Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

As ever, I am grateful for the advice from my right hon. Friend. He is right that businesses do need support, which is why many of the interventions that we have put in place—for example, the business rates holidays and, indeed, our support for the economy and jobs through initiatives such as our stamp duty cut to catalyse the housing market—last through to next year. I hope he will be reassured that throughout this crisis I have not hesitated to act in creative and effective ways to support jobs and employment, and I will continue to do so.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Many employees, self-employed people and freelancers in sectors such as hospitality, aviation, tourism, showpeople and the arts cannot go back to normal because of the public health measures brought in by the Chancellor’s Government, so will he examine the calls by the Treasury Committee to consider a targeted extension of support for those sectors? If not, why?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady mentions hospitality and tourism, which is an industry disproportionately represented in Scotland. That is why the Government took steps in the summer to support the industry, with a temporary VAT reduction from 20% to 5% and, indeed, the eat out to help out initiative, both of which were targeted at helping to protect the 2 million jobs and 200,000 businesses engaged in the industry.

[Alison Thewliss]

That is woefully inadequate, as we head into the winter, for many of these industries that have already suffered with a low income. The Chancellor said that he would do “whatever it takes” and that

“if the situation changed”,

he

“would not hesitate to take further action.”

Those excluded from support schemes, the 700,000 made redundant since March and those losing their jobs because of the premature ending of the furlough scheme want to know whether the Chancellor will be true to that commitment or his words are worth nothing.

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady claims that it was woefully inadequate; the VAT reduction was the single biggest ask from the UK hospitality industry. Not only was that delivered, but it was delivered with an extra initiative, eat out to help out, which proved to provide an enormous fillip to the reopening of that part of the economy. It is also worth bearing in mind that all the businesses engaged in that industry are not paying any business rates at all until March next year.

Protection of Jobs and Businesses

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

People across these islands are going through the most difficult of times. In the past six months, people have lost loved ones; they have not been able to have the human contact we all need; and they have struggled to keep themselves and their families going. Communities have pulled together admirably to help their neighbours, but businesses of all sizes have found it difficult, and an estimated 730,000 jobs have been lost so far. Ending the employment support schemes prematurely could cost 3 million jobs. The SNP fully supports the motion tabled by the Labour party today.

On 17 March, the Chancellor made a promise in this House. He said:

“I promised to do whatever it takes to support our economy through this crisis and that, if the situation changed, I would not hesitate to take further action.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 931.]

On these Benches, we welcomed the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment support scheme. The economic powers to create such schemes rest in the hands of the UK Government. That has nothing to do with the strength of the Union: it is merely a reflection of where the economic powers lie.

The Scottish Government’s programme for government shows that where we do have the powers, Scotland has an ambitious and comprehensive plan for sustainable economic recovery, and 71% of Scots now think that Holyrood should have the financial powers required to protect our economy.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the SNP’s programme for government. Does she agree with the SNP Scottish Government adviser who has said that the programme for government announced by Nicola Sturgeon lacks ambition for business and economic recovery in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Member ignores the fact that the SNP Government do not have the full range of powers that we need to protect our economy and which only independence can give us. He knows that is the case.

This is no ordinary economic downturn. The UK Government, on clear and urgent public health grounds, instructed and required many profitable, productive and sustainable firms to close. In sectors, such as hospitality, events, tourism, aviation, culture and the arts, these limitations will remain for the foreseeable future.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing we have not yet considered in this debate is the proposal for a four-day working week. Does the hon. Lady think a four-day working week could enable the economy to maintain its position and get beyond the dark spots of next January, February and March?

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Member makes a very good and well-considered point. There are lots of opportunities the Government have not considered for how we might spread around the limited and reducing number of jobs we have in order to keep people in employment.

The Federation of Small Businesses has noted that tourism and retail account for nearly half a million jobs in Scotland, many of them seasonal and rural, and many of them now facing the furlough scheme’s winding down at the very time business is at its quietest. As we have seen from local lockdowns, such as those in Leicester, Aberdeen and Greater Manchester, there is an urgent need to put in place more flexible and enduring support—exactly the type of further action the Chancellor promised he would take. Aberdeen, for example, only managed to raise £232,000 via the “eat out to help out” scheme because of the local lockdown imposed on hospitality there. That compares with over £1 million each in Glasgow and Edinburgh. We need to look at whether the schemes in place are flexible enough when local lockdowns happen.

A further spike and further local restrictions seem inevitable, so ending support now is incredibly short-sighted. Until public health grounds for closure are removed, the SNP believes that the Government have a clear responsibility to assist and support wherever they can. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned some additional schemes at the tail end of his remarks, but I would ask him to think very carefully: could he live on the money he proposes for those asked to self-isolate? If he ran a business, could he survive and pay wages, pay for stock, the rent and all the bills on the grants he has announced? He probably could not, and many businesses cannot and will fold as a result without support.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about phases of this crisis. The coronavirus is not done with us yet. Life is not going back to normal any time soon. The British Chambers of Commerce’s quarterly recruitment outlook revealed that 29% of firms expect to axe jobs over the third quarter—a record high. At the same time, the number of new job opportunities is also depressed across almost all sectors, as is reflected in the various vacancies data. For example, the Office for National Statistics and Adzuna data show the number of online job vacancies for Scotland for the week to 21 August to be almost half the 2019 average—down 49 percentage points—and the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that UK unemployment could surpass the peaks of the 1980s after weaker than expected economic growth. The Chancellor and his Treasury team have a duty to prevent this kind of economic scarring. The devastation of the 1980s still haunts many communities, and I urge them not to gamble with the life chances of the people we are here to represent.

[Jamie Stone]

I give credit where it is due to the Government: the assistance afforded to the tourism industry has saved it in my constituency, which relies hugely on tourism. God forbid that the second spike gets worse than it is, but if it does and we have to close things down again, frankly that will ruin some of those businesses permanently. I make a plea to the Scottish Government and Her Majesty’s Government in Westminster to work together as closely as possible. I hope that this eventuality does not happen, but if it does, we will all need to put our shoulder to the wheel.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Member is absolutely correct. A second spike does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda, and it should be. The measures put in place were put in place at speed, at haste, and the Government should be learning from this and preparing for that second spike now. I would be incredibly grateful if at some point a Minister confirmed that they are doing that, because it is absolutely necessary. We cannot ignore the risk of a second spike, given how the figures have been creeping up in recent days.

The IPPR has said that ending the furlough scheme will lead to unemployment

“not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s”,

with the loss of 3 million jobs, 2 million of which would be viable in the longer term if it were continued. The furlough scheme should be continued for at least two years, or for as long as we need it—perhaps we will not need it for two years, which would be a good eventuality—as is being done in Germany and France. Independent Ireland is keeping its scheme going for a year. No employee or employer should be forced to decide between their health and their income.

The self-employment support scheme should also have been continued. In addition, a basic temporary income scheme should have been introduced to protect anyone falling through the gaps in support. There is still time for the Treasury to step in and make that commitment, because the lack of parity between those in the different schemes is completely unjustifiable. I remain deeply disappointed that the recommendations of the Treasury Committee to address the gaps in support have not been taken up by the Treasury. The ExcludedUK group, representing at the least 3 million people who have been denied any UK Government support—these include the newly self-employed, freelancers, limited company directors, those on short-term PAYE contracts and many others—is still being ignored by the Chancellor, despite having presented the Treasury with viable solutions.

The situation facing women requiring maternity leave has also been incredibly stressful and unfair, with many finding themselves ineligible and some who were forced to take maternity leave early now struggling to get the childcare they need to even attempt to go back to work. It is hugely disappointing to hear that the UK Government have rejected the very reasonable request by the 226,000 maternity petitioners to extend maternity leave for three months. I hope the Government will reconsider that. I am led to wonder whether different decisions might be made if there were more women on the UK Government Benches.

When we see Jim Harra, head of HMRC, admit this week that £3.5 billion of furlough cash has been lost in fraudulent claims or error, it is even more galling to those who have no support whatsoever. There have also been errors in my constituency on HMRC’s part. Its inflexibility and inability to deal with MP requests on this issue has also been hugely frustrating for those whose businesses are on the brink.

The take-up of the coronavirus job retention scheme has been significant, as has been said, with 9.6 million workers furloughed by 1.2 million employers since March. Those employers had made £34.7 billion of furlough claims by 9 August. The scheme will cost the UK Government an estimated £80 billion in total, but we should not forget that this cost is an investment in people and in public health. The cost of not acting would be far greater.

The figures published by the Treasury demonstrating the sectoral impact of the furlough scheme are interesting. They show only 2% of employees in public administration and defence and 7% of those in finance and insurance being placed on furlough, compared with 77% of those in accommodation and food services—some 1,693,600 employees—and 70% of those working in the arts, entertainment, recreation and other services, amounting to 474,300 employees across the UK. This of course reflects the different nature of the jobs in those sectors and whether it has been possible for people to work.

The sectors in which furlough take-up has been high are not suddenly going to be able to return to pre-covid business, and there is a real argument for sectoral extensions if the Government will not consider a wholesale extension. The ability of these businesses and organisations to generate income will continue to be hampered by the need to impose public health restrictions. For example, how would a national arts company or a full-scale production be able to get a theatre performance up and running? How would that theatre be able to turn a profit at 40% capacity? What about the restaurant next door, which theatre goers might usually have gone to for a pre-theatre meal, or the pub they might have gone to afterwards, where nobody will be allowed to stand at the bar and that will not have outdoor seating in the depths of a Scottish winter, or even a Scottish autumn?

How does the Chancellor expect such firms to bear the cost of staffing, rent and other outgoings when they will not see a corresponding increase in income? The short answer is that those costs cannot be borne. The CBI’s head, Carolyn Fairbairn, has warned that

“it’s too soon to pull business support away at the end of October”.

The Fraser of Allander Scottish business monitor for quarter 2 this year reported that 55% of businesses that have made use of the job retention scheme expect to decrease their staffing numbers when the scheme is phased out.

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend will have heard me raise with the Chief Secretary those companies that have abused the furlough by using it to pay for mass redundancies—British Airways is not alone; Centrica and others have followed suit. However, he failed to answer the question about the firing and rehiring of staff at massively reduced wages. Does she think that is fair?

[Alison Thewliss]

It absolutely is not fair. The scheme is being abused by businesses, and that should not be allowed to happen. I commend to the Government my hon. Friend’s Bill on fire and rehire. If they wanted to do anything at all to help, they would take on the recommendations in his Bill, because they would make a huge difference to people. People should not be expected to do the same job on vastly reduced terms and conditions, under pain of losing their job altogether. It is exploitation pure and simple, and the Government should not accept it.

The Chief Secretary talked about new opportunities for those in industries that could not continue, but that fails to recognise the reality that there might not be enough jobs for those who are laid off to go into, and that what jobs there are might not be at the same wage level as the jobs they are in now. The cost will be met by the UK Government in one way or another—in employment benefits if not in extending furlough.

The end of furlough coincides with the end of the period for which people have been granted bill payment holidays. The Standard Life Foundation report, “Emerging from lockdown”, highlights that

“of the 3.7 million households across the UK granted a bill ‘payment holiday’, over 6 in 10 are already facing financial difficulties and will struggle to repay their debts when these arrangements end. For many, these payment holidays will cease on 31 October 2020—the same date the government’s job retention schemes end, leaving many facing job losses and crippling financial strain.”

The effect could be devastating: people laid off because their employers cannot afford to keep them on, with debt mounting, and all this among people who are already finding life difficult. The drop in income if people move on to universal credit—if, indeed, they are eligible, which many people are not—will push many families over the brink. I fear that the UK Government are not looking at the bigger picture in the choices they are making.

The kickstart scheme is not available easily to small employers, which could have a disproportionate impact on the rural economy in places where there are not enough employers to club together to make up the minimum 30 employees. To return to a theme I have spoken about before, there is a risk of young workers being exploited and not being paid a living wage. Nobody in this House would want to live on the wages that young people are expected to work for in this country. I ask the Chief Secretary to reconsider and to pay a real living wage to the young people on the scheme. They deserve nothing less.

I also raise caution about relating the scheme to universal credit, because many people are not able to access universal credit, as I have said. If the scheme runs only through universal credit, many young people who might otherwise have benefited from the scheme, such as it is, will not be eligible.

Where the Scottish Government have the power, they have acted. The Scottish Government have spent £4 billion on covid, with over £2.3 billion for businesses. That is above the Barnett consequentials allocated to us. The Scottish Government published their response to the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Economic Recovery on 5 August. They are acting to protect jobs by developing and delivering sector-led recovery plans, working with industry leadership groups, trade unions and others, starting with the construction sector, which is coming back from its furlough period. They are supporting jobs through the covid-19 transition training fund. Through the programme for government, they are supporting a national mission to create new jobs, good jobs and green jobs, which includes investing £60 million to support up to 20,000 young people into jobs. There is the £100-million green jobs fund, investment in decarbonisation and the Unlocking Ambition programme. They are also using the national performance framework to promote equality and to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.

The Scottish Government have made an extra £330 million of funding available this financial year specifically to support Scotland’s economic recovery. That includes £230 million of economic recovery stimulus to invest in capital projects and a £100 million package of funding focused on protecting jobs and supporting those who have been made redundant or whose jobs are at risk.

I would dearly love the Scottish Government to do more, given the scale of the crisis, but their hands are tied. The Fraser of Allander Institute is clear that

“the Scottish Government can borrow up to £450m per annum for capital investment (a cap of £3bn). On resource spending, they can borrow up to £600m per annum (a cap of £1.75bn), but only for ‘forecast error’ and ‘cash management’. They cannot borrow to fund discretionary resource spending.”

That is the crucial point. We urgently need more financial powers in Scotland. If the UK Government will not act on the things we have asked them to act on, they should not stand in Scotland’s way when we have a desire to support our people and businesses. Powers must be devolved to let the Scottish Government get on with the job.

All of this stands in the context of the looming threat of a no-deal, chaotic and damaging Brexit, with the UK Government gleefully breaking international agreements they themselves signed up to and the outrageous proposals today in clause 46 of the Tories’ United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The UK Government’s power grab over economic development and infrastructure plans cannot be allowed to stand. The Tories speak of a power surge, but the last time I checked, a power surge was a dangerous thing that usually lasts only a few seconds, but that results in serious damage to valuable appliances. For once, the Tories might be telling the truth when they say that that is what is coming to Scotland under their plans.

Westminster and the Tories cannot be trusted with our economy. What we see today is not “whatever it takes”. Winding up the furlough scheme and allowing so many people to fall through the support net will cause lasting harm to so many people with businesses and to the wider economy. We must have the full powers of a normal independent country to meet the needs of our economy and, most importantly, of the people of Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to anyone who has looked at today’s call list that 90 Back Benchers are hoping to participate. I have to intimate that it is unlikely everybody will be called; indeed, it is impossible. I will leave it up to individual Members to do their own arithmetic, but I am afraid that I will have to impose an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. I call Caroline Nokes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

May I begin my remarks by thanking the Labour party for bringing forward this motion for debate today? It has allowed Members from both sides of the House and across all parties to highlight the positive impact that has been felt by the massive measures that were introduced by the UK Government during this coronavirus pandemic and the positive impact that has been felt in constituencies the length and breadth of the country.

In Moray, 85,000 meals were served under the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme, 12,900 jobs were furloughed, 2,800 individuals were supported through the self-employed income support scheme, more than 1,000 bounce back loans totalling over £28.5 million were granted as well as 44 coronavirus business interruption loans. That has delivered more than £7 million in the Moray constituency alone. That is the support that we have seen from the UK Government, and I am extremely grateful for that.

Briefly, I want to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who is no longer in his place. I have raised the plight of the coach industry at Treasury questions. I know that this is a difficult issue and I know that Treasury Ministers have heard this case before, but Maynes of Buckie, who I have been doing a lot of work with, and groups across Scotland and the UK are looking for support for the coach industry and anything that can be done would be gratefully received.

I also want to highlight something that I have done in my first month as leader of the Scottish Conservatives. I made a pledge to produce a document for Scotland’s economic recovery and jobs recovery, which is so important during this pandemic and as we recover from it. I was disappointed that none of the suggestions that we put forward in our policy document—both short-term and long-term measures—were picked up by the Scottish National party. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s programme for government that was announced just a few weeks ago did not mention small businesses once. They did not include an education Bill, which is vital as we take our country forward, but, they did, of course, find the time to put in another referendum Bill to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK. That shows the priorities of the SNP during this pandemic and its lack of ambition for Scotland after 13 years of power.

[Alison Thewliss]

indicated dissent.

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Lady can shake her head, but when I intervened on her to ask her whether she agreed with the Scottish Government’s adviser to Nicola Sturgeon, she claimed it was because Scotland does not have enough powers at the moment. That adviser was specifically saying that the programme for government—the powers that Holyrood already has and that the SNP could use to rebuild Scotland’s economy and to get us going again—lacked ideas to bolster economic growth. That was the criticism of an adviser to the Scottish Government of the lack of ambition and lack of determination from the SNP after 13 years in power in Scotland to deliver for areas the length and breadth of the country. We need to move away from the separation and the division of the past and look more at the opportunities for Scotland in future. That is what I intend to do in this place and as leader of the Scottish Conservatives. I hope that others do that, too.

Economic Update

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s support, and thank him for that. I also thank him for the advice he has provided to me over the past few weeks and months. He is right to highlight the issue of leverage; it was good that, on coming into this crisis, levels of corporate indebtedness in the UK were the lowest for around a decade and ranked very favourably when compared with most OECD countries, but he is right that we want to make sure that that is not a drag on our recovery. I am currently looking at proposals from a range of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), TheCityUK and others, and I look forward to discussing those with my right hon. Friend.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I would usually start by thanking the Chancellor for advance sight of his statement, but today I think I might ask for a fresh printer cartridge for the heavily redacted copy, which was effectively useless, that was sent to spokespeople ahead of his statement.

Countries around the world have supported their people in this crisis, and the only UK exceptionalism is in being among the countries where the most people have died. The Chancellor has spent big over the past few months and comes with more proposals today. We support measures such as the job support schemes and encourage the Chancellor to be more ambitious and think to the future in his stimulus plans; we want a comprehensive plan to support the economy, protect jobs and incomes, and build a greener, fairer society.

We have looked to the ambitious stimulus packages of our European neighbours and urge the Chancellor to look at a package of investment with no less than £80 billion of new money, equating to approximately 4% of UK GDP, the equivalent investment to that being made by Germany. That would allow for the level of investment needed to secure jobs not just now, but for the future, because we know that Brexit is coming over the horizon.

The Scottish Parliament currently has a very restricted ability to borrow, under a fiscal framework that was not designed with covid-19 in mind. Kate Forbes, Rebecca Evans and Conor Murphy, the Finance Ministers of all three devolved institutions, have come together to seek urgent devolution of the financial powers in these unprecedented times and to be able to have the flexibility to switch from capital to revenue spending. The Scottish Parliament must have the full range of powers to deliver a tailored response and secure a strong recovery for Scotland, otherwise necessary spending on coronavirus will mean cuts elsewhere and fixed budgets. And will the Chancellor be clear on what these proposals today mean for the block grant adjustment?

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has said today that UK GDP could be cut by 2.5% if the Chancellor goes ahead and withdraws the job support schemes prematurely. Roz Foyer, general secretary of the Scottish TUC, has called for the continuation of the scheme, noting that hospitality, tourism, aviation, and oil and gas are in particular need of extended support—and there was not a word about oil and gas in the Chancellor’s statement.

Those shielding and with caring responsibilities will also need ongoing support. Coronavirus is not going away, and there is a real risk that with future outbreaks, such as happened in Leicester, the support will not be there when it is needed. I hear what the Chancellor says about encouraging people back to work and about a bonus for employers who do, but for many people it will not be safe to go back to work. At the start of this crisis my inbox was full of correspondence from people worried about the safety of their workplaces, and people should not be forced to go back if it is not safe for them to do so.

Recent Treasury Committee reports and work by Excluded UK highlight the substantial gaps in the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, with between 1 million and 3 million people left with no support whatsoever. People were furious at the suggestion by the Chancellor yesterday that they have had support; they asked me to assure him again today that they have not. The SNP believes that the Chancellor must fill these gaps and extend the furlough and self-employment income support schemes for as long as each of the four nations require that, so that no one is left behind.



A report by the Social Mobility Commission last week warned that UK child poverty is projected to increase to 5.2 million by 2022, with covid-19 adding to this problem. Now is the time to strengthen measures to reverse rising child poverty, including a £20 per week increase in the child element of universal credit and child tax credits. That will help families put food on the table and clothes on children’s backs at a time when many are struggling. These parents are not eating out. Some of these parents are barely eating at all.

The Tories must also scrap the callous two-child cap, re-establish child poverty targets, introduce a real living wage for all ages and roll out an emergency basic payment plan to protect families. We want to see investment in a national debt plan to support businesses, families and individuals who have been struggling. While I am glad to hear that the Chancellor wants to re-employ jobcentre staff, will he reopen the many jobcentres he closed in Glasgow?

We support a temporary reduction in VAT, and we are glad to see the Chancellor coming forward with plans—we have been calling for this since March. He mentioned cinemas. Will live events also see a VAT reduction in their ticket sales? Gigs and theatres would benefit hugely from being able to offer that. All this sits alongside a 2p cut we are calling for to employers’ national insurance contributions, to protect jobs and reduce the cost of hiring staff.

Our bright, talented young people are worth so much more than 25 hours a week on minimum wage, rather than a real living wage, with age discrimination baked in. For many of those young people, it will not be so much a kick-start as a kick in the teeth to be told to go to work for so little money. Those aged between 16 and 24 have bills to pay too, and they deserve fair pay for their work. I note that the Chancellor cited the higher band of pay for a 24-year-old, not the £6.45 an hour for younger people or the £4.55 that 16 and 17-year-olds get—an absolute pittance. There should be a real living wage for all.

If, as has been trailed, this plan is tied to universal credit, can the Chancellor confirm whether sanctions will be applied to those who do not take it up? What will happen to those shielding or with caring responsibilities? What will happen to those not currently on universal credit—will it be open to them? What commitment will he require from employers not to fire older, more expensive staff in favour of people on this scheme? What will happen after six months? What is open to older people to help them continue in employment? Many young people are already employed in sectors where jobs are disappearing right now. Many are already on furlough. Would it not be less disruptive to maintain that link with employers, rather than make them start over?

The voucher scheme that the Chancellor proposes for green plans is, relatively speaking, tinkering when we look at the comprehensive work that the KfW Development Bank in Germany has done to change the whole conversation around green investment. We want to put significant and sustained investment in the future at the heart of these plans and to ensure that Scotland has the widest possible range of powers to tackle covid-19. Only by doing that can we avoid the worst of this storm and protect both businesses and the health and wellbeing of our people.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I will run through them as quickly as I can. She asked about the block grant adjustment. The OBR will do final costings for these policies in the coming week, and once those costings have been done, the block grant will be adjusted as quickly as possible. It should be done based on OBR costings, as is normal for these matters.

The hon. Lady asked about Barnett. I am pleased to tell the House that the sum total of Barnett funding for Scotland as a result of all the interventions through this crisis is now £4.6 billion, which is going to support similar measures in Scotland to the ones we are providing elsewhere.

The hon. Lady asked about the inclusion of different businesses in the VAT cut. For attractions, I refer her to principal VAT directive annex III, paragraph 7, where the existing legislation is drawn. The guidance will be published tomorrow, for SIs to be laid next week and to come into force on Wednesday. That paragraph has the full range covered in our existing legislation.

It is absolutely important that we invest in our future. This is something that matters keenly to both me and the Prime Minister, which is why, in the Budget, we delivered on the Prime Minister’s ambitions to level up in every part of this country with investment plans that tripled the amount of investment in our country from the last four decades. It is a significant commitment of our level of ambition and support for every part of this United Kingdom, building prosperity for the future by having an investment revolution. The hon. Lady can be reassured that we remain committed to that goal.

The hon. Lady also asked about support for those who are older. Not quite for the first time, although the only other time that we did it was very time-limited, we are introducing a payment to businesses to take on apprentices over the age of 25—£1,500 per apprentice taken on—for the simple reason that while most people think of apprentices as young people, some 44% or so of new apprentice starts are actually over the age of 25. It is important that we provide that financial incentive at this time of economic distress, to try to create as many new apprenticeships as possible, including for those who are older, who will of course also benefit from all the other universal skills interventions that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Education will take forward.

More broadly, the measures that I announced today—the jobs retention bonus for furloughed employees, the kick-start scheme, the VAT cut and the “eat out to help out” discount—are all incredibly significant interventions and all of them benefit the entire United Kingdom. It is important to note, as I have heard from the hon. Lady and other members of her party, how important tourism is to the Scottish economy—something that my Scottish colleagues have made clear to me. Rural communities and coastal communities especially play a disproportionately important part in the Scottish economy. The “eat out to help out” measure and the VAT reduction for these economies will be absolutely vital in driving Scotland’s growth going forward. That is a reminder to everyone that we are stronger together, one United Kingdom.

The Economy

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

First, I want to say that with the Government and the Chancellor there is always a catch. Nothing is quite so shiny once we pull back the label and see what is underneath. I enjoy looking through the statement, picking around for the detail and the unanswered questions that many in this House have raised and did not have answered.

The Prime Minister’s so-called new deal was neither new nor a deal sufficient for the challenge ahead of us—“Build, build, build” was plagiarised from President Duterte of the Philippines—so I have no hesitation in repeating the calls we have made for an £80 billion stimulus to protect household incomes and grow the economy.

Just as the clinical impact of covid-19 has varied over different geographical areas, so too will the economic impact. It has been a global crisis with very localised effects, and the economic response should reflect that. That is why Scotland’s First Minister has proposed that Scotland should have greater financial powers, for example, over borrowing, so that we can shape our own targeted response to this pandemic, meeting Scotland’s specific needs. The potential benefits to Scotland are clear. Where we have had the power, the Scottish Government have spent £4 billion on covid-19 and more than £2.3 billion to help businesses, well above the Barnett consequentials. The Scottish Government, however, are operating with one hand tied behind their back. According to the Fraser Of Allander Institute, the Scottish Government can borrow up to £450 million per annum for capital investment, with a cap of £3 billion. On resource spending, they can borrow up to £600 million per annum, with a cap of £1.75 billion, but only for forecast error and cash management; they cannot borrow to fund discretionary resource spending.

The fiscal framework could not have envisaged covid-19 and must now be reviewed, as a matter of urgency, to allow the Scottish Government the flexibility to respond to this crisis. It is not just us calling for this; the Northern Irish and Welsh legislatures are also calling for this flexibility for their own needs. The Government would do well to listen to these requests, because they are made on a cross-Government, cross-party basis and with good intent at their heart.

I want to talk about some of the choices the Government can make quickly to help recovery in Scotland. Glasgow has five higher education institutions: the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow Caledonian University, the Glasgow School of Art, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and Glasgow University. This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a new report warning that the higher education sector faces losses ranging between £3 billion and £19 billion and that several universities could be at risk of collapse due to the pandemic, yet there is nothing in the statement about this looming crisis.

The Government need to think about how they want to help this vital sector recover and support innovation. At the very least, it would be beneficial to have the graduate work visas extended to those already here on a tier 4 visa and the maintenance of home student fees for EU students. This would be a lifeline post-covid for cities such as Glasgow and for universities across the UK.

Local government is also struggling in Scotland. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) put well the challenges facing local government across the country in the context of dealing with coronavirus and a decade of austerity orchestrated from Westminster. More money to support local government would of course be welcome, but also useful would be the demand from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for a 12-month payment holiday from the Public Works Loan Board, which would be instrumental in helping local authorities manage the constraints arising from covid-19. I urge the Government to consider this.

Local authorities, along with other employers, would also benefit from a reconsideration of the winding up of the furlough scheme, which NIESR has said would result in a 2.5% reduction in the UK’s GDP—a not insignificant sum. I think it would be a grave error to wind this scheme up too early and have repeatedly made my feelings clear on this. Businesses cannot be left to fail. We have seen awful news this week of job cuts across sectors and industries but primarily from businesses in tourism, hospitality and retail, which have suffered the most.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member is making a really great contribution. She is right to focus on businesses in hospitality and tourism. For many of them, the Budget in the autumn will simply be too late. Thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of jobs are at risk this month as the furlough scheme is rolled back from August. Does she agree that sector-specific support for things such as hospitality and tourism could save thousands of jobs and that the Chancellor should provide such support—indeed, should have done so today?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree with the hon. Member. Not all industries are in exactly the same position. Some cannot open now. Some will not be able to open for some months. As hon. Members said earlier, some might not open fully until next year. The International Monetary Fund has said that the UK’s GDP could drop by 10.2%, and the scale of the response must meet the scale of the challenge we face, or we could be looking at years of unemployment and hardship across the UK.

Simon Jack, the BBC’s business editor, made a very interesting point about the scale of the challenge facing business and the gamble that business are now taking. As he said, the calculation facing business owners is: are they prepared to pay 5% of the wages of furloughed workers in August, 15% in September and 24% in October, plus £1,560 from November, to get a £1,000 bonus in January? It will depend on demand that the Chancellor is trying to stimulate with food discounts and VAT cuts. It is a gamble for many businesses, and we can see from all the job cuts in the past week, that gamble means people losing their jobs now.

[Jim Shannon]

It is about not just businesses but charities. The Government have said that £750 million is for charities, but unfortunately they are not helping those charities involved in research and clinical testing. Without the clinical testing, we do not have the medicines that can save lives, which will help this community in the future.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to make that point.

We are all aware that the crisis will inevitably see an increase in public debt, and my ears pricked up at the Chancellor’s mention of the medium-term public finances being put back on a sustainable footing. That better had not mean more austerity, because after the 2008 crisis we saw that the contractionary policy does not work. It spread misery and hardship, and does more long-term damage to the country’s fiscal position. As we move out of the reactionary emergency policy and into more deliberate methods of restarting and rebuilding the economy, a more radical approach from the UK is needed. Growing the economy and tackling the inequalities we have seen during this crisis must be the priority over deficit reduction.

The past few months have seen measures that would not have seemed possible only a few months ago. Although some of the Chancellor’s announcements today are welcome, we need that bigger, bolder and fresher thinking. We cannot rely merely on the private sector to stimulate the economy; the Government must take the lead. The Chancellor’s statement made mention of the green recovery, vouchers and other types of ideas. Let me expand on what I said to the Chancellor about what Germany has done through the KfW Development Bank, which has changed the whole conversation about energy-efficiency in its buildings. The Chancellor could start to do some of that, not by way of vouchers, but by a cut on VAT on building repairs, as that would encourage people to invest in their properties, in energy-efficiency measures and other types of such activity; it could make a real, lasting difference, rather than just being a voucher.

We support policies such as an employment guarantee for young people, and we welcome a temporary cut to VAT to boost consumption, with low rates for the hospitality and tourism sectors. We hope that that will be sustained beyond the six months, if required. Policies such as a 2p cut to employers’ national insurance contributions would also protect jobs and reduce the cost of hiring staff. We also want to see a national debt plan to deal with the debt that businesses and individuals are suffering, in a way that promotes fairness as well as economic recovery. That would mean working with lenders to ensure that loans, mortgages and rent holidays could be extended to those experiencing financial hardship as a result of the crisis and that alternative payment plans are put in place to help prevent people from losing their homes.

I would be keen to see the pilot on no-interest loans for people on particularly low incomes, which has previously been considered by the Treasury, because it would provide alternatives to high-cost credit, which is exploitative and predatory and ruins lives in my constituency and elsewhere. The reason people are often forced to turn to that high-cost credit is the shameful five-week wait for universal credit, which has been named as one of the biggest drivers of food bank usage and rent arrears in recent years. We could be forgiven for thinking that it is just part of the system, so inflexible have the UK Government been on this issue, but it is a choice and they could change it if they wanted to do so. I very much urge them to do that and to look at the fact that there has been no increase in legacy benefits, because many of the people affected have not seen an uplift and are struggling. The Government need to make the choice to spend the money, cut the wait and lift families out of poverty. The single most effective policy in reducing child poverty would be to increase UC payments, and Scottish National party Members are calling for an increase of £20 a week in UC and child tax credits as part of any stimulus package. Such an increase is supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Save the Children and many others, and we need to make sure that these families are not left behind as a result of this crisis. The Government should also look at the position for those people who are not entitled to that—people with no recourse to public funds—many of whom have been left with nothing.

The policies put forward today are attractive to those who have disposable income, but we have not seen many policies for those who have very little income. For families in Scotland it is too often the case that the Scottish Government have been the grown-ups in the room, presenting a clear and focused strategy for delivering economic growth, while tackling inequalities. It is unfortunate that we have had to look at a Government down here lurching from scandal to scandal to self-inflicted crisis. It is little wonder, therefore, that over the past week we have seen in the polls a majority for independence, at up to 54%. It is no wonder that the Government seem so rattled by that, because it is clearly a direction of travel, so perhaps they would like to reflect on those polls when considering the support given by the UK Government to the people of Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has raised this issue with me, and of course we will look into it very quickly.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

To follow up on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), the ExcludedUK all-party group launched this morning with more than 150 Members of this House signing up as members, cheered on by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Will the Chancellor tell me why he has decided that 3 million people are not worthy of support, and why will he not put something in place to protect their incomes?

[Rishi Sunak]

Everyone in this country has benefited one way or another from what we have been able to do. Although people have not been able to be helped in exactly the way they would have liked, we have been able to put in place measures unprecedented in scale and speed, and that meant we did have to make some difficult decisions to implement those policies. None the less, I do believe that, because of the measures that we have taken to strengthen our safety net, for example, everyone, no matter where they are, has access to more support than they did before this crisis began.

[Alison Thewliss]

If the Chancellor listened to the evidence from groups such as ExcludedUK, he would know that that is simply not the case. To turn to some of the rhetoric of the past few days, the Government seem to be trying to imitate the rhetoric of President Duterte of the Philippines and President Roosevelt on the new deal, but the measures do not meet the scale of either of those gentlemen’s ambitions. Does he agree with the SNP that we need a stimulus package of at least £80 billion, including a 2% cut to employers’ national insurance contributions and a reduction in VAT for the hospitality sector, as demanded by the Scottish Government? If he does not believe that those steps should be taken, will he allow the Scottish Government to have the full suite of financial powers that they require to meet that challenge?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady talks about scale of ambition. I am proud of what this Government have put in place and the speed at which we have done so. The jobs of 9 million people have been protected through our furlough scheme; 2.7 million self-employed people have had their income supported; and millions of companies have received access to loans, grants, tax deferrals. In sum, this represents £130 billion of support—one of the most comprehensive and generous support packages available of any country anywhere in the world.

Coronavirus: Job-Support Schemes

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I want to start with two quotes:

“Everyone in this country has benefited one way or another from what we have been able to do,”

and

“everyone, no matter where they are, has access to more support than they did before this crisis began.”

The Chancellor’s answer to me this morning have rung very hollow to those who have missed out on the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme.

My Twitter timeline is full of people infuriated at being left high and dry by the UK Government. Groups campaigning on this matter include ExcludedUK, New Starter Justice, ForgottenLtd, Forgotten Freelancers, Forgotten PAYE, the maternity petition group, those affected by the £50,000 cliff edge, Women in Film and TV, the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, which points out the impact on disabled self-employed workers, the people the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) mentioned who are campaigning on tronc, and the Federation of Small Businesses. All those people in all those groups, estimated to number around 3 million, would dispute the Chancellor’s assertion. They have gone for more than 100 days with no income, and there is no prospect of that changing very soon unless the Chancellor acts. As other hon. Members have pointed out, those are ordinary people. During this debate, a taxi driver who lives in my constituency, who has had to live on £380 a month, has been in touch to say that he risks bankruptcy as a result of this. He has bills to pay—he has to pay for his taxi and the rest of his household bills—but has had no income.

I do not dispute that the UK Government’s intervention has been substantial. The right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) set out quite well the report that came out of the evidence collected by the Treasury Committee, on which I sit. There are many who have fallen through the gaps. The report states:

“the Government must assist these people if it is to completely fulfil its promise to do whatever it takes to protect people from the economic impact of coronavirus”.

The job retention scheme—furlough—has kept many people in employment. By choosing to roll it up prematurely, the Government undermine the whole objective. Businesses fold, and people lose their jobs and are pushed on to benefits, if they are eligible for them at all. There has been a disturbing increase in the number of firms making employees redundant in recent weeks, with reports of some businesses exploiting furlough to cover the notice period and cut redundancy payments.

Businesses that have had no income for months cannot take the additional burden of national insurance costs, followed by an increasing proportion of wages. That is particularly true of hospitality, tourism, travel and the cultural sector as a whole. The engineering and manufacturing sector, which may have fulfilled order books but have not been able to bring in new work due to the lockdown, may also be struggling.

Differential lockdown across the nations of the UK, and indeed within them, also poses a problem for the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) pointed out, if there is a sudden spike in an area, as there has now been in Leicester, once the coronavirus job retention scheme and SEISS are wound up, families will be placed in an impossible situation.

The furlough scheme must stay in place for as long as it is required.

The design of SEISS has meant that people have faced an arbitrary cut-off, which does not exist in the job retention scheme. There are issues with the design of universal credit: I have had constituents ineligible for support because of their partner’s income or because they have been over the savings limit due to their business savings. An emergency basic payment would plug some of these gaps and help to ensure that people have at least some money coming in.

On further administrative issues with the schemes, I would, first, like to be clear that I do appreciate the strain on the system and the work staff have done, even though, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) mentioned, they have also faced job losses. I appreciate the scale of the task, both for Ministers and for HMRC. I would be remiss in my duties, however, if I did not raise concerns about the difficulties that businesses and their employees are facing. Having spoken to businesses in my constituency that are still unable to access the JRS, 11 weeks after it opened, it is clear to me that HMRC has little discretion when it comes to overturning claims, and that this rigidity would appear to be a direct instruction from the Treasury. Businesses have shown me evidence of how HMRC’s mistakes have meant they cannot access the JRS. Often there were delays with uploading real-time information that were not their fault. Online access codes were posted to the wrong place or not at all, and call-backs that were promised never materialised. I should say that HMRC often did not call me back either.

In the case of one business in my constituency, the Sub Club, a much-beloved venue in Glasgow, I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in an email of 22 June, to use any influence he might have to save a stalwart of Glasgow’s night-time economy. Unfortunately, I am yet to receive an acknowledgement of the email, and the Sub Club had to launch a crowdfunder today to keep going. NY Slice has had perpetual difficulties submitting RTI to HMRC. After much to-ing and fro-ing, a complaints handler advised the business on 21 May that its furlough claim had been rejected and there was no right of appeal. The owner contacted me this morning in utter desperation, as he is now being taken to an employment tribunal by staff who had expected their wages. That could have been avoided had HMRC been more reasonable and more supportive.

Glasgow Guild Antiques and Restoration Ltd and KOHI have also faced issues with the RTI registration, as has the Erskine Bridge hotel, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), where 73 employees have been left destitute. The incompetence of HMRC, the failure of its internal processes and its refusal to entertain any appeals, even on the basis of its own mistakes, are needlessly pushing businesses across this country to the brink. The Treasury is aware, yet it seems content with that direction of travel. I beg the Minister to look again at those businesses left on the margins, and to do the right thing by these very viable businesses and their employees.

Lastly, I wish to ask the Minister to clarify the report by Martin Lewis that workers will need to pay tax on vital coronavirus tests. That is utter madness and will completely undermine the hard work of businesses, organisations and all UK Governments across these islands that has gotten us to where we are now. A life-saving test is not a “workplace benefit”, and for HMRC to class it as such shows how completely out of touch the Tories are with reality. I ask the Minister to take action on that today.

The job retention scheme and SEISS have been significant. The Chancellor has a choice tomorrow. I ask him to extend the furlough scheme and SEISS for as long as the UK’s four nations require it, so that nobody is left behind.

Finance Bill

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting & Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

I will not press new clause 32 to a vote, but I hope that Ministers will take the case seriously and bring forward proposals next week in the Chancellor’s statement.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The unprecedented support that the UK Government have given to business during this crisis has been welcomed, but we feel we need a bolder and more radical approach to ensure that the recovery helps to deliver a fairer, more resilient economy, with wellbeing at its core.

Across the parties and nations of the UK, everybody’s aim in this crisis was principally to save lives, but we now face the difficult task of rebuilding the economy after the unprecedented suspension of economic activity over the past few months. There is no doubt that we will have divergent ideas as to how to achieve this, but my colleagues in the Scottish Government and on the SNP Benches here have worked as constructively as we can to produce a clear strategy for the future of Scotland’s economy. That strategy is important, because it is not good enough just to lurch from crisis to crisis. I have now been in Parliament for five years, with two elections in between, three Prime Ministers, and now a pandemic and a likely no-deal exit from the EU at the end of year. We have seen a vacuum of economic strategy from successive Conservative Governments; it is time for this Government to recognise the unique circumstances in which we find ourselves.

We need to rebuild and grow our economy, and we need a vision for what we want that to look like. This crisis has clearly deepened existing inequalities. We have to seize the opportunity to build a new kind of economy that tackles poverty and inequality at its root. Research from the New Economics Foundation has found that only 6% of the public want a return to the pre-pandemic economy. The SNP’s new clause 10 would hold the Government to account on tackling child poverty and require the Chancellor to review the impact of the Bill, because we want to ensure that the inequalities that have widened as a result of this crisis do not continue to widen. We support Labour’s new clause 10, which complements our clause.

Unfortunately, we cannot trust the UK Government to deliver on tackling inequality on their own. In the past couple of weeks, we have seen an intention to return to the punitive regime of benefit sanctions that has caused so many families misery and hardship. How are people supposed to go out to work when they may be shielding, when they may have children at home and when they may put their families at risk by going out to work? It is really quite impossible. I do not know how the Government expect people to do that. They should definitely urgently rethink the proposals on benefit sanctions.

We have seen the Government providing free school meals for children in England only after being shamed into a U-turn Marcus Rashford, and we have seen a Prime Minister more concerned about a £900 million paint job on a plane than supporting families. That gives a real indication of this Government’s priorities. The Scottish Government have taken child poverty incredibly seriously. They have set in statute their commitment—[Interruption.] They are grumbling on the Government Benches; if they would like to tell me why spending £900 million on a plane is more important than—

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

It is £900,000.

[Alison Thewliss]

If Government Members want to tell me why spending £900,000 on a plane is more important than feeding children—[Interruption.] All of it is too much. All of it is unnecessary; when there are children in my constituency and constituencies throughout the country not having food to put on the table, money spent on redecorating a plane is a shame that should stain this Government.

As I was saying, the Scottish Government have taken child poverty incredibly seriously. They have set in statute the commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2030, with concrete action in the child poverty delivery plan backed by the £50 million tackling child poverty fund. Child poverty in Scotland had fallen, but it has been on the rise since the Conservatives took over in 2010. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation directly attributes this rise to welfare policy. In addition, the policies outwith the control of the Scottish Government, such as no recourse to public funds, cause significant poverty among people who are working. Constituents come to my office who cannot put food on the table for their children and who are struggling to pay their bills. Some have come to my office several years in a row to apply for the Christmas presents fund that is run in Glasgow, because even though they are working, they are not entitled to the benefits that their neighbours get; two children may sit next to one another in the classroom but one will go without because one family has no recourse to public funds. The Government must rethink this, because we have seen through the coronavirus crisis that people with no recourse to public funds find it more difficult to support themselves through this time.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Lady is right to say that so much of the responsibility and blame for what is happening in Scotland rests on the shoulders of the decisions taken here by the Conservative Government in Westminster, but I cannot resist asking her: given that between 1999 and 2007 Labour was in government in Holyrood and Westminster, are the people of Scotland not better served when there is a Labour Government here and a Labour Government there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that Scotland just hangs about and waits for a Labour Government, and everything is going to be fine. We would rather have Scotland’s powers in our hands than have one hand tied behind our back in this Union. So we are stuck with the policies that this Government and Parliament propose, which the people of Scotland, in many cases, have not voted for and do not want.

It is difficult to assess the impact that no recourse to public funds has on poverty in constituencies across the UK. I asked for a breakdown by constituency of the number of people with no recourse to public funds, but the Government said that that information could not be provided to me. So I cannot tell how many people in my constituency have no recourse to public funds and are struggling. It falls to the Scottish Government to try to fix some of these problems, because as soon as anything is proposed to get around no recourse to public funds, the UK Government shut it down and say it cannot happen. The Scottish Government therefore have an anti-destitution strategy for no recourse to public funds, to take a degree of responsibility for the serious situation many people face—these are our people and we want to try to help them. When that strategy comes forward, I call on the UK Government not to stand in the way of trying to support people in society who need help.

Academic research has shown that the single most effective policy to reduce child poverty in Scotland would be for universal credit payments to be increased, and the Scottish Government are using the powers we have to invest in the new Scottish child payment, which will lift 30,000 children out of poverty. With UC applications more than doubling since this time last year, we badly need sustained investment in the welfare system from the UK Government, and it is disappointing that the Prime Minister has failed to rule out a return to austerity. The UK Government’s welfare cuts are estimated to reduce social security spending in Scotland by up to £3.7 billion in 2020-21. The Scottish Government are spending more than £100 million a year to mitigate the worst of those, including by mitigating against the bedroom tax. However, as Professor Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, wrote in his report on poverty in the UK:

“Devolved administrations have tried to mitigate the worst impacts of austerity, despite experiencing significant reductions in block grant funding and constitutional limits on their ability to raise revenue. Scotland and Northern Ireland each report spending some £125 million per year to protect people from the worst impacts of austerity and, unlike the United Kingdom Government, the three devolved administrations all provide welfare funds for emergencies and hardships.

But mitigation comes at a price, and is not sustainable. The Scottish Government said it had reached the limit of what it can afford to mitigate, because every pound spent on offsetting cuts means reducing vital services.”

Professor Alston was absolutely right in that assessment.

We cannot, in any circumstances, return to the austerity of the past. The welfare state and public services have been devasted in the past 10 years, leaving our economy vulnerable. Unfortunately, we still do not know if or when a second wave of covid-19 might happen, so we must use this opportunity to build resilience, if possible. We can allow a more flexible labour market response by increasing the generosity of universal credit, which will give people the financial headroom to gain new skills to meet the changing demands of the economy.

The Chancellor said that he would do whatever it takes to protect jobs, after a recent Treasury Committee report revealed that more than 1 million people have fallen through the gaps in support schemes. At this critical stage, it is vital that the Treasury strengthens and extends the schemes to ensure a strong economic recovery from the crisis. It is extremely concerning that the Government are pushing ahead with plans to wind down support schemes, and in particular that new clause 19 will designate grants to help businesses, employers, individuals and members of partnerships affected by the coronavirus crisis as taxable income.

It is also concerning that HMRC will be given new compliance powers to enforce those rules and that that has not been effectively communicated to businesses. Any new powers granted to HMRC must be proportionate and serve to aid recovery, rather than providing a further barrier for businesses to overcome. Those concerns have been backed by tax experts, such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which has said that it is vital that HMRC

“take a reasonable approach to enforcement in cases where recipients of CSPs were not entitled to the amount they received…there will be cases where people have made inadvertent errors in claims which may not come to light for some time. There will be cases where the person just did not know of the requirement to notify an overpayment. It is imperative that HMRC obtain a full understanding of the facts in every case and take a proportionate and targeted approach in their compliance activity in the months ahead.”

It is extremely important that HMRC and the Government get those details right. Many businesses are already on their knees and vulnerable to further shocks. Many businesses in my constituency are struggling to deal with HMRC, with errors in reporting systems meaning that they are not entitled to the payments that other businesses have received. It is difficult to address those problems.

If businesses are left to fail as support is withdrawn, the billions of pounds that have already been spent by the Government will be money wasted. As I did in Committee, I highlight the concerns raised by the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, R3, about the plans to grant preferential status to HMRC in insolvency procedures from December, covered by our amendments 9 to 15. It and UK Finance are concerned that that will undermine business lending and make it harder to rescue businesses from administration. Many companies across the UK in recent weeks have been struggling and going into administration, so the Treasury should carefully consider whether its plans will help businesses or hasten their demise.

Countries all over the world are facing the same choices and growing levels of public debt, but if we are to recover fully from the crisis, we need to prioritise growth and wellbeing over deficit reduction. This week, the Scottish Government laid out a plan for a fiscal stimulus package of £80 billion to stimulate growth for the whole of the UK. That would be used to accelerate major investment in low-carbon energy efficiency and digital infrastructure and deliver a green new deal for UK. The value of that investment can be recognised by assessing the Government’s fiscal sustainability in terms of its public sector net worth.

It is regrettable that the UK will, of course, miss out on the European Commission’s €750 billion stimulus. That makes it even more critical that the UK Government commit to their own stimulus—a proper stimulus, not the pretendy one that was announced by the Prime Minister this week—in the wake of covid-19, such as a reduction in VAT and job guarantees for young people.

Speaking of even younger people, I make a plug for my small and uncontentious amendment 4, which seeks to clarify that human breast milk is part of the vehicle excise duty exemption for vehicles carrying blood. It would be an important signal of support and recognition from the UK Government to those operating milk banks and to the mums donating their breast milk, which helps some of the most vulnerable babies in intensive care units across the UK. Among them is the extraordinary woman who, last week, donated an astonishing 32 litres to the milk bank that covers all of Scotland.

The Scottish Government and my colleagues in Westminster have put a considerable amount of work into formulating a meaningful strategy for Scotland’s recovery and future progress in delivering inclusive growth. I sincerely hope that those policies are taken seriously by the Treasury and that we can look back on this time as a pivotal one for making progress towards a fairer and more equitable society.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

It is an honour and a privilege to be addressing you from these green Benches, Mr Deputy Speaker, and most unexpected for a Wukkington lad like me. It would be fair to say that neither the timing nor circumstance of my maiden speech are as I imagined, with my original timing altered by the loss of one of Workington’s great artists—a much-loved former teacher and my wife’s grandmother—followed by lockdown, and the circumstance altered by a socially distanced Chamber and our new normal in the light of coronavirus.

On that subject, I must pay tribute to the huge sacrifices that each and every one of my constituents has made to stop the spread of the virus and to the huge effort from many individuals and businesses with their contributions to local community and national efforts. If I was to look for one positive in recent months, it would be the way that so many of my constituents have stepped up to the plate to support those around them.

The scale and speed of the Government’s response to coronavirus has been unprecedented. The measures that we have seen across the grant schemes, rate relief schemes, furlough schemes and bounce-back loans have been welcomed by my constituents in Workington. There is more to do and there are lessons to be learned, but I am incredibly proud to be here today to support the Government in their efforts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

Like everybody, I acknowledge these extraordinary times. The world has changed since the Budget was announced in March. All the certainties that we used to rely upon are gone, and things that we thought that the Government would never do, never say or never spend money on are suddenly things that are no barrier whatever. That goes some way to show that the Government can do a lot more when they want to, and that should give us some hope that they may go back on things they have said before.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has contributed to debates on the Bill. I thank the Clerks and the Bill team, who have been so incredibly helpful; I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your sage advice; and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), whose first Finance Bill this is and who has done a fantastic job representing both his constituents and the party.

I also thank our researchers, Scott Taylor and Jonathan Kiehlmann, who have supported us so well throughout this process—with all the amendments that we tabled and having to learn about everybody else’s amendments, it has been a huge challenge to keep up but they have risen to it admirably—and Mhairi Love in my office, who has also done an incredible job while studying for her exams and completing a dissertation. She has provided support to me throughout all that and I thank her for it. I thank the people on Twitter who think I talk too quickly. I swear that I am making an effort to slow down; this is just how I speak.

I repeat the call for evidence that I made at the start of the Bill’s progress. A Finance Bill Committee should be able to take evidence. Other Bill Committees in this House have the practice—for example, the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee for England and Wales took evidence from experts. It seems absolutely ludicrous that Finance Bills, which affect so many different aspects of everybody’s lives, do not take evidence from experts at the start and instead rely on getting written evidence and us scrutinising that written evidence, rather than being able to ask questions about the Government’s policies and find the best way through. I also reiterate that some kind of standing committee on the Budget is very much required to keep an eye on what the Government are doing and how effective their policies and proposals are.

Many questions remain at the end of this Budget process, and I suppose the first of those is whether we will be back here for another Budget in the autumn. Issues such as the loan charge and IR35 are not going away, as much as the Government would like them to. We cannot predict the course of the coronavirus, but we do know that the UK Government’s handling of it has been far from impressive. As I said yesterday, I fear a return to mass unemployment. The Treasury has the toughest of decisions to make, but it ought to put wellbeing and people first, because if we do not have that, we will not have much else to go with afterwards.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady has raised the loan charge; we did not really get a sense of it yesterday, but is the SNP in favour of the loan charge as a substantive matter or against it?

[Alison Thewliss]

We believe that there are still many questions to be answered on the loan charge, not least the revelations in the press during the week over the FOI request that have raised more questions. We want to see further probing on the issue and further support for those people who have ended up losing not only their livelihoods but their homes—and some have lost their lives. It is no light-hearted matter to be considered in such a flippant way.

If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wants to prevent scarring in the economy, he must encourage his colleague the Chancellor to be bolder next week. He must keep the job retention scheme and the self-employment support scheme going, and he must fill the gaps in those schemes when he makes his announcement next week, because too many people have lost out and too many sectors are not yet back to full strength. When that change comes—when people have to pay more of the wage costs themselves—we will see more and more employers doing what many employers have done this week and simply deciding to hand back the keys, fire their staff and wind up their companies. And the unemployment figures will soar.

[Stephen Flynn]

Does my hon. Friend share my particular concern about the oil and gas sector in which we have already seen vast swathes of employees made redundant because the furlough scheme had an end date? The fact that that end date is now coming closer and has not been extended will only compound the difficulties and lead to further unemployment.

[Alison Thewliss]

The oil and gas sector is a perfect example of a sector that needs additional support right now. These are people who have a great deal of uncertainty involving many different factors, not least the oil and gas price at the moment, the need to invest in green technologies in the future and the need to transition in a just way that makes sure that jobs and livelihoods are protected. The Government need to have an oil and gas sector deal to support those jobs and those people and to protect the economy of the north-east of Scotland.

Other sectors of concern include tourism, hospitality and the arts and theatre. There is a huge campaign today for the music sector as well. I fully support those concerns because if we cannot return to these venues, the people who work in them will not get a wage and they will struggle, with many companies perhaps not coming back. They will lose their Christmas season—they will lose everything and perhaps not even be able to come back to theatres and to those kinds of sectors until March. I do not know where the Government expect those people to earn a wage or how they expect them to live, but it is clear that support needs to be in place for the sectors that are affected.

There are stark figures out today from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Its president, Tim Allan, has said:

“It is critical that governments in Holyrood and Westminster continue to provide business support for companies during and beyond the easing of lockdown restrictions. A sudden end to these vital financial support measures would not be welcome by anyone and a tsunami of jobs would disappear overnight.”

Commenting on the results of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce survey, Professor Graeme Roy, director at the University of Strathclyde’s Fraser of Allander Institute, said:

“What is particularly worrying is the employment outlook. The survey shows a clear warning of what is to come, with a sharp rise in unemployment now inevitable as businesses adjust to a new normal.”

Inevitable—a tsunami of jobs lost. It is not surprising that 95% of the firms in that survey reported a fall in business confidence. To boost business confidence, the Government really need to make sure that the schemes continue. The findings paint a bleak picture of the deep economic hit to key sectors across Scotland, once again highlighting the need for strengthened financial support measures to help businesses and industries survive this crisis. Rather than looking to shut down the support schemes and putting increased financial pressure on firms that are already struggling to get by, it is critical that the Treasury extend and strengthen support to protect business and countless jobs.

This Government have all the levers. I only wish that the Scottish Government had at their disposal—as the Government of an independent country—the levers to make such choices. At the very least, the Chancellor should look at the fiscal framework and allow devolution of borrowing powers to the Scottish Government as soon as possible. The Scottish Government’s powers to borrow are incredibly limited, and we do not have the flexibility to meet the economic demands of this crisis. It could not have been envisaged when the fiscal framework was agreed; nobody would have seen this coming. The Government must react and listen to the demands of the Scottish Government.

This Government have a choice. They can invest in green infrastructure and recovery and they can decide to help people, or they can decide to turn off the taps and risk recession and devastation across many sectors of the economy. All I can hope is that they choose wisely.

Finance Bill

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

There is an important principle: while commercial confidentiality should not be compromised, we should move to greater transparency to tackle the problems that lie behind what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I agree with that and I think that there is common cause across the House that that is what we want to do. Clearly, getting a multinational standard will be the right result, but these things have to be led.

In summary, the new clause is part of the noble campaign that is supported across the House, to shine a light on the profit shifting, transfer pricing and tax haven abuse that is used to minimise tax liabilities. The House has already voted in favour of public country-by-country reporting through an amendment to the Finance Bill in 2016, which gave the Treasury the power to make the information public. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will no doubt rely on the prayer of St Augustine, “O Lord, make me chaste, but not yet,” and argue that the UK would not want to implement this reform unilaterally, and he has already acknowledged, in a letter to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) dated 27 February this year, that a multinational agreement to do country-by-country reporting would be a good achievement, but I put it to him that that is too timid an approach.

As we contemplate Britain’s role post Brexit and we set out what we mean by global Britain, let my right hon. Friend stand tall, show leadership internationally, and follow the proud, confident example of David Cameron and George Osborne. Let global Britain lead by example, to the huge benefit of our domestic taxpayers and taxes, and for those in the poorest countries, whose mineral wealth is so often developed without their citizens reaping the benefits they should receive and that they deserve. This reform would be in the finest traditions of Britain’s past international development leadership, and I commend the new clause to the House.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

We support a fit-for-purpose digital services tax. Our new clause 5 seeks a review of how effective the Treasury plan is. It would force the Government to assess the digital services tax’s effectiveness and draw conclusions on that information within six months.

It is unfair that multinational online firms pay less tax than small high street shops, and the SNP has long said that we would support a fit-for-purpose tax, but during the lockdown many people have become adept at finding what they need online, from replacement parts for the oven and a tablet and macaroon subscription in my case, to clothes, trampolines, desks, chairs, food and drink, and this period may well have a permanent effect on how people do their messages.

The high street has been facing difficulties for many years now, under fierce competition from digital competitors. Retailers including Intu, Debenhams, Oasis and Warehouse have gone into administration, and job losses were announced today at Harrods, John Lewis and Arcadia Group—all while online retailers are booming. It is not a level playing field, and it seems only fair that the taxation system catches up and seeks to level it out. I agree with the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) that streaming services are also a huge money-spinner, and I do not see why the UK Government would not want to get in on that action. Taxes going uncollected in an area that is growing would be useful to Treasury coffers right now.

As the digital services tax is a new measure, it is vital that we try to capture how effective it is. By their very nature, online companies can be nimbler than their bricks-and-mortar counterparts, and it is always possible to find loopholes. We will wait to see how successful the policy is, but it is regrettable that the UK failed to implement it alongside international partners, despite countries such as France, Spain and Italy seeking to introduce similar measures. I appreciate the difficulties and limitations of work in the OECD, but co-operation is all the more important in the face of the US attempting to apply pressure to shut down the measure. Steve Mnuchin, the US Treasury Secretary, has stated:

“The United States remains opposed to digital services taxes and similar unilateral measures… As we have repeatedly said, if countries choose to collect or adopt such taxes, the United States will respond with appropriate commensurate measures.”

I wish the UK Government all the best in that fight, but it would surely be wise to enlist other countries for hauners, rather than taking the UK through this alone. I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury updated us on the progress of international co-operation.

On the subject of loopholes, I share the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) made clear in our amendment in Committee on the significance of Scottish limited partnerships. SLPs have been used for a huge and well documented range of nefarious ends, including money laundering, arms running and undermining democracy, yet they are still being advertised as an ideal way to avoid paying tax and hide under a veneer of respectability. It is entirely conceivable that online companies could use SLPs or other such vehicles to avoid their obligations and shift their profits, and we in the SNP want to ensure that the Government are aware of this, and to encourage them to act. The abuse of SLPs has gone on for far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to the other issue that I want to discuss today.

Amendment 20 would delay the imposition of the IR35 rules from 2021 until April 2023. It is very unlikely that the economic crisis we are facing will be over by April 2021, and attempting to implement IR35 will cost jobs and do serious economic damage. A few months ago, the powerful Cross-Bench House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee wrote a report on IR35, and much of what I am going to say involves quotations from that report. I will start with this:

“It is right that everyone should pay their fair share of tax. But the evidence that we heard over the course of our inquiry suggests that the IR35 rules—the government’s framework to tackle tax avoidance by those in ‘disguised employment’—have never worked satisfactorily, throughout the whole of their 20-year history. We therefore conclude that this framework is flawed.”

It is right not to impose unnecessary burdens on business at a time like this. I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East had to say about the importance of preserving—and, indeed, not destroying—employment in the current circumstances. This goes right to the issue of IR 35. The report states that

“the government made this decision after considering the issue too narrowly, in terms of its tax take. It has severely underestimated the costs to business of implementing the changes…And it did not analyse sufficiently the unintended behavioural consequences of the proposed reforms or their wider potential impact on the labour market, and on the gig economy in particular.”

Many contractors in the coming years will be left in an “undesirable halfway house”. They do not enjoy the rights that come with employment, yet they are considered employees for tax purposes. In short, IR35 will create “zero-rights employees”. I am saying this directly to Labour Members, because the idea that a Government action can create a class of employee with zero rights is an issue close to their hearts. Such employees have no rights under employment law but under tax law they are employees.

The Lords Committee called on the Government to commission an independent review to devise a better implementation of the scheme. I think that is exactly right, which is why I want to see another two years before we implement whatever the decision is. We need that time to understand precisely what the effect of our new policy will be.

It would be a disaster if, in the context of the economic crisis and the growing gig economy, the Government accidentally created that class of zero-rights employees with no holidays, no sick pay, no pension, no redundancy —no employment rights whatsoever. We must stop that happening either accidentally or deliberately, and on that basis I ask the House to support amendment 20.

[Alison Thewliss]

I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who set out well the impact that the loan charge has had on many people’s mental health and wellbeing. Many of them will be watching the House tonight.

The implementation of the loan charge has been a disgrace. Our new clause 1 would force the Treasury to come clean on its unfairness and would require a review of the impact of the scheme. That reflects the limitations of Finance Bill amendments, but given the freedom of information revelations released yesterday by the all-party parliamentary group on the loan charge, suggesting that there was too cosy a relationship between Government officials and the staff working on the independent Morse review, looking again at this whole shambles seems appropriate.

It remains a scandal that tax professionals advise their clients to use such loopholes. It is important that people pay their fair share for the public services we all use, and the UK Government must pursue the organisations and individuals who facilitated these loans. An independent review should be carried out of the advice given. As I said in Committee, those who trade in the business of loopholes are surely looking for the next thing to come along, so coming down on those scheme promoters now would prevent future loss to the Treasury.

There is widespread concern that HMRC has failed to work constructively with those seeking a loan charge repayment plan, with concerns that some may face bankruptcy and homelessness. I thought the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden laid that out quite well. He mentioned the seven people who sadly took their own lives.

We continue to call on the UK Government to review the implementation of this policy, and our new clause 1 would force them to publish one within six months, including on the fairness with which HMRC has implemented the policy and whether it has provided reasonable flexibility on repayment plans, with the aim of avoiding business failures and individual bankruptcies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) tabled early-day motion 296 to welcome the publication of Sir Amyas Morse’s loan charge review and the fact that, through this Bill, the UK Government would amend relevant legislation such that loans made before 2010 would no longer be subject to the loan charge. The motion also welcomes the fact that the self-assessment deadline has been delayed until 30 September 2020.

Initial analysis suggests that more than 30,000 individuals will benefit from those and related measures, but a pause in the policy is still necessary to assure MPs that HMRC is working constructively with those who are seeking a reasonable repayment plan—one that recoups the unpaid tax while avoiding the unacceptable risks that people face. If HMRC cannot deliver on that, an independent arbitration scheme should be used.

We on the SNP Benches support the cross-party amendment 55 and new clause 31, which, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) pointed out, has 54 names to it and would provide that a prior settlement with HMRC could be unwound unless the worker failed to account for a pre-2016-17 tax liability in his or her return deliberately, despite knowing that the loan should have been included as income.

It is disappointing to hear that there may be no vote on new clause 31, given how many signatories there are to it and the lobbying we have all had. People watching this debate at home will not understand why. Since we are trading FDR quotes, we should note that he said: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

The Tories have failed to address our concerns about IR35, which is why we tabled amendment 16 to scrap it. Instead of pressing ahead with the discredited IR35 in the Bill, the Government should take the advice of the House of Lords—that is not something I often say, but they should; they should pause this policy and go back to the drawing board. It seems evident that the UK Government have not learned from their previous experience in the public sector and are ploughing on regardless.

On a process issue, we maintain that it was not acceptable that the Government introduced all this through a deeply contentious 45-minute money resolution debate instead of going through the full scrutiny of the Budget process. We have been against IR35 since the start, and these proposals would introduce a new group of zero-hours employees, paying full taxes without the associated employment rights—something that should give us all pause for thought. People working in our constituencies in a huge range of jobs should be entitled to those employment rights.

Under the present economic circumstances, it is wrong to place new and unfair taxes on firms. Contractors are particularly liable to be struggling at this point—not least those who are part of the 3 million people excluded from the UK Government’s support schemes. I pay tribute to ExcludedUK and all those who have sought to highlight this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

A number of constituents in my Aberdeen South constituency have contacted me because they are facing a triple whammy of covid-19, the oil and gas sector downturn, and the impact of IR35. Should the Government not think again?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was going to mention the oil and gas sector, because it is part of the triple whammy. The situation is very difficult for people at the moment and the Government should not be in the business of trying to make it more difficult. They should be thinking again and looking at the circumstances we are in, rather than pressing ahead with something that does not suit these circumstances.

The “check employment status for tax” online tool for IR35 is also problematic. The UK Government have basically tried to replace a complex legal specialty—employment law—with an online quiz, which objectively does not give the same results as the courts in deciding whether an individual is an employee. We have asked questions about the empirical methods used to test that tool, but I have not been provided with any specifics other than it has apparently been rigorously tested. It is hardly surprising that employers feel that these are moving goalposts, and they may avoid the risk by avoiding using contractors altogether. We support new clause 35, which would provide that the IR35 provisions of the Bill would not take effect unless the Treasury had conducted and published a review of legislation on off-payroll working.

Our new clause 12 would make clear the economic hit that would follow the ending of the coronavirus support schemes. Along with many others across the country, I fear that winding up these schemes too soon will prompt companies to lay off staff. The major job losses announced in the past few days really must prompt the Treasury to reconsider this strategy. It is no coincidence that Airbus, Wigan Athletic, Harrods, John Lewis, easyJet, Upper Crust, TM Lewin, Royal Mail, Harveys and Arcadia have all laid off staff today and in the past few days. They are all looking at the scheme and thinking, “How are we going to survive in the next few months without any support for our workers?”

New clause 12 seeks assessments of the impact of the Bill within a month and various economic variables, comparing a situation where the Treasury sees sense and continues its covid support schemes for the next year with the likely reality that it discontinues them as planned, leaving the economy and people’s living standards reeling. The review set out in the new clause would consider the effects of the provisions on GDP, business investment, employment, productivity, company solvency, public revenues, poverty and public health.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) set out quite well his experience of growing up in Glasgow. We still live today with the post-industrial legacy and generation of health harms of the ’80s—with the shutdown of heavy industry and the impact that had on people’s wellbeing. I am determined that we will not see that again from this crisis. The Chancellor must live up to his pledge to do whatever it takes to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods. The Treasury Committee report published the other week said that over 1 million people have fallen through the gaps in the UK Government’s welcome support schemes. In the report, the Committee also asked the UK Government to explore measures to help those newly in employment and self-employment, freelancers and those on short-term contracts, all of whom face barriers to accessing support schemes or have sadly been excluded from them altogether. This is now a choice. The Government cannot say that they did not know that these people were left out. They are now choosing not to support them.

With the ONS earlier revealing that the UK’s economy suffered its biggest monthly slump in GDP on record—of 20.4%—in April due to the coronavirus pandemic, we have renewed our calls on the Treasury to extend the income support schemes rather than wind them down. We need only look at Leicester, where the outbreak has meant a further shutdown, and wonder whether that will happen again. How will people be incentivised to stay at home and protect their friends, neighbours and families if they do not have an income coming in? People cannot survive on statutory sick pay and without support.

There is an effect across different sectors, such as theatre and arts productions, which may not come back until March next year. How are staff in those sectors going to pay their wages without some kind of job retention or support scheme? What about the people in hospitality—many of whom have businesses next to the very same theatres that will not open their doors until March? Where are the pre-theatre dinners if there is no theatre to go to afterwards? The tourism sector faces the prospect of three consecutive winters and cannot survive without support schemes. If we want these businesses and livelihoods to exist, the Government need to pay the money now, because if they do not, they are going to pay it out in unemployment benefits. We also need to look across the nations of the UK. Scotland’s experience is different from those of England, Northern Ireland and Wales. None of the countries of the UK should be punished for putting public health first. With businesses struggling to survive, thousands of jobs on the line, and households taking a severe hit as people’s income drops or they lose their jobs, it is vital that the Treasury strengthens and extends these schemes, and brings forward a comprehensive financial package to ensure that a strong economic recovery from this crisis happens, rather than pushing ahead with these plans.

Our new clause 18 would force the Government to come clean on the damage our economy faces from Brexit in the midst of this crisis. The new clause would require a review of the impact on investment, employment and productivity of the changes to the capital allowance over time; in the event of a free trade agreement with the USA; in the event of leaving the EU without a trade agreement; in the event of leaving with an agreement to maintain single market and customs union membership; or in the event of leaving with a trade agreement that does not include single market and customs union membership.

With our economy already struggling with coronavirus, leaving the EU single market and customs union this year would do unthinkable damage to our economy. It was a bad decision before, but it is a worse decision now. The risk of long-term scarring to the economy is significant, and investment from the UK Government could stave that off, if they choose to do this. Roosevelt’s new deal was equivalent to 40% of US GDP. Germany has invested 4% of its GDP, whereas the Prime Minister has invested 0.2%. It is not just FDR’s clothes that the Prime Minister has attempted to steal this week, because President Duterte of the Philippines, whose “build, build, build” phrase he plagiarised, invested $177 billion in the Philippines economy. The UK response is completely inadequate. It is the emperor’s new clothes, leaving Scotland bare. We call on the UK Government to take up Scottish Finance Secretary Kate Forbes’ plan , which would inject £80 billion into the UK’s economy as a whole. I commend that and our new clauses to the House.

[Andrew Jones]

I share colleague concerns about the prospect of unemployment. One of the best things that happened over the past decade was the growth in jobs, with 1,000 new jobs a day on average. Unemployment in Harrogate and Knaresborough fell to about 2%. The current crisis is, of course, changing that dramatically. We have 9,500 people working in the hospitality sector in my constituency, so I am anxious about that and have welcomed the partial lockdown release this weekend.

The measure to help business prosper that I was most pleased to see in the Bill was the encouragement for further investment in research and development, specifically the increase in the R&D expenditure credit from 12% to 13%. Businesses win in the long term by ensuring that their product or service has competitive advantage—a reason why customers should buy it. I spent 25 years in business before coming to this place and I spent that time making sure that the companies I worked for had the right products for our customers. In some sectors it takes significant resource to develop one’s product, be it automotive or pharmaceutical—both sectors in which this country is strong—or one of plenty of others. There is a strong record of creativity in the UK, but we are not always as good at finding ways to commercialise those ideas, to go from start-up to scale-up. Creating a better environment for the development of ideas is important for the longer-term success of our economy.

I wish to make a few comments on a significant issue before us in this section of this debate, which is off-payroll working. That has attracted much attention and there are clearly some problems to solve, but they are not easy to solve. In some cases, the issue is straightforward, in that people have been working for one employer for prolonged period, perhaps for many years, and they are really employees. They do similar jobs to the person who is sitting next to them and they use the same company equipment, but it could of course be on totally different terms of employment. They could be paid better or less in terms of their headline salary, but the situation is more complex than that because they will not be paid for holidays, pension contributions and so on. I have read of cases where the imbalance of power that can exist between employer and employee has led to pressure on people to choose a particular route—in effect, people being bullied into self-employment by unscrupulous employers seeking to save on costs and national insurance. That is wrong for all parties—wrong for the employee certainly, wrong for the employer, and wrong for taxpayers too, as revenue for public services is missed. However, that is not the case for the vast majority of people. They choose a route of self-employed, freelance or contractor work expressly because they enjoy the challenge of that type of work, or perhaps they want to be their own boss and more in control of their own destiny, or there could be all sorts of other personal reasons. That is a good thing. It is to be encouraged, because the flexibility that that provides has been a great boost to our economy.

Contractors and consultants play a huge role in the economy. Their work is one of the ingredients that has contributed to the recent economic progress. Being swift of foot in response to commercial opportunities is competitive advantage. It has allowed companies to bring in extra resource when they need to boost operational capacity, or extra skills when they are needed. I have been contacted by or met many people, including many in my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency, who have built careers adding real value to their clients. In some sectors, there is more use of contractor work than in others; such sectors include IT and technology more broadly, as well as marketing and the creative industries—sectors where the UK is strong. There is also the growing sector of interim managers.

I see a balance to be struck here—a balance between protecting some employees and recognising that the vast majority have chosen this route and are providing real value; a balance between employment rights and protections, and between those who are employed and self-employed contractors. That balance has to be struck while ensuring that the rules do not have a sclerotic effect on the economy. Flexible and nimble companies responding to their customers, adding value, creating wealth, seizing opportunities—that is how economies grow, it is how jobs are created. Fair taxation, employment protection, company flexibility, highly skilled contractors and freelancers—finding the right balance of these benefits everyone in our economy.

Finance Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here for what is likely to be our final day of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. It is important to remember that the reason why we are discussing clause 99 is in no small part, as the Minister alluded to, due to the Windrush compensation scheme, which is the culmination and inevitable consequence of the appalling circumstances of the aggressive and deeply destructive hostile environment pursued by the Government over the course of the past 10 years. As Wendy Williams said in her review, the Windrush scandal, which saw so many people’s lives completely disrupted, and in many cases ruined, was the result of “foreseeable and avoidable” systematic operational failings, so it is right that the Windrush compensation scheme was established. The House has considered those issues many times.

It is a source of deep regret, to put it mildly, that fewer than one in 20 people who have made claims under the Windrush compensation scheme have been paid so far. I want to take the opportunity, as we are discussing clause 99, to restate again our view that the Government must act much more quickly. People are owed that compensation, although the financial compensation will never fully compensate for the emotional and mental trauma that British citizens suffered as a result of the Windrush scandal.

It is appalling that we have added insult to injury by moving so slowly on compensation claims, even where they have been made. Of course, as the Minister outlined, the clause improves conditions for people accessing such schemes, whether the Windrush compensation scheme or the troubles permanent disablement payment scheme, so we have no objection to the clause.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is regrettable that so many people are still waiting for their money through the Windrush compensation scheme. I urge the Minister to do everything he can to make sure that the money gets out the door.

It is useful that the clause allows for future schemes so that there will, hopefully, be fewer delays and less confusion for people in future about the impact of those schemes. We want to make sure that, where wrongs have been done, people can get the money that they are entitled to in compensation as swiftly as possible.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank both hon. Members for their comments. To pick up on the last point, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about the value of building in capacity to respond more quickly in future. It is noticeable that the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which is well respected across the Committee, commented that,

“This is a sensible move from the government to help… It is also encouraging to see that the bill…will make it easier in the future for payments…to be made tax-free, without the need for fresh legislation.”

That very much remakes the point she made, and I thank her for that.

On the point about the numbers paid out, I completely understand the concern and I know that other Ministers do as well. There is a balance between due process and speed. Of course, the compensation claims have to be agreed on both sides—the offers have to be accepted—for them to be payable. It is important that the hon. Members have put their concerns on the record, and I fully share them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clause 100

HMRC: exercise of officer functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I want to raise some of the concerns expressed to us by the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Tax Law Review Committee, which sent an extensive note earlier in the week. It is looking for ministerial reassurance that the powers will not be used without proper consultation and discussion of safeguards to replace the discretionary decisions, especially about penalties, currently made by human officers. It is the discretionary point that I am most worried about. We must not get to a situation where computer says no and that is the end of the story, because sometimes it can be quite difficult for businesses to get the decision pulled back and unpicked, and reconsidered.

I will highlight the case of uploading real-time information, because businesses in my constituency had serious issues with the technology for uploading RTI prior to coronavirus and now find themselves unable to claim under the job retention scheme, for example. That has been an issue with technology, and it has been very difficult to resolve it. Meanwhile, those businesses are on the brink, on the point of going bust, with employees whom they are struggling to pay. That is because in an emergency it is difficult to unwind a technical, computer-based decision, made months ago.

I ask for reassurance about the automating of discretionary decisions. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure sure that no businesses find themselves in a situation where they cannot unpick a decision made by a computer, and to ensure that they will be able to speak to a human who has discretion and is able to exercise it effectively?

[Jesse Norman]

Again, I thank Opposition colleagues. Let me pick up a couple of the points raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central asks for safeguards, and of course she makes a very important wider point. In a rule of law society we want as little discretion as possible to be exercised—and, in particular, personal discretion—so it is important that within HMRC there is baked in a culture of accountability for decisions. From that point of view, nothing is changing. This measure is ratifying an existing set of arrangements by putting them on a legal basis. However, I can reassure her that the issue of safeguards and the balance of powers between HMRC and taxpayers is taken very seriously, and I have specifically commissioned work within HMRC to ensure that that balance is appropriately maintained, not just at customer level but more generally.

The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ilford North raised the question of decision making more generally. I think I have, in a way, spoken to that, but I recognise that there is a distinction between the automated exercise of a decision and the capacity to make a decision itself. Of course, HMRC does increasingly rely on computerised systems, and it is absolutely right for our purposes as a nation that it should do so. It is, for example, inconceivable that we could have responded to coronavirus with either the self-employed scheme or the furlough scheme without heavy reliance on computing. It is to HMRC’s enormous credit that it was able to commission and bring into effect a platform and an approach to those schemes in a matter of weeks, using that computing expertise. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman when he points out that there are benefits not merely in terms of customer service, but in freeing up people and, we hope, improving the quality of work by taking HMRC staff away from the more routine operations and more towards higher quality work that can give more professional satisfaction.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101

Returns relating to LLP not carrying on business etc with view to profit

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government very much value the important role that contractors play in the labour market and want businesses to be able to design their workforces, and work with those workforces, in a way that makes sense for them. This reform does not change that.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I am winding up, so perhaps I could let the hon. Lady introduce her point in her speech.

When their engagement meets the tests of an employment relationship, contractors should not pay less tax than those who are directly employed. I therefore move that new clause 1 and new schedule 1 stand part of the Bill.

[Stephen Flynn]

Before I get into the substantive detail of this issue, I want to touch on the process and where we find ourselves at this moment in time with the new clause that has been tabled by the Minister. It is simply not acceptable that such a contentious tax matter was first introduced through a 45-minute money resolution debate in the House, instead of being subject to the full scrutiny of the Budget process.

The money resolution debate took place after the Finance Bill was published, meaning that the Government were able to introduce the detailed IR35 tax law as a Finance Bill amendment. The result of what can only be described as a procedural whizz is that Opposition parties cannot do what they were elected to do and amend the proposals as the Bill goes through its line-by-line scrutiny. Frankly, that is not good enough. I certainly thought better—perhaps wrongly—of the Government in that regard. Of course, that entire process missed out those MPs who have been disenfranchised from taking part in the House as a result of the Government’s shocking processes in recent weeks.

        On the substantive issue at the heart of this, let us be clear that IR35 is creating a new group of zero-hours employees paying full taxation but without receiving the associated employment rights. What is just and fair about that? Speaking as a Member with a constituency that is dominated by the oil and gas sector, I have been inundated—inundated—with correspondence from contractors outraged by the decisions that the Government are seeking to take, particularly so given that we are in the middle of a global pandemic. I hope that the huge concern that I and others have about the long and, frankly, short-term sustainability of the oil and gas sector, and the impact that that has on employees, has not escaped the Government’s notice. To then add a further layer of complexity into their employment status is simply unforgivable.

        In the north-east of Scotland, we are witnessing job losses hand over fist. Barely a day goes by when companies are not shedding staff. That is applicable to most sectors at the moment, be it hospitality, tourism or aviation, but it is very rare for a sector of such scale to be so dominant in one city, as is the case in Aberdeen. What the Government are seeking to do in relation to IR35 is a slap in the face to those workers who are having to deal with the most difficult of challenges.

Not only are the Government hitting those contractors—many of whom went down that path in good faith—with IR35, but they are failing to deliver any sectoral support to the oil and gas industry. Not a single penny of sector-specific support has been provided by the UK Government for the oil and gas sector, irrespective of the fact that the Treasury has lined its pockets with North sea oil and gas revenue for decades. It is time to give back, not time to double down on the damage, so I urge the Government to reconsider what they are putting forward.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about contractors in the north-east of Scotland. In my constituency of Glasgow Central, it is IT contractors, many of whom came to live in Glasgow from India. They work in the IT sector and have found that their contracts have not been renewed with companies that they have been working for, and they are now really struggling to find employment, causing them a huge deal of uncertainty at this time, particularly with the coronavirus crisis.

[Stephen Flynn]

I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend, which goes to the nub of the issue that we are discussing. The Government’s policy is, frankly, to turn their back on those people who need support at this time.

        If the Minister is not willing to take my word for that, perhaps they will listen to the salient words of one of their own. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said late last year in a letter to the then Chancellor:

If the proposed changes—making every medium and large sector private business responsible for setting the tax status of any contractor they use—were to come into effect, I would worry for the industry”—

the oil and gas industry—

“and its ability to attract the highly skilled workers they need. It is also predicted that changes could see a worker’s income reduced by up to 25 per cent. Many of these workers are my constituents.”

Many of those workers are also my constituents, and it is simply not good enough. I am glad that there is cross-party support in north-east Scotland for opposing what the Government are seeking to do, and I sincerely hope that that cross-party ethos will be found in this room today, before the Government do more damage.

        I just want to pick up on one final point. I think the Minister said in his opening remarks that he listened carefully—that the Government have listened carefully. They have not listened to the House of Lords—I do not say that with any joy, being a member of the Scottish National party—which has been clear that they need to pause this policy and go back to the drawing board. I urge them to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

We are obviously very concerned about the effects of coronavirus, which is precisely why we have delayed the implementation of the reform by a year. The message I would give is that we absolutely respect and support the work that those individuals are doing and understand the position they are in. The Government have rapidly made available very important sources of support for the economy across a whole range of different areas and sectors of work and, indeed, in the benefits system, both for businesses and families and the sustaining of jobs. Therefore, there is no absence of respect or support for the people the hon. Gentleman describes.

The hon. Member for Ilford North mentioned the diverse nature of these different forms of employment. He referred to the self-employed, but actually the self-employed are not taxed by this. The genuinely self-employed are not affected by the reform. The reform is designed merely to change the way in which the status of someone who is latently employed—actually employed, but perhaps unaware of it or not behaving on that basis—is determined. The hon. Member asks us to use the additional time appropriately. We have got before April 2021. I have said already, but let me say again that we are in the process of commissioning external research into the effect of the public sector reform. As he will be aware, the early research immediately after the public sector reform did not bear out the dire predictions regarding flexibility or reduction of income, but we will make sure that external research into the longer-term effects of the public sector reform is completed and placed in front of the House before April next year.

[Alison Thewliss]

Can I ask the Minister about the impact assessments that will be done? What monitoring is his Department doing of the chilling effect that this is having on contracts right now? What I am hearing from contractors in my constituency is that those contracts are not being renewed now and it is already having a chilling effect, regardless of when the measure is coming in. What monitoring is he doing of the situation?

[Jesse Norman]

As I have said, in relation to public sector reform, the external research did not detect any great chilling effect. We will be looking at the longer-term effects of public sector reform. On this reform, it is undoubtedly true that the measure is nudging some companies to consider whether people they had thought of as contractors are not, in fact, employees. In some cases, they are having to review the structure of their workforces. I do not think that is a chilling effect on the status of those contracts, because those people were always latently employed. It is then for the contractor and the company to work out what future arrangement they wish to have.

[Alison Thewliss]

The IT contractors from India who I mentioned earlier can choose to go anywhere in the world. They have chosen to locate in Glasgow because the work is there, the skills are there and they have a good community in my constituency. If the contracts are not there, they will take their skills and their money and go somewhere else. What is the Minister doing to mitigate against that?

[Jesse Norman]

That is a claim that the hon. Lady makes and we will be able to test it over time through external research. It is not a view that has been validated so far in the roll-out to the public sector. It is a diverse and vibrant area of our life and it may well have more resilience overall than she is giving it credit for, but we will not know until we have seen the effects of the reform.

The final point, raised by the hon. Member for Ilford North, is to do with rights. Of course, the measure is to do with the determination of tax due, but the Government have put in the Queen’s Speech a substantial commitment to bring forward a Bill in that area following the Taylor review. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy take that very seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Review of geographical effects of provisions of Sections 27 to 30

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer must within twelve months of the passing of this Act lay before both Houses of Parliament a report assessing the differential geographical effects, broken down by nation and NUTS 1 statistical region, of the changes made by sections 27 to 30 of this Act.’—(Alison Thewliss.)

This new clause would require a geographical impact assessment of the clauses of the Bill relating to reliefs for business.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

My understanding was that we were breaking after the previous clause, so I will scramble to find my notes. We think it is important to look at the geographical impact of the Bill. I support the new clause tabled by Plaid Cymru, which has suggested that we have a report assessing the

“differential geographical effects, broken down by nation and NUTS 1 statistical region, of the changes made by sections…of this Act.”

What is lacking in this House—I have said this before and I have no hesitation in returning to it—are real mechanisms to explore how effective the measures in the Finance Bill are in reality. My colleagues and I have supported work on a Budget Committee, which has been before the Procedure Committee to look at it as well. We do not understand the effectiveness of the policies and the ideas that the Government have, so we end up with things being proposed in Bills that turn out to be completely ineffective or we find out that they have differential effects from what the Government expected, so they have to come back later to amend things and try to fix their mistakes.

We feel that requiring the Government to consider the geographical effects of the changes to the reliefs, including research and development expenditure credit, would give a better understanding of how effective they are across the different regions and nations and of whether those incentives actually contribute to the continuing inequalities that we see across the UK. We think this is an issue of real importance to Scotland and to Wales for the measures where we do not necessarily have particular control ourselves and where the devolved nations do not have competence. It is important to understand what the Government are about with the legislation they are proposing as well as its impact, and whether the measures are truly seen to be effective.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central makes a reasonable case—that will be a running theme throughout a number of new clauses, not least when we turn to new clause 3 in the afternoon session. I will make the points I want to make about the importance of reviewing the geographical impact of measures in the Finance Bill at that point, but I concur with her remarks.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank colleagues who have spoken. New clause 2 would require the Government to assess and report on the geographical effects of changes to business tax reliefs made by clauses 27 to 30 within 12 months. That relates specifically to the research and development expenditure credit, the structures and buildings allowance, and the treatment of intangible fixed assets.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not routinely require businesses to provide geographical information about where expenditure is incurred as part of their claims for RDEC, SBA or intangible fixed assets treatment. In order to do so, changes would need to be made to the CT600 form, which would create a burden for businesses. In addition, those claiming the reliefs would only provide information after the year-end. For that reason, it does not make sense. It is not possible for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to have that information within the 12 months stipulated in the amendment. HMRC does in fact already publish annual statistics on many tax reliefs, including a detailed breakdown of R&D tax relief claims, which analyses, by region and sector, the number of claims and the amount of relief received. However, the regional analysis is based on the company’s registered office, not necessarily where expenditure is incurred.

Although the next set of annual R&D tax relief statistics will be published by HMRC in the autumn, companies can claim R&D tax relief up to two years after the end of their accounting period. For that reason, the 2020 statistical release will include claims only until 2018-19, and will therefore not include claims for the increased 13% RDEC rate. The Government do, of course, remain committed to levelling up every region and nation of the UK to spread opportunity and to ensure that everyone benefits from growth. For example, the spring Budget provided a £1.14 billion increase to block grants for devolved Administrations to spend on their own priorities. That is in addition to the £2.7 billion that the Government are investing in city deals across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with £800 million of funding being provided to support four deals in Wales alone, and a further £1.4 billion being provided across 10 deals in Scotland.

As we look to our economic recovery from the impact of covid-19, that levelling-up agenda will be more important than ever. Given that the Government already publish detailed analyses and that regional information is collected and held as part of HMRC’s tax returns, asking business to record further information would represent a significant additional business burden. I ask the Committee to reject the new clause.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Treasury Select Committee is also looking at regional imbalances. Part of the Committee’s work has identified that the data collected by the Government on a range of areas is not sufficient. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, “Oh, it’s difficult to do that.” I accept that money is not necessarily spent where an office is based, but it is a start in understanding where that money is going. If lots of organisations based in London are taking in the money and perhaps it is going somewhere else, the Government ought to be aware of that and ought to be looking at it to make sure that if somebody based in London is taking in the money but it is being spent somewhere else, then perhaps they should be based where the money is being spent. Perhaps they should be moving their offices to where the money is being spent. That puts it back on to those businesses, to add to that consideration, so I do not buy the Minister’s argument that it is awfully difficult and that we should not do it. It is a first step into looking at how it might be done, so I would like to press clause 2.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Finance Bill (Tenth sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell.

I will reflect on some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ilford North. The Government down in Westminster are doing such a cracking job of selling the Union that a new Panelbase poll at the start of the month put support for independence at 52%; it had 20% of no voters in 2014 now having swapped to be in favour of independence; and most people wanting to see a vote in the next five years. A great commendation of the UK Government on the job that they are doing is that people in Scotland are regretting at a greater rate than ever before how they voted in 2014.

[Wes Streeting]

Perhaps when the hon. Lady returns to her constituency, she might reassure her constituents who worry about policy making at a UK Government level that, hopefully, we will have a Labour Government again before too long.

[Alison Thewliss]

People can promise things in the never-never—perhaps that will happen, but we do not quite know. But how Scotland ends up getting governed should not be down to whether votes in England sway one way or the other. We would do a far better job of governing ourselves, as many small independent countries around the world do. Many small independent countries are also making a much better fist of dealing with the coronavirus crisis than the UK is—in fact, most countries in the world are, never mind small ones. Look at how well New Zealand has managed the crisis, and how well it has been able to come out of it, under the brilliant leadership of Jacinda Ardern. We have a lot to learn from other countries about how to do things better in so many ways.

We are very supportive of Labour’s new clause 3 and of the complementary new clauses 18 and 21, which I tabled. New clause 18 seeks assessments of the impact of the Bill within a month on various economic variables, comparing situations in which the Treasury ceases or continues its covid-19 support schemes for the next year.

The likely reality is that when the schemes are discontinued, as planned, the economy and people’s living standards will be sent reeling. We know that from the many studies that have been done of people who have taken up the coronavirus job retention scheme—the majority of uptake of the scheme in the hospitality and tourism industries is significant. YouGov polling out yesterday suggested that a huge number of people would lay off their staff if the schemes were withdrawn. The Government need to listen carefully to the experience of people in those sectors on the impact of withdrawing too early.

We feel it is important that that is looked at in the context of the Finance Bill. As everyone has seen, as the Finance Bill progressed from the Budget to where we are now, the world in which we are living changed—changed dramatically—for so many people and their living standards. For the Government to have such a review seems wise.

The schemes covered by new clause 18 are the job retention scheme, the business interruption loan scheme, the bounce-back loan scheme and the self-employed support scheme. We know that the Chancellor has said that he will do “whatever it takes” to protect jobs, but we also know—I am a member of the Treasury Committee, and we have found that from the evidence received from many—that more than 1 million people have fallen through the gaps in the schemes. We need to understand what impact that and the measures in the Finance Bill will have on those groups.

Earlier, the Office for National Statistics revealed that in April the UK’s economy suffered its biggest monthly slump in GDP on record—20.4%—due to the pandemic. We therefore think that it would be wise for the Government to expand the support schemes, rather than winding them down. That is also critical for the devolved nations, which are moving at a slightly different pace, due to the circumstances in which we find ourselves, hence why we want to look at the different nations as well.

In new clause 21, we ask the Government to report on the effects of the Bill in a number of different business sectors. Different sectors will be differently affected. The sectors mentioned in the new clause include leisure, retail, hospitality and tourism, all of which we know from our constituency experiences have been severely hit, with retailers having real problems and many in the leisure sector perhaps falling outwith some of the schemes and finding it very difficult to get started up again. As I mentioned earlier, some businesses in my constituency were unable to access the support for various technical reasons. Financial services, business services, health life/medical services, haulage and logistics and aviation have also been severely impacted. Many bus firms and tour firms are struggling to keep going, which will impact on schools as they return. Many are rural schools and so rely on the transport sector to move pupils around. Those factors need to be considered as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) has spoken a great deal about the impact on the aviation sector, which, in turn, will have a huge impact on the behaviour of BA. The way it is currently treating its staff is absolutely appalling.

We also want to talk about professional sport and oil and gas, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South covered so well earlier. Universities will be hugely impacted by the number and ability of foreign students to come here to work, study and live. Those universities have been in contact with me—indeed, several are based in my constituency and several neighbour my constituency —saying that they are very concerned about their future, which the Government have not really talked about to any great extent. Fairs, too, face problems. I have many show people based in my constituency, and they are also very concerned about the loss of their season and their ability to continue trading, because they do rely on that public-facing role—opening up the funfair to people, taking money and exchanging cash. Without that, they have no income at all. They have very few alternatives. Many may operate things such as snack bar vans, which, again, have not been operating to the same extent as previously.

We are keen to press the Government on these things and to understand the impact of what has been proposed here and to see what schemes are running. I am very happy to move these new clauses in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.

[Jesse Norman]

I rise to urge the Committee to reject these new clauses. Let me say a few things about them and then I will turn to the comments that have been made.

New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to conduct an impact assessment on the effect of household incomes on GDP in each part of the United Kingdom and in each region of England. New clause 18 would require the Government to conduct a review within one month of Royal Assent, of the effect of the Bill on the nations and regions of the United Kingdom if the Government’s main coronavirus support schemes continue for the next year—a hypothetical case if that be so—or if they were ended or changed in any way by a Minister of the Crown. The SNP’s new clause 21 would require the Chancellor to make an assessment of the impact of the legislation on a large number of different sectors and to lay a report of that assessment before the House of Commons within six months of Royal Assent.

We do not think that any of those clauses are necessary. I should remind the Committee that, apart from the provisions relating to the main rates of income tax, provisions in this Bill will apply across the whole of the United Kingdom and will directly benefit households and businesses in every part of the country. They have been developed with careful consideration of their impact on all regions and sectors of the United Kingdom. It is worth just saying that Ministers assess individual measures as well as the package as a whole for the differential impacts that they may have on each part of the UK throughout the policy development process, and they are under a statutory duty to assess the equalities impact of the provisions contained in the Bill, and those have been analysed and published.

In addition, the Treasury publishes extensive distributional analysis of the impacts of this Bill, together with the impact of the Government’s decisions on welfare and public services. What that amounts to is a rigorous and detailed record of the impact of the Government’s policies on households. The Office for National Statistics also publishes monthly estimates of GDP, and analysis of the impact of Government decisions on GDP is also carried out by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is itself independent.

Therefore, between those checks and balances and that degree of inbuilt institutional consideration and the packages of support that we have offered, I think that it should be fairly plain that these new clauses are not required. We continue to monitor the impact of the coronavirus crisis closely as well as the response to the schemes that have been put in place. It is right that we should do so alongside the general continuous review of tax and the economy in relation to policy.

Let me remind the Committee that the Government have a commitment to consult—and they do consult—regularly on new tax policy and tax legislation in order to make sure that as wide a range of views and impacts as possible are captured during the tax policy-making process. We have touched on that matter in a previous discussion.

Let me come quickly to the points raised by the hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Ilford North rightly highlighted the levelling-up agenda, and he was fully justified in doing so. He said that London was a global city and should be understood as such, but that the Government’s attention should properly be on all the regions and nations of the country, and of course I share that view.

The hon. Gentleman talked about centralisation within the Treasury. I have been a trenchant critic of centralisation in the Treasury historically and on the public record, and I think it reached a bit of an apogee under the last Labour Government—I would say that, wouldn’t I? But I still think it is true—there was a tendency to view every problem as potentially soluble by tweaking the marginal costs and benefits of a system. In some respects, we have had to counteract that tendency in order to give us more of an inclusive view of what ultimately are a set of devolved settlements as well as a UK picture.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central said something that I thought was quite bold: that the Scottish Government would do a far better job of governing Scotland than the UK Government do within a UK national framework. Of course, the UK does not govern Scotland; it has areas that are reserved and areas that are devolved, and many areas, including higher education, are devolved in Scotland.

I must say that I share the high regard that the hon. Member for Ilford North has for the history of higher education in Scotland. He will know that for many hundreds of years there were two universities in England and five in Scotland, which represented and reflected a high-quality orientation and a commitment to higher education. Unfortunately, it is in the record that Scottish higher education has not made the same kind of progress under the Scottish National party Government, particularly in relation to minorities and equalities, which is a terrible, terrible shame. I wish it were otherwise. So I would not accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, but I will invite the Committee to reject these clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

Having admonished the Government for their inaction and failures, I hope they will find inspiration from their own examples of the positive difference that they can make in government, if only they grasp the opportunity given to them by the British people at the recent general election. Inequality and injustice do not harm only those who are direct victims, but harm us all, because injustice for one is injustice for all. There cannot be equality for one unless there is equality for all. I commend new clause 5 to the House.

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to speak to new clause 17 and associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford North, with which I broadly agree and support. We certainly support new clause 5, which chimes with our new clause. We live in a society where it is clear and evident that able-bodied older white men do better than almost everybody else, so what we want to see from the Finance Bill is who benefits from the measures within it and how we know that. We do not know that from how the Government have acted, as they have conducted a very light-touch equality impact assessment on the Budget.

The Women’s Budget Group has produced an excellent briefing, and it calls the Treasury out on failing to publish comprehensive equality impact assessments:

“The only impact assessment relating to protected characteristics in the Budget documents are the Tax Information and Impact Notes (TIINS) produced by HMRC. Only a few measures were recognised to have any equalities impact at all and even here the analysis is cursory, based on limited evidence and with a poor understanding of equality impact…In the absence of a meaningful cumulative equality impact assessment of the budget as a whole it is impossible to judge whether the Treasury has met its obligation under the Public Sector Equality Duty to have ‘due regard’ to equality.”

That is pretty damning on the equality impact assessments that Ministers say they have carried out.

Under the measures assessed as having an equalities impact in the equality impact assessment, the Women’s Budget Group notes that for the lifetime limit for capital gains tax entrepreneurs’ relief, the assessment recognises that

“claimants tend to be older, men, of above-average means, and include individuals who are selling their business or their company’s shares on retirement”,

and does not anticipate an impact on any other groups sharing a protected characteristic, but there is no working to show how the Government arrived at that. There is no further analysis as to why they think that no other groups will be affected. It is one thing to assert that, but the Government have to show their working, and they have not done that.

The Women’s Budget Group also notes that the equality impact assessment states that the measure on pensions tax income thresholds for calculating the tapered annual allowance will impact more on men than on women. The assessment states that it is

“not anticipated that there will be impacts on any other groups sharing protected characteristics”.

However, the Women’s Budget Group points out that the family resources survey could have been used to assess the impact by age, ethnicity, disability and various other characteristics, but that was not done. Again, it is not a full equality impact assessment; it is very light touch.

The WBG also mentions the changes to the disguised remuneration loan charge as referenced in the equality impact assessment. The analysis states that,

“broadly the measure is expected to affect more males than females”,

but that it is

“not anticipated that this measure will have a significant, or disproportionate, impact on groups with protected characteristics”.

However, there is no explanation for that. It might well be true, but we cannot tell because the Government have not shown their working.

The Women’s Budget Group analysis also discusses measures where no equalities impact is identified at all, when it really should have been. I do not want to go into all of these things, because they are multiple, and we would be here all afternoon, but I will touch on the changes to the van benefit charge and fuel benefit charges for cars and vans and the taxable benefits regime for measuring CO₂ emissions, which primarily impact on

“individuals who use a company van or car which is available for their private use and/or who are provided with fuel for their private use by their employer”.

Those people are far more likely to be men. We might guess that, or we might anticipate that. The Government’s statistics on driving licences show that in 2018, 81% of men had a driving licence, compared with 70% of women. There are also issues of race, because 62% of people designated as Asian, 52% who are black, and 76% of people who are white have driving licences. That is a clear discrepancy and will have a clear differential effect as to who will or will not benefit from the measures. The Government already have those statistics but have not chosen to do an equalities impact assessment on them. There will be a differential impact because not everyone has a driving licence and those who do have one are predominantly white men.

The Government might want to look at the sectors that would benefit. There may be differences in the types of people who would do jobs with a company car or van. The Government might want to look at those sectors and say, “Actually, there is a disproportionate number of people of a particular background in there.” That has not been done. If we do not count those things we do not know what the impact is. We do not know who benefits and why, or what we can do to make sure that everyone benefits from the measures that the Government propose.

That, I suppose, is just a small example of why the impact assessment is needed. There are clear disparities across society and clear inequalities. If we do not count in the Finance Bill who benefits, why, and what can be done to redress the imbalances that we see in society in front of us, by taxation or other measures, we will never be able to address those inequalities and go to a more equal society.

[Kemi Badenoch]

New clause 5 would require the Chancellor to conduct and lay before the House an equality impact assessment of the Act within six months of Royal Assent. New clause 17 would require him to lay a similar report within 12 months. Those additional reporting requirements are not necessary. The Treasury considers carefully the equality impacts of the individual measures mentioned and announced at fiscal events on those sharing protected characteristics, including gender, race and disability, in line with its legal obligations and its strong commitment to equality issues.

The outcome of all fiscal events is published, and is subject to much parliamentary and public scrutiny. The Treasury also takes care to pay due regard to the equality impact of its policy decisions relating to the covid-19 outbreak, in line with all legal requirements and the Government’s commitment to promoting equality. There are internal procedural requirements and support in place, to ensure that such considerations inform decisions taken by Ministers.

In the interest of transparency the Treasury and HMRC publish tax information and impact notes for individual tax measures that include in summary form assessments of their expected equalities impacts. The system of accompanying tax legislation with TIINs was introduced under this Government, and the notes include headline summaries of equality impacts, as well as other important information that reflects internal assessments carried out as an integral part of decision making.

In addition, the Treasury already publishes analyses of the impacts of the Government’s measures on households at different levels of income, in the “Impact on households” report, which is published separately alongside each Budget, along with trends in living standards and the labour market, by region and income level. That is the most comprehensive analysis of its type available, and it shows that as a result of decisions taking in Spending Round 2019 and Budget 2020 the poorest households have gained the most as a percentage of net income.

That brings me to the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford North and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. They keep talking about the Government not doing enough on inequalities. Actually the Government have done quite a lot, but the hon. Members refuse to acknowledge it. When we have commissions and recommendations the hon. Member for Ilford North complains about a new commission. We have carried out recommendations, and the hon. Members pretend that nothing has happened. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the shadow Justice Secretary. Did he ask him about the progress that we have made on the Lammy report? We have carried out many of those recommendations, but hon. Members stand up in Parliament and pretend that nothing has happened. They continue to use incendiary and inflammatory rhetoric. Is it any wonder that there are people out there who feel that the Government are doing nothing, when so many MPs in this House stand up and say so? It is a shame, and as Equalities Minister I think it is a disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

One thing that we must do in the House is ensure that we speak the truth and not use people from ethnic minority backgrounds as political footballs. It is so, so dangerous. So many people speak in this House who do not take the time to understand the issues we are talking about, but instead come here and try to inflame tensions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow Central is shaking her head. She uses the example of driving licences; I can tell her that the reason why that disparity exists is that the vast majority of black people live in urban constituencies and do not need driving licences. If she came to my constituency of Saffron Walden, she would find that the vast majority of people are white and they need to drive. Once that is accounted for, those disparities disappear. I ask her to take some time to find out the reasons behind—

[Alison Thewliss]

rose—

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, I am not giving way; Opposition Members have had their time. I ask the hon. Lady, instead of trying to give me lectures, to take some time to learn a little more about what is going on. Even the phrase she talks about—“people with protected characteristics”—is wrong; we all have protected characteristics. The Equality Act is for everybody and not for specific groups of people.

On that note, neither of the new clauses would be useful in finding out more about the impact on equality, because the Government regularly publish in summary form the equality impact assessments for the legislation that we introduce. The reports required by the new clauses would not add any genuine value, so I ask the Committee to reject them.

--- Later in debate ---

As we have said throughout, we are living through times like no others. We recognise that. We understand the pressures on the public finances and the need to properly fund all our public services, but it is vital that measures put forward by Government meet the scale of the challenge that the crisis presents, and that the burden of ensuring sustainable public finances is shared right across our society, particularly by those with the broadest shoulders. That burden should not, as it has done over the last decade, fall disproportionately on working people.

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. She has gone into extensive detail, and I am sure everybody will be glad to know that I do not aim to repeat what she said, but the notion of the tax gap, and the fact that money is not coming in that our public services desperately need, particularly at this time, is very serious. The UK Government should be seized of the significance of this, and should do everything they can to eliminate the tax gap.

In many cases, the tax gap arises because of the complexity of our tax system. Those who are looking for loopholes—who are looking not to pay their taxes, and to divert and dodge—find ample opportunity to do so. It is not acceptable that this and successive Governments have played whack-a-mole with all these tax schemes as they have appeared. As soon as one appears, the Government shut it down, and then another one, or several more, emerge. A whole lot more needs to be done on anti-avoidance, rather than our being reactive to all this. A comprehensive anti-avoidance rule, and measures to make sure that the tax that is supposed to come in does so, ought to be a priority for the Government.

Our new clause—it is similar to Labour’s new clause, which we fully support—states:

“The Chancellor…must review the effects on tax revenues”

of the measures in the Act and bring that review before the House of Commons. It asks that

“any change attributable to the provisions in this Act in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid…and the amount paid”

be reported on.

However, I want to touch more on Scottish limited partnerships, because this issue is not going away. The Government have failed to deal with it comprehensively. There is a continuing problem, both in respect of Companies House and in respect of how the partnerships are dealt with; that includes fines not being enforced and collected. Again, that money should be in the Government’s bank account, but if they are not going to enforce the rules, they will not get the fines. The fines would have been quite substantial had they been enforced since the measures came into place a couple of years ago.

The system allows those with an intent to conceal or deceive to do so easily by registering in secret as an SLP. These vehicles have a legal personality that makes them quite different from English limited liability partnerships. It means that individuals can make agreements in the name of the financial product without ever having to name the person or the people who control it. They have been used for years to funnel millions of pounds of dirty money created by illicit business activities, and this is still ongoing.

I can quote headlines to the Committee. There is, “How a Scots council house was secret base for criminals busting Putin sanctions”. There is one about Scotland’s firms and bribes to Argentina and Uzbekistan. There is, “Russian gang leader jailed for faking metal exports to Scotland”, and “Ukrainian mercenaries are using Scottish ‘tax haven’ firm as front”. There are headlines about money coming through Baltic banks, the effect on issues in Peru and a private war in Libya funded by Scottish funds. These are all current or previous issues in which Scottish limited partnerships have been involved. As I said in a previous debate, this is having an impact on Scotland’s reputation in the world. Most recently, just last month, David Leask and Richard Smith, who have been brilliant campaigners on this issue, revealed that more than 700 British firms have been blacklisted in Ukraine for suspicious activity related to money laundering across the former Soviet Union, and all involve Scottish limited partnerships.

That is why we in the SNP keep pushing on this issue; that is why it is so important to us. There is dirty money going around the world, fuelled in part by SLPs and the way in which they work. Also, the Government are not collecting tax on any of this money, and that contributes to the tax gap—the money that is not going to the Exchequer—as well as to global criminality.

If the Minister will not accept the new clause—given all the new clauses that the Government have not accepted, I suspect that they will not accept this one either—I urge him, at the very least, to listen to my concerns and those of campaigners about SLPs, and to take action to close the loopholes, including by fining the companies that are still flouting the rules, which the Government are not doing, and making sure that the money collected goes to the Exchequer, where it can be spent for the benefit of all our constituents.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Members for Houghton and Sunderland South, and for Glasgow Central, for their comments, which I will respond to in due course.

New clause 6 would require the Government to review all tax reliefs in the Bill within a year, while new clause 22 would require the Government to review the effect on tax revenue of the Bill within six months of it being passed into law. These amendments are not necessary. Let me deal first with new clause 6 and then turn to new clause 22.

As Members will know, the Government keep all tax reliefs under review, to ensure that they strike the right balance between simplicity, effective targeting and overall yield. When a new tax relief is announced at a fiscal event, the Government publish estimates of the Exchequer impacts of the policy change in the Budget document.

The Government also consult on new tax reliefs and proposed changes to tax reliefs, bringing in external expertise as part of the policy-making cycle. Officials are constantly working on ways to improve policy development and administration, and management of reliefs.

The Government also conduct evaluations, including of a number of quite significant reliefs, such as research and development expenditure credit, or R&D tax credits, and entrepreneurs’ relief. In 2015, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published an evaluation of R&D tax credits. In 2017, it commissioned an evaluation of entrepreneurs’ relief that led to a series of reforms—most recently, in Budget 2020, a significant reduction in the lifetime limit. HMRC will continue to monitor and evaluate reliefs, and it will bring forward a pipeline of further evaluations in due course.

HMRC is also considering—very much at my insistence—a proposal for a more systematic evaluation programme for tax reliefs, which would respond to the concern raised by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, and it already monitors the effect of tax reliefs on taxation revenue.

HMRC issues an annual tax reliefs statistics publication, which includes estimates of the costs of tax reliefs. It is also undertaking a project to expand its published cost information, and I am pleased to remind the Committee that in May HMRC published cost estimates for a further 47 previously uncosted tax reliefs.

New clause 22 would require the Government to review the impact of the Bill on tax revenues within six months of it receiving Royal Assent. As I have said, the Government keep all taxes under review, and will continue to measure and publish annual statistics on the tax gap.

HMRC’s annual “Measuring tax gaps” report estimates the difference between the amount of tax due to be paid to HMRC and what is actually paid. It provides a breakdown of different kinds of behaviour, taxpayer groups and changes over time. However, the tax gap report is retrospective, with some time lag, due to the dates on which data become available. For example, estimates for 2018-19 are due for publication in July 2020, with some components projected in this year.

In addition, data limitations mean the tax gap is not suitable for evaluation at a granular level. For this reason, it would not be possible to disaggregate the impact of the compliance, for example, of SLPs. Furthermore, the tax gap may rise or fall due to a number of external factors that are unrelated to the actions of the Government.

HMRC also publishes annual reports and accounts, which include detailed information on revenue collection and on additional yield from compliance activity. It is committed to providing transparency to taxpayers about its activities, and these publications are important in demonstrating that commitment.

I now come to some of the points made by the hon. Members for Houghton and Sunderland South, and for Glasgow Central. The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, who I welcome back to the Committee after her period of absence, is absolutely right that tax reliefs can play a valuable role. However, she is also right that there are reliefs that can and should be reduced. That is, as I have said, a matter on which the Government are closely focused.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alison Thewliss]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—

Review of impact of Act on poverty—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct an assessment of the impact of this Act on poverty and lay this before the House of Commons within six months of Royal Assent.

(2) This assessment must consider—

(a) the impact on absolute poverty;

(b) the impact on relative poverty; and

(c) whether such a study should in future be a regular duty of the Office for Budget Responsibility.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the Bill on poverty and consider whether the OBR should conduct such assessments as a regular duty.

[Alison Thewliss]

We had the debate on child poverty earlier in this debate, and it is important that the Government are held to account for the measures in the Bill and their impact on child poverty. They affect many of my constituents and, as others have said, it should not take a footballer to tell the Government that their child poverty measures are inadequate. Public sector reporting duties on sustainable development goals and the importance of action to tackle poverty were mentioned earlier, and the Government have an obligation to deal with that. They are failing so many of our constituents all the time when it comes to child poverty, so it is important that we use all the measures that we can possibly can. I appreciate that the measures to amend the Finance Bill are limited by the way in which the Bill is put through the House, but it is incredibly important that the Government are held to account. They could match the Scottish Government’s tackling child poverty delivery plan 2018-22, which has at its heart the Scottish child payment for low-income families for children under six. We are prioritising child poverty in Scotland because we know how important it is for the life chances of every young person in Scotland.

Without the measures to hold the UK Government to account on child poverty, we fail in the measures that we do not have control of in Scotland. The vast majority of the social security budget and measures are controlled from Westminster, as is the vast majority of tax and spend. We will do everything that we can within our power to mitigate that. The UK Government deserve to be held to account for their record, which is in many respects appalling.

[Wes Streeting]

I rise to speak to new clause 23 that I tabled with my hon. Friends and to support new clause 16. I do not want to disrupt the cross-party consensus among Opposition parties on this particular issue, but I will point out that almost one in four—230,000—of Scotland’s children are officially recognised as living in poverty. That figure is from the Child Poverty Action Group, who used Scottish Government data. It observed:

“In the absence of significant policy change, this figure is likely to increase in the coming years, with Scottish Government forecasts indicating that it will reach 38% by 2030/31. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation suggests the Scottish child poverty rate will be 29% by 2023-24—the highest rate in over twenty years.”

Let us hope that the Scottish Government’s child poverty strategy is a success—children are counting on it. Of course, the Scottish Government—here represented by the Scottish National party—are right to point to some of the impacts of UK Government policy on poverty in Scotland, and we would support them in that, but we also urge them to use their powers under the existing devolution settlement, taking responsibility for the fact that significant numbers of children in Scotland live in poverty. That is on the watch of an SNP Government who have been in power for a significant period now. I hope that next years’ Scottish parliamentary elections shake out some of the complacency that we see in Nicola Sturgeon’s Government.

[Alison Thewliss]

I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Also, bodies such as Sheffield Hallam University have pointed to the fact that Scotland mitigated the bedroom tax. Child poverty in Scotland has been mitigated because of such actions—where we can take action, we have taken action—while children in his constituency still have to face the bedroom tax.

[Wes Streeting]

Children in my constituency suffer under a Conservative Government—the hon. Lady will get no disagreement from me on that. Of course, where the Scottish Government take steps to mitigate the impact of Westminster Government decisions, I have no doubt at all that they will receive cross-party support from my Scottish Labour colleagues, but the point about the Scottish Government accepting responsibility for what happens to people in Scotland has to be a feature of the debate. One of the reasons why I admire Nicola Sturgeon as a politician and political leader is the skilful way in which she always manages so eloquently to pass the buck down to London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

We will look at the effects of that and at whether it will be adequate to meet the challenge the Scottish Government have laid down for themselves.

We have now reached the end of this process. I have found it very exciting, and I thank all colleagues for the work that they have done. With that in mind, I reject the new clauses.

[Alison Thewliss]

I wish to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson]

Further to that point of order, Mr Rosindell. I would also like to put on record my thanks to you and Ms McDonagh for being so fair and generous in allowing us to speak at some length about our concerns on the Finance Bill. You were exceptionally generous—at times, and arguably today, a little too generous—when it came to some of the wider conversations we had around interesting and irrelevant matters around Scottish separatism. Doubtless we will return to that at a later stage.

I put on record our thanks to the Clerks for all the help that they have offered us, particularly around amendments and the order of proceedings—their expertise at this time is particularly appreciated by us—and to the Hansard reporters.

This is the first opportunity I have had to lead on the Finance Bill in Committee. It has been made much easier thanks to the wonderful support of Members on the Opposition side, not least our wonderful Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington.

I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions. I am sure the Financial Secretary has enjoyed talking to more technical aspects of the Bill, although he did particularly relish opportunities to elucidate on Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, and on the transcendental nature of what might be regarded as temporary, or otherwise, when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham.

I also thank those individuals and stakeholders who have been very generous in providing advice and information to the Opposition, and, of course, the House of Commons Library, whose staff are, as ever, very prompt and professional in their response to all research requests.

Although this is a small Finance Bill, compared with some recent efforts, I thank my staff and those in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North for their dedication and hard work, and for allowing us to hold the Government to account. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I look forward to returning to some of these issues on Report.

[Alison Thewliss]

Further to that point of order, Mr Rosindell. I echo others in thanking you and Ms McDonagh for your excellent chairing; the Clerks for all they have done to keep things moving smoothly; my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South for signing up to come and do the Finance Bill with me, which was much appreciated; and our small research team, Scott Taylor and Jonathan Kiehlmann, who have worked incredibly hard to bring a range of amendments and new clauses to the Committee, and who have had even more pressure than the other parties and the Government have had. I am incredibly grateful to them.

Finally, on independence, as long as we are here in this House—hopefully it will not be too much longer—we will press our cause if we can. I am sure all hon. Members will miss us once we have independence.

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central wish to move any of her remaining clauses?

[Alison Thewliss]

No, Mr Rosindell.

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South wish to move new clause 23?