The Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has warned that people will turn their backs on free and open markets unless something is done to help those left behind by the financial crisis.
In a speech, he said: “Globalisation is associated with low wages, insecure employment, stateless corporations and striking inequalities.”
In many advanced economies there are “staggering wealth inequalities,” he added.
Mr Carney was speaking in Liverpool.
He told his audience that politicians and central bankers must act to ensure people do not lose faith in the current system.
“Turning our backs on open markets would be a tragedy, but it is a possibility,” he said.
“It can only be averted by confronting the underlying reasons for this risk upfront.”
Ahmed: Carney says get real, there are losers from free trade
Mr Carney, giving the Roscoe Lecture at Liverpool John Moores University, spoke of the need for wealth distribution and putting individuals back in control.
He cited Prime Minister Theresa May’s criticism of “stateless corporations” who paid little tax and had little responsibility to local communities.
The governor said: “Redistribution and fairness also mean turning back the tide of stateless corporations.”
“As the prime minister recently stressed, companies must be rooted and pay tax somewhere.
“Businesses operating across borders have responsibilities,” he added.
‘Challenges to prosperity’
The lecture is only the second major public speech Mr Carney has given since the June Brexit referendum.
Since that vote, the governor has had to defend himself against criticism that he had made explicitly pro-Remain comments, and also against suggestions that the prime minister had been unhappy with the Bank’s monetary policy because savers had lost out.
However, although Mr Carney acknowledged in his speech that there were losers from the policy of low interest rates, he said: “The thrifty saver and the rich asset holder are often one and the same.”
“Just 2% of households have deposit holdings in excess of £5,000, [they have] few other financial assets, and don’t own a home.
“So the vast majority of savers who might have lost some interest income from lower policy rates have stood to gain from increases in asset prices, particularly the recovery in house prices,” he added.
The challenges to greater prosperity, he said, were far wider.
Mr Carney listed three priorities:
“Economists must clearly acknowledge the challenges we face, including the realities of uneven gains from trade and technology”
“We must grow our economy by rebalancing the mix of monetary policy, fiscal policy and structural reforms”
“We need to move towards more inclusive growth where everyone has a stake in globalisation.”
Last week, the bank’s chief economist, Andy Haldane, struck a similar note when he warned about Britain’s widening inequality gap.
He was concerned not just with the gap between rich and poor, but also geographically – between north and south, east and west.
Mr Haldane said in a speech: “I think [the issue of regional inequality] is right up there as among the most important issues that we face today as a country.”
“What’s more, the variations are among the widest in Europe.”
There were queues going into the courtroom and protesters outside on day one of the hearing, which is expected to last four days, with a verdict due in January.
The outcome will have implications for Theresa May’s strategy for EU exit, but it is not a court case on whether or not Brexit actually takes place.
In the first day at the Supreme Court:
Court president Lord Neuberger said the judges would consider issues impartially and decide the case according to the law
The government set out why it thinks it should be able to use “prerogative powers” to trigger Brexit
Ministers have the power to make or unmake treaties, it said
It said the powers were not a “relic” but a key part of the constitution
Parliament could have chosen to restrict ministers’ power to act but had chosen not to, it said
Mr Eadie said Parliament had “carefully selected” which areas it wanted to control, and that where it had not, executive power should apply
At the start of the hearing, Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger said the justices were aware of the public interest in the case and the “strong feelings associated with the many wider political questions surrounding the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union”.
But he added: “This appeal is concerned with legal issues, and, as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially, and to decide the case according to the law.”
He also said some of the people involved in the case had received “threats of serious violence and unpleasant abuse in emails and other electronic communications”, warning anyone that such behaviour “undermines the rule of law”.
By Dominic Casciani, BBC Home Affairs Correspondent
Today was exactly the kind of scenario that the Supreme Court was set up to answer: the biggest question of the day – if not decades.
Inside court one, we had the unprecedented scene of 11 justices and some of the beefiest legal teams in the country.
Proceedings were, like many Supreme Court hearings, an intellectual contest conducted with warmth, civility and good humour – an examination of what the UK’s uncodified constitution means.
Outside it was different – protesters from both sides. Some good humoured, some not. One shouted “traitor” at Gina Miller as she left court, having exercised her legal right to challenge the government.
Who’s winning? Hard to tell.
After lunch the justices gave the government team a tough time – but at this level you can’t read anything into that.
That’s what they are there to do: test to the limits the claims being made, define the line and uphold the rule of law that protects our democracy.
The UK voted to leave the EU, by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%, in a referendum in June.
The prime minister has said she intends to officially notify the rest of the EU of the UK’s intention to leave – beginning two years of talks over the terms of separation – using Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty by the end of March.
But campaigners, led by investment manager Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, insist that decision can be taken only by Parliament.
The points at stake
The case is about whether the law means that the government needs the authority of Parliament to trigger the process for the UK to leave the EU
The government argues it can start the Article 50 process using “prerogative powers”, a remnant of the era of all-powerful kings and queens
Justices will be ruling on who has the legal power to change the rights of British citizens
Monday’s hearing began with Attorney General Jeremy Wright setting out the government’s case.
He said the “royal prerogative” powers the government wants to use to trigger Article 50 were not an “ancient relic” but a “fundamental pillar of our constitution as a sovereign state”.
The government did not seek to use the prerogative “on a whim”, he said.
Mr Wright said the legislation enabling the EU referendum had been passed with the “clear expectation” that the government would implement the result, and that Parliament had had the opportunity to restrict the government’s power to trigger Article 50 but had chosen not to do so.
“If this is all about standing up for Parliament, I say Parliament can stand up for itself,” he said.
Taking over the case, Mr Eadie said it would be “highly improbable” for Parliament, in passing legislation enabling the EU referendum, to have been merely “reserving to itself the right to decide whether to leave or not as it saw fit”.
He said the result of the referendum could not be legally “irrelevant”, adding: “If you asked the ordinary man or woman on the street if they regarded the fact that a referendum has occurred as remotely relevant to the question of whether the government can give Article 50 notice, the answer would be ‘Of course it is’.”
Earlier this year the High Court ruled in Ms Miller’s favour, arguing that rights conferred by Parliament when it passed the 1972 European Communities Act – which paved the way for the UK to join the then European Economic Community, the EU’s predecessor – were likely to be affected by Brexit.
As a result, it concluded, any process leading to the potential withdrawal of rights could only be determined by Parliament.
In its judgement, the High Court ruled “the powerful constitutional principle that the Crown has no power to alter the law of the land by use of its prerogative powers is the product of an especially strong constitutional tradition in the UK”.
The ruling led to criticism from some elements of the press and Brexit-supporting MPs, but in her submission ahead of Monday’s hearing, Ms Miller said the Court had a “duty to decide questions of law”.
Labour has said it will try to amend an Article 50 bill – if one is required – to ensure single market access and workers’ rights are protected.
Shadow attorney-general Baroness Chakrabarti told Radio 4′s Today programme: “We have been completely clear that we are democrats and respect the outcome of the referendum, even though many of us – myself included – campaigned in the opposite direction.”
The Supreme Court will also consider two legal challenges to the exercise of prerogative powers brought by Northern Irish campaigners.
The Scottish and Welsh Governments have also been granted permission to intervene in the case to establish matters of important legal and constitutional principle, including the basis on which the Article 50 process might need to be sanctioned by their devolved legislatures.
Other interested parties and intervening groups – who will be making oral arguments before the court – include citizens of European Economic Area countries living in the UK known as AB parties, and Grahame Pigney’s crowd-funded People’s Challenge.
Ministers will have a number of options if they lose the appeal, but it has been reported that a 16-word bill is being prepared which could be fast-tracked though Parliament, asking MPs and peers “to give permission” to the government to trigger Article 50 in time to meet the March deadline.
Mrs May will be given an indication of the scale of parliamentary opposition she faces over Brexit on Wednesday, with a potential revolt over demands for the government to set out its plan for leaving the EU before triggering Article 50.
Labour will use an opposition day debate to force a vote on the issue.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said up to 40 Conservatives could vote with Labour.
Ministers have refused to offer a “running commentary” on their Brexit strategy.
The way that England’s railway network is run is set to be overhauled under plans outlined by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling.
He wants each rail franchise to be run by joint management teams, including representatives from both the train operating company and Network Rail.
Mr Grayling said: “I intend to start bringing back together the operation of track and train on our railways.”
The changes will start when each franchise is renewed in the future.
The minister stressed that he wanted his proposed changes to lead to a big improvement in service for passengers, who are travelling on an increasingly crowded and expensive network.
“We need to change the relationship between the tracks and the trains on the railway,” Mr Grayling said.
“In my experience passengers don’t understand the division between the two.
“They just want someone to be in charge. They want their train to work. I agree with them,” he added.
The plan to make England’s railways run better, day-to-day, will involve each franchise being run by one joint team, even though the franchise owner and Network Rail will continue to exist separately as at present.
The proposed shake-up will reverse some of the effects of the huge rail privatisation project which was controversially initiated in 1993 by John Major’s Conservative government.
That change broke up the old state-owned British Rail and separated the ownership and management of the UK’s rail infrastructure – such as rails, stations and signalling – from the ownership and control of the trains and services running on it.
By Richard Westcott, BBC transport correspondent
I have never met anyone, no matter what their politics, who thinks it was a good idea to have one company running the trains and another running the track they run on.
But that’s what they decided to do when they privatised the network 20 or so years ago.
I’ve heard of crazy situations, where train companies made money out of Network Rail when it overran on engineering work (they had to pay a fine).
Then the firm would make extra money running the replacement bus service too.
Different companies with different priorities.
Now Chris Grayling has become the latest transport secretary to try to get Network Rail working as one with private companies to fix the problems together, rather than arguing about whose fault it is.
They are already trying something like it across Scotland and with South West Trains.
As for getting one private company running everything on a future Cambridge to Oxford line, some fear it’s an attempt to privatise rail repairs, which ended disastrously under Railtrack.
Speaking to the transport secretary though, he told me that he had no intention of making radical changes across the network, or breaking up Network Rail.
He just wanted the public and private sector, train and tracks, to work together, not against each other.
The separation of rail infrastructure from train operation is held by some critics to be a significant source of delays to management decisions, repairs and therefore to train services.
Reacting to the government’s plan, Mark Carne, chief executive of Network Rail said: “We strongly welcome these plans to bring more joined up working within the industry.
“We have already devolved Network Rail into route-based businesses closer to customers, and the proposals announced today will build on the alliances we have created between these route businesses and train operators.”
The new management approach may also be applied to the running of the revived “Varsity Line”, which the government wants to see running between Oxford and Cambridge.
Confirmation was made in the recent Autumn Statement that this line, closed in the 1960s, should be rebuilt and reopened.
When it is functioning, the line will be run by a new body called East West Rail, which will be separate from Network rail and which will oversee the design and construction of the route as well as its subsequent operation.
Mr Grayling said: “The new organisation will work hand in glove with the National Infrastructure Commission as it plans the development of this nationally important transport corridor to identify the best way to deliver the project.”
The tax affairs of football manager Jose Mourinho should be investigated by British officials following allegations he used off-shore companies to reduce his tax bill, a UK MP has said.
Mourinho is accused of moving millions of pounds of earnings to the British Virgin Islands to avoid paying tax.
The Manchester United manager’s agent said the allegations were “unfounded”.
Public accounts committee chairwoman Meg Hillier told the Sunday Times the claims required “close examination”.
HM Revenue and Customs said it would not comment on named individuals, but took “all allegations of tax evasion extremely seriously” and “always investigates allegations of fraud together with any intelligence provided”.
Further claims about the tax affairs of Mourinho – as well as other top international football stars – have been made in the Sunday Times and other European newspapers.
The publications acquired leaked documents from the website Football Leaks, following a cyber attack on football agents earlier this year.
Mourinho has been accused of using “a complex web of off-shore companies” to avoid paying tax in the UK and Spain.
The allegations surround his time as manager of UK side Chelsea, between 2004 and 2007, and Spanish club Real Madrid, between 2010 and 2013.
According to the reports, Portuguese-born Mourinho, 53, placed £10m (€12m) into a Swiss account owned by a British Virgin Islands (BVI) firm.
The newspaper claims Mourinho and his advisers deducted substantial costs for a BVI company – which it suggests has no employees.
The Sunday Times says Mourinho – as well as Real Madrid star Cristiano Ronaldo – also used bank accounts and companies in Ireland, Switzerland and New Zealand to process substantial earnings for their image rights.
However, Jorge Mendes – the agent for both Mourinho and ex-Manchester United player Ronaldo – denies the claim.
He says both men were fully compliant with UK and Spanish tax rules.
The statement added that the allegations stemmed from a cyber attack earlier this year on some sports agents, details of which were prohibited by a Spanish court from being published.
The head of HMRC will appear before Ms Hillier’s committee – which is responsible for overseeing government expenditure – this week.
The Labour MP told the BBC: “I think it is really important that the tax authorities take a really close look at what’s gone on and we will be raising this with them on Wednesday.”
She said the allegations would be “galling” for football fans who buy season tickets and spend a lot of their disposable income on watching games.
“On Wednesday, we are already examining HMRC on how they deal with high net-worth individuals and it is clear that there are issues there about the resource they have got and how they go about dealing with people with very large amounts of wealth,” she said.
A spokesman for the tax authority said last year it had received an additional £800m “to help tackle the cheats” by increasing the number of people prosecuted.
He added: “HMRC carefully scrutinises the arrangements between football clubs and their employees in respect of any image right payments to make sure the right tax is paid – in recent years we have identified more than £80m in additional tax payable from clubs, players and agents.
“We take seriously allegations that customers or their agents may have acted dishonestly in the course of an enquiry, and can reopen closed cases if we suspect this has happened. “
The allegations surrounding Mourinho and Ronaldo are based on two terabytes of leaked information which allegedly includes original contracts.
The claims were published by an international consortium of journalists – including German newspaper Der Spiegel, Spain’s El Mundo and the UK’s Sunday Times – which obtained a trove of about 18m documents.
Other top players were also named in the documents.
The consortium says it intends to publish a series of articles under the banner “Football Leaks” over the next few weeks.
It comes eight months after the so-called Panama Papers lifted the lid on how the world’s rich and powerful use tax havens to hide their wealth.
Real Madrid, Ronaldo’s current employer, did not respond to requests from news agencies for comment.
Manchester United said the allegations related to events before Mourinho’s arrival at the club and so it would not comment.
One of the papers in the consortium, the Dutch NRC, alleges that Ronaldo moved €63.5m (£53.1m, $67.7m) to the British Virgin Islands at the end of 2014.
The paper says the striker received sponsorship fees which were moved via two Irish companies to the tax haven, 11 days before Spain changed an advantageous tax law.
According to the reports, Friday’s first batch of leaks centred on “a system” put in place by Mr Mendes, whose company has denied any wrongdoing.
His company, Gestifute, said in a statement that neither Ronaldo nor Mourinho “have been implicated in legal proceedings of the tax evasion commission in Spain”.
The company accused the media consortium of operating in an “insidious” way concerning the stars’ tax obligations.
The UK should not have to pay “large” sums to the EU to trade with it after Brexit, Boris Johnson has said.
The idea of the UK paying for tariff-free access to the EU’s internal market has been mooted in recent days.
The foreign secretary told the BBC’s Andrew Marr that the question of whether the UK would pay anything at all was “pure speculation”, but if it did, any payments had to be “sensible”.
Critics say leaving the single market would be an “act of self-harm”.
Former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said remaining in the single market of 500 million customers was the “least economically disruptive form of Brexit”, and, in return for this, the UK should be granted powers for an “emergency brake” on migration from the EU.
Negotiations on the terms of exit from the EU will not officially begin until the UK begins the Article 50 process – which Theresa May has said will happen by the end of March.
Pressed on suggestions by his cabinet colleague, the Brexit secretary David Davis, that the UK could pay for tariff-free access to the single market, Mr Johnson – who was a prominent Leave campaigner – said he was not “going to get into the minutiae” before negotiations began.
“That is something that obviously David Davis is considering. It doesn’t mean that a decision has been taken,” he said.
The EU, he insisted, wanted a “partnership” with the UK and that would involve a degree of mutual co-operation, for instance the UK continuing to partly funding the Erasmus education exchange scheme.
But he hinted that this would not extend to actually paying to have to access to the common rules of the single market, without any penalties or extra levies.
“I have given you an indication of the kind of payments that I think might be sensible,” he told Andrew Marr.
“My own view is that I see no reason why those payments should be large. And I do see a big opportunity for us to spend the money we are getting back on other priorities.”
The government has yet to set out its negotiating objectives in detail but ministers are coming under growing pressure to avoid a so-called “hard Brexit” – a term coined by Remain supporters to describe what they say would be the impact of the UK giving up its membership of the single market.
In the wake of the Lib Dems’ Richmond by-election victory, a group of Tory MPs has warned that any trading arrangement which restricts UK businesses and consumers could alienate core Conservative voters and cost the party the next general election.
Brexit supporters say continued membership of the single market is only possible if the UK continues to accept rules on the free movement of EU citizens and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice – which they say is unacceptable.
Mr Johnson said Brexit presented the chance to “take back control of our borders, to take back control of quite large sums of money, not to be run by the European Court – so not to have EU law in this country, and fourthly… to be able to do free trade deals”.
The EU is under pressure in many quarters to drive a hard bargain with the UK but Mr Johnson dismissed suggestions the UK would be punished for voting out.
“It may get pretty hairy at times and there may be some difficult bits, but beneath it all there is a massive fondness for the UK and a desire to do the best possible deal.”
Ahead of Monday’s Supreme Court hearing into whether Parliament has to formally approve the start of Brexit talks, Mr Johnson also said there was no precedent for Parliament for “fettering the discretion” of governments in EU treaty negotiations.
And in a separate interview with ITV’s Peston on Sunday, he said foreign students should not be included in the official migration statistics – a view that contradicts current government policy.
Labour’s shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer said the choice was between an “isolated, hard Brexit and a collaborative, co-operative Brexit” and while Labour would not stand in the way of triggering Article 50, he said it would oppose a deal which resulted in an “arms-length” relationship with the single market.
Mr Clegg, now Lib Dem EU spokesman, told the BBC’s Sunday Politics he would oppose Brexit unless single market membership and a referendum on the final deal were guaranteed.
Net migration has stayed near record levels, standing at 335,000 in the year to June, the Office for National Statistics has said.
There was also a record number of EU citizens coming to live in Britain with the figure standing at 284,000.
Net migration – immigration minus emigration – was the second-highest number on record.
Immigration minister Robert Goodwill said the government was “committed to getting net migration down”.
Most of the period covered by the figures was before the EU referendum, but they also include one week after the poll.
The ONS says the net migration figure is similar to the previous year, although it was up slightly on the 12 months ending in March, when it stood at 326,000.
Immigration to the UK has also risen to a record level with 650,000 migrants in the year to June.
Net migration from the EU was the highest figure on record with the number standing at 189,000.
‘An abject failure’
Mr Goodwill said the British people had sent out a “clear message” they want more control on immigration and the government was committed to getting numbers down to “the tens of thousands”.
He added: “That is why reducing the number of migrants coming to the UK will be a key priority of our negotiations to leave the EU.”
Figures show 311,000 people came to live in the UK for work-related reasons.
But the ONS said there was a “statistically significant” rise in the number of people who were “looking for work”, 130,000, compared to 107,000 last year, as opposed to those who had a definite job to go to.
For the first time, Romania tops the list for the country with the most number of migrants to the UK – with 54,000 people coming to live in Britain.
UKIP leader Paul Nuttall said the figures “just go to show that you can’t trust the Tories to bring down immigration”.
He added: “This is an abject failure, not just by the Government in general but by the prime minister in particular.”
Nicola White, head of international migration statistics at the ONS, said it was “too early to say what effect, if any the EU referendum has had on long-term international migration.”
She added: “There does not however appear to have been any significant impact during the run-up to the vote.”
New England football manager Gareth Southgate said the allegations of abuse from former players – mostly from his generation – were “heartbreaking”.
At his first news conference as manager, he said the bravery of those who had spoken out was “exceptional”, and Southgate revealed he had played with one of them although did not name him.
There had been “enormous strides” made in protecting young players, he told reporters.
Speaking as a parent, he added: “If I’m a parent sending my child to a game over the weekend, I feel they are in a much better place than we were 15, 20 years ago.”
Alongside Southgate at the conference, Football Association chief executive Martin Glenn said he did not believe there had been a “cover-up” at the FA.
Asked about allegations of “hush money” being paid to abuse victims, he said: “If the FA have made errors, we’ll own up to them, as must the rest of football.
“Do I think there’s been a cover-up in the game? I doubt it.
“I think the FA has, since the late 90s, taken safeguarding extremely seriously; we wrote it into the standard chartered rules that there should be safety officers, and at a time when society was very different,” he said.
David Eatock signed for Newcastle United in 1995, at the age of 18. He regularly played for the club’s reserve team until the age of 21, when a knee injury ended his professional career.
Mr Eatock – who has waived his right to anonymity – said he had been groomed by Ormond during this period, adding that the coach masturbated in front of him.
He said Ormond had “preyed” on him because he had been vulnerable, as his father had been seriously ill with bowel cancer at the time.
“I was an adult, but really just a boy,” he said.
The former footballer said: “I never had reason to see Ormond, but he sought me out.
“I trained with the main team, and Ormond was a youth team coach.
“He’d seen me previously when I was at another club and had scored a hat-trick.
“He told me I’d make a fantastic player, and he’d keep an eye on me, so when I went to Newcastle he sought me out.”
Mr Eatock said on the first occasion he had been groomed, Ormond “worked out what guest house I was staying at and just turned up”.
“I was on my own most of the time in that guest house – only saw people at meal times,” he said.
“So then he turned up, took me for a drink and kept buying me drink, after drink, after drink. I thought, ‘This is what footballers do.’”
Mr Eatock said the conversation “turned to sex… and he talked about my penis”.
He said: “He invited himself back to my guest house. Within moments, he unzipped his pants and started masturbating.”
The former Newcastle United forward, who played alongside the Premier League’s record goal scorer Alan Shearer, said this “began to happen about once a month”.
“He’d take me out for a drink. He’d get me so drunk I’d be sick, and he’d talk about sex and my penis,” he said.
Mr Eatock said the grooming continued until his contract at Newcastle United expired, in 1998.
He said when Ormond realised the player would not be kept on, he sexually assaulted him.
“He put his hands down my pants. You’d like to think that you’d hit him, fight back, but I was in shock. I couldn’t speak,” he said.
“I’ve spent 20 years wondering why I didn’t do anything.
“I signed for Newcastle as a really confident boy, and when I left I was a shell.”
On Wednesday, former Newcastle United footballer Derek Bell said he was abused hundreds of times by Ormond in the 1970s, while playing for the Montagu and North Fenham boys football club.
Mr Bell went on to have a short professional career, which was ended by injury. But years later, in the late 1990s, he discovered that his abuser had become involved in youth coaching at Newcastle so he reported the original incidents to police.
‘Anxiety and depression’
He also visited Ormond at his home and secretly recorded a conversation between them. This evidence led to the conviction of Ormond for sexual assaults on seven different boys and he was sentenced to six years in prison.
Sentencing Ormond, the judge Esmond Faulks told him: “The evidence demonstrates you were a predatory abuser of young boys.”
At the time of sentencing, Mr Eatock said his wife had asked if he had known Ormond – at which point he had opened up to her.
“She told me to go the police, but I didn’t,” he said. “I thought, ‘He’s been punished anyway.’”
Mr Eatock said he had lived with anxiety and depression for the past 10 years “because of what [Ormond] did to me” and now saw a therapist.