High Speed 2

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely glad to hear that. I am sorry that I did not mention that in my opening remarks. Although he is an Opposition Member, I pay tribute to the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman.

I and the other people I mentioned are concerned about not only the concept, but the manner in which HS2 Ltd has dealt with the issues, as I have said in the petition that I and others deposited, and as I have said in previous debates. I also petitioned on the first and second Bills and raised all my constituents’ grievances, which are on the record for anyone to see. I do not need to go into those today, because I want to deal with the central principles.

I have also taken part in other debates with my right hon. and indefatigable Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. Our criticisms about the lack of consultation on HS2 are already on the record. Indeed, back in November 2015 the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found serious failings in HS2 Ltd’s engagement with a community in Staffordshire. The report stated that its actions fell so far below reasonable standards that they constituted maladministration. I had similar experiences to my right hon. Friend, and I understand that she will deal with that later in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is not able to be here today. He apologises for that—he had another engagement—but I want to cite his concerns, which relate to the disruption it will cause his constituents and the disconnected nature of the railway, which is a matter of grave concern. He makes the point that the railway does not connect with Heathrow, the continent via HS1, or even Birmingham New Street station. He says that if ever there were a model of how not to design an integrated railway, this is it.

Amidst our collective opposition, the white elephant is running amok in the Treasury and has already charged the British taxpayer more than £4 billion before construction has even started. My own position on the outrageous and accelerating costs of HS2 is that, although £4 billion is a colossal sum, there is no excuse for continuing to throw money down a black hole. The spending plans began to spiral after 2018: £3 billion in 2019; £4.2 billion in 2020; and £4.8 billion in 2021. So if we are going to stop it, now would be a good time.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

At this stage in the project, apart from drawing up plans, the biggest cost is the compensation schemes. The reason why billions of pounds are being spent at the moment is that the project is buying homes up and down the line because of MPs agitating for decent compensation schemes. Some of the money will come back in due course, because after 20 years the homes will be sold at a profit.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is a valiant supporter of the Government. He chaired the Select Committee on the hybrid Bill and I pay tribute to the way in which he sought to deal with the problems that cropped up during the proceedings. However, there would be no need for compensation if there was not an HS2 project. I do not think the opinions polls that I referred to feature people who have been affected by the route of the line; they simply think it is an extremely bad deal. It is a white elephant indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I fully understand the concerns of constituency Members. The worst thing to happen to a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency is to have a railway go through it. A nuclear power station would bring several thousand jobs, an airport expansion would bring jobs, but if a railway goes through a constituency, particularly above ground, it is bound to affect the local people but bring them little benefit. Even if a motorway were built, there would be junctions—some of the locals would benefit. It is terribly difficult for Members of Parliament to deal with this sort of project.

The timescale of most rail projects is another problem. HS2 started in 2009 and the first phase will probably finish in the mid-2020s. Most people, when they think about a Government project, think it is all fully worked out and in a filing cabinet in Whitehall. They cannot understand why their questions are not answered. The reality is that there is a sketch, the details for which are then filled in. People get fed up because they keep writing to their Member of Parliament to try to get reassurances on things, but they cannot because things have not been detailed and designed.

The wear and tear on MPs and their staff is pretty formidable. I know most Members here have dedicated staff in their office dealing with constituents, many of whom get ill and suffer stress as a result of living with concerns about a national infrastructure project. I understand where most of the local Members are coming from, but Parliament voted for HS2 by a large margin. I abstained in the first vote because I had a role in the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee. HS2 should not be seen as separate from the rail network but as part of it. Its genesis was that the west coast main line’s capacity was filling up. It was thought that if a new line were built, it might as well be a high-speed line, and that if all the intercity traffic were put on that, opportunities would be opened up to have more freight on the west coast main line and more services.

This is about investment in public services. If this country has had a problem over decades, it is that we have sometimes not invested in them enough. It is also about linking up the spine of the country, eventually getting to Scotland. As the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) pointed out, there are benefits at his end of the country as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is perfectly right that much of the cost is related not to building the railway but to all the stations—the major cost of Euston, Old Oak Common and Curzon Street. HS2 has to be seen as part of a major regeneration project for those areas. The result is that, although it takes decades to get any kind of money back from investment in railways, there will be major benefits where investment goes in.

My hon. Friend made a brief comment about there being no spur to Heathrow. Most people coming from the north are not actually going to Heathrow, but HS2 goes through Old Oak Common, as does Crossrail. All one will need to do is walk across the station to get on Crossrail, which I think will take eight or nine minutes to get to Heathrow. Spending £1 billion on a spur would not be a good thing to do.

HS2 is a national infrastructure project and will roll out over 30 years. That means civil engineers can plan for the long term, training academies can be set up and Britain will improve its rail network. That does not diminish the fact that MPs whose constituencies are affected have to deal with the real difficulties of their constituents, farmers and owner-occupiers. We are a small country with a lot of owner-occupiers who are very vocal when their communities are affected, and I know that creates special difficulties for their MPs. My hon. Friend has to some extent played a part in changing history in our relationship with Europe—I suspect he will be more successful on Europe than on stopping HS2.

European Affairs

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). On this, we are absolutely as one. It has been a consistent feature not only of the debate in the run-up to the referendum, but in everything that has followed, that there has been so much agreement between those of us on these Government Back Benches and those on the Opposition Back Benches. If I may say so, Opposition Front Benchers are also increasingly recognising the strength of the argument that Opposition Back Benchers and some Government Back Benchers have been making. We also have the agreement of SNP and Plaid Cymru Members; that is about it, unfortunately.

The point is very clear: this issue—the biggest issue that our nation has had to wrestle with in 40 years, and certainly since the second world war—has, on the one hand, divided our country and that division continues, but, on the other hand, has also brought together people from different political parties. We have put aside our party differences, because on this we are as one, and we have put our country first. I pay tribute to all the Members who have spoken out—often in the face of death threats, appalling emails and criticisms, and indeed unpleasantness even from within our own political parties—as doing so has not always been easy. However, it is very important that we do so because this is about our country and of course our constituents—it is not about us—and it is even more about our children and our grandchildren. As hon. Members have said, it is about making sure we get this right because the consequences will affect generations to come.

My view is that people in this country are undoubtedly getting utterly fed up with Brexit. I was going to say that they do not understand it, and that is not a criticism, but when we sit here talking about the finer details of “a” or “the” customs union “arrangement” or “agreement”, and when we delve into the detail of WTO tariffs on bananas, cars or beer—goodness me—people do not want to be involved. That is not because they do not care about our country—of course they care, desperately—but they elect us to this place so that we get on with that sort of stuff, and so that we put the country first and do the best thing for our constituents. They should not have, in effect, to micromanage the politics and detail of all the economic consequences and things that flow from that; they trust us to do it, but when they look at this place, I do not think they are particularly impressed by what they see.

In reality, the two major parties are almost together, although thankfully a difference is now emerging, which I will deal with in a moment. The Opposition have the good sense to come out in favour of a/the customs union—it does not matter what we call it; we now know that it delivers exactly the same arrangement that we currently have. [Interruption.] Sorry, “a” customs union, but I am not interested in the words. All I am interested in is what it delivers, and that is the only difference between the Labour party and the Front Bench of the Government who I obviously support. There is very little between them. Yet, as I have said before in this place, if we were to have a free vote, I have no doubt that the majority of Members would vote in favour of a/the customs union—we all know what we mean because we know what it would deliver, which is the continuation of peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland and the avoidance of a hard border. It would also convey many other benefits.

I also have no doubt that Members would vote in favour of us retaining our membership of the single market by being a member of EFTA, and I do not think that the people of this country are particularly impressed by the fact that that is not happening. They voted for us to speak up on behalf of them and their interests, and we should not be held back by three-line Whips and by an attitude that still exists in our society—led mainly by certain sections of the media—that anyone who has the temerity to speak out about or against the decision that was made in the EU referendum is in some way a “traitor” or a “mutineer”. It is an outrage! We come here to speak freely on behalf of our constituents.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Is not a referendum the biggest free vote? Everybody participated; nobody was whipped. There were weeks and weeks of argument, and a decision was made.

[Anna Soubry]

That is a really interesting point. Of course we had a referendum, but can we just get real about this? First, 52% of those who voted did so for us to leave the European Union, but not one of them to my knowledge—certainly in my constituency—voted to be poorer. Of course, 48% of people voted for us to remain in the European Union, and they have a right to a say in what now happens. Too many people, including perhaps on the Government Benches, do not understand that a considerable portion of that 48% have accepted the vote, but now feel utterly excluded, sidelined and pushed to one side as we move forward to deliver the result in the interests of everybody in our country.

CERN Pensions: UK Tax Treatment

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I rise to discuss the UK tax treatment of CERN pensioners, but the subject goes rather wider than purely CERN. I mention CERN only because I have two or three constituents who are quite exercised by recent changes.

George Osborne brought in a change to do away with the concession whereby people with foreign pensions were taxed on 90% of their income, pushing that up to 100% in 2017-18. That has had a material effect on several of my constituents, but there must be people who worked for a number of organisations who are affected by the tax change when they land pensions back into the United Kingdom. I shall talk a little about CERN, but also about one or two other international organisations, because the more I look into this issue, the more complex it becomes.

CERN was set up by UNESCO in 1954 as an international organisation, based in Geneva, to carry out fundamental research in high-energy physics. The UK was among its 12 founding members; today, there are 22 member states. The host nations are Switzerland and France, and most of those who work at CERN on a day-to-day basis live in either Switzerland or France, in or around the vicinity of Geneva. CERN served as a model for successful European collaboration, and several similar organisations, working in fields such as space research, have since been created, based on its structure.

On retiring, CERN staff receive pensions in Swiss francs. They are not ungenerous pensions—some are in six figures—because these people are extremely able, talented scientists who have committed themselves to science. CERN staff can either stay in one of the host states or move elsewhere. Many member states offer favourable tax treatment to attract such staff to their country. They range from Austria, which allows CERN staff to retire tax-free, to Spain, Malta and Sweden, where low rates have been negotiated, typically in the order of 10%.

The UK never gave any kind of special privileges to CERN retirees, but there was provision under our tax law that 90% of foreign pensions would be taxed. If someone is on a six-figure pension and the first £8,000 or £10,000 is disregarded, bringing them down in all the various tax brackets, that concession is worth having. CERN pensioners, who are particularly bright, have to decide where they are going to land themselves and their families when they have finished working. Many wish to move back to the UK, and they previously saw the UK Government’s more modest concession as attractive enough for them to retire to places such as Poole.

I make one very important point about CERN pensioners: they have not benefited from UK tax concessions in any way. They do not get the 25% tax-free cash payment that a UK taxpayer gets. Effectively, they have earned their pension by working abroad for an international organisation in which we have a big interest. They have come back to the UK and then been given a slightly better tax position, probably in recognition of the fact that many people who have foreign pensions do not benefit from the reduced rate available to those who contribute to pensions in this country.

Pensioners of other international organisations that are similar to CERN do receive special concessions from the UK Treasury. I understand that there are organisations that represent those who have worked for the UN, or its various agencies, and that discussions are going on about the appropriate rate. I also know that there are discussions about pensioners from the World Bank. A number of European organisations work under similar terms and conditions as CERN. Known as the co-ordinated organisations, they include: the Council of Europe; the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts; the European Space Agency; the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites; the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The International Service for Remunerations and Pensions, which is based in Paris, is responsible for the pay and rations of all those bodies. As I understand it, the civil servants who work for these co-ordinated organisations are taxed on only 50% of their salaries.

There are therefore examples of concessionary rates for organisations in which Britain participates, and my constituents have a very simple request: if the UK Treasury is not going to tax them on 50% of their income, which I somehow doubt that it will, they wish to go back to the 90% rate with which they were happy. Many decided to move back to the United Kingdom on the basis of that proposition. I stress that, because some of the pensions are high, over 20 years, the amount in question represents probably a couple of million pounds’ worth of sterling. We should bear in mind that the money is landed back in the UK in Swiss francs, and that it is not only taxed but spent in the United Kingdom.

There is actually a very strong economic argument for making a pitch to people with good international salaries to come back to the UK to retire in order to feed the very important column that is UK invisible earnings. My constituents thought that they would be taxed at only 90%, but feel that the rules have changed, so they would like the UK Government to reconsider.

When I asked the House of Commons Library what happened to civil servants who retired from the EU, I was told very politely that the EU taxed them and kept the money. I am very surprised that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—it must be letting the side down—does not have any say over EU civil servants who retire back to the UK. I suspect that that is one of those fine points of detail that will be dealt with in the withdrawal negotiations. If those people were given a preferential arrangement, I would be extremely surprised if the UK Government were to change that and make those people’s pensions taxable at 100%.

This complex area involves a number of tax treaties and several international organisations, all of which operate to a different range of rules. My essential point is that a few of my constituents who worked hard in the scientific sector and earned good pensions thought that they had a proposition that meant that they were taxed at 90%, but now feel somewhat aggrieved that the previous Chancellor has pushed their rate up to 100%. As I have said, that was not the most generous tax proposition—those of other countries are far more generous—but that rate was attractive enough to get these people to move to places such as Poole. I hope that the UK Government will consider the options. Given that this is a complex area, I wonder if the Minister might be willing to meet me and a few CERN pensioners to discuss the matter more fully so that we can get to the bottom of whether they are being treated fairly and reasonably.

Finally, I congratulate the Minister on taking his post. He is among the Members on these Benches who I always thought was destined for high things. He had to start somewhere, and Economic Secretary to the Treasury is a fine and important post.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I can always count on my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) to put me in my place.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) for highlighting this issue. I want to say how proud we are of the pioneering work carried out at CERN and of the work of all those who have retired and returned to the UK. Poole is a beautiful place to retire to, by the seaside.

It seems appropriate to be talking, if only tangentially, about CERN’s work in the week in which we lost that great physicist, Stephen Hawking. One of the few scientific bets that he lost in his career was that the Higgs boson would never be found, so even somebody of his genius can get things wrong every now and again.

The Government are committed to a fair and consistent tax system. This is especially important in pensions, as the Government promote saving through tax incentives and allowances. We want those incentives to work and to be fairly distributed. My hon. Friend outlined the history of the issue before us today. As he said, the Government reviewed this regime at autumn statement 2016, and announced that the UK tax treatment of foreign pensions would be changed to be closely aligned with that of UK pensions. Following that, the Finance Act 2017 legislated so that, with effect from 6 April 2017, 100% of income from foreign pensions has been liable to UK tax; it was previously 90%. This aligns the tax treatment of UK pensioners with the treatment of those who earn their pension overseas, ensuring a fair system. At the outset when contributions are made towards a pension—whether that pension is UK or foreign—they are usually free of any tax paid in the UK. With this change, the tax treatment of contributions and payments are now consistent.

My hon. Friend raised a series of points on which I hope to provide some clarity. He was kind enough to speak to me before this debate and mention a number of international organisations where British citizens work and make a valuable contribution, including the OECD, NATO, the United Nations and others. My hon. Friend noted that pensioners from these international organisations or organisations of a similar type are reimbursed, for example, 50% of their income tax payments. It important to say that this does not arise as a result of any country’s tax rules. It is not because of a particular deal made by the United Kingdom with any of these organisations, but because of the specific provisions within the pension scheme of that international organisation.

It would be CERN’s decision whether it wanted to make a similar provision in its pension scheme either for the future, or to reopen and reassess their past practice for CERN pensioners who had retired, were drawing on their pensions and are now my hon. Friend’s constituents. Any payments received by UK residents are subject to UK tax, including reimbursement. That is the case for all international organisations. I will return to the EU, which, as is so often the case, has special treatment.

The UK only supports special tax treatment for international organisations when the employees have worked for the organisation in the UK, which I hope my hon. Friend will understand is a somewhat different situation for tax purposes. Aside from the EU, the UK has no bilateral agreements in relation to the tax treatment of international organisations with other countries. We do with the EU, which is our only exception, and that is common practice across the Union.

My hon. Friend mentioned international comparisons. We understand that other major economies are typically taking a similar approach to the UK with respect to taxing pensions. Countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland all tax occupational pensions such as CERN’s and the foreign income of their residents. There may be other examples such as those that he raised and spoke to me about earlier. Of course, I am happy to look into that. It may be a topic that we could discuss were we to meet. Certainly, our major international competitors and the countries from which, one presumes, a majority of CERN’s employees are drawn take an approach similar to the one that we have taken.

In our correspondence prior to this debate, my hon. Friend suggested that the Government could introduce a 25% tax relief on CERN pensions to mirror the tax-free lump sum. I understand that that would be an attractive proposition for CERN pensioners. However, the tax-free lump sum is not an allowance. If a qualifying lump sum is not paid, this relief is not available. These lump sums can be paid free of UK tax whether built up in a foreign or a UK pension if the qualifying conditions are met. Allowing for 25% tax relief outside of these circumstances would, we believe—I hope that my hon. Friend will understand this—undermine these qualifying conditions, which apply to all pensioners.

I hope that my comments have at least explained the rationale behind the Government’s policy. I appreciate the concerns that my hon. Friend raises. I assure him that the Government have not sought to target individuals unfairly or to impact on the work undertaken by those at CERN or, indeed, by any other of our citizens who choose to live and work abroad. As he says, this is an incredibly important and increasingly prevalent aspect of the modern labour force, with increasing globalisation and a global market for the most talented individuals, certainly in the scientific and research world.

The changes we made in 2017 stopped people from transferring their pensions abroad to avoid UK tax. That was a consideration, but it was not the primary motivation. Our primary motive was to do this as part of a wider move towards consistency and fairness in pensions and taxation. The Government recognise that those in receipt of foreign pensions do face additional costs in accessing their pension. That was the original motivation behind the 90% rate that was introduced, I believe, in the 1970s. However, we have taken the view that it is not for Government to compensate these individuals for their choice to work outside the UK or to enable them to use this as a UK tax break. It is the Government’s role to encourage a fair and sustainable tax regime in the UK. The changes that we made have equalised the system, from which only overseas-based employees were previously able to benefit.

I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I also thank his constituents and others who may be paying attention to this debate for the ground-breaking work that they have done at CERN, which the Government and, I think, all Members are rightly proud of. We are proud that UK citizens have played a part in that and that they have chosen to return home to the UK for their well-earned retirement. The Government are delighted to welcome home British expatriates who have worked abroad to spend their retirement in places such as Poole. We recognise that that plays an increasingly important part in our economy.

I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will appreciate the Government’s rationale for making these changes over the past few years. We took a decision to treat all UK pensions consistently. Such judgments are difficult ones, and do involve winners and losers, but we appreciate the views of his constituents, and I would be happy to meet him and them in person, if it would help to further the conversation, and to listen to their specific concerns and see what, if anything, we can do.

[Sir Robert Syms]

I thank the Minister for that offer. This is a complex area, and I think that my constituents would be grateful for at least a brief meeting just to go through some of their concerns, outside the public spotlight.

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend. This is a complicated area. I hope that my comments today have provided some answers to him and his constituents, but of course I would be happy to meet him and to bring along Treasury officials, who might be able to shed further light on this matter and answer their questions in greater detail. They are understandable and important questions, because they concern the financial security his constituents can enjoy in later life.

I hope that this evening’s debate has provided some answers and that the meeting that follows will provide more. We believe that the previous approach was fair. It was driven by a desire for consistency and fairness for all British pensioners, and we hope that right hon. and hon. Members can support that as a principle. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Economy and Jobs

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

That does not make me feel confident about the gender equality legislation that is coming forward, but we can only hope that this Government do things differently to their colleagues in Scotland.

We have never had a female Chancellor of the Exchequer or a female shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Today, I proudly stand here as the first ever House of Commons female spokesperson on the economy. That demonstrates just how far we still have to travel to achieve true gender equality.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I just point out that Margaret Thatcher was shadow Chancellor under Ted Heath.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I apologise for that oversight. I did check the facts, but obviously not well enough.

To best protect our workers, we need a UK Government who recognise the importance of trade unions and want to secure their rights, rather than systematically dismantle them. As we leave the EU, the protections for workers will be reduced, because we will lose the oversight of the European Union. We need to ensure that workers have the protection that they need and deserve.

Successive Tory-led Governments have caused untold harm to the nations of the UK: they have increased inequality; created spiralling household debt; presided over drastic reductions in people’s savings; reduced access to in-work benefits; closed jobcentres, which has reduced the opportunity for people to get back to work; and attacked the vulnerable, the sick and the disabled. Those people who are most in need in the nations of the UK have been worst served by this Government.

This Government have consistently failed to support policies that recognise the problems that millennials face. Generation Y are set to be poorer than their parents. Everybody who was born after 1955, which I understand is when the Chancellor was born, is set to be poorer than their parents’ generation. We are seeing wealth accumulation by the age of 30 decrease, and that is storing up problems for the future. There are major issues for millennials, and the Government have not moved fast enough to recognise the difference in the level of home ownership, in the age that people have children, in the social structure, and in the way that millennials are coping economically. Our economic policies have not moved towards making things better. They also have not taken into account the massive levels of student debt. As an aside, it is a pretty terrible fiscal policy to have people paying off their student debt until, eventually, it gets written off, with most of them never managing to pay it all back.

The people who live in the nations of the UK cannot cope with another unfettered Tory Government. A message was sent to the Tories at this election that said that we cannot be dragged out of the single market. An end to single market membership means the loss of 80,000 jobs in Scotland and £2,000 per person. That would be an economic travesty. Given that the Tories have already presided over a decade of wage stagnation, spiralling household debt, decreasing household debt, decreasing household savings and the drastic dismantling of the social security safety net, I do not see how the nations of the UK can cope with the drastic economic hit that will come as a result of Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I have followed the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) in past debates, and I must admit that I did not expect to follow him again so soon. I welcome him back, and welcome what looks like his coronation as leader of his party. He has made some very sensible points about industrial policy that we ought to take on board.

I want to correct an intervention I made earlier on the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). Margaret Thatcher was not shadow Chancellor but a member of the shadow Treasury team. I remember, when I was a schoolboy, some of her savaging of the then Labour Front Benchers, which of course led to her challenge of Ted Heath, and then, let us say, the rest was history.

The Conservative party came into government in 2010, and Eddie George, the then Governor of the Bank of England, said just before that election that whoever took on the challenges of the British economy would probably be destroyed politically for a generation. Yet we took on the challenges of the British economy, at that point in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and we took tough decisions, but on the whole we took the British people with us. Here we are, after two general elections, still standing on the right side—the Government side—of the House, so evidently we have managed to win the argument with the British people. I do understand, though, that several years of difficult economic decisions leave their legacy on people and families, and the Government have to pay heed to that. Clearly, we are going to need to have a think about pay policy and a number of other things in future.

Since 2010, we have not only managed to reduce the deficit very substantially—we know the important reasons for that—but created well over 3 million jobs and taken many of the lowest-paid out of the tax system. The Government have done a very good job, and this is the worst time to turn round and say, “Let’s change policy.” We have to stick to the policy that we have because it has proved that we can grow and we can create jobs, and ultimately that will lead to higher living standards—perhaps not as fast as people want, but we are on the right track and we have to stick the course. Particularly with the uncertainties of Brexit, which a number of hon. Members have raised, the Government’s economic policy is perfectly sensible. We have a little more flexibility in our plans than we did prior to Brexit, but that is perfectly sensible since there are a number of uncertainties that the Government are going to have to deal with. The economic policies of this Government are good and should be stuck to, but perhaps we ought to do a lot more to persuade the British public that what we are doing is right. I think that people have forgotten the deficit that we had in 2010, forgotten that we are still borrowing a lot of money, and forgotten the task that we still have ahead of us.

I rather approve of the Queen’s Speech. It was a short Queen’s Speech. I wish I had seen shorter Queen’s Speeches in my time in this House, because if the British Parliament and British Governments have a mania, it is for legislating. If legislating made us richer and more prosperous, we would be the richest country on earth. Time and again I have seen British Governments introduce legislation similar to that of the previous Government so that they can rebrand what they were doing. What I want to see from this Government is good government, not masses of legislation. If they want to make changes, they have to look at legislation passed not only by the Conservatives but by the coalition and, indeed, by Tony Blair during his years in office. There is an awful lot of legislation already on the statute book that can be used as levers of power. We do not have to keep on reinventing the wheel and jamming up this place with lots of legislation.

As somebody who once or twice, or three times, has been in the Whips Office, I do not think that legislation is the answer to all our prayers. If we are going to be a successful economy in the future, sometimes we need not to legislate but to change people’s attitudes—to change the way they do things and the way they think. That is an element of leadership. If we keep a stable economic policy and limit the amount of legislation, and stay the course and continue as we are doing, we will deliver for the British people the outcome that they want.

This modest Queen’s Speech is the first of probably another three or four Queen’s Speeches, because the arithmetic of this Parliament means that we could last five years in government. Although there has been lots of speculation that there might be an election in one, two, three or six months, there is a job to do. We have to get on with the negotiations with the European Union and with nursing the economy back to health. The Conservative party is certainly up for that.

There is a job of work to be done. The Queen’s Speech will deliver for two years and some very important legislation has to go through—a lot of it, I suspect, on Brexit, on the Floor of the House. There is certainly a lot of work we can do to hold the Government to account, and I am sure that many of us on the Back Benches will do that. I say stay the course with the economy; do not legislate too much; bat for Britain in Europe and get the best deal that our constituents want; and let us keep this country on course for success in the future. I think we will do so under our Prime Minister.