Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

No, I am going to make some progress.

We have set out that we will not borrow for day-to-day spending and that we will not ask working people who are already struggling to foot the bill. That is what we mean when we say we are the party of economic responsibility and the party of social justice. The Conservatives have shown themselves to be the party of a failed approach to the economy. After six so-called growth plans from the Government that have all failed, the drunken gamblers of Downing Street have rolled the dice one last time, putting their faith in the ideological mantra that if they just slash taxes and regulation, they will unleash business investment and growth. They believe that wealth is created only by a few at the top, when the truth is that it comes from the bottom up and from the middle out.

The trickle-down economics of the Prime Minister and her Chancellor are wrong. Their approach will not work and it is not fair. It will hit working people’s spending power, undermining prospects for growth, and it ignores the need for the Government to be a partner for business to grow—something that is more important than ever with the turbulent, changing, challenging outlook that we face. That is why the next Labour Government would do things differently. We would bring together businesses and trade unions through a national economic council. We would support businesses to grow, through our modern industrial strategy, and we would use a national wealth fund to invest in the new green industries of the future. That is our approach to the British economy: pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth.

The Government are making the wrong calls again and again. They were wrong last year to introduce the national insurance rise on working people, just as they were wrong last month when they tried to cut tax for some of the highest paid in society and to hide the OBR report on their plans. We welcome the Government finally admitting that they were wrong to raise national insurance on working people and businesses in the middle of a cost of living crisis, but their wider economic approach is one that is characterised by ballooning borrowing and a discredited trickle-down approach to economic growth.

The Prime Minister and her Chancellor are gambling with the livelihoods and wellbeing of people across the UK. Their gamble is dramatically worsening the cost of living crisis, with higher costs and mortgage payments for households across the country. It is shredding any reputation for economic competence the Conservatives might once have claimed to have, and it will fail to deliver the growth we need after 12 years of stagnation.

Throughout the cost of living crisis, Labour has forced the Conservatives to U-turn time and again. By repealing the national insurance rise and levy and by halting their plans to cut the top rate of tax for the very highest paid, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have shown that they have it within themselves to make a U-turn. Our message to them is clear: do not stop there. The Government must U-turn on their whole economic approach and reverse their disastrous kamikaze Budget. Our message to the British people is also clear: this is a Tory crisis that has been made in Downing Street and is being paid for by working people. Only Labour will fix the damage that the Tories are doing. Only Labour will deliver economic responsibility and social justice. Only Labour will be a Government that are on your side.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Could people who intend to speak in the debate please stand, because I know that at least one is not on the list? Thank you.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I see that eight Members want to speak, so we will have to reduce the time limit to six minutes to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is an honour to be able to contribute on this important Bill this evening and a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who gave us a masterful and detailed account of the problems and challenges that the loss of bank services and bank branches causes for rural communities in particular. I hope to emulate some of his mastery of the subject in my remarks.

I wish to begin by associating myself with some of the concerns raised by other Members, particularly my friend the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who talked about the transfer of responsibility and scrutiny power away from Parliament and more towards the regulators and, in certain respects, as regards the repatriation of some of the regulations, to designated legislation committees.

I also associate myself with the concerns that have been voiced about the need to strengthen as an objective for the regulators the need for sustainable growth and to ensure that they are very much aligned with some of the Government’s expectations on net zero. I do not think that we have yet heard an explanation as to why that statutory objective cannot be placed on the regulators. I see it as working hand in hand with sustainable growth and competitiveness; they do not necessarily need to compete with each other.

As I mentioned, I will focus my remarks on access to cash. In particular, part 2 of the Bill—clauses 47 and 48 —and the corresponding schedules 8 and 9 have a great deal to commend them. I put on record my support for some of those measures, which I believe will bring a real improvement, safeguarding access to cash for so many of our communities. Of course, we must note that a lot of communities, including in my own constituency of Ceredigion, have already suffered the loss of bank branches and ATMs. It has long been the case that people in those communities have had to travel 10 or 15 miles in order to access a free ATM, but the Bill at least puts in place a set of regulations and a process to ensure that no further gaps arise in future. For that, I do welcome it.

However, returning to a point that has been made by several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), I ask the Government whether it would be possible to extend the remit of the access-to-cash clauses to include certain services, and in particular in-person services. Other Members have explained just how important continued access to in-person services—branch services—is for many individuals; we have heard about their particular importance to the elderly, and to those who are perhaps not IT literate. I would add that in some rural areas, of course, digital banking remains a distant dream due to a lack of connectivity, so the ability to access personal banking advice is an essential amenity for residents of those areas.

However, something that bears repeating—I admit that it is perhaps not something I have afforded enough attention to in the past—is the impact that the loss of in-person banking services has on small businesses and on charitable and community organisations. Over the past decade or so in Ceredigion, we have seen a number of towns lose their final bank. Nevertheless, they are still market towns; they try to plough for a prosperous future, but the loss of in-person banking services has had an impact on small businesses and on charitable and community organisations.

To offer a few examples, small businesses in Tregaron, in Lampeter, and increasingly those in Llandysul, will often have to travel to Carmarthen, which may be a round trip of between 45 and 60 miles, depending on where they are located. Of course, the banks open during business hours, which to small businesses entails either closing for a few hours in order to deposit cash or access other banking services, or going without. I know for a fact that many businesses are now having to amend their business practices in unhelpful ways in order to accommodate that new banking reality.

It has also been a real challenge for many charitable and community organisations to open accounts. For example, I have been told that a community pub initiative had to wait almost nine weeks to open a bank account due to the changes in services locally. Charities, in particular, have reported to me that banks just do not understand the specific requirements they have as account holders; they do not understand that changing mandates in person is a particular task for charities. In rural areas, as in many others, many of those charitable groups and organisations make a valuable contribution to communities. At the end of the day, they are staffed by volunteers, and forcing those volunteers to travel 60-odd miles just to change a bank mandate is unfair.

That is why I would be very interested to see whether the Government could extend the new access-to-cash requirements to include those banking services. At the moment, I am afraid, banks are not waking up of their own volition to the importance of maintaining those services in rural areas, and communities are being let down. That is where the Government could step in; that would be a very important intervention, and would be much welcomed on both sides of the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The last Member with six minutes is Harriett Baldwin, and then we will go to five minutes, so everybody will have exactly the same amount of time.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is an honour to be called to speak in support of the Bill. In a way, it is an advantage to be called at this time because so many excellent points have been made by so many wonderful people, and I am pleased to say that I agree with most of them and that they have been expressed better than I could have done, including by the former Chancellor and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who was responsible, I think, for putting together quite a large part of this Bill.

I recall the milestone of when the country voted to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016, because I was Economic Secretary to the Treasury at the time. Many questions came to the fore about what would happen to the regulation of our financial services, which have been referred to many times in this debate as one of our most important export and tax-paying sectors, providing many hundreds of thousands of jobs up and down the land. It is a very important sector, and over the past six years we have flirted with the idea of equivalence.

It is, I think, the EU Commission that has decided that equivalence does not suit it. Frankly, I think it is the EU’s loss, because obviously we are equivalent—or we were equivalent. It is the EU’s small businesses and growing firms that will lose easy access to the United Kingdom capital markets, which is a shame for them. I also know that discussions were had about the EU-Canada trade agreement and about the chapter on financial services, which is not in our current trade agreement with the EU. Clearly that has been rejected as a way forward, although there is scope for much more mutual recognition and the opening up of markets.

I welcome the decisions that have been made before the publication of this Bill, and the opportunities for divergence that are being seized in it. It is also welcome that the industry has been very much consulted and brought along with us on how Solvency II and MiFID II changes can help our economy grow.

However, the point on which I wish to focus has not been brought up much in this debate: the freedoms that this Bill gives us to look once again at the market for advice and guidance in this country. We have heard about many of the challenges that consumers face when they are making financial decisions on their own behalf. The cost of financial advice is high, and the guidance itself can be very generic. There is, of course, access to the Money Advice Service and to Pension Wise, which I encourage constituents to use if they can, but the Bill gives us the opportunity to look once again at the financial advice market and to have more customised guidance because of how technology has evolved and the important role that the FCA’s regulatory sandbox plays in allowing people to experiment.

I urge everyone who has spoken about consumers in this debate to support an amendment that I am planning to table with the help of the Investing and Saving Alliance. It would allow the provision of much more personalised guidance through the use of innovation and technology, helping consumers through difficult decisions such as moving pensions when they change employer. That would create a better informed consumer who would not necessarily fall so easily for some of the scams that we have been hearing about during today’s debate. We need to arm our consumers to be able to tackle those scams.

My final point is about the role of the regulator. Time and again in this debate Members have asked who regulates the regulator if it puts in place something with which we as MPs or our constituents disagree. There is an important role here for the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, and we will take that responsibility of scrutinising changes very seriously.

I also think one of the great strengths of our country is our common law; I know the Minister has been looking at the opportunities that have been outlined for bringing in some further rights of appeal through the common-law system against some decisions that regulators make. I know he has taken these points seriously, and I look forward to his responding to them at the end of the debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just to inform everybody, the wind-ups will begin no later than 6.40 pm, and anybody who has spoken in this debate will be expected to be here at the wind-ups. With five minutes, I call Siobhain McDonagh.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to Ministers past and present involved in introducing the Bill. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation for my constituents. Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has a high level of employment in the City and in connected financial services, and the subject is close to my heart, as I belong to an even more cherished race of human beings than Tory MPs—I am a former banker.

There have been a number of exceptional contributions to this debate, so I shall try to confine my contribution to items that have not been covered in a lot of detail. First, the Bill is good and important because it will continue to support innovation in the financial sector, of which the UK has a long and proud. If we look at the role played by financial centres in London and Edinburgh in the development of financial products that have brought security and stability to people’s lives, we can see that for centuries the UK has been a leading light in the world. A piece of legislation that enables the sandbox concept, for example, continues to support that innovation and incredibly important to the sector.

Secondly, as we move away from EU structures and governance, we need to ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny of arrangements for regulation and of the implications of the mutual recognition agreements into which we propose to enter. Contrary to what is sometimes said about EU matters being dealt with by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, if anything, our criticism in the UK was that there was often too much scrutiny and democratic involvement. With trade deals, for example, agreements had to be looked at by the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. They had to be signed off by the Council of Ministers. There were multiple levels of engagement in that process, and we need to ensure that organisations such as Zurich, which shared a helpful briefing with hon. Members—it certainly informed my thinking about the Bill—can have appropriate input so that we get the calibration right to support innovation, as the Minister is committed to do, and so that we have appropriate consumer protection.

Many Members have referred to the sector as a jewel in the crown of the British economy, which clearly remains the case. It is striking in the context of the Government’s levelling-up agenda that we see, for example, significant inflows of investment in Northern Ireland as a result of opportunities that have been created by the development of the economy there. That has created an opportunity to look at how we spread the benefits beyond the centres to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) referred. That is critical for the reputation of the sector, and it is incredibly important for our economy too.

A key part of that is ensuring that we futureproof the regulation of financial services in the UK. There has been much mention of crypto, but I would like to add the need to ensure that non-regulated activity undertaken by regulated institutions requires scrutiny. Our thanks are due to Private Eye magazine, for example, for the detail that it has provided in shining a light on the activities of a number of organisations. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) referred to things such as funeral plans, but we also need to pay a good deal of attention to the activities of will writing organisations and trust services—for example, the Family Trust Corporation and the Philips Trust Corporation—because significant numbers of consumers may find themselves heavily disadvantaged as a result of advice that they thought came from a trusted financial source, but which was not regulated.

Finally, access to cash has been discussed a good deal. I specifically highlight the need, especially for small businesses, to be able to access banking for the purpose of transacting in coins. In my constituency, I have heard from a lot of small shopkeepers and small business owners that it is not just about consumers being able to get to an ATM—it is about their being able to pay in coin that they receive in payments from customers and being able to extract it for the purpose of having change for cash transactions, which for the most part they cannot do with ATMs.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support the Bill, which as the Minister said will support innovation in this key UK sector. It will ensure that our country remains a global market leader and, importantly, it will ensure that consumers in my constituency and across the UK are protected from scammers who may seek to do them financial harm.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Those who have participated in the debate should start to make their way towards the Chamber for the wind-ups, which will start at 6.40 pm.

NHS Pensions and Staffing

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I agree with the hon. Lady, who, like all Members who have intervened, is strongly advocating for her constituents and for healthcare workers throughout the country. I have been written to by doctors in Scotland in advance of the debate and I know how serious this issue is. I thank all the Scottish National party Members who have come to this debate for their support in raising this issue, which is important for those working in Scotland.

Turning to the technical information—this issue is very technical—why is this happening? The pensions annual allowance allows for the value of a pension to increase by up to £40,000 without incurring penalties. That is completely unsuited to defined-benefit schemes such as that in the NHS, and it should be scrapped in defined-benefit schemes. That view has been supported by Treasury advisers and by the Office of Tax Simplification. However, the Government did not agree with the recommendations and instead only raised the annual earnings taper thresholds to £200,000 and £240,000. Pensions experts were clear at the time, and have been ever since, that although this approach mitigates some of the issues around the taper, it is not an effective solution to issues with the annual allowance, as the unfair interactions between pension taxation and the NHS pension scheme regulations remain. Crucially, it does nothing to affect the punitive effects of the general annual allowance, which is set at £40,000, nor the lifetime allowance, which is set at just over £1 million.

Not only has the rise in taper thresholds not fixed the problem, but the situation has reached a further crisis point due to the combination of levels of stress and burnout across the NHS, the freezing of the lifetime allowance in 2021 and, most significantly, the rapid rise in inflation and the CPI. That is compounded by a flaw in the Finance Act 2004 such that its provisions no longer operate as originally intended—that is, measuring pension growth above inflation. So the situation has reached a crisis point.

To address the long-standing issues of the interaction of pension taxation policies with the NHS pension scheme, it would be sensible to introduce a tax unregistered scheme similar to that made available to the judiciary—as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) outlined—who face similar recruitment and retention problems to those we are beginning to face in the NHS.

It is worth asking why the CPI rise has turned the crisis in retention and recruitment into a disaster for the NHS, particularly this year. There are three major impacts of CPI inflation. First, the Department of Health and Social Care has suggested that, even though CPI is likely to hit 10% by September 2022, the likely pay award for hospital doctors nearing retirement age with final salary schemes will be 2% or 3%. This unprecedented gap between the level of inflation and the likely pay award risks significantly devaluing the pension of members aged 59 or above if they delay retirement by even a single year. There are no late retirement factors in the 1995 pension scheme—the scheme that the vast majority of staff approaching the age of 60 are in. That means that, for every year spent working beyond the age of 60, the level of annual pension that could have been received if they had retired at 60 will effectively be lost.

A doctor may be well over £100,000 worse off if they retire at 61 rather than at 60. That cannot be right; it is a perverse reward for years of dedicated service to patients. The consequence of the current pension rules will be to push more experienced doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals to take early retirement at the very time when they are most needed to reduce the covid backlog.

The second pressing issue is that two different measures of inflation are used in the NHS pension scheme. That has a particular impact on those who are on a career average revalued earnings scheme; as GPs are wholly within a CARE scheme, it has the biggest impact on this group of doctors. The current rules use a different CPI value for the opening value: it is based on the CPI rate in September last year, whereas the revaluation of earnings that is built into the NHS pension scheme is based on the CPI rate in September this year. When inflation is stable, last year’s CPI rate and this year’s are similar, so that does not usually present a major problem. However, when inflation changes rapidly, as is happening now, it becomes a very significant problem for many GPs.

For example, CPI in September 2022 is likely to be approximately 10%. Under the scheme rules, the pension will be revalued by inflation plus 1.5% and will therefore increase by approximately 11.5%. However, the opening value of the pension will increase by only 3.1%, which is the September 2021 CPI figure. Therefore, even though the annual allowance is only supposed to test pension growth above inflation, the discrepancy caused by those two different measures of inflation will result in a purely inflationary growth being tested against the annual allowance. For many people, that will use a significant proportion of the available annual allowance, and in some cases it will exceed it entirely, resulting in an additional tax charge simply as a result of inflation. A GP from Scotland who wrote to me before this debate told me that it would result in her receiving a tax bill of about £19,000.

The impact is compounded by the fact that the opposite scenario will occur next year if, as predicted, inflation returns to more normal levels. Although workers in the NHS will receive only one NHS pension, following the public sector pension reforms, many NHS staff are in the 1995, 2008 and 2015 pension schemes. Under the Finance Act, those schemes are all considered separately, so even though one scheme may have negative growth, it is not offset against positive growth in other schemes. For example, if a member had £20,000 negative growth in the 1995 or 2008 scheme and £60,000 positive growth in the 2015 scheme, even though their combined pension growth was £40,000 and within the standard annual allowance, the 1995 or 2008 scheme growth is considered to be zero. Instead, the member is taxed on the £20,000 excess in the 2015 scheme.

In addition, the negative growth in the 1995 or 2008 schemes cannot be carried forward or backward to offset previous positive growth in these years. That effectively means that GPs in particular will face additional annual allowance tax bills of tens of thousands of pounds this year for pseudo growth, the majority of which will be lost next year but with no refund or reduction in the extra tax paid this year. That cannot be right; it will push many GPs into early retirement. This year, a typical GP with median partner earnings of £115,000 will receive an annual allowance charge of more than £32,000 as a result of this flaw in the Finance Act, which incorrectly measures pension growth above inflation.

Thirdly, the current high levels of inflation have exacerbated the impact of the decision to freeze the lifetime allowance.

Let me very briefly offer the Minister some possible solutions. First, we need to address the issue of CPI and rising inflation and amend the Finance Act. As I have outlined, only growth above inflation should be tested against the annual allowance. In this rapidly moving inflationary environment, section 235 of the Finance Act does not do so; two different values are used. Simply amending section 235 to ensure that the opening value is aligned with this year’s CPI—not last year’s—so that the inflationary uplift of benefits is tested in the same year will ensure that only “growth" above inflation would be subject to testing against the annual allowance, as was clearly originally intended by the spirit rather than the letter of the legislation. At the same time, it is imperative to amend section 234 of the Finance Act 2004 to recognise years of negative growth and allow them to be carried backwards or forwards to measure real growth over a longer period.

Secondly, in the year 2022-23, we should allow the NHS in all four nations to replicate the 2019-20 compensation scheme to protect clinicians from pension growth so that they are freed up to work at maximum capacity in the NHS. This is not a “tax perk” for one group, but rather recognises that the annual allowance charges are largely based on non-existent pseudogrowth.

Thirdly, to solve the wider and long-term issues facing senior and experienced NHS staff, we should move to a non-tax-registered scheme. It is clear that in the long term, the solution to this problem is a scheme of that kind for those impacted by pension taxation in the NHS. When faced with similar recruitment and retention problems with the judiciary because of these punitive pension taxes, the UK Government introduced a non-tax-registered scheme which immediately addressed the issue, and resulted in the appointment of more judges. That is a fundamentally fair system. It ensures that the correct amount of tax is paid on pension growth, and as no tax relief is provided on employee pension contributions, there is no requirement to subject scheme members to either the annual or the lifetime allowance.

Senior and experienced NHS workers are not asking for special treatment. They are, however, asking for a fair system: a system that does not penalise them for working more shifts, taking on leadership roles, or staying in the NHS after the age of 60. It cannot be right, at a time when the NHS is desperate to retain its workforce—particularly the senior workforce who are so crucial in training new doctors, nurses and other frontline staff or workers, and advising on the most complex cases—that senior clinicians will actively lose money from their pensions for working for longer, or face huge tax bills on pension growth that they will never see materialise.

If the Government are serious about valuing NHS staff, if the Government are serious about helping healthcare staff to meet the covid care backlog, and if the Government are serious about meeting the needs of patients, they must act now to reform NHS pension rules.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Minister, and welcome him to his new role.

Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 42, at end insert

“, which may include electrification investment that decarbonises upstream oil and gas activities”.

This amendment would put on the face of the bill that electrification investment which decarbonises upstream oil and gas activities is eligible for relief.

Clause 2 stand part.

Clauses 3 to 11 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 12, page 9, line 32, after “levy” insert

“and the amount of tax relief on additional expenditure treated as incurred that the responsible company is claiming under section 2 of this Bill.

(2A) The data submitted by responsible companies under subsection (2) of this section must be published in aggregate on a quarterly basis.”

This amendment requires companies making a payment of the levy to also provide information to HMRC about the amount of extra tax relief they are claiming under section 2 of the Bill, and requires the total amounts of levy received and tax reliefs claimed every quarter to be published.

Clause 12 stand part.

Clauses 13 to 19 stand part.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

New clause 1—Assessment of revenue effects of a higher Energy Profits Levy—

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 30 September 2022, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the effects on—

(a) tax revenues, and

(b) oil and gas company profits

of the Energy Profits Levy being charged at 45%.’

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the effect on tax revenues and on oil and gas company profits of charging the Energy Profits Levy at 45% rather than 25%.

New clause 2—Review of the impact of tax relief on additional expenditure treated as incurred—

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, by 26 August 2023, publish an assessment of the impact of the tax relief provided by this Act on the UK’s energy market, including the impact on—

(a) net zero obligations;

(b) energy security;

(c) renewable energy supplies; and

(d) fracking.’

This new clause requires an assessment, within three months of the end of the first year of the levy being in place, of what impact the Bill’s extra tax relief for investment expenditure by oil and gas companies would have on the UK’s net zero obligations and other aspects of the energy market.

New clause 3—Review of impact of earlier start date of the levy—

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of how much the levy would have raised between 9 January 2022 and 25 May 2022 if it had been in place from 9 January 2022.’

This new clause requires an assessment, within three months of the Bill becoming law, of how much extra revenue would have been raised if the levy had been introduced on 9 January 2022 rather than 26 May 2022.

New clause 4—Review of the amount of tax relief on additional expenditure treated as incurred—

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of—

(a) how much tax relief on additional expenditure treated as incurred under sections 2 to 7 of this Act will be claimed; and

(b) how much of the tax relief expected to be claimed is estimated to be in respect of investment that would have taken place if the tax relief had not been in place.’

This new clause would require the Government to assess the amount of tax relief for investment expenditure introduced by this Bill expected to be claimed by oil and gas companies, and to estimate how much of this is a deadweight cost.

New clause 5—Review of the impact of limiting the scope of the tax relief on additional expenditure treated as incurred—

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of the impact of making ineligible for the tax relief on additional expenditure treated as incurred any investments that—

(a) do not align with the IEA’s net zero emission scenario for a 1.5 degree temperature increase;

(b) have been announced before 26 May 2022; or

(c) are incurred by companies that have engaged in share buy-backs in the three previous financial years.’

This new clause would assess the impact of limiting the scope of the tax relief introduced by this Bill to exclude investments on the basis of their impact on climate change, whether they had already been announced, and whether the company making the investment had engaged in share buy-backs in the last three years.

New clause 6—Environmental impact of exploration activity on which levy relief is claimed—

‘The Government must undertake an environmental impact assessment in relation to any claim for relief in respect of exploration activity, which must include an assessment of whether the exploration activity is consistent with the Government’s net zero commitments.’

This new clause would require the Government to assess against its net zero commitments any investment in oil and gas exploration activity against which levy relief is claimed.

New clause 7—Regular reviews in relation to oil and gas market—

‘The Government must publish a review of the oil and gas market by 26 November 2022 and every six months thereafter during the period of the levy, which must include an assessment of—

(a) whether there is a continued need for the levy, and

(b) whether the levy should be continued in order to promote further decarbonisation of upstream oil and gas activities.’

This new clause would require a six-monthly review by the Government of the oil and gas market to assess whether the levy is still needed and whether it should continue in order to promote decarbonisation of upstream oil and gas activities.

New clause 8—Assessment of revenue from a permanent levy rate of 30%—

‘The Government must within six months of Royal Assent lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the expected change in levy revenue if the levy is set at a permanent rate of 30% so that taxation on oil and gas company profits was permanently set at 70%.’

This new clause would require the Government to produce an assessment of the amount of revenue which would be generated if the level of taxation on oil and gas company profits was permanently raised to the global average of 70%.

New clause 9—Assessment of levy revenue if investment relief not permitted—

‘The Government must within six months of Royal Assent lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the revenue that the levy would yield if no relief was permitted in respect of investment expenditure.’

This new clause would require the Government to produce an assessment of how much revenue would be generated by the Energy Profits Levy if the investment allowance were removed.

New clause 10—Assessment of investment allowance on compliance with climate change targets—

‘The Government must within six months of Royal Assent lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of the levy investment allowance on compliance with the requirements of the Climate Change Act and the global agreement to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees.’

This new clause would require the Government to produce an assessment of the impact of the investment allowance on achieving Net Zero by 2050 and limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.

Just to remind everyone: as I am sitting down here, I am the Chair of the Committee and not Mr Deputy Speaker, so it is “Mr Evans”, “Chair” or “Chairman”. Anything like that will do.

Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I ask Members to respect the maiden speech conventions as I call and welcome Simon Lightwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations on your maiden speech. You will remember this day forever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I could not agree more. The Government have dithered and delayed. They could do something about it and back our amendment, which would ensure that the new levy on oil and gas companies is backdated to last October. That would at least reflect the dither and delay and do something about it.

What should we make of the proposals to exempt those companies investing in new oil and gas exploration? There is nothing in the Bill to incentivise investment in renewables. That flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to get to net zero. In fact, it demonstrates once more how quickly they are prepared to U-turn on their promises, making it harder for struggling households to get on top of soaring energy bills now and in future and failing to take serious action on climate change. What is more, where is the programme to transform the pace of home insulation, which is lagging shockingly behind? Where are the planning laws to ensure that we build zero-carbon homes now rather than allowing developers to build homes that will require very costly retrofitting in a few years’ time?

We need bold and swift action to help families with the soaring cost of living and energy prices. The cheapest form of energy is onshore wind. When will the Government drop their effective ban on onshore wind and turbo-charge its revival? That would be the surest way to help struggling households to bring their energy bills down in the near future. The Government, however, can only fire-fight, and they have no vision and no real ambition.

Under Liberal Democrat plans, we would cut most emissions by 2030. That would be good not only for the climate, but for people’s pockets as we wean ourselves off global oil and gas markets as soon as possible. The Government have to come clean on the fact that even if gas and oil are produced in the UK, that will do nothing for household energy costs, because the price of oil and gas is fixed globally, not nationally.

On new green jobs, cleaner air, warmer homes and lowering living costs, the levy could have done so much more. We Liberal Democrats support the Bill but deplore the lack of a much greater ambition from the Government to rein in soaring energy costs and tackle the climate emergency.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister, Abena Oppong-Asare.

Alcohol Taxation

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood]

There has been a long-term trend away from drinking in pubs and on-trade, and towards supermarket sales making up a greater share of the market. Some of that will be due to natural changes in consumer preferences and people’s lifestyles, but we should not allow the tax system to aggravate such trends, which have real social and economic consequences. Where we can tweak the tax system to make sure that our pubs, brewers and other producers get a fairer deal and where we can reduce some of the disincentives to people consuming drinks in well-regulated public houses, we should do so.

I welcome the alcohol duty review, which is a massive step forward. The level of duty, which is much higher than in most comparable countries, is compounded not only by VAT, but by extremely high business rates. I hope that we can look at how our system of local business taxation can be further modified. The Treasury has clearly been piloting attempts to charge digital and online companies. That is an important starting point, but we need to make sure that our taxes on clicks are comparable with our taxes on bricks, to help sectors that have to operate in the real world. Nobody has yet established a viable virtual pub. A few people tried during the pandemic, but I do not think that any of those experiences quite worked out. It is noticeable that in April and May last year, most people were quick to get back to the real thing rather than using the online equivalent.

On the duty review, the proposed reforms are hugely welcome, particularly the banding that recognises the progression through alcohol strengths, so that higher-strength drinks have, if not quite exponentially more, progressively higher levels of duty compared with low-strength drinks. The changes to the low-alcohol band for beer for 2.8% to 3.4% will make a big difference to the availability of good-quality, lower-alcohol beer. Brewers find it relatively simple to change recipes to bring a 3.6% or 3.7% real ale down to 3.4%. It is much easier than getting a recipe down to under a 2.8% threshold without changing the character of such drinks, although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan that 3.5% would clearly be preferable, if we are looking at those details.

Similarly, the proposals for small brewers relief are hugely preferable both to the system that we have and to the Treasury’s initial proposals, which would have caused a lot of difficulties for relatively small breweries. I accept that the changes will take a while to get our heads around—that is probably putting it lightly—but the current system has a distorting effect, with sharp edges that act as a very strong disincentive for growth and that impose an unnatural plateau at about 5,000 hectolitres. That means that unless businesses are confident that they will grow significantly beyond 5,000 hectolitres, they have very little incentive to invest in the extra staff and the extra capital to do so. The system that has been proposed is far better. It is very noticeable that what for a long time was probably the most contentious issue in the beer sector has now brought people together: although there are some details that each person might like to change, the overwhelming majority in the sector now feel that they can live with it.

I suggest that the Treasury look at whether it might be possible to extend some form of small producers relief beyond beer and cider, to include small wine producers. That would have particular benefits for English wine producers, and of course for Welsh wine producers; I must say to the SNP Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), that I do not know the scale on which Scottish wine producers are operating at the moment, but I imagine that they mostly fall within the smaller category.

The differential draught beer duty rate that the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), announced in his Budget last autumn is a fantastic proposal. It has the potential to make a big difference to supporting responsible beer drinking in our pubs, cafés and bars, instead of our supermarkets and—let us be honest—our park benches, town centres and street corners.

The difference will depend on the scale of the differential. The 5p differential is a good start in establishing the principle, but getting a new system up and running is likely to mean that almost all of it will be retained by pubs and breweries. That will typically mean an additional investment of about £2,000 being available to pubs, but if we want our consumers and beer drinkers to benefit from the draught beer duty rate, the differential will need to be widened. Only once it gets to 10p or 15p will we start to see a real difference in what customers pay for a pint at the bar, which will also make a difference by encouraging people to drink on regulated premises instead of buying from the off-trade.

We would like to see the differential not only increased but introduced at the first available opportunity. I know that the Treasury was looking at introducing something in probably the spring of next year, but given the difficulties that we all know the hospitality sector has had over the past two years or so, if a suitable fiscal event or financial instrument could be found that would allow the measure to come into force before this year’s Christmas season, that would make a massive difference. It would help the pubs that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) referred to, which may be struggling, on the edge of going under or just about managing to stay afloat through the winter. Bringing the differential in early would make a big difference.

There has clearly been a very lively debate about container size; 20 litres is very obviously the correct answer. Having had discussions with the last Chancellor and the last Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I think they recognised that 20 litres was where we needed to end up. I very much hope that incoming Ministers will reach the same conclusion. I think that the last Chancellor broadly accepted the argument that 40 litres was probably not the right container size for the threshold: he was pictured with the Prime Minister holding 30-litre containers to launch the policy. The 20-litre level will make a big difference to the range and types of beer that can be made available, particularly for our smaller brewers. However, I also think we should look at the provisions on distribution mechanisms, and ensure that containers do not necessarily have to be connectable to either a gravity-pulled or an electrically pulled draught system. When it comes to the pins of the kind typically seen at beer festivals in all our constituencies, where there is just a tap in the side of a barrel, I think that applying the discount to a container of over 20 litres makes a good deal of sense. Brewers I have talked to estimate that less than 0.1% of their beer is sold through those taps. We are not risking a massive distortion in the market from people buying huge numbers of these containers for parties at lower rates of duty, and applying this to all containers of over 20 litres would constitute a minimal cost to the Treasury.

The system introduced a few years ago in Australia does have a requirement involving connectors, partly because the Australian market is very different and partly because there is a much lower threshold—from memory, I think it is as low as 8 litres—but I think that a provision for 20 litres would capture virtually all the beer that almost all the small brewers that we are trying to support supply through our pubs and our licensed premises, and that they would benefit. I therefore hope that the Treasury will settle on that, as the obvious figure, in its final decision.

Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan for securing the debate. I also thank the Treasury for all the discussions that we have had over the past couple of years, particularly since the publication of the duty review. We look forward to the speedy introduction of these measures so that our brewers, our publicans and UK hospitality as a whole can benefit, succeed and thrive.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the Front Bench winding-up speeches. First, I call Richard Thomson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should have drawn the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to the hospitality I have received from, appropriately, the hospitality sector. Can you advise on how I may put that on the record?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for giving me notice of your point of order. You have just done that, and I thank you for correcting the record at the earliest opportunity.

Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

None of the amendments has been selected, so I call the Minister to move the motion.

Delivery of Public Services

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

I suggest that the hon. Lady should be congratulating this Government on delivering a £36 billion package to reform the NHS and social care and on tackling issues that Labour Members have ducked for years.

I want to return to the improvements at my own hospital. Patients are now being welcomed through the doors of a new two-storey outpatients building that is creating space for an extra 200 people every week. This state-of-the-art £1.2 million building includes 14 new consulting rooms, seven offices and a large waiting area. It is initiatives such as these that are leading the fightback against delays and waiting lists at the hospital, as opposed to just talking about them. There are also exciting new plans to build a brand-new £8.6 million entrance at the hospital, improving clinical provision, accessibility and the whole experience of patients, staff and visitors. This building will attract private capital funding. There will be no extra cost to the hospital trust or to the taxpayer. It is exactly this sort of innovation that we are looking for.

I am also pleased that our local GPs are looking at ways to improve their waiting lists. As I have mentioned, waiting lists are a huge problem. Having people waiting in a queue on the phone at 8 o’clock in the morning and being unable to book an appointment is something that none of us wants to see continue. The Pall Mall surgery in my constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this week, has introduced a new e-consult scheme. Patients can enter their details online, which are then triaged by a clinician. This allows the surgery to triage 100 patients in the same time that traditional appointments would have taken to triage 15. The point of this is not to deny people who need to see a GP a face-to-face appointment but to ensure that our resources are used to their maximum effect so that the GPs can see as many patients as possible face to face.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I just want to remind the hon. Lady of what Madam Deputy Speaker said earlier. She said that people should look towards sticking to about eight minutes, and we are over that now.

[Anna Firth]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I come to my final point, which is about the reconfiguration of the accident and emergency department at Southend Hospital. That will deliver crucial improvements, and the Government announced funding for it in 2017. The business case was approved by regulators and by the Treasury in 2019, and only last month the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), restated that we would be getting this funding. It would be wrong of me not to use this opportunity to ask, once again, that the Department of Health and Social Care releases this funding to Southend Hospital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. That is unparliamentary.

[Marion Fellows]

It is a quote, Sir—a quote from the Prime Minister.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I still think it is unparliamentary.

[Marion Fellows]

Oh, right then: the Prime Minister has threatened to privatise a body part out of Government agencies, including the DVLA and the Passport Office as a result of the public facing lengthy waits for vital documents.

This Government have to go, this Prime Minister has to go, and when Scotland is an independent country in Europe, we will be much better off.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The next two speakers will have five minutes, but then we are going down to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The time limit is now four minutes. If anybody can make their points in less than four minutes, they will be helping some colleagues, I assure them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

In the time I have, I will focus on two groups who have been in touch with me on the cost of living crisis. Many colleagues have outlined the scale of the problem facing the country. The latest Bank of England forecast is that inflation will peak at 10.2% in the fourth quarter of 2022. Alongside that, domestic gas prices have increased by 28% and electricity prices by 19%. The OBR expects that household incomes will not begin to recover until the second half of 2024. The devastating combination of increases amounts to such a battering on household incomes that the Resolution Foundation estimates an extra 1.3 million people will fall into absolute poverty in 2023, including half a million children.

There is one group in particular who I know have felt particularly vulnerable to the increase in costs: those living with disabilities and families caring for loved ones with disabilities. I want to pay tribute to my constituents Nadia Clarke and her mum Katie, who are both inspirational and tireless campaigners. Nadia had to spend months challenging her care payments when they went up from £15 to £68 per week. Nadia is not alone. Too many are having to make substantial contributions to financing essential care, while also facing price increases across the board. The latest data from Citizens Advice is that 60% of those who contacted them with fuel poverty concerns in 2021 were disabled people. Research undertaken by the charity Scope demonstrated that the extra costs faced by disabled people add up to £583 a month on average. It stated:

“Energy for powering essential equipment, such as hoists, beds, breathing equipment, powered chairs and monitors was already expensive.”

It stressed that

“these are not optional extras that can be cut back. This is vital, often life-saving, equipment.”

In an online video that Nadia shared, she says:

“it is not acceptable for disabled people to be forced to pay care charges and choose between the support they need and food on the table.”

She is absolutely right.

Similarly, last week I was contacted by a gentleman who raised concerns for his sister-in-law, who lives in Halifax. She is on oxygen for 16 hours every day. Her husband is her main carer, but he is also recovering from cancer. Faced with unavoidable additional electricity bills and heating costs, they were feeling desperate about their situation. Thankfully, they have been able to arrive at an arrangement on their electricity bill with the company that supplies the oxygen, but it is just one more example of how the cost of living is proving unbearable for those who have additional needs.

Coming from a policing family, in my time here I have often sought to be an advocate for the men and women on the frontline keeping our communities safe. We hear just how badly the cost of living crisis is impacting even those working in our emergency services and on our frontline. That feels all the more shameful when we consider what we ask of them. In a recent Police Federation survey of its members in my area of West Yorkshire, 43% of respondents reported worrying about their personal finances every day or almost every day, and 12% reported never or almost never having enough money to cover all their essentials. A chief superintendent recently told me that PCs, and new recruits in particular, were increasingly seeking permission to work a second job on their rest days. One new recruit on a starting salary sought permission to work as a carer. It is perhaps no surprise that 94% of respondents said that they do not feel respected by the Government. The Government must do better.

The windfall tax would be a straightforward, fair and appropriate intervention for the Government to make. BP and Shell alone are on course to make a combined profit of almost £40 billion this year, and there is widespread public support for a windfall tax. Even the Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, but we will have to leave it there.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 8, leave out “July” and insert “April”.

This amendment would bring forward the date of implementation of the increase in thresholds from 6th July 2022 to 6th April 2022.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.

New clause 1—Impact of Act on low pay and poverty—

“(1) The provisions of this Act may come into force only if the Government has first laid before the House of Commons and published a report in accordance with this section.

(2) The report must assess the expected impact of the provisions of this Act on—

(a) low pay, and

(b) poverty.

(3) The report must also assess the merits of the provisions of the Act against other ways of reducing low pay and poverty.”

New clause 2—Report on effects on Universal Credit claimants—

“(1) The Treasury must prepare a report on the forecast effects of the provisions of this Act on—

(a) the net incomes of, and

(b) the Universal Credit payments made to

in-work Universal Credit claimants who pay National Insurance.

(2) The report must forecast the estimated change in expenditure on Universal Credit as a result of the provisions of this Act.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay the report before Parliament before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to publish forecasts of the effects of changes to National Insurance thresholds on Universal Credit recipients and total Universal Credit expenditure.

New clause 3—Report on effects of provisions of Act—

“(1) The Treasury must within six months of Royal Assent lay a report before Parliament on the impact of the provisions of this Act on disposable incomes.

(2) The report made under subsection (1) must also include an assessment of the effect on disposable incomes of the provisions of the Act if combined with a reduction in National Insurance rates of 1.25%.”

This new clause would require the publication of a report within 6 months of the Act receiving Royal Assent assessing the effect on disposable incomes.

New clause 4—Report on effects of provisions of Act (No. 2)—

“(1) The Treasury must within six months of Royal Assent lay a report before Parliament considering the impact of the provisions of this Act on the levels of taxation of—

(a) earned and

(b) unearned income.

(2) The report made under subsection (1) must also include an assessment of the effect on the levels of taxation of—

(a) earned and

(b) unearned income of the provisions of the Act if combined with a reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 20% to 19%.”

This new clause would require the publication of a report within 6 months of the Act receiving Royal Assent assessing the effect on earned and unearned income.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I rise to speak to amendment 1, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).

The increase in the national insurance thresholds for employees contained in the Bill will come into effect only in July this year, but the national insurance rise will commence in April—three months when employees will be facing the 1.25% increase in national insurance contribution payments without any protection through a higher tax-free allowance, and three months in which families will feel the full force of the Chancellor’s tax hike without any cushioning from the rising of the national insurance threshold.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments, but there is still a gap and the amendment seeks to close it.

The three-month delay will cost working families £2.1 billion and add to their distress right in the middle of the biggest cost of living crisis since the 1950s. Let us remember that the rise in national insurance contributions will hit all working families. A nurse or a midwife on an average salary will see their tax bill rise by £310 next year. A care home worker will pay around £140 more and ambulance staff will see a £420 increase.

Households are facing the biggest drop in living standards for 70 years through a combination of soaring energy costs and Conservative Government tax hikes. The typical family will see a hit of £1,100 next year, according to the Resolution Foundation. Absolute poverty is set to rise by 1.3 million people, including 500,000 children. Never before has Britain seen such a rise outside a recession. The cost of living crisis is biting right now and hitting families today. That is why the Chancellor should implement the changes in the Bill not from July, but from April, as that would save working families £2.1 billion in tax payments.

New clause 3 is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife. It would require the Government to produce a report to look at the impact of the 1.25% increase in national insurance contributions on disposable incomes. It would give a true picture of what working families are facing. The statement yesterday hid the true facts. The Resolution Foundation has stated:

“Considering all income tax changes to thresholds and rates announced…Of the 31 million people in work, around 27 million (seven in eight workers) will pay more in income tax and NI in 2024-25.”

Instead, the Government could have cut VAT by 2.75%. That is what the Liberal Democrats would do. Such a measure would help everyone and shield our constituents from the worst of the increased costs. It would put money back into their pockets and genuinely shield those on middle and lower incomes the most. With a floundering economy we need people to spend money on our high streets, which would boost our local economies. A cut to VAT would give an immediate boost to every household, and also help us in the long term.

Mr Deputy Speaker, new clause 4 would require the Government to produce a report on taxation on earned income versus unearned income. The income tax change that will come into effect in 2024 does not benefit people equally. Workers will not benefit from that cut, which instead will benefit those with unearned income from investments, such as landlords. If someone is wealthy enough to get their income from savings and properties they will pay less tax, while the least well-off continue to pay more and more. In response to yesterday’s Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated:

“What is the possible justification for cutting income tax rate while raising NI rate?...Drives further wedge between taxation of unearned income and earned income.”

It benefits

“those living off rents at the expense of workers.”

Let us look at what the Government have announced and at the inequalities that creates. I hope all Members of the House will support my amendments, to see off the worst from the Chancellor’s disappointing statement yesterday.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Sarah Atherton, while I am sitting here I am acting as Chair of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speaker. It is only a technicality, but we should get it right.

[Sarah Atherton]

Thank you, Chair. I wish to speak against amendment 1, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and against new clause 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Amendment 1 is simply impractical. Employers, HMRC and payroll systems do not have time to bring these measures into effect by April. Our own pay body, IPSA, could not make these changes in time, let alone small and medium-sized enterprises and bigger companies. July is the earliest that can be done, and the Government should be commended on the pace with which the change will be universally introduced, bearing in mind that we will be midway through the financial year. The Government understand the needs of constituents. The cost of living challenge is hitting now, post-covid, and the Government are acting with haste.

My opposition to new clause 1 is similar: timing. We should not postpone this measure by undertaking impact reports that would cause unnecessary delays for families who need support with the cost of living as soon as possible. Wrexham has more than the Welsh and UK average of lower income households, and under the Welsh Labour Administration, for the past 22 years those numbers have been increasing, with more child poverty and more struggling households. We all accept that the situation has not been helped by the global pandemic, which none of us foresaw. Nor did we foresee the war on the fringes of Europe.

This is not strictly within the remit of the Bill, but I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) in his call to increase defence spending.