Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2020-01-20
Topic: Macroeconomics
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to see you back where we always thought you should be, Mr Deputy Speaker During this debate, it struck me that we sometimes forget the fundamental: unless we get our economy right, none of the other social goods that we wish to achieve as a country can ever be delivered. The need, therefore, to concentrate on the economy in the Queen’s Speech is fundamental. Whatever our views on what has passed, the way in which we go forward over the next few years must be calibrated in such a way as to make sure that our economy remains strong and stable I mention the quality of the maiden speeches that we have heard and I particularly compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), the last maiden speaker before me. Her predecessor is a good friend and colleague, and I know that she will be a worthy successor. Anyone who comes to this House from a local government background will find a friend and ally in me, because that is what I did. Perhaps the more people who have done that, the better, because local government leaves us rooted in the reality of our communities My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) talked in some detail about the importance of financial services, and I echo everything that she said, but I stress yet again the importance of recognising that as we leave the EU, it is clearly not likely to be appropriate that the largest financial sector in western Europe—arguably, in some respects, the largest in the world—should automatically be a rule-taker. Equally, we have to find a sufficient degree of alignment to ensure that we continue to have access to the key European markets, where we trade very successfully and where there is a benefit to the Europeans from the capital that we can provide. The proposed arrangements, were we to leave now, of a form of equivalence are, as the City of London Corporation and the Governor of the Bank of England have pointed out, variable, uncertain and not satisfactory for the longer term. We need our deal to be more ambitious than that so that we have certainty for those who wish to write their contracts here in London or elsewhere in the UK, because this goes well beyond London Financial services are part of a greater hub of professional services in which the United Kingdom excels. As well as making sure that we have arrangements that are satisfactory for the basic financial services—banks, insurers and others—we must still enable our legal services and accounting services, to give two examples, to trade successfully with Europe and elsewhere in the world. That is why, for example, in the legal services sector—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it is critical that we find both a means of ensuring the proper mutual recognition of qualifications so that British lawyers can continue with the fly-in, fly-out service that they provide for many of the multinational firms in Europe—as well as, I hope, elsewhere—without the need for requalification and, very importantly, a means of ensuring mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments of our courts At the end of the day, a contract is only as valuable as its ability to be enforced meaningfully. That is why the Law Society and the Bar Council are right to urge the Government to move swiftly to sign us up to the Lugano convention and to move, in our own right, into The Hague convention. They are not as good as the Brussels I recast arrangements, but they give us a means of ensuring that we have that, which we can then build on with good will. It is worth bearing in mind, too, that the Lugano convention would enable us to protect many small and medium-sized enterprises, consumers and individuals. Mutual recognition matters not just to big business, but, equally, to the small firm with a supplier in an EU state that defaults on its payments, in terms of getting their money back. It matters to the single parent whose partner, or former partner, may be in an EU jurisdiction, who is seeking to enforce their maintenance payment out there. Getting that right is in everybody’s interest on both sides of the debate, so I hope that we can do that and move on constructively Let me touch on an another important issue: why do people choose to bring their legal business to the United Kingdom? It is because they trust us as a clean, efficient and impartial jurisdiction. Our judges and lawyers are second to none. They are a benchmark that the world—not just in common law jurisdictions, the Commonwealth and elsewhere, but beyond—aspires to. I am conscious that we are looking at future arrangements for our constitutional matters, which is perfectly legitimate, but whatever we do, we must make sure that there is no suggestion of any diminution of either the quality or the independence of the British judiciary. I see no reason why there should be, but it is important to make that point I turn briefly to the question of access to justice, which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) mentioned in relation to legal aid. Access to justice is the other thing that underpins the integrity and reputation of our legal system. In the Queen’s Speech, we are rightly bringing forward a number of criminal justice Bills—some deal with policing and some with better, stronger redress for victims of crime. As a Government, we are rightly putting more money into policing and, where necessary, taking measures to increase sentencing for the most dangerous offenders. That is all well and good—I entirely support all those measures—but to do that, we must have a system that is funded properly right the way through. If we rightly put more money into policing, that will mean greater work for the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and, ultimately, our prisons and probation staff. If we are to do that, two things are necessary: first, there must be proper funding, because we cannot do it on the cheap, and secondly, we should take a nuanced approach Some people need to be kept inside for a long time—as a practising barrister over 25 years, I saw many of them—because they are a threat and a danger to the public. Equally, many others end up in our criminal justice system having made a mess of their lives at various points. By the time they end up in prison, they are very often well down the stream, and frankly, it is more a question of sadness and inadequacy than threat. We need to find better means of earlier intervention to stop those people being sucked into the system and permanent reoffending, and head that off, and equally, to find strong, robust alternatives. There is an economic, as well as a social, benefit in that: the cost of reoffending is about £18 billion a year It is right not just socially but economically to get our justice system right. I think that the Government recognise that. I therefore hope that we will see, building on what is in the Queen’s Speech, a holistic approach that recognises that economic competence and social justice go hand in hand. To my mind, that has always been the tradition of my party and this country.