Finance Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Review of impact on corporation tax revenues of global minimum rate of corporation tax—

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer must within six months of Royal Assent lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the effect on corporation tax revenues in 2022 and 2023 of a global minimum corporation tax rate set at 21%.’

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the revenue effect of a global minimum corporation tax rate of 21%.

New clause 12—Review of impact of Act on investment—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—

(a) business investment,

(b) employment,

(c) productivity,

(d) GDP growth, and

(e) poverty.

(3) A review under this section must consider the following scenarios—

(a) the United Kingdom reaches an agreement with OECD countries on a minimum international level of corporation tax, and

(b) the United Kingdom does not reach an agreement with OECD countries on a minimum international level of corporation tax.

(4) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.’

This new clause would require a report on the effect of the changes in the Act on investment, comparing scenarios in which (a) the United Kingdom reaches an agreement with OECD countries on a minimum international level of corporation tax and (b) the United Kingdom does not reach an agreement with OECD countries on a minimum international level of corporation tax on various economic indicators.

New clause 22—Eligibility for tax reliefs—

‘(1) For the purposes of Clauses 9 to 14 and 109 to 111 no tax reliefs shall apply to companies registered or with subsidiary companies registered in countries or jurisdictions listed in the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes.

(2) The Secretary of State shall also have the power to list additional jurisdictions or countries as non-cooperative jurisdictions for the purposes of subsection (1) that he/she perceives to be non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes.’

This new clause would stop companies registered, or with subsidiary companies registered, in tax havens from benefiting from the UK Government tax reliefs in this Bill.

Amendment 1, in clause 9, page 4, line 2, at end insert

“provided that any such company which has more than £1 million in qualifying expenditure must also make a climate-related financial disclosure in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures within the 2021/22 tax year.”

This amendment would, in respect of companies with qualifying expenditure of over £1 million, add a condition relating to climate-related financial disclosure to the conditions that must be met in order for expenditure to qualify for super-deductions.

Amendment 29, page 4, line 2, at end insert

“provided that any such company must also not be liable to the digital services tax”.

Amendment 30, page 4, line 2, at end insert

“provided that any such company which has more than £1 million in qualifying expenditure must also—

(i) adhere to International Labour Organisation convention 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining, and

(ii) be certified or be in the process of being certified by the Living Wage Foundation as a living wage employer.”

Government amendment 2.

Amendment 31, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

“(11) Expenditure shall not be qualifying expenditure under this section if it is incurred by a company which has at any time been involved in arrangements giving rise to a liability for diverted profits tax, or which would give rise to such a liability but for the effect of section 83 of Finance Act 2015.

(12) For the purposes of subsection (11), involvement in arrangements shall include being connected within the meaning of section 1122 Corporation Tax Act 2010 to any company involved in such arrangements.”

This amendment would bar multinationals with a history of corporate tax avoidance from accessing super-deductions.

[James Murray]

The vaccine has given us all hope, but we know that the health crisis from covid is far from over, and the impact on jobs, businesses and the economy resulting from the pandemic will be with us for a long time to come. People across our country and British businesses that have been struggling want to be able to get back on their feet. This Bill should have offered them the support they need to do so, but instead the Government chose to make half of all people in the UK pay more income tax, and its headline measure for businesses, quickly and with good reason, earned the nickname, “the Amazon tax cut”. This Amazon tax cut was proudly announced by the Chancellor as the new super deduction—a £25 billion tax cut that he has said represents the biggest two-year business tax cut in modern British history. What he was less keen to make clear is that this tax cut is not targeted at British businesses that have been struggling in the outbreak, but stands to benefit some of the biggest multinational tech firms that have done very well indeed over the past year or so.

As we have heard during previous debates on the Bill, small and medium-sized businesses can already benefit from the annual investment allowance. That allowance, extended by clause 15, offers a 100% tax break on investment up to £1 million, and we know that it will benefit almost all businesses already. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said exactly that. He stated very clearly in a written ministerial statement on 12 November last year that the annual investment allowance:

“Simplifies taxes for the 99% of businesses investing up to £1 million on plant and machinery assets each year.”

We pushed the Government on this matter in Committee of the Whole House, when the Financial Secretary claimed:

“The super deduction benefits all businesses that are in a position to take advantage of the eligible deduction it provides”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 764.]

He will know, however, that the 99% of businesses already benefiting from the annual investment allowance will benefit only marginally from the new super deduction.

The real winners of the super deduction were identified in Committee of the Whole House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who made the powerful argument that it will most benefit

“the companies with oven-ready capital investment plans, benefiting from the increased demand that they have enjoyed over the last torrid year—companies such as…the notorious tax avoider Amazon.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 751.]

As that phrase reminds us, Amazon already avoids paying much corporation tax in the UK at all by shifting profits to low-tax countries overseas—I will return to that point shortly—but it is depressing that, through his super deduction, the Chancellor is finishing the job Amazon started and wiping out the last little bit of tax it pays in this country.

As the House may remember, we asked the Government to look again at this matter in Committee of the whole House. Our amendment at that stage would have explicitly prevented the biggest tech firms from taking advantage of the Chancellor’s tax break, as well as other big firms that do not support workers’ rights and the living wage. At the time, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury objected to our amendment on the basis that it sought to

“restrict the relief only to certain companies”—[Official Report, 19 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 742]

and that it imposed “burdensome conditions” on companies that want to benefit from it. That latter phrase told us plenty about the Government’s views on people’s rights at work. The conditions the Minister saw as “burdensome” are the rights to organise and to be paid a living wage. When even basic rights at work and a living wage are seen as burdensome, it is perhaps no wonder that this Government broke their promise to include an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech earlier this month.

It is clear that we will need to push Ministers over workers’ rights on future days—from banning the shameful practice of fire and rehire to ending exploitation by rogue umbrella companies—as cross-party amendments tabled to this Bill by right hon. and right hon. Members seek to achieve. Today, we have made it very straightforward for the Government, through amendment 29, to focus specifically on preventing the very biggest tech firms—those companies liable to pay the digital services tax—from benefiting from the super deduction. This should be easy. Only a very small number of very large multinational firms that have done very well over the past year are liable for the digital services tax. The detail of that tax means that businesses are liable only when a group’s worldwide revenues from digital activities—such as providing social media platforms, search engines or online marketplaces—are more than £500 million, and when more than £25 million of these revenues are derived from UK users.

The vote on this amendment will come down to the very simple question of how Members of this House believe public money should be spent. As the Bill stands, the Government’s biggest business tax cut in modern British history will finish the job Amazon started, wiping out the last bit of tax it had to pay on the few parts of its business the profits of which it has been unable to shift overseas. A vote in favour of our amendment 29 would stop Amazon and a small number of similar firms benefiting from a giveaway of public money—public money that could be better spent for so many purposes, including to support British businesses that have been struggling throughout the past year. I urge Conservative Members to consider how they vote on amendment 29.

Before we come to that vote, I will turn to our new clause 23, through which we seek to push the Government finally to back President Biden’s plans for a global minimum corporation tax rate. I have explained how the Government’s super deduction will wipe out Amazon’s remaining tax bill in the UK, and how the amount it was due to pay in the first place was paltry compared with what it should be paying. Despite its business success in the UK, profit shifting to Luxembourg meant Amazon’s corporation tax contribution in the UK in 2019 was less than 0.1% of its turnover. People are fed up with large multinational companies avoiding their tax. It goes against the fairness that must be at the heart of our tax system, and in this year of all years, when so many British businesses are struggling to get back on their feet while Amazon’s business booms, it is clearer than ever that change is long overdue.

We have heard brazen claims from the Government about their work to combat international tax avoidance. In the debate in Committee of the whole House on this Bill, the Minister went so far as to claim that the Government have “led the international charge” in a number of ways, yet since the Biden Administration announced their proposals for a global minimum corporate tax rate, we have seen that, not for the first time, actions from the Government fail to match their words, with the UK now the only G7 country not to back the US plan. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to grasp the international agreement on the global taxation of large multinationals that has evaded our country and others for so long, yet rather than stepping up, our Government are stepping away.

--- Later in debate ---

With a level playing field that is fair, our British businesses will succeed, thanks to the great quality of the goods they produce and the services they provide. The Government should be taking a lead on this once-in-a-generation opportunity. Our challenge to them is for them to seize this chance at a global deal that would bring billions of pounds into our country, stop British businesses that pay their fair share being undercut, and instead support them to thrive. That would be the fair approach that the British people expect their Government to follow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The House has become familiar with having a time limit for every item of business, but I hope that we can manage to consider this stage of the Bill without a time limit. I appeal to Members who are taking part to have consideration for other Members, and not to speak for too long. How long is too long? More than five minutes is too long, but if somebody takes five and a half minutes because they are making some important points, that would be fine. If the occasional person take interventions and it comes to six and a half minutes, that would be fine. But if people take longer than is necessary, I will have to impose a time limit, which makes for a less good debate. Let us try to behave like parliamentarians and not take too long. That puts a tremendous amount of pressure on Stephen Hammond.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure the House will benefit from your strictures towards my speech, and I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on the amendments. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) rightly says, the OECD-Biden proposals are an attempt to ensure a multinational, legal framework to ensure that multinational countries pay tax in the countries from which they derive that revenue. Unlike him, I think any sensible look at history will show that this Government have led the way on this since 2010. There can be no suggestion that they have not led the way on ensuring that multinationals should not be able to shift profits to avoid taxation. They have tried to lead the arguments on securing, over many years, a multinational, multilateral agreement on where revenues and profits are derived and how those are taxed. Across the House, we ought to recognise that the Government have been trying to achieve that and that they support it. It has been true since 2010. One of the former Chancellors, George Osborne, led the way on the matter.

The OECD proposals, as the hon. Gentleman put it, are in two pillars, as we all recognise. Pillar one rightly seeks to address the matter of base erosion, as the UK Government have done historically and continue to do. Pillar two, however—I think he failed to recognise this point—would go well beyond what is normally considered to be within the ability of national states, in terms of using the flexibility of fiscal policy to ensure that investment and incentives are properly rewarded within their economies, and may well have some perverse effects on a number of multinational industries, such as the insurance industry. Given your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall not give my long peroration on that matter.

However, the key point is that there is a difference between what the Government have been trying to achieve—a multilateral, multinational agreement on the need for a combined approach, which I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will wish to speak about at the G7—and a legal, minimum international tax rate. It is right that Governments still retain the ability to set fiscal measures according to their economic circumstances. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support—as the Government do—the international agreed approach to ensure that we tax multinational companies on where they derive their revenues and profits.

The problem with new clause 23 is that it talks about a review of the impact of the global minimum tax, but in reality, it is superfluous, because many of the consequences of setting a tax rate of 21% can easily and readily be calculated. The OECD discussions on the precise nature of the agreement are still under review. Therefore, speculating about how that might assess and impact on different economies could hinder the global efforts to achieve that aim.

Finally, as I am sure the Financial Secretary will wish to assure the House, the Government have already agreed that as, when and if there is a global agreement on minimum taxation, they will—when they are a party to that—ensure that the Office for Budget Responsibility assesses the impact for the UK economy and globally. So while this new clause is an interesting amusement for the House tonight, it is superfluous and I wholeheartedly encourage the Government not to accept it.

The hon. Gentleman spoke a bit about the need for investment and for addressing the historical UK underperformance in that area. We all agree with that. As we seek economic recovery post-pandemic and, in the longer term, as we build a cleaner, greener and stronger economy, clearly, the problem of underinvestment has to be addressed on a long-term, sustainable basis. However, it is clear that what the Chancellor has done, with what is popularly known as a super deduction, is likely to bring forward investment in the economy at just the time it is needed. There is an element of saying that, of course, we want to concentrate that on any number of small businesses that may not benefit from investment relief and this may or may not be at the margin, but it may or may not be at the margin that it has the greatest impact. I think the super deduction, which the Opposition seek to criticise, will do exactly that. They want the OBR to assess the impact in other areas of the Finance Bill, but the OBR has already made an assessment of this particular measure in the Bill, which is that it will derive at least 10% extra investment in the UK economy. At this stage of our economic recovery, that seems to me to be fundamentally important, so I hope that the Government will push ahead with the super deduction, as they are doing in this Finance Bill, and even consider it on a longer-term basis as well, because it is hugely important that we address the under-investment in both physical and human capital. Therefore, Government amendment 2 to clause 9, which will allow leased buildings to qualify for that super deduction, seems to be eminently sensible.

Given your stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I could share with the House another 15 minutes of brilliance, I shall now sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I, too, will abide by your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, to keep my speech as short as possible.

When I was an economics correspondent a very, very long time ago, tax competition between countries was all the rage. There was a sort of mainstream consensus that it was a good thing because it helped give countries an incentive to be an attractive place to do business, but in the last couple of decades it has become clear how easy it is for international companies to run circles around national rules and reduce their tax bills by shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, and we end up with this outrageous, unconscionable position of some of the world’s largest companies paying some of the smallest corporation tax rates. That causes anger across the UK and on both sides of this House; we are all aligned in the objective of ensuring that big companies pay a fair share of tax.

This Government have been doing an awful lot, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) recognised, to try to tackle this issue both within the UK and internationally, including through measures such as the diverted profits tax, the digital services tax and changes on tax to subsidiaries. When I was chief executive of the British Bankers Association, I was involved with a lot of the implementation of those rules.

We need to take measures internationally as well; this is an international problem, so ideally we need an international solution. The difficulty, though, is getting an agreement between a large number of different countries. Normally these sorts of discussions go through the OECD, which is so big that it is difficult to get agreement and progress is absolutely glacial. That is why, on things such as the digital services tax, the UK has opted to act unilaterally before an international agreement can be agreed. I very much welcome the fact that the initiative is now being led by the G7, because we are far more likely to get agreement from seven major countries, and then to expand that out to the G20 and then to the OECD.

As we have heard tonight, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), these are complex negotiations. There are two interlinked pillars at the OECD: the scope of the tax and the level of the tax if there is a global minimum rate of corporation tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, there is no point in agreeing a global level of corporation tax if all we are doing is taxing companies in California; the two parts of the negotiations are intertwined. I very much welcome the fact that Government are involved in these negotiations. I completely respect that they may wish to negotiate more in private than in public, as that is often the best way; I know that their intentions are absolutely right.

That brings me to new clause 23. It is the wrong review at the wrong time. The new clause asks the Government to review the corporation tax set at 21%, but, as the hon. Member for Ealing North said, it actually looks like Joe Biden and the US are now looking at 15%, so this proposal is already out of date and it has not even been voted on yet. It is also at the wrong time because what we do not want to do in the middle of an international negotiation is tie our hands, display all our cards and show what we are doing. It could create a dynamic in the negotiations that would actually set back the UK’s ambition to ensure that companies pay a fair rate of tax. I therefore fully support the Government in rejecting the new clause. I also fully support them on reaching a strong global agreement to ensure that the world’s biggest companies pay their fair share of tax.

I hope that that was less than five minutes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Definite brownie points for the hon. Gentleman.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is great to follow so many passionate and powerful speeches from my own side of the House in this debate. I am perplexed at the situation Ministers have got themselves into, seemingly exposed by the US President on their real agenda on taxation. In the last year, the pandemic has not just shone a light on the deep inequalities in our society; it has driven and deepened those inequalities like never before. Millions of people have been plunged into insecurity while a small number of the very richest have seen their fortunes surge, with 24 new billionaires in the last year, despite everything else that has been going on. Key workers have put their health and lives on the line for the benefit of others to ensure that their neighbours were fed, people were treated when they were sick and society kept moving, while some bosses at companies such as British Gas and British Airways used the pandemic cynically to drive down pay and terms and conditions through shameful fire and rehire tactics, and all the while the Government have stood by and done nothing. While millions were excluded from Government support and then ignored, if you knew Ministers or had donated to the Tory party, there were billions of pounds of public money in lucrative contracts, handed out without competition or transparency.

So if the Finance Bill was an opportunity to fix a rigged system that was failing communities up and down the country, the track record of this Government tells you that they are incapable of taking that opportunity. The decades-long race to the bottom on corporation tax may finally be coming to an end with the proposal to raise the headline rate in 2023, but alongside it measures in this Bill will do more harm than good when it comes to fair taxation and plugging the hole in the nation’s finances. As we have heard, the super deduction is a £25 billion giveaway to big business. TaxWatch calls it “The Amazon Tax-Cut” because it could entirely wipe out the UK corporate tax bill of Amazon UK Services Ltd. The Times reports that it will allow companies to write off investments in swimming pools, interior decoration and Jacuzzis against their tax bills.

Ministers just are not serious about making tech giants pay their fair share of tax. In fact, Ministers are now rowing back on key commitments they made to tax transparency. Since 2016, the UK has had the power to lift the lid on multinational company accounts through country-by-country reporting, but it is clear that the Government have reversed their original commitment to do so. Instead Ministers are now actively blocking the OECD from publishing the data at an international level, signalling what the Tax Justice Network called a dangerous “regression into tax havenry”.

The UK has been moving in the wrong direction, backing secrecy over transparency, tax havens over progressive taxation and multinational corporations over small and medium-sized UK businesses. That is an agenda that no doubt delighted President Trump, but the election of President Biden now means that the US has done an about turn, and it is time Ministers caught up.

The US is now leading on international tax reforms that the UK has been sabotaging for years—tax reforms that would stop multinationals hiding profits overseas and establish a global minimum tax rate of up to 21%. These are reforms that would raise billions from tech giants and stop Amazon, Apple, Google, Alphabet and Facebook from shifting their profits from the country they were made in to tax havens. While every other G7 country has responded positively to President Biden’s plan, the UK Government continue to block the best opportunity in a generation to curb corporate tax abuse.

The Government, no doubt emboldened by the Trump regime, have been on the wrong side of tax transparency and tax reform for a number of years, but the pandemic has exposed the grave cost of an economic system that prioritises the interests of corporate giants over people and local communities, because wealth does not trickle down—it never has. Rather, it is sucked up, away from those who do the work and who contribute to society, and towards those who set the rules, reap the rewards and, all too often, avoid paying their fair share. That should change now.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]]

It would have been an even bigger pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) if he had announced what actually happened in the Scottish elections last week, which in fact resulted in a majority for people absolutely supporting independence. However, I want to talk about this Queen’s Speech, which is more notable for what it does not include than for what is in it, especially in relation to employment issues and even more especially in relation to employment issues experienced by people with disabilities, who, according to this Government’s own figures, equate to 20% of the UK population.

This Government have failed to deliver the employment Bill that they promised in the last Queen’s Speech, and they are missing the opportunity to protect workers’ rights and close the disability employment gap. They must ensure that all employment schemes such as Kickstart and Restart are fully accessible to disabled candidates on an equal basis. A failure to do so further increases the disability employment gap.

Time and again, disability groups have called on the Government to make disclosure of disability pay gap information mandatory, so that a full assessment can be made of the pay inequalities in the workplace. The re-elected SNP Government are committed to expanding the specific duties that require a listed public authority to publish gender pay gap information to include disability and ethnicity pay reporting and to ensure that these are included with equal pay statements, but without action from the UK Government, we will never gain a full picture of the level of equalities that disabled workers face.

This Queen’s Speech does nothing to address statutory sick pay, which is wholly inadequate. It is one of the lowest in the OECD and a barrier to disabled workers remaining in employment. Disabled workers who experience ongoing illness often give up employment as they cannot live on SSP. If the UK Government are serious about closing the disability employment gap, they must provide sick pay that treats workers with dignity. The SNP continues to demand that the UK Government increase SSP in line with the real living wage, that they make it available to everyone by removing the requirement to be a qualified worker and the earning requirement, and that they extend it to 52 weeks instead of 28.

For many disabled workers, flexibility in their working hours enhances their ability to successfully continue in employment. It was said that the employment Bill in the 2019 Queen’s Speech would encourage

“flexible working, ensuring that both employers and employees get the maximum benefits from flexible working”

and that

“the Bill will make flexible working the default unless employers have good reason not to.”

Why is that not in this Queen’s Speech? The SNP would also like the UK Government to provide guidance to employers on reasonable adjustments and create statutory timescales for implementation. Too many disabled workers either struggle in work or leave because they are ignored when they request adjustments. A legal responsibility must be placed on employers to meet disabled workers’ needs.

The pandemic has exacerbated the barriers that disabled people face when looking for and staying in employment, which has had a disproportionate impact on disabled employees. That has led to an increase in the disability employment gap. What is in this new legislative agenda for disabled people in terms of economic recovery and employment support? There is nothing new to help those who have suffered disproportionately.

Given the commitment and ambitions of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, it is obvious that employment powers would be better utilised by them, as opposed to being in the hands of another Tory Government who have prioritised the wealthy over the workers. That is why the SNP continues to call for the devolution of employment law. Scotland’s ability to tackle unfair working practices and fully protect workers’ rights remains limited while employment law is reserved to Westminster.

It costs someone more to live if they are disabled—an average of £530 a month or more—and this Queen’s Speech does nothing to correct that. Nearly 1 million disabled people still receive income-related support allowance, rather than universal credit. There is no uplift for them during this pandemic. That means that, on average, £100 for a non-disabled person is equivalent to just £68 for a disabled person. Let us just think about that. There is still an opportunity for the UK Government to deliver for disabled workers, and for workers generally, by implementing Members’ asks on statutory sick pay and mandatory reporting and by extending the uplift in universal credit—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Lady. I hope that she was about to come to a conclusion, but she has significantly exceeded her time, so I am afraid I have to stop her there. I do not think that she can hear. I do not know quite how the system is working today. I was trying to give her some leeway, but I have to stop her now. I call Tobias Ellwood.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). I totally agree with him that levelling up has to be very much about better jobs and a fairer deal at work.

The scale of the challenge of levelling up is huge. As I said in my intervention on the Chancellor, the economic disparity in productivity and economic output per capita between the north-east and London and the south-east is, in relative terms, as large as it was between East Germany and West Germany prior to reunification. It took 30 years and $2 trillion in investment and incentives for businesses to narrow that gap, and it is still not fully narrowed.

The other lesson from Germany is that this cannot be done just by public sector spending; the private sector has to invest too. According to Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, there is an economic gap: overall economic activity per capita is £45,000 in London and the south-east, and £18,000 in the north-east. That leads, of course, to a gap in prosperity, which is what levelling up has to be about. Average wages are £41,000 in London and the south-east, and £28,000 in the north-east.

This is a huge challenge. It is great that the Government have a real ambition and the right scale of ambition. The good news is that this is not a zero-sum game. If we get the whole economy firing on all cylinders, the very fact that household consumption accounts for 58% of overall spending in our economy means that it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy: when all areas become more prosperous, there will be more spending—more economic activity. That has to be good for everyone.

The Government have made a historic start, not just in the amount of money they are spending—they have pledged to spend £600 billion on infrastructure over the five years of this Parliament, a 50-year high; the highest public sector net investment in the past five decades—but in where they will spend it. In the past, the Green Book has allocated expenditure principally where the well-paid jobs are. Creating 100 new jobs in London and the south-east, at £41,000 each, will mean a much better return in terms of value for money than creating 100 jobs in the north-east, so obviously, the Green Book has always prioritised investment in London and the south-east.

The Government have quite rightly changed that; strategic objectives are now part of the equation of where money is spent. I very much welcome that. It is critical to this discussion. The Government have also promised to change where we invest in infrastructure for housing through the housing infrastructure fund, on pretty much the same basis. That is a really good start in terms of public sector investment in infrastructure—roads, railways and other things.

The Government are also moving jobs around the country, with the UK infrastructure bank coming to Leeds and Treasury North to Darlington, and the Cabinet Office going to Glasgow. That just shows what we can do with public sector moneys in terms of levelling up. Of course, there is also the huge green investment that the Government are going to make with taxpayers’ money.

The key thing, though—we must learn the lesson from Germany—is that this cannot be about one Parliament. It cannot be subject to electoral cycles; it has to be a much longer strategic investment. This has to happen over 30 years—and, as I said, it cannot just be about public sector investment.

Mark Littlewood, the director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, wrote a very interesting article about this in The Times. He asked, if this is all about infrastructure—if prosperity is about connectivity, in terms of roads and railways—why is Doncaster not more prosperous? The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), will no doubt reflect on that. Why is Doncaster not more prosperous? It is very well connected. We need the private sector to invest alongside; that is the key thing. We can do that through devolution and get our excellent metro mayors, from either side of the political divide, to attract more private sector investment in their areas. It would help tremendously to have greater tax incentives in some of these areas to attract foreign direct investment. We do not have a regional policy for foreign direct investment. That would help tremendously. Enhancements of things such as the enterprise investment schemes for those regions, which would encourage private investors to invest in their region, could have a transformational effect on the public sector investing in those areas. Finally, regional mutual banks could have a transformative effect on local investment by connecting investors with SMEs in the regions that need investment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, the time limit will reduce to four minutes, but with five minutes, I call Caroline Lucas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Good jobs and decent working conditions have always been central to the Labour party’s core mission. Prosperity and patriotism are the mutually reinforcing foundations upon which our Labour movement is based, and although we in the Opposition recognise that good pay is utterly crucial we also know that work is about dignity, pride and contribution. It is about being part of something bigger.

In my Aberavon constituency, I see that desire to be part of something bigger every day—from the NHS workers who have saved so many lives to the manufacturers who have provided them with PPE, and the steelworkers who have continued to build the foundations of our modern economy. Yet over the last 11 years we have seen an exponential increase in insecurity across all sectors of our economy—from the two in five adult workers who do not yet know their shift hours for next week to the exploited gig economy workers denied holiday pay, the workers sacked by British Gas and then rehired on worse conditions, the high street workers with the threat of internet shopping looming over them, and the factory workers who could be the latest victims in the erosion of our manufacturing base that we have seen over the last 11 years.

British workers are the greatest asset that this country has, yet successive Conservative Governments have utterly failed to value their contribution. Many on the Conservative Benches celebrate flexibility and fluidity, yet flexibility without real choice means insecurity, and fluidity without proper investment in reskilling means mass unemployment. Tackling insecurity at work should therefore be a top priority for any Government, so where on earth is the long-promised employment Bill? Its omission from this Queen’s Speech is simply unforgivable.

It is important to recognise that during the pandemic 50% of the workforce did not work a single day from home. It is many of those workers, who are still going into work or who have been furloughed, who are the most likely to be at the sharp end of the job market, with their jobs often the most at risk from automation, the digital economy and the green revolution. It is these trends—and, crucially, how the Government respond to them—that will define Britain’s success in the years ahead. Of course, the trade union movement must be at the heart of this response. The modern job market will evolve, but the basic principle will always remain: the most productive and competitive companies are those that give their workforce a strong voice. Good industrial relations deliver good business results.

I therefore suggest that there should be three core principles at the heart of the Government’s response: first, dignity at work with new legislation protecting the rights of employees, not least to outlaw fire and rehire; secondly, partnering with business and trade unions for a new kind of growth to deliver the jobs of the future, recognising where Britain can be competitive but also that the less celebrated foundational industries such as steel are critical for our security; and thirdly, a properly resourced programme of training and retraining aimed at the jobs of the future. There is no point in trying to address the productivity crisis if we keep cutting the workforce out of the conversation; there is no point in investing in further education if the jobs are not there; and there is no point in decarbonising our industrial base if the local workforce is not trained up and if jobs and carbon emissions are simply offshored. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, has so rightly said, our communities do not need sloganeering about levelling up; they need good jobs. She said:

“We need jobs you can raise a family on”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Richard Holden. Is the hon. Gentleman appearing virtually? No. I call Wendy Chamberlain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson).

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said in February that

“you shouldn’t have to leave your home town to get a good job”.

That really resonated with me. Equality of opportunity will always be a myth when jobs are unevenly distributed throughout the UK. That is despite the excellent work by the previous Labour Government in bringing Siemens to Hull and ensuring that we have that much-needed direct rail route to London.

That uneven distribution of jobs has been made worse by a decade of Conservative cuts to infrastructure and public services. The pandemic has only exposed the inequality that has always existed. But now is the moment for a clear, bold vision to ensure that our economy works for everyone. There is a revolutionary change happening right now in the way that we work. We must seize this opportunity to bring more jobs home to Hull and the east riding, and you can do this just by clicking a button. So the Queen’s Speech was very disappointing. I did wonder whether it was written for the world that was rather than the world that is right now.

Let us look at what other countries are doing around the world. The Irish Government have just announced a target to move 20% of Ireland’s 300,000 civil servants to remote working by the end of the year. Spain is looking into that as well. Ireland has seen the revolution in home working, which was brought about by the lockdown, and recognised that an opportunity exists to redistribute jobs across the country, bringing the same opportunities to everyone, regardless of where they live. That approach is the right one.

I am proud to say that Hull is already prepared for this home-working revolution. Not only do we have low-cost housing—people living in London will be astounded to know that they can buy a beautiful property in Hull for around £168,000— but, in 2019, we were declared the first full-fibre city in the UK. KCOM now provides 99% gigabyte speed coverage through its fibre optic broadband network and the fastest upload speeds in the country. However, we do not just offer affordable living and nice broadband; our Labour group on the city council had the vision to make Hull the City of Culture in 2017. Since then, it has continued to regenerate the fruit market area, and secured £30 million for our maritime history project and the £130 million Albion Square development. There is also exciting private investment in the old shopping centre, Princes Quay, which includes a clubbing space in the basement, which looks like brilliant fun.

These developments recognise that the retail landscape has changed and that it will not change back. We need the Government to back councils such as Hull which have the vision to reinvest in their retail opportunities and to re-imagine their city centres. I would like to take this moment to thank council leader Steve Brady for all that he has done for the city, as he prepares to step down later this year.

People can truly take the opportunity of this revolutionary change in working to live in Hull and work anywhere. All the Government need to do is to look at what is happening in Ireland and Spain. It costs very little—it could in fact save the Government money—and it brings jobs to Hull.

Of course, not all jobs are suitable for remote working and many require face-to-face communication. I have said many times in this place that Hull is the caravan-building capital of the UK and I am incredibly proud of that. What I would like to see, as the Government move forward, is legislation on fire and rehire and a look at increasing the minimum wage. All our key workers deserve a reward. All those people who have, let’s be honest, put their lives at risk going to work face-to-face deserve some benefit from it. So I hope that the Government will think again. They should write a Bill and a Queen’s Speech for the world that is right now and not miss this opportunity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The next two speakers are both participating virtually and they will continue with the time limit of four minutes. Starting with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), the time limit will be reduced to three minutes—yes, I can see him tearing up the final page of his speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Prime Minister has given the United Kingdom the highest covid death rate in the world and the deepest economic recession of the G7 and given billions to Tory donors for procurement contracts. On top of that, we have a Brexit deal that will cut our economy by 4% and 1.4 million jobs. Now, we have a Queen’s Speech that attacks our fundamental values: democracy, human rights and the rule of law. His Bills in this Queen’s Speech will mean that he decides when the general election is called. They will make it harder for poorer people to vote, harder to challenge Government decisions and harder to protest against them. Alongside this, we have seen the weakening of the BBC, the civil service, the universities —our fundamental institutions. Meanwhile, as we loosen the ties with Europe, our biggest and closest market and friend, that will weaken both our economy and our values.

Millions of voters from poorer and more diverse communities will now be required to have voter ID, and that will reduce voter turnout. That is, in essence, voter suppression. In addition, the abolition of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 means that the Prime Minister can call the election when he likes. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill opens the door for right-wing intolerance in our universities. The judicial review Bill and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill allow the Prime Minister to suspend our parliamentary democracy without the Supreme Court being able to intervene, as it had to in 2019 to safeguard us, and reduce the ability of the courts to challenge the Government’s decisions, which is fundamental to our democracy.

Our devolved democracy, in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere, is also under attack from the centralisation of economic and political decision making, which risks creating a divided economy in the name of the Union, despite the fact that, in last week’s elections, we saw a mandate for more, not less devolution. To top it all, we have the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which would undermine or stop peaceful protest. Such protests have been the lifeblood of our democracy, promoting democratic change whether through the suffragettes, peace campaigners, trade unionists, EU supporters or climate change activists. We have now seen in the Clapham Common vigil and the Bristol protests against the Bill that the police have enough power and there is an issue of accountability.

These changes are the hallmarks of an emerging authoritarian state, so let us remember that our Queen Elizabeth gave her first Queen’s Speech when Winston Churchill was Prime Minister and the architect of the Council of Europe to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Yet now, 70 years later, she must present an agenda that puts these fundamental British values at risk. It is for all of us and people across these lands to defend those values, and I hope in the weeks ahead Members will do just that. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The time limit is now reduced to three minutes.

Capital Gains Tax

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Double Taxation Relief (Sweden) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March.

[Jesse Norman]

Both orders insert important provisions recommended by the OECD’s and G20’s base erosion and profit shifting project—BEPS—into existing double taxation agreements. For those Members who may, surprisingly, be unfamiliar with the BEPS project, it was an international effort to equip countries with the right domestic and international regulations to tackle tax avoidance. The BEPS provisions ensure that double taxation agreements fulfil their main purpose of facilitating global trade and investment. In addition, the provisions simultaneously limit the opportunity for the agreements to be used for tax evasion or avoidance.

Usually improvements to our bilateral double taxation agreements recommended by the BEPS project are made under a treaty commonly referred to as the multilateral instrument, which makes it possible to modify double taxation agreements in line with BEPS project provisions without the need for bilateral renegotiation. However, the domestic legal systems of both Germany and Sweden mean that it is much simpler for these countries to modify their double taxation agreements through amending protocols rather than through a multilateral treaty. As a result, the UK Government have agreed with both Germany and Sweden to implement these modifications through the protocols attached to these orders. These changes included introducing minimum standards to prevent avoidance through the abuse of tax treaties and improving the resolution of disputes.

The protocols with both Germany and Sweden give effect to the minimum standard on preventing treaty abuse. This is achieved by inserting a general anti-treaty abuse rule known as the principal purpose test into the double taxation agreement. Both protocols also changed the preamble of each double taxation agreement, which sets out its overriding purpose in order to clarify that the parties do not intend for the agreement to be used to avoid tax. The orders also make changes to the articles in both double taxation agreements that govern how disputes are avoided and resolved. These amendments ensure that the articles are in line with the minimum standard on improving dispute resolution. However, the Germany protocol implements a rule to prevent the artificial fragmentation of activities that might result in an overseas business avoiding a taxable presence. Sweden is not in favour of this provision, which is why it is absent from that protocol.

These orders make good on the Government’s international commitments to tackle tax avoidance and evasion and to improve dispute resolution. They strengthen the integrity of the UK’s network of double taxation agreements, which plays such an important part in facilitating the cross-border trade and investment that benefits all our nations. I commend the orders to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

This is the first time I have stood to speak in the House since January 2020. During the past year and a bit, like so many of our constituents, I have been battling with the black dog of depression. I know that so many people have, and I crave your indulgence for a small moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Please, if you know somebody who has not been themselves recently, reach out to them, ask them if they are okay, let them know it is okay not to be okay. Offer them help but, most importantly, let them know that you are there when they are ready to talk, or if they are ready to talk. It is hugely important that all our constituents understand they are not battling this alone. There are so many of us.

I have a few questions on these two orders, and I am delighted that somebody else, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), has criticisms of the explanatory notes. I have got on my high horse about this. Do not worry, I could talk for 30 minutes—we could be here for far longer than that—but I promise I will not.

The explanatory notes are generally not very good. They do not give us enough information, and the specific issue of significant impact is a concern. The rules on explanatory notes in the “Ministerial Code” state what “no significant impact” means, but I would consider these orders to have a significant impact. The definition in the “Ministerial Code” needs to be broadened and, in general, explanatory notes for all Bills need to be better at explaining. We also need more impact assessments to be provided with Bills, because we need to know the impact on the public sector and the private sector, and on charitable organisations. The definition needs to be much wider than if a measure meets a certain threshold of millions.

The SNP supports these orders, and we look forward to the UK working more closely with other EU partners, including, in the future, an independent Scotland. On the tax evasion issues that may occur as a result, the UK, even though it has the treaty general anti-avoidance rules, still does not have a comprehensive general anti-avoidance rule for taxation. The SNP has stood on that platform, talking about it on a huge number of occasions, and it is unfortunate that the Government have not yet been willing to come forward with comprehensive regulation, particularly when HMRC is saying there was a tax gap in 2018-19 of £35 billion, which is 5.6% of the total tax liability. We need to have that rule.

The shadow Minister spoke about minimum corporate tax levels and the Biden plan. It is important that the UK Government, instead of attempting to water down these proposals, stand with them, support the need for a minimum corporate tax level and, for once, stand to strengthen international tax law rather than to weaken it. The UK Government have not, in many recent years, taken the lead on this. If we are to be this wonderful, independent nation that the Conservatives suggest that we are, it is right that we should take the lead on tax measures and say absolutely that we support the minimum corporate tax level and that we are backing it to ensure a better, more level playing field internationally.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am sure the whole House will have heard what the hon. Lady said. She is courageous to give her advice here in the Chamber, and people would do well to listen to her advice. We are glad to see her back.

Covid-19: Government Transparency and Accountability

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wragg]

May I just say that we always enjoy my right hon. Friend the Minister’s appearances before our Committee, and I would not wish to reduce those in number or diminish them in quality. I say in her defence that we are tired of Ministers being sent to us who have been set up to fail, because they have not been part of the decision-making process. It is not they who are accountable, but rather those who are in more senior positions in those Departments. To continue to treat Committees in such a way is, I am afraid to say—I have resisted saying it so far, although it says it in the report—contemptuous of this House.

This debate has been filled with the usual suspects, and many of us are considered if not slightly eccentric then certainly on the boundaries of madness. We have made these points many times. Fortunately, repetition is not a cardinal sin in this Chamber, otherwise there would be very few of us left.

I thank all members of the Committee for their contribution to this important report, and I thank all those of my hon. and right hon. Friends and, indeed, all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. Again in defence of my right hon. Friend the Minister, I am reminded of the words of Teddy Roosevelt in “The Man in the Arena”. I would replace the word “man” with “woman” in this context, but he said:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles”.

I just wish we were given fewer opportunities to point out those stumbles and give those criticisms. It is a challenge to each of us as a Member of this House, whether Government or Opposition, to provide that legitimate challenge. I have understood the restrictions on how we have conducted our business, but the first rule of the game is to show up, and now that we can do so safely, I urge all Members of the House to start turning up again to this place and to urge the House authorities to get a move on so that we can conduct our affairs properly and hold the Government rightfully to account.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Eighth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Government transparency and accountability during Covid-19: The data underpinning decisions, HC 803.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will briefly suspend the House in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 1)
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 109 stand part.

Clauses 110 and 111 stand part.

That schedule 21 be the Twenty-first schedule to the Bill.

Government amendments 43 to 52.

That schedule 22 be the Twenty-second schedule to the Bill.

New clause 4—Eligibility for capital allowances and stamp duty land tax relief for freeport tax sites—

“No company shall benefit financially from the provisions of sections 110 or 111 unless the company—

(a) recognises a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining with its workforce,

(b) is certified by the Living Wage Foundation as a living wage employer,

(c) is taking steps to reduce its carbon emissions, and

(d) publishes details of its equality pay gap and has a published plan to reduce disparities.”

This new clause would ensure that the benefits of capital allowances and relief from stamp duty land tax for freeport sites apply only to companies that meet certain criteria relating to employment and environmental credentials.

New clause 5—Economic impact of freeport tax sites—

“(1) Sections 109 to 111 shall not come into force until—

(a) the Secretary of State has published a report, commissioned from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and

(b) the report has been debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

(2) The report in subsection (1) must forecast the impact of sections 109 to 111 on—

(a) Government and local council tax revenues,

(b) economic activity in areas directly adjacent to proposed freeports,

(c) UK productivity, and

(d) the provision of jobs paid at more than the median wage.”

The new clause would make the commencements of sections 109 to 111 dependent on the Secretary of State publishing a report that would allow Members of Parliament to assess the economic case for freeports, and on both Houses agreeing that report.

New clause 25—Review of freeports—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of sections 109 to 111 and schedules 21 and 22 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act and once a year thereafter.

(2) A review under this section must estimate the expected impact of sections 109 to 111 and schedules 21 and 22 on—

(a) job creation within the sites designated as freeports and across the UK as a whole,

(b) revenue from corporation tax and stamp duty land tax within the sites designated as freeports and across the UK as a whole,

(c) levels of artificial tax avoidance and tax evasion across the UK as a whole,

(d) levels of criminal activity,

(e) the necessary level of staffing for HMRC and the UK Border Force, and

(f) departmental spending by HMRC and other departments on enforcement.”

This new clause would require the Government to review the impact of the provisions of the Act introducing freeports and publish regular reports setting out the findings.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). Before I begin my short remarks on the Finance Bill, I would like to put on record—because I was not able to be here yesterday—my condolences and those of my constituents to Her Majesty the Queen on the death of the Duke of Edinburgh.

This Finance Bill follows a year of unprecedented economic disruption unknown in the modern era, as well as a year of unprecedented support from the Government to business and individuals, ensuring not only their jobs but their lives and livelihoods. That has been true for millions of citizens, including those in my constituency of Wimbledon. This Finance Bill therefore needs to enact measures that ensure not only that our economy is in a place from which to recover and bounce back, but in one from which we can also see sustainable future growth—growth that is clean and green.

We all know the OBR forecasts that were set out in March; I will not reiterate them now. What is clear to me from reading economic commentators since then is that people are now expecting the economy to grow more quickly and more strongly, and for that recovery to be more sustained. That must be in large part due to measures in the Finance Bill that build the necessary confidence and give people necessary security for the future, including the extension of the universal credit uplift; the one-off £500 to those on working tax credit; the job retention scheme; and the self-employment income support scheme. All those measures are combined with the restart grants of up to £6,000 for non-essential retail and £18,000 for hospitality businesses. Those provisions are now extended to my constituency; initially the £51,000 threshold was not in place. I have to say to the Treasury Bench that I am extremely grateful on behalf of the hospitality industry in Wimbledon.

My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury will not be surprised that I wish to make two very quick points about the people who have been left out. First, I make the plea yet again on behalf of the English language teaching sector. Those schools received no support and are hugely important to constituencies across the country. Secondly, I know that my hon. Friend will have read clause 117 and schedule 29 on the prevention of tax avoidance and promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The explanatory notes state:

“This clause and Schedule have also been introduced in order to see the responsibility for the obligations within POTAS, and for any failure to comply with them to be placed on the people and entities behind the schemes.”

I have to say to my hon. Friend that a number of us have stood up for what we believe to be hard-working small businesspeople who have been in those schemes and recommended those schemes, and we feel that if that clause had already been in place, many of those people may not be suffering from the problems of the loan charge now. Even at this late stage, if she has the chance to talk to colleagues about this issue, we would be very grateful.

It is clear that we need a Finance Bill that looks at investment and improving infrastructure, so that we see improvement in productivity. I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who set out the clear economic rationale for the super deduction. It is a vital measure to encourage business to invest now. Historically, the UK has underperformed; we have failed to invest at similar levels to our economic peers. It is investment that drives some of the factors that I mentioned a moment go when it comes to improving productivity. Therefore, supercharging investment through a super deduction means that we are likely not only to strengthen, but to lengthen the economic recovery. That seems an entirely sensible, welcome and rational economic measure.

It is also likely that we want to see measures that improve not only physical infrastructure and capital formation, but human formation. I particularly welcome the support for new apprentice hires in the Bill. I encourage the Government to think a bit more about this, as it is the way of the future. Could we not link the new apprentice scheme to, for instance, the length of the super deduction? The super deduction is in place for two years, while the new apprentice scheme is in place for six months; I encourage the Government to think about linking the two. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that human capital formation and investment in skills are as important as physical formation.

Like many colleagues, I was fascinated to hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who spoke at length about driving growth through innovation and the adoption of new technologies. Of course he is right. When one talks to a number of the people at whom the super deduction is aimed, one learns that it will be commonplace—it almost is now—that they will be investing in things such as AI, 3D printing and big data. Alongside that, we will need a workforce that has in-demand skills, so I particularly welcome the investment in digital skills and the lifetime skills allowance that the Bill will introduce.

Many Members have referred to the freeports policy, which clearly brings the opportunity to boost jobs in regions and to boost economies through the use of differing tariff regimes for different sectors. My hon. Friend the Minister will know the principal criticisms of freeports—that they merely redirect economic activity and investment.

May I talk about next year’s Finance Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, just for a very brief moment?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

This is a debate on this year’s Finance Bill.

[Stephen Hammond]

I urge the Government to think about learning the lessons of economic history in respect of the power of putting wider economic development zones and the encouragement that they bring alongside freeports. We all recognise that such zones need seedcorn grants from the Government; that could give the Government the opportunity to consider local recovery bonds. We have already seen the prospect of the green infrastructure bond; why do we not see some local recovery bonds to sit alongside that work and boost economic development zones? That would seem to me to be a perfectly sensible development.

The Chancellor is absolutely right to focus on infrastructure spending and investment. Infrastructure is not an end in itself—it is the driver of growth and productivity—so the policies coming through and the measures in the Bill to allow the increase in transport spending and in departmental spending limits are welcome. I also welcome the establishment of the UK infrastructure bank. It is the private sector that will drive the investment that is necessary.

As I said a moment ago, the green gilt is welcome, but just as I urge the Government to think about local recovery bonds, I urge them to think about an infrastructure bond. As many will know, there is a consultation on the capital cap for pension funds; if that change is combined with an infrastructure bond, we could see a wealth of pension funds looking to invest in the UK’s economic recovery.

Finally, the jewel in our crown is undoubtedly financial services. A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked about the need for mutual banking and to encourage small banks. I urge the Government to think about a review of the regulation of financial services and banking to ensure that the regulation with regard to conduct and capital is competitive and appropriate. That will drive not only those sectors but the investment that will sustain the economic recovery that everyone in this House seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

The coronavirus crisis has not just been a public health emergency; it has been a social emergency as well—a social emergency worsened by the Government’s catastrophic handling of the crisis, which, as the Office for Budget Responsibility says, led to one of the worst economic downturns of any major economy.

Of course, for some, the pandemic has not been half bad—in fact, it has been a very good crisis for some. Serco and the like have been able to use the crisis to get their hands on contracts that should have been in the public sector, and boosted their profits. We have seen how contracts worth billions have been handed over to those with political connections to top Tories, and the Greensill case involving the former Prime Minister is no one-off—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not here in the Chamber and so is not getting the atmosphere of the debate, but no matter what the rules are, this debate is about the Finance Bill. It is only about the Finance Bill and matters within the Finance Bill, which is pretty wide-ranging. The hon. Gentleman appears to be making a speech that he might wish to make tomorrow. Could he please stick to the Finance Bill today?

[Richard Burgon]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The example I have just given is one of how our system works, and I would argue that that is entirely relevant to the Finance Bill, because while the super-rich have been able to profit from the crisis, the Government have washed their hands of others who needed support. Just this week, millions relying on legacy benefits such as employment and support allowance for disabled and sick people got a pathetic 37p increase in their benefits. What a snub, especially after already being refused the £20 additional payment that went to those on universal credit. With that 37p increase, the Government are deliberately punishing disabled people. It is yet another example of how they seek to make the vast majority pay for one of the world’s deepest economic collapses.

I will vote against the Bill because it fails to give NHS staff the proper pay rise they need, because it cuts the pay of millions of public sector workers and hands billions in giveaways to mega-corporations such as Amazon, many of which have done very well out of the crisis, because it leaves many of the lowest earners facing tax rises and because later this year it will cut social security payments for people who really should get much more help. I will vote against the Bill because it serves the few and not the many. This crisis has not only shone a spotlight on the deep inequalities in our society but widened them. We should be coming out of it with a more equal society, but, to help us do that, where is the tax on the companies that have made super-profits during the crisis? Where is the one-off tax on the super-wealthy as other countries are doing? I will vote against the Bill and table an amendment calling on the Government to take measures for a super-tax on the super-rich. We need to start to build a society that serves the many, not the few. That is what the Bill should be about, but it is no surprise that, with this Government, it is anything but.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and to expand on the reasons so passionately set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) as to why the SNP will vote against the Bill this evening. The purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect to the Chancellor’s Budget. That Budget was a regressive Budget. It was an austerity Budget that turned its back on millions of those worst affected by the covid pandemic. It is a Budget that severely damages the interests of my constituents, so it is a Budget, and this is a Finance Bill, that I cannot and will not support.

Austerity is not an economy necessity. It is a political choice. It has been the first-choice response of almost every British Government of every complexion during my adult life, so it is maybe not surprising that so many people seem to have forgotten that there is a different way, a fairer way, and in fact a much more effective way to respond to an economic crisis. All we have to do is to care as much about the millions in these four nations who do not have enough to live on as we care about the lucky handful whose only problem is that they cannot count how many billions they have.

There is no disagreement about the fact that we need to start to repair the economic damage caused by the pandemic and by the measures that had to be taken in response. There are lessons to be learned, but perhaps the most vital lesson of all is that the inequalities that have been deliberately created and deliberately maintained in our society by successive Governments have also made our society as a whole much more vulnerable to the ravages of the disease. We know that the economic costs of covid have fallen much more heavily on the people who could least afford them. To give just one example, the British Retail Consortium did a survey that confirmed what we would probably have expected: during the pandemic, highly-paid people such as Members of Parliament have got better off and now have more savings than we had before, while most of our constituents on low incomes have been using up their savings just to survive, and many of them effectively have no savings left at all.

Presumably, the way we respond to that is to use the powers in the Finance Bill to redress that balance. Well, no—that is not the priority of this Government. In clause 5, we see a multi-year freezing of the income tax basic rate limit and, much more damaging, a freezing of the personal allowance at £12,570. It is not easy to find a way to change an income-based tax system so that we collect more tax but target the impact on people on lower incomes, but that is exactly what the Government propose to do. If it is accepted that the Treasury needs to collect more money in real terms from income tax, we should at the very least make sure that the impact in real terms is equally spread. In fact, the SNP would argue that whenever the time comes to increase taxes, those of us who are lucky enough to be on high incomes should be asked to bear a wee bit more of the pain.

I know that the Government will point to other provisions, such as clause 31 and the one-off uplift in working tax credit. In principle, that is something the SNP supports, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central mentioned, the way that it is implemented could harm some of the very people it is supposed to help. The eligibility criteria are crude, to say the least. It will not be at all easy for recipients to work out for themselves whether they qualify. What assessment have the Government made of the number of payments that they expect to be made in error, and are they seriously then going to chase down the recipients of those erroneous payments as if they had committed some kind of fraud, when in fact they have done absolutely nothing wrong?

I was interested to hear the comments of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), on freeports. “Freeport” is obviously a buzzword that the focus groups have told the Tories goes down well with the party faithful, so they have decided to invent, or rather reinvent, something that looks like a rehash of 1980s-style enterprise zones but call it a freeport because that sounds like a better term. Leaving aside the terminology, how do the Government know that the provisions in clauses 109 to 111 will create new investment and new jobs, rather than just move investment and jobs that would have happened anyway, as the Committee Chair asked? How will they make sure that those who buy and sell land in a designated freeport area are investing the tax breaks they enjoy in creating jobs on the site, rather than just siphoning the money off into the profit and loss account of an offshore investment trust somewhere?

Almost a third of the Bill’s clauses relate to the plastic packaging tax, and no doubt the Bill Committee will want to spend a proportionate amount of time scrutinising the details, but for now, I draw the Minister’s attention to the National Audit Office report on 12 February this year. The report found that, although the Chancellor in his Budget speech last year was able to tell us how many tonnes of carbon the tax would save,

“the exchequer departments did not set these as measures of success in the Tax Information and Impact Note”.

A previous Tory Government brought in tax information and impact notes in a blaze of publicity, announcing that they would support better parliamentary scrutiny of tax policy, but how can Parliament scrutinise the success of this new tax if the key measure of success announced by the Chancellor does not even appear on the success radar of the Department that has to implement it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central raised the more general point about the woefully inadequate scrutiny that the often massive decisions in Finance Bills receive. I know that the Government will point to the number of minutes, hours, days or weeks that people have spent talking about it in Parliament, but talking about it and reading prepared speeches is not the same as proper scrutiny. For example, in this Bill we can accept, reject or amend clause 32 on the tax statement of payments under the self-employment income support scheme, which is fair enough for those who qualify, but we cannot redress the glaring injustice of the excluded millions who do not qualify at all. We can accept clause 31 or amend it to make it a lot better, to support working people whose income has been affected by covid, but we cannot vote to remove the 30 September cliff-edge when the furlough scheme is removed, because that would be an inadmissible amendment. Although the Bill can be improved in Committee and made slightly more fit for purpose, we are powerless to force the Government to undo some of the deliberately disastrous flaws and omissions in existing support schemes.

It is right that this Budget and this Finance Bill should start the process of rebuilding the economy after covid, but as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, the Government seem hellbent on taking us back to exactly the same unfair, unequal and divided society that we had before. In fact, they will probably succeed in making it even worse than before. Of course, the Tories do not want to talk about the fact that their own analysis shows that the long-term economic damage of the covid pandemic will be less than the damage of the self-inflicted and totally avoidable disaster that is Brexit.

It is an indication of how out of touch the Government are with my constituents, and with the people of Scotland generally, that the Tories, the official Opposition in Scotland, have already surrendered in the Scottish Parliament elections. They are not even pretending that they want to try and form an alternative Government after 6 May. They are delivering glossy six-page leaflets that literally have no policies on them. They are not even pretending that they have anything positive to say or to offer in Scotland—which, after all, is kind of what Scotland has been saying to them since 1955.

The Bill will get its Second Reading tonight, it will get through the Committee and it will become law. Its regressive provisions will be imposed in Scotland against the will of three-quarters of our people, no doubt to great cheers from the socially distanced Government Benches. But let me say this to them: enjoy imposing this Finance Bill on Scotland’s people, because in just over three weeks’ time, those same people will take a decisive step towards making sure that their time for imposing their policies on our country comes to an end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate that this is a Finance Bill and technically it can go to any hour, so the House could be sitting until 11 o’clock or midnight, but I ought to say something to Members who are not in the Chamber but who I hope might be listening. It sometimes seems that Members who are at home and participating virtually do not pay attention to the rest of the debate. If they are listening, let me say to them that there is something a little bit distasteful about those who are sitting at home making very long speeches and keeping the entire operation of the House of Commons going till well into the evening. Everybody has the right to speak on the Finance Bill and it is very important that they do so, but it is generally recognised, and I particularly recognise it today, that that which can be said in 10 minutes can usually be said more effectively in five.

Financial Statement

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available from the Vote Office in Members’ Lobby upon the Chancellor’s statement being finished, and of course online. I also remind hon. Members that interventions are not taken during the Chancellor’s statement, nor during the replies of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Scottish National party. British Sign Language interpretation will continue until the end of the speech of the leader of the Scottish National party, and it is available to watch—quick advert here—on parliamentlive.tv.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, a year ago, in my first Budget, I announced our initial response to coronavirus. What was originally thought to be a temporary disruption to our way of life has fundamentally altered it: people are still being told to stay in their homes, businesses have been ordered to close, thousands of people are in hospital. Much has changed, but one thing has stayed the same. I said that I would do whatever it takes. I have done and I will do so. We have announced over £280 billion of support, protecting jobs, keeping businesses afloat, helping families get by.

Despite this unprecedented response, the damage that coronavirus has done to our economy has been acute. Since March, over 700,000 people have lost their jobs, our economy has shrunk by 10%—the largest fall in over 300 years—and our borrowing is the highest it has been outside of wartime. It is going to take this country, and the whole world, a long time to recover from this extraordinary economic situation. But we will recover.

This Budget meets the moment with a three-part plan to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. First, we will continue doing whatever it takes to support the British people and businesses through this moment of crisis. Secondly, once we are on the way to recovery, we will need to begin fixing the public finances, and I want to be honest today about our plans to do that. Thirdly, in today’s Budget we begin the work of building our future economy.

Today’s forecasts show that our response to coronavirus is working. The Prime Minister last week set out our cautious but irreversible road map to ease restrictions while protecting the British people. The NHS, deserving of immense praise, has had extraordinary success in vaccinating more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom. Combined with our economic response, one of the most comprehensive and generous in the world, this means that the Office for Budget Responsibility is now forecasting, in its words, a

“swifter and more sustained recovery”

than it expected in November. The OBR now expects the economy to return to its pre-covid level by the middle of next year, six months earlier than previously thought. That means growth is faster, unemployment lower, wages higher, investment higher, household incomes higher.

But while our prospects are now stronger, coronavirus has done, and is still doing, profound damage. Today’s forecasts make it clear that repairing the long-term damage will take time. The OBR still expects that in five years’ time, because of coronavirus, our economy will be 3% smaller than it would have been. Before I share the detail of the OBR’s forecasts, let me thank Richard Hughes and his team for their work.

The OBR forecasts that our economy will grow this year by 4%, by 7.3% in 2022, then 1.7%, 1.6% and 1.7% in the last three years of the forecast. The OBR has said that our interventions to support jobs have worked. In July last year, it expected unemployment to peak at 11.9%. Today, because of our interventions, it forecast a much lower peak: 6.5%. That means 1.8 million fewer people are expected to be out of work than previously thought. But every job lost is a tragedy, which is why protecting, creating and supporting jobs remains my highest priority.

Let me turn straightaway to the first part of this Budget’s plan, to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people through the remaining phase of this crisis.

First, the furlough scheme will be extended until the end of September. For employees, there will be no change to the terms. They will continue to receive 80% of their salary, for hours not worked, until the scheme ends. As businesses reopen, we will ask them to contribute alongside the taxpayer to the cost of paying their employees. Nothing will change until July, when we will ask for a small contribution of just 10%, and 20% in August and September. The Government are proud of the furlough, one of the most generous schemes in the world, effectively protecting millions of people’s jobs and incomes.

Secondly, support for the self-employed will also continue until September, with a fourth grant covering the period February to April, and a fifth and final grant from May onwards. The fourth grant will provide three months of support at 80% of average trading profits. For the fifth grant, people will continue to receive grants worth three months of average profits, with the system open for claims from late July.

But as the economy reopens over the summer, it is fair to target our support towards those most affected by the pandemic, so people whose turnover has fallen by 30% or more will continue to receive the full 80% grant. People whose turnover has fallen by less than 30% will therefore have less need of taxpayer support and will receive a 30% grant. I can also announce a major improvement in access to the self-employed scheme. When the scheme was launched, the newly self-employed could not qualify because they had not all filed a 2019-20 tax return. But as the tax return deadline has now passed, I can announce today that, provided they filed a tax return by midnight last night, over 600,000 more people, many of whom became self-employed last year, can now claim the fourth and fifth grants. Over the course of this crisis we will have spent £33 billion supporting the self-employed, one of the most generous programmes for self-employed people anywhere in the world.

Thirdly, we are also extending our support for the lowest paid and the most vulnerable. To support low-income households, the universal credit uplift of £20 a week will continue for a further six months, well beyond the end of this national lockdown. We will provide working tax credit claimants with equivalent support for the next six months. Because of the way that system works operationally, we will need to do so with a one-off payment of £500.

And over the course of this year, as the economy begins to recover, we are shifting our resources and focus towards getting people into decent, well-paid jobs. We reaffirm our commitment to end low pay, by increasing the national living wage to £8.91 from April—an annual pay rise of almost £350 for someone working full time on the national living wage.

My right hon. Friends the Education Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary are taking action to give people the skills they need to get jobs or get better jobs. The restart programme—supporting over a million long-term unemployed people. The number of work coaches —doubled. The kickstart scheme—funding high-quality jobs for over a quarter of a million young people. The Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee—giving every adult the opportunity for a fully funded level 3 qualification. And we want businesses to hire new apprentices, so we are paying them more to do it.

Today, I am doubling the incentive payments we give businesses to £3,000—that is for all new apprentice hires, of any age. Alongside investing £126 million of new money to triple the number of traineeships, we are taking what works to get people into jobs and making it better.

One of the hidden tragedies of lockdown has been the increase in domestic abuse, so I am announcing today an extra £19 million, on top of the £125 million we announced at the spending review, for domestic violence programmes to reduce the risk of reoffending and to pilot a network of respite rooms to provide specialist support for vulnerable homeless women.

To recognise the sacrifices made by so many women and men in the armed forces community, I am providing an additional £10 million to support veterans with mental health needs.

On current plans, the funding to support survivors of the thalidomide scandal runs out in 2023. They deserve better than to have constant uncertainty about the future costs of their care, so not only will I extend this funding with an initial down payment of around £40 million; I am today announcing a lifetime commitment, guaranteeing funding forever. I thank the Thalidomide Trust and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for their leadership on this important issue.

As well as supporting people’s jobs, incomes, the lowest paid and most vulnerable, this Budget also protects businesses. We have been providing businesses with direct cash grants throughout the recent restrictions. These grants come to an end in March. I can announce today that we will provide a new restart grant in April to help businesses reopen and get going again. Non-essential retail businesses will open first, so they will receive grants of up to £6,000 per premises. Hospitality and leisure businesses, including personal care and gyms, will open later, or be more impacted by restrictions when they do, so we will give them grants of up to £18,000. That is £5 billion of new grants on top of the £20 billion we have already provided, taking our total direct cash support to business to £25 billion. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for highlighting the particular needs of the personal care sector.

With my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary, we are making available £700 million to support our incredible arts, culture and sporting institutions as they reopen: backing the UK and Ireland’s joint 2030 World cup bid; launching a new approach to apprenticeships in the creative industries; and extending our £500 million film and TV production restart scheme.

Even with the new restart grants, some businesses will also need loans to see them through. As the bounce back loan and coronavirus business interruption loan scheme programmes come to an end, we are introducing a new recovery loan scheme to take their place. Businesses of any size can apply for loans from £25,000 up to £10 million through to the end of this year, and the Government will provide a guarantee to lenders of 80%.

Last year, we provided an unprecedented 100% business rates holiday in England for all eligible businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors—a tax cut worth £10 billion. This year, we will continue with the 100% business rates holiday for the first three months of the year—in other words, through to the end of June. For the remaining nine months of the year, business rates will still be discounted by two thirds, up to a value of £2 million for closed businesses, with a lower cap for those who have been able to stay open—a £6 billion tax cut for business.

One of the hardest hit sectors has been hospitality and tourism: 150,000 businesses that employ over 2.4 million people need our support. To protect those jobs, I can confirm that the 5% reduced rate of VAT will be extended for six months to 30 September. Even then, we will not go straight back to the 20% rate; we will have an interim rate of 12.5% for another six months, not returning to the standard rate until April of next year. In total, we are cutting VAT next year by almost £5 billion.

The housing sector supports more than half a million jobs. The cut in stamp duty that I announced last summer has helped hundreds of thousands of people buy a home and supported the economy at a critical time, but due to the sheer volume of transactions that we are seeing, many new purchases will not complete in time for the end of March. I can announce today that the £500,000 nil rate band will not end on 31 March; it will end on 30 June. Then, to smooth the transition back to normal, the nil rate band will be £250,000, double its standard level, until the end of September, and we will return to the usual level of £125,000 only from 1 October.

Even with the stamp duty cut, there is still a significant barrier to people getting on the housing ladder—the cost of a deposit. I am announcing today a new policy to stand behind homebuyers: a mortgage guarantee. Lenders who provide mortgages to home buyers who can afford only a 5% deposit will benefit from a Government guarantee on those mortgages. I am pleased to say that several of the country’s largest lenders, including Lloyds, NatWest, Santander, Barclays and HSBC, will be offering these 95% mortgages from next month. I know that more, including Virgin Money, will follow shortly after. This is a policy that gives people who cannot afford a big deposit the chance to buy their own home. As the Prime Minister has said, we want to turn “generation rent” into “generation buy”.

So, the furlough—extended to September; self-employed grants—extended to September; universal credit uplift—extended to September; more money to tackle domestic violence; bigger incentives to hire apprentices; higher grants for struggling businesses; extra funds for culture, arts and sport; new loan schemes to finance businesses; kickstart, restart and a lifetime skills guarantee; business rates cut; VAT cut; stamp duty cut; and a new mortgage guarantee. This is the first part of a Budget that protects the jobs and livelihoods of the British people.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you can see, we are going long, extending our support well beyond the end of the road map to accommodate even the most cautious view about the time that it might take to exit the restrictions. Let me summarise for the House the scale of our total fiscal response to coronavirus. At this Budget, we are announcing an additional £65 billion of measures over this year and next to support the economy in response to coronavirus. Taking into account the significant support announced at the spending review, this means that our total covid support package this year and next is £352 billion. Once you include the measures announced at the spring Budget last year, including the step change in capital investment, total fiscal support from this Government over this year and next amounts to £407 billion.

Coronavirus has caused one of the largest, most comprehensive and sustained economic shocks that this country has ever faced, and by any objective analysis, this Government have delivered one of the largest, most comprehensive and sustained responses this country has ever seen.

We are using the full measure of our fiscal firepower to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people, but the damage done by coronavirus, combined with a level of support unimaginable only 12 months ago, has created huge challenges for our public finances. The OBR’s fiscal forecasts show that this year, we have borrowed a record amount: £355 billion. That is 17% of our national income—the highest level of borrowing since world war two. Next year, as we continue our unprecedented response to this crisis, borrowing is forecast to be £234 billion, 10.3% of GDP—an amount so large it has only one rival in recent history: this year.

Without corrective action, borrowing would continue at very high levels, leaving underlying debt rising indefinitely. Instead, because of the steps I am taking today, borrowing falls to 4.5% of GDP in 2022-23, 3.5% in 2023-24 and then 2.9% and 2.8% in the following two years. While underlying debt rises from 88.8% of GDP this year to 93.8% next year, it then peaks at 97.1% in 2023-24 before stabilising and falling slightly to 97% and 96.8% in the final two years of the forecast.

Let me explain why this matters. The amount we have borrowed is comparable only with the amount we borrowed during the two world wars. It is going to be the work of many Governments, over many decades, to pay it back. Just as it would be irresponsible to withdraw support too soon, it would also be irresponsible to allow our future borrowing and debt to rise unchecked. When crises come, we need to be able to act, and we need the fiscal freedom to act—a freedom that you only have if you start with public finances in a good and strong place. The only reason we have been able to respond as boldly as we have to covid is because 10 years of Conservative Governments painstakingly rebuilt our fiscal resilience.

When the next crisis comes, we need to be able to act again. While our borrowing costs are affordable right now, interest rates and inflation may not stay low forever, and just a one percentage point increase in both would now cost us over £25 billion. As we have seen in the markets over the last few weeks, sovereign bond yields can rise sharply. This Budget is not the time to set detailed fiscal rules with precise targets and dates to achieve them by. I do not believe that would be sensible, but I do want to be honest about what I mean by sustainable public finances and how I plan to achieve them.

Our fiscal decisions are guided by three principles. First, while it is right to help people and businesses through an acute crisis like this one, in normal times the state should not be borrowing to pay for everyday public spending. Secondly, over the medium term, we cannot allow our debt to keep rising, and given how high our debt now is, we need to pay close attention to its affordability. Thirdly, it is sensible to take advantage of lower interest rates to invest in capital projects that can drive our future growth.

The question is how we achieve that—how we balance the extraordinary support we are providing to the economy right now with the need to begin the work of fixing our public finances. I have been and always will be honest with the country about the challenges we face, so I am announcing today two measures to begin that work. Let me take each in turn.

Our response to coronavirus has been fair, with the poorest households benefiting the most from our interventions, and our approach to fixing the public finances will be fair too, asking more of those people and businesses who can afford to contribute and protecting those who cannot. So this Government are not going to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT; instead, our first step is to freeze personal tax thresholds. We have nearly doubled the income tax personal allowance over the last decade, making it the most generous of any G20 country. We will of course deliver our promise to increase it again next year to £12,570, but we will then keep it at this more generous level until April 2026. The higher rate threshold will similarly be increased next year to £50,270 and will then also remain at that level for the same period. Nobody’s take-home pay will be less than it is now as a result of this policy, but I want to be clear with all Members that this policy does remove the incremental benefit created had thresholds continued to increase with inflation. We are not hiding it; I am here explaining it to the House, and it is in the Budget document in black and white. It is a tax policy that is progressive and fair.

I will also maintain at their current levels until April 2026 the inheritance tax thresholds, the pensions lifetime allowance, the annual exempt amount in capital gains tax, and for two years from April 2022 the VAT registration threshold, which, at £85,000, will remain more than twice as generous as the EU and OECD averages. We will also tackle fraud in our covid schemes, with £100 million to set up a new HMRC taskforce of around 1,000 investigators as well as new measures and new investment in HMRC to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion. The full details are set out in the Red Book.

The Government are providing businesses with over £100 billion of support to get through this pandemic, so it is fair and necessary to ask them to contribute to our recovery. So the second step I am taking today is that in 2023 the rate of corporation tax paid on company profits will increase to 25%. Even after this change the United Kingdom will still have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, lower than that of the United States, Canada, Italy, Japan, Germany and France.

We are also introducing some crucial protections. First, this new higher rate will not take effect until April 2023, well after the point when the Office for Budget Responsibility expects the economy to have recovered, and even then, because corporation tax is only charged on company profits, any struggling business will, by definition, be unaffected. Secondly, I am protecting small businesses with profits of £50,000 or less by creating a small profits rate maintained at the current rate of 19%. This means that around 70% of companies—1.4 million businesses—will be completely unaffected. And thirdly, we will introduce a taper above £50,000 so that only businesses with profits of £250,000 or greater will be taxed at the full 25% rate. That means only 10% of companies will pay the full higher rate. So, yes, it is a tax rise on company profits, but only on the larger, more profitable companies and only in two years’ time. I wanted to announce this now, because I think that, for business, certainty matters. For the next two years, I am also making the tax treatment of losses significantly more generous by allowing businesses to carry back losses of up to £2 million for three years, providing a significant cash flow benefit. This means companies can now claim additional tax refunds of up to £760,000. And because of the current 8% bank surcharge, the implied overall tax rate for banks would be too high. So we will review the surcharge to make sure the combined rate of tax on the UK banking sector does not increase significantly from its current level, and to make sure this important industry remains internationally competitive.

These are significant decisions to have taken: decisions no Chancellor wants to make. I recognise that they might not be popular, but they are honest. And let us consider the alternatives. The first is to do nothing: to leave our deficit problem untreated, our debt problem for someone else in the future to deal with. That has never been the way of a Conservative Government, and nor do I believe it can be the way of a responsible Chancellor. Another alternative would be to try and find all the savings we need from public spending. But when we said at the last election that we were the party of public services, people believed us—and they were right to believe us. And when we said we would be the party that invests in new infrastructure, they were right to believe that too. The only other alternative would be to increase the rates of tax on working people—but I do not believe that would be right either. So I believe that our approach, while bold, is compatible with our duty as a fiscally responsible and business-friendly Government. This is the right choice and I am confident it will command public assent.

I have one final announcement on business tax. With the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, and a new, small profits rate, the UK will have a pro-business tax regime. But we need to do even more to encourage businesses to invest right now. Business investment creates jobs, lifts growth, spurs innovation and drives productivity. For decades we have lagged behind our international peers. Right now, while many businesses are struggling, others have been able to build up significant cash reserves. We need to unlock that investment; we need an investment-led recovery. So today I can announce the super deduction. For the next two years, when companies invest, they can reduce their tax bill not just by a proportion of the cost of that investment, as they do now, or even by 100% of the cost, the so-called full expensing some have called for; with the super deduction they can now reduce their tax bill by 130% of the cost. Let me give the House an example. Under the existing rules, a construction firm buying £10 million of new equipment could reduce their taxable income, in the year they invest, by just £2.6 million. With the super deduction, they can now reduce it by £13 million. We have never tried this before in our country. The OBR has said it will boost business investment by 10%—around £20 billion more per year. It makes our tax regime for business investment truly world leading, lifting us from 30th in the OECD to first. And, worth £25 billion during the two years it is in place, this will be the biggest business tax cut in modern British history: bold, unprecedented action to get companies investing, creating jobs, and driving our economic recovery.

Let me now turn to duties. This is a tough time for hospitality, so I can confirm that the planned increases in duties for spirits such as Scotch whisky, wine, cider and beer will all be cancelled. All alcohol duties frozen for the second year in a row—only the third time in two decades. And right now, to keep the cost of living low, I am not prepared to increase the cost of a tank of fuel, so the planned increase in fuel duty is also cancelled.

This Budget protects the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. This Budget is honest about the challenges facing our public finances and how we will begin to fix them. And this Budget does one other thing: it lays the foundations of our future economy—the third part of our plan. If we want a better future economy, we have to make it happen. We have to do things that have never been done before.

The world is not going to be any less competitive after coronavirus, so it is not enough to have some general desire to grow the economy; we need a real commitment to green growth. It is not enough to have some general desire to increase productivity; we need a real commitment to give every business, large or small, the opportunity to grow, innovate and succeed. It is not enough to have a general desire to create jobs; we need a real commitment to create jobs where people are and to change the economic geography of this country. And we cannot strengthen our domestic economy without remaining a global, outward-looking nation. This future economy will not be created in any one Budget, but today we lay the foundations.

Our future economy needs investment in green industries across the United Kingdom, so I can announce today the first ever UK infrastructure bank. Located in Leeds, the bank will invest across the UK in public and private projects to finance the green industrial revolution. Beginning this spring, it will have an initial capitalisation of £12 billion and we expect it to support at least £40 billion of total investment in infrastructure. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) will particularly welcome the location of this new institution.

Offshore wind is an innovative industry where the UK already has a global competitive advantage, so we are funding new port infrastructure to build the next generation of offshore wind projects in Teesside and Humberside. In November, I announced that we would launch a world-leading sovereign green bond. Today, we are going further, announcing a new retail savings product to give all UK savers the chance to support green projects, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) has campaigned for.

We have also asked Dame Clara Furse to establish a new group to position the City as the global leader for voluntary, high-quality carbon offset markets. Underpinning all this will be an updated monetary policy remit for the Bank of England. It reaffirms its 2% target, but now it will also reflect the importance of environmental sustainability and the transition to net zero.

Our future economy will also address our productivity problem and support small business. Too often, smaller firms do not have the time or resources to acquire the extra skills and training they need to be more efficient, more digital and more productive. Thanks to Be the Business, we have made a good start at supporting these firms. Today, the Business Secretary and I are going further, with a new set of UK-wide schemes, Help to Grow.

First, Help to Grow: Management will help tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses get world-class management training. Dozens of business schools across the UK will offer a new executive development programme with mentoring and peer learning, and Government will contribute 90% of the cost—a real commitment to learn more, make more and earn more.

Secondly, Help to Grow: Digital. With the pandemic, many businesses have moved online. This has been a challenge, but we want to turn it into an opportunity. We are going to help small businesses develop digital skills by giving them free expert training and a 50% discount on new productivity-enhancing software worth up to £5,000 each. Both programmes will commence by the autumn, and I would urge interested businesses to register today on Gov.UK/HelpToGrow. That is a real commitment to help over a hundred thousand businesses become more innovative, more competitive and more profitable. 

A future economy requires us to be at the forefront of the next scientific and technological revolutions. Becoming a scientific superpower is something we can be; I do not think that is hubristic or unrealistic. Our incredible vaccination programme has shown the world what this country is capable of, so I am providing an extra £1.6 billion today to continue the roll-out and improve our future preparedness.

I want to make the UK the best place in the world for high growth, innovative companies, so I am launching two wide-ranging consultations today to make sure our research and development tax reliefs—and our enterprise management incentives—are internationally competitive.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows that a scientific superpower needs scientific superstars, so together we are announcing ambitious visa reforms aimed at highly skilled migrants, including a new, unsponsored points-based visa to attract the best and most promising international talent in science, research and tech; new, improved visa processes for scale-ups and entrepreneurs, and radically simplified bureaucracy for high skilled visa applications.

As well as support for innovation and access to talent, high-growth firms need access to capital. To do that, we are taking steps to give the pensions industry more flexibility to unlock billions of pounds from pension funds into innovative new ventures; launching a new Future Fund Breakthrough to help fill the scale-up funding gap; and changing the rules to encourage more companies to list here. Let me thank Lord Hill for leading this landmark review. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will shortly be consulting on his proposals.

Our future economy depends on remaining a United Kingdom. Millions of families and businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have contributed to and benefited from our coronavirus response. Central to that has been a Treasury that acts for the whole United Kingdom. That is not a political point; it is an undeniable truth. The majority of today’s Budget measures will apply directly to people in all four nations of the UK. I am taking further specific steps with three accelerated Scottish city and growth deals in Ayrshire, Argyll and Bute, and Falkirk; three more in north Wales, mid-Wales, and Swansea bay; funding for the Holyhead hydrogen hub, the Global Centre of Rail Excellence in Neath Port Talbot and the Aberdeen energy transition zone, as well as the global underwater hub and the North sea transition deal, along with the first allocations of the £400 million new deal for Northern Ireland.

Through the Barnett formula, the decisions I am taking in this Budget also increase the funding for the devolved Administrations by £1.2 billion in Scotland, £740 million in Wales, and £410 million for the Northern Ireland Executive.

Our future economy demands a different economic geography. If we are serious about wanting to level up, that starts with the institutions of economic power. Few institutions are more powerful than the one I am enormously privileged to lead—the Treasury. Along with the other critical economic Departments, including the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for International Trade and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we will establish a new economic campus in Darlington. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) will particularly welcome this announcement.

Redrawing our economic map means rebalancing our economic investment. I have already revised the Treasury’s Green Book, and set out the highest sustained levels of public investment across the UK since the 1970s. But we can go further. I am announcing today over £1 billion for 45 new towns deals, from Castleford to Clay Cross, Rochdale to Rowley Regis, and Whitby to Wolverhampton. I pay tribute to local leaders—like the brilliant Mayor for the West Midlands, Andy Street—who are making the case for investment in their area.

We are creating a £150-million fund to help communities across the UK take ownership of pubs, theatres, shops or local sports clubs at risk of loss, putting more power in the hands of local people. I am also launching the first round of the levelling up fund today, inviting applications from local areas across the United Kingdom. I am grateful to my right hon. Friends the Transport Secretary and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary for their support on this crucial initiative.

I have one final announcement that exemplifies the future economy. It is a policy on a scale that we have never done before—a policy to bring investment, trade, and, most importantly, jobs, right across the country, to replace the industries of the past with green, innovative, fast-growing new businesses, to encourage free trade and reinforce our position as an outward-looking, trading nation that is open to the world, and a policy that we can only pursue now that we are out of the European Union: freeports. Freeports are special economic zones with different rules to make it easier and cheaper to do business. They are well established internationally, but we are taking a unique approach.

Our freeports will have simpler planning to allow businesses to build; infrastructure funding to improve transport links; cheaper customs with favourable tariffs, VAT or duties; and lower taxes, with tax breaks to encourage construction, private investment and job creation. It will be an unprecedented economic boost across the United Kingdom. Freeports will be a truly UK-wide policy, and we will work constructively with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations.

Today, I can announce the eight freeport locations in England: East Midlands airport; Felixstowe and Harwich; Humber; Liverpool city region; Plymouth; Solent; Thames; and Teesside. That is eight new freeports in eight English regions, unlocking billions of pounds of private sector investment, generating trade and jobs up and down the country. I commend Members across the House for their campaigning, but in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), as well as inspiring local leaders like Ben Houchen, the Mayor of Tees Valley.

Let us take just one of those places—Teesside. In the past, it was known for its success in industries like steel. Now, when I look to the future of Teesside, I see old industrial sites being used to capture and store carbon, vaccines being manufactured, offshore wind turbines creating clean energy for the rest of the country—all located within a freeport with a Treasury just down the road and a UK Infrastructure Bank only an hour away. I see innovative, fast-growing businesses hiring local people into decent, well-paid, green jobs. I see people designing, manufacturing and exporting incredible new products and services. I see people putting down roots in places that they are proud to call home. I see a people optimistic and ambitious for their future. That is the future economy of this country.

And so, while this last year has been a test unlike any other, that which we are, we are. The fundamentals of our character as a people have not changed: still determined, still generous, still fair. That is what got us through the last year; it is what will guide us through the next decade and beyond. This time last year, we set out to deliver on the promises we made to the British people. But the most important promise was implicit and, in truth, is made by every Government, irrespective of their politics—and that is to do what must be done when the danger is imminent and when no one else can.

Today, we set out a plan to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people, but the promises that underpin that plan remain unchanged from those we pledged ourselves to 12 long months ago: to unite and lead; to level up; to create a world-class education system; to keep our streets safe; to keep our NHS strong; to support the most vulnerable; to reform and improve public services; to grow the economy; to spread prosperity; to extend the awesome power of opportunity to all corners of the United Kingdom; and, yes, to be honest and fair in all that we do.

An important moment is upon us, a moment of challenge and of change: of difficulties, yes, but of possibilities too. This is a Budget that meets that moment and I commend it to the House.

Provisional Collection of Taxes

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 51(2)),

That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions: —

(a) Repeal of provisions relating to the Interest and Royalties Directive (motion no. 31);

(b) Stamp duty land tax (housing co-operatives etc) (motion no. 44);

(c) Annual tax on enveloped dwellings (housing co-operatives) (motion no. 45);

(d) Customs duty (removal of steel to Northern Ireland) (motion no. 52).—(Rishi Sunak.)

Question agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now come to the motion entitled “Income Tax (Charge)”. It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on the succeeding days. The questions on this motion and on the remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 9 March. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion formally.

Covid-19: Ethnic Minority Disparities

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who asked an identical question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That concludes the urgent question proceedings. I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order to allow arrangements to be made for the next item of business.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to15.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My noble Friend Lord True said on Second Reading in the House of Lords that, although “specific and limited” in its aims, this Bill is a significant reforming measure for women and points the way to wider reform. It will make an important and long overdue change to existing law by enabling Ministers and Opposition spokesmen for the first time to take paid maternity leave from their job for an extended period. It ends the unacceptable situation where a Minister would have to resign from Cabinet or their post to recover from childbirth and to care for their newborn child. Members in the House of Lords have exercised their role as the reviewing House and have decided to return the Bill to this House with amendments and the Government are content to accept those amendments in the House today.

The Lords amendments make a number of changes to the drafting in clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill, substituting the word “person” with the words “mother” or “expectant mother” where appropriate. These amendments tabled by my noble Friend Lord Lucas were supported by the Government in the House of Lords in recognition of the strength of feeling on this issue displayed in both Houses. The Bill, as originally drafted, was in line with the long-standing convention to use gender-neutral drafting where doing so is necessary to achieve the full policy intent. The use of the word “person” in this Bill as originally drafted achieved both those aims.

The amendments that the Government are accepting today to substitute “mother” or “expectant mother” where appropriate for “persons” in clauses 1 to 3, although grammatically challenging in places, do not affect the operation of the Bill and achieve the twin aims of being legally accurate and delivering on the policy intention. Moreover, the use of the word “mother” or “expectant mother” where appropriate is in line with recent case law of the Court of Appeal, as was noted by Lord Pannick in the House of Lords. These amendments are legally acceptable and the intention and meaning of the Bill would be unaffected by such a change. As discussed previously, the word “woman” or the word “Minister” would have run into legal difficulties, and I hope the words “mother” and “expectant mother” will be acceptable to hon. Members. During the passage of the Bill through the Commons, we also amended the explanatory notes.

I know that there will be some who are concerned by these amendments and by the Government’s accepting them, and I hope to give them some reassurance today. Many of their lordships who spoke in favour of these amendments also spoke about their understanding of and commitment to LGBT rights. Many hon. Members in this place who I think would support the revision were, when discussing the Bill with me, also focused on ensuring that if we ever had a trans male colleague in future who needed to make use of the provisions, that would be the case. We also hope to bring forward work in future on shared parental leave and adoption leave. If legislation is needed, and we expect that it may well be, we would add new sections to the Bill, and we anticipate not having to return to amend the wording back to “person”.

I thank all those who have taken part in debates in both Houses and made interventions. The Bill before the House today makes an important and long-overdue change to existing law. It will enable all Ministers, for the first time, to take paid maternity leave from their job for an extended period. Women who aspire to and hold high office will no longer be disadvantaged. It is in recognition of these amendments that the Government wish to proceed on that basis.

We also recognise that there is much more to be done, and, as we have said, this Bill is the first step. Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have made commitments to Parliament both on the wider reports on issues that could no longer be accommodated in the Bill and in relation to a review of language used in drafting legislation, with a genuine willingness to work with parliamentarians. We are thankful to Members of both Houses for their willingness to work with the Government on this issue.

I once again thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and her colleagues for their engagement on this Bill, and all hon. Members who have contributed to and spoken with passion in these debates. The Government are keen—some members of the Government in particular, I might add—to ensure that this Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible. I ask the House to accept the amendments and send the Bill for Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendments 2 to 15 agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That concludes the consideration of Lords amendments. I will now suspend the House for three minutes to allow the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Ministerial and other Maternal Allowances Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

Question negatived.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Lest there be a lack of clarity, let me explain that although the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who moved amendment 3, is not here in the Chamber—and, therefore, if her voice were to call “Aye” obviously it could not be heard here in the Chamber—I am satisfied that she is well represented by her party’s Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who audibly did not call “Aye”. The hon. Lady had also previously informed me that, had there been time, it had been her intentionf to withdraw amendment 3, as she was satisfied that the matter had been fully discussed and that was her intention in tabling the amendment.

The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment (Standing Order No. 83D(6)).

Bill read the Third time and passed.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My apologies for not giving you specific notice of this point of order. We were of the view that the Prime Minister would be coming to the House on 22 February to make a statement on the roadmap out of lockdown. Various Secretaries of State have intimated that that is now the week commencing 22 February. With the two-week notice period required to allow schools to open, that would be pushing it towards Easter. I wonder whether you had had notice from the Prime Minister as to when he will make that statement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he and the House know, it is not a matter for the Chair and it is not a matter for me when the Prime Minister comes to the House to make any particular announcement. The Leader of the House indicated that there would be a debate on Monday 22 February about covid matters. At present, that is the timetable set out for proceedings of the House, but of course it is up to the Government either to stick to that timetable or to change it as they will. I am sure that if any change is made, proper notice will be given.