Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I absolutely agree. All our nations and regions —the whole of Great Britain—have to come together, because this virus is a challenge for us all. We cannot treat people in different parts of the country and in our nations disproportionately and disgracefully.

In Greater Manchester, we were promised a powerhouse, but what we have at the moment is a power grab. Even here in London, just this week, the Government have threatened to seize control of the tube. We now have a Prime Minister so determined to punish a Labour Mayor that he wants to whack a transport tax on his own constituents, yet the Government still refuse to take the decisive national action that is needed. Instead, they have tried to play people off against each other—divide and misrule.

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

I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s aunt.

Will the hon. Lady she be straight and honest with British citizens when she talks about a national lockdown? Is it not the reality that the SAGE paper says that it might take multiple circuit breakers to keep this virus at low levels? Will she be clear about the impact that that would have on jobs and businesses in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

Sure, but for much of the passage of dealing with the pandemic, Opposition Members have often cited international comparisons. Now, when we point out that the scheme we have brought forward does stand very strong comparison internationally—in fact, the furlough scheme for eight months at 80% was way above what most international comparators offered—they say, “Actually, we do not want to apply international standards anymore. We want to apply a purely bespoke approach.”

The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that businesses are facing real pain. There is huge pressure on jobs, and that is why the Chancellor set out, in the summer economic update, the acceleration of infrastructure schemes—I think she and I would agree on them—such as the green jobs for decarbonising public sector buildings and how we will meet our net zero obligations. I suspect we share the desire to create jobs through moving that forward and the acceleration of infrastructure through Project Speed.

The Chancellor set out his plan for jobs—the doubling of work coaches, the tripling of traineeships, the £2,000 for apprenticeships—because, as the hon. Lady rightly identifies, those businesses are under significant pressure. That is why, alongside the package of measures for local authorities, we have also applied business grant support of over £11 billion, including funding of leisure and hospitality grants of between £10,000 and £25,000. Further to that, the Government have allocated discretionary business support to mayors, in the case of Liverpool and Lancashire, of a further £30 million. To help businesses with their fixed costs, such as rent and bills, we have also introduced a new business grant scheme in England, and any business legally required to close can now claim up to £3,000 depending on the rateable value of their property. They can claim grant payments of up to £1,500 per fortnight and keep claiming that as long as their businesses are required to close. That is money that does not need to be repaid.

While the grants are England-only, we are the Government for the whole United Kingdom. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in his place, about what that means for the UK’s ability to support businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which we are committed to doing as the United Kingdom Government —it means we have guaranteed a further £1.3 billion for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should they choose to follow suit.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the Minister agree that the most important thing we can do for businesses is to allow them to stay open and to keep trading? Where we are requiring businesses to close, the schemes are good and purposeful, but there are some businesses that, because of the restrictions—for example, in hospitality with the one household rule—are effectively unviable as it is restricting their business to such a significant degree. Will he consider widening the job support scheme, for example, to those businesses that are just not viable in tier 2 and tier 3 for that reason?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we debated this yesterday. Much of the debate is about tier 3, but there are businesses that are feeling the impact in tier 2, and we are acutely aware of that and we are discussing that with business leaders. The key issue there is that we have taken toggling measures, for example, the cut in VAT and the extension of the loans. |As he knows, as a senior business figure himself, cash flow is a huge issue for businesses, and the Chancellor has been very keen to work constructively with all business leaders, the trade unions and others, and to consult widely. We have been willing to listen and to extend, for example, the loans that were available in order to pick up exactly the point my hon. Friend makes in terms of businesses in tier 3.

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes the Government should do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions, currently the North of England and parts of the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, by reforming the Job Support Scheme so it incentivises employers to keep staff on rather than letting them go; ensuring no-one is pushed into poverty when they do the right thing; providing clear, consistent and fair funding that goes hand-in-hand with the imposition of new restrictions, including using the £1.3 billion underspend on the grants fund to support local jobs; fixing gaps in support for the self-employed; and extending the ban on evictions.

We are at a critical moment for our country. Infection rates are rising, and the economic outlook is worsening. It is more vital than ever that this Government get a grip on both the health and the economic crises. There are some who seek to pit people’s health against our economy, but we all know that our country has suffered a double tragedy: the highest excess death rate in Europe and the deepest recession in the G7. The predominant reason why many expect our recovery to proceed more slowly than that in other countries is the continued severe impact of the public health crisis in the UK. It has been suggested that the Chancellor blocked proposals from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies for a circuit breaker. He can now, if he wishes to, intervene on me and set the record straight.

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

May I intervene?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I asked the Chancellor to intervene on me. I am willing for another Member to, and perhaps the Chancellor will follow.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member mentioned “a” circuit breaker, but the guidance from SAGE says that “multiple” circuit breakers might be required to bring the virus under control. How many jobs does she believe those circuit breakers would cost?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I was just about to go on to say that the Government’s current stance is costing jobs and leading to reduced business confidence. If we continue as we are, without taking control of the public health situation, we will see a worse situation for jobs and businesses in our country. It appears that that will be the only intervention that I will receive.

It is clear that blocking a circuit breaker does not make sense for the health of our population or for our economy. Government Members need a reality check. One in four people in our country are subject to localised restrictions. We have already experienced a record rise in quarterly redundancies. Without action, we face the prospect of infections rising yet again, with more and more areas coming under localised restrictions and the Government eventually being forced into more national restrictions in any case. Every week of that inaction will hit business and consumer confidence, costing more jobs and livelihoods, with more businesses going to the wall. The question is not whether we can afford a circuit breaker. The question is whether we can afford to continue with a Government who duck taking hard choices until they are forced into them and who seem unable to stand apart from their chaotic lurching from week to week to assess what our country needs and take decisive action.

That circuit break must be used to fix test and trace, devolving it to local areas, so that we can protect our NHS, get control of the virus and start building economic confidence back up again, and it must be accompanied by support for jobs and businesses. We stand ready to work with the Government to ensure that that is put in place, so that no one is pushed into poverty for doing the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I know what a difficult time this is for the hon. Lady and her constituents. With regard to underspends—I will come on to this later—I think it is wrong to think of them in that way. That was the Government giving an advance to local authorities to make payments to businesses. That was done on the basis that every local authority will have a wildly different degree of overspend or underspend, which we true up at the end of the process. We could equally have asked local authorities to make payments themselves and reimbursed them afterwards. There is significant financial support both for her local authority and the businesses in her area that have closed down. That was announced by the Prime Minister and I will come on to address that in detail later. It is right that that support is there.

Let me reiterate our plan. The House will be well aware of the gravity of our economic situation. The latest figures show that our economy grew by 6% in July and 2% in August, but it remains almost 10% smaller than it was before coronavirus hit. Business investment suffered a record fall in the second quarter of this year. Consumer sentiment remains well below its long-run average. Despite the significant support we have provided, the data is beginning to reveal the true extent of the damage that coronavirus has caused our labour market. The latest statistics published just yesterday show employment falling, unemployment rising and welfare claims rising. The revisions that the Office for National Statistics has made to its previous estimates show that unemployment was higher than it thought over the summer.

I have talked about facing up to the difficult truths clearly, and we are facing an economic emergency, but we are acting on a scale commensurate with this emergency as we address my single biggest priority: to protect people’s jobs and their livelihoods. We have put in place a comprehensive plan to protect, support and create jobs in every region and nation of the United Kingdom. Through more than £200 billion of support since March, we are: protecting more than 9.5 million jobs through the job retention schemes; strengthening our welfare safety net with an extra £9 billion for the lowest paid and most vulnerable; granting more than £13.5 billion to those who are self-employed, with further grants to come; and protecting over 1 million small and medium-sized businesses through £100 billion of tax cuts, tax deferrals, direct grants and Government-backed loans.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to protect jobs is to keep the economy open wherever possible? Most other nations are using a local-restrictions approach to deal with this situation, including Germany, which is using lockdowns at a district level, not even at a state or county level. Does he agree that that is the best way forward?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only sustainable way to protect jobs in the long run is to have an economy that is open and functioning. No amount of support can make up for that.

There are other things we have done: eased repayment terms on those loans through pay as you grow; delivered on our promise to give the NHS what it needs; backed hundreds of thousands of young people to find good jobs through the kickstart scheme and new investment in training and apprenticeships; created green jobs through the £2 billion green grant programme; showed that we are here for our cultural sector, with the cultural recovery fund and a further support package for charities; and invested hundreds of billions of pounds in the largest, most sustained programme of infrastructure investment the UK has seen in decades. That is comprehensive action to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. It undermines the credibility of the Labour party that, in the face of all that support, it continues to pretend that insufficient action is being taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I have to say that I did give the UK Government a degree of praise at the beginning of the pandemic, because it did seem that they were moving in a way that perhaps was not part of traditional Tory ideology, with a lot more state intervention and a lot more Government support. I think there were quite a few of us in this House who, while we would disagree enormously on the politics, welcomed the fact that the Chancellor was willing to be innovative and try new things.

One thing I would say is that nobody prepares us for a global pandemic. Politicians and people in this House have seen recessions and people have seen wars, but nobody prepares us for a pandemic. Yes, there has to be a degree of flexibility on the part of all of us in this House, but the thing I am most concerned about is that the British Government seem to have moved away from those creative, innovative solutions they had at the beginning of the year. We now find ourselves in the midst of a second wave, and all of a sudden that dynamism and creativity the Chancellor has been credited with seems to have gone away, because of the pressure that comes from people on the 1922 committee. I do not think that people on the whole are going to forgive that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the hon. Member agree with the Opposition that there should be multiple circuit breakers, and if so, is that what the policy will be in Scotland?

[David Linden]

I am not sure that the official Opposition are proposing multiple circuit breaks, to be fair to them, but it is not my job to defend the policy of the Labour party. However, what I will defend is the approach of the SNP Scottish Government, who are trying to do this in a balanced way, but we would like to see a lot more financial flexibility to do that. It would help if the UK Government gave us those financial powers. That is what I would say to the hon. Gentleman on that.

I want to come on to that very point, and highlight the work that the Scottish Government have done in supporting business during the second wave of the pandemic. The Scottish Government’s total package for businesses is over £2.3 billion. That is more than the consequentials received from the UK Government. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), the Scottish Government are making an additional £40 million available to support businesses that will be affected by the new measures, and will work with affected sectors in the coming days. I am in no doubt of that. My city of Glasgow is one of those that have been under local lockdown restrictions, and the restaurants and bars in my constituency have had to shut down, but we have recognised when we have asked them to shut down, which is a way of trying to reduce the spread of the virus, that support must be coming.

The Scottish Government will continue to discuss with businesses how the support package we have offered can mitigate some or all of the employer’s contribution to the UK job retention scheme. We have put in place a £230 million “restart the economy” capital stimulus package to help stimulate the economy following the pandemic. We have announced details of a £38 million package of support for innovative early stage businesses. We have committed £2.2 million of funding to the Music Venue Trust, which will provide stability to grassroots music venues over the coming months.

What all this should highlight is that the UK Government’s financial plans have been and continue to be inadequate—excluding the self-employed, freelancers and artists; prematurely ending the furlough scheme; and refusing to make permanent the £20 increase in universal credit. Where we have had the power, the Scottish Government have spent £6.5 billion on tackling covid—above the Barnett consequentials—and they are doing all they can and all within their powers to support businesses across Scotland.

That is the issue at hand. There is only so much that the Scottish Government can do when the vast majority of Scotland’s tax and spending decisions are taken here in Westminster. The fact is that the Government cancelling the UK Budget simply demonstrates that Scotland remains an afterthought for the Tories. I would be more than happy to give way to the Chancellor if he can stand up and give some sort of clarity to Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance about what budget we are supposed to set when the Government have just gone ahead in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am one of the 5.7 million business people in this country for whom this is not a theoretical concept but an existential crisis. I listened carefully to the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), when she talked about business confidence. I agree with much of what she says, although probably not that much in this debate.

One thing that really damages business confidence is when you flip-flop. To say on Monday that you are willing to support a local lockdown strategy and then to say today that it has to be a national lockdown is totally wrong. That damages business confidence, and it damages consumer confidence. One thing that has bolstered business confidence has been the unprecedented levels of support we have seen from the Treasury and the Government. This is the third recession I have been through in our business, including in the years following 2008, and I have never seen support like this.

We need to be honest with people when we talk about a national lockdown and a circuit breaker. Are we talking about just one circuit breaker, one hit? The reality is that the SAGE advice says we might need multiple lockdowns, multiple circuit breakers, to keep the virus at low levels. Imagine the devastating impact on businesses and consumer confidence. The shadow Chancellor has to be honest with the business community. She needs to say that this might mean—[Interruption.] I did not hear it in her speech. She needs to say that this might mean multiple lockdowns, multiple hits and multiple costs to the taxpayer, and a devastating impact on businesses. A circuit breaker will buy 28 days. It will put us back in the same place in 28 days’ time—that is what it says. Please be honest with the people. What I would like to hear from the Opposition are some ideas on how we keep the economy open. I have not heard anything from them about how we tackle this public health crisis while keeping the economy open. I have not heard that.

If we cannot look to the Opposition, we should look to best practice internationally. There is no European country I am aware of that has gone back to a national lockdown. The leader in managing this crisis is Germany, which uses not just a local lockdown policy but a sub-local lockdown policy. It closed down Gütersloh and Warendorf, with 300,000 people per district. That is what we should look at. We should stop looking at wide regional lockdowns and look at sub-local lockdowns. The hon. Lady is looking at a national lockdown, which is the antithesis of what we are talking about.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I regret the fact that the hon. Member, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, particularly when he campaigns on banking and other issues, has not listened to what the Opposition have consistently said about test, trace and isolate. He is absolutely right about Germany. We wish we were in the situation where test, trace and isolate was working effectively. That would mean we could have a fine-grained response. We do not have it in the UK and that is why we need a reset to fix that system. He should be honest about that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with that, but it is not either/or. Of course we need to improve test and trace, but that should not mean we have to lock down the entire economy. That is absolutely the wrong thing.

I have three solutions. The number one thing is that we look at this on a super-local basis. We know that the rate of infection in Liverpool is 670 per 100,000. It is 60 in parts of North Yorkshire, but it varies significantly across North Yorkshire. We need to look at a district-based approach that would increase the amount of ownership and responsibility local people have for managing the crisis through peer pressure and from understanding that their actions would be effective.

I fully support having different tiers. I supported them on Monday and I support them today. Having said that, the two higher tiers do lead to a difficult situation. Bars and restaurants in tier 2, and restaurants in tier 3, are not required to close. That means they cannot access furlough support. There are two things we could do: extend the furlough support, which is a hit on the taxpayer; or, instead of coming down from six households per table, as it was last week, to one household, we could go to two households. That concession would have a very important effect for lots of pubs and restaurants, which would then be viable.

The third solution is business support. We need a new iteration of the bounce back loan scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, which has been so successful. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury knows, we also need to make non-bank lenders part of that new tranche of business support. We need forbearance for SMEs. We should phase support back in, so we move VAT from 5% to 10%, and not back to 20%. We should also phase back in business rates and perhaps stamp duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Government. First, I thank hon. and right hon. Members across the House for their insightful and considered contributions. From listening to those contributions, it seems to me that we can agree about the nature of the challenge, which is to find a flexible and sustainable response to the twin health and economic emergencies caused by the virus. This Government have designed and implemented such a response. The Chancellor called for a toolkit to protect jobs and businesses over the difficult weeks and months to come, and in closing today’s debate, I will outline its newest elements and respond to some of the points made by Members across the House.

On Monday, the chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, observed that we face two potential harms:

“a harm for society and the economy on the one hand and a harm for health on the other hand.”

In other words, the decisions we take are about finding that right balance. The need for balance as we evolve our economic response was expressed eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who has provided wise counsel over recent months and set out very clearly how the Government’s intentions are to keep as much open as possible for as long as possible. In formulating the Government’s economic response to the pandemic—the subject of today’s debate—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has sought that balance. He said earlier that we must not shy away from the burden of responsibility to take decisions and lead. We have not, and we will not.

The primary goal of our economic policy remains unchanged: it is to support people’s jobs. That is why we have progressed the next phase of our winter economy plan with the express intention of laying the track for economic recovery by protecting jobs through the coming months. As the Chancellor said, the new phase of that plan has three key elements: the job support scheme; cash grants for businesses that are forced to close; and additional funding for local authorities. These more targeted measures will come into force as the furlough scheme winds down at the end of the month. That scheme has supported more than 9 million jobs, but the House will understand that it cannot continue indefinitely, as the Chancellor made clear from the outset.

First, we will expand the job support scheme. This will help to protect jobs in businesses that can continue to operate as well as in those that cannot. For those businesses that can open safely but where there is reduced or uncertain demand, the Government will directly subsidise employees’ wages, meaning that those employees can work shorter hours rather than being made redundant. Businesses that are forced to close will also be aided by the scheme. In circumstances where staff are unable to work for a week or more, they will still be paid two thirds of their normal wage up to £2,100 a month. This will be covered by the Government and will apply right across the whole of the United Kingdom. Crucially, because the scheme will run for six months, it will give people and businesses the certainty they need. We have intentionally designed the scheme so that there is no gap in support for employees. Staff can remain on the furlough scheme until 31 October and will benefit from the new job support scheme from the following day.

Throughout this crisis, we have not forgotten about the self-employed, which is why we are extending the existing self-employed income support scheme for a further six months. This is in addition to the support through initiatives such as business rates relief, bounce back loans and the local restrictions support grant. For those who question the generosity of the job support scheme, we have looked closely at schemes implemented by our friends in countries such as Germany and Italy, and they are very closely in line.

Importantly, businesses can also access a wide spectrum of other help that we have made available in recent months. As the City Minister, I have been most closely involved in the temporary loan schemes that have been rolled out at pace to meet the needs of businesses large and small and recently extended to ensure that businesses that still want to access them can do so. As of 20 September, more than £57 billion has been provided to businesses of all sizes through Government guaranteed loan schemes.

At the same time, the welfare safety net available to those most in need has become more generous and responsive. Treasury analysis shows that covid-19 welfare changes, together with Government interventions since March, have supported the poorest working households most of all, reducing the scale of losses for working households by up to two thirds. I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who is no longer in his place, about the continuing need to address carefully the needs of the most vulnerable. The universal credit standard allowance and working tax credit basic element have both been increased by £20 per week for 2020-21, and given the way in which universal credit replaces 63% of lost income for the lowest earners, this means that someone on the job support scheme at 67% of their original earnings will see universal credit make up at least 63% of the 33% they have lost. This will mean that they will end up, in many cases, with nearly 90% of their original income.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Can I take the Minister back to the loan schemes, which were delivered at pace and were a fantastic success? Does he agree that we will need a new iteration of those loans scheme to take us through the next phase and that, wherever possible, we should make those loans available to all businesses, regardless of where they hold their business account, including those that hold that account with non-bank lenders?

[John Glen]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is something that the Chancellor and I are working on as a live issue, and we will report back to the House in due course.

The second element of the winter economy plan is cash grants. Businesses in England that are required to close for health reasons can now claim a grant of up to £3,000 depending on the value of their property. That is a cash grant, not a loan, that they will never need to pay back and they can use for any business cost. Should the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales adopt a similar approach, we will make an additional £1.3 billion available to them to help—part of a £7.2 billion total package—further demonstrating the importance of the Union as we face these challenges together.

I turn to the third component: local authorities. I pay tribute to the efforts of local authority leaders and their officers throughout the crisis, and I pay particular tribute to my own in Wiltshire. Up to £465 million will be made available to those local authorities at high or very high alert to support public health and local economic initiatives. That is on top of the £1 billion to protect vital services, which itself is in addition to the £3.7 billion we have already provided since the spring.

Let me conclude by saying that, as we have throughout this crisis, we will continue to listen carefully to represent- ations of hon. and right hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, keep the whole of our support package under review and, where necessary, adapt and evolve our response. Members from across the House have made representations today, and the Government will reflect carefully on them.

I vividly recall coming to the House in March, 209 days ago, prior to the launch of the furlough scheme, to answer an urgent question on jobs. The House made its view plain on that occasion, as it has today. We were listening then, and we are listening now. We will do everything possible to carry this country through the crisis, in the knowledge that we can and we will succeed. We need what the Chancellor has called a consistent, co-operative and balanced approach. The Government will continue to strive for that crucial balance, protecting lives and livelihoods flexibly and sustainably for as long as it takes. That is why I urge the House to support the Government amendment.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

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

May I start by thanking all those present today and extending my gratitude to those who support my Bill and to the Members who are unable to attend because of ongoing shielding responsibilities? I thank the Minister and his officials for the many discussions we have had on this Bill and the consideration they have given it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for his advice and support. I wish to pay special thanks to my brilliant team—Hannah Buckingham, James Metcalfe, Lauren Kinsey, Mike Ash-Edwards and Charlie Roberts—who have been with me all the way, poring over legislation, dealing with briefings and emails, visiting projects and researching and preparing for this Bill.

Legislation that supports positive social and economic transformation has never been more necessary. I firmly believe that my Bill, the green share Bill, as it is known, has so much to offer. It feels like a lifetime ago that, in January, as a Back Bencher, I was lucky enough to have been selected in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill. It was a significant moment: the opportunity to put forward legislation that has the possibility of going the distance, becoming law and effecting change. The turmoil over the past few months has been difficult, and we know that these difficulties will continue as we navigate our way through this covid crisis. There has never been a more important time for this Bill, which supports positive social, environmental and economic change and helps tackle the climate emergency from the ground up. It is a Bill that delivers that necessary transformation.

Like all Members selected in that ballot, I was inundated with emails asking me to put forward important pieces of legislation. I want to thank all those who inundated me with their brilliant suggestions and idea; this provides a reminder of the scale of change we need to see across this country. The time and circumstances right now are calling for us to be bold; we cannot go back to business as usual. We must create a society that provides the jobs and opportunities of tomorrow and that reduces the inequalities and injustices of today. My green share Bill is an opportunity to do just that. It aims to build a more equitable and sustainable economy, rooted in all our communities and with environmental sustainability at its heart. It unlocks much-needed finance and creates a level playing field for co-operatives.

We are living through a climate emergency. Innovative green projects within our local communities must be at the heart of our rebuild and the fight against runaway climate change. Yesterday’s report by Climate Assembly UK that was presented to the House highlighted that the public want greater choice and competition for green energy and sustainable services. As we look to rebuild communities post covid, innovative and sustainable projects that create green jobs and apprenticeships and that generate cheaper and cleaner energy and more sustainable living environments must be a priority for all.

The Bill empowers our communities and investors to do their part in tackling the climate emergency from the bottom up. If we are to help to tackle climate change, we must legislate to enable our communities to rise to that challenge. Top-down approaches from the UK Government alone are not enough, even if they did not fall woefully short of the radical action required. Too often, we have heard the Government make big announcements, but we do not see the delivery of those promises on the ground. Instead of action, we have seen empty rhetoric and missed targets. Instead of climate action, we have seen abject failure and staggering hypocrisy.

People across this country are demanding change. Research last year by Greener UK and the Climate Coalition found that almost 70% of the British public want urgent political climate action and leadership. When I asked constituents in my constituency of Cardiff North what they wanted to see, the answer was healthier, greener and safer communities. This Government are not delivering. When we have a Government who are still willing to funnel billions into fossil fuel projects, how can we trust them to have our best interests at heart? The gulf between action and empty words is widening daily, and with it, the window of opportunity to make any meaningful difference to our planet is shrinking.

Covid-19 presents a significant fork in that road for the UK Government. Do we continue on a path of limited decarbonisation, missed targets and missed opportunities to future-proof environmental legislation, or do we use this opportunity to take a bold approach to rebuilding a more sustainable, resilient world that transitions away from a fossil-fuel driven economy and embraces serious measures to tackling the climate crisis at all levels? We must step up and begin to put the mechanics in place that are needed to deliver on our binding targets, including the Paris climate agreement, our commitment to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C and the UN sustainable development goals that were adopted by the UK in 2015. Action must start now, and the Bill provides an opportunity fundamentally to transform our communities and do just that.

The Bill provides a way for co-operatives to raise private investment. The maximum threshold that can be raised through fixed term withdrawable shares is currently £100,000. Co-operatives UK said that that is the biggest practical limitation on societies seeking institutional investment, because as a result, co-operatives have less money to invest to innovate and grow their businesses. There is a need to facilitate new capital in co-operatives, without compromising their co-operative nature or members losing control. My Bill would remove the threshold that is holding co-operatives back, while enhancing the economic democracy and accountability that lies at the heart of co-operatives. The new green share would protect the economic democracy at the heart of co-operatives operating a one person, one vote system. The Bill would also safeguard co-operatives from individuals or businesses that seek to liberate—or asset-strip—a legacy asset by demutualising a society and taking over its business for private benefit; that threat would be nullified.

Some may ask about potential loopholes in the Bill. I accept that where there is risk, there are always those who are actively exploring ways to undermine financial law. That is why the Bill protects against tax and fraud loopholes by allowing the Treasury, by regulation, to address such concerns and establish a pilot scheme for the framework. In my correspondence with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury over the last six months, he has been enthusiastic about doing so.

Despite their value to customers and the community, mutuals and co-operatives in the UK are hugely underappreciated. Several barriers prevent co-operatives from growing to their full potential and place them at a disadvantage. Allowing my Bill to progress today would represent parliamentary acknowledgement of the value that co-operatives add to whole sectors and communities, and it would signal our intent to amend existing law, under which co-operatives have one arm tied behind their back. This House should champion, celebrate and recognise what co-operatives have done for the country.

I will provide a little bit of context for the Bill. The co-operative model is a truly British success story and a very successful Welsh story, and it was at the heart of economic renewal in the past. Robert Owen, a prominent Welsh textile manufacturer, was one of the founders of the co-operative movement, and he proposed the creation of “villages of co-operation” as a response to the economic crisis in 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic wars. The first co-operative societies were established in Wales in the early 1840s, among them one started by the Chartists in Pontypridd. The strength of the movement in south Wales was in small valley villages such as Troedyrhiw, New Tredegar and Caerau, which reflected how the coal industry developed. In North Wales, they grew in coal and slate communities such as Leeswood and Llanberis. In mid-Wales, they developed in towns such as Newtown and Welshpool.

Co-operation was about much more than trading; it was a way of life for many. It became a central part of the culture of the local community, similar to that of the chapel. People identified with it and were loyal to their co-operative societies, which became an ingrained way of life. As was said of the Blaina Co-operative Society in 1922, it was

“undoubtedly the biggest thing in the valley outside of the coal industry itself”.

What started as a community model for pooling resources and working as a collective to provide low-priced flour, oatmeal, sugar and butter has grown and inspired the growth of co-operatives across the world. There are roughly 1 billion members of co-operatives worldwide, in more than 100 countries. That is something to be proud of.

In Wales, the feeling of co-operation and belonging has endured. The values of co-operation, fairness and social responsibility are still with us in our communities, and we need to harness and protect those values and strengths. A lesson that we can all learn from co-operatives, as the current health and climate crisis demonstrates, is the potential for renewal and transformation—for keeping up, adapting and tackling the challenging conditions that lie before us.

During this coronavirus crisis, we have seen the spirit of co-operation and community coming to the fore to provide resources to those who most need them. More than £4 million of food and other services have been donated by the Co-operative stores to FareShare for distribution to community food bank and for fundraising. Some 5,000 jobs have been created and targeted at those whose employment has fallen foul of the current crisis. That is just a fraction of the good work that co-operatives have done to support communities, businesses and people. As we face up to the scale of the economic damage caused by the virus, our society must look at the co-operative model as a model of sustainable and ethical economic and social regeneration.

This green share Bill is an acknowledgement of the crucial work that co-operatives do and a recognition of the unlimited possibilities that would be available for people and communities from Cardiff to Canterbury from Manchester to Middlesbrough by unleashing them from these archaic restrictions. Co-operatives can be part of the revival again, whether that is coming out of this covid crisis or addressing the catastrophic climate crisis before us, both of which continue to rage in tandem.

Co-operatives are already leading the way in sustainable business and green projects. The current crisis demonstrates the need for this Parliament to look again at the current restrictive rules and instead put in place legislation that allows them to flourish. We must have economic development, job creation and vital infrastructure built from the ground up, so that we can guarantee economic and social success that works for all.

The Government have been inconsistent in their commitments in England, scrapping a policy to power 1 million homes by community energy in 2017. That is in stark contrast to the Labour Government in Wales, who wholeheartedly support community energy projects and the development of clean energy generation. Since 2010, renewable electricity in Wales has trebled.

Housing associations would also benefit from the legislation in this Bill with capital to retrofit and to build new homes, which again is something that the Labour Government in Wales are spearheading. Millions has been announced for the Welsh innovative housing programme, the optimised retrofit programme and improved quality standards. We need to see that same commitment from this UK Government for England.

Despite the lack of commitment from the Government here, communities and co-operatives continue to press ahead undeterred, because they recognise the value such projects add, but those projects need to be valued and not neglected. Energy co-operatives in the form of renewable or low-carbon energy are now established in all corners of the British Isles.

In March, I visited Awel co-operative wind farm, a joint venture between Awel and Egni in Mynydd y Gwrhyd, south Wales. The wind farm was commissioned in 2017 and has a huge range of local members, including charities, sports clubs and the local arts centre. It really is a community project.

We have Egni Co-op, which was the first solar photovoltaic co-operative in Wales. It is now undertaking the biggest roll-out of rooftop solar in Welsh history. It develops rooftop solar on schools, businesses and community buildings to help reduce their carbon footprint. It has just completed the largest rooftop solar installation in Wales on the Geraint Thomas velodrome in Newport. It has a share offer that has raised £1.3 million so far.

Both projects have the best of co-operative values at their heart, combined with environmental sustainability. They demonstrate a new way of greening our energy network and local economies. Such projects strengthen communities and serve as educational facilities and tourist attractions. They show where community enterprise, private investment and co-operative governance can work together and lead the way.

Both the projects I have visited, alongside others I have spoken to, would really benefit from this green share Bill, but this Bill would also unlock vital finance and help these projects go from strength to strength. Dan McCallum, the director of Awel co-op, strongly supports the Bill. In his words:

“This Bill will really help in terms of unlocking other sources of finance, supporting and strengthening the co-op model. We’ve been amazed at the interest people have shown in renewable energy and co-ops, but any ways of expanding on that and strengthening the model can only be a good thing.”

We face the mammoth task of tackling climate change and transitioning our economy to net zero. It will be particularly challenging to effect climate action at local level, but it is my belief that by allowing co-operatives to expand and bringing the community with them, they can help us rise to that challenge.

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

As the hon. Lady knows, I am a co-sponsor of the Bill. I am very supportive of the principle of co-operatives. On climate change, she said a few minutes ago that Wales had done better than the rest of the UK, citing how it has trebled its renewable electricity production since 2010. That is exactly what the whole of the UK has done as well—it has gone from 6.5% to 20%—so it would be good to recognise some of the achievements of the entire UK as well as those of the Welsh Government.

[Anna McMorrin]

The real point I was making is that the regulatory framework and legislation put in place by the Labour Welsh Government have allowed such projects to come to the fore, particularly community energy projects—and in fact onshore wind, which has not been the case in England—but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

My green share Bill unlocks an exciting market for external investment in co-operatives and mutuals, allowing them to grow, maintaining competitiveness and investing in green sustainable projects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewer]

The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that I will say several things in support of the principles underlined by her and which other colleagues have touched on.

While the Bill seeks to add to the track record of this Government and previous Governments, there are several issues within it that that cannot be ignored. Some of those worry me, and although I see elements of merit in the Bill, I am hesitant about it for reasons that I will address, dealing with some of the specifics rather than only outlining problems overall for the sector, which may lead to the Minister’s scribbling out too much of his speech.

As I mentioned, co-operatives and community benefit societies add to the diverse make-up of the UK economy and are in many cases successful, with more than 72% of co-ops still flourishing after a difficult first few years, in comparison to 43% of companies overall. Those businesses are therefore a cornerstone of the UK’s economy, particularly its social economy, and have the benefit of helping to push sustainable economic development and investment in green sectors. That should be celebrated and encouraged. Many across the House will share their ambition.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend outlines some of the benefits of co-operatives. Is he aware that in many countries the banking sector is largely provided through co-operatives, including Germany and the USA, and that those banks provide much more sustainable long-term thinking and patient capital to help small and medium-sized enterprises through financial crises? If the Government decide to lead us down that route in terms of diversifying our banking sector, would he support that?

[Andrew Lewer]

I think that business models that are rooted in their communities and have the wellbeing of those communities at their heart, while enabling individuals to be enterprising within them, are very beneficial, particularly in having the value of local knowledge of what will be a success, rather than simply a balance-sheet approach.

Investment in emerging green markets and technologies, in line with Government green investment strategies, can be beneficial and should be encouraged, but they are not without their own risks, and that is one of my worries. Investors must be aware that there are risks associated with green shares, as there are with any shares. My worry—and that, I believe, of some of my colleagues—is that the well-intentioned ethical ambitions attached to this instrument may expose them to risks that they may not have foreseen. I am concerned that the Bill exposes the co-operative sector to the unintended risks of being exploited as investment vehicles, rather than purpose-driven organisations. There is a balance to be struck there.

As with many of these societies and co-operatives, people have saved up for years to invest their savings in capital, and I want to ensure that they do not underestimate the associated risks of green shares proposed by the Bill. Just because it has the word “green” attached to it does not mean that it is a guaranteed way of making money or is a sensible investment. Although it is probably a slightly politically incorrect cross-reference in the context of this debate, I am reminded of the car industry. People often muse, “If only I’d invested massively in the car industry in 1900, I’d have made a fortune.” Actually, nearly all the car companies that were founded in 1900 led to a loss for their founders, because only a few of them prevailed. Although the overall concept of investing in the automotive industry in 1900 was good, it actually led to a lot of people losing a lot of money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is putting forward a good case for credit unions. Is he aware that credit unions in the UK have collective assets of around £4 billion, compared with mutual banks and co-operatives in the United States that have £4.7 trillion—a thousand times as much? We need to invest more in credit unions and co-operatives and make it easier for them to establish and grow in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree with that sentiment?

[Paul Howell]

I absolutely agree, and it is important to create an environment in which that can grow and that that extension is done in a way that retains the safety and confidence of the investors.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury concluded his speech by saying:

“This might include helping people who aren’t insured secure the protection they need. Or it could involve helping people buy goods on hire purchase at more affordable rates.”

I understand that environmentally sustainable investments are defined by their support for the creation of an innovative, productive and low-carbon economy, and the maintenance and enhancement of a biodiverse natural environment with healthy functioning ecosystems and ecological resilience. As with any innovation, these can be more risky investments. I believe they can also include what are referred to as “impact investments”, where the primary purpose is the impact as opposed to the return, or even the security of the capital. For investors, credit unions, and many other small investors, capital is not something they want to be placed at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) both on securing this private Member’s Bill and on highlighting the important issue to the House. I acknowledge the many significant contributions so far: from my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Bolton West (Chris Green), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Gedling (Tom Randall). All of them have interrogated the Bill very carefully and thoughtfully with some interesting exchanges along the way.

I wish to put it on record that I fully agree with the ambitions of the hon. Lady’s Bill to support the growth and development of the co-operative and mutual sector and to tackle climate change; I have enjoyed our dialogue during the preparation of the Bill to get to this point. They are two key drivers of my tenure as Economic Secretary. I also wish to put it on record that the Government have taken significant steps to support the co-operative and mutual sector to reach its potential, and I will continue to champion mutuals of all kinds. Just last week, I was pleased to attend a roundtable on the topic of regional mutual banks chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) who has also made contributions again today. I will be taking some of those thoughts from that discussion forward.

Treasury officials who work with me also hosted an innovative mutuals workshop with representatives from across the sector last year to drive practical changes to help co-operatives. In 2014, as has been mentioned, we passed the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act to reduce legal complexity and, at the same time, we increased the amount of capital a member could invest in a society from £20,000 to £100,000.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister refers to the roundtable we held on mutual banks. One of the astounding figures in that roundtable was the SME lending by mutual banks in other countries throughout the financial crisis. In Japan, there was no reduction in lending to SMEs. In Germany, there was a 20% increase. In Switzerland, there was a 30% increase over that five-year period. In the UK, there was a 25% decrease in lending to SMEs. Does that not show the power of mutual banks as a solution to SME lending?

[John Glen]

It does show the considerable potential, but we must be clear about the different legal traditions and frameworks that exist in those different jurisdictions. Right now, we are looking at where we can examine ways of moving forward constructively from the basis that we have in this country.

I would like to move on and examine some of the other elements where the Treasury has made contributions to assist this broad agenda. Where we have identified barriers holding mutuals back, we have acted to remove them. This year, we worked with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that companies converting to co-operatives are treated on a level playing field. At the Budget, the Government announced that the tax burden on housing co-operatives would be reduced. Most recently, the Treasury has worked closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that co-operatives can benefit from the Government’s covid-19 business support offer, including through the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.

I am conscious that the interest of the hon. Member for Cardiff North is not just about the development of the co-operative sector. In our discussions, her passion for taking action to address climate change and her considerable experience in Wales prior to coming to this place have been abundantly clear to me. The Government share that ambition. As the House will be aware, we legislated to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050, becoming the first major economy to do so. In the Budget earlier this year, the Chancellor also announced a series of real, tangible measures to support green growth and tackle climate change. They were wide-ranging and included: committing to the carbon capture and storage infrastructure fund; fulfilling the manifesto commitment to tree planting and peatland restoration through a £640 million Nature for Climate fund; delivering on our commitment to increase the proportion of green gas in the grid by consulting on introducing a Great Britain-wide green gas levy to support biomethane production, alongside other measures to decarbonise heat; doubling the size of our energy innovation programme; and, at the summer economic update in July, the Government announced a further ambitious £3.05 billion package for housing decarbonisation designed to cut carbon, save people money and create jobs.

In my own area of responsibility at the Treasury, green finance is a priority. We published our green finance strategy in July last year. It sets out very clear objectives to align private sector financial flows with clean environmentally sustainable and resilient growth, and to strengthen the competitiveness of the UK financial sector. The tone of the debate and the content of colleagues’ speeches today has shown that there has to be an almost limitless ambition in terms of the dimensions of interventions. A number of contributions focused on the issue of green bonds and mobilising green finance. That means accelerating investments to support clean growth and our environmental ambitions. I think I would want to say that the issuance of green bonds will be an important part of the pathway to delivering the transition to net zero by 2050. It is something that the Treasury keeps under active and ongoing review as we approach fiscal events in the future.

I would like to turn now to the reasons the Government cannot support this Bill, despite sharing the ambitions of the hon. Member for Cardiff North. For the benefit of the House, it may be worth restating that societies can currently issue shares to raise capital and may also issue debt in much the same way as companies, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) correctly set out. The current arrangement allows for a considerable amount of flexibility for co-operatives seeking to raise capital, while safeguarding their status as genuinely mutual member-owned and controlled entities.

The Government believe that the UK should have a strong and robust regulatory system which provides strong protection for consumers. Investment in mutuals, like any other investment, is not risk-free—a point that has been made by several hon. Members. Although it is for investors to make their own choices about risk—as has been pointed out, investments can go up and down—it is crucial that the Government ensure that appropriate protections are in place, particularly where a new type of investment instrument or product is being created.

The recent public and regulatory attention, following the failure of London Capital and Finance, to retail investments such as those that are often referred to as mini bonds highlights that care is needed when developing investment products for retail investors. From the beginning of this year, the Financial Conduct Authority took action to limit the promotion of a certain type of mini bond to certain retail investors, citing concerns about the high risk that capital invested would not be repaid and the illiquid nature of the investment. The FCA is now consulting on making those temporary rules permanent and extending them to some similar securities.

Unfortunately, we believe that the type of share proposed in the Bill may unintentionally—I do accept that it would be unintentional—create a capital instrument with characteristics similar to those of a mini bond, without ensuring that adequate protections for consumers were in place. Some of the significant issues with mini bonds arose as a result of their illiquid nature—the fact that they cannot easily be transferred—limiting investors’ ability to access their funds. Although the share proposed in the Bill is transferable, we believe that, in practice, it is likely that it would be highly illiquid. Mutual shares can ordinarily only be transferred at par value, which in turn limits the potential for the emergence of any secondary market for the shares, because the incentive to purchase existing shares is limited. In the case of the share proposed in the Bill, the opportunities for retail investors to recover their funds before the term attached to the share has expired, should they need to do so, may be extremely limited. That limitation could pose risks to retail investors with relatively low net worth who may need to access their capital.

Investment in mutuals is not risk-free. Many investors in mini bonds were motivated by the opportunity to support a brand or product that they had some relationship with, so they may not have fully considered the risks posed to their capital. That issue should be considered carefully in this case, because it is likely that individual socially minded investors may see investment in a green co-operative as an ethical use of their funds and may underestimate the associated risk.

That issue may be compounded by two further considerations. First, although the FCA is the registering authority for co-operatives, where they are not undertaking regulated activity they are not supervised by the FCA in the manner in which financial services firms are. We believe, therefore, that there is a significant risk of mistaking registration with the FCA to suggest a level of scrutiny that does not exist, and that may cause investors to underestimate the risk. Furthermore, as the investments are unlikely to be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, there would be no compensation available to consumers if the issuing co-operative were unable to repay the original investment. That has been a particularly contentious area with mini bonds.

More broadly, the Treasury’s review of the current regulatory arrangements for the issuance and marketing of non-transferable debt securities, such as some mini bonds, is ongoing. It is right that we consider carefully the outcome of that review before consideration is given to the creation of any capital instrument with similar characteristics. We do not want to have to do another review when we have not concluded this one yet. I hope I have made it clear to the House that the Government have significant concerns about the potential consumer detriment that may unintentionally arise as a result of the type of share proposed in this Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the Minister agree that the issue with mini bonds, and particularly with London Capital and Finance, was the misunderstanding around what was regulated? In that case, the product itself was not regulated, but the marketing of it was. That was very confusing for consumers, many of whom thought they were buying regulated products when they were not. Would it not be more straightforward to simplify and widen the regulatory framework to bring those kinds of products into it?

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend shows his usual grasp of these matters. He is right to say that the lack of clarity about the promotions regime and the regulation of the underlying instruments poses some real challenges. Alongside Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s review, which will report in November, we are looking carefully at the right joined-up response to deal with the risks that we have seen in the recent unfortunate situation arising from these mini-bonds.

Alongside protecting consumers, it is right that the Government consider the impact of any proposed changes to the shares issued by co-operatives on the sector. We have seen clear examples in other policy areas of legal forms being used to deliver investor benefits other than for the purpose they were intended, such as tax-advantaged venture capital schemes in energy generation. The FCA noted in response to its 2015 consultation that it had taken the decision not to register a number of energy societies as co-operatives. Those decisions were taken on a case-by-case basis, when it was determined that the conditions for registration as a co-operative were not met. In those cases, the relevant condition for registration was that the society must be a bona fide co-operative society.

Key to what makes mutuals distinct from other legal forms is their purpose-driven nature—one that the hon. Member for Cardiff North set out clearly in her opening speech and to which others have referred. I am concerned that the type of share proposed in the Bill may incentivise investors to inappropriately use the co-operative legal form as a vehicle to attract investment rather than to act for the benefit of its members or community, as co-operatives are intended to. Let me be clear: we are not opposed to community energy schemes, or for that matter any other business seeking to incorporate in the mutual model. However, it is right for the Government to be cautious in proceeding without the possibility for appropriate consultation and consideration, because we have seen real examples of where the model has been used in the wrong way, to considerable consumer detriment.

Finally, I note that there does not appear to be a clear consensus from the co-operative sector in support of the Bill as it stands. I will set out the position plainly as I understand it. In a briefing to MPs, the trade body Co-operatives UK noted that the Bill would be “impractical and counterproductive” and

“would restrict rather than expand the scope for societies to take on mission-aligned investment for environmental and social purposes.”

Co-operatives UK’s preferred approach, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, is to make amendments in Committee to remove the links to environmentally sustainable investment from most of the Bill. However, I believe that would fundamentally contradict the hon. Member’s intentions in drawing the scope of the Bill and is therefore not a viable way forward.

To conclude, let me reiterate my sincere gratitude to the hon. Member for Cardiff North for bringing forward this Bill. There has been a constructive discussion today, and it is important to highlight the value of the co-operative and mutual sector, both to the House and the public. I thank her for the way that she has engaged with me and my officials in recent months. Her passion to support the sector and tackle climate change has been clear throughout. As I have indicated to her previously, I will be happy to continue to work with her and representatives from the sector, of which there are a number across the House, to understand what more can be done. I will continue to champion the work of the co-operative sector more generally and address some of the themes of today’s debate, which have been very valid and worth while.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is great to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double); he always speaks with great passion, insight and common sense. I am delighted to be called in this heavily subscribed debate—though it is perhaps slightly less so than it was a few minutes ago. As the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) knows, I support the principle behind the Bill and co-operatives and agree that we need to do more on climate change, though I would echo my hon. Friend’s words: we need more consensus. Everyone across the House wants to tackle climate change.

I do not accept the premise that this country is doing badly compared with other countries. It is not true. We are the leading nation among the G20. We can trade facts of course—Opposition Members can throw facts at me about the performance of the Welsh Government; Conservative Members could talk about the UK Government—but the best thing to look at is the international comparison. There is a research document produced every year by an organisation called Germanwatch—hon. Members can google it—called the climate change performance index. It indexes every single country around the world. It does not award the first three places, because it says none of us is doing a good enough job, which I think is absolutely right, but it does list every nation, and the UK is fourth. It is updated every year—the hon. Lady should definitely read it—and the only countries ahead of us are Sweden, Denmark and Morocco. Every other country we can name is doing worse than the UK. We should be proud of that.

Of course, we need to go further faster, but we should not belittle the UK’s efforts. In the past year, the UK became one of the first countries to set that net-zero commitment by 2050 and brought forward the date for banning the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles. There is some very significant work going on. We should have a cross-party conversation. Of course, we should all be pushing the Government to go further and faster, but there have been many achievements.

As the hon. Lady knows, I agree that we should support co-operatives and sustainable investment, but I would question, as have one or two other people, whether the Bill should be limited to just environmental sustainable investment. There are other types of sustainable investment that this kind of Bill could enable. As she knows, and as the Minister knows, such a Bill could enable a big increase in the number of mutual banks in the UK. Such co-operatives are a feature of many economies around the world, and there are lots of reasons to adopt them in the UK.

As many here know, I am co-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking. We spend much of our time trying to resolve disputes between businesses and banks, and principally those disputes arise because of the huge imbalance of power between banks and businesses when things go wrong and because of the lack of competition in the sector: 80% of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises is concentrated in the four big banks. That is not a healthy state of affairs, which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury recognises, and he has done much work to try to expand competition in this sector. The co-operative and mutual movement could provide a huge solution to the problem we have, particularly in terms of SME banking.

As the hon. Member for Cardiff North pointed out, co-operatives and mutuals were pretty much invented in the UK, in the banking sector in the 18th century, yet we seem to have decided that they are not right for the UK. We got rid of our most of our mutuals, most of which were building societies, mostly through demutualisation. Members have made interesting comments about proposed new section 27B, which prevents demutualisation. I support that provision in principle.

The argument has been made that it should be up to members to decide the right structure for their organisation; that is the liberal view. However, financial incentives can get in the way of doing the right thing. We have seen that with the demutualisation of building societies. Bradford and Bingley, Woolwich and Northern Rock have not exactly been huge successes since they demutualised—in fact, quite the opposite; they have been total disasters. They demutualised because there was a financial incentive for people to become members of those organisations, put money into the building societies and then get a payday when they were demutualised. It was called carpetbagging at the time, and we all did it. We got a few quid out of those demutualisations, but it has been a complete disaster. So members do not always act in the interests of the organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), who made a fantastic speech, said that it should be up to members to decide because they always act in the best interests of the organisation. That is not always the case.

These mutual organisations that used to be a force for good in the UK have largely disappeared, yet they perform an important role in many other economies. We have a resurgence and a new initiative. The Economic Secretary took part in a roundtable that we organised recently with South West Mutual and the other mutuals leading the charge. There are 18 regional mutual banks being set up around the UK, and they could reverse this trend. They are a particularly important factor in levelling up, which the Government want to do.

These mutuals could perform a key role in a devolution settlement, for example. A regional mutual bank would support financial inclusion. We see more and more that some big banks are not particularly interested in some people, who are financially excluded. A regional mutual bank can play a benevolent role within a community, in terms of financial inclusion, SME lending and encouraging the establishment and scaling up of SMEs in their locality. They are full-service banks, so they do everything from taking deposits in current accounts to lending to small businesses. They are deposit-led—they take in deposits and lend money back out to businesses.

Regional mutual banks are hugely successful in other parts of the world. The United States has 12,000 of them. The state of Wisconsin, which is about the size of Yorkshire, with 5.9 million people living there, has 129 regional mutual banks. We do not have any. The total amount of assets under management by these banks in the US is £4.7 trillion. In Germany, there are 1,500 similar entities, with £2.4 trillion under management and being lent out to SMEs. In the UK, we only have around £4 billion, principally through credit unions.

As I said to the Minister when he kindly took an intervention, we saw in 2008 one of the problems in an inevitably cyclical economy when push comes to shove. When the banks got into financial trouble and had to have a bail-out from the Government, they wanted to restore the strength of their balance sheet, and almost inevitably, they did that at the expense of lots of SMEs in the UK. Funding was pulled from lots of SMEs, and lots of them went under or could not borrow and keep going. That had a devastating impact on many lives and livelihoods, but it also had a hugely damaging impact on UK plc.

It took us longer to recover from the economic crisis in the UK because of that issue, and the failure of those businesses due to the withdrawal of finance cost us around £40 billion. As I said, during that five-year period, between 2008 and 2013, Japanese mutuals did not reduce finance at all to those SMEs, the German mutuals actually increased the amount of lending to SMEs by 20% and Switzerland’s did so by 30%, whereas in the UK we saw a 25% reduction in lending to SMEs. I can make no more powerful case to the Minister than that for putting the measures in place through this kind of legislation. We should work with the hon. Member for Cardiff North to try to find a way forward for this kind of legislation, which could enable the investments that she and I want to see, whereby the community is investing in renewable energy projects and we are potentially helping to capitalise some of these banks to get them going. I know the Minister has concerns about the regulatory framework and making sure these banks do not cause a systemic risk or endanger investments for deposit holders and the like. Of course we need to work those things through, but there is a powerful case for supporting these regional mutual banks, particularly in terms of SMEs.

I wish to finish by talking about proposed new section 27C, which deals with tax loopholes and which the hon. Lady is right to put in place. Clearly, there is no detail behind that and she is asking the Treasury to come with the detail on how we stop these things being used as tax loopholes. Members can have topics they return to again and again, and the Economic Secretary is probably sick of my returning to the ones on banking, but when you are a hammer everything is a nail. One tax loophole has been exploited in terms of co-operatives in the Netherlands, and this has been done by an organisation called Cerberus. It is a giant private equity house that bought up lots of assets in the UK, in particular by buying £16 billion-worth of assets from Northern Rock. Those were loans where there was a danger of default or loans that were seen as high-risk, where Northern Rock had over-lent or lent too generously prior to the financial crash. Cerberus uses complex vehicles to move all its profits from the UK, Ireland and many other jurisdictions into this little co-operative shell in the Netherlands to avoid paying any corporation tax on its investments. It bought lots of these assets in the UK where other banks did not because its regulatory framework is lighter and because it pays less tax, and so it can afford to pay more for these assets.

Many Members here today will have constituents who are mortgage prisoners. Cerberus owns many of these mortgages but it is not an active lender, and so it locks many of these borrowers into very expensive mortgages. It does not give them the option to switch to a new provider, because it is not an active lender. It becomes the only bidder for some of these books because it will pay more, because it does not pay tax and it has a lower regulatory framework. However, the people caught in the middle are some 200,000 mortgage prisoners, who simply cannot move from one lender to the other. They are often stuck on rates at 5% and above. I believe that 48% of those borrowers are on rates above 3.5%. I doubt that anybody in here with a mortgage is paying at that kind of rate on their mortgage, because most of us are on fixed-rate loans. We have been allowing these books to be sold to overseas entities that do not pay tax—or pay very little tax—and operate within a much less restrictive regulatory framework, and so they have a natural advantage, but it is to the big disadvantage of our UK borrowers.

The FCA has tried to put a solution in place to prevent this situation, but a simple solution would be simply to cap the standard variable rate for mortgages. We did this in energy. I am not a price fixer, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is simply wrong that when most of us are paying rates of 2% and below these people are paying rates of 6%—that is simply unfair. We could resolve this matter in one fell swoop by capping the standard variable rate.

With that I will happily conclude my remarks. I very much support the hon. Lady’s efforts, and the many fine speeches we have heard today will help to move the debate forward. I would be happy to work with her and colleagues across the House in trying to develop thinking on this matter.

Protection of Jobs and Businesses

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The jobs crisis that we are talking about is particularly intense in many of those communities impacted by the withdrawal of support for industries critical for the future of our country. Of course, as he mentioned, we were promised a sector-specific deal for aviation. We have not received it. We have not had the Government sitting down with the sector to work through the different scenarios and how we can plan for the future in that case. And we are not seeing the targeted wage support in aviation or, indeed, in other industries critical for the economic future that we desperately need.

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

rose—

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will take one final intervention, given that it is from the Government Benches, but then I will make some progress.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful. On a sector-based approach, I think that, in an interview with The Guardian, the hon. Member said that such an approach would pose challenges. Has she yet published the solution to those challenges?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I fear that the hon. Member may have missed off the end of the sentence, which is that, while it poses challenges, ultimately that does not mean that those challenges should not be stepped up to—they should be faced up to by the Government. His Government have accepted the need for some targeted support for hospitality and retail with the grants. There is also the Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Yes, there will be boundary issues. We fully accept that, but, ultimately, to govern is to lead. It is to take difficult decisions. The Government trumpet the fact that they worked with industry, with trade unions and with other stakeholders in creating the furlough scheme. They need to do that again to work through these challenges and to create the targeted system of support that is needed.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will make some progress if the Member will permit me. He may find the answers to his questions—any further ones—in what I am going on to say.

In addition to those groups of people who I have just mentioned, we know that there are many others who are concerned about their futures working in parts of the UK that are still subject to local restrictions, or that may be subject to additional restrictions in the future. We also have huge numbers of people, as we have just been discussing, who work in sectors that are still not back to business as usual, despite their critical importance for our economic future—whether we are talking about highly skilled manufacturing or the creative industries—yet the Chancellor is ploughing ahead with this one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the income support schemes, pulling the rug from under thousands of businesses and millions of workers all at the same time, irrespective of their situation. He is doing so without any analysis, it appears, of the impact of this withdrawal on unemployment levels and the enormous long-term costs of so many people being driven out of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The shadow Chancellor makes some fair points, particularly about working constructively with government. On that basis, should she not constructively set out her solution to these problems, rather than simply saying that the Government should solve them? Obviously, she has ideas of how to solve them, so why does she not publish solutions?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I would love it, frankly, if the Chancellor and his team wished to open talks with the Opposition, with business, with trade unions, looking at the different options that I have just set out. I know the hon. Gentleman is one who does look at detail. I have just set out a variety of different models that have been set out by business, trade unions and think tanks. We want to work with government on this. If he is signalling that he wishes that discussion to happen, I hope that his Front-Bench colleagues will take that invitation up as well. It is not just he who wishes to have that discussion with his Front-Bench team. I note that a huge number of Conservative Members want to participate in this debate, and I am keen to hear their thoughts on it. Some of their colleagues have already pronounced on it. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has said that there should be

“targeted extensions to the furlough scheme beyond October.”

The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has said that he can see the case for it, too. How many more Conservative Members are worried, privately, about the impact on their constituents of this Chancellor pushing stubbornly ahead with his plan to take support away from everyone, all at once?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I can give a clear and direct answer to that because, together with UK Finance, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has discussed bounce back loans, CBILS and larger business interruption loans. Those were targeted at up to £200 million for that mid-tier category of businesses, and I know from discussions with colleagues that a lot of regional businesses in that mid-tier category have been particularly impacted. The point is that this is about the package of Government schemes. Where there are individual constituency cases, we are, of course, always happy to look at them and UK Finance does a very good job in terms of its response.

I have set out the first phase. The second phase of the extraordinary support given relates to our plan for jobs. As part of protecting jobs, we have temporarily applied a reduced rate to VAT for tourism and hospitality, supporting over 150,000 businesses and protecting 2.4 million jobs. I do not know whether you, Mr Speaker, had an opportunity to benefit, but you will be familiar with the popular eat out to help out scheme, which has been a real success. The latest figures—only the one course, clearly, Mr Speaker—show that 100 million covers have been claimed, helping to support 130,000 businesses and protect almost 2 million jobs in a sector which, very seriously, has been particularly acutely hit by the covid pandemic.

Our plans also create new jobs, injecting new certainty and confidence in the housing market by increasing the stamp duty threshold to £500,000 for first-time buyers. That will drive growth and support across housebuilding and property sectors. It also builds on other schemes, such as creating green jobs through a £2 billion green homes grant, saving households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills, and through our £1 billion programme to make public buildings, including schools and hospitals, decarbonised. Together, they are all a part of the £640 billion capital investment in economic recovery, job creation and revitalising our national infrastructure over the next five years.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Earlier, my right hon. Friend pointed to the success of bounce back loans. There is no doubt that they have been a huge success, but some businesses who have taken out those loans will hit trouble in terms of making repayments. Will he support a programme of best practice across the banking sector to ensure that those businesses have every chance of getting through this, perhaps with different payment plans?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. From other parliamentary campaigns he has been closely involved in, I know how much he values best practice in the financial services sector. As a former financial services Minister, I share that objective, which is why I am so grateful for the work he has been doing to ensure that best practice is followed to address the specific issue he brings before the House. Of course, the best thing to enable businesses to pay loans back is to get the economy as a whole motoring. That is why we are redoubling our efforts to get on with that now and why the Prime Minister announced that £5 billion of capital investment will be brought forward as part of giving a boost to businesses, so they can indeed meet the requirements of those loans as they arise.

Our plan supports jobs, creates jobs and protects jobs. That supporting of jobs is really the third component. It includes the announcement of the £2 billion kickstart scheme set out by the Chancellor, which will subsidise hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs for unemployed young people, allowing young people to gain experience that will improve their chances of going on to find long-term and sustainable work. We are also investing a total of £1.6 billion in scaling up employment support schemes, training and apprenticeships to help those of our constituents who are looking for a job.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations, which he made last week as well. Of course the Government look at all industries. The automotive industry is a key industry, and we are in dialogue with companies across the country looking at the appropriate interventions necessary. Obviously, commercial sensitivities sometimes prevent us from discussing those at the Dispatch Box.

With restrictions easing, the Government have been able to reopen the housing market, and there are signs of tentative movement. Transactions in May were 16% higher than in April. It is crucial to our recovery that we maintain this momentum. People should feel confident to move, to buy, to sell, and to renovate and improve their homes. This is why the Government are cutting stamp duty land tax by temporarily increasing the nil rate band for residential property from £125,000 to £500,000, with effect from last Wednesday—8 July—until 31 March 2021.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial interests. I am very supportive of these measures. One of the risks to the housing market is the withdrawal by the lenders of high loan-to-value mortgages, especially for first-time buyers. We know that 90% and 95% loans can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that damages the market. Will the Minister do whatever he can to make sure that our banks support high loan-to-value mortgages throughout this time?

[John Glen]

I am grateful, as ever, for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Of course, he has enormous expertise in this sector. He is right to say that there is a threat given the changes in the profile of LTV mortgages that are being offered. We hope that that will return to more of the normal schedule that we would have seen pre-pandemic. We will be actively looking at this, and I am in conversations with the banks and building societies about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful for that intervention; I will go through my argument and analysis of the Government’s proposals in the Bill.

We do not know—perhaps the Minister does—who briefed what to whom last week, but the fact that the policy was leaked in advance forced the Chancellor’s hand. Just a day after The Times article appeared, another one in The Telegraph said that the cut would be introduced “immediately”. Policy making by briefing is no way to run a Government; it is either clumsy or irresponsible, or another example of No. 10 advisers running roughshod over the Chancellor.

We would rather the Government focused their energies on helping those people trying to buy or sell their home in such difficult circumstances, which is why, rather than opposing the Bill, we want to probe the Government on who will benefit the most from it. We are concerned first and foremost about whether the Bill will target support at those who need it most. We have serious concerns about the cost to the Exchequer and whether it is justifiable in terms of the Government’s other spending priorities.

We have serious questions about why the Bill includes significant support for second homeowners—plans that were slipped out by the Treasury after the Chancellor delivered his statement. We need to understand why the Government have decided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said last week, to direct a huge bung to second homeowners, landlords and holiday-home buyers while millions of people are desperate for support. The provisions in the Bill are an unnecessary subsidy for second homeowners that will only worsen the housing crisis by reducing the supply of homes overall.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 90% of the people who benefit from the change will be buying their main home, not a second home? Does he think it is a good idea to cut stamp duty at this moment in time? If he does, can he explain why, with the Conservative Government cutting it in this recession and having cut it in the first recession that I went through in 1992, the Labour Government did not cut stamp duty in 2008?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). I have some sympathy with several of his points, particularly the one about the cliff edge. We must always be careful, when we introduce any sort of action to stimulate any market, to ensure that it does not have unintended consequences. However, I disagree with his points about capital wealth and growth. I have a fundamental view about earned income resulting from a person’s labour: capital wealth and growth should have no advantage, in the form of a lower taxation regime, over income earned through labour.

The last economic crisis had a huge impact not only on the housing sector but on every sector. Many current Members were in the House during that time—I was not—and we need to understand what the learnings of that crisis were. One thing that we have clearly observed is the extraordinary growth in capital wealth over the past 10 years, and this is where I have a frustration. What I really wanted to see in the Chancellor’s statement last week was a series of sector deals to address each market. Housing would certainly have been one of them, as would its associated industries, but I mentioned in my intervention just how important I believe manufacturing is and should be. If the Government’s ambition is to level up, we need to know what is going to happen to our crucial and vital manufacturing sector, whether aerospace or the automotive sector. Those are the sectors that urgently need the Government’s attention, because they are the ones that stepped up to the plate when required to do so. When the Government needed help—with getting ventilators and personal protective equipment manufactured, for example—it was our manufacturing sector that we turned to. Of course the construction industry plays an important role, and infrastructure investment is vital, but our manufacturing sector has to be there for us tomorrow, and that is where I want to see more urgent and substantial action from the Government.

Last week’s announcement contained an array of measures, but I was disappointed that the Government did not extend the furlough scheme for longer. The hon. Member for South Thanet talked about the cliff edge in March, but I fear that the cliff edge that we are going to see in terms of unemployment over the coming weeks will be quite terrifying. I was also deeply disappointed that no support was provided for our steel industry, our aerospace sector and particularly our automotive sector, which I guess is the one closest to home for me in my constituency, where so many jobs depend on it.

This announcement on stamp duty is a terrific windfall for those who are thinking about buying or selling, but also for those who are already in the process of doing so. I have been speaking to people over the past week, and I have already come across several who have said, “This is wonderful! We were going to sell the house anyway.” Now they will benefit from an average of £4,600. Of course, there is a huge difference between those who are going to sell their house and maybe get a benefit of £4,600 and those who are selling a property at around £500,000, who will suddenly get the benefit of an extra capital gain of £15,000. If this is supposed to be about levelling up, I cannot believe that giving an additional, enhanced reward to those who are already wealthy is really on the Government’s agenda.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is the purchaser who pays stamp duty, not the seller. This measure will make it more likely, when a person puts their house on the market, that they will transact, sell it and move. That has a knock-on effect into the rest of the economy.

[Matt Western]

I thank the hon. Member—I would perhaps describe him as a friend—for that point. Yes, it is the purchaser who pays, but the person who is selling will probably be buying too, such is the chain of sales in the sector. I therefore do not see it as a one-off benefit. It will be a benefit throughout the chain.

I fear that this move is not in tune with the wider public mood. Actually, they want to see more support for those on lower incomes. Perhaps the £1.3 billion that would have been yielded could have been used to better purpose.

Looking at the relative inequality of the past decade, it seems we have not learned from the last economic crisis. That is underlined by figures from the Resolution Foundation, which show the change in median household wealth between 2008 and 2018. The average household saw a loss in wealth of 2% in the west midlands, 12% in the north-east and 13% in the east midlands, while in London the average household gained 78%.

For me, there is an issue with the second homes sector. Previously, a second home owner or buy-to-let landlord would have paid an additional 3% stamp duty surcharge, which would translate into a figure of 8%, rather than 5%. These changes mean that anyone looking to buy a second home at between £250,000 and £500,000 will pay just 3%. Coming back to a point that was made earlier, we need to know the scale of the issue. What proportion of transactions are for second properties? In the last 12 months, 34% of all purchases were made by second home owners. That has to be a concern, because it affects the market to the detriment of first-time buyers.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), and I will address one or two of his points, but first I must draw the House’s attention again to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and also apologise to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), as I inadvertently misled the House earlier when I said that Labour did not cut stamp duty in 2008; actually, they did, from a £125,000 threshold to a £175,000 threshold, but they crashed the housing market so badly that it made no difference whatsoever, which is why I cannot remember it. Interestingly, however, at the time, despite what he said in his speech, they made no dispensation in terms of buy-to-let investors—stamp duty was just cut across the board, regardless of what the property was for, so there was not some carve-out only for homeowners. According to the research, one thing that cut did do was boost activity, by 20%. Activity was at a very low level, as transactions were normally at 100,000 a month but they were down to 40,000 a month, so it was a pretty painful time, but the cut boosted activity, from that low level, by about 20%. Labour then withdrew the measure pretty early and activity fell away again, which is one of the reasons why we had such an extended recession from 2008 onwards.

I think certain Members have missed the point of the measure we are debating today. It is not just about helping some people get on to the housing ladder; it is also about activity. We all know that the housing market is a major driver of activity right across the economy. That is why many hon. Members have asked why on earth we are taxing something that is a major driver of activity across the economy. This is a transaction tax, and is therefore bound to slow the market down even in good times, let alone times such as this when we are trying to stimulate the economy.

This is not just about driving activity. Residential stamp duty brings in important revenue—about £8.3 billion every year. When my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge talked about stamping out stamp duty entirely, I saw the sweat on the Minister’s brows as he was thinking, “Where are we going to find that £8 billion?”

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

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that actually I remained as implacably calm as I always am. As a test of all colleagues who want to scrap taxes, I invite them to do exactly what he is doing and supply the missing revenue with some other suggestion. I did not notice that in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), but I am still waiting; I look forward to hearing that before we finish.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister is absolutely right, and I will come to that.

The Conservative Government have improved the system of stamp duty significantly. It used to be a ridiculous slab tax that created distortions all the way through the market, but we made it into a slice tax—perhaps a slam tax—that gets very expensive at the higher levels and deters activity at the top end.

On the Minister’s point about where on earth we are going to get the money from, the reality is that this nation will come under huge tax pressure over the next few decades, not just the next few years. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, because of the demands of healthcare and social care, if we do not change the tax system and claim more tax, our national debt will grow to three times our GDP—it is one times our GDP today—so we cannot simply scrap taxes without introducing alternative measures.

I am going to propose a measure. I would like the threshold remain at £500,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) proposed. We have to find that £8.3 billion annually, so we have to look at annual property taxes. The council tax system, under which people pay pretty much the same whether they live in a castle or a cottage, cannot be right. We need to revisit it and have a proper discussion about it. It is controversial. Some people think it is right that people who own bigger houses should pay more, and other people think it is wrong. We should certainly have a conversation about that.

The think-tank Onward recently proposed that there should be a council tax revaluation, and even the Prime Minister suggested back in 2014 that we should look at it. The thing about it is that it is simple. We can scrap stamp duty completely up to £500,000, and keep it at that level. We can also adjust the bands to make it cheaper for people in lower-value homes, to help people on lower incomes, and make it more expensive for people in higher-value homes.

It is simple, but it is not easy. Simple and easy are two completely different things. As Ronald Reagan said, there are simple solutions, but there are no easy solutions. If we are to tackle some of the unfairnesses in society, we must not duck the tough issues; we must look at the things that make the system unfair in the first place. This is an excellent measure, and I will support it tonight if we enter the Lobbies.

Finance Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

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

When our public finances are under such enormous pressure, we can only do our best to ensure that there is genuine value for money and that every penny is spent fairly and wisely. A review of tax reliefs in the Bill is just the starting point. It is a step towards what we on the Opposition Benches want to see, which is a broad review of all tax reliefs. That will help us to know for sure who is benefiting from the hundreds of tax reliefs that exist, whether they are fair, whether they represent good value for money and whether they are having their intended effect. I hope that the Minister will respond to these points and give us some assurances that the Government will do a lot more in this area, so that as we start to emerge from this crisis we can have confidence that taxpayers’ money is being spent well.

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

I am keen to talk briefly about the future fund, which is dealt with in new clause 22. The new clause covers those who have benefited from tax relief under the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme, to ensure that those tax reliefs are not withdrawn. These are important tax reliefs. I have set up a number of companies—I declare my interest, Madam Deputy Speaker—and some of the capital needed to invest in them was solicited through the EIS and the SEIS. Those schemes are very effective in encouraging high net worth individuals and angel investors to invest in small start-up and scale-up businesses.

The future fund is really for bigger, high-growth businesses wanting to attract capital. It is a very effective scheme, in that the Government match the funding that is attracted from individual investors—often venture capital investors. It is incredibly important, as we start to recover from this crisis and seize the opportunities ahead, that we encourage more equity investment. The UK is particularly reliant on debt financing in how our businesses start up and scale up, whereas other countries are much more effective at delivering equity finance solutions. This is important because at the moment the Government are investing a huge amount—about £35 billion—through guaranteed loans in the bounce back loan scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, which businesses are making decisions on in terms of debt finance.

However, on equity finance, the Government do not always have the best record on deciding which businesses to support. That is why the future fund is a good scheme, in that it fund-matches private sector investment, which is much better at determining which businesses are the right ones to support. Individual investors are much better at picking winners than are Governments. As we move forward, there are going to be some huge corrections in the private sector. Lots of businesses have borrowed money to get through this crisis and it is fair to say that many of them will not be able to pay that money back. My all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking has contributed to a report by the Recapitalisation Group, a consortium headed by Ernst & Young and TheCityUK, which states that there will be about £100 billion of unsustainable debt—not all connected to the Government schemes—by this time next year because of borrowing by businesses hit by the recession caused by the covid crisis.

To get us through that period and the subsequent period, and to prevent business failures—there is no question but that some businesses will fail and jobs will be lost as a result—we need to understand that it cannot be all about debt financing. The Government cannot be expected simply to give grants to keep businesses going. We need to find a different route to encourage private sector investment, which is good at picking winners, to invest in small and medium-sized enterprises and scale-up businesses. Equity finance will be critical to that. We need something different from the future fund, which is there to help to scale-up, high-growth businesses. Instead of the growth capital that characterises the future fund, we need equity finance for the restructuring, rescue and turnaround of good businesses that could get through this, but that are not big scale-up businesses. In the past, equity finance has been used for high-growth businesses rather than for restructuring and turnaround, and most equity finance is focused on London rather than the regions. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are as keen as I am to ensure that our regions are well served by equity finance and support.

We need a discussion about the schemes that we could introduce. I am a big fan of the seed enterprise investment scheme and the enterprise investment scheme, and I think the tax incentives around them should be enhanced for a time. Clearly, the temptation for high net worth individuals will be to keep their money in the bank for 12 months rather than investing, and wait to see what happens the other side of the crisis. We have to encourage them to put money into businesses today. A doubling of the incentive for EIS relief would be very welcome, and a loosening of the restrictions on EIS investment—such as by enabling relatives to invest in businesses—would be appropriate for the next 12 months.

We need to relax some of the restrictions on venture capital. There are annual and lifetime limits on venture capital in businesses, and they should be doubled, because lots of businesses need extra support at the moment and the venture capital companies that sit behind them did not expect to have to see them through this crisis. I am keen for the Treasury to relax some of the unreasonable restrictions on the amount of money that can be invested in those businesses.

We should perhaps consider loans that are based on a contingent tax liability—a kind of student loan system, whereby the loan is repaid through future profits. I know that Lord Bilimoria is keen to see a new 3i scheme, in which the Government put a significant amount of money—in his view, it should be £5 billion—into several different private equity organisations to sit behind UK businesses.

I will touch on something that is not directly related to tax reliefs, but that is very important in relation to finance. The Minister has been very good at engaging with me on clause 95, which I think unreasonably restricts the opportunity for businesses to get finance by putting HMRC up the ladder as a preferred creditor. That may mean that some lenders are less likely to lend, and I caution the Treasury to keep a close eye on that to make sure that debt finance is still made available to SMEs. I am very supportive of what the Government are doing with the future fund, but we need to go a bit further in certain other areas.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and in those of my SNP colleagues. It is important to state from the outset that we hear regularly from across the Chamber—albeit not today, given that it is quite empty for this discussion of tax—that the UK’s tax relief system is full of inefficiencies.

Our core aim with the proposed new clauses is to be constructive and get to the root of that problem in respect of entrepreneurs’ relief by asking the Government to undertake a review of the impact on investment of the changes to the relief. As I said in Committee, that can only be a positive thing. After all, there remain varying views on the effectiveness and efficacy of entrepreneurs’ relief, and whether it delivers the necessary economic objectives or whether that could be done by other means. Those varying views are clear for all to see. For example, the IFS has been quite critical of the relief, highlighting that it is poorly targeted. On the converse, the Federation of Small Businesses has emphasised the importance of the relief for the retirement of business owners.

I have no doubt that we will hear much from the Minister about the fact that a review has already been undertaken. It has, but that was an internal review, which is not good enough. That is of particular importance when we consider that there was much talk in the public domain of entrepreneurs’ relief being scrapped entirely at the Budget. A Back-Bench revolt ensued and that position swiftly changed, so instead of the relief being scrapped, it has gone from £10 million back to the £1 million introduced by the Labour party in 2008. I am sure that even the Minister would agree that the tail should not be wagging the dog on such important matters. What we need is clarity—clarity on effectiveness, clarity of efficacy and clarity on direction. Those points have perhaps never been as important as they are now. As we rebuild our economy following covid-19, it is more important than ever that tax incentives go to those entrepreneurs who we know will rebuild the economy.

That takes me on quite neatly to the further new clauses that we have tabled in respect of tax avoidance, for as we rebuild the economy, the very last thing that we need is individuals and organisations dodging what they are due. On the Scottish National party Benches, we have been clear and consistent in highlighting our profound concerns relating to Scottish limited partnerships, yet despite the obvious manner in which these can be abused, we are yet to see any real action. I sincerely hope that in his contribution, the Minister will make a commitment to end the avoidance practices of such partnerships, but I hope he can go further, too.

For decades, we have seen consecutive UK Governments talk the talk on ending tax avoidance, but in 2017-18, HMRC still put the tax gap at £35 billion. I have some sympathy for the Government in this regard, for just as they legislate to close one gap, another one is opened by those who wish to cheat both the system and the public, but there is scope for a comprehensive anti-avoidance rule to be introduced. The Government will point to the general anti-abuse rule introduced in 2013, but this has been heavily criticised, not least by the TUC. What we need is workable general anti-avoidance rules that tackle avoidance in all its forms, including international tax abuse, and more than ever, we need real action to combat Scottish limited partnerships.

I am conscious of the fact that you wish to finish before 2 o’clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I intend to keep my contribution brief. I will move on to my closing remarks, in which I wish to highlight that more can be done to incentivise energy efficiency through tax reliefs and, similarly, to meet the needs and demands of the Scottish economy.

In respect of structures and buildings, it is clear that the Government are making an attempt to amend the system to incentivise capital investment, but they can and should go further. At the risk of repeating myself once again, the easiest step they could take is to scrap VAT on building repairs. In my constituency of Aberdeen South, I have been struck by just how many homeowners, who often live in some of the most beautiful granite buildings, are unable to undertake the repairs and improvements that they either want or need due to the high costs involved. As we seek to improve energy efficiency in our homes, particularly in often old and cold buildings, surely the Government should be assessing every measure to incentivise progress, not just to help rid us of fuel poverty, but to protect both the environment and the future of our planet. Cumulative action to combat climate change is needed, and I would welcome a firm commitment from the Minister in this regard.

On the issue of tax reliefs, it would be remiss of me not to highlight to the Chamber the proposals put forward in recent days by my colleagues in the Scottish Government. I think that everyone—even the most ardent of UK Government supporters—was deeply underwhelmed by the plans announced by the Prime Minister to restart the economy, and that collective sigh from across the UK was entirely justifiable, because £5 billion will likely work out to be less than the cost of renovating the very building that we are in, and it is a far cry from the £80 billion of investment called for by the Scottish Government. Importantly, however, my colleagues called not just for capital investment, but for tax relief. Indeed, they were clear that reducing VAT must be an urgent act of this Government, both in terms of reducing the general rate of VAT from 20% to 15% for six months and, importantly, reducing tourism and hospitality VAT to just 5%. On top of that, a 2p cut in employers’ national insurance contributions to reduce the cost of hiring staff was also identified.

Unfortunately, as with all too many matters, the hands of the Scottish Government are tied on such issues. The power lies with the UK Government, a Government who Scotland neither supports nor votes for. I hope that the Minister is listening and the wider Government are listening too, because now is the time for them to introduce the tax incentives that the Scottish economy needs; to deliver the investment that the Scottish economy needs; and to provide the Scottish Parliament with the borrowing powers that it so desperately needs. If they do not, they should be ever mindful that they are only doing further damage to the very Union that they claim to support.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) made a point about the importance of greater equity investment in the regions. I very much agree with him.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I declare an interest as somebody who has benefited from entrepreneurs’ relief in the past. Is the Minister considering extending the reduction in entrepreneurs’ relief, which I support, to investors’ relief, which currently stands at the same figure as entrepreneurs’ relief used to stand at—£10 million?

[Jesse Norman]

If my hon. Friend is asking questions, he ought to stay for the next debate, because he is abusing the privilege of this debate. I thank him for his suggestion of a revenue-raising possibility for the Government; we take all those in great heart.

Finance Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

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

[Bridget Phillipson]

Yes, I support the point the right hon. Gentleman makes, and I will come on to say more in my contribution both about how those companies need to contribute more and how it is essential that we see international consensus on this issue. The measure the Government have put forward today is necessarily time-limited, and we will need to see a much more sustainable, long-term solution with a broader international base.

It is not right that British bookstores and other businesses face a higher tax rate than Amazon. Unfortunately, this measure does not go far enough to address this fundamental unfairness, nor does it really get to the heart of the tax avoidance strategies some of these tech companies have used in recent years. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out, this measure is not aimed at stopping profits arising in the UK being shifted by multinationals out of the UK to tax havens. However, for far too long the companies that make the modern economy work have got away with complex ways of moving and hiding the money we pay them.

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

I agree with many of the points the hon. Member makes, and certainly about making sure that we have a fair and level playing field for small businesses. I am certainly a supporter of new clause 33 in principle, which is trying to see these multinationals disclose profits on a country-by-country basis. However, to be fair, does she accept that the Government have gone further than previous Governments, with measures such as the diverted profits tax and now the digital services tax?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We welcome all measures and will support any proposals to tackle tax avoidance, whether it is in terms of tech giants or more broadly, but we still face a big gap in this country, and we are urging the Government to do much more. I am sure the hon. Member would agree that it is vital that we see greater action, because we have seen this unfairness, particularly during the pandemic. He, like me, will have many wonderful local businesses in his constituency that pay their taxes and are trying to come through this crisis, and they want to ensure that there is a level playing field between the bricks-and-mortar businesses and online businesses. I am sure that we all want to get behind that endeavour.

For too long, companies have moved and hidden the money we pay them. Research by TaxWatch UK estimates that we are losing £1.3 billion in corporation tax from five of the biggest firms each year. In comparison, the Government’s own estimate is that the digital services tax is only set to produce £280 million this financial year. The modest nature of this measure becomes clear when we consider what some of the tech giants might actually have to pay under the tax. I will highlight again for the benefit of the House, as I did in Committee, research by TaxWatch UK which predicts that Facebook would face an increased tax bill of £39 million, despite estimated UK revenues of almost £2.3 billion. Google would pay slightly more—around £168 million—based on estimated UK tax revenues of £9.3 billion. Many businesses, such as Amazon, that blend their activities will be unaffected by the measure.

The Government will be aware of our concerns that streaming services are not included at all, which we discussed in Committee. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said then that

“it would not be appropriate to implement a temporary tax on a broader basis.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 11 June 2020; c. 126.]

He will doubtless be aware that taxes introduced on a temporary basis have ended up becoming permanent fixtures, including income tax, introduced to fund war with Napoleon. With little evidence that the Government are working to secure international agreement on a replacement for this tax, temporary could end up being for a very long time. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs employs many extremely capable people, and I am sure that it is not beyond their wit to develop a way of taxing streaming services too.

New clause 33, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and has many cross-party supporters, would require those liable for the digital services tax to publish a country-by-country tax report. My right hon. Friend has campaigned tirelessly and incredibly effectively on this issue, and I wish it were possible for us to hear from her directly today. Sadly, the way in which we now conduct our proceedings makes it impossible for her to contribute, which is a real shame, given the expertise and insight she brings, but I am aware that the cross-party support of the new clause will allow other speakers to raise the points that she might have sought to make.

For years, the Opposition have urged the Government to commit to country-by-country reporting on a public basis. Their reticence to do so, and the way in which they have held up progress at an international level, has been a source of deep frustration to those of us who want to see far greater transparency around the taxation of multinational companies. This new clause would not only be of practical use, so that we can see whether those liable to the digital services tax are paying an appropriate amount. It would also help to address the concerns I have outlined that the measure as it stands does little to address the tax avoidance practices by digital multinational companies. It would end the secrecy around such practices and pave the way for public country-by-country reporting at a wider level. The Government have been fond in recent months of saying that they wish to be a world leader—well, here is the opportunity to become a world leader in tax transparency, and I urge the Minister to listen to the arguments being made and take urgent action to address them.

The pressure on our public finances and vital frontline services means that we should be doing far more to ensure that those tech companies that have benefited from the lockdown are contributing more. We need a level playing field between our high streets and the tech giants. We need to build a society where everyone—individuals and businesses alike—pays their fair share. A digital services tax must be part of that, but the Government simply are not going far enough. A bolder approach on a digital services tax would not only help to address this unfairness; it would help to deliver a sustainable recovery from the economic crisis we are facing.

Labour has called for a back-to-work Budget—one that focuses on retaining jobs, sustaining jobs and creating jobs; a full Budget that invests in our young people, who are facing the worst employment prospects for a generation, and helps to secure a future that they can look to with hope. An effective digital services tax would go some way to supporting that goal. As I have indicated, this measure is expected to generate a fairly limited amount when compared with the extent of the tax avoidance practices we have seen from some of these companies in recent years and the profits they have made in recent months. Therein lies the principal reason for our amendments: we need to understand as soon as possible how effectively the measure is working and what more can be done to ensure that such companies are paying an appropriate amount of tax.

The Government’s unwillingness to conduct a review earlier than 2025 means that the opportunity for Parliament to properly scrutinise the measure will be hugely limited. I know that the Minister hopes that a multilateral approach will be in place by then; we on the Opposition Benches hope that that will be the case, too. A comprehensive multilateral agreement, based on a lasting international settlement, is the only long-term solution, but until that happens, the Opposition will continue to push for a more ambitious approach, to which our European neighbours are looking as well. The times that we are living through demand such an approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and I agree with him entirely. It is an analogue tax in an increasingly digital world, and it will need to evolve and be replaced. However, to build on the point made by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) earlier, many companies operate in both spheres. I know that from my own commercial experience prior to coming here. The key thing is to be available through the channels that your customers want; otherwise, they will not buy from you.

Equally, I have been talking to high street retailers, especially some of the smaller independents in my constituency, and they do not see a level playing field. High streets and town centres have been under significant pressure for many years. This is not new, but the trend is being compounded by the coronavirus crisis. Some sectors have been incredibly badly hit over the years. Bookshops are particular example. High streets have a role beyond the purely economic. They have a social role, in that they bring people together and create hubs for communities, so the work that the Treasury is doing to create a more level playing field is welcome. This is not to deny the digital market; is about giving high streets and the businesses on our high streets more time to respond to the evolving nature of competition. We must not be in denial about the march of digital. We must embrace it, and the UK has a good record of doing so, but we must recognise that we need more digital connectivity and more emphasis on digital skills.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is raising some important points about the level playing field. Does he accept that, although introducing the digital services tax is the right thing to do, it does nothing to rebalance online versus the high street because the money is not coming off business rates? The £30 billion is still going to be coming from business rates, and if we lose that system, we will have to find another system to replace it that will raise £30 billion. The research we have done in the various Select Committees shows that there is no consensus around what could replace business rates in a fair way.

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a really interesting point. It is hard to create new taxes and the reform of certain parts of our taxation has been put into the bottom drawer marked “too tricky” by successive Governments over many years. Perhaps business rates are a part of that. It is clearly going to have to evolve, and it is evolving, but it is also hard to create a new and entirely fair system, particularly as the economy is changing so rapidly that we are in danger of creating a system that solves yesterday’s problem.

I will conclude by saying that this positive measure creates a more level playing field, but not an absolutely level playing field. The digital economy is critical to us. I am very keen to see more digital start-ups across the country, greater digital connectivity and more emphasis on skills and start-ups. None of that is compromised by the digital services tax. It is about bringing more fairness into the tax system, but it will also give us some valuable insights into how tax may be raised in the future, because one thing we do know is that there will be a new normal after the crisis, and the digital economy will be at its heart.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I rise to echo some of the points that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) opposite made about new clause 33. Although it is not being pressed to a vote today, I hope that the Government will bow to the inevitable before long and will heed our calls. A few of us on the Opposition Benches will be talking about that.

I echo the disappointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), with whom I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption, that they could not be here. We have had the rug pulled from under our feet with the hybrid Parliament, but let us not get into that; that is another debate for another day.

If we are talking build, build, build, the new clause would help towards rebuilding our economy post-coronavirus and rejuvenating our high streets, which have long felt clobbered by online competitors even before all this crisis. The new clause would do that by creating tax transparency for multinational giants, responsible investment and the closure of loopholes that enable financial flows that may not quite be illegal, but many would call pretty immoral.

The principle of country-by-country reporting, whereby multinational monster companies file public reports on their dealings country by country and then pay their dues, getting rid of the secrecy around their affairs and ensuring that tax is paid at the right time and in the right place—where the profits were made—has already been adopted by the OECD as an ambition. If that idea brings on a sense of déjà vu, it was passed by this House back in 2016 as the “show me the money” amendment tabled by Caroline Flint.

The issue is about fundamental fairness. When considering what the state of our public finances will be post-pandemic, we should be careful not to burden ordinary taxpayers with the whole tab, particularly when the tech giants have enjoyed state bail-outs. We have heard about high street decline, and the fact that the measure would rake in billions means it is needed now more than ever.

It cannot be one rule for hard-working UK businesses that play by the rules and pay into our Exchequer, and another for multinationals that can pretty much pick and choose what they do and pay minimal tax by shifting—sorry, “reallocating”— profits around the globe to low-tax dominions, where they might effectively just have a PO box to demonstrate a presence, all to save themselves cash that could be spent on our public services.

New clause 33 would mean that companies would have to publish how many employees they have, how much profit they make and their assets in each dominion. How is it, for example, that we have Amazon employees in warehouses here—some of them are our constituents—but its UK subsidiaries paid just £5 million of tax in the UK last year? We know that Amazon makes billions and billions. My small businesses in Acton, Ealing and Chiswick do not have the option of routing things through the Cayman Islands under the practice of tax haven abuse.

Since 2016, sadly there seems to have been a kind of stalemate. The principle is well-established and agreed, even back to David Cameron’s crusade for anti-corruption at the G8 in 2013, but there has been complete timidity from Government to act. A series of replies to written questions discuss how multilateral action is needed. The Government are basically saying, “I will move if you do”, but what good is having something on the statute book if it is not enacted? People will remember the Marcus Rashford affair the other day and they will see another U-turn here. I am hoping the Government can prove them wrong.

The new clause would make the principle a reality in relation to the digital services tax applying to the Facebooks, Googles and Amazons of this world. It is wrong that pound-for-pound, relative to what they make, they pay less tax than any of our constituents or we do. No market-sensitive data is included in the reporting format, so tech giants have nothing to fear.

The world has moved on from 2016, which was two Parliaments or three elections ago, although elections take place every other year now—I have had three in my short time here. Although the coronavirus rescue packages were entirely the right thing to do, it looks at the moment like the bill is going to have be footed by our children’s children’s children, who will still be paying it off. If we are serious about levelling up, this new clause would provide a level playing field for honest British businesses with the multinationals that can bypass proper procedures with their tentacles spreading everywhere around the world.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady has said that the Government are being timid. Does she accept that it is not timid to introduce a digital services tax in the teeth of opposition from our largest trading partner, the United States? Much as I support new clause 33 in principle, the digital services tax is a very bold move.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman is on the all-party parliamentary group and I know that he secretly agrees. Perhaps he is not saying so because his Whips are listening. The EU is our biggest trading partner. For many years before I came here, I used to teach and would sometimes say, “Could do better.” Yes, we support the measure, but we could do better, and this is a glaring example of an issue that is in need of urgent rectification.

The covid-19 crisis necessitating Government help for industry has, I hope, reversed the trend towards laissez-faire economics. It has been remarked by many people that we are missing a trick. We could bring some of these unscrupulous companies—we can call them companies with clever accountants, if Members prefer—to heel. It seems wrong that the Bank of England has made £1 billion of loans available to the German chemicals giant BASF, which has transferred profits to Malta, the Netherlands and Switzerland in order to avoid tax. There are countless other examples, but because these things are shrouded in secrecy, that is the example I am able to give. The easiest way to do it is by enacting what is already agreed, and we do that via the digital services tax, which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) hails. These companies could be given time to make adjustments, and the very fact of transparency, rather than overly punitive measures at the start, could shame them into action and make them see sense.

We face a double whammy of the covid financial crisis and uncertainty outside the EU. The Chancellor said, “Whatever it takes”. Those headquartered in the UK already submit all this information to HMRC and to other relevant tax authorities. All we are asking is that we can all see it and that there is full and frank disclosure—including for investors and other stakeholders, who increasingly want to know these things—and then we can see where each company has its economic bulk or footprint. Making public what already exists would be low cost and straightforward. I see no downsides to this. The only people who oppose the proposal are those who usually abuse the rules. I understand that the tax havens of Jersey and Luxembourg are not too keen on it.

We keep being told that, post-virus, things cannot go on as before and, “We shouldn’t waste a good crisis, should we?” Ensuring that very large companies publicly reveal revenue and tax information could be something on which we lead the world, and we can still apply pressure on the OECD and G20—the two are not mutually exclusive. We cannot wait forever for action from the EU, because we are no longer a member of that organisation. Time and again, we were told by the leavers that we could be an independent nation and we were reminded of the sovereignty of Parliament. This proposal has wide cross-party support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miriam Cates]

I did not enjoy the Committee that much; I want to put that on record. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I will say two things. First, we are only talking about the very largest businesses here—those with £25 million of UK revenues, though I appreciate that for some companies that may be split. Secondly, we are one of the first countries in the world to introduce a tax such as this, and it will take time to record, report and analyse its exact effects. As a number of Members have said, we are hoping for international co-operation in the long term, and hopefully this is a short-term measure where the UK is acting alone. I think things will become clear over time.

For companies that do become liable for the tax following the passage of the Bill, it may be some time after the 12-month period following Royal Assent before they actually pay the levy, and some businesses will only be paying the amount due during the part of the year that the Bill was enacted. That means that there will be little, if any, meaningful data within six months or even 12 months of the Bill being enacted, so the amendments add little value to the Bill.

New clause 33 would require all groups subject to the DST to publish a group tax strategy with a country-by-country report, including information about the group’s global activities. While I have no doubt that this is a well-intentioned amendment, I fear that it may have some unintended negative consequences. We need to remember that the DST will affect only the very largest companies—those with over £500 million of international revenues and over £25 million of revenues from UK-based activities. Companies like this will think nothing of rearranging their activities to avoid this kind of enforcement, so UK mandation alone could push businesses offshore. We want to encourage voluntary compliance, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and his colleagues have worked hard to ensure that this new tax will not deter UK trade. At this point, especially given that the UK is one of the first nations in the world to introduce such a tax, and given how mobile these companies are, it is prudent to ensure that the administrative burden is as light-touch as possible.

It has been a great opportunity to serve on the Finance Bill Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) said how much fun it was. I am not sure that I would go so far as to say that it was fun, but it has been a privilege, particularly given the opportunity to discuss a groundbreaking new measure that will level up our tax system and help to restore a level playing field in our UK economy.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), who made some very important points. She made the critical point that the digital services tax is a temporary, short-term measure, and we need something more encompassing to replace it. That is why I want to speak to new clause 33, which proposes a radical reshaping of how tax affairs would be disclosed. If we are going to tackle this fundamental problem, it is essential that we have country-by-country reporting. I therefore do not secretly support this new clause; I openly support it, even though it is not going to be pushed to a vote today. The principle behind the clause is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for their work on it and in many other areas to tackle tax avoidance and corruption.

The other key element of the digital services tax is that it tries to level the playing field in corporation tax, but it does not level the playing field for business rates. That is a completely different discussion and it is one that we definitely need to have.

When I first came to the House, I attended one of those breakfasts; I think it was run by the Industry and Parliament Trust, of which I am a trustee. The subject of that seminar was the values of business—I have been in business for 30 years, and in my view business is a force for good in the vast majority of cases—and it was addressed by a vice-president of Kellogg’s, who talked about the values of business to the economy and the inherent values of some businesses. As examples, he talked about the great values and corporate social responsibility of businesses such as Facebook, Google and Amazon.

While the speaker was addressing us I googled, “Do Kellogg’s pay corporation tax in the UK?” My search came up with a Daily Mail article saying that Kellogg’s turns over £650 million in the UK and does not pay any corporation tax. When he got to the end of his comments, I asked him, “How can you square the circle—saying that you have great corporate social responsibility policies and put money into good causes in the UK, which might cost you a few pence or percentage points in terms of cost and contribution, when you are not paying corporation tax? Your customers are taxpayers. You are trading and turning over a significant amount of money in the UK. And yet you are not contributing back to the bills and the vital public services that your customers rely on. I think it is a cynical approach.”

This Kellogg’s vice-president was clearly quite stunned by my question. I quoted to him that Kellogg’s is one of those companies that does not pay corporation tax. When pressed for an answer, the only one that he could come up with was, “Well, we’ve got a duty to shareholders to minimise our tax burden.” That is an old chestnut. I hear lots of big shareholders of big companies in the US—people such as Warren Buffett—absolutely reject that notion. In my mind it cannot be right that businesses seek to avoid fair taxation rates in this world and, as many hon. Members have said, we have a duty to stand up for small and medium-sized enterprises that cannot benefit from these kinds of devices. The vast majority of us pay tax through pay-as-you-earn anyway, so we pay our fair share of tax—and most people do so willingly.

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Does he share my view—I think it is also the view of the people who really know the law in this area—that in Britain a corporation exists to maximise the interests of all its members, rather than merely the shareholders, and that the shareholder entitlement is to the residual that is left after satisfying other claims on the company?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely agree. Any businessperson starts off on the premise that they have responsibilities not just to their shareholders, but to their customers and other stakeholders.

Due to the scale of the problem and the lack of country-by-country reporting, it is difficult to establish exactly what some of these companies are making in the UK, but let us look at Google as an example. In 2018, Google turned over $137 billion and had net revenues— so a profit—of $31 billion. The whole organisation internationally works on a profit margin of about 22%. The company turned over around $10 billion in the UK in the same year, and makes about $2.2 billion of profit from UK activities each year. If we applied 19% corporation tax to that amount, we would come up with a figure of £420 million in corporation tax that Google should have paid. It actually paid £67 million that year. This is happening on a huge scale and is multiplied by many other companies.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my good and hon. Friend for allowing me to speak. This confuses me. I would have thought that very clever tax inspectors could visit these international companies. Surely these companies cannot disguise the money that they are sending out of the country. Surely we have methods of checking that, and, from that, we can devise a way of actually taxing them. It seems to me, from what I can gather from this debate, that these companies seem able to spirit money away with magic dust or something, and I am sure that that cannot be so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have some very good people here in our tax authorities and in our ministerial team. The difficulty is, of course, that those companies have some very good advisers working for them, too. It is a case of “Catch me if you can”. That is why the Government have stepped in with a diverted profits tax and a digital services tax, neither of which existed before 2010. The Government have stepped forward to try to do this, but it is certainly not easy.

From the figures, Google should be contributing £420 million to the Exchequer. Of course, much of that money would have previously gone to the Exchequer through some of our own companies, but they no longer get that revenue. Regional media is a good example of that. As businesses, we used to spend our money in regional newspapers and regional radio. Now we put that money straight into Google and Facebook and other such places, so it is being shifted away from UK jobs and UK businesses and spirited away to different parts of the world.

I know the Minister will say that we are working with the OECD in terms of base erosion profit shifting, which is absolutely right. The difficulty, of course, is the lack of public scrutiny of that. That information is available only to tax authorities. The media play a hugely important role in highlighting the inappropriate shifting of profits internationally by companies, which therefore do not pay their fair share of tax. It is hugely important that we have publicly disclosed country-by-country reporting.

I very much support new clause 33. I hope that the Government will step forward with something similar in the very near future. The digital service tax is a great step forward and a very bold move in the teeth of international opposition, particularly from the USA, but it is a short-term measure. We need something much more important and much more fundamental. At a very minimum, that fundamental thing should be country-by-country reporting and I urge the Government to go further, continue with their great efforts to tackle tax avoidance, and bring in country-by-country reporting for all multinationals.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is good to rise to speak in support of new clause 33. In doing so, I want to begin by thanking the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for their leadership on this issue. They have been talking about this and pressing the Government on this for many years. Although this House is not always a model of cross-party decorum and high-mindedness, on this it certainly has been, and I pay tribute to their work. They have made compelling arguments, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will listen.

Other very good arguments have been made in this debate. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) caused slight jocularity in the Chamber when she suggested this idea that Finance Bills are not fun. I do not know who she thinks thinks that, but, obviously, they are the best bit of Westminster.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) pointed out how difficult it is to introduce new taxes. He is right, and we are introducing a new tax here, so we should have a think about how the circumstances are different. Anybody who thinks that it is easy to introduce new taxes should offer George Osborne a trip to Greggs. He thought that the pasty tax would be a minor and uncontroversial measure—how wrong can you be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am surprised that my right hon. Friend says that this is not a method to try to bring companies that are avoiding tax to the tax table. The previous Chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in a speech that these measures would effectively insist that,

“global internet giants…contribute fairly to funding our public services.”

Is that not reflective of a position where he felt those companies were avoiding tax?

[Jesse Norman]

I think one could put it a slightly different way, which is to say, “You do not have to take a position on avoiding tax to come to the view that this is a base of tax revenue that has not been adequately taxed and should be taxed, and if you do follow that approach,” —here I will defer to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)—“ipso facto you are going to be levelling the playing field to a degree.” Anti-avoidance measures are measures used in separate contexts to level the playing field as well.

The Economy

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

If I understood the hon. Lady’s question correctly, I can assure her that the coronavirus business interruption loans apply to meeting asset-related costs already, so it is perfectly possible to use that scheme for a finance arrangement like that. But if that was not her specific question, I would be happy to answer in writing.

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

May I first declare my business interests, and, from a business perspective, thank the Chancellor for the excellent work that he is doing—a view shared widely across the business community? On the business interruption loans, I welcome the removal in the new micro loan scheme of the forward viability test, which is one of the complexities that slows down the current scheme. Will he commit to looking at removing that from the main scheme as well, which would help to get money out of the door much more quickly?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend has been not, I would say, a thorn in my side but a doughty champion of those who would like to have access to these loans. He has made this point forcefully and repeatedly to the Economic Secretary and to me. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have been working with the banks over the past week or so and we have been able to make, on his recommendation, several changes to the scheme, including from the regulatory side through the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, to give banks the comfort they need, as well as reassurances from the Government. A statement will be issued shortly by UK Finance confirming that banks will not require from businesses the provision of forward-looking financial information or business plans. I hope that that gives him the reassurance he needs. It will give comfort to many businesses. I congratulate him on making this point so forcefully and effectively over the past week or two.

Contingencies Fund Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Committee stage & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I start by assuring the Treasury Bench that the official Opposition will support this Bill? I support the Government throughout, obviously, but as the Minister might expect, we will be constructively critical as well throughout the process.

This Bill, as the Minister says, will enable the Government to access the resources to tackle the crisis. I have to say, there is a sense of irony here, because only three months ago I hoped to be bringing forward a Bill for about £250 billion as well, for long-term investment in our infrastructure—but that is another story. It probably would have been supported as well, because it was infrastructure spend. Anyway, we will support this Bill, but we have the opportunity to raise some issues on the way in which the resources will be applied—forgive me if I do that.

We recognise that this is the gravest crisis facing our country that any of us in this House has known. We are debating matters of life and death, and the proposals that we make now and the decisions that we need to take in the coming months obviously deserve scrutiny, and that scrutiny should be welcomed on all sides. Last night, the Prime Minister was right to call for people to stay at home to protect our NHS and to save lives. We called for enforcement measures yesterday morning, and the Mayor of London and many others have been making private representations for greater clarity and greater action.

Clear and detailed guidance to employers and workers is needed on which workplaces should close. As we saw in the earlier response to the statement, a lack of clarity remains about certain operations, particularly within the construction sector. We have received reports from unions, particularly those representing construction workers, that there is utter confusion on the ground at the moment about what operations should be maintained and which workers should be on site. For anyone who has been anywhere near the construction industry or worked on site at any time in their lives, things have not changed that much in recent years. These workers also work in some of the most insanitary conditions, so we have to ensure that they are properly protected.

The Chancellor and the Government must act immediately so that every single worker has a protected income. We discussed that earlier today. We want to ensure that every single household is secure in their home, whether they rent or mortgage, so that no one who makes the right choice to stay at home faces hardship. Last week, the Chancellor set out an unprecedented scheme to underwrite 80% of the wages of all workers “furloughed”—as he put it—promising that no redundancies or lay-offs were needed and that the Government would do, “Whatever it takes”. Today is the time to deliver, with clarity and security for everybody, including our most vulnerable, whatever it takes to keep them protected and safe. That is why we are supporting this Bill to enable the resources to be available.

Last night, the Prime Minister effectively shut down every non-essential business. I want the Chancellor and Treasury Front Bench to make it clear now that every single worker, in every single one of those businesses, will be covered by the 80% income protection scheme, and that if, as a result of that 20% cut in incomes, they fall below the thresholds for universal credit or housing benefit, they will be eligible for top-ups. I ask the question, will the Government consider setting a national minimum wage floor for the income protection schemes? That would protect the lowest paid, because 80% of low pay might result in some people being paid below the national minimum wage.

Will we now get more clarity on exactly when the income protection scheme will be operational? Will the Government also condemn employers such as Wetherspoon that have now stopped wage payments and told employees that those will not resume until the end of April? Some senior members of the Government have an influence over that particular employer, so we would welcome the Government making it clear to that employer that that he should pay his staff and that he should close so that that company can play its part in protecting the health of our community.

The Government cannot act only for workers who are furloughed. They must also step up for the many who will be having their hours reduced but not stopped altogether, by topping them up to at least 80% of their regular wage, or through some other scheme. When the Minister responds, will he clarify what will be the protection for workers who have been put on short time?

Sadly, many workers have already been laid off as a result of this terrible virus. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was extremely candid and honest last week when he said that he could not live on the £94.25 per week statutory sick pay. I do not think any of us can. How can the Government expect entire families to afford a week’s shop on that sort of income? Will the Government therefore increase the appallingly low level of statutory sick pay and ensure that all workers are eligible for it? So many are not at the moment. Will they also increase the £73 rate of jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance for disabled people? Will they also look at the even lower rate of carer’s allowance? Carers are expected to live on £66 a week.

As we discussed earlier today, there are 5 million self-employed workers in this country, many of whom cannot work from home. We desperately need a scheme that will be ready for them soon. It needs to guarantee them the 80% of income that others have been guaranteed. Whether it is a cabbie, a childminder, an actor or a plumber, there are battalions of self-employed out there who need their security. We need confirmation that a scheme will be brought forward not within days but within hours, to give them that assurance.

We also urge the Government to work with the construction industry and the trade unions to find a solution that covers the particularities of that sector—we have pointed them out before—with workers employed through payroll companies and umbrella companies. Most of them are forced into self-employment, and often exploitative self-employment of the worst sort.

I turn to housing. We welcome the moves to protect mortgage holders, with payment holidays now put in place for mortgagees, but we need the same security for renters and for the Government to understand the difference. For a renter, a rent holiday is not the same as a mortgage holiday. Rent is paid continuously during a tenancy, while mortgages have a fixed term, meaning that repayment terms can be simply extend. It is therefore important that the Government act to ensure that rents are paid, not merely that payments are suspended for this period.

We are extremely disappointed by the legislation published yesterday. Frankly, many believe that the Prime Minister has broken his promise to the country’s 20 million renters in 8.5 million households. It was not an evictions ban, as the Prime Minister promised. That legislation will not stop people losing their homes as a result of the virus; as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said, it just gives them some extra time to pack their bags. To be frank, it is just not good enough. The Government must look again; we urge them to look again.

There are also wider problems. Over recent years, austerity cuts have lessened the value of support available via housing benefit. The Government must immediately suspend the benefit cap and rid us of the bedroom tax that has affected so many families. We welcome the moves announced last week on local housing allowance, but the Government must go further and restore the local housing allowance from the 30th percentile back to the 50th percentile of market rates, as it was before 2010.

People will have made rental decisions based on their incomes, and they should not be penalised by the unforeseeable impact of the coronavirus, when we are asking people to lock themselves away. Now is not the time for families to be downsizing or sofa surfing with parents, grandparents or friends in cramped conditions. Many of us represent constituencies where overcrowding has become the plague of modern existence.

May I briefly pay tribute to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan? His team has worked tirelessly and creatively in securing hotel accommodation to get London’s rough sleepers off the streets, though we would like to know more about the duration and the cost of the deal that the Government have procured with hotels. It is important that the Government act to keep households in their homes so that that attachment to work, school and study can continue seamlessly at the conclusion of this extraordinary period. We cannot have a situation in which, at the end of this, tenants have either depleted all their savings or, worse, have amassed large and unpayable bills. If this is the case, the Government will be deferring evictions only a few months down the road, so the suspension of evictions for private and social tenants should be extended, we believe, from three months to six months. Shelter has estimated that as many as 20,000 eviction proceedings are already in progress and will go ahead over the next three months unless the Government take action to stop them, and they must be stopped. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury rises to his feet, he must be clear that there will be no evictions of any kind during this period.

In addition, we also believe it necessary to suspend all bailiff proceedings for the same period. Practically speaking, there are clear health and safety issues about bailiffs entering the homes of families who may be self-isolating. Furthermore, what measures is the Chancellor proposing for suspending payments of household utility bills? That was raised in the discussions this morning and we will support measures that are brought forward. During this period, we cannot have bailiffs and we cannot have disconnections of water, energy or internet.

What are the Government doing about those without internet access? Many people in our communities rely on libraries to access the internet, but now those libraries are closing. What measures will the Government bring in to ensure that people can get online, whether for benefit services or to maintain some form of social contact? These are huge demands being placed on the civil service, and I pay tribute to all those public servants throughout our public administration who are working day and night to establish these schemes. They are not often praised, but they are in this situation.

The civil service has been depleted by a decade of austerity. As extra demands are placed on, for example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, other civil servants are being redeployed. Are those recently retired or made redundant from the service being asked to come back to assist, just as we have invited other professionals to come back into the NHS?

Will the Minister also confirm that the current round of HMRC office closures and redundancies will at least be paused, if not reversed, at this stage? What adaptations have been made for those working in the mass call centres of HMRC and the DWP? Is the telephony technology there for them to work at home? Is there greater social distancing within the call centres themselves? We all know that universal credit cannot cope now, but its roll-out was again delayed in the Budget. Millions more households are becoming eligible for universal credit, housing benefit and other payments, so are the Government confident that the system can cope with this increased demand, because the feedback that we are getting from our constituents on the frontline is that they find it impossible because of the long waits to get through and have their case dealt with successfully. No one is blaming the civil servants; it is about resources and investment.

What are the Government doing to encourage businesses to take up business interruption loans, when some businesses see loans as less effective than grants for keeping them afloat? Is there potential for increasing the level of grants and extending their range? Have the Government considered our proposal that such loan agreements should include job retention clauses, which would mean that when businesses receive a loan, they can give workers the security they need in the knowledge that they will not lose their jobs? It is not much to ask of a business receiving financial support from the Government in this way that they work towards our overall objectives.

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

The difficulty with what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is that most businesses do not know the extent of this crisis and the impact it will have on them. It is impossible at this point to determine exactly how long this will last or how deep a recession might be. Is he not asking the impossible of businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

This Bill, as the Minister said, shows decisive leadership by the Government and, indeed, by the whole House. It is supported by the Opposition parties. As the Minister explained, this is really a cash flow Bill. It is not a provision at this juncture for the extra £266 billion of Government spending for Departments; it is an advance to those Departments.

The first question I ask the Minister is, bearing in mind the advance, what is the Treasury’s current estimate of how much extra it thinks it will be borrowing when we come to estimates in July? That is something the House would like to consider and start thinking about.

Another point related to the fiscal and monetary management of this crisis, which I think this Government have done admirably, is whether the Treasury has done any thinking about the Government balance sheet, and in particular the balance sheet that will be looked at by international sovereign investors. Bearing in mind that this crisis is affecting every country in the world, have they done any thinking with our partners on whether money spent relating to this particular crisis may be somehow itemised differently on the balance sheet, rather than just being lumped in with all the other Government spending that may have taken place? If we could somehow delineate crisis spending and normal spending, that may well help investors, this House and anybody else in the future in trying to assess the fiscal health of this country and others. I think that is something the Treasury should consider.

However, there is a broader issue here. This is obviously thought about as primarily a global health crisis, but many people think about the economic impacts, and that is indeed correct. However, the health crisis and the economic crisis are intertwined, and I will focus, as so many in the House have today, on the self-employed, although this issue does not relate just to them.

This virus requires us to do social distancing, which is a phrase all of us have become so familiar with, although I do not think any of us knew it existed up until two to three months ago—all I can say is, bring back Brexit. To save lives, we are having to shut down major parts of the economy, and for people to save their own lives and the lives of others, they are having to shut down their personal economic activity. These people have families, houses and responsibilities; if they do not feel that they can meet those responsibilities, some may choose to take the path we have asked them not to take. Some may choose to do the risky thing and not what they know to be right, because they are caught in this difficult conflict between health and wealth. The job of any Government in a responsible society—indeed, this Government have met this challenge—is to make sure nobody is faced with that choice. I think that principle has underpinned all of the response from the Treasury and should continue to underpin it when the Treasury comes out with its proposals for self-employed workers.

I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. I have been contacted by many constituents who are trying to use the business interruption loan scheme. Could the limit on unsecured lending be extended above £250,000? Many constituents have told me that they have been asked for personal guarantees above that threshold by the banks. Quite understandably, many are not willing to provide personal guarantees. Indeed, one asked me, “Bim, would you give a personal guarantee on a £500,000 or £1 million loan?” I said I could not say in all honesty that I would. Will the Minister consider extending that threshold for unsecured lending above £250,000—perhaps to £500,000 or £1 million?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an interesting point. The position is not clear on the website, and it does need clarification, but I think that loans over £250,000 are ones that businesses could not get security for. This is the Government standing behind businesses that do not have other forms of security. I think that below £250,000 is where people can ask for reasonable security. However, my hon. Friend’s point about a personal guarantee is key, because it will deter many people from applying for these loans.

[Bim Afolami]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. More broadly, the key question for the Minister is whether the Treasury is willing to adapt the scheme over the coming days and weeks as we hear more about the distinct problems and difficulties that there may be with it. That is not to quibble with the fundamentals of the scheme; it is a good scheme, and we need to recognise—indeed, I want to put on record—the fact that it was put together in record time. That is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and we need to give officials and Ministers credit for what they have managed to achieve, but let us try to improve the scheme so that it can be useful to more people, and addressing the issue I have raised is one way of doing so.

The final point I want to make is about tech start-ups—early-stage businesses. These are not necessarily all over the country; they tend to be concentrated in certain parts of the country. Indeed, I have several people who work for them in my constituency. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) cannot be here today, but I have been speaking with her, and there are many of these companies in her constituency. The nature of the support package that has been outlined is not particularly helpful for this type of company, because typically an early stage tech start-up deliberately incurs up-front losses as a result of heavy investment in research and product development. Such companies tend to rely on equity rather than debt funding, so the package that has been put in place is less helpful to them. The investors that back them usually back several dozen such companies and do not have enough cash to put into all their portfolios or their portfolio businesses. There is, therefore, a problem—a specific problem, but an important one, because although the number of the jobs in the sector is about 6,000 to 10,000, these are the companies that drive innovation and will drive the creation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in the future. Bearing in mind the Government’s ambition for the country, we need to safeguard these businesses as much as we can.

I have been discussing with many in the sector a proposal to join with the British Business Bank to put together a £300 million not-for-profit fund—not a fund that will take management fees or try to make any money—to invest in roughly 600 start-ups, to provide working capital for nine or more months. I ask the Financial Secretary or one of his colleagues to consider meeting me and industry representatives to see whether we can get that sort of thing going. It is a specific sector of the economy, but an extremely important one.

Everyone recognises the enormity of the challenge. Everyone recognises the speed and complexity of what we have to do. The money in this short Bill is critical, but in the coming days—especially if Parliament is to rise by the end of this week—we need to do what we can to improve the schemes as much as possible. Once Parliament is out and does not sit for however long it may be, it will be much harder for Members to do that. I ask the Minister to take those points into account.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am delighted to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who made some salient points. I endorse his tribute to the NHS and to all our public sector workers. I do not know if anybody has seen the news recently, but a terrible tragedy has happened in Spain, where elderly people in care homes were abandoned and left to die in their care homes by the staff. I cannot believe that would ever happen in the UK, and I think it shows how brave many of the people working in our public sector are when faced with these terrible crises.

I should first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I always do on these occasions. As well as being a Member of Parliament trying to stand up for the interests of my constituents—many businesses have contacted me over the last few days and weeks—I look at these matters from a business perspective. I have been involved in that business for 30 years, and when we had a board meeting on Friday, the first conversation we had—I guess like many businesses—was not about cuts to the number of people we employ, but about how much we could cut our salaries as board directors by. I think most board directors have an appropriately sensible approach to this. We all know this is going to be a very difficult crisis for many businesses. I pay tribute to the Treasury, the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary for putting together a package of support that is unheralded—not just in its size, but in its comprehensive nature and the speed with which it has been delivered.

The job retention scheme in particular was a massive relief to many business people. Back in 2008, we were faced with taking our workforce down from 200 people to 65 within 12 months, as the bottom fell out of our business and out of the market. The most destructive aspect of that—aside from the terrible human cost of sitting down with people with whom one had worked in some cases for decades and telling them that the business could no longer afford to employ them—was that it cost a huge amount of money to make them redundant. That puts the business in a critical condition, which means that more people have to be made redundant. I do not begrudge anybody the redundancy payments that were due, but for a private business that is a very difficult thing to have to do.

The job retention scheme insulates many businesses from that, because instead of having to lay people off or make them redundant, the business can say to them, “You can stay at home at the moment. You’ll continue to be paid a fair amount to get you through this short-term crisis, then we’ll bring you back into the fold.” That eases the financial pressure on the business in an important way. It is a really excellent scheme. There are of course some missing details, which I know we will get in good time, in particular whether earnings will include things such as commission and whether the Government payment will include things such as national insurance. Many businesses have questions that I am sure will be answered in good time.

The other element of the package is the business rate grant scheme, which many businesses have welcomed. Of course, many self-employed people, including sole traders and freelancers, are outside the scheme—a point that I will touch on in a second.

I want to raise one or two points about the business interruption loan scheme. Obviously we want as many businesses as possible to take advantage of the scheme, but one big concern is about security. The scheme is based on the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which included personal guarantees. I understand that the new scheme will not include them—I have been told that from the Dispatch Box today on an urgent question—but it would be helpful if the British Business Bank website said clearly that that is the case. It does not say that at the moment, which could deter some people from applying in the first place. All it says is that security can be taken

“At the discretion of the lender”.

I have had personal guarantees for most of my business life, and I think most people would expect a business person to have some skin in the game, but this is a different situation. It is very difficult to quantify the impact of this crisis on a business. The Government have rightly stated that there will be no personal guarantees, which I assume means that people’s family homes should not be put up for security either. That being the case, it would be helpful to clarify that point, because that would increase demand.

The other point is that at the moment the banks eligible for that scheme number about 40, but there are many outside it. Those not eligible for the previous British Business Bank scheme, the EFG, will not qualify for access to the current scheme. Therefore, customers of OakNorth, Aldermore or one of the many alternative providers in the marketplace today cannot access the scheme. The normal process for applying for that scheme is somewhere between six and 18 months, which is clearly far too long. I think that the Treasury has committed to try to accelerate that process—or the British Business Bank has—but it will still take a matter of weeks, and businesses cannot wait weeks for this money. They need it in a matter of days.

It is absolutely essential that we get that support to businesses now, so I politely ask the Minister whether he will look at that and perhaps get the Bank of England to set up a new scheme directly with some of those lenders, many of which are very bona fide lenders. Of course, the right checks and balances have to be in place, but these are authorised, regulated banks, so it would be good to ensure that all lenders can get finance to all customers.

The other thing about how business will view this crisis is how long it is likely to last. Businesses are much more likely to take a loan, from anywhere, if they think they can get through this and quantify the losses or how long their revenue will be affected. I worry about the current situation, because we are telling people that they can go to work as long as they cannot work from home and as long as they socially distance themselves when they get there. I think that was one reason for the confusion and why Filey in my constituency and many other beautiful market towns were packed out with visitors, who felt they could go to those beautiful places and socially distance themselves while they were there, which clearly they cannot if there are too many people there. It is the same in a workplace environment. I can see that, because of the uncertainty about who can actually go to work—we have not restricted it to key workers or essential workers, to my understanding—lots of people are building houses on construction sites and whatever else they are doing. They are going to work because they cannot work from home and they feel they can socially distance.

From a business point of view, I would personally prefer to have a complete lockdown for 30 days. We know that, in China, after a full lockdown for 14 days, cases peaked, and after 30 days, cases stopped, and all the coffee shops, Starbucks, Apple and the car dealerships opened again. That gives us hope that we can tackle and defeat this virus within 30 days, if we do the right thing. If we are equivocal about it and it is confusing, people will continue to go to work and continue to spread the virus.

From my business perspective, a short, sharp shock is much more appealing. I would know that, if I applied for a business loan from the new scheme, I could quantify how much I would need, if I had the confidence that the timescale would be limited in that way.

I have a couple of other points that I think would be useful. Ideally, the Government should not have to step in to support businesses at any point in time. The markets should deliver that themselves, with finance coming from banks or investors through to businesses. Venture capital trusts have limits on how much they can put into businesses—up to £5 million on an annual basis and £12 million as a lifetime limit into a particular business. Because of the unprecedented nature of this crisis, it would be useful to double those limits so that venture capital trusts, which invest in many good businesses, can see those businesses through a tough time. Otherwise they will not be able to get the extra money into those businesses that they need. It could be a temporary change, and it would potentially save many businesses.

On the self-employed, we have understandably heard lots of calls for more help for the sole trader. Many different people in my constituency have contacted me. They desperately need some help, and I do understand that. Within that cohort are some very vulnerable people, including mortgage prisoners. I have corresponded with many mortgage prisoners, as have other hon. Members, and many are self-employed. They are in a particular situation in that their earnings are being very badly damaged now, and they have been paying huge mortgage rates for too long. Many of the mortgage prisoners’ loans have been sold to non-UK lenders—inactive lenders—and the regulatory oversight of those lenders is much reduced compared with UK lenders. In my view, it is an absolute disgrace that we allow UK mortgage customers’ loans to be sold to a foreign entity, over which we do not have the same oversight, so we cannot properly control the activities of those lenders. We need to bring all those lenders within the same regulatory scope. Some of those mortgage prisoners are on very high standard variable rates of around 5%, and even up to 6%. It is simply unfair . A year or two ago, we brought in a standard variable rate cap in the energy sector. I wonder whether the Minister could look to do the same thing in this sector to ensure that those people are treated fairly.

I do a lot of work with the all-party group on fair business banking. Most bankers do the right thing—the vast majority of banks and bankers I meet and have banked with over more than 30 years in business have looked after my business fairly. Clearly, that does not always happen, given the 2008 scandal in small business banking. It is time now for the banks to do the right thing and to work with the Government on the business interruption scheme.

Another issue is that the rates that banks charge on personal loans and overdrafts are not coming down, despite the reduction in base rate—in fact, quite the opposite. The Financial Conduct Authority, in its wisdom, decided that everyone who had an overdraft should pay the same whether it was an authorised overdraft or an unauthorised overdraft. It told the banks that they could not penalise people for unauthorised overdrafts, so everyone has to pay the same. The rate for authorised overdrafts used to be somewhere between 3% and 15%, and unauthorised overdrafts used to have a fixed daily charge and a much higher rate. So the banks made them all the same, and here are the rates being charged today for authorised and unauthorised loans: First Direct, 39.9%; HSBC, 39.9%; Lloyds Banking Group, 39.9%; Nationwide, 39.9%; and NatWest, 39.5%. It is simply disgraceful. Everybody is paying the higher rate. It smacks of a cartel, as well as profiteering and overcharging.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Last Friday, four or five businesses in my constituency came to see me, looking for help because of the coronavirus. The first constituent told me that he had asked for his loans to be reduced, but the bank—I will not say which one it was—said, “No, what we’ll do is charge you £100 for each amount of money that you’ve borrowed, and then we’ll charge you interest at 6% on top of that.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in these difficult times, that is totally outrageous? The banks should be there to help, not to take advantage.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, and indeed for all the work he does on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and for the many speeches he has made on the matter. I absolutely agree. The two best things that I have heard the Treasury say over the past two weeks—and there have been many—are, “We will do whatever it takes” and, “We are all in this together.” The banks should take that approach as well. I and many other Members of the House will be watching to make sure that this time the banks do the right thing and restore their reputation.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman has done some sterling work on this, so would he like to comment on the figures that are coming out on 6 April and the interest rates for overdrafts from HSBC, First Direct, M&S Bank and TSB? Nationwide have already gone there, with an increase from 9.99% to 39.9%. What does he think about that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think it is an absolute disgrace. I do not think that the FCA saw it coming, which is one of the flaws of the regulator. The FCA has been criticised many times in this place, including by the right hon. Gentleman. It told the banks, “Right, you’re not going to charge anybody any more than anyone else is.” But that let them all put their rates up to the highest level. It is exploitative and absolutely outrageous.

The banks need to look at this as a sector and start to treat their customers fairly, which of course is a basic requirement of the principles of banking, so the FCA should step in and look at this. In fact, I think it should be the subject of an inquiry by the Competition and Markets Authority. The fact that the rates are not just high, but all the same, smacks of directors getting together in a room and agreeing a figure. It cannot be a coincidence that all the rates are exactly the same in this supposedly competitive market.

On commercial loans, it is right that the Government have negotiated with the banks to give mortgage holidays, which of course have to be paid back but nevertheless give borrowers vital breathing space. I think the same is true of some commercial loans, but the banks are saying, “We’ll give you a holiday only on the payment of the principal, not the interest.” Those paying for a commercial loan are paying much more on the interest than they are on the principal, which again seems grossly unfair if we are all in this together.

We are going to work together to try to get through this, so I call on the banks to look at this again, to be fair and to rebuild their reputation. The final way they could do that is by suspending legal action, certainly in relation to residential repossessions but also for repossessions against businesses. They should show forbearance and use the business banking resolution service—I am one of the people who have been working on that in recent months—which will be like a super ombudsman for banking disputes. They should defer any issues they have with their customers until that service is properly established, so that those complaints can be resolved fairly—fair to the bank and fair to the customer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and backs up the thrust of what I am trying to say. The banks have been given access to free money. They are being looked after by the Bank of England through this extension of the Bank of England’s balance sheet, so they are doing okay. So why are they not stepping up to help the rest of the economy? There are some really quite serious questions on this issue. I hope that the Government say in response to this debate that they, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority are going to look at this situation, because it is just not good enough. I want to work on a cross-party basis on this issue, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said; this is vital to all of us, and we need to send a message to those who are running the banks that we are expecting them to step up. It is time that they did their duty, right?

I actually want to come to my speech, because that was just a response to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). I want to talk about the Bill in front of us—I know that is a bit unusual—as well as the supply process of which it is a part, and then I will give some thoughts on the economy.

On the Bill, will the Minister tell us why the Treasury chose to change the percentage limit of the contingencies fund, which is normally set at 2% of total authorised expenditure in the preceding year, to 50% until the end of 2020-21? In absolute figures, the amount before this Bill would have been £10.7 billion. That has gone up to £266 billion. I hope that the Minister can explain why. It does not seem unreasonable, given the pressures on Departments, but it is quite a big change. I am not against it—let me be clear that I will be supporting the Bill today—but it would be good to put on the record, for the House and for history, why that figure has been chosen. When people look at this situation in the future, they will need to know why that decision was taken.

The Minister said in his opening remarks that this was not an increase in expenditure. Well, I hope that he meant to say that it is an increase in expenditure in that it takes account of commitments that the Chancellor has made both in the Budget and since the Budget. If I have understood correctly, there is a big increase in expenditure because we need one—for the health service, our social care system and other parts of our public services that need the cash now.

I have another question for the Minister. If these contingencies are being given to Departments so that they have the cash they need, is the money also being given to local authorities? I want to underline this point: local authorities are on the frontline now, and they are having to spend money all the time on a whole range of things that are completely unbudgeted for. They are confused about the proposals for business rates, whether they are going to get any income in, what money they have to give out and all the rest of it. Local authorities are slightly unclear about what is happening. I hope that there will be genuine desire and action on behalf of the Treasury to get some money out—on account, if you like—to them so that they have the cash flow to ensure that they can provide the extra services that they are being asked to provide. It is essential that we hear that local authorities are getting the support that the Whitehall Departments seem to be getting.

I said that I also wanted to talk about the supply process. This legislation is part of the almost anachronistic supply process in this House. I am afraid that I am a bit of a geek on this. In 2000, I wrote a pamphlet called “Making MPs Work For Our Money: Reforming Parliament’s Role In Budget Scrutiny”. It is a cure for insomnia, so I do not necessarily suggest people read it, but in it I tried to argue that this House does not really have sovereignty over the Budget. We look at these Bills when they come along and we nod them through, but our processes of examining draft budgets and estimates are shocking. In my pamphlet, I made the comparison with all the OECD countries, and this House has the worst processes for examining draft budgets and measures such as this Bill—that is worrying. I do not wish to resurrect the Brexit debate, but it was supposed to be about parliamentary sovereignty and I used to say, “I wish we had some.” That is because this House rarely, if ever, looks at the estimates properly, analyses them in Select Committees and makes proposals about draft spending decisions. Other Parliaments do those things quite easily—the Swedish and New Zealand Parliaments are good models. Our approach undermines the value for money and undermines what we are here for, and we really need to look at the estimates procedure.

That is why this Bill looks so weird in many ways; it is called the Contingencies Fund Bill and we are not used to doing this sort of thing, because we have given up control over supply—it is just nodded through. The last time MPs voted against a spending request of the Government was in 1919, more than 100 years ago We have given up properly controlling the draft estimates. Although I will be supporting the Bill tonight, because it is really important that we let this one through, I just want to say to the Minister that I hope we can reflect on this. I raised this issue when I was in government and tried to get the then Chancellor to look at it. There was a flurry of excitement and then the dead hand of the Treasury said, “No way, we are not giving up control.” That was the wrong move, because control can be exercised with greater transparency. I hope that that may be one thing that comes from this experience in this emergency situation.

Let me end with some reflections on the economy, where we are at and the lessons we are taking. I talked about the importance of the banks really delivering, given the agreement with the Government and the Bank of England. That is probably the most essential message from me tonight. There are some longer-term things and possibly some relatively short-term things to address, one of which is the way we do the Bank of England’s quantitative easing. That is monetary policy, where we are, in effect, printing money and sending it out. That happened after the 2008 crash and it is happening now. I am not against it, but I just say that the way it works is not some sort of technical, politically neutral, value-neutral system; it has implications for economic equality in this country, because the money tends to go to people in the City—the financial institutions. It does not go to ordinary people and ordinary businesses. So if we are going to get things right this time and have quantitative easing, I urge the Minister to let us have a debate about how those mechanisms actually work, because in crises we do not want economic inequality worse; we want to make it better. These technical things sound as though they are available only for pointy-heads in the Treasury, but quantitative easing is a political issue and we have not debated that. It has massive social and economic consequences, and we need to make sure that there is democratic accountability on them, and that they are properly understood and work in the interests of society.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Has that not been solved to some extent with the job-retention scheme, because the Government will issue bonds to fund that scheme, they will be bought by asset managers and the QE will buy those assets off the asset managers? That is the circular nature of that scheme. So this time round, as the Prime Minister said a few days ago, the support would be directed at the people, in terms of keeping them in work and in pay, rather than simply funding the banks. To a certain extent, this time QE does support jobs and real people.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Gentleman has a point and he is right to take me up on that. I think that there is an improvement, but I do not think we have debated this in the context of QE and the monetary side of the policy response. I think we need to do that, because we need to unpick some deep issues here and I do not think this House has understood that. Although I am a big fan of the independent Bank of England, and I do not think we should interfere with the setting of interest rates, I do think QE raises some political questions which are not technical and require accountability.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I half agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think inflation is going to be the problem; people have not got any money. This form of QE is often called helicopter money and perhaps that is the right move now, and we need to be debating it.

I have a final comment to make and then I will sit down. When we reflect in a few months on this crisis and what has gone on, we will have to look at some of the underlying assumptions of our economic models. I am not saying that we should rip them up—I do not believe that at all—but how the state underpins and works with the market is really important. What I mean by that is that there is an assumption that the market can do it all, that the market is fantastic and that Governments should come out of the way, but markets only exist because of Governments. Regulations and laws make markets and there have always been those.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Without rules and regulations on competition, on fair play for employees and on consumer protections, markets will not work. Where there is no consumer protection, consumers do not have faith in the products and services being provided, so the markets cannot work. I absolutely think that we need to reflect on that, because I do not think that the model has been working well enough. I will end on that comment, because I hope that we will learn from this and have a proper debate about how our economy will work in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I want to start by echoing the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The urgent need for provisions to support the self-employed gets greater by the day, and my concern is that desperation is turning to anger. The “What about us?” sentiment will be driving that anger, understandably, and making the situation a whole lot worse. I urge Ministers to bring that support forward.

We are also promised support for renters in both the social sector and private rented sector. That has not happened yet. Again, as days and weeks go by, the desperation and uncertainty become greater, and I urge Ministers to bring that forward. My right hon. Friend was right about the Government apparently going back on a commitment to bring forward provisions to ban evictions. If someone is evicted, where are they going to go at the moment? There is no reason at all why that provision should not be brought forward. If we are serious that people have to stay at home, let them stay at home by making sure that they are not evicted. It shows either misjudgment in making the promise in the first place, or misjudgment and bad faith in breaking that promise. I urge Ministers to take that back to the Prime Minister and ask him to make a change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) was absolutely correct in what she said about charities. In Cheshire West and Chester, we have brought together Cheshire West and Chester Council, West Cheshire Voluntary Action and lots of charities and church groups to try to provide a co-ordinated service to all those who need support at the moment. But as my hon. Friend said, the charities are running out of money because their commercial activities are running down, which is affecting their income. That is calling into question their ability to deliver services to the most vulnerable, which they do much of the time and which is often taken for granted. Right now, with everyone expected to stay at home, the ability of charities to deliver those services is perhaps limited anyway, but as this situation hopefully gets better, we will look to charities to get those services up and running straightaway. At the moment, without the support for charities, their ability to do that is diminished.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his point on rented accommodation? He is right that at the moment, all landlords should show forbearance when people are in difficult financial circumstances, and the Coronavirus Bill will increase the notice period to end an assured shorthold tenancy from two to three months. He is a fair man, so does he agree that we must be fair to both sides? If a tenant is unfairly withholding rent from a landlord, and it takes eight months to get a case to court at the moment, that is not very fair on the landlord. We have to be fair to both sides.

[Christian Matheson]

I do accept that, but that would be the case in normal circumstances anyway. We are talking about giving people peace of mind during this national crisis and ensuring that people do not even have to live with the worry of being chucked out on the street or into temporary accommodation. That is my concern.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington reflected on his childhood in Liverpool and on his priest considering him to be a lapsed Catholic. That reminded me of my mum and dad, who also grew up in Liverpool, albeit a couple of decades or more before my right hon. Friend. The formative period of their childhood was the second world war, when they were both young children, suffering the bombings in Liverpool and the uncertainty of the war. We all know that the second world war in Europe ended formally on 7 May 1945, but my mum and dad did not know that—they had no idea when the hostilities would end and things might start to get better. Listening to my right hon. Friend, I reflected that that is the situation in which we find ourselves now.

We have no idea how long this crisis is likely to last. That uncertainty drives desperation, anxiety and as the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and my good friend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, business uncertainty. That is why it is essential that the Government are clear in their statements and oblige other businesses—we have talked about the banks; I want to consider insurance companies—to ensure that they play their part. If we cannot plan ahead, we will not know how to address the problems, and it cannot simply be down to the Government.

I make that point because insurance companies are not living up to their obligations. I know of businesses in Chester that have been told that their business contributions to insurance do not apply because coronavirus was not a notifiable disease at the time of the outbreak or because the Government had only suggested, as was the case last week, that events did not take place rather than saying that they must not take place. As I mentioned at Question Time, for events, conferences and sports that have a long lead-in time to prepare, it would help if the Government were clearer now that those businesses could not get back up and running for four or six months and that insurance companies should ensure that their policies kick in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Desperation was the word used a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and, prior to him, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). It sums up the feeling of many people for many reasons. I think it also underpins what the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) did. I wish he was two metres from the Minister to demonstrate good social distancing in this place. He was right. This debate is about improving the schemes as far as we are able to do so, as part of our contribution to scrutinising the Bill.

My first point, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is about construction sites. We have all seen the pictures, and some of us have passed examples today, of construction workers working in big numbers in close proximity. That cannot be right and it is certainly not what was intended by the Prime Minister’s guidance. Perhaps the Minister can take that point on board and consider how that situation might be prevented. It is a very serious matter, not just for those workers but in terms of spreading the virus elsewhere. We must all remember that, even if we are fit and healthy and do not become sick ourselves, it is not about the individual, but who we pass it on to.

On banks and loans, the problem, as has been stated by a number of Members, is that loans mean debt which cannot be repaid without the certainty of an income. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester just made the point about us not knowing the end date. If people do not know the end date, they will not be able to plan to pay the loans back. That is a real problem. If we then add on the uncertainty of having to provide personal guarantees, it becomes extremely problematic for many businesses to take advantage of the loan scheme. The suggestions made by Members for how the loan scheme might operate are really important, and it is really important that the Government go away and look into them.

On the behaviour of banks, in other debates we have heard descriptions of pharmacists and food retailers hiking up prices. The banks are doing exactly the same thing with interest rates. That cannot be allowed to continue. I thought the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) was going to suggest nationalising the banks as a way forward. He was at one stage channelling his inner Marxist for the benefit of some in the Chamber. [Interruption.] There is agreement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on the Front Bench. The point is that the taxpayer bailed out the banks. People paid the money back through higher interest rates in the financial crisis. They are now about to repeat that behaviour at a much more dangerous and difficult time in our history. There has to be intervention by the Treasury, in whatever shape or form, to prevent that and to ensure that the banks behave responsibly, provide support and do not put apply onerous terms, whether through personal guarantees or ultra-high extortionate rates of interest.

There is also the trust issue. Businesses do not want to borrow because of their past experiences. During the financial crisis when I was running a business, I had the experience of having my overdraft facility recalled overnight. We were lucky that we were able to cover that out of personal savings, but very many businesses were not able to do so and went to the wall. People suffered grievously—some took their own lives. We have debated that many times in this Chamber, and we do not want a repeat of that over the coming months and years after the immediate crisis has passed. I therefore urge the Government to intervene now to get that right.

As well as taking advantage of the Government’s employee retention scheme, businesses will need to pay additional costs such as rents and insurances. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester made the point that businesses are being told that they do not qualify for business continuity insurance. The same applies to income protection for the self-employed and small business owners, because this disease did not exist when their policies were written. Those issues need attention. The vast sum of money that the Government are making available provides the opportunity to look at some of the other costs for businesses to see whether there can be help beyond that suggested for employees. Grants are certainly a part of that. Given how long this situation might last, the size of the grants will need to be constantly reviewed so that they are sufficient.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about grants. The biggest grant, of course, is the job retention scheme—that is a grant. It is Government funded, and there is no requirement for employers to pay anything towards it unless they want to do so, and they can top it up to that 20%. Therefore, will he concede that the scheme is a very important initiative by the Government and that it will be welcomed by many businesses?

[Bill Esterson]

Absolutely. It is important, and I certainly welcome it. None the less, there are some challenges with it. The fact that it is not available for the March payroll is a big problem for many businesses. We have already seen a significant number of businesses close and many workers laid off who will not now be eligible to be part of that scheme. The Government, totally understandably, have used examples of furlough schemes elsewhere in the world, but it will be difficult for the scheme to deal with the nature and the scale of this crisis.

Self-employed Persons: Financial Support

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

As the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question in Treasury questions suggested, that is not the sole consideration. It is a question of what the operational delivery issues may be: for example, we do not hold details of people’s bank accounts, so how would we do it? It is how we roll this out, but we recognise his wider point that there are immediate issues for many self-employed people. That is what we are actively working on, and that is what my right hon Friend the Chancellor is engaged on in further meetings today. As I said in my previous answer, we hope to bring proposals forward in the coming days.

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

My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier the business interruption loan scheme. Will he confirm that all self-employed people will have access to it and that they will not have to give personal guarantees? Will the Government widen the scheme to include institutions such as OakNorth and Aldermore, which are currently excluded from eligibility?

[Steve Barclay]

We are looking into that, but it is available as of now. It goes up to £5 million and my understanding is that it does not require personal guarantees. If it is any different, I will come back to him on that point.