services in the United Kingdom are built on strong and deep foundations. They are underpinned by a strong commitment to the Rule of Law, by the certainty and clarity of Common Law in England that has evolved over centuries and by an independent, impartial and incorruptible judiciary that is recognised and respected across the world. These strengths make the United Kingdom a hugely attractive destination for litigants and legal service providers alike, now and in the future.

    ‘Legal Services are GREAT’

    But in a globally competitive marketplace, where I’m all too conscious that other countries and other jurisdictions are contending for legal business, we must ensure that the United Kingdom’s legal heritage, expertise, innovation and prowess in legal services and the benefits of having disputes settled here is plain for potential clients to see.

    That is why, in October, we launched our international ‘Legal Services are GREAT’ campaign. Now the ‘GREAT’ campaign has an interesting history. It was devised by David Cameron to take advantage of the spotlight on this country as a result of the Olympics and Paralympics being held here. It will showcase the expertise of our legal services, the integrity and experience of our judiciary and the benefits of using English Common Law to a global audience that will help us build stronger links with both established but also emerging markets.

    The message of the campaign is simple: the United Kingdom is home to the best legal services in the world. Whether that’s London as a global centre for dispute resolution, or Scotland and Northern Ireland as world-leading centres in their own specific areas of distinct legal expertise.

    As the 2017 report makes clear, technology and innovation in legal services will be key to ensuring the United Kingdom stands out. That’s why the government, building on the success seen in the Fintech sector, is ensuring that new and innovative legal technologies are embraced and supported. These have the potential to drive down costs, improve quality and fundamentally transform how services are used.

    One such example is smart contracts, which are expected to increase trust and certainty, and reduce friction in the performance of business and other contractual agreements. Smart contracts will have a profound impact on the delivery of legal services and the government is exploring how we can use these new technologies to ensure that English law and UK courts remain a competitive choice worldwide.

    The data and insights that are included within TheCityUK’s legal services reports are vital tools in our promotion of these messages and in determining our global standing and I’d like to thank TheCityUK for all of the work that has gone into this year’s report.

    UK legal services and future trade

    The ‘Legal Services are GREAT’ campaign is an important part of our global message about the incredible assets and services that the United Kingdom offers. It’s a message, too, about our future trading ambitions. It’s about ensuring our legal services can both take advantage of and support our future trade arrangements beyond EU exit.

    The government is taking a significant step in preparing to leave the European Union by making arrangements for our future independent trade policy, and legislation will be introduced and debated in Parliament in the next 12 months to ensure the necessary statutory underpinning of that trade policy.

    Trade is a key driver of growth and prosperity. International trade is linked to many jobs; it leads to higher wages and contributes to a growing economy.

    That’s why we are committed to ensuring that our world-class legal services serve as catalyst for future trade, and that the crucial role they play in underpinning the growth of wider business is maintained and understood.

    Conclusion

    So I welcome TheCityUK’s work on this with its own vision for a transformed, world-leading legal services industry.

    That vision sees the United Kingdom continuing to offer a clear and consistent system of law, with a sector that is highly digitalised and innovative….one where London continues to be an international hub for finance and legal services, but where there are also regional centres that serve as specialist hubs.

    I have no doubt that the strong and deep foundations on which our legal services are built, combined with the innovation and vision within the sector to embrace new opportunities and new technologies, mean that we will see our legal services not just lead the world, but continue to be the envy of the world. Thank you very much.

  • David Moran – 2017 Speech in Liechtenstein

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Moran, the out-going British Ambassador to Liechtenstein, on 24 November 2017.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Thank you. I really appreciate the chance to deliver some reflections on what has been a fascinating time to be Britain’s ambassador to Liechtenstein. Four years have gone by very quickly, which is usually a very good sign!

    I have very positive memories of my first visit in early 2014 to present my credentials to His Serene Highness Prince Alois. The weather was crisp and snowy, but the welcome was warm. My first official dealings with Liechtenstein were 17 years earlier when I was responsible for our bilateral relations in London. The British Embassy organised a visit to Vaduz by our Foreign Secretary. Not only was it on a Sunday, but also you were holding your elections at the time! So, this may be a little late – but thank you for looking after us when you were so busy!

    Being a non-resident ambassador presents a challenge of how to engage effectively with your host government. Liechtenstein makes this easy, with generous access to policy makers and tailor-made events such as the excellent annual tradition of Information Days for Ambassadors. These, together with the excellent New Year’s Reception hosted by His Serene Highness and your very enjoyable 15 August National Day celebrations, provide regular opportunities for engage with the diplomatic community.

    Of course, every ambassador wants to supplement these with bilateral occasions. I am no exception. I was very impressed by the Princely Liechtenstein Tattoo last year. Another particular highlight was the visit of our world-famous Globe Theatre to perform Hamlet in Schaan. It was a wonderful performance in an impressive theatre. Before the play, I threw a diplomatic tea party for our 400 guests, and even played the piano in the background! Both events gave me an insight into Liechtenstein life beyond the workplace.

    Ours is a healthy, positive and growing bilateral relationship. Our two-way bilateral trade was worth £107 million in 2015 – 600% up on 2005 levels. Even more impressively, Liechtenstein’s foreign direct investment into the UK is worth £4.5 billion. Per capita, that makes you our second largest investor per capita, comparing very well with Switzerland’s (also impressive) FDI total stock value of £39 billion in the UK. Liechtenstein is certainly playing its part as a “job motor” in Britain with your manufacturing companies responsible for over 1,000 UK jobs, and I have been grateful for the chance to visit their headquarters.

    The prosperity of both our countries depends on maintaining modern, well-run, financial services sectors. Our respective governments have developed strategies for the introduction and expansion of best practice. The UK is deeply committed to better international governance on tax and transparency, and we continue to play a global leadership role in the G7, OECD and EU.

    I have spoken before in Liechtenstein about some of your more recent reforms. I am very aware that this work is not new. The Liechtenstein Declaration is nearly a decade old. Britain represents an important market for your financial centre, and it is safe to say that our two governments have done a great deal of work together on the tax and transparency agenda, and I hope that they will continue to drive forward the international transparency agenda in the future.

    Liechtenstein has come a long way. Your participation in the Automatic Exchange of Information on tax as an ‘early adopter’ of the Common Reporting Standard exchanging information from September 2017 is a very welcome contribution to the huge global changes in tax transparency over the last five years or so which the UK has so actively supported and helped to lead. Our respective officials are in touch about ways to raise awareness of evolving legal and regulatory requirements. Indeed, a delegation from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will visit Liechtenstein in December to meet with representatives from your administration and the Financial Centre.

    It is against this backdrop of constructive collaboration that I was interested to learn of your most recent set of innovations developed jointly by the government and financial centre. Earlier this year you launched new procedures and products with the aim of helping existing and future UK taxpayers to ensure that they are UK tax compliant when investing in banking, insurance and trust markets in Liechtenstein. While, as you have said, it is ultimately the client who has the responsibility for filing a correct and accurate return, arrangements such as the ones you recently introduced which are designed to promote tax compliance deserve recognition. One of the main reasons why I am here today is to offer that encouragement. I am pleased that Liechtenstein has seen the opportunities brought about by automatic exchange of tax information and has taken the initiative to cultivate an even higher compliance culture. This is the kind of progress the UK’s global tax governance initiatives are designed to foster. I look forward to seeing the full fruits of Liechtenstein’s reforms as they go forward.

    In the field of foreign affairs, our two countries find ourselves on the same side of the table on many issues. There is much that we agree with on commitments to human rights protection, fighting corruption and promoting climate protection. This is not surprising for two progressive nations with very similar values. And this feeling of political kinship goes back quite a long way. The British delegation to the CSCE talks in the early 1970s described their Liechtenstein counterparts as “admirably robust on questions of freedom”.
    We share Foreign Minister Frick’s passion for issues surrounding women, peace and security and are keen to explore further areas for collaboration. Fighting modern slavery is very much a common priority, as was clear from your Foreign Minister’s recent visit to London on 30 October. British Ministers were keen to discuss a range of UN and other global issues – it remains extremely important to work together to protect rules-based international governance against growing threats. The arrangements for a smooth transition in our political and economic relations following Brexit were also on the agenda.

    The UK wants a deep and special partnership with the European Union that covers trade, security, law enforcement and criminal justice cooperation.

    We do not want to adopt an existing model. Some of our EU friends favour a stark choice between something based on European Economic Area membership, or a traditional Free Trade Agreement, such as that the EU has recently negotiated with Canada. Neither of these options would be best for the UK or for the EU. We want to find a creative solution to what will be a new economic relationship.

    The UK and the EU start from the unique position of regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions and a shared spirit of cooperation. We recognise that membership of the Single Market is built on a balance of rights and obligations and we do not pretend that you can have all the benefits of membership without its obligations. Our task is to find a new framework that allows for a close economic partnership but holds those rights and obligations in a new and different balance. We want to deliver the greatest possible tariff and barrier free trade, including by reaching a new customs agreement.

    The UK will remain unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. We want a bold, new strategic security partnership with the EU, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development.

    We have made significant progress since negotiations began. Theresa May’s speech in Florence added new momentum by making a firm commitment on the financial settlement; and proposing a time-limited implementation period that is in the interests of both the UK and the EU.

    We have offered reassurance to EU citizens living in the UK. We want people to stay and families to stay together. We are now in touching distance of an agreement and have committed to incorporating our agreement fully into UK law.

    This will ensure that EU citizens in the UK can directly enforce their rights in UK courts – providing certainty and clarity in the long term. Over time, our courts can take account of the rulings of the European Court of Justice in this area, to help ensure consistent interpretation. But our priority remains to preserve the sovereignty of our courts.

    We have reassured EU member states that they will not need to pay more, or receive less, money over the remainder of the current budget plan. We have also been clear that we will honour the commitments we have made during the period of our membership. We have also made good progress on Northern Ireland. We have set out a model for our future economic partnership and security relationship with the EU – which will be to our mutual benefit.

    Many withdrawal issues are of course linked to the future relationship. In areas that range from agreeing judicial cooperation on criminal matters to deciding what happens to imported goods on UK and EU shelves on exit day, we need to discuss withdrawal issues and our future partnership at the same time.

    We now need to look forward to the December European Council and to the framework for our future relationship, as well as transitional arrangements.

    Now is the time for both sides to step forward together and start discussing our future relationship. People and businesses across the UK and the EU deserve clarity and certainty for the future.

    The UK continues to engage in discussions in a pragmatic and constructive way to make the progress needed. We now need to see flexibility, imagination and a willingness to make progress on both sides.

    We want to make a success of the December European Council and to achieve this we have to move together. We remain ready to engage as often and as quickly as needed.

    The United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29th March 2019. At that point, neither the UK – nor the EU and its Member States – will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin our new relationship.

    We have proposed a time-limited period for implementation. The framework for this period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. We want our departure from the EU to be as smooth as possible – it would not make sense to make people and businesses plan for two sets of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU.

    We will have to negotiate the detail of how the implementation period will work. This may mean that we start off with the ECJ still governing the rules we are part of for that period. If we can agree to bring forward the implementation of new dispute resolution mechanisms more quickly, we would wish to do so.

    An implementation period would ensure that businesses do not have to make major decisions before they know the shape of the final deal between the UK and EU. It will also provide both sides with the time they need to set up any new infrastructure and systems required by our future partnership.

    We should concentrate our negotiating time and capital on what really matters – the future long-term relationship we will have with the EU after this temporary period ends.

    Liechtenstein’s importance as a bilateral commercial partner and member of EEA and the Swiss customs union makes engagement a priority. We have been preparing the ground for some time and have launched a dialogue between senior Liechtenstein experts and their British counterparts. In my own discussions in Vaduz and elsewhere I have stressed that we are committed to seeking continuity in our current trade and investment relationships.

    It is also worth underlining that we want to treat EFTA state nationals in the same way as EU citizens and hope to see the same treatment for our own nationals on a reciprocal basis. We want to continue to be a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead.

    Our first priority has to be to agree new arrangements with our EU partners. But we have the same level of ambitions for our EEA partners and took the opportunity of the Foreign Minister’s visit to reaffirm our desire to liaise closely. It is clear that Liechtenstein will play an increasingly prominent role in our economic future and there is some work to do to make sure that the necessary arrangements are in place.

    In due course, we should also start to explore new opportunities, in areas such as financial services, high-end manufacturing; and research and development. We have a positive agenda for a secure and prosperous Europe. And we will want the closest possible links with our European neighbours.

    I have been very lucky to have been Ambassador to Liechtenstein at such an interesting time. The bilateral relationship has never been so good, with rapidly growing contacts between Ministerial and officials. I have enjoyed immensely the experience of seeing our relations deepen and broaden and will continue to take a close and active interest in Liechtenstein when I return to London.

    Thank you very much for your attention.

  • Karen Bradley – 2017 Speech at the Cultural Relations Awards

    Below is the text of the speech made by Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to the Cultural Relations Awards on 24 November 2017.

    Thank you for inviting me here this evening. It is a pleasure to join you, in this beautiful building, designed of course by the talented late Dame Zaha Hadid.

    Where better to celebrate our two countries’ shared cultural heritage than in a British-designed building here in the heart of Rome?

    The UK has rich and longstanding cultural ties with Italy.

    Our ancient Roman heritage is found across the whole country, from Hadrian’s Wall to the baths of – well – Bath. Italy provides the setting – and in two cases the title – of some of Shakespeare’s greatest plays. I’ll let you remember which two yourselves. It inspired our great Romantic poets, Byron, Shelley and Keats – in fact the last two are buried here in Rome – and painters from Turner to Hockney.

    And these strong ties continue today. One of the highlights of the modern London skyline – in every sense – is the Shard, by an Italian architect, Renzo Piano. The great Italian fashion houses shape what we British wear, filtering down from the catwalk to the high street.

    Last year, more than three million Britons chose to holiday here in Italy, such is our love for this country and its people.

    And I’m pleased to say it’s a two way exchange.

    Two million of you visited the UK last year, and beyond that, over 600,000 Italians currently live, study and do business there.

    I know much of British culture – from Shakespeare to The Beatles and beyond – is as well loved here as it is at home. Most recently, British design has shaped the tech you all use every day – particularly the iconic work of Sir Jony Ives for Apple.

    Yesterday, I visited the Venice Biennale and was pleased to see the work of so many talented British artists on display.

    I particularly enjoyed the work of Phyllida Barlow, selected as this year’s artist for the British Pavilion, and would like to congratulate the British Council on their excellent job in managing the British Pavilion in Venice, as they have since 1938.

    I’d also like to thank Her Majesty’s Ambassador, Jill Morris, for such a wonderful concert at the residence last night, and for all her hard work in maintaining and strengthening cultural relations between the UK and Italy.

    We want those ties to deepen. Britain may be leaving the EU, but we are not leaving Europe, nor our friends in Europe.

    I met this morning with my counterpart in Italy, Dario Franceschini, and we confirmed how committed both our governments are to continued collaboration on matters of culture and heritage.

    My own department in the UK has recently changed its name to become the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to reflect the growing importance of digital technologies to culture and the creative industries.

    We are living through a technological revolution as profound as any that has gone before. We all know that new technologies can be disruptive, and that we need to stay aware of the challenges ahead, but this digital revolution offers enormous opportunities too, not least for the cultural and heritage sectors. For promotion, for collaboration, and perhaps most significantly to engage with a size and breadth of audience unimaginable only a few years ago.

    I am well aware how privileged I am to have seen what I have seen on this trip, and that not everyone gets the chance. But there is less and less reason for our shared cultural heritage to only be available to the few.

    Last year in the UK, we published a new Culture White Paper, the first comprehensive review of the sector in fifty years. It set out this Government’s vision for helping the arts and culture to thrive, and put particular emphasis on widening access for people from all walks of life.

    Access to the arts can be so transformative. We all know it only takes one song to inspire a singer, one painting to inspire an artist.

    But often – though, of course, not always – the most thoughtful, well crafted art is shut away in institutions that people believe are not for them, or that are simply too far away to visit.

    Digitising museum collections and publishing them online opens them up to bigger, more diverse audiences than ever before. It brings once unreachable – or plain intimidating – art right to the phones people carry in their pockets.

    And those who’ve done it, who’ve put their collections online, tell me that far from replacing physical footfall it actually drives up visitor numbers.

    It’s great for curation too, particularly now academic collaboration is becoming the global norm. Put an image of an object online, and all the world’s experts can comment and share their knowledge.

    So I see this as very much the road ahead. One of the greatest advantages of the digital age is better connectivity. Let’s use these new technologies to aid collaboration, and to open our shared cultural heritage to everyone in our societies, so a work sited in London can be easily enjoyed in Naples, and those in Rome can be accessed from Birmingham.

    This award, which it is my honour to present, is a fitting celebration of the close and fruitful cultural collaboration between the UK and Italy. I look forward to helping to strengthen that bond and to building ever closer ties, and more effective collaboration between our countries.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2017 Speech on the Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Maclean, the Conservative MP for Redditch, in the House of Commons on 22 November 2017.

    It is a great privilege to follow all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), although I take issue with his remarks about Derek Robinson, otherwise known as Red Robbo, who I knew from my days campaigning in Birmingham, Northfield. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a number of ordinary voters swore to me that they would never vote Labour again after what Derek Robinson did to the British car industry in bringing it to its knees. He was instrumental in destroying it.

    As a new Member, it is a great privilege to speak in a Budget debate for the first time. I welcome the Budget. Every Government needs to raise money. We, on the Government Benches, are aware that it is not the Government’s money that is being spent; it is people’s money. Taxes must be raised, and the question is how. As we just heard from the hon. Gentleman, who lauded the communist party’s plans, it is a stark choice. In his response to the Chancellor, I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition explain how he would fund any of his proposals. In contrast, our plans are well thought out. We understand businesses and what is needed to support them. That is why the Federation of Small Businesses has welcomed the Budget announcements today. We chose today to raise taxes on private jets and lower them on young families trying to buy their first house.

    I was an entrepreneur for 25 years, before coming into this place. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, he understands how difficult it is to get a small business off the ground. I, too, understand that; I have lived and breathed it. That is why I am delighted by the measures in the Budget backing entrepreneurial activity in our country. Such measures have already created about 197,000 jobs in our area since 2010, and 275 new businesses have been created in my constituency, which is testimony to the innovative spirit of the people there. I am also delighted about the 6,310 new apprenticeships that have been created—and those are good jobs. We are on the side of working people, and the Chancellor went further today by introducing a £1,075 pay rise for ordinary working people paying the basic rate of tax. That means that people will be better off after this Budget.

    I think this is a Budget that advances our country. It does not recede, which is what some Opposition Members would like to do. Another great Conservative reforming Prime Minister, Robert Peel, said that we must make a choice between advancing and receding. He understood free trade, and that is the direction in which the Conservatives are going.

    Corporation tax receipts have increased by £20 billion since 2010, and there are 5.5 million more small businesses. Think how many more schools and hospitals can be funded by the tax receipts that are coming into the Treasury! We have fairer business rates, and I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to remove the staircase tax and reform business rates relief. What would Labour do? It would borrow more, and it totally lacks any coherent narrative. When we came to office in 2010, borrowing stood at £73.26 billion—3.8% of GDP. Now it is down to £49 billion—2.4% of GDP—and the Chancellor has set out how it will fall further. My constituents will welcome that sensible approach to managing the economy. We know that borrowing more does not work. We have already tried that experiment. It crashed the economy, and ordinary working people, such as those in my constituency, paid the price.

    I welcome the Chancellor’s focus on the midlands engine. As a midlands MP, I have seen for myself the results of the hard work that he has put into the West Midlands combined authority devolution deal, led by Andy Street, which will benefit us in Redditch. Make no mistake, however: I will be bending the Chancellor’s ear to ensure that Redditch also benefits from, for instance, an institute for technology to harness its skills and make it go further, and an express train from Redditch to Birmingham.

    I recognise that there is still a productivity gap between the regions in our country, and between cities and the towns outside them—for example, Redditch. That is why I welcome the £31 billion productivity fund and the increase in research and development funding, which has also been welcomed by the Royal Society. It said:

    “This budget sends a clear signal that the Government is focused on the UK’s technological future, and the crucial pipeline of skills needed to ensure that we remain at the forefront of the technological revolution”.

    I am delighted that more tech businesses have been started, and that the Chancellor wants to see more still. A tech business is started every half hour. As the founder of a tech business myself, I know that, like me, my former colleagues will welcome the more generous enterprise investment scheme that the Chancellor has announced today.

    I have mentioned the taxes that the Government have already raised, and will continue to raise as a result of the Budget measures. I am delighted to see that that money is going into our hospitals: there is £10 billion for the NHS. The Chancellor will not be surprised to learn that I shall be lobbying him, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, for more money to go to Alexandra Hospital in my constituency. Some funds have already been pledged through the sustainability and transformation plan, and I am delighted that that has been underpinned today. I hope that there will be funds, for which I have been lobbying strenuously, to help the hospital to deal with winter pressures.

    Young people in Redditch will welcome the housing measures. I have just received an e-mail from a constituent, Mr Andrew Ball, who is currently buying a small house in the Church Hill ward. He is due to save £280, which is very handy just before Christmas.

    There are people who are absolutely delighted about these measures, and I am shocked by some of the negativity that I have heard from Opposition Members. I think that we should be positive and project an outward-looking vision of our country, beyond the four walls of the House and into the outside world.

    As I listened to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivering his Budget, I was struck once again by the resonance of the words of Robert Peel. We face a choice between fearlessly shaping the future and retreating into the past. It is the choice between an open, innovative society and a closed, narrow one. Shall our motto be “advance” or “recede”? We on the Government Benches make our choice of a country welcoming change and welcoming the future. Therefore, I welcome this Budget.

  • Ian Blackford – 2017 Speech on Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Blackford, the SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in the House of Commons on 22 November 2017.

    The change in GDP that we will see in the OBR book is a cut to GDP of 2.7%—that is what this Government are presiding over. It is a threat to the wages, living standards and job prospects of people up and down the United Kingdom. This Government should be ashamed of themselves. When we look at the rhetoric of the Budget speech—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing, but we see a fiscal loosening in this Budget of 0.1%. That does not take into account the reality of the risks the people of the UK face.

    Let me welcome the removal of VAT on our police and fire services, but remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, together with his friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, he was given the opportunity to support an SNP amendment to the Finance Bill in 2015 that would have removed VAT from Scotland—[Interruption.] I can hear the remarks that are coming from those on the Conservative Benches, but I remind them that the Conservative manifesto supported the establishment of Police Scotland. It was the vindictiveness and nastiness of the Tory Government that imposed VAT on Scotland, which has ripped £140 million out of our frontline services. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland were given the opportunity in the 2015 Finance Bill to act they failed. It is a disgrace that we have had £140 million taken out of frontline spending—

    Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)

    On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification as to whether we are allowed to try to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—whether he takes an intervention or not is another matter.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)

    The rules are that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition are not to be intervened on, but the courtesies go to the leader of the SNP here. He may wish not to give way, and that is his choice. What I suggest—[Interruption.] Order. He has made it clear that he wants the same courtesies that have been established for others, in which case he will not be giving way. So it will save us a lot of time if people do not keep standing.

    Ian Blackford

    Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is about time the Scottish Conservatives showed some proper respect, not just to the SNP here, but to the Scottish Government in Edinburgh.

    Let me return to my point. It is an absolute disgrace that we have had £140 million taken out of frontline spending by a Tory Government ahead of this announcement. VAT should never have been charged to the Scottish police and fire services. The sole blame for that lies with the Conservative Government. [Interruption.]

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    Order. Mr Kerr, you are a normal, gentle person—a man who comes to Chorley and shows such dignity. I am hoping you will show me some dignity today.

    Ian Blackford

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The SNP spoke out, here and in Holyrood, 140 times before the Government finally saw sense. What about the £140 million that has been paid? The Chancellor has confirmed today what we knew all along: that it was a political choice to charge VAT on our emergency services. He has accepted that he was wrong, but I am calling on him and his friends from Scotland on the Tory Benches to make sure that we push for a refund of the VAT that has been paid over the past three years.

    The Chancellor has painted a picture of a strong economy, ready for the impending economic disaster of Brexit. We all have to wonder just what planet he is on. Most workers are seeing a decline in their living standards and have done so since the financial crisis. We are living through the worst decade for wage growth in 210 years. Young people are going to be poorer than their parents. Housing has become unaffordable for many. The austerity economic model has failed millions—the Prime Minister alluded to that when she talked about those “just about managing”. Today’s Budget was an opportunity to address these challenges and make this a Budget for people and prosperity.

    The reality is that nothing in this Budget deals with the challenges we face. We face the impending UK exit from Europe. We know that the Government are preparing for a no deal, yet the Chancellor made no mention of how the economy would cope with that. The cliff edge is before us and the Chancellor sits transfixed, unable or incapable of rising to the challenge. No doubt he recognises the economic self-harm that comes with leaving the single market and the customs union, but he has failed to act. Why? It is because the Brexiteers have set the agenda for this Government and the Chancellor is without the authority to challenge the madness. The Chancellor, like his Government, is in office but not in power.

    We know that the Prime Minister has to present a financial settlement to the EU27 over the coming days, yet there was no mention of that in the statement—none at all. This Government have to take their head out of the sand and accept that the future indicates the likelihood of significant economic self-harm.

    Before the winds of Brexit hit us, the starting position for millions of people is that by then they will have already been struggling with nine years of austerity. The cuts being imposed on public services mean impacts on service delivery, and public service workers in particular are feeling the squeeze. This Budget shows that the Chancellor is either blind to what is going on or is behaving like a frightened rabbit caught in the headlights. Either way, people are going to pay the price for his lack of leadership. [Interruption.] I can see the Chancellor saying, “An extra £2 billion for Scotland”, but let me tell this House the reality: it is a £250 million cut in real terms. That is what the Government here are delivering to the people of Scotland.

    This Government used to speak of the empty rhetoric of the “long-term economic plan”, but they have failed to provide a vision and have no plan for delivering prosperity. The long-term economic plan has given way to no plan. Scratch the surface of the economy and we see a structure barely coping with the state of society: a structure that is so unfairly built in the favour of the wealthy that we have created a situation where we have the worst wage growth in 200 years and the IFS tells us that an additional 400,000 children will be in “absolute poverty” within six years due to the benefits cuts that are to come. Let us remind ourselves that there are still £12 billion of welfare cuts to come from this Tory Government.

    The case is that working people are paying the price for this Government’s ideological obsession with austerity—and let us make no mistake, it is an ideological obsession. It is a pity that people watching and listening to this cannot see the Conservative Members sitting there laughing while people in our country are paying the price—those Members should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Effective stewardship of our economy has to recognise the importance of fiscal and monetary policy working in tandem to create the circumstances of sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Any disconnect leads to a failure to deliver an economy that works for all, and that is precisely what is happening. A failure to deliver a Budget for prosperity hits all workers, in particular those in the public sector.

    In September, the Scottish Government became the first in the UK to announce they will scrap the public sector pay cap, as our nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters deserve a fair deal for the future. Future pay rises will be based on the cost of living. Today, the Chancellor betrayed public sector workers by refusing to fund a fair pay rise.

    It is not just the squeeze on pay that is leaving low earners struggling to get by; the UK Government’s social security cuts are specifically designed to remove the welfare state. The SNP will never accept this ideological attack on the most vulnerable in our society. The damaging and destructive universal credit system must be halted and fixed. I welcome some of the things that we have heard today, but they simply do not go far enough. The cuts to work allowances are still taking place. While young people are pushed into poverty, universal credit is not fit for purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should call a halt to it today and reform the system properly.

    We also call on the Chancellor to scrap the two-child policy and the immoral rape clause. According to the IFS, the two-child cap on tax credits will mean about 600,000 three-child families losing £2,500 a year on average and about 300,000 families with four or more children losing a whopping £7,000 a year on average. Most of those families are in work. If we want to make work pay, let us remove the rape clause.

    There is nothing in the Budget for the women born in the 1950s who are seeing a rise in their pensionable age of up to six years, without proper notice. That is depriving millions of a pension that they have paid for and that they are entitled to. Time and again, the Government have been asked to slow down the rate of increase in women’s pensionable age. It is increasing at a rate of three months for each calendar month. Either the Chancellor decides to act now to deliver fairness to 1950s women, or he will find that Parliament does it for him. There is a private Member’s Bill that calls for mitigation to be put in place for 1950s women. I say to the Government: recognise the cross-party nature of that Bill and act, or face defeat.

    While the Tory attack on benefits pushes more families into poverty, the financial squeeze on household incomes continues as Brexit bites. Today, inflation sits at 3%. Prices are rising at a faster rate than wages. The Resolution Foundation has calculated that inflation of 3% combined with the benefits freeze will impact on 7.3 million children, 2.4 million disabled people and 800,000 people looking for work. There was no answer to that from the Chancellor—there was nothing in the Budget.

    Let me tell the Chancellor and those on the Tory Benches what life is like outside the gilded rooms of Whitehall: electricity bills have increased by 9%—[Interruption.] You laugh, when people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom have seen electricity prices rise by 9%. [Interruption.] You really ought to be ashamed of yourself and I hope that your electorate hold you to account. I refer, by the way, to the hon. Member—the so-called honourable Member—for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant).

    The price of children’s clothing has increased by 6.7% and the price of butter by 12%. Bus and coach fares have risen by 13% and train fares by 3.4%. Transport insurance is up by 12.6%, motor vehicle insurance by 13% and travel insurance by 10%. That is the reality for ordinary working people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

    While inflation is making the cost of the weekly shop soar, real wages are falling. There was nothing in the Budget to address that. The rise in inflation and the squeeze on wages are creating a crisis for low-income earners. Between 2010 and 2016, official GDP per employee had risen by 3.5%, yet real wages are 1.1% lower, when adjusted for consumer prices index inflation. If inflation is calculated to include housing costs, real wages are down by 7.2%. That is the economic record of the Tory Government. The collapse of UK productivity growth has driven low growth and stagnant wages.

    While many of my constituents and families across the UK are relying on credit cards to put food on the table, a different story is unfolding in the City. Under the Tory Government, boardroom pay has soared. From 2010 to 2016, the average remuneration for FTSE 100 chief executive officers almost doubled. The average remuneration of an executive director has doubled from £1.5 million to £3.1 million.

    The inequality goes much deeper. European Commission figures reveal that the UK had the biggest increase in the EU’s gender pay gap in 2015. The difference in average hourly pay between male and female workers jumped from 19.7% in 2014 to 20.8% in 2015. In effect, women are working unpaid for more than two months a year compared with men.

    The Government have not only driven thousands into poverty; they have failed to invest in building an inclusive economy fit for future generations. The legacy this Chancellor leaves is an economy that works only for the rich and the reckless. We need a Government that will create the circumstances to deliver inclusive, sustainable economic growth; a Government that will encourage investment, enhance innovation and drive up productivity and living standards; a Government that recognise that monetary and fiscal policy have to work in unison. The focus on monetary policy has driven up house prices and stocks and shares, but failed to drive investment in the real economy.

    Back in 2009, quantitative easing was an obvious choice as part of the attempt to restore confidence and growth, provided that it was matched with fiscal measures, such as investing in our infrastructure and building capacity in our economy, with a focus on investment to improve efficiency. There was an opportunity to invest in the economy to kick-start growth and productivity. However, under the steer of this Government, there was investment to benefit the wealthy. In the end, that has done nothing but exacerbate the gap between rich and poor.

    Even the Bank of England has recognised the negative effect of this policy. In 2012, it said that although quantitative easing had increased asset prices, it had disproportionately benefited the top 5% of households. Standard & Poor’s argued that—[Interruption.] I see the Chancellor waving his hands, but this is important and something for which he ultimately has to take responsibility. Standard & Poor’s argued last year that inflating asset prices had exacerbated the gap between rich and poor. It found that the wealthiest 10% of households held 56% of all net financial assets in 2008, and that by 2014 the proportion of the nation’s wealth in the hands of the richest 10% had increased to 65%.

    It is easy to see why the Tories do not want to change this policy. Reducing inequality has never been one of their aims. The evidence is stark: quantitative easing has mostly benefited those who started with considerable wealth. The FTSE 100 was sitting at 3,805 on 18 March 2009, just ahead of the launch of the QE programme. Last night, the market closed at 7,411. That is growth of 95% in just over eight years. The Government have stuffed cash into the pockets of the wealthy, while ordinary folk have paid the price for austerity. The cry “There’s no money” flies in the face of the Government’s own agenda.

    A further £70 billion was invested in QE after the Brexit vote, taking the programme to £435 billion. That is £435 billion that has been put on to our debt, with no plan for how it will be repaid. We could have invested in our infrastructure, for example by dealing with the demand for housing and dampening the rise in house prices at affordable levels. We could have invested in connectivity—in transport and in digital—to allow our citizens and businesses to compete, rather than being caught in the slow lane of transport snarl-ups and fighting to get decent broadband or mobile connectivity. Such investment in our people and infrastructure would have grown the economy and tax receipts, allowing us to cut the deficit. There would have been a payback. The Government could have supported businesses at the same time as supporting people. They cannot tell us that there is no money when they can invest an additional £70 billion in QE at the drop of hat. They must take responsibility and create the circumstances for inclusive growth and prosperity. Of course, taking responsibility is not something that this Government do.

    Some £6.9 billion is lost to our schools and hospitals every year because the Government have failed to tackle aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion. I call on them to take tough new action to ensure that the richest in society and the biggest corporations pay the taxes they owe in full. They have chosen to cut public spending while protecting the super-rich—of course, the Tories are the party of the super-rich. If they will not take the action required, they should devolve the powers needed to tackle the issue to the Scottish Parliament.

    When I asked the Chancellor last month about any assessment he had made of the interrelationship between monetary and fiscal policy, the answer I got was that monetary policy was the responsibility of the Bank of England. There was no regard for a link between the two. It is left to the Bank of England to shine a light on the failure of the Chancellor to engage in joined-up thinking. In written evidence to the Treasury Committee, the Bank of England admitted that the steep rises in house prices in the decade preceding the crisis, together with a fall in long-term interest rates, has led to

    “a sharp rise in intergenerational dispersion of wealth benefiting in particular older people who had already entered the market before prices began to rise.”

    The Government have avoided every opportunity to invest in young people. What hope—[Interruption.] The Chancellor says, “Rubbish”. I am afraid I am actually giving him facts from respected institutions, not least the Bank of England. Is the Chancellor really saying that the Bank of England is wrong as well? I think the Bank of England might have something to say about that.

    What hope do millennials have to cling on to? Robbed of their housing allowance and lumbered with chronic student debt, this Government have gone out of their way to avoid investing in young people. The intergenerational wealth unfairness is creating the perfect storm for future generations. Research from the Resolution Foundation shows that today’s 27-year-olds are earning the same amount that 27-year-olds did a quarter of a century ago. A typical millennial has actually earned £8,000 less during their twenties than those in the preceding generation.

    We have missed chance after chance to invest in inclusive growth opportunities. The Government have been the proverbial one-club golfer relying on monetary measures, but in a vacuum. Even the IFS has warned the Chancellor about his calculations. First of all we had George Osborne proclaim he wanted to balance the books by 2015. That did not happen. Now the current Chancellor wants to eliminate borrowing by the mid-2020s. But with Brexit set to hit the economy, even the IFS has called on him to abandon his fanciful fiscal targets. There is more uncertainty on forecasts now than ever before. The Chancellor himself told the Treasury Committee that a

    “cloud of uncertainty is acting as a temporary damper, and we need to remove it as soon as possible”.

    Well, there was nothing in the Budget today to remove it.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, I am in a giving mood. I will give the Chancellor a bit of fundamental economic advice. End the suicidal flirtation with a no-deal scenario, give business something to invest in and work on keeping the UK in the single market. The stupidity and recklessness of some on the Government Front Bench who rode around in that famous red bus has to be the most damaging economic pledge in modern history. They said £350 million a week for the NHS. Well, they are silent on that now. The Foreign Secretary and Environment Secretary should listen up, because here are some home truths about the mess they have created: the Bank of England has confirmed that 75,000 jobs are at risk in the financial sector owing to Brexit; the London School of Economics has revealed that Scotland’s towns and cities could lose up to £30 billion over five years; the Fraser of Allander Institute revealed that Brexit would cost Scotland up to 80,000 jobs and see wages fall by £2,000 a head per year; and now the Chancellor is planning for a no deal—a complete catastrophe which is unfolding on his watch. He knows how devastating such a path would be for the UK economy. He has given Departments £250 million to carry out work in preparation. To put that into context, that would pay for 11,553 new starter nurses, teachers or police officers.

    It is not just the spending to fund Brexit that is costing communities, however. Leaving the EU will cut off the financial social funds we have benefited from for so long. This will be devastating for communities where poverty and destitution at the hands of the Tory austerity policies have seen volunteers pick up the pieces. Although as the UK haemorrhages EU funding and the Chancellor proclaims austerity is essential to save, he did manage to find £1 billion for the DUP—quite remarkable. The Chancellor found £1 billion for the Northern Irish Executive to spend on devolved areas, but no additional funds were provided to Scotland or any other part of the UK. Cash for votes—not very honourable at all.

    And what use are the Scottish Conservatives, who pledged to work as a bloc to protect Scotland’s interests? That was their chance to shine: a golden opportunity to show they were prepared to put politics aside and stand up for Scotland. But no, party loyalty prevailed and now Scotland is being overlooked in this dodgy deal. This money cannot be processed until the discussions have concluded on the appropriateness of the way in which the UK Government decided to provide the additional financial support. The Barnett formula rules mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are entitled to an extra £2.9 billion and £1.67 billion respectively as a result of the deal. Where are the Scottish Tories standing up for that £2.9 billion that Scotland deserves? Where are the calls from the Scottish Tories for this UK Government to match the deal from Northern Ireland? They have been found wanting.

    Year after year, the UK Government continue to let down our world-class oil and gas industry in the north-east of Scotland. Two years ago, the Conservatives boasted about the creation of a new oil and gas ambassador, who would

    “promote the North Sea around the world and boost inward investment”.

    How embarrassing, then, for the Chancellor that the role, two years later, has yet to be filled. It seems that the Chancellor and his Cabinet colleagues have simply forgotten about our North sea industry once again. Despite the Chancellor’s tight grip restraining Scotland’s economic potential, the SNP in Scotland has delivered for our people.

    Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)

    On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to make speeches in which they completely ignore the contents of the Budget that the Chancellor has just delivered?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)

    That was definitely not a point of order and the right hon. Lady knows it. She has provided a running commentary all the way through. I think I have heard more than enough for the time being and I want to get to the end of the speech by the leader of the SNP.

    Ian Blackford

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    In Scotland, international exports are up 41% between 2007 and 2015. The latest employment figures show that Scotland has higher employment rates and lower unemployment rates than the UK. Youth employment continues to outperform that in the UK. The Scottish Government fulfilled their commitment to reduce youth unemployment by 40% four years ahead of schedule—that is how to make fiscal targets.

    But it is not just about the ability of the Scottish Government to deliver an inclusive society that works for all; it is their vision for an economy that benefits all. When the UK Government chose the rape clause, the Scottish Government chose the baby box. When the UK Government trebled tuition fees, the Scottish Government maintained the principle of free tuition for all. When the Conservatives pushed for a dementia tax, the Scottish Government stood by free personal care for the elderly. We know that an economy is not just a tool for inclusive growth, but is central to the social fabric of the society in which we grow up. It is time for an economy that benefits all. End the damaging austerity agenda and stop the catastrophic ideological obsession with a Brexit no deal.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2017 Speech on Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Conservative MP for Loughborough, in the House of Commons on 22 November 2017.

    Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to take part in a Budget debate for my first time as Chair of the Treasury Committee. If media reports are to be believed, I am not the only former Education Secretary who is using “long, economicky words” at the moment. At this point in the debate, my predecessor as Chair of the Committee would always congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on making the most difficult speech of the parliamentary year. I am happy to continue that tradition, although much of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech appeared to have been written in advance, and I suspect he will want to look at more of the detail of the Budget and to find more to welcome in the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

    Today, it was perhaps the Chancellor who had the hardest task. Beset by demands for more public spending, rising economic uncertainty and downgrades in forecasts, he has taken a common-sense approach that will no doubt displease many on both sides of the Chamber. We have to remember, however, that it is only thanks to seven years of common sense and concerted efforts by Conservative-led Governments to reduce the deficit and restore credibility to the public finances that the UK has the resilience necessary to face the challenges ahead.

    The reclassification of housing associations might have given the Chancellor some timely room for manoeuvre, but it does not alter the underlying picture or the risks in the outlook, and those risks could grow. Although the OBR has made a more negative assessment of productivity, it still forecasts a relatively benign Brexit—a smooth adjustment to the new trade arrangement, with no cliff-edge in March 2019. But that cannot be guaranteed, and even though a transitional arrangement that would allow for such a smooth adjustment is manifestly in the interests of both the UK and the EU, it might, of course, not happen. The Treasury Committee will be looking closely at the consequences of failing to reach a deal on transition and expects to make a report to the House in the coming weeks.

    Beyond the public finances, household balance sheets are also under pressure. Rising interest rates, high inflation, lower wage growth and a working-age benefits freeze all stand to put pressure on ordinary households. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out two important principles for Conservative-led Governments: first, work should always pay; and, secondly, people should keep more of the money that they earn. I am happy, as I think all Conservative Members are, to support him on those two principles.

    The pressures on household finances—the Committee is looking at them as part of our inquiry into household finances—will be exacerbated, particularly for the younger generation, if action is not taken to tackle long-standing problems in the housing market, as my right hon. Friend said. I therefore welcome the measures on housing. He has announced a comprehensive package on skills, land availability and financial incentives to get Britain building. I also welcome the review that will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). We always know there is a problem when my right hon. Friend is sent for to solve it. He will look at the gap between permissions granted and houses built, and why it exists.

    I also hugely welcome, as I think all Conservative Members will, the stamp duty cut for first-time buyers. As the Chancellor said, it will make home ownership a reality for more young people. The Committee intends to hear from housing experts as part of our Budget scrutiny, and we will investigate whether the rousing wartime rhetoric of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government matches the reality of what has been announced today.

    Of course, pressures on the public finances and on household balance sheets can be alleviated in the long term only if, as the Chancellor said, productivity growth improves. I welcome very much his further investment in the national productivity investment fund, and he was right to emphasise the challenge regarding productivity in the UK, which is now the weakest in the G7. The average UK worker has to slog from 9 until 5 to produce the same value of output that a worker in Germany produces between the hours of 9 and 3. The regional disparities in the UK are even greater, so I welcome what the Chancellor said about more devolution. I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition got the idea that Conservative Members do not take seriously the northern powerhouse and the midlands engine. I can tell him, as a midlands Member of Parliament, that we take them very seriously. We believe in devolution.

    There are no easy solutions to the UK’s weak productivity, but we can do two things to help with the productivity puzzle. The first is better infrastructure, including digital infrastructure. The chair of the National Infrastructure Commission told the Treasury Committee recently that the big political divide in infrastructure policy is not between the parties, but between action and inaction. The Chancellor must act on the commission’s recommendations when they are published, and I welcome his commitment today to implement its recommendations on the Oxford-Milton Keynes Corridor. I also welcome the proposal for discounted lending to local authorities so that they can invest in infrastructure.

    The second response on productivity is to retain the UK’s historical commitment to openness to trade, investment and migration. Global Britain must be a reality, not just a slogan. The economic case for leaving the EU has always rested—and continues to rest—on openness, and we must not allow the Brexit process to mark the start of a descent into economic nationalism. It is only through productivity growth that households can be weaned off consumer credit without cutting their consumption and reducing their living standards. It is only through productivity growth that the Chancellor has any hope of meeting demands for additional spending—on welfare, social care, prisons, the NHS, public sector pay and Brexit contingency measures—without damaging the Government’s hard-won reputation for fiscal credibility.

    For the avoidance of doubt, let us for the thousandth time dismiss the idea that a Brexit-induced fiscal windfall will relieve the pressures on our health service. There are no easy choices and there is no pot of gold under the Brexit rainbow. Those who persist with this myth may win short-term approval from certain quarters of the media, but only at the cost of long-term damage to trust in politics.

    On the industrial strategy, the Chancellor is absolutely right to have identified the technology revolution and to say that Britain is at the forefront of it. He is right to identify the need for more young people to learn maths and computer science to a higher level. We have to find a way of exciting everyone in this country—the next generation, and their parents and grandparents—about the technology revolution. We need them to be confident that they have the skills that will meet the demands of the future labour market, rather than frightened by change in the 21st century. This key part of our plan for a fairer Britain will unlock prosperity.

    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)

    May I pick up the point about education funding? The Government proposed £3 billion of cuts, which was reduced to just under £2 billion, but that means that there is still a £2 billion gap in our education funding system, and the Chancellor said nothing about how schools will cope with that. Does the right hon. Lady agree that there ought to have been some thinking about investment in our schools to prevent the reversal of the progress that has been made?

    Nicky Morgan

    First, I can say to the hon. Lady—I am pleased to serve with her on the Treasury Committee—that educational standards have actually improved dramatically in this country during the past seven years. I do not recognise her figures. The Secretary of State for Education announced an extra £1.3 billion for schools in July, and this Government are spending more on schools than any previous Government. If the hon. Lady is really concerned, she will want to deal with the debt that this Government are still paying off, given that we spend almost as much as our schools budget on paying debt interest.

    The Chancellor announced a number of new tax measures. I was pleased that he said that our tax system can help to protect our environment. That is an important signal to send to those who are particularly concerned about the environment and to the next generation.

    Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)

    I welcome the exemption on the vehicle excise duty supplement for new zero-emission-capable taxis, so I thank the Chancellor for listening to representations. Through the right hon. Lady, may I urge the Chancellor to bring forward that measure so that it will kick in earlier than April 2019, because many such vehicles will be on the road from next month and we will want drivers to be able to take advantage of these new zero-emission-capable and environmentally friendly taxis?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)

    Order. May I just say, because the hon. Gentleman will want to make a separate speech, that if Members make interventions, they should please make them short?

    Nicky Morgan

    It is also a pleasure to serve with the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Committee. I am sure that the Chancellor will have has heard what he said. I am also sure that the Chancellor is looking forward to appearing in front of the Committee on 6 December, when we will be able to ask him such questions directly.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Nicky Morgan

    I will give way briefly, but then I will make some progress.

    Caroline Lucas

    Hidden in the Budget book is the really terrible news that no new money is available for renewables until 2025, but at the same time the Chancellor is giving away yet more tax breaks to oil and gas. How on earth is that compatible with a forward-looking country that is serious about climate change?

    Nicky Morgan

    This Government have done incredibly well in supporting the renewables industry. The renewable energy industry in the midlands is thriving. Again, however, the Committee may well want to take that up with the Chancellor.

    I welcome the move on business rates—the change from RPI to CPI is very welcome—and I particularly welcome the move on the staircase tax, about which the Chancellor was asked when he appeared before the Committee recently. The approach builds on the evidence he gave, and I hope he is right about the cross-party support that the measure will be able to receive.

    Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes to business rates will be particularly valuable for shops, restaurants and office premises in outer London, which are squeezed between the bright lights of central London and large out-of-town shopping centres, and for which the fixed cost of business rates is particularly heavy?

    Nicky Morgan

    That is an excellent point. Of course I agree with my hon. Friend.

    I was just coming on to the Chancellor’s measures on taxing digital businesses, which is also very important for bricks-and-mortar retail businesses. Although the change is perhaps modest, an important principle has been established about the taxation of digital businesses that do business in this country. I welcome what the Chancellor has said about tax avoidance and evasion measures. I think he said that we will spend £155 million on HMRC’s revenue-collecting ability in order to collect £2.3 billion. That sounds very encouraging, but the Committee will of course probe those estimates.

    I commend my right hon. Friend for continuing the practice of publishing a distributional analysis showing how the Budget affects households in different parts of the income distribution. That analysis, which provides an unprecedented level of transparency about the consequences of the Budget for ordinary people, emerged only as a result of pressure by the Treasury Committee over the previous two Parliaments, and there might be more work for the Committee to do in this one. What is not yet included in the Treasury’s analysis is an assessment of the gender impact of the Budget—an analysis of how much men and women stand to gain or lose from the Chancellor’s decisions. It will not surprise Members to hear the first female Chair of the Treasury Committee saying that my Committee will take written evidence, including from the Women’s Budget Group, on the merits of such an analysis.

    Before I conclude, I want to remind the House about the Treasury Committee’s role in scrutinising the OBR and upholding its independence. There is widespread agreement across the House that the creation of the OBR vastly improved the credibility and quality of economic and fiscal forecasting, and empowered Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account on their fiscal policy. However, in this febrile political atmosphere, we must remember that the OBR is still young, so its hard-won reputation could be fatally undermined if the motives and good faith of its leadership are impugned by those who disagree with its findings. The OBR has a powerful line of accountability to Parliament, thanks to the Committee’s statutory veto on the appointment and dismissal of its senior leadership. We will seek assurances that the OBR has done its work without political interference, we will subject its forecasts to critical scrutiny and, if necessary, we will defend its integrity. As I have said, the Committee looks forward to hearing from the Chancellor on the Budget measures, and the economic and fiscal outlook, when he appears before us in two weeks’ time.

    The UK faces many challenges. Brexit hangs over this place and the UK like a cloud. Some people think there is a silver lining; others think there will be more rain and fog. It was therefore important that today’s Budget showed that the Government are determined to do more than just negotiate our path out of the EU. I believe the Chancellor has more than achieved that with everything he announced today.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2017 Response to the Budget Statement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 22 November 2017.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The reality test of this Budget has to be how it affects ordinary people’s lives. I believe, as the days go ahead and this Budget unravels, the reality will be that a lot of people will be no better off, and the misery that many are in will be continuing.

    Pay is now lower than it was in 2010, and wages are now falling again. Economic growth in the first three quarters of this year is the lowest since 2009 and the slowest of the major economies in the G7. It is a record of failure, with a forecast of more to come.

    Economic growth has been revised down. Productivity growth has been revised down; business investment, revised down; people’s wages and living standards, revised down. What sort of strong economy is that? What sort of “fit for the future” is that?

    You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the deficit was due to be eradicated by 2015. Then that moved to 2016; then to 2017; then to 2020. And now we are looking at 2025. The Government are missing their major targets, but the failed and damaging policy of austerity remains.

    The number of people sleeping rough has doubled since 2010. This year, 120,000 children will spend Christmas in temporary accommodation. Three new pilot schemes to look at rough sleeping across the whole country simply does not cut it. We want action now to help those poor people who are forced to sleep on our streets and beg for—[Interruption.]

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    Order. I think the Whips should know better. Mr Spencer, I am sure you could relax—please, we do not need any more from you. If not, leave the Chamber.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    The point I was making is that three new pilot schemes for rough sleepers simply does not cut it. It is a disaster for those people sleeping on our streets and forced to beg for the money for a night shelter. They are looking for action now from Government to give them a roof over their heads.

    In some parts of the country, life expectancy is actually beginning to fall. The last Labour Government lifted 1 million children out of poverty—it was an amazing achievement. Under this Government, an extra 1 million children will be plunged into poverty by the end of this Parliament. Some 1.9 million pensioners, or one in six of all pensioners, are living in poverty—the worst rate anywhere in western Europe. So, it is falling pay, slow growth and rising poverty. This is what the Chancellor has the cheek to call a strong economy.

    The Chancellor’s predecessor said they would put the burden on

    “those with the broadest shoulders”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 951]—

    so how has that turned out? The poorest 10th of households will lose 10% of their income by 2022, while the richest will lose just 1%—so much for “tackling burning injustices”. This is a Government tossing fuel on the fire.

    Personal debt levels are rising: 8.3 million people are over-indebted. If the Chancellor wants to help people out of debt, he should back Labour’s policy for a real living wage of £10 an hour by 2020. Working-class young people are now leaving university with £57,000-worth of debt because this Government—his Government—trebled tuition fees. The new Government policy is to win over young people by keeping fees at £9,250 per year—more debt for people who want to learn.

    But that is just one of the multitudes of injustices presided over by this Government. Another is universal credit, which we called on Ministers to pause and fix. That is the view of this House. It is the verdict of those on the frontline.

    Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)

    Keep going, Jeremy!

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    Mr Pincher, you shouted out “Keep going,” and the right hon. Gentleman will—but you will be going out of the Chamber.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    I would rather people stayed to listen, actually, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the reality—[Interruption.]

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    Order. Silence—that’s the difference. It will be in silence.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    Maybe Government Members would like to listen to Martin’s experience. A full-time worker on the minimum wage, he said:

    “I get paid four weekly meaning that my pay date is different each month”.

    Because, under the universal credit system, he was paid twice in a month and deemed to have earned too much, his universal credit was cut off. He says:

    “This led me into rent arrears and I had to use a food bank for the first time in my life”.

    That is the humiliation that he and so many others have gone through because of the problems of universal credit. Would it not have been better to pause the whole thing and look at the problems it has caused?

    The Chancellor’s solution to a failing system causing more debt is to offer a loan, and a six-week wait, with 20% waiting even longer, simply becomes a five-week wait. This system has been run down by £3 billion of cuts to work allowances, the two-child limit and the perverse and appalling rape clause, and it has caused evictions because housing benefit is not paid direct to the landlord. So I say to the Chancellor again: put this system on hold so it can be fixed and keep 1 million of our children out of poverty.

    For years, we have had the rhetoric of a long-term economic plan that never meets its targets when what all too many people are experiencing is long-term economic pain—and hardest hit are disabled people, single parents and women—so it is disappointing that the Chancellor did not back the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) to end period poverty. He could have done that. Well done her on the campaign; shame on him for not supporting it.

    The Conservatives’ manifesto in the last election disappeared off their website after three days, and now some Ministers have put forward some half-decent proposals conspicuously borrowed from the Labour manifesto. Let me tell the Chancellor: as socialists, we are happy to share ideas. The Communities Secretary called for £50 million of borrowing to invest in house building; presumably, the Prime Minister slapped him down for wanting to bankrupt Britain. The Health Secretary has said that the pay cap is over, but where is the money to fund the pay rise?

    The Chancellor has not been clear today—not for NHS workers, our police, firefighters, teachers, teaching assistants, bin collectors, tax collectors, or armed forces personnel—so will he listen to Claire? She says:

    “My Mum works for the NHS. She goes above and beyond for her patients. Why does the government think it’s ok to under pay, over stress and underappreciate all that work?”

    The NHS chief executive says:

    “The budget for the NHS next year is well short of what is currently needed”.

    From what the Chancellor has said today, it is still going to be well short of what is needed. He said in 2015 that the Government would fund another 5,000 GPs, but in the last year we have had 1,200 fewer GPs—and we have lost community nurses and mental health nurses. The Chancellor promised £10 billion in 2015 and delivered £4.5 billion. So if he does not mind, we will wait for the small print on today’s announcement—but even what he said certainly falls well short of the £6 billion Labour would have delivered from our June manifesto.

    Over 1 million of our elderly are not receiving the care they need. Over £6 billion will have been cut from social care budgets by next March. [Interruption.] I hope the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) begins to understand what is like to wait for social care stuck in a hospital bed, with other people having to give up their work to care for them. The uncaring, uncouth attitude of certain Government Members has to be called out—[Interruption.]

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    Order. Carry on.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    That is why social care budgets are so important for so many very desperate people in our country.

    Our schools will be 5% worse off by 2019 despite the Conservative manifesto promising that no school would be worse off. Five thousand head teachers from 25 counties wrote to the Chancellor saying:

    “we are simply asking for the money that is being taken out of the system to be returned”.

    A senior science technician, Robert, wrote to me saying:

    “My pay”

    has been

    “reduced by over 30%. I’ve seen massive cuts at my school. Good teachers and support staff leave.”

    That is what does for the morale both of teachers and students in school. According to this Government, 5,000 head teachers are wrong, Robert is wrong, the IFS is wrong—everybody is wrong except the Chancellor.

    If the Chancellor bothered to listen to what local government is saying, he would know that it has been warning that services for vulnerable children are under more demand than ever, with more children being taken into care and more in desperate need of help and support. Yet councils are labouring with a £2 billion shortfall in the cost of dealing with vulnerable children. Local councils will have lost 80% of their direct funding by 2020. The reality of this across the country is women’s refuges closing, youth centres closing, libraries closing, museums closing, and public facilities understaffed, under-resourced and under-financed—it could be so different—but compassion can cost very little. Just £10 million is needed to establish the child funeral fund campaigned for so brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). Why could not the Chancellor at least have agreed to fund that?

    Under this Government, there are 20,000 fewer police officers, and another 6,000 community support officers and 11,000 fire service staff have been cut as well. You cannot keep communities safe on the cheap. Tammy explains:

    “Our police presence has been taken away”

    from her village

    “meaning increasing crime. As a single parent I no longer feel safe in my own village, particularly”

    at night.

    Five and a half million workers earn less than the living wage—1 million more than five years ago. The Chancellor, last Sunday, could not even see 1.4 million people unemployed in this country. There is a crisis of low pay and insecure work affecting one in four women and one in six men, with a record 7.4 million people in working households living in poverty. If we want workers earning better pay and less dependent on in-work benefits, we need strong trade unions—the most effective way of boosting workers’ pay. Instead, this Government weakened trade unions and introduced employment tribunal fees, now scrapped thanks to the victory in the courts by Unison—a trade union representing its members.

    Why did not the Chancellor take the opportunity to make two changes to control debt: first, to cap credit card debt, so that nobody pays back more than they borrowed; and secondly, to stop credit card companies increasing people’s credit limit without their say-so? Debt is being racked up because the Government are weak on those who exploit people, such as rail companies hiking fares above inflation year on year, and water companies and energy suppliers. During the general election, the Conservatives promised an energy cap that would benefit

    “around 17 million families on standard variable tariffs”,

    but every bill tells millions of families that the Government have broken that promise.

    With £10 billion in housing benefit going into the pockets of private landlords every year, housing is a key factor in driving up the welfare bill. There were not too many words from the Chancellor about excessive rents in the private rented sector. With this Government delivering the worst rate of house building since the 1920s and a quarter of a million fewer council homes, any commitment would be welcome, but we have been here before. The Government promised 200,000 starter homes three years ago; not a single one has been built in those three years. We need a large-scale, publicly funded house building programme, not this Government’s accounting tricks and empty promises. Yes, we back the abolition in stamp duty for first-time buyers—because it was another Labour policy in our manifesto in June, not a Tory one.

    This Government’s continual preference for spin over substance means that across this country the words “northern powerhouse” and “midlands engine” are now met with derision. Yorkshire and Humber gets only a 10th of the transport investment per head given to London. Government figures show that every region in the north of England has seen a fall in spending on services since 2012. The midlands, east and west, receives less than 8% of total transport infrastructure investment, compared with the 50% that goes to London. In the east and west midlands, one in four workers is paid less than the living wage—so much for the midlands engine. Re-announced funding for the trans-Pennine rail route will not cut it, and today’s other announcements will not redress the balance.

    Combined with counterproductive austerity, this lack of investment has consequences in sluggish growth and shrinking pay packets. Public investment has virtually halved. Under this Government, Britain has the lowest rate of public investment in the G7, but it is now investing in driverless cars, after months of road testing back-seat driving in the Government.

    By moving from RPI to CPI indexation on business rates, the Chancellor has adopted another Labour policy, but why do the Government not go further and adopt Labour’s entire business rates pledge, including exempting plant and machinery, and an annual revaluation of business rates?

    Nowhere has the Government’s chaos been more evident than over Brexit. Following round after round of fruitless Brexit negotiations, the Brexit Secretary has been shunted out for the Prime Minister, who has got no further. Every major business organisation has written to the Government, telling them to pull their finger out and get on with it. Businesses are delaying crucial investment decisions, and if this Government do not get their act together, those businesses will soon be taking relocation decisions.

    Crashing out with no deal and turning Britain into a tax haven would damage people’s jobs and living standards, serving only a wealthy few. It is not as though this Government are not doing their best to protect tax havens and their clients in the meantime. The Paradise papers have again exposed how a super-rich elite is allowed to get away with dodging taxes. This Government have opposed measure after measure in this House—their Tory colleagues have done the same in the European Parliament—to clamp down on the tax havens that facilitate this outrageous leaching from our public purse. Non-paid tax and clever reinvestment to get away with tax hit hospitals, schools and housing, and they hit the poorest and most needy in our society. There is nothing moral about dodging tax; there is everything immoral about evading it.

    Too often, it feels as though there is one rule for the super-rich and another for the rest of us. The horrors of Grenfell Tower were a reflection of a system that puts profits before people and that fails to listen to working-class communities. In 2013, the Government received advice in a coroner’s report that sprinklers should be fitted in all high-rise buildings. Today, once again, the Government failed to fund the £1 billion investment needed. The Chancellor says that councils should contact them, but Nottingham and Westminster have done so, and they have been refused; nothing was offered to them. We have the privilege of being Members of Parliament, in a building that is about to be retrofitted with sprinklers to protect us. The message is pretty clear: this Government care more about what happens here than about what happens to people living in high-rise homes, in effect saying that they matter less.

    Our country is marked by growing inequality and injustice. We were promised, with lots of hype, a revolutionary Budget, but the reality is that nothing has changed. People were looking for help from this Budget, and they have been let down by a Government who, like the economy that they have presided over, are weak and unstable, and in need of urgent change. They call this a Budget fit for the future; the reality is that they are a Government no longer fit for office.

  • Philip Hammond – 2017 Budget Speech

    Below is the text of the Budget Speech made by Philip Hammond in the House of Commons on 22 November 2017.

    I report today on an economy that continues to grow, continues to create more jobs than ever before, and continues to confound those who seek to talk it down: an economy set on a path to a new relationship with our European neighbours and a new future outside the European Union—a future that will be full of change, full of new challenges, and, above all, full of new opportunities. In this Budget, we express our resolve to look forward, not back; to embrace that change; to meet those challenges head on; and to seize those opportunities for Britain.

    The negotiations on our future relationship with the European Union are in a critical phase. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been clear about the fact that we seek a deep and special partnership, based on free and frictionless trade in goods and services, close collaboration on security, and strong mutual respect and friendship; and, as Chancellor, I am clear about the fact that one of the biggest boosts that we can provide for businesses and families—one of the best ways to protect British jobs and prosperity as we build that new future—is to make early progress in delivering my right hon. Friend’s vision, with an implementation agreement that allows businesses to plan and invest with confidence. This Government will make the pursuit of that progress a top priority in the weeks ahead.

    While we work to achieve this deep and special partnership, we are determined to ensure that the country is prepared for every possible outcome. We have already invested almost £700 million in Brexit preparations and today I am setting aside over the next two years another £3 billion. I stand ready to allocate further sums if and when needed. No one should doubt our resolve.

    But this Budget is about much more than Brexit. The world is on the brink of a technological revolution—one that will change the way we work and live, and transform our living standards for generations to come. We face a choice: either we embrace the future, seize the opportunities which lie within our grasp and build on Britain’s great global success story; or, as the Labour party advocates, we reject change and turn inwards to the failed and irrelevant dogmas of the past.

    We have no doubts. We choose the future. We choose to run towards change, not away from it, and to prepare our people to meet the challenges ahead, not to hide from them. And the prize will be enormous because, for the first time in decades, Britain is genuinely at the forefront of this technological revolution—not just in our universities and research institutes, but this time in the commercial development labs of our great companies, and on factory floors and business parks across this land. But we must invest to secure that bright future for Britain, and at this Budget that is what we choose to do.

    We are listening and we understand the frustration of families where real incomes are under pressure. So at this Budget, we choose a balanced approach—yes, maintaining fiscal responsibility as we at last see our debt peaking, continuing to invest in the skills and infrastructure that will support the jobs of the future and building the homes that will make good on our promise to the next generation, but crucially also helping families to cope with the cost of living.

    As we invest in our country’s future, I have a clear vision of what that global Britain looks like: a prosperous and inclusive economy where everybody has the opportunity to shine, wherever in these islands they live and whatever their background, where talent and hard work are rewarded, and where the dream of home ownership is a reality for all generations; a hub of enterprise and innovation; a beacon of creativity; a civilised and tolerant place that cares for the vulnerable and nurtures the talented; an outward-looking, free-trading nation; and a force for good in the world. That is the Britain that I want to leave to my children—a Britain we can be proud of, and a country fit for the future. I know we will not build it overnight but we will lay the foundations in this Budget today. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I am being tempted with something a little more exotic here, but I will stick to plain water. I did take the precaution of asking the Prime Minister to bring a packet of cough sweets, just in case. [Laughter.]

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)

    Order. I think it might be hearing aids that we will all need if this noise continues.

    Mr Hammond

    I shall first report to the House on the economic forecasts of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. This is the bit with the “long, economicky words”. Once again, I thank Robert Chote and his team for their hard work over the last few weeks. I believe passionately that the best way to improve the lives of people across the length and breadth of this country is to help them get into work. I am acutely aware that 1.4 million people out of work is 1.4 million too many, so today I welcome the OBR forecast that there will be another 600,000 people in work by 2022. I am immensely proud of this Government’s record in having created over 3 million new jobs since 2010—incidentally, a rather far cry from the 1.2 million job losses that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) predicted in 2011—but let nobody be in any doubt that this Government will continue their relentless focus on getting more people into work, giving them the security and peace of mind of a regular wage.

    I also want work to be good quality and well paid, and regrettably our productivity performance continues to disappoint. The OBR has assumed at each of the last 16 fiscal events that productivity growth would return to its pre-crisis trend of about 2% a year, but it has remained stubbornly flat. So today it revises down the outlook for productivity growth, business investment and GDP growth across the forecast period. The OBR now expects to see GDP grow 1.5% in 2017, 1.4% in 2018, 1.3% in 2019 and 2020, before picking back up to 1.5% and finally 1.6% in 2022, with inflation peaking at 3% in this quarter before falling back towards target over the next year. I reaffirm the remit for the independent Monetary Policy Committee and its 2% CPI inflation target.

    We took over an economy with the highest budget deficit in our peacetime history. Since then, thanks to the hard work of the British people, that deficit has been shrinking and next year will be below 2%. However, our debt is still too high and we need to get it down, not for some ideological reason but because excessive debt undermines our economic security, leaving us vulnerable to shocks; because it passes the burden unfairly to the next generation; and because it cannot be right to spend more on our debt interest than we do on our police and our armed forces combined. So I am pleased to tell the House that the OBR expects debt to peak this year and then gradually fall as a share of GDP—a turning point in our recovery from Labour’s crisis. Apparently not everyone shares the view that falling debt is good news. I have heard representations from Labour Members suggesting increasing the debt by £500 billion, taking us back to square one and wasting an extra £7 billion a year on debt interest. If they carry on like that, there will be plenty of others joining Kezia Dugdale in saying, “I’m Labour, get me out of here.”

    I have rejected these representations, and instead I reaffirm our pledge of fiscal responsibility and our commitment to the fiscal rules I set out last autumn, but now I choose to use some of the headroom I established then, so that as well as reducing debt, we can also invest in Britain’s future, support our key public services, keep taxes low and provide a little help to families and businesses under pressure: a balanced approach that will prepare Britain for the future, not seek to hide from it.

    Today, the OBR confirms that we are on track to meet our fiscal rules. Borrowing is forecast to be £49.9 billion this year. That is £8.4 billion lower than forecast at the spring Budget. After taking account of all decisions since the spring Budget, the OBR’s GDP revision and the measures I will announce today, borrowing will fall in every year of the forecast, from £39.5 billion next year to £25.6 billion in 2022-23, to reach its lowest level in 20 years. As a percentage of our GDP, it falls from 2.4% this year to 1.9% next year, then 1.6%, 1.5%, 1.3% and, finally, 1.1% in 2022-23. The OBR forecasts the structural deficit to be 1.3% of GDP in 2020-21, giving £14.8 billion of headroom against our 2% target. Debt will peak at 86.5% of GDP this year and then fall to 86.4% next year, then 86.1%, 83.1%, 79.3% and, finally, 79.1% in 2022-23—the first sustained decline in debt in 17 years. Under Conservative-led Governments, the hard work of the British people is steadily clearing up the mess left behind by Labour.

    At the heart of a global Britain must be a dynamic and innovative economy. On Monday, the Prime Minister set out the key elements of our modern industrial strategy—a strategy to raise productivity and wages in all parts of our country and to guarantee the brighter future we have promised to the next generation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will present a White Paper to the House in the next few days. This is not just an economic plan; it is a key part of our vision for a fairer Britain—a Britain where every one of our citizens can contribute to, and share in, the benefits of prosperity. The key to raising the wages of British workers is raising investment, both public and private, and we are investing in Britain’s future: half a trillion pounds since 2010; the biggest rail programme since Victorian times; the largest road building programme since the 1970s; the biggest increase in science and innovation funding in four decades; and the two largest infrastructure projects in Europe—Crossrail and HS2.

    When I took this job, I committed to making the battle to raise Britain’s productivity, and thus the nation’s pay, the central mission of the Treasury. Last autumn, I launched the national productivity investment fund to provide an additional £23 billion of investment over five years to upgrade Britain’s economic infrastructure for the 21st century. Today, I can announce that I will extend the fund for a further year and expand it to over £31 billion, meaning that public investment under this Government will, on average, be £25 billion higher per year in real terms than under the last Labour Government. We are allocating a further £2.3 billion for investment in R and D, and we will increase the main R and D tax credit to 12%, taking the first strides towards the ambition of the industrial strategy to drive up R and D investment across the economy to 2.4% of GDP.

    Britain is the world’s sixth largest economy. London is the No. 1 international financial services centre. We have some of the world’s best companies, and a commanding position in a raft of tech and digital industries that will form the backbone of the global economy of the future. Those who underestimate Britain do so at their peril, because we will harness that potential and turn it into the high-paid, high-productivity jobs of tomorrow. Others may choose to reject the future; we choose to embrace it. A new tech business is founded in Britain every hour, and I want that to be every half hour, so today we invest over £500 million in a range of initiatives from artificial intelligence to 5G and full-fibre broadband. We support regulatory innovation with a new regulators’ pioneer fund and a new geospatial data commission—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen. The new commission will develop a strategy for using the Government’s location data to support economic growth.

    To help our tech start-ups reach scale, we asked Sir Damon Buffini to review the availability of patient capital, and I am grateful to him. Today, we are publishing an action plan to unlock over £20 billion of new investment in UK knowledge-intensive, scale-up businesses, including through a new fund in the British Business Bank seeded with £2.5 billion of public money, by facilitating pension fund access to long-term investments, and by doubling enterprise investment scheme limits for knowledge-intensive companies while ensuring that EIS is not used as a shelter for low-risk capital preservation schemes. We stand ready to step in to replace European Investment Fund lending if necessary.

    There is perhaps no technology as symbolic of the revolution gathering pace around us as driverless vehicles—[Interruption.] Opposition Members surely do not want me to make that joke about the Labour party again. I know that Jeremy Clarkson does not like driverless vehicles, but there are many other good reasons to pursue the technology, so today we step up our support for it—sorry Jeremy, but this is definitely not the first time that you have been snubbed by Hammond and May. Our future vehicles will be driverless, but they will be electric first, and that is a change that needs to come as soon as possible for our planet. So we will establish a new £400 million charging infrastructure fund and invest an extra £100 million in plug-in car grants and £40 million in charging R and D. I can confirm today that we will clarify the law so that people who charge their electric vehicles at work will not face a benefit-in-kind charge from next year. The tax system can play an important role in protecting our environment.

    We owe it to our children that the air they breathe is clean. We published our air quality plan earlier this year, and we said then that we would fund it through taxes on new diesel cars. From April 2018, the first-year vehicle excise duty rate for diesel cars that do not meet the latest standards will go up by one band, and the existing diesel supplement in company car tax will increase by one percentage point. Drivers buying a new car will be able to avoid the charge as soon as manufacturers bring forward the next-generation cleaner diesels that we all want to see, and we will only apply the measures to cars. Before the headline writers start limbering up, let me be quite clear: no white van man or white van woman will be hit by these measures. The levy will fund a new £220 million clean air fund to provide support for the implementation of local air quality plans, improving the quality of the air in cities and towns up and down the UK.

    However, air quality is, sadly, not our only environmental challenge. Audiences across the country who have been glued to “Blue Planet II” have been starkly reminded of the problems of plastics pollution. The UK led the world on climate change agreements and is a pioneer in protecting marine environments. I want us now to become a world leader in tackling the scourge of the plastic that is littering our planet and our oceans. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I will investigate how the tax system and charges on single-use plastic items can reduce waste, because we cannot keep our promise to the next generation to build an economy fit for the future unless we ensure our planet has a future.

    Meeting the challenge of change head-on means giving our people the confidence to embrace it and the skills to reap the rewards from it, and we have a plan to do so. We are delivering 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020 thanks to our apprenticeship levy, and I will keep under review the flexibility that levy payers have to spend that money. We are introducing T-levels, and today I provide a further £20 million to support further education colleges to prepare for them. Knowledge of maths is key to the high-tech, cutting-edge jobs in our digital economy, but it is also useful in less glamorous roles such as frontline politics.

    So we will expand the Teaching for Mastery of Maths programme to a further 3,000 schools; we will provide £40 million to train maths teachers across the country; we will introduce a £600 maths premium for schools, for every additional pupil who takes A-level or core maths; and we will invite proposals for new maths schools across England, so that highly talented young mathematicians can release their potential, wherever they live and whatever their background. More maths for everyone—Mr Deputy Speaker, don’t let anyone say I don’t know how to show the nation a good time.

    Computer science is also at the heart of this revolution, so we will ensure that every secondary school pupil can study computing by tripling the number of trained computer science teachers to 12,000, and we will work with industry to create a new national centre for computing. But rapid technological change means that we also need to help people retrain during their working lives, ensuring that our workforce are equipped with the skills they will need for the workplace of the future. Today, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary and I are launching an historic partnership, between the Government, the CBI and the TUC, to set the strategic direction for a national retraining scheme. Its first priority will be to boost digital skills and support expansion of the construction sector. To make a start immediately, we will invest £30 million in the development of digital skills distance learning courses, so that people can learn wherever they are and whenever they want.

    I am pleased to be able to accept the representation I have received from the TUC to continue to fund Unionlearn, which I recognise is a valuable part of our support for workplace learning. [Interruption.] Apparently the Opposition do not know what that is, Mr Deputy Speaker. I got an email from Len asking me especially, so I couldn’t say no, could I?

    Backing skills is key to unlocking growth nationally, but far too much of our economic strength is concentrated in our capital city. If we are truly to build an economy that is fit for the future, we have to get all parts of the UK firing on all cylinders. That is what our modern industrial strategy is all about. Today we back the northern powerhouse, the midlands engine and elected Mayors across the UK, with a new £1.7 billion Transforming Cities fund: half to be shared by the six areas with elected metro Mayors, to give them the firepower to deliver on local transport priorities, and the remainder to be open to competition by other cities in England.

    We are investing £300 million to ensure that HS2 infrastructure can accommodate future northern powerhouse and midlands engine rail improvements. I am also providing £30 million today to trial new solutions to improve mobile and digital connectivity on trains on the TransPennine route. We are developing a local industrial strategy with Manchester, and I am pleased to announce a second devolution deal with Andy Street in the west midlands. We have agreed a new devolution deal with North of the Tyne, and we will fund the replacement of the 40-year-old rolling stock on the Tyne and Wear metro, at a total investment of £337 million.

    We will invest £123 million in the Redcar steelworks site to support the ambitious plans of our new Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who are leading the fight for prosperity in their area. We are piloting 100% business rates retention in London next year and continuing to work with Transport for London on the funding and financing of Crossrail 2. We will also make over £1 billion of discounted lending available to local authorities across the country to support high-value infrastructure projects—a Conservative Government giving power back to the people of Britain, and driving prosperity and greater fairness across our United Kingdom.

    The decisions taken in this Budget also mean £2 billion more for the Scottish Government, £1.2 billion more for the Welsh Government and over £650 million more for a Northern Ireland Executive. I can confirm today that progress is being made on city deals for Tay Cities and Stirling, and on a growth deal for Borderlands. I am getting used to the experience of having my ear bent by 13 Scottish Conservative colleagues, most recently on the issue of Scottish police and fire VAT. The Scottish National party knew the rules and knew the consequences of introducing these bodies, and ploughed ahead anyway. My Scottish Conservative colleagues have persuaded me that the Scottish people should not lose out just because of the obstinacy of the SNP Government, so we will legislate to allow VAT refunds from April 2018.

    In response to yet more representations from my hon. Friends from Scotland, aided and abetted by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), from November 2018 we will introduce transferable tax history for transfers of oil and gas fields in the North sea, an innovative tax policy that will encourage new entrants to bring fresh investment to a basin that still holds up to 20 billion barrels of oil.

    We will begin negotiations towards growth deals for north Wales and mid-Wales, and we will abolish tolls on the Severn bridge, as promised, by the end of next year. We will deliver on our commitment to review the effect of VAT and air passenger duty on tourism in Northern Ireland, reporting at next year’s Budget, and we will open negotiations for a Belfast city deal as part of our commitment to a comprehensive and ambitious set of city deals across Northern Ireland—a Conservative Government delivering for all parts of our United Kingdom.

    It is only by supporting our regions and nations, dealing with our debts and investing in skills and infrastructure for the long term that we can we build an economy fit for the future. But I recognise that many people are feeling pressure on their budgets now, and because we are all in politics to make people’s lives better, in the short term as well as the long term, we will take further measures in this Budget to help families and businesses where we can.

    The switch to universal credit is a long-overdue and necessary reform, replacing Labour’s broken system that discouraged people from working more than 16 hours a week and trapped 1.4 million on out-of-work benefits for nearly a decade. Universal credit delivers a modern welfare system where work always pays and people are supported to earn, but I recognise the genuine concerns on both sides of the House about the operational delivery of this benefit, and today we will act on those concerns.

    First, we will remove the seven-day waiting period applied at the beginning of a benefit claim so that entitlement to universal credit will start on the day of the claim. To provide greater support during the waiting period, we will change the advances system to ensure that any household that needs it can access a full month’s payment within five days of applying; we will make it possible to apply for an advance online, and we will extend the repayment period for advances from six months to 12 months; and any new universal credit claimant in receipt of housing benefit at the time of the claim will continue to receive that housing benefit for a further two weeks, making it easier for them to pay their rent. This is a £1½ billion package to address concerns about the delivery of the benefit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will give further details in a statement to the House tomorrow.

    We also want to help low-income households in areas where rents have been rising fastest. In the long run, of course, the answer lies in increasing the amount of housing available, a theme I shall return to. In the meantime, the best way to help them is by increasing the rate of support in those areas where rents are least affordable. So we will increase targeted affordability funding by £125 million over the next two years, benefiting 140,000 people. We will always listen to genuine concerns and act where we can to help.

    Making work pay is core to the philosophy of this Government. That is why we introduced the national living wage in 2016. From April, it will rise by 4.4%, from £7.50 an hour to £7.83, handing full-time workers a further £600 pay increase and taking their total pay rise since its introduction to over £2,000 a year. We also accept the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations on national minimum wage rates, supporting our young people with the largest increase in youth rates in 10 years and delivering a pay rise for over 2 million minimum wage workers of all ages across the country.

    The facts are these: income inequality today is at its lowest level in 30 years; the top 1% are paying a larger share of income tax than at any time under the last Labour Government; the poorest 10% in Britain have seen their real incomes grow faster since 2010 than the richest 10%; and the proportion of full-time jobs that are low paid is at its lowest level for 20 years—a Conservative Government delivering a fairer Britain.

    As well as making work pay, we want families to keep more of the money they earn. When we came into office, the personal allowance stood at £6,475 a year. From April, I will increase the personal allowance to £11,850 and the higher rate threshold to £46,350, making progress towards our manifesto commitments, which I reiterate today. The typical basic-rate taxpayer will be £1,075 a year better off compared with 2010, and a full-time worker on the national living wage will take home more than £3,800 extra—this Conservative Government, delivering for Britain’s workers.

    I turn now to duties. The tobacco duty escalator will continue at inflation plus 2%, with an additional 1% duty on hand-rolling tobacco this year, and minimum excise duty on cigarettes will also rise. Excessive alcohol consumption by the most vulnerable people is all too often done through cheap, high-strength, low-quality products, especially so-called white ciders. I pay tribute to the campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on this issue. Following our recent consultation, we will legislate to increase duty on these products from 2019. But, recognising the pressure on household budgets, and backing our great British pubs, duties on other ciders, wines, spirits and beer will be frozen. This will mean that a bottle of whisky will be £1.15 less in 2018 than if we had continued with Labour’s plans, and a pint of beer 12p less. So, merry Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The cost of travel is an important factor for families and businesses. From April 2019, I will again freeze short-haul air passenger duty rates, and I will also freeze long-haul economy rates, paid for by an increase on premium-class tickets and on private jets—sorry, Lewis. For those who do not stretch to a private jet, I can announce a new railcard for those aged 26 to 30, giving 4.5 million more young people a third off their rail fares. I will, once again, cancel the fuel duty rise for both petrol and diesel that is scheduled for April. Since 2010, we will have saved the average car driver £850 and the average van driver over £2,100, compared with Labour’s escalator plans. Fuel duty has now been frozen for the longest period in 40 years, at a total cost to the Exchequer of £46 billion since 2010.

    Our NHS is one of our great institutions: an essential part of what we are as a nation and a source of pride the length and breadth of the country. Its values are the values of the British people, and we will always back it. Dedicated NHS staff are handling the challenges of an ageing population and rapidly advancing technology with skill and commitment, and we salute them. Mr Deputy Speaker, although you would not think so to listen to the Leader of the Opposition as he regularly talks down the achievements of the NHS, the number of patients being treated is at record levels, cancer survival rates are at their highest ever level, 17 million people are now able to access GP appointments in the evenings and at weekends, and public satisfaction among hospital in-patients is at its highest level in more than 20 years.

    It is central to this Government’s vision that everyone has access to the NHS, free at the point of need. That is why we endorsed and funded the NHS’s five-year forward view in 2014. But even with this additional funding, we acknowledge that the service remains under pressure, and today we respond. First, we will deliver an additional £10 billion package of capital investment in frontline services over the course of this Parliament to support the sustainability and transformation plans that will make our NHS more resilient—investing for an NHS fit for the future. But we also recognise that the NHS is under pressure right now. I am therefore exceptionally, and outside the spending review process, making an additional commitment of resource funding of £2.8 billion to the NHS in England: £350 million immediately, to allow trusts to plan for this winter, and £1.6 billion in 2018-19, with the balance in 2019-20, taking the extra resource into the NHS next year to £3.75 billion in total, meaning that our NHS will receive a £7.5 billion increase to its resource budget over this year and next.

    Our nation’s nurses provide invaluable support to us all in our time of greatest need and deserve our deepest gratitude for their tireless efforts. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has already begun discussions with health unions on pay structure modernisation for “Agenda for Change” staff, to improve recruitment and retention. He will submit evidence to the independent pay review body in due course, but I want to assure NHS staff and patients, and Members of this House, that if the Health Secretary’s talks bear fruit, I will protect patient services by providing additional funding for such a settlement.

    Just as our public services must be fit for the future, so too must our tax system. It must remain competitive to attract the brightest and the best to establish and grow the businesses of the future. It must raise the revenue we need to fund our public services and it must be robust against abuse so that it is fair to all. We have heard a lot of talk recently from the Opposition about what they would do to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion, but the truth is that they did not. It is this Government who have clamped down on avoidance and evasion; this Government who have seen the tax gap cut by a quarter since 2010, to a record low; and this Government who have raked in an extra £160 billion over seven years for our public services by collecting the taxes that are due. So I am going to take no lectures, but I will take action. This Budget continues the work of the last seven years, with a package of measures that is forecast to raise £4.8 billion by 2022-23—doing the job that Labour failed to do for 13 years in office.

    Our long-term phased reduction of corporation tax has generated investment and jobs and raised £20 billion extra for our public services. We are committed to maintaining Britain’s competitive corporation tax rates, but there is a case now for removing the anomaly of the indexation allowance for capital gains, bringing the corporate tax system into line with the personal capital gains tax system.

    I will therefore freeze this allowance so that companies receive relief for inflation up to January 2018, but not thereafter.

    I am grateful to the Office of Tax Simplification for its recent report on the VAT registration threshold. At £85,000, the UK’s VAT threshold is by far the highest in the OECD. By contrast, in Germany it is just £15,600. I note the OTS conclusion that it distorts competition and disincentivises business growth. I also note the concerns of the Federation of Small Businesses about the cliff edge of the threshold. But such a high threshold also has the benefit of keeping the majority of small businesses out of VAT altogether, so I am not minded to reduce the threshold, but I will consult on whether its design could better incentivise growth, and in the meantime we will maintain it at its current level of £85,000 for the next two years.

    We cannot build an economy fit for the future without supporting its backbone: our 5.5 million small businesses, which are responsible between them for nearly half of our private sector jobs. They give our economy its extraordinary vibrancy and resilience, but I recognise that many are feeling under pressure right now. I know what hard work it is to get a business off the ground, to get it to grow, so today I want to do what we can to ease that pressure.

    Business rates represent a high fixed cost for small businesses. At Budget 2016 we introduced a package of business rate relief worth almost £9 billion, with a further £435 million in the spring Budget. Today I go further. We have listened to concerns about the potential costs of the annual uprating of business rates in April next year, and today I will accept the representation of the British Chambers of Commerce, CBI and other business organisations and bring forward the planned switch from RPI to CPI by two years, to April 2018—a move worth £2.3 billion to businesses over the next five years.

    I have also listened to businesses affected by the so-called staircase tax. We will change the law to ensure that where a business has been impacted by the Supreme Court ruling, it can have its original bill reinstated, if it chooses, and backdated. I hope that I can expect cross-party backing to speed that measure through Parliament.

    There are three simple steps to solve the staircase tax—[Interruption.] What do they expect? It’s the tax section. To support the thousands of small pubs that are at the heart of so many of our communities, we will extend the £1,000 discount for pubs with a rateable value of less than £100,000 for one more year, to March 2019.

    And I have heard the concerns about the five-yearly revaluation system. Shorter revaluation periods will reduce the size of changes in valuations, so I can announce today that after the next revaluation, future revaluations will take place every three years—this Conservative Government listening to small business.

    There is a wider concern across this House and in the business community about the tax system in the digital age. Along with the innovation and growth that it brings, digitalisation poses challenges for the sustainability and fairness of our tax system. But this challenge can only be properly solved on an international basis, and the UK is leading the charge in the OECD and the G20 to find solutions.

    Today we publish a position paper on the tax challenge posed by the digital economy, setting out our emerging thinking about potential solutions. But in the meantime, we will take what action we can. Multinational digital businesses pay billions of pounds in royalties to jurisdictions where they are not taxed, and some of these royalties relate to UK sales. So from April 2019, and in accordance with our international obligations, we will apply income tax to royalties relating to UK sales when those royalties are paid to a low-tax jurisdiction, even if they do not fall to be taxed in the UK under our current rules. That will raise about £200 million a year. It does not solve the problem, but it does send a signal of our determination and we will continue work in the international arena to find a sustainable and fair long-term solution that properly taxes the digital businesses that operate in our cyber-space.

    Following representations from a number of my hon. Friends, we are also taking further action to address online VAT fraud, which costs the taxpayer £1.2 billion per year, by making all online marketplaces jointly liable with their sellers for VAT, ensuring that sellers operating through them pay the right amount of VAT, just as we would expect traditional retailers to do.

    I want to turn to the challenge of the housing market, but before I do so I want to touch on the aftermath of the appalling events at Grenfell Tower. We have provided financial support for the victims of this terrible tragedy, and today I can announce we will provide Kensington and Chelsea Council with a further £28 million for mental health and counselling services, regeneration support for the surrounding areas and to provide a new community space for local residents.

    This tragedy should never have happened, and we must ensure that nothing like it ever happens again. All local authorities and housing associations must carry out any identified necessary safety works as soon as possible. If any local authority cannot access funding to pay for essential fire safety work, they should contact us immediately. I have said before, and I will say it again today: we will not allow financial constraints to get in the way of any essential fire safety work.

    I want to address the issue of empty properties. It cannot be right to leave property empty when so many are desperate for a place to live, so we will legislate to give local authorities the power to charge a 100% council tax premium on empty properties. We will also launch a consultation on barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector and how we might encourage landlords to offer them to those tenants who want the extra security.

    I also want to say something about rough sleeping. It is unacceptable that in 21st-century Britain there are people sleeping on the streets, so we will invest today £28 million in three new Housing First pilots in the west midlands, Manchester and Liverpool, and we will establish a homelessness taskforce as part of our commitment to halving rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminating it by 2027.

    I thank the many colleagues who submitted ideas on how to tackle the challenge of the housing market, including my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) and for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) in particular. By continuing to invest in Britain’s infrastructure, skills and research and development, we will ensure the recovery in productivity growth that is the key to delivering our vision of a stronger, fairer, more balanced economy, and the assurance to the next generation of their economic security.

    But however successful we are in that endeavour, there is one area where young people today will, rightly, feel concern about their future prospects, and that is in the housing market. House prices are increasingly out of reach for many. It takes too long to save for a deposit, and rents absorb too high a portion of monthly income, so the number of 25 to 34-year-olds owning their own home has dropped from 59% to just 38% over the last 13 years. Put simply, successive Governments, over decades, have failed to build enough homes to deliver the home-owning dream that this country has always been proud of, or indeed to meet the needs of those who rent.

    In Manchester a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a pledge to Britain’s younger generation that she would dedicate her premiership to fixing this problem, and today we take the next steps to delivering on that pledge. By choosing to build we send a message to the next generation that getting on the housing ladder is not just a dream of your parents’ past, but a reality for your future.

    We have made a start with schemes such as Help to Buy, which has helped over 320,000 people buy a home. We have increased the supply of homes by more than 1.1 million since 2010, including nearly 350,000 affordable homes. House building stands at its highest level since the crash, with the latest figures showing that over 217,000 net additional homes were added to the stock last year. That is a remarkable achievement, but we need to do better still if we are to see affordability improve.

    This is a complex challenge, and there is no single magic bullet. If we do not increase the supply of land for new homes, more money will simply inflate prices and make matters worse. If we do not do more to support the growth of the SME house building sector that was all but wiped out by Labour’s great recession, we will remain dependent on the major national house builders that dominate the industry. If we do not train the construction workers of tomorrow, we may generate planning permissions but we will not turn them into homes. Solving this challenge will require money, it will require planning reform and it will require intervention. So today we set out an ambitious plan to tackle the housing challenge.

    Over the next five years, we will commit a total of at least £44 billion of capital funding, loans and guarantees to support our housing market, to boost the supply of skills, resources and building land, and to create the financial incentives necessary to deliver 300,000 net additional homes a year on average by the mid-2020s—the biggest annual increase in housing supply since 1970; new money for the home builders fund to get SME housebuilders building again; a £630 million small sites fund to unstick the delivery of 40,000 homes; a further £2.7 billion to more than double the housing infrastructure fund; £400 million more for estate regeneration; a £1.1 billion fund to unlock strategic sites, including new settlements and urban regeneration schemes; a lifting of HRA caps for councils in high demand areas, to get them building again; and £8 billion of new financial guarantees to support private house building and the purpose-built private rented sector. And because we need a workforce to build these new homes, we are providing an additional £34 million to develop construction skills across the country.

    Solving the housing challenge takes more than money—it takes planning reform. We will focus on the urban areas where people want to live and where most jobs are created, making best use of our urban land and continuing the strong protection of our green belt, in particular building high quality, high density homes in city centres and around major transport hubs. And to put the needs of our young people first, we will ensure that councils in high demand areas permit more homes for local first-time buyers and affordable renters.

    My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will set out more detail in a statement to the House in due course. However, one thing is very clear: there is a significant gap between the number of planning permissions granted and the number of homes built. In London alone, there are 270,000 residential planning permissions unbuilt. We need to understand why. So I am establishing an urgent review to look at the gap between planning permissions and housing starts. It will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and will deliver an interim report in time for the spring statement next year. And if that report finds that vitally needed land is being withheld from the market for commercial, rather than technical, reasons, we will intervene to change the incentives to ensure that such land is brought forward for development, using direct intervention compulsory purchase powers as necessary.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we will fix this problem, and no one should doubt the Government’s determination to do so. But the solution will not deliver itself. Local authorities will need help and support. Developers will need encouragement and persuasion. Infrastructure to facilitate higher-density development must be funded and delivered. So the Homes and Communities Agency will expand to become Homes England, bringing together money, expertise and planning and compulsory purchase powers, with a clear remit to facilitate delivery of sufficient new homes, where they are most needed, to deliver a sustained improvement in housing affordability.

    But Mr Deputy Speaker, the battle to achieve and sustain affordability will be a long-term one, so we also need to look beyond this Parliament, to long-term measures. We will use new town development corporations to kick-start five new locally agreed garden towns in areas of demand pressure, delivered through public-private partnerships and designed to attract long-term capital investment from around the world.

    Last week, the National Infrastructure Commission published their report on the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor. Today we back their vision and commit to building up to 1 million homes by 2050, completing the road and rail infrastructure to support them. And as a down-payment on this plan, we have agreed an ambitious housing deal with Oxfordshire to deliver 100,000 homes by 2031. We are capitalising on the global reputations of our two most famous universities and Britain’s biggest new town to create a dynamic new growth corridor for the 21st century.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, this is our plan to deliver on the pledge we have made to the next generation: that the dream of home ownership will become a reality in this country once again. But I also want to take action today to help young people who are saving to own a home. One of the biggest challenges facing young first-time buyers is the cash required up front. We have put £10 billion more money into Help to Buy: Equity Loan to help those saving for a deposit, but I want to do more still. I have received representations for a temporary stamp duty holiday for first-time buyers, but this would only help those who are ready to purchase now and would offer nothing for the many who will need to save for years. So with effect from today, for all first-time-buyer purchases up to £300,000, I am abolishing stamp duty altogether.

    Hon. Members

    More!

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)

    Order. If you want more, you are going to have to let the Chancellor finish.

    Mr Hammond

    Mr Deputy Speaker, to ensure that this relief also helps first-time buyers in very high price areas like London, it will also be available on the first £300,000 of the purchase price of properties up to £500,000, meaning an effective reduction of £5,000. That is a stamp duty cut for 95% for all first-time buyers who pay stamp duty and no stamp duty at all for 80% of first-time buyers from today. When we say we will revive the home-owning dream in Britain, we mean it. We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge, but today we have made a substantial down-payment.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the things that I love most about this country is its sense of opportunity. I have always felt it, and I want young people growing up today to have that same sense of boundless opportunity. In this Budget, I have set out a vision for Britain’s future and a plan for delivering it: by getting our debt down, by supporting British families and businesses, by investing in the technologies and the skills of the future and by creating the homes and the infrastructure that our country needs.

    We are at a turning point in our history, and we resolve to look forwards, not backwards—to build on the strengths of the British economy, to embrace change not hide from it, to seize the opportunities ahead of us and, together, to build a Britain fit for the future. I commend this statement to the House.