Iain Mansfield: We have nothing to fear from No Deal

It would bring with it many compensations, including regulatory freedom, tariff income and £39 billion of cold, hard cash.

Iain Mansfield is a former senior civil servant, winner of the Institute of Economic Affairs Brexit prize and a Conservative councillor candidate. He writes in a personal capacity.

One constant on our journey to leave the EU is that the predictions of Project Fear have repeatedly failed to come true. Despite the predictions of the Treasury, there was no immediate recession, “immediate and profound economic shock”, ten per cent drop in house prices or ‘’Punishment Budget’ as a consequence of the vote to Leave. Instead we’ve seen a growing economy, the highest ever level of employment, growing wages, falling inflation and an £11.8bn increase in exports in 2018.

The new bogeyman is No Deal. The summer of 2018 saw repeated stories of planes being grounded in the event of No Deal, only for, entirely predictably, the EU to make provision in December for flights to continue for twelve months to allow alternative measures to be put in place. More recently, claims that our trade to other countries would grind to a halt are being refuted by the regular drumbeat of mutual recognition agreements signed by the Department of International Trade, including one last week with our largest non-EU trade partner, the USA. I do not say that there will be no short-term impact in the event of No Deal, but it will be vastly less than is being suggested.

In my 2014 prize-winning paper for the Institute of Economic Affairs, I explicitly considered the possibility of No Deal. No Deal was not the preferred outcome – I would have preferred a Free Trade Agreement, outside both the Single Market and Customs Union, similar to the position set out by Vote Leave in June 2016. It was, however, always a potential outcome, and it was important to consider how to put in place policies to make a success of it. In this article, I set out a high-level set of policies for making a success of No Deal, drawing on that paper and ongoing developments in the four years since.

Making a success of a Managed No Deal

Citizen’s RightsThe welfare of both UK and EU citizens is of the highest priority. As the Prime Minister has already announced, all EU citizens living in the UK should continue to be able to do so, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. Many EU countries have already put in place equivalent arrangements for UK citizens and similar commitments should be sought from those that have yet to do so.

Visas and Migration: The UK should put in place visa-free arrangements for short-term tourist and business travel, covering up to 90 days in any 180 day period, mirroring the scheme already announced by the EU. Immigration rules for EU nationals should be brought in to line with those for non-EU nationals, ending the current discriminatory arrangements. There should be no cap on the number of EU students, but students arriving after March 2019 should not receive government-funded loans and should pay fees at international rates.

‘Divorce bill’: In the event of No Deal, it is self-evident that no money should be paid to the EU.

Trade and tariffsThe UK should abide by WTO rules and impose the same tariffs on EU importe that are currently faced by imports from outside the EU. Notwithstanding the theoretical positive economic case for unilaterally removing tariff barriers, it is important that shutting the UK out of EU markets is not a cost-free decision for continental business, in order to build the environment for a future deal once the political climate has altered.

Due to the UK’s trade deficit with the EU, estimates suggest we stand to collect up to an extra £13 billion a year from tariffs, while the EU would gain only £5 billion. Some of these funds should be used to help industries most impacted by EU trade barriers adjust and find new markets, in a strictly time-limited and tapering way to prevent them fostering inefficiency and rent-seeking behaviour. The rest should be reinvested into infrastructure and other competitiveness-enhancing investments.

Within six months of leaving, the UK should draw up a list of goods on which the EU has imposed unnecessarily high tariffs. This should prioritise consumer goods that the UK produces little of itself – from oranges to textiles – to directly reduce the cost of living without harming jobs.

Industrial StrategyIn contrast to Project Fear’s claims, EY’s 2018 UK Attractiveness Survey – an annual examination of the performance and perceptions of the UK as an investment destination – confirmed that the UK remains the number one destination for inward investment in Europe, with the number of investment projects up six per cent from the year before. Though Brexit has had an impact, it is small: 79 per cent of businesses say that they’ve increased or not changed their plans to invest since the Brexit vote, with only eight per cent saying they are likely to relocate assets within the next three years.

The UK should capitalise on this investor confidence. With full freedom to set our own regulatory affairs, the UK should rapidly seek to reform business regulation in areas where the EU has imposed unnecessary bureaucracy, particularly in sectors where this has directly targeted UK competitiveness. Existing labour rights and environmental standards should be maintained.

Broader measures to promote business investment should also be brought forward. A step-wise lowering of corporation tax to 15 per cent by 2022, an enhancement of R&D tax credits, the creation of special export zones and increased transport infrastructure, particularly in the Midlands and North, are all ideas that should be considered for fast-track implementation.            

UK-Ireland land border: No physical barriers should be erected on the Irish border. Importers bringing goods across the border should be required to register and pay tariffs on any imports using an online portal, with compliance enforced via spot-checks on industrial and commercial facilities and an enhancement of the existing cross-border arrangements used to combat smuggling. The success of this system should be reviewed 12 months after exit, ideally in partnership with the Republic of Ireland, and limited border checks introduced only if both parties agree it is necessary.

Individuals should be allowed to move freely across the island of Ireland, with eligibility for work, residency and benefits checked only when a person applied for such. A generous allowance for transport of goods for personal consumption should be put in place.

Existing controls would remain in place at airports and ports to monitor travel between the island of Ireland and Great Britain.

If the Republic of Ireland chooses to erect physical barriers on the border, that would be its decision, not the UK’s.

Future EU Relations: The UK should not seek to immediately negotiate a trade deal with the  EU. After the acrimony of the current negotiations, this would be unlikely to lead to a positive outcome. Instead, the UK should increase business certainty by clearly pursuing an economic path that lies outside the EU.

The year immediately following exit should be used to regularise agreements in essential areas, such as air travel, which will initially be covered by emergency arrangements. These should largely be technical affairs modelled on the EU’s and UK’s arrangements with third parties. It may also be possible to negotiate entry into stand-alone, uncontroversial, programmes such as those on scientific cooperation.

It is likely that in three to five years’ time the political situation may have calmed sufficiently to seek to negotiate a stand-alone trade agreement. This should be modelled on the Canada Free Trade Agreement and would take as its status quo the No Deal arrangements, in order to avoid unreasonable expectations on either side.

We have nothing to fear from No Deal

I am not a No Deal fanatic. Last year on this site I advocated support for Chequers, and I still believe that, if the backstop is removed from the Withdrawal Agreement, the deal would be worth signing. We must not, however, accept a deal at any cost. To succeed in any negotiation, one must be prepared to walk away – and the actions of MPs who have effectively announced that they will take any deal, however bad, have undoubtedly hamstrung our negotiations.

The Conservative Manifesto set it out clearly: No Deal is better than a bad deal. I continue to hope that a compromise will be found, and that the EU will agree to remove or place a time-limit on the backstop. However, rather than accept a deal which yokes us indefinitely to the EU, we should embrace a future outside. No Deal would bring with it many compensations, including regulatory freedom, tariff income and £39 billion of cold, hard cash. Britain’s fundamental economic strengths, competitiveness and international relationships, supported by an appropriate set of domestic policies, mean it is abundantly clear that we can have a positive economic future in this scenario.

Andy Street: The West Midlands Local Industrial Strategy ensures we are the workshop of the modern world

From transport tech and data-driven healthcare, to creative enterprises and the services sector, we are forging ahead.

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands, and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.

As the cradle of the industrial revolution, the West Midlands left its mark on the globe. In the 19th and 20th centuries the factories and furnaces of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country forged much of the modern world, exporting goods from ACME whistles to BSA motorcycles, from Cadbury’s chocolate to Bird’s Custard.

Even the ships that carried produce and people to far-flung new markets were anchored by huge chains wrought in our land-locked furnaces.

Now, as the first UK region to finalise a Local Industrial Strategy, we are once again leading the way.

The West Midlands has always been a hotbed of innovation and invention, driving advances in engineering, manufacturing, transport, marketing, social change and more. It was the workshop of the world.

Industrial decline began in the 1960s and, by the end of the last century, our region bore the scars of decay – empty, abandoned factories that once employed thousands. All of that has now started to change.

The West Midlands is undergoing a renaissance of growth and investment. New start-ups are choosing our region as the place to be. Nowhere else outside of London has seen the level of growth witnessed in the West Midlands. Output here has risen by 27 per cent in the last five years. Our productivity growth was twice the rate of the rest of the UK in 2017-18. The innovation and invention that once made us the workshop of the world is back.

Like other post-industrial regions in the UK, we must carve out a new strategy for the West Midlands in an increasingly global 21st century. With the uncertainty around Brexit, we need to think about how we build a globally-competitive economy.

That’s why the West Midlands agreed to be a trailblazer, creating the UK’s first Regional Industrial Strategy, leading the way for others to follow.

This strategy sets out the priorities we believe will enable local growth to continue, as well as ensuring that the success of our region is felt by all the communities within it. This success must be inclusive and accessible to all.

With this ground-breaking document now agreed within the region, we are awaiting the endorsement of Government so that, together, we can start turning strategy into action. With the uncertainty over Brexit, that endorsement would mean we can begin this important work soon – and share our message of confidence.

The West Midlands Combined Authority worked with our universities and the region’s three Local Enterprise Partnerships, from Greater Birmingham, the Black Country and Coventry and Warwickshire, to ensure the strategy not only provides a united vision, but that it also reflects the differing needs of our constituent members.

This spirit of inclusivity also included a wide-spread consultation, which asked regional networks, business groups and 350 different organisations for their input. They wanted a clearer definition of the West Midlands’ ‘unique selling points’, expanded opportunities for a broader cross-section of business sectors and more focus on the huge supply chains that link the conurbation.

Respondents also wanted our strategy to engage with all the different kinds of places where business flourishes in the region, from the big cities to the towns and more rural areas. By fully understanding the successes – and challenges – in our own backyard, we have created a strategy that will help sell the West Midlands to the rest of the world.

This meant identifying four major national and global strategic opportunities:

The UK centre for mobility: From driverless cars to light rail and aerospace, we have the supply chains and transport pedigree to steer huge investment to our region. We have a renowned automotive sector, ranging from world-famous brands like JLR and BMW to innovative smaller development firms. We also have the foundation industries that make the metals and materials that underpin vehicle manufacture at more than 20 sites. With our own transport system becoming more and more integrated, and the West Midlands pioneering the roll-out of the 5G network, mobility could bring billions of pounds.

Creative commerce: We have a wealth of nationally-important gaming, TV, film, VR and design firms. By connecting our universities and creative businesses we can design, develop and deploy new products and services. Evidence shows that Birmingham and Solihull alone have the potential to add nearly 4,000 new creative enterprises and 30,000 new related jobs, with the opportunity to scale this across the West Midlands as a whole.

Business services: As we move more towards a service-based economy, we expect to see large-scale growth across this sector. Business, financial and professional services already employ 400,000 people across the conurbation – with 125,000 more jobs forecast by 2030. Here in the West Midlands we have the full suite of services available, from huge international financial brands such as HSBC to an ambitious construction sector that is well placed to grow in strength with the building boom.

Data-driven healthcare: With our diverse and growing population, there are huge opportunities here for biomedical research, linking NHS patient records through 5G and enabling real-life testing of innovative new treatments. Our expertise and ability to work with patient data in an inclusive, collaborative way is a major UK and West Midlands strength. We have a growing cluster of both large and small firms and an associated supply chain, raising at least £35 million of investment in the last 12 months. Crucially, this innovation will be anchored in partnership with the NHS, translating directly into better health care for our citizens. Our diverse region has the research facilities and expertise. It has the population of Scotland and the genome of the world. It could be a global laboratory for data-driven translational medicine.

These four areas allow us to champion our specialist sectors in a way that will create growth and investment to benefit the entire regional economy.

Of course, all this industrial ambition requires a strong foundation in improved skills, transport, housing and land delivery. We are already making huge strides in all these areas but more remains to be done.

Our strategy lays out ideas to affect real change, from doubling the number of good-quality apprenticeships by 2030 to delivering £3.4 billion of investment in trams, road and rail over the next decade.

In housing, we will increase the rate of housing delivery with a £350 million housing plan, investing £250 million in land remediation and developing the skills required through the National Brownfield Institute in Wolverhampton. This is a great start – but more will be needed to serve our growing population.

The strategy will also push for post-EU growth funding to be targeted on the West Midlands and devolved to local decision makers. We must make the case for continuing to invest in us as a resilient and successful economy.

The former workshop of the world needs a world-class strategy to continue its remarkable economic renaissance. It needs to be distinctive to compete with likes of Berlin, Boston and Barcelona.

But in creating this new strategy, we have confirmed that this diverse, ambitious and inventive place still has an energetic, innovative outlook that makes it a powerhouse on the world stage, just as it did during the Industrial Revolution.

With this confident new vision, the West Midlands wants to lead the way in showing the Government’s Industrial Strategy can make a real difference.

Stephen Haraldsen: How smaller reactors offer a step forward for nuclear communities

The national network of large, infrastructure intensive projects has stalled, but there is an alternative.

Dr Stephen Haraldsen is a Research Fellow at the University of Central Lancashire and a Cumbria County Councillor. He stood as the Conservative candidate for Copeland in the 2015 General Election.

New nuclear developments in the UK are struggling. From the initial eleven sites suggested in 2008, to the nine later designated as suitable to be delivered by 2025, only one is now being built.

In the past few weeks and months both the Moorside site in Cumbria, and the Wylfa site on Anglesey in North Wales, have had their Japanese backers pull out or halt development.

The major obstacle for these massive nuclear developments is finding the significant amount of investment needed. The Hinkley Point C site is only progressing because George Osborne, when Chancellor, agreed to a 35-year guaranteed minimum price for the electricity produced.

However, while very large reactors are struggling owing to their huge construction costs, there is another option which Government is keen to pursue: Small, or ‘Advanced’, Modular Reactors.

These smaller, modular reactors are intended to use off-the-shelf components to provide much smaller amounts of electrical power and heat for industrial processes. Their smaller size should, in theory, enable them to be more flexibly located nearer to the demand for their output, minimising the need for expensive long-distance grid connections and the associated transport losses.

Through the Industrial Strategy and Nuclear Sector Deal, the Government is putting £44 million into developing designs. There is a significant amount of debate as to whether these modular reactors can achieve a competitive cost compared to other energy sources, and I will leave that to the more economically- and technically-minded. But there is another issue which is significant, which is that at the moment there is no clarity about where they will go, or how the process of planning permission will be handled.

The large gigawatt-scale reactors are designated by Government as a ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project’, and from 2008 there was a Strategic Siting Assessment where sites nominated by landowners and operators were assessed. All but two of the nominated sites were at or adjacent to existing nuclear sites. The two that were further away, Braystones and Kirksanton (both in Cumbria) were not shortlisted as deliverable by 2025 after significant local opposition.

To make small reactors viable in the long-term, they will need to be located near to the demand for the electricity and heat, and in the short-term prototypes will need to be developed somewhere. Existing nuclear sites are generally located in sparsely-populated areas, and while that will be advantageous for initial developments, it may be economically problematic if these are to be deployed widely.

Therefore the issues of siting and planning permission currently on the desk of Richard Harrington, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, are important.

In this difficult time for the British nuclear industry it may be tempting to centralise the whole process, in order to give investors more confidence and reduce uncertainty for wider deployments. I want to appeal to the Minister and department to resist that urge.

Democracy and pragmatism

The sites and planning environment are there already for small reactor development. There are no shortage of nuclear sites in the UK that could play host to the development of new reactor designs, and the National Planning Policy framework already has a favourable environment for low-carbon electricity and heat generation.

The British Government has last year distinguished between sites with single reactors above 1GW and those sites with reactors below 1GW by modifying the National Policy Statement for Nuclear to be only about the large-reactor sites. I hope this is a signal that the small reactors will not be subject to determination by the Secretary of State nationally, but by councils locally.

So, in the short term there is simply no need to centralise. Public opinion towards nuclear developments at existing sites is positive: see the local support for, and then disappointment with, the Moorside and Wylfa developments.

Place-making

In a highly-connected, globalised economy, places are competing with places across the world for investment and prosperity.

Some areas may have specialisms in financial and professional services, like the City of London, and others may have a nuclear specialism. We should be allowing those areas to determine what they want for their future, and as far as reasonably possible allow their locally elected representatives the freedom and power to create the local conditions to achieve their goals.

For low-carbon generation, the NPPF has this to say regarding local planning (p44):

“151. To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy and heat, plans should: a) provide a positive strategy for energy from these sources, that maximises the potential for suitable development, while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily (including cumulative landscape and visual impacts); b) consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure their development; and c) identify opportunities for development to draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for colocating potential heat customers and suppliers.”

Those areas which seek to pursue the research and development in advanced reactors should be looking now to their Local Plan, development policies and the site allocations to make a statement about their willingness to host such facilities.

Rather than wait for government to decide, send a signal now to developers that areas like West Cumbria and Anglesey want to host this new generation of nuclear sites. In the wake of the disappointing developments in Cumbria and North Wales, Copeland Borough Council and Isle of Anglesey County Council should designating land as ‘advanced nuclear development zones’ and state clearly in the Local Plan their support for attracting and developing these new technologies.

Indeed, the timing is good, as many local plans are currently being updated, and have to be at a minimum every five years (although there is nothing stopping councils taking account of changing circumstances and altering their Local Plan at any time).

The news for these communities, the industry, and the Government has been challenging recently. Government is putting the money in to advanced reactor research, and while these will never match the jobs and investment that would have come from the larger nuclear sites, local areas like Copeland and Anglesey should seize this opportunity now to send a clear message to government and the industry that they are nuclear communities, and despite the difficulties they are open for business.

John Downer: Scrapping HS2 wouldn’t help the North, it would cut a vital lifeline to the regional economies

Crucial investment in local rail infrastructure isn’t an alternative to the new line, it depends on it.

John Downer is a Director of High Speed Rail Industry Leaders (HSRIL), a group of companies and organisations which is committed to supporting the successful delivery of a world-class high speed rail network in Britain.

Every few months – and more often recently– comes the call to scrap HS2 and spend the money on something else.

And we’ve had it again this week on these very pages, reiterating previous suggestions that the Midlands and the North would be better served by investment in regional transport links.

But, however tempting it might be to spend the budget of a few billions per year on something else, there is little more the Government could do to jeopardise the economic prospects of cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds than scrap a project which is so fundamental to their future economic development.

For the most important thing to understand about HS2 is that it is not just a railway. It is an economic regeneration project (and the most important economic regeneration project in Britain for decades) which is catalysing a whole host of other investments in its wake.

What holds Britain back today is not the connections from big cities to London, but poor connections between the other big cities. Services between cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, and Newcastle are slow, unreliable, and overcrowded – and HS2 is absolutely integral to tackling this.

Remember your visit to Birmingham for the Party Conference in October? The cranes and building works were everywhere. Just outside the conference centre you saw the new headquarters of HSBC. Around the corner PwC is building their Midlands base, their biggest single investment outside London.

In Leeds, you have major new investment from Burberry and a whole South Bank regeneration for which HS2 is intrinsic. There are similar stories in Manchester and Liverpool too. And then ask the city leaders, from all political parties, how important HS2 is to triggering that investment, and unanimously they will tell you it is vital. Indeed, the project has no greater champion than Andy Street, Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands.

HS2 is about giving our great cities of the Midlands and the North the springboard to be the economic powerhouses of the future. Put harshly, without HS2, Britain has no strategy to grow our regional economies and no industrial strategy worthy of the name.

For HS2 trains won’t just reach those cities where the new line is being built. They will link into the rest of the network too, meaning that the services will reach 8 of the 10 biggest cities in Britain, reaching places like Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh that are far from the construction of the line itself.

That’s not to say the other transport investment people call for isn’t needed too. It is. And the Government is to be supported in the priority they are attaching to the Northern Powerhouse Rail project to improve east/west links across the north. But far from being an alternative to local transport investment, HS2 is a pre-requisite for it to be successful.

To take one specific example, the West Coast Mainline is presently jam-packed. Passenger numbers on the route have more than doubled since it was last upgraded just 15 years ago, and there is simply no space to add new trains whether for commuters and inter-city travellers or for more freight off the motorways and onto rail. Building HS2 will move the inter-city traffic onto the new line, freeing up capacity for vital local, regional, and commuter services, so passengers in places like Milton Keynes and Coventry will benefit from HS2 as it will improve their commutes into London and Birmingham respectively.

More widely still, the benefit of HS2 supply chain contracts are already being felt across the UK. Nus Ghani MP, the HS2 Minister, is hosting an event in Parliament next week to meet HS2 suppliers, and they come from far-and-wide, not just from the line of route.

Already more than 2000 companies have worked on HS2. There are archaeologists from Bristol, ecological experts from Cardiff, and earth-moving contractors from Buckinghamshire. There are already two suppliers in Northern Ireland, 25 in Scotland and 65 in the South West. HS2 is a truly national project with truly national benefits, and those benefits will only grow over the coming years.

For these businesses, the costs of cancelling HS2 right now would be enormous. Over 7,000 people are working on the project already, and that will become tens of thousands over the next couple of years, with 70 per cent of those jobs outside London. Cancelling it now would literally mean filling-in the freshly dug holes in Birmingham and Euston, and laying off all the apprentices working on site. Is that a serious proposition?

All things considered, HS2 is about joining Britain back together again, after a number of years when our divisions have been more prominent than our unity. It is essential for the UK, and even more vital still for the Midlands and the North which stand to gain the most.

The project is underway. The train has started its journey. Let’s makes sure it reaches its destination and that taxpayers wring every last ounce of benefit from it.

Andrew Jones: We are the party of business – and actions always speak louder than words

The Government has enacted a broad range of measures to help companies large and small grow, create jobs, and boost their local economies.

Andrew Jones is the Member of Parliament for Harrogate & Knaresborough and Conservative Vice-Chair for Business Engagement.

John McDonnell has repeatedly declared his aim in life to be “fomenting the overthrow of capitalism”, a system that has ensured 200 years of economic growth for our country and left millions better off – not just in the UK but across the globe – by promoting business, entrepreneurship, and personal responsibility.

In contrast, the Conservative Party is proud to champion businesses and entrepreneurs and proactively engage with business people. Because we believe that the country can only succeed when it works in partnership with business.

The Prime Minister is committed to ensuring that, post-Brexit, Britain will be even more pro-business than ever before. That is why today she has launched five new business advisory councils, made up of pioneering leaders from a diverse range sectors, who will advise her on maximising the opportunities for business in the UK after we leave the EU.

It is an initiative from business, for business. They will make sure the Government hears directly from those who are creating new jobs and economic growth, helping us guarantee that the United Kingdom remains one of the most dynamic and business-friendly economies in the world.

Ever since she became Prime Minister, Theresa May has been active in promoting the UK as open to business. Like me, she believes that when it comes to business, actions always speak louder than words.

That’s why, earlier this year, the Prime Minister led a trade delegation on a trip to three key African markets: Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa. It’s why, in August, she travelled with a large, multi-sector business delegation in order to strengthen the established links between the UK and China, which is expected to be one of the UK’s largest foreign investors by 2020.

It’s why, at the United Nations General Assembly in September, she made clear: this Conservative Government is dedicated to harnessing the enormous power of business as a partner in tackling some of the greatest social and economic challenges of our time.

That’s a message she repeated loudly and clearly in her speech to the Conservative Party Conference last month:

“Offering someone a job – creating opportunity for other people – is one of the most socially-responsible things you can do. It is an act of public service as noble as any other. To everyone who has done it – we are all in your debt. So, we in this party, we in this hall, we say thank you.

“And to all businesses – large and small – you may have heard that there is a four-letter word to describe what we Conservatives want to do to you. It has a single syllable. It is of Anglo-Saxon derivation. It ends in the letter ‘K’.

“Back business. Back them to create jobs and build prosperity. Back them to drive innovation and improve lives. Back them with the lowest Corporation Tax in the G20. Britain, under my Conservative Government, is open for business.”

A key plank of the Conservative Government’s commitment to business are the foundations we are laying through our modern Industrial Strategy – enabling businesses in every part of the country to create good jobs and bolster the earning power of people right across the UK. We have listened to business leaders, entrepreneurs, and start-ups – and have taken action to create the business environment that is most beneficial for them.

The Conservatives have always been the party of business: our philosophy centres on spreading opportunity and a belief in the power of enterprise and entrepreneurship as the means to harness talent and improve lives. As the Prime Minister says, we want to see people go as far in life as their talents and hard work can take them.

We believe that business and commerce are the cornerstones of every successful economy, and are the embodiment of our principles and values. We understand that it is business which drives wealth and innovation.

In his Autumn Budget Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, set out the Government’s plans to ensure we remain the best possible partner for businesses both large and small. As part of the new package of measures to support small- and medium-sized companies, the Government has committed an extra £30 million to ‘Be the Business’ – an initiative that will foster closer links between large corporations and smaller companies, to promote an environment of mutual support and allow bigger companies to mentor smaller ones so that they are able to realise their full potential and develop their management and leadership skills.

Jeremy Corbyn and McDonnell’s Labour Party will never understand that local businesses form the backbone of our communities – that they create jobs and pay the taxes which support our schools and hospitals. While this Conservative Government is supporting our high streets by cutting business rates by a third for two years – saving the shops we visit every day up to £8,000 each year – Labour openly call business the ‘enemy’ and advocate for extortionate taxes that will stop businesses up and down the country being able to create jobs, hire workers, and contribute to a thriving local economy.

The Chancellor also underlined in the Budget the way in which we are backing established firms and supporting start-ups as they grow by committing to a five-fold increase in the annual investment allowance for firms, taking it to £1 million. Not only are we helping all businesses, large and small, with their investments, we have also committed to supporting them with their costs by delivering the lowest corporation tax rate in the G20.

We are the party and government of business, because business is the embodiment of Conservative values; of enterprise, of freedom, of stability and of community. And the Prime Minister’s new business advisory councils will ensure that we continue to work closely together with industry to shape our economy and make the UK one of the most attractive countries in the world for those wanting to establish and grow a business.

George Freeman: There was much to cheer in the Budget. But now we need an inspiring programme for growth.

At the moment, we are treading water and appear to be relying on popular support for Brexit, and the threat of Corbyn, to keep us in office.

George Freeman MP is Chair of the Conservative Policy Forum and The Big Tent Ideas Festival, and is MP for Mid-Norfolk.

On Monday, the Chancellor announced that “austerity is coming to an end”. Politically, there was a lot to cheer in this Budget – some good news and headlines for struggling high streets, our crucial Universal Credit reform, NHS workers and the vast majority of constituents who rely on public services. Furthermore, there were many helpful retail pledges for colleagues in marginal seats. Given the Brexit divisions and infighting, we badly needed some good news.

But if we are going to end the biggest squeeze on disposable incomes since the war, the central question for our future is this: how can we get back to the 2.5-3 per cent growth that we enjoyed pre-Brexit? Before the EU Referendum, we were one of the fastest-growing economies in Europe and the G7. Now we’re one of the slowest-growing.

The Budget invites the public to judge us on different metrics – no longer on our commitment to balance the books (abandoned) or reduce the debt (still growing), but on our ability to “end austerity”. People will now need to feel tangible improvements and see how Brexit can be a catalyst for much higher growth and prosperity.

Because this Budget won’t be decided on the comment pages of broadsheets. It will be decided on the ground.  By parents chatting at the school gates. Families looking after their ageing relatives in care homes. Commuters stuck in traffic jams because the housing has come, but the infrastructure hasn’t. Or the millions standing on trains every morning who’ve shelled out £2,000 for a season ticket and feel ripped off.

I no longer advise the Prime Minister, but here’s what I’d say if I still did. We need to remind people that every public sector pound has to be earned before it is spent, and that we need a more inspiring programme of business-led growth to drive prosperity and opportunity.  This means some big changes.

First, accelerating our transition from a service economy to an innovation nation.  Innovation is key to our driving up productivity, prosperity, inward investment and exports. We won’t escape debt with growth at 1.5 per cent and low productivity.  We need a renaissance of enterprise and innovation.  Such buccaneers as James Dyson and Richard Branson have done more to transform this country’s prospects than any government department ever will.  We need to stop the business-bashing and promote entrepreneurship and innovation. While the UK is still a crucible of start-up entrepreneurship, the engine is not yet humming: we have too many start-ups that are never scaled up, too little of our innovation funded by the City and too little that is taken global by British companies. We need a new national mission. We must be the innovation nation.

Second, tangible access to new markets for our innovation.We can’t just do research.  We need to innovate, manufacture and trade.  If Brexit means anything, it surely means an opportunity to go global. But that can’t mean importing cheap food and cheap clothes from sweatshops. We need to be exporting our innovation. The UK should be using every tool possible to unlock access to the fastest emerging markets in Africa and Asia.

For 40 years our whole economy has been geared to our being a European services economy. Why don’t we make Brexit the moment to embrace a new global strategy for higher growth through exporting technology and innovation into emerging markets? If the opportunity is properly seized, we could use our Industrial Strategy and public sector innovation to make Britain a crucible of new technology scale up and financing through the City.

We could then use our aid budget and global soft power in emerging markets to grow our exports and trade links with the fastest growing economies. Why don’t we offer some of the fastest emerging countries where we have a strong historic links a deeper Aid, Trade and Security Development Partnership?

Third, harnessing the public sector as a test bed of innovation. We’ll never export our innovation if we’re not using it ourselves. Innovation can’t be just about making a lucky few in the City rich beyond their wildest dreams. In order for us to be a test bed for new technology, we need to put enterprise and innovation at the heart of the public sector.  If we want to lead the world in digital health, we won’t do it unless the NHS is already a pioneer. You can have as many digital health clusters in Shoreditch as you like. But if the NHS isn’t testing and buying it, we will never become the innovation nation we need to be. Building, financing and growing these little start-ups into serious businesses of scale. The problem of the austerity era was thinking that our problems could be solved by cutting things. Actually, the only way our problems can be solved is by growing things.

Fourth, empowering local leaders to innovate more. Innovation can’t be ordered from on high. It comes from people having the power to make decisions themselves. That’s why we need to embrace bolder economic localism. Let’s remember that our national economic performance is made up of hundreds of local economies, all of which need to be growing faster. Another five years of ever-tighter spending controls from the Treasury risks undermining local growth and innovation.  Instead of delaying essential local infrastructure holding our growth hubs back, why not let them raise infrastructure bonds in the international capital markets and embrace bold ideas like integrated track and train mutuals which invests users money into better services?

Fifth, a new model of Treasury incentives. Too often, Whitehall’s funding orthodoxy rewards failure.  If you deliver more for less in the public sector we give you…less!   And give more to those failing.  If you ran a business like that it would be bust.  And depressing to work in. It’s no wonder that public sector leaders are so dispirited.  Many are leaving.  We need them to stay.  So why don’t we send a signal to encourage them, be bold and embrace a new model of incentives-based funding which rewards successful local service leaders for delivering efficiency and productivity? We need a new approach based on a radical idea: if an area reduces the deficit quicker than Whitehall’s average we should let them keep 50 per cent of the savings to re-invest.  Why not the same on growth? If councils grow their tax base, why not let them keep 50 per cent for local services?

Our choice as a nation is clear. Do we timidly manage our decline? Or do we set out a bold plan a brighter future? At the moment we are treading water and appear to be relying on popular support for Brexit, and the threat of Jeremy Corbyn, to keep us in office.

For a majority of voters, keeping Corbyn out and delivering Brexit are not good enough answers.  We need to show voters that this is the path to something more inspiring.  We need to start setting out a bold vision for Conservatism in the twenty-first century.