UK Economy

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Labour has consistently presented arguments in the House about the asset sales that have taken place. In the past, they have been described as selling the family silver, but in recent years we have been selling the floorboards and the fabric of the building itself.

Investors in the rest of the world have been willing to overlook some of the fundamentals of our economy in the belief that the country is politically stable, and has secure banks and a booming property market. Overseas investors have been willing to buy assets and lend money on a grand scale as a result. Owing to the leave vote, however, that “kindness of strangers” is now in short supply. Given the uncertainty over the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world, the confidence of international investors in its position has been undermined.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s focus on this point. My biggest worry is that we are dependent on inward investment which, according to Fitch, may fall by 5% this year. Does he agree that whatever happens in the negotiation, the single most important message that must come out of it is that we are still an open economy, and will not resort to protectionism?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree. I echo the Chancellor’s statement on Monday that this country is open for business, and Members of all political parties must repeat it time and again to ensure that we retain the confidence of overseas investors as best we can.

We have to recognise that the confidence of international investors has been undermined by uncertainty over the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world. It is regrettable that the current account deficit has not been addressed so far. To address it would have required a restructuring of our economy. We would have needed an industrial strategy to develop and support our key industries. The Government must now produce a comprehensive industrial strategy to support those industries and lay a path to future growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor for their tone so far. We will support any necessary and constructive measures to bring back confidence and stability, particularly to the markets. The shadow Chancellor was right to say that we cannot hide and that we must have a robust critique of what the referendum outcome may mean. Unusually, the vast majority of the criticism that I do make today will be directed not at the Chancellor, but at those who led the Brexit campaign, who once again since that referendum are absent from this Chamber.

We will support the motion before us, although that is rather superfluous, given that there will now be no vote. We agree with much of it, particularly in respect of the decision to rip Scotland and the UK out of the EU and the huge and real risks that that poses to the economy, to jobs and to prosperity. Those risks were brought about in part by the decision to hold the referendum, but much more importantly by the failure of those advocating Brexit to have any plan if they won. It is worth noting that when we had our first independence referendum, it was based on a 650-page White Paper, a detailed plan and a clear prospectus for what would happen. What the Brexit campaign leaders—the Lord Chancellor and the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—had prepared was a few scribbled notes on the back of Nigel Farage’s fag packet. It really was not good enough.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the first referendum. He will recall that the big issue there was the currency that would be used by an independent Scotland. In the Bill being drafted, is it the assumption that Scotland would no longer use the pound and would have an alternative currency?

[Stewart Hosie]

We had better fix the problems caused by the Brexit decision and then, if we find ourselves unable to secure our place in the EU by any other means, the hon. Gentleman will be more than welcome to scrutinise whatever plans are brought forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, which I very much welcome, because it is what we should be doing. There is a lot of excitement out in the rest of the estate at the moment, but following this enormous decision, with all its consequences, we should be sitting here as a packed Parliament discussing the huge impact. I very much welcome the shadow Chancellor’s point about the need for a cross-party approach, because this is potentially bigger than any party or any leader, no matter how charismatic or experienced they may be.

[George Kerevan]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why this is an Opposition day debate and the Government did not call a debate on the economy after Brexit.

[James Cartlidge]

I am not an expert on “Erskine May”, but I understand that this slot was allocated for an Opposition day debate—[Interruption]—and there was a statement on the European summit.

I campaigned passionately for a remain vote, and I argued positively. I always set out what I thought was the positive case, but I have to say that in my view the negative case was made too often. We created a “cry wolf” situation: if we warn about some things too often, people eventually ignore us even when we are right. We must be honest and say that some of those predictions are coming true.

I believe that the country can come through this, come together and be stronger eventually, but if we are to do so, we initially have to recognise what we have lost and the strength that we have given up. The best way to look at this is to think of a very good Gwyneth Paltrow film—I do not know whether you have seen it, Madam Deputy Speaker—called “Sliding Doors”. We know what has happened: we have had the resignation of a great one nation Conservative Prime Minister; we once again, having reopened Pandora’s box, have the issue of Scotland; we undoubtedly, whatever the indices are showing, have turbulence in the financial markets; and we have profound uncertainty. The very best we can say is that we have a crisis of uncertainty. We hope that that will not be manifested as real pain in the economy, but it is quite obvious that there is a genuine risk of that and we must deal with it. As I said when I intervened on the shadow Chancellor, Fitch has issued a very serious warning of a 5% reduction in investment this year. The biggest threat is what might happen to inward investment. We must remember the current account deficit issue and the fact that the country is completely dependent on inward investment. If the big foreign firms look at this country less positively, we will pay a high price.

I mention “Sliding Doors” because if we had boarded the other tube train going to “Remainia” in the referendum —oh, how I wish that had been the case—

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

It’s the way he tells them.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman has a fantastic sense of humour himself, as does his party.

If we had boarded that tube train and gone down that route, our Prime Minister would have been in post for years to come, and our stock market, our economic confidence and our currency would have strengthened. We would not have put permanently to bed but would have very strongly put to one side the two big constitutional issues of Europe and Scotland that have bedevilled our politics for so long. Instead, we have instability again.

We have to recognise that if we had remained, we would have had a very strong position, rather than all this uncertainty and weakness. For me, whatever arrangements are negotiated for the future, they must compensate for that and restore the strengths and assets that we had, not least the fact that British has historically been seen as a beacon of trust. It has been seen as a country into which people would put their life savings, and there is a profound sense around the world that we have respect for the rule of law, and that we are stable, sound and all the rest of it. At the moment, one could forgive the world for thinking that that was not the case, as certainly seems to be true in other European countries.

How do we restore those strengths? First and foremost, when we enter into negotiations, we have to decide on the principles—just as with a Bill, we have a Second Reading debate about its principles—and we need to decide on the principles of the negotiations we will have with our European partners and on the fundamentals about how we go forwards. I want to focus on three key points.

The first point is openness, to which I referred earlier. To me, one of the most extraordinary comments during the referendum was when, after concerns were raised about steel, a key figure in the leave campaign said that if we left the EU, we could unilaterally impose tariffs on Chinese steel. There may be a strong case for doing so, but that betrayed the fact that when the argument becomes nationalistic, particularly economically nationalistic, there is inevitably a threat of protectionism. We have heard many times about how Britain would negotiate good trade arrangements, and about how, since we have deficits with the EU, its members will want to trade with us—after all, look at how many cars we buy from them. Implicitly, the point was therefore that if they did not want to trade with us, we would consider protectionism.

[Kit Malthouse]

I realise that my hon. Friend and I were on different sides of the argument, but does he recognise that the EU is a protectionist bloc? The EU is a common tariff area whose members collectively impose significant tariffs on other parts of the world, some of which are impoverished third world nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point, but the EU as a whole is a tariff-free market of half a billion people, and it is a massive asset for our economy to be part of that. In my opinion we need to remain in the single market at all costs. The principle of openness is important, but this is also about the message we send. We have all agreed that there is a threat to inward investment—this is an existential threat to our economy—and it is important to send to the world the message not just that we are open for business, but that we will be open with the principles of our economy and not resort to protectionism.

Secondly, any negotiation on our new arrangements must take place in a tone and manner of goodwill. We must seek an arrangement that is not just in our interest but in those of a strong European Union, and that is fundamental. Whoever undertakes those negotiations with our European partners must be someone who is trusted to want something that works for both parties—I worry about people going to negotiate with a body that they have spent many months heavily criticising.

My third point is about fiscal policy. Whatever we do, if we want to maintain a sense that we are sound, and win back the sense that we are a stable country in the world, we must continue with a fiscally prudent regime. We must continue to take tough decisions, and commit to balancing the books and reaching a surplus. The message that that would send will inspire confidence in our investors and help to restore the stability we all seek.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that an important start has been made on building up that mutual trust by the candour and openness with which the Prime Minister and Chancellor accepted the verdict of the people, even though it went against their own strongly held beliefs? We must carry that forward by ensuring that we observe the spirit, as well as the letter, of the people’s decision.

[James Cartlidge]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I was coming on to speak about why this decision came about. While we must accept the decision of the people, we must also understand and be honest about the prospectus on which we believe they voted. A few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the former Mayor of London, of whom I am—of course—a huge fan, wrote:

“It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so.”

However, the huge turnout that we saw in working-class areas of this country, council estates and so on, was not due to people saying, “We didn’t get a say on the Lisbon treaty”; it was because of immigration, which was pushed in an inflammatory way throughout the debate. If anyone wants proof of that, I can bring the tweets and emails that I have received, some of which were shocking and horrific—indeed, some were too shocking to read out in the House in the way that some of my hon. Friends have done.

We must accept that the campaign was driven by concerns about immigration. That makes things difficult for us, because when we negotiate we must find a way of preserving all the economic strengths to which I referred while controlling immigration from the European Union. If we boil down the explicit underlying nature of the prospectus from vote leave, it was the end of unskilled immigration from the EU. We heard that there will be skilled migration, but at the moment tier 3 is closed and unskilled workers cannot come to this country from outside the EU. Finding that balance will be incredibly difficult, but it is possible if we have good faith and show goodwill towards those with whom we negotiate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who made some fine points. I particularly liked the phrase he coined about moving from free movement to fair movement.

There is a time and a place to take a risk. I started my business in 1992. Many in the House will remember that year and, in particular, 16 September 1992. Unemployment was at 3 million; repossessions were running at 72,000—three times the normal average; and, on that single day, interest rates went from 10% to 12% to 15%. As the House will remember, the day after, we pulled out of something called the exchange rate mechanism, and that was the right thing to do. Many economists said it was the wrong thing to do—they said it was a big risk—but things could hardly have got worse, so it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Look at where we are today: we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the developed world and virtually full employment, meaning that all our young people and our older people can get a job. We had a saying in our business: hope is not a strategy. There was so little strategy from the Vote Leave campaign going beyond our exit from the EU, which was why most business organisations—the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the manufacturers’ federations, TheCityUK—said it was the wrong thing to do. Every leading economist—and even some not-very-leading economists—said it was the wrong thing to do. But of course this was seen as some kind of conspiracy.

It was not just business talking like that but the music industry, the science industry, our research organisations, our technology industry and so on. A report by the House of Lords called leaving the EU a huge risk because of the complexity of withdrawal. It will take at least two years from our giving notice under article 50, but it will take many more years to unwind all the connected legislation. A report in The Times last week said it would take 10 Queen’s Speeches to unwind the legislation. That breeds the uncertainty that businesses do not like.

This is also about trade deals, and not just about trading today with Europe but about opening new trade markets around the world. As the Chancellor said, that is a great opportunity, but businesses cannot simply move their supply and customer bases from one location to another overnight—yet that is what they are being asked to do.

[James Cartlidge]

Is not much of our trade with the rest of the world done through large international companies that locate in the UK because we are in the single market?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A good example are the Swiss banks. Despite Switzerland’s being part of the European economic area, it cannot trade directly with the EU, so it has to base subsidiaries within the EU. Happily, firms such as Credit Suisse and UBS put them in London, as do US banks such as Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and the like. That is why the head of TheCityUK said that the move could cost up to 100,000 jobs in the City of London. Yet this was never dealt with or answered by the Vote Leave campaign. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) shakes his head. The risks are huge, yet the issue has not been properly dealt with.

The impact on car manufacturers has not been properly dealt with either. This is not simply about our opening new trade markets around the world; it is about a supply chain that is deeply embedded throughout Europe. A typical drive shaft for a family saloon car is manufactured in six different countries across Europe. What are car manufacturers to do if tariffs are applied between us and the EU? Just last evening, I was talking to a multinational retailer who had 3,000 members of staff but was moving to new premises with 5,000 members of staff. These people move from London to Frankfurt to Paris just as we would move from north Yorkshire to London, but they face the prospect of not being able to do that. How have we made this decision without talking about these issues and answering these questions?

There is an even bigger issue. Looking at the European Union in such a sensitive stage, I view it as a house of cards, and if the UK pulls our card from the bottom, there is a significant risk that the whole house will implode. A domestic economic risk then moves towards becoming an international and global economic risk, along with a political risk and a security risk. This country’s economy and our prospects for national security could be hugely affected.

We should recall that only a few years ago many European member states were totalitarian states behind the iron curtain, yet they are today free and fair democracies with the rule of law and freedom of the press. The European Union has presided over those member states, making sure that they are focused on prosperity and trade, rather than looking backwards or, even worse, eastwards towards Russia.

All these issues are in play, and there are many positive reasons for remaining part of the European Union. It is about the opportunity to live, work and study right across the continent; it is about peace and prosperity; and it is about tackling some of our huge challenges and economic risks—issues such as climate change, air pollution, drug resistance and tax evasion.

Of course, free movement of people and immigration are the biggest issues that need to be dealt with. I quite understand the public concern about those issues, and I believe that this was not a referendum on the European Union, but on immigration. I understand that we need to deal with it and now we have an opportunity to do so. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, we need to deal with it in a proportionate way, and to look at the many different solutions to the problem, working together with our European neighbours.

Above all, we must have free and unfettered access to the single market, because the economic consequences of not having it are impossible—too severe—to contemplate. All the way through the referendum campaign, I wanted to remain and reform, but that option is no longer available. What we must now do is to work together with our European counterparts to make sure that we get reform. We must work collaboratively with our European partners to make sure that we have a fair economic settlement that works for both the European Union and for the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

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

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

[James Cartlidge]

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

[Wes Streeting]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that.

[James Cartlidge]

I was there in Committee when we debated votes at 16 and foreign nationals. I made the point on foreign nationals, and it is a fact that if they had been allowed the vote, which is not the case in general elections, they could have swung the result. Even though I regret the result, we cannot underestimate how inflammatory that would have been, especially as we were not using the franchise from a general election.

[Roger Mullin]

That is a rather sad argument to make. We allowed EU nationals a vote in the Scottish referendum. Thomas and Elke Westen are as much Scots as I am and they have as much right to express their feelings about the country in which they have chosen to live. It is similar to the case of my older brother and sister who had to emigrate because they could not get the opportunities to work in their own land, which has been a big problem for Scotland. The countries in which they have gone to live have welcomed them and allowed them the vote. Excluding these people helped to introduce an element of xenophobia into the way in which the referendum has been conducted. I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman, but on that particular point, I am afraid that I completely disagree with him.

There are problems for our small and medium-sized enterprises. In my own constituency—I would be interested to hear whether this is shared elsewhere—two types of SMEs have been talking to me. The first group includes those SMEs that export, and their concerns are primarily about access to markets. Earlier, the argument was made that it was good that a falling pound would allow exports to be a little more competitive. In all honesty, I have not heard a single business person making that claim. What I have heard is that the problem will be in assuring exporters that they have access to markets. Without access to markets, the exchange rate is rather immaterial.

The second type of SMEs has included not exporters but importers. They are particularly concerned about what is happening with the currency level, and what the cost will be of bringing in the types of continental products that we have been so used to benefiting from over the past 20 or 30 years. There are different perspectives on the problem in SMEs that reflect real concerns that we will have to manage in this new situation. The Government will not be able to wait two years until an exit takes place to deal with this matter. They will have to think urgently about the kind of initiative that can be brought in to assist those SMEs that are living in a period of great uncertainty. When they have a period of great uncertainty, what effect will it have on their decision-making? They will not be going to the banks and borrowing for investment at a time when they are uncertain about how they are going to construct their future. My fear is that over time that uncertainty will lead to less and less investment, not merely by the large corporations, but by many of the small businesses at the heart of our communities.

Another issue of concern is research funding and academia in society. Many people have said, “Don’t worry. The contracts that have already been struck will not be ended,” so our great universities are safe in that regard. However, the universities’ fundamental concern is for the future of European collaboration in research. How will that happen if we have exited the EU? Will British academics have the same access to other academics and to future research projects? That is highly unlikely unless we regain our place in the European Union. What of those students in Scotland and elsewhere who have benefited from travel to continental Europe and those who benefit from the great universities of France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere? What are their prospects? Future generations will be denied the opportunities that others have had over the past 30 years. That can only be a tragedy for our society.