Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

“Your name isn’t English, why don’t you go back to where you came from?” That is a recent Facebook comment from an articulate but clearly limited left-wing activist, so I took some pleasure in replying in Italian “Che in realtà sono nato da un minatore di carbone del black country”—that I was in fact born to a Black Country coalminer.

More condescending left-wingers recently said this:

“You’d think Marco would understand why Brexit is bad. He’s lived in Italy and EVEN his Dad is Italian. Why is he such a strong Brexiteer? He must be stupid.”

Well, brownie points for working out that my dad is Italian. I did explain at length why Brexit is vital, but it became clear to me that there was a limit to their thinking, too—I mean Marco, Italian, therefore remainer, otherwise stupid is a bit of a “micro-aggression”, and is rather limited thinking isn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Here is my suggestion for the Labour party: set up an internal limited-thinking focus group to eradicate it from among their ranks, because how can they represent people who are clearly not limited? They may want to start in Amber Valley where the Labour leader blamed voters for their election results; it might prove more useful than rearranging the deckchairs on their Front Bench.

So, yes, my name is Marco, and, yes, my father is Italian, but here I am. How did I get here? Two words: opportunità e lavoro—opportunity and graft. My grandfather’s story is one of rags to riches and my parents are examples of blue-collar workers who for years lived hand to mouth. They bent over backwards to give me opportunities, and I put in the work.

Opportunity and work are two pillars of Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. People out there do not want handouts; they want a hand getting back on their feet. More than anything, they want opportunities to do well. The lifetime skills guarantee is a massive investment in education and apprenticeships, readying people for the jobs coming their way. We may remember the Prime Minister—or “our Boris” as they say back home—visiting Dudley and going to the site of our new Institute of Technology, where he delivered his “jobs, jobs, jobs” vision. The pandemic has shown that fish can be necessary, but fishing rods are what people really need, and that institute will provide the rods.

The Queen’s Speech contained a vast array of steps that will take us out of the clutches of the pandemic, freeing us to be even stronger than when we entered it. The commitment to our NHS and continuing with our investment in the vaccination programme and in private sector life sciences are huge bonuses that this country will benefit from.

The roaring ’20s are upon us. Dio salvi la Regina—God save the Queen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Annunciator screens in the Chamber say there is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches after No. 20; can we change that to three minutes now please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]]

Jobs, in a constituency such as Sedgefield, are the key to the equalisation of opportunity that the Prime Minister has promised. Jobs are the foundation from which we can deliver opportunity, opportunity stimulates aspiration, and giving people aspiration is the key to them supporting the whole build back better and levelling up agendas. We have to remember that jobs deliver not only a source of income for people, but are also the key to giving them the self-worth that enables them to feel they are contributing to society, as opposed to just taking from it.

That means that we need to consider jobs in as holistic a context as possible. We need to facilitate the creation of high-level, well-paid technical jobs as well as roles in support and voluntary organisations, with the opportunity to deliver these through the green agenda. The community infrastructure fund is a step in the right direction, but I would like further consideration to be given to support for local social infrastructure, as proposed by the all-party group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, which I co-chair, and the desire to see a community wealth fund delivered to support the provision of capital resource that enables voluntary organisations to deliver both volunteers and support staff, rather than just spending time sourcing grants to enable them to survive.

The development of the economic hub in Darlington, which neighbours my Sedgefield constituency, is a critical platform to deliver more high-value jobs in an area ready for this stimulus. This is levelling up, not giving up, by any agenda. The key rail infrastructure project I support, the reinstatement of Ferryhill station, is a perfect example of how we deliver opportunity. It will connect people in Ferryhill and the surrounding villages through this rail link to the freeport and all the other outstanding employment initiatives being delivered by the Tees Valley Mayor in Teesside.

On local industry, I look at companies such as Cleveland Bridge, Cromex, Filtronic, 3M and myriad small and medium-sized enterprises that need our focus on improved Government procurement processes, which will deliver greater resilience for our critical national supply needs and be a platform to encourage investment. A lot of the representations I get suggest that the best thing the Government can do to stimulate growth is utilise their purchasing power and place orders. An acceleration of Government procurement programmes can send key critical messages to sectors, encouraging private sector investment. The procurement Bill needs to deliver a programme that drives towards a more resilient and robust UK-based manufacturing platform, and ensures that public sector expenditure is strongly encouraged to support our UK business.

On stimulating jobs, there is no better place to start than with the entrepreneurs of this country, who have seen the stimulation of young employment through the kickstart scheme. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) have proposed an enterprise kickstart scheme, whereby instead of funding apprentices we fund entrepreneurs to allow them to kickstart a small business—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, Paul, but I have to interrupt you. I know you are speaking remotely and probably could not see the clock, but sadly your three minutes have expired.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Yesterday, the Government had an opportunity to show people living in left-behind communities, such as my Birkenhead constituency, that they are serious about building a fairer and more prosperous economy in the wake of this terrible pandemic. My constituents desperately needed decisive action to create jobs, rebuild our local economy and high street, and support our struggling public services. Instead, they got the shortest Queen’s Speech in five years and one that says nothing about the most important issues of our time, from protecting workers’ rights in the workplace to fixing our crumbling social care system and creating the green jobs of the future.

Not for the first time, the Government’s promises to build back better have been exposed as nothing more than empty rhetoric. We cannot hope to build back better while millions of people remain trapped in precarious work and so vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace. The foundation of an economic recovery has to be secure, well-paid employment, which today is all too scarce in the communities that I have the privilege of representing, but yesterday’s speech made no mention of the employment Bill that British workers were promised two long years ago, nor did it contain any measures aimed at stamping out despicable fire and rehire tactics, despite these measures being routinely condemned by senior Cabinet members from the Dispatch Box.

The promises to level up the country are utterly meaningless without immediate support for the 600,000 young people who have felt the fall-out of the pandemic most of all, yet the Queen’s Speech did absolutely nothing for the more than 50% of young people living in my constituency who are out of work. A year into the pandemic, it is clear that the job schemes introduced by the Government last year are just not working. The kickstart scheme has created jobs for a measly 3% of young jobseekers and, too often, these positions come without the quality training that is so essential to prosper in a fast-changing job market. That is why I urge the Minister today to adopt Labour’s pledge of a jobs promise, which would guarantee young people the right to training, education and employment opportunities after six months of unemployment.

As we build back better, we must build back greener, too. A green industrial revolution has the potential to breathe new life into towns such as Birkenhead. In my constituency, we can create thousands of new jobs through investing in the Mersey tidal project, the expansion of offshore wind in Liverpool bay and the development of a world-leading hydrogen industry. However, just months away from the UK hosting COP26, the Queen’s Speech had nothing to say in support of low carbon and green industries and on getting the green homes grant back on track. That was a total dereliction of responsibility.

There is no clearer illustration of how twisted the Government’s priorities are than their plans to drive through discriminatory voter ID laws that risk disenfranchising 2 million predominantly young and black, Asian and minority ethnic voters—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It’s a wrap. Sorry. I call Richard Holden.

Financial Services Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 2 to 7.

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 9 to 21.

[John Glen]

I am delighted to speak again on the Financial Services Bill following its passage through the other place, where it has been well looked after by my colleagues Earl Howe, Lord True and Baroness Penn. As our first major piece of financial services legislation since leaving the EU, the Bill will enhance the UK’s world-leading prudential standards, protect financial stability, promote openness between the UK and international markets and maintain an effective financial services regulatory framework and sound capital markets.

The Bill was thoroughly scrutinised in the other place, with more than 200 amendments tabled across Committee and Report. In total, the Lords made 21 amendments to the Bill. During the passage of the Bill, there has been a lengthy discussion about how best to address issues of consumer harm in the financial sector. Lords amendment 1 before us today proposes that this should be addressed through a requirement on the Financial Conduct Authority to bring forward rules that would place a duty of care on financial services firms in relation to their customers.

The Government are committed to ensuring that financial services consumers are protected and that steps are taken quickly to address new issues when they are identified. However, the Government believe that the FCA already has the necessary powers and is acting to ensure that sufficient protections are in place for consumers. The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment, but recognise that Parliament wants to be assured that the FCA’s ongoing work will lead to meaningful change.

I will today set out the standards that firms must already adhere to when providing financial services to their customers. These are governed by the FCA’s “Principles for Business”, as well as specific requirements in the handbook. These principles set out how specific requirements on firms work, and they include:

“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.”

The FCA’s enforcement powers allow it to ensure that these standards are met, although the FCA recognises that the level of harm in markets is still too high and is committed to taking further actions.

The Government agree with the concerns that were raised in the other place that this harm may in part stem from an asymmetry of information between financial services firms and their customers. The risk is that many firms may seek to exploit this asymmetry. The FCA is well aware of how informational asymmetries and behavioural biases can influence consumer behaviour, and is committed to ensuring that these issues are addressed where it considers that they may result in harm. The Government therefore support the FCA’s ongoing programme of work in this area and believe that it will deliver meaningful change for the benefit of consumers.

The FCA has considered its existing framework of principles, and whether the way in which firms have responded to the principles is sufficient to ensure that consumers have the right protections and get the right outcomes. Building on this, the FCA will consult in May on clear proposals to raise and clarify its expectations of firms’ actions and behaviours, and on any necessary changes to its principles to deliver this. These proposals will consider how to raise the level of care firms must provide to consumers through a duty of care or other provisions. Ultimately, the proposals in this consultation will seek to ensure that consumers benefit from a better level of care from financial services firms.

I have therefore tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1. This amendment will require the FCA to consult on whether it should make rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers. It ensures that the FCA will publish its analysis of the responses to this consultation by the end of this year. It also ensures that the FCA will make final rules following that consultation before 1 August 2022.

I hope that the establishment of these clear milestones demonstrates the commitment of both the Government and the FCA to delivering better outcomes for financial services consumers. In line with commitments made in the other place regarding Parliament’s scrutiny of the financial services regulators, I can confirm that the FCA will bring its conclusions to the attention of the relevant parliamentary Committees, giving them an opportunity to consider the proposals and, if they choose, to express a view or raise any issues. The FCA will respond to any issues that are raised by parliamentary Committees.

I now turn to Lords amendment 8 on mortgage prisoners. It is an issue I take extremely seriously, but I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this amendment. We must continue to be guided by the facts and the evidence. The FCA’s analysis shows that half the 250,000 borrowers with inactive firms meet the normal risk appetite of lenders and could therefore switch if they chose to without any Government intervention.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

What black and brown British people like myself deserve is better treatment from the Opposition Members who continue to stoke division. Of course I am not accusing Professor Sir Michael Marmot or the BMA of bad faith. The people I accuse of acting in bad faith are the right hon. Lady and her colleagues who are posting pictures of the KKK, and being advertised, as the shadow equalities Minister was, at an event preparing to denounce the report a week before it was even published.

On Professor Sir Michael Marmot and the British Medical Association, I have had meetings with them and we engage with them. We take criticism from them—they are not there to endorse every single thing the Government say; they are there to provide helpful criticism and suggestions where necessary. Sometimes we agree, and sometimes we disagree. Disagreement is not a problem. What we do not want is misrepresentation, which is what the right hon. Lady and her colleagues continue to do.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Caroline Nokes, may I remind everybody, whether they are virtual or physical, that this is an opportunity to ask the Minister questions about the statement, not to make speeches?

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. She has focused a great deal on evidence. Does she agree that narrative is also important, and that when the Government respond, it is essential that they do so in full to the 24 recommendations and get the tone right? The Women and Equalities Committee has invited Tony Sewell to come and give evidence to us, alongside other commissioners. I hope my hon. Friend will encourage him to do so, so that the Committee can hear at first hand the evidence that was presented to him and how the report was written.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has a responsibility to Parliament to answer the question. The Minister has given a statement, and she is supposed to answer the question. She has not answered this question.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is a continuation of the question, as the hon. Lady knows.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I want to raise with the Minister concerns about certain organisations prejudging the Sewell report for political ends without fairly assessing the findings. One concerning example was the Runnymede Trust, which organised a campaign against the report over a week before it was published and broadcast a live-streamed event with Patrick Vernon, chair of Labour’s racial equality advisory group, where they argued that the report’s authors were equivalent to holocaust deniers who had been asked to develop a strategy on antisemitism. Does the Minister agree that not only does that kind of bad faith political action undermine the Runnymede Trust’s charitable objective of improved race relations, but that the shameful treatment of the report’s commissioners might actually discourage ethnic minorities from contributing to public life and public debate? I also thank her for her statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for engaging with some of the contents of the report rather than in divisive rhetoric. The answer to part of the question is that many of those statistics do not control for age. In this country, black people are much younger than the rest of the population, and that often ends up skewing some of the statistics. The report paints a picture of a continuing improvement and convergence, but the employment section is the bit that highlights the most significant problems, and there is quite a lot to do on that front. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at some of the recommendations and to let us know whether he agrees or disagrees. Before Government respond, I would encourage Members to put forward their suggestions, based on the evidence that the commission has produced, for what we should be doing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Video link—Liz Saville Roberts.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. While of course the commissioners must be respected, their report should undergo scrutiny. They say they did not find conclusive evidence of institutional racism in the areas examined. Dr Robert Jones of Cardiff University provides Wales-specific evidence that 36 black people in every 1,000 experience stop and search, compared with five white people; that 91 black people for every 10,000 are in prison, compared with 14 white people; and that prison sentences for black people stand at an average of 30 months, rising to 35 months for mixed people, compared with an average of 20 months for white people. To what other institutional factors does the Minister ascribe the greatest part of those disparities? Will she work with the next Welsh Government to implement Plaid Cymru’s manifesto commitment of a race equality action plan to address this issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Inaudible.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sorry, Janet, we have lost you.

[Janet Daby]

…to address structural inequalities of race and ethnicity in the social security system.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am afraid that I did not hear most of the question. If the hon. Lady writes to me, I shall send her a comprehensive response in a letter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sorry, Janet, the volume went for whatever reason.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because the children’s commissioner for England and the Royal College of Physicians have welcomed recommendations in their respective fields, it is clear that the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities was motivated by outcomes rather than outrage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of this report and the opportunity it provides for the Government to make Britain a fairer society for all. This report is the first attempt to grip the complex reality of ethnic advantage and disadvantage. Unlike many other reports on race and ethnicity, it is also the first to include some of the profound disparities experienced by the race and ethnic majority in this country. Educational outcomes for children in this group are a critical part of the commission’s deliberations and its approach to the 24 recommendations is one that stands to benefit all, regardless of their race, ethnicity or socio-economic background. We want a country that is fair for everyone. The Government are now actively considering this report and the recommendations that it makes and look forward to publishing their full response in due course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to 28 questions.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 2)
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

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

I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, and I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.

Clause 30

Construction industry scheme

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 70, in schedule 6, page 121, line 1, leave out “ceases to be” and insert “is not”.

This amendment would allow that a de minimis amount of minor works can be disregarded.

Amendment 71, page 121, line 2, after “time” insert

“, but the body or person expects it to be met at any time,”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 70.

Amendment 72, page 121, line 3, leave out “continuing to be” and insert “being”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 70.

Amendment 84, page 121, line 4, leave out “any further”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 70.

Amendment 85, page 121, line 5, at end insert “exceeding £3,000,000”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 70.

Amendment 73, page 121, line 8, leave out paragraph 3.

This amendment would remove the provision making businesses who fall within the current definition, but who would not fall under the new definition of “deemed contractor”, to be drawn into the new regime for CIS from 6 April 2021.

Amendment 74, page 121, line 20, leave out paragraph 4.

This amendment would remove the provision requiring that, when a contractor is deducting the relevant percentage from a contract payment made to a sub-contractor, they should first deduct only the cost of material purchased by the sub-contractor from the figure to which the relevant percentage deduction is applied.

Amendment 75, page 123, line 17, leave out “2021-22” and insert “2022-23”.

This amendment would delay commencement until April 2022.

Amendment 76, page 123, line 20, leave out “2021” and insert “2022”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 75.

That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 36 stand part.

Government amendments 17 to 42.

That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

Clause 41 stand part.

Clause 115 stand part.

That schedule 27 be the Twenty-seventh schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 117 to 121 stand part.

Amendment 77, in schedule 29, page 319, line 23, at end insert—

“32 After section 280 of Finance Act 2014 insert—

‘280A Treatment of promoters of abusive tax avoidance schemes

(1) In any proceedings for the offence of cheating the public revenue, where—

(a) the person charged acted as a promoter in relation to relevant arrangements within the meaning of section 235, or the person charged gave in the course of business affirmative advice on the viability of relevant arrangements within the meaning of section 234, and

(b) the relevant arrangements were abusive tax arrangements within the meaning of sub-paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 16 of Finance (No. 2) Act 2017,

subsection (2) shall apply, subject to subsection (3).

(2) If, at any time that the person charged acted so as to fall within subsection (1)(a), that person was aware of the course of action or intended course of action having the consequence that the relevant arrangements were abusive tax arrangements within the meaning of sub-paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 16 of Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, the actions of that person in respect of the relevant arrangements shall be deemed to have been dishonest.

(3) Subsection (2) shall not apply if the person charged proves that they held in good faith the belief that the course of action or intended course of action was reasonable in the circumstances.’”

This amendment would cause promoters of tax avoidance schemes which are abusive (defined in existing legislation to mean schemes where it is not reasonable to regard the scheme as a reasonable course of action) to be treated as acting dishonestly for the purposes of criminal prosecution of tax offences, without dishonesty having to be separately proved by the prosecution.

That schedules 29 to 32 be the Twenty-ninth to Thirty-second schedules to the Bill.

New clause 14—Review of changes to construction industry scheme—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made to the construction industry scheme by section 30 and schedule 6 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

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

(a) business investment,

(b) employment,

(c) productivity,

(d) GDP growth, and

(e) poverty.

(3) In this section—

‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

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

This new clause would require a report on the construction industry scheme provisions on various economic indicators.

New clause 15—Review of effect on tax revenues—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on tax revenues of section 115 and schedule 27, and sections 117 to 121 and schedules 29 to 32 of this Act, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the expected change in corporation and income tax paid attributable to the provisions; and

(b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid.

(3) The reference to tax required to be paid in subsection 2(b) includes taxes payable by the owners and employees of Scottish limited partnerships.”

This new clause would require a report on the impact of certain provisions of the Bill on narrowing the tax gap by comparing: (a) the expected change in corporation and income tax paid attributable to the provisions and (b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid. In particular, this includes taxes payable by the owners and employees of Scottish limited partnerships.

New clause 29—Review of tax avoidance measures—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of sections 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act, and then annually for five further years.

(2) A review under this section must estimate the expected impact of sections 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32 on—

(a) levels of tax avoidance,

(b) levels of tax evasion, and

(c) reducing the tax gap in each tax year from 2021-22 to 2025-26.”

This new clause would require the Government to review the impact of the provisions relating to tax avoidance and publish regular reports setting out their findings.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and I will call James Murray to move the reasoned amendment when he comes to speak immediately after the Minister. I now call the Minister, Jesse Norman.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I refer the hon. Lady to her opening remarks. I think the Scottish people deserve better than that. The real political heroes of the last few turbulent years, to which the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) referred, were not those who won referendums; they were those who lost referendums and adhered to the results. They were those who voted for an independent Scotland and accepted the result of that once-in-a-generation vote, and those who voted to remain in the EU but accepted the mandate to leave.

That faith in democracy, that respect for their fellow citizens, is the ultimate expression of mutuality—equality— in which we all share. It can be found in our NHS, in the vaccine programme, in our welfare safety nets, in every charity and voluntary organisation across the land, and in every gesture of good will and kindness towards a neighbour, including neighbours across borders. These deeply felt connections, responsibilities and care we have towards each other are at the heart of the Scottish nation, and they are at the heart of every nation—the four nations—of this United Kingdom. They are what makes those nations and our country great, and the SNP’s selfish, self-absorbed separatist rhetoric will never destroy that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Ian Murray, I will just point out that we will start with Back-Bench contributions of four minutes. I have no doubt whatsoever that that will move down to three minutes later in the debate so that more Members can get in. If you are participating remotely, please keep an eye on the clock that should be on the bottom right-hand side of the device that you are using. Please do not exceed the time limit, because you will be stopped by the Chair. For those participating in the Chamber, the time limit will be shown in the usual fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful to Ian Murray for giving way, because I just had to check—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland for giving way. He has spoken a lot about the deal—the deal that he voted for in this House in December—but his new Scottish party leader in Holyrood voted against it. Who is right—the leader of Scottish Labour or the Labour shadow Secretary of State?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The London School of Economics report—the LSE used to be lauded by the First Minister—said that Scottish independence would be three times worse than Brexit. Everything that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said has to be multiplied by at least three. Then we can see the impact of what would happen—[Interruption.] Here we go again. I am trying to shine light on the facts of what would happen. I am trying to shine light from the LSE, an organisation that used to be lauded and cited in the Chamber every single day by Scottish National party Members, and all we get is, “Are we better together?” We need answers to those questions. That is what people are crying out for—they want people to be honest and answer those questions.

I did not vote in the EU referendum for my vote to be misappropriated by the nationalists to break up the UK. It is not their vote to do that with. I wonder whether the no-deal SNP regrets spending less on the EU referendum than it did chasing a few thousand votes in its failed bid to win the Scottish parliamentary by-election for Shetland.

The most extraordinary aspect of the debate in Scotland is the SNP’s promising a seamless transition back into the EU if the public vote for a separated Scotland. That is another in a long line of assertions that are not based on fact and not backed by any satisfactory answers. Indeed, we heard the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) ask the SNP’s finance spokesperson what the currency would be. There was no answer. Can the House imagine the shadow Chancellor or the Chancellor standing at the Dispatch Box unable to tell the country what its currency would be? They would be laughed out of the Chamber. They would have to resign before they reached the Speaker’s Chair.

One thing is for sure: Brexit shows us that breaking up is incredibly hard to do, and I am disappointed again that the SNP has introduced a debate on the EU but not taken any time at all to set out how, why or whether it can get a hypothetically independent Scotland back into the EU. Perhaps it will answer some key questions, as its separation strategy seems to be very similar to the strategy of Nigel Farage and the Brexiteers. It wants to cherry-pick the best bits of the EU, but not take the bits that it knows the public would find unpalatable.

The SNP’s proposition is that Scotland would seamlessly rejoin the EU as an independent nation, but not take the euro, or sign up to Schengen, or meet the deficit and debt requirements, or have its own currency, or meet the exchange rate mechanism rules, or re-enter the common fisheries policy. The sterlingisation plan excludes it from entering the exchange rate mechanism.

Most astonishingly, the Scottish Health Secretary said on “Question Time” last month that Scotland would not need to sign up to the very trade and co-operation agreement that we are debating today between the EU and the UK, which I and the SNP are rallying against in this debate. How is that even possible? Scotland would become an independent nation and would seamlessly go back into the European Union, and then would not even have to implement at the border at Berwick the trade and co-operation agreement that was signed between the UK and the EU? That is just implausible.

We know that the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, in the hypothetical event that Scotland was ripped out of the UK, would be determined by the very trade and co-operation agreement that was signed on Christmas eve by the Prime Minister. All the problems that are being faced by Scottish industries such as fishing, manufacturing, agriculture, exports and financial services that we might hear about this evening would increase fivefold or more, as the rest of the UK is far and away the largest market for Scottish goods and services. This just does not make sense, and it is about time the SNP faced up to those key questions and was straight with the Scottish public. That is all I ask: be straight with the Scottish public and answer the questions.

Scotland has two Governments making promises to the Scottish people that they cannot deliver, and making promises to the people and businesses of Scotland that they have no intention of delivering. The problem is that the UK Government see the relationship achieved with the limited last-minute deal between the UK and the EU as the ceiling of their ambition—we heard that tonight from the Minister—but we do not. We see it as being the floor from which to build. We need to work hand in hand with industry, business, our trade unions and our European partners and friends to achieve practical solutions so that we can face the challenges thrown up by this deal with the EU and grab those future opportunities.

This deal must be built on; it must be the start, not the end. We have to live in the reality, and while we would not have taken us to this position, that is where we are. The deal has to be about a deeper, mutually beneficial relationship that means businesses can thrive. That means repairing the tattered relationship with our EU partners. It means putting aside the ideological nationalist agenda from both Governments and working in the national interest. Now more than ever, we need what the Scottish public are crying out for, which is both Governments, Scottish and UK, working together to mitigate aspects and disadvantages of covid and Brexit, but I fear that I should not hold my breath.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There is now a four-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]]

Happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Deputy Speaker. Latha Fhèill Pàdraig sona dhut. That completes the triple crown of senior languages of these islands here today. I believe that Welsh and Irish Gaelic have already been used. I just thought I would make that remark, given that St Patrick, celebrated and publicised by Ireland around the world, is the world’s most famous Scotsman. I note that today was a day when the House of Commons celebrated independent Ireland at the same time as it decried the chance for Scotland to be independent. I have to wonder what it is about the people who go to the House of Commons and respect independent countries while talking down the countries that remain in the UK. There might be a lesson for Scotland in that.

These two debates today, on independence and Brexit, work hand in hand. They are perhaps either side of the same coin, and it is important that they should both be looked at and discussed. It is good that we have this second one on Brexit, which more of us can participate in than managed to get into the oversubscribed earlier debate, such is the keenness to talk about independence—particularly, I noted, among Tory MPs. Perhaps that is a sign of things to come. There will be a lot more talk on independence as time goes on.

I want to reflect on what is really happening with Brexit. I noted the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) condemning the idea of independence at this moment. Independence at this moment would, of course, be the escape from the Brexit that he foisted on us in the middle of a pandemic—a pandemic that he used as a pretext for not launching the lifeboat in Scotland, which is something that we need to do with great urgency. It would be far better being in the club of 28 equal nations than being talked down to at Westminster in the way we were today, but such is life. I say to the hon. Member for Moray: let the people choose, and if his party wins the election in May, we will accept that the Scottish people do not want independence, but if we win the election in May, I hope he will have the democratic grace to realise that, with an SNP victory, that is exactly what the people have in mind.

We know where we are at the moment. We have no new trade deals adding to GDP, and we have a Brexit that is going to take away 4.9% of UK GDP over the next 10 years. The trade deals that have been signed are merely roll-over trade deals. On this St Patrick’s day, it is interesting to look at where Ireland was at one time. In 1940, 90% of Irish trade went to the UK. Now, 11% of Irish trade goes to the UK. It has not that Ireland has stopped trading with the UK; it is just that it has discovered the rest of the world, through independence and through being part of the European Union. In fact, there are more jobs in the UK dependent on Ireland than ever there were when Ireland was part of the UK. That goes to show not only the benefits that independence have brought to Ireland, but those it is bringing to people in the UK who are finding that their own jobs and prosperity are dependent on a successful neighbour next door. When we make Scotland independent and as successful as Ireland, there will be even more jobs in England dependent on that success of Scotland, so it will be a win-win situation. Ireland’s GDP was once 80% of the UK’s, and now it is 172% of the UK’s.

In my constituency, we are seeing the problems with Brexit. Salmon going to Austria is getting returned. Shellfish problems are legion, as we all know. From islands, ferries have to leave earlier and the admin costs are going up. Arts organisations such as Ceòlas in Uist, which had European structural funds, are unsure if they are going to get UK prosperity funds. The reality is that there are difficulties every step of the way.

In truth, Scotland, in the referendum of 2014, said that we will stay in the UK if it is in the EU—that was supported by 55%—but in 2016, 62% of Scotland went for the EU alone. The EU is more popular than the UK. Let us have our next say, and let Scotland decide which way it is going.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Happy St Patrick’s Day to you, Angus, and I know where we would have been celebrating later on this evening, had these been normal times, but they are not.

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Financial Secretary for setting out the case for the Bill so clearly. The Bill seeks to amend the Contingencies Fund Act 1974, which is one of the monuments of a previous Labour Government. The 1974 Act embodies principles that are central to the accountability of Government, so its amendment should not be taken lightly.

This time last year, the Opposition fully accepted that the conditions of the pandemic made it necessary, expedient and right for there to be provision for the Government to act swiftly. We accepted that, in the rush of the early response to the outbreak, there could be times when it would not be possible to follow normal procurement processes. We accepted that, at certain points, the spot price paid for particular goods facing global shortages might be higher than it would otherwise have been, and we accepted that, on occasion, at a time when the Government were taking on entirely new responsibilities, some mistakes would be made. But we do not accept, and the British people will not accept, that what may have been excused in the early days of the outbreak has turned into a succession of failures and scandals, which it seems Ministers can no longer even see as wrong.

Last year, the Opposition agreed to a rise in the provision of the Contingencies Fund to some 50% of annual expenditure. While we accept that a higher than usual level for the Contingencies Fund is again in order and we will not be opposing the Bill, Ministers would do well to remember that the fund was created as a fall-back and that its extension is an emergency response, not an opportunity for unaccountability. Ministers seem to have forgotten that public money needs to be spent effectively, in a way that achieves value for money and commands public confidence.

The starkest example of failure by this Government must surely be their flagship Test and Trace scheme, a programme outsourced at great expense and the subject of a report published yesterday by the Public Accounts Committee, which was truly damning. The Government should be embarrassed and deeply apologetic over Test and Trace, which Lord Macpherson, who led the Treasury civil service from 2005 to 2016, described as

“the most wasteful and inept public spending programme of all time.”

What makes it even worse is that everyone in the country desperately wanted Test and Trace to work. Everyone was willing the programme and its team to succeed. We all wanted and needed that money to be spent on a programme that would achieve its stated goal, and we have all witnessed the profound consequences of incompetence on such a scale. I lost count of the number of times that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) called for the Government simply to focus on getting Test and Trace working, yet Ministers did not.

The opening summary of the Public Accounts Committee’s report contains the following telling sentences:

“The Department of Health & Social Care justified the scale of investment, in part, on the basis that an effective test and trace system would help avoid a second national lockdown; but since its creation we have had two more lockdowns. There is still no…evidence to judge”

Test and Trace’s “overall effectiveness”.

Only people who have no real understanding of the value of money or the importance of public investment in changing lives for the better could be so reckless about how it is spent. We believe that the Government really need to learn from the last year, not only by accepting that the outbreak exposed the weakness of our rights at work and the impact of a decade of cuts to our public services, or by recognising that they repeatedly did too little, too late to protect the public’s health and our economy, but by making serious structural reforms to how they initiate and examine spending.

The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East, has set out how the next Labour Government would do things differently, by taking a robust and determined approach to ensuring that public money improves the lives of those we serve. She has explained how we would invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to submit an annual report to Parliament, bringing together the National Audit Office’s findings throughout the year into a single assessment of the effectiveness of public spending in those areas that it has examined. As my hon. Friend has said, we must hard-wire value for money into the budgetary process.

But the value for money aspect is not the only part of this extraordinary year for public spending that commands our attention. It would be possible to achieve value for money and yet still fall far short of other standards we expect. That is why the new clause that the Opposition will move in Committee seeks to improve the transparency of Government spending.

We know only too well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has set out, that the way in which procurement is conducted also matters very much. Put simply, the time to end emergency procurement is overdue. Covid, as she rightly observed, is no longer a surprise. Supply chains have been established and, while there are of course still significant challenges and responding quickly remains essential, there is no longer a case for the continued widespread use of emergency measures of procurement for items that the Government now know how and where to find.

Contract publication should now follow the normal rules, and when contracts fail to deliver, the Government should get money back. That is public money. “Deliver or you won’t get paid” is what contractors expect from every other organisation and company they supply. The Government must not be the softest touch in the market.

We must drive a culture of transparency throughout public spending. The new clause that we will move today seeks to improve the transparency of the Contingencies Fund, because that is what the Bill before us concerns, but it is time for every part of public spending to achieve better value for money and for the Government to use their spending power to improve standards in the way the public would expect. The Opposition believe that achieving these changes need not be difficult or controversial.

We recognise the power of public investment to transform people’s lives for the better. That is fundamentally why we, like the British public, cannot bear to see Ministers casually and carelessly waste public money on deals that do not deliver, on contracts that do not work and on outsourcing that should never have taken place. Every pound that this Government misspend makes it that bit harder for nurses to accept the Chancellor’s pleading that a 1% pay rise is all he can afford. Every penny that this Government waste could have gone towards building a fairer, more secure future for our country. We will not be opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, but our new clause in Committee will set out a new standard of transparency that would pull Ministers up, force them to sharpen their focus on value for money and make sure we have more money to spend on the things that matter to us all.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Andrew Jones, I want to point out that although what we are dealing with is very important, we also have the Committee of the whole House and Third Reading, and then we have 70 contributions in the International Women’s Day debate. If people could keep that in mind as they consider the length of their contributions, I would be extremely grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

It is correct that a contingencies fund Bill is vital when the Government need to react, especially during the pandemic, but it relies on trust. Trust requires transparency, truth and honesty. Most colleagues in this House will have noticed the Conservative party’s habit of gaslighting the nation over the past decade. “We’re all in this together,” Osborne and Cameron said, before axing the safety net that the poorest in our country relied upon. I recently read a quote that said:

“We’re not all in the same boat, but we are going through the same storm”—

some of us are in yachts, some of us are in boats and some of us are in dinghies and just holding on.

Recently, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak promised to take care—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I have to correct my hon. Friend—I will put it that way. Please do not refer to current serving Ministers or other Members of Parliament by their names.

[Dawn Butler]

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Prime Minister recently promised to take care of the nurses who sat at the nation’s bedside during one of our darkest moments, before offering them an insulting and paltry 1% pay rise—a real-terms pay cut. The question of cronyism is no different. Ministers on one hand claim that they did nothing wrong. They say that Opposition Members are stirring up fake news, and that we are not patriotic if we dare to question their actions and how they are spending public funds, yet when the evidence is too powerful and shocking to ignore, when it is so stark that the Government have to respond, they say that their mistakes can be excused because they were rushing to procure vast amounts of equipment in a national crisis. Both those things cannot be true, so which is it? Which do they believe?

Of course, the country is willing to accept that mistakes were made, but that was a long time ago—a year ago, in fact. Ministers must have the humility to admit their mistakes and errors, and work with the Opposition to ensure that the current situation, which has eroded many people’s basic trust in democracy, is never repeated. Supporting this amendment is a start.

The truth is that the evidence is overwhelming: as Byline Times has calculated, more than £900 million in coronavirus-related contracts has been awarded to firms that have donated to the Conservative party—a huge return on their donations. The country’s purse is not the Government’s piggybank. Countless more deals have been awarded to former Government advisers, chums of Dominic Cummings and former drinking pals of the Health Secretary. Ministers may dispute why so many deals have been awarded to firms with close ties to the Conservative party and senior Government figures. Some of those firms were not even suitable or equipped to deliver what was needed.

The reason could be the Government’s infamous VIP lane, which meant that some firms with links to Ministers, MPs and officials were 10 times more likely to win contracts. Some of it could be down to the old boys network—who knows? We still do not know, but we should know before we continue to trust the Government. Some Ministers may know what is going on and why, and what the cause is of this rampant cronyism, but all Ministers and Conservative Members must recognise the basic facts: vast amounts of public money have been spent and wasted on firms with Tory and Government connections. People across the country are angry and disillusioned.

The Conservatives’ own constituents, and constituents of Members on both sides of the House, are questioning why the Conservative party has abandoned its belief in the basic principle of accountable, transparent public spending. It is imperative that Ministers and officials figure out the root cause of this rampant cronyism, admit their errors and safeguard public money so that, in the future, it cannot end up in the hands of Conservative donors.

Some in the Conservative party might say that the money is not wasted because some of the money that has been given to companies is finding its way back to the Conservative party through donations, but that is wrong and corrupt. If I am wrong in what I am saying, the Minister, when he gets to his feet, must admit the mistakes and errors made.

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Committee stage
Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

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

Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will carry out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chair of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee rather than Deputy Speakers.

Clause 1

Temporary increase in capital limit of Contingencies Fund

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: 

Clause 2 stand part. 

New clause 1—Contingencies Fund: reporting in financial year 2021-22—

“(1) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons within 15 days of the end of each calendar month in the financial year 2021-22 a report which includes a complete list of each advance from the Contingencies Fund, in each of the following categories—

(a) during the Vote on Account period, to meet urgent cash requirements (other than supporting a new service) in excess of the net cash requirement granted in the Vote on Account;

(b) to meet the cash requirement supporting an urgent service which Parliament has already approved through specific enabling legislation but for which existing provision is not available;

(c) to meet the cash requirement supporting a new service which is urgent and cannot await Parliamentary approval of both the specific enabling legislation and the necessary Estimate;

(d) to meet a further urgent cash requirement for existing services when provision for the total net cash requirement on the Estimate is exhausted; and

(e) in the case of an Estimate where expenditure is largely financed from income, advances made in anticipation of the receipt of cash associated with such income.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include a reference to any written ministerial statement made to the House of Commons in relation to each advance from the Contingencies Fund in financial year 2021-22.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must include any relevant formal written direction to the accounting officer where a Minister of the Crown decided to continue with a course of action which the accounting officer had advised against.

(4) If a report under subsection (1) mentions in relation to subsection (2) or subsection (3) anything in connection with procurement from the private sector, the Treasury must refer the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General for a preliminary opinion on the regularity and propriety of the procurement referred to.

(5) Nothing in this section affects access by the National Audit Office to any documents as provided for under section 8 of the National Audit Act 1983.”

This new clause is intended to enhance accountability to Parliament for as long as the increased flexibility of the Contingencies Fund is in place, and in particular to provide an additional check on the regularity and propriety of any procurement decisions which lead to advances being required from the Contingencies Fund.

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

The new clause is intended to ensure that the Government learn from the past year and, as I set out in my earlier contribution, not only recognise that they have repeatedly done too little, too late to protect the public’s health and the economy through the outbreak, but make serious and structural reforms to how they initiate and examine the spending of public money. The new clause would ensure that the extra financial freedoms that Parliament grants in the Bill are used in a manner that reflects the importance of transparency with public money.

I shall not repeat the arguments that I and other hon. Members made on Second Reading, but address the substance of the new clause. Our new clause is simple. Subsection (1) sets out that, in respect of each plausible category of unforeseen Government spending—urgent cash requirements for existing services; urgent cash requirements for new services, whether yet approved in principle or not; increased cash requirements; and short-term cash flow issues—the Treasury must lay before the House a report of all the advances made that month.

Subsection (2) sets out that each payment from the fund should be explicitly associated with ministerial statements, which explain the purpose of such expenditure. Subsections (3) sets out that where such payments have been carried out only on the basis of ministerial direction, the fact and nature of that direction should also be disclosed. We fully accept that on occasion ministerial directions are a vital part of how our country and political system responds quickly and effectively to unforeseen circumstances. There are occasions when the accounting officer will not be able to align urgent needs with normal accounting procedures. What matters is not the fact of the direction, but its nature.

Subsection (4) ensures that where rapid procurement decisions are taken, they provide an opportunity for the Government to improve and are assessed as such. The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is crucial in our system of parliamentary control over public finances. There are lessons to be learned from the specific practice of emergency procurement. It is wrong to see each instance of rapid procurement as a special case.

Subsection (5) reflects the premise of subsection (4) and ensures that there is no conflict with the wider role of the National Audit Office. I very much hope that the Government will feel able to accept the new clause in the spirit in which we propose it.

The Financial Secretary will be aware of the many extraordinary and frankly irregular arrangements, which have been explored in the court and in the media recently, for the disbursement of public money in the past year. I will not take the Committee through the full annotated catalogue as time is so limited, but I will mention just two of the most egregious examples to emphasise our concerns.

First, there was the contract given to Randox Laboratories for £133 million in respect of tests. Randox is a company that we understand is advised by a Conservative Member. The Department of Health and Social Care ordered that 750,000 of those tests be withdrawn from use for safety reasons. Secondly, at least £150 million of a £252 million face mask contract with Ayanda Capital seems to have been wasted owing to the unsuitability of one type of mask in the order. We understand that the contract included FFP2 masks, which did not meet requirements for use by frontline healthcare workers because they had ear loops instead of head loops. The sum of £150 million pays the salaries of some 4,000 nurses. That fact alone should make clear why it is so important for public money to be spent on improving the lives of those we serve.

The new clause sets out a new standard of transparency that would pull Ministers up, force them to sharpen their focus on value for money, and ensure that we have more money to spend on the things that matter to us all. With such concerns in mind, I ask the Committee to support the new clause.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

Before I call Andrew Jones, let me just say that I am grateful for the restraint that people demonstrated on Second Reading. We have a rather extensive call list for the International Women’s Day debate that follows, so if people could show the same restraint in Committee, whether they are remote or in the Chamber, I would be grateful. A number of people withdrew from the Second Reading debate; if anyone wishes to withdraw from Committee stage, please will they do so in the normal manner, through the Speaker’s Office?

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, of course we need to improve procurement. In December, an excellent Green Paper was published. It was all about value for money, transparency, the cutting of red tape and, crucially, making it much easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to get involved in the procurement of public sector contracts, even to the extent that there would not have to be the international competition that the EU rules used to require and we could have geographical conditions and thereby benefit SMEs in a local area. I absolutely support that approach. There are lessons to be learned and there is room for some really good reform, but the new clause should not be supported.

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

The next speaker, by video link, is Jamie Stone. [Interruption.] Jamie, you may be on mute—I know that you are audio only. [Interruption.] We will try to get back to you. Waiting in the wings is Meg Hillier.

[Meg Hillier]

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Bill and perhaps slay some of the misstatements that I have already heard in the short while I have been in the Chamber.

First, I should point out to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) that value for money in respect of taxpayer spending is not a new-found interest for most of us on the Opposition Benches. I have spent 27 years being responsible for either spending taxpayers’ money wisely or scrutinising that spending. I am very aware, as are the shadow Chancellor and her team, that every pound of public money saved is a pound to spend on something else. We may disagree about what that something else might be, but scrutiny is really important.

Contingencies Fund Bills are interesting pieces of legislation. They are about as old as the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, and are an important mechanism for making sure that the Government cannot just routinely spend over budget. It is fair to say that in this House we are very bad at scrutinising Government spending. That is not down to individual Members or the official Opposition; it is because the structures of this place do not allow us properly to discuss estimates, excess votes and so on. In fact, some time ago the OECD said that as early as the 18th century our scrutiny of finances in this place was “reduced to hollow ritual.”

The change in this legislation, which will allow the increase in contingency funding, has been rushed through. I do not deny that it is necessary to have additional contingency. The way it works normally is that if a Department overspends on its budget as granted, albeit inadequately, by this House, the matter then comes to the Public Accounts Committee and we have to examine whether the excess is justifiable and reasonable. Pretty much our only weapon is the ability to call in the officials who have made a mistake and get them to explain the issue in public, but then a Government majority can certainly agree the excess vote regardless.

In Ghana—Mr Evans, you might be interested to know this, and officials might be quaking as I say it—if an official overspends taxpayers’ money, they have to go to court, and if they take an appeal to court, they have to pay up front half of the money that has been wasted. Certainly, that would sharpen minds.

The point is that it is right that we have a Contingencies Fund Bill. I accept it is necessary, but I welcome new clause 1, because the mechanisms for oversight of this are very flimsy; they are reports on paper after the event. This is not about more bureaucracy. I see it as being about greater transparency. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which has had an important constitutional position in this place for 160 years, I get passed information by Government—from Ministers and senior officials—about issues relating to the finances of Government, sometimes confidentially, and that is counted as the scrutiny of Parliament.

I believe there is a very important role for the constitutional position of the Public Accounts Committee and thereby the Chair, a role I am privileged to occupy at the moment—it is not about me, it is about the position—but that is not enough scrutiny. We are in the middle of a pandemic, and spending eye-watering sums of money—hundreds of billions of pounds—with the public sector and the private sector. It does not matter where the money goes, in this sense; it is about scrutinising that expenditure and making sure that Treasury Ministers, whom I would have thought would be aligned with me completely on this issue, are clear that we are not allowing Departments to overspend willy-nilly. Although the Treasury has its checks, it is important and vital that Parliament has its checks too and that we have sunlight on these issues in real time. This is important, and I would say that the new clause is really pretty anodyne. It is saying that we want better reporting to the House of what the Contingencies Fund Bill already allows to the Government.

The National Audit Office has been much quoted, and I do not have the exact phrase in front of me—forgive me, Mr Evans, but for once I paraphrase, which I really try not to do—but the NAO has looked in detail, as other Members have commented, at the Government’s approach to procurement, and this is its clear message. All these allegations are out there, but part of the reason for that is the lack of transparency and the lack of information being published in real time on some of these issues. We have seen, heard and talked about in this place the many contracts that were not published on time, and that undermines public and parliamentary trust in the process. Whether or not anything has gone wrong, it is undermining trust, and people start asking questions and laying down allegations whether or not they are true.

It is in Government’s interests, the taxpayer’s interests and Parliament’s interests to agree to this new clause. I am disappointed—I am embarrassed really—that those on the Treasury Bench can come forward with a change at such short notice and not have a meaningful discussion about what is a reasonable new clause to allow this place greater scrutiny over what are unprecedented amounts of spending in the middle of a pandemic. At a time like this, we need more transparency, not less. This is actually a minor change. It is not about bureaucracy; it is about accountability and transparency, and taxpayers deserve better.

--- Later in debate ---

Bill read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now suspend for three minutes for sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes, and to allow the safe exit from the Chamber of those leaving and the safe arrival of those entering for the next debate.

Income Tax

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

A belated happy St David’s Day to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. Members and staff of the House.

The Scottish National party will not oppose these regulations. Applying them to the delayed Euro 2020 finals is clearly an appropriate use of the power that has existed for a number of years to exempt from income tax liabilities anyone who works here for a relatively short time because they play for, coach or are otherwise involved with one of the national squads, or are UEFA-accredited staff and journalists. It is my understanding that this courtesy is often extended by other countries that host major sporting events; indeed, as we have heard, Governments of all the host countries had to sign up to this to take part in the bidding. I suppose we should welcome the fact that on this occasion the Government have actually honoured promises they made to our European neighbours; quite a few businesses in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland wish that promises made to them were worth quite as much.

Clearly, because of covid, the tournament may not be the spectacle it might have been, but I hope that by the summer, the Governments of not only Scotland and the UK but all the qualifying countries have the pandemic sufficiently under control to allow the matches to be played—possibly not in front of full capacity crowds, but certainly with a big enough crowd at each game to give them the atmosphere that Europe’s top footballers clearly deserve. I can see that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is waiting to speak, so let me say to him and his colleagues from Northern Ireland that I am sorry that Northern Ireland did not quite make it through a very difficult qualifying group to make it four UK nations out of four taking part.

Given that it is St David’s day, may I wish Wales the very best of luck with their start to the tournament? I also send my very genuine and sincere good wishes to England, as they strive to finish second to Scotland and qualify on our coattails in group D. Who knows? We might be able to give the world’s media not just an exemption from income tax while they are here, but a truly historic sporting occasion—and not just because Scotland’s men’s football team is at a major tournament, because I can remember when that was quite a common occurrence. We might show the media something that has only ever happened once in history; they might be able to report on Scotland beating England at Twickenham and at Wembley in the same year. Now, that is something that I think we all look forward to in June this year.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As a Welshman, I am not one to dwell on recent sporting victories that took place over the weekend.

Alcohol Duty

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]]

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate today how we deliver a competitive duty system for alcohol producers. It will not surprise Members to know that my central interest here is in supporting Scotland’s national drink. Moray is home to more than 50 Scotch whisky distilleries. However, many other Members from across the United Kingdom will in the weeks and months ahead be making calls of support to the Treasury team for producers of other drinks. Indeed, my constituency also has several small craft breweries that will be keeping a close eye on any proposed changes in the UK alcohol duty system, and I will come to some of their concerns later.

Since I was first elected in 2017, all my Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have continually worked with partners from the whisky and wider spirts industry in Scotland to secure substantial wins for the sector. In every Budget since my election, the UK Treasury has taken the decision to freeze the duty on spirits. That has been very much welcomed and illustrates the major show of support from successive Conservative Governments for this vital sector.

However, it is still the case that just under £3 in every £4 spent on the average bottle of whisky is taken as tax. That is among the highest tax rates on an alcoholic beverage in the world and higher than the tax paid on wine, beer, and cider. In fact, a unit of alcohol served as Scotch whisky or gin is taxed 16% more than wine, 51% more than beer and 256% more than cider. That is why I was pleased when the Conservative party committed in its 2019 manifesto to

“review alcohol duty to ensure that our tax system is supporting British drink producers.”

Indeed, I well remember the Prime Minister’s visit to Diageo’s Roseisle distillery, less than 1 mile from where I am speaking today, to make that announcement as I joined him on the campaign trail for the 2019 general election.

I welcome the fact that the Government are currently taking that review forward, as promised. This is even more important in the context of the UK’s departure from the European Union. We now have the opportunity to think differently about how we tax alcohol in this country. This is an opportunity, which the Government have to seize, to redress the many historical injustices in the alcohol duty system and use it not simply to raise revenue but as a tool to back our domestic producers with a solid foundation in the home market as they look to expand to new markets around the world.

The Scotch whisky sector employs 11,000 people in Scotland and supports more than 40,000 jobs across the United Kingdom, contributing £5.5 billion to our economy in the process. Much of that employment is in rural areas such as my constituency, Moray, where distilleries are a key local employer. It is a sector of significance and tradition, with a long history. However, it is also a sector that is facing real challenges right now, some of which are unique to the alcohol industry, while others are symptoms of the times we live in.

The covid pandemic and the resulting restrictions imposed on our day-to-day lives have affected all parts of the economy. We all know that these restrictions were necessary to curb the spread of the virus, but we must also acknowledge the economic damage that has been done as a result. The whisky and wider drinks sector has lost tourism income because of the travel restrictions in many parts of Scotland that we have now faced for more than 11 months. It has also lost many of its business customers due to the closure of pubs and restaurants for long periods both here in Scotland, since the whole of mainland Scotland went into lockdown again on Boxing day, and across the rest of the United Kingdom.

At the same time, for much of the last year those in the sector have been unable to access Scottish Government grant funding because they were not directly affected by the restrictions under the strategic framework. That would have meant that distilleries could open as tourism visitor attractions, even though most people in Scotland—not to mention international visitors and those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom—would have been unable to travel to those visitor centres. The impact that this has on the local economy here in Moray and other parts of the country cannot be overestimated. Tens of thousands of visitors come to Moray every year to follow the Speyside whisky trail or go on individual tours of distilleries. All those visitors spend more money elsewhere in the local economy—on accommodation, on food and in our local shops.

The Scotch whisky sector is also struggling with the impact of the 25% tariff introduced by the United States in October 2019. The industry has estimated that this has resulted in a cut in exports worth £500 million. As the Scotch Whisky Association has pointed out, this is a 35% drop in exports to the United States that is being borne by producers both large and small. For a sector with a trading history of more than 150 years, this is damaging an essential part of its business and trade with its biggest market. The Scotch whisky sector is in no way involved in the dispute between Airbus and Boeing, but it is paying the price for it, alongside a range of other iconic products, some of which are sadly based here in Moray as well, so we are really feeling the impact. This is clearly unfair and a source of great distress for the sector.

I am grateful for the efforts of the Secretary of State for International Trade over the last few months and years to get these tariffs removed. It is no easy task, but I believe that with the support of her Cabinet colleagues, she will prevail. In the meantime, I urge the UK Government to do all they can to deliver clear support for the sector, both in the short term, through next week’s Budget, and in the longer term, to build a solid foundation through duty review.

I would also like to take some time to acknowledge the contribution made by spirits other than whisky. Scotland has a long and rich history of gin distilling, and Scottish gin has seen an enormous level of growth over the past decade. Twenty years ago, we would only have found two Scottish gin distilleries, but in 2020, there were more than 60 across the country. With many gin producers making more than one type of gin, the number of Scottish gin brands is believed to have climbed to around 140. Like whisky, 70% of the price of a bottle of gin is currently collected in tax. By comparison, less than €1 is claimed in duty on a bottle of wine in France. This takes us back to the central point of my contribution. We have a huge opportunity to look at how we put duty on alcohol differently in this country and to introduce a fairer system for producers in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

As I mentioned earlier, while my focus is on whisky, other Members will no doubt be making the case to the Minister for changes to the taxation of other drinks, including cider and beer. Despite the dominance of whisky distilleries here in Moray, there are craft brewing firms that are also making a significant impact, with businesses such as the Lossiemouth-based Windswept Brewing Co. It is one of 60 independent craft brewers in Scotland that are also making a huge contribution to our UK alcohol receipts.

Ahead of this debate I was contacted by Nigel Tiddy from Windswept, and the work those there have done to build up that business has been so encouraging. Seeing them continuing through this pandemic, I want to ensure that we continue to support companies such as Windswept and other craft brewers throughout this country as we come out of this pandemic. I know that they are watching this debate and this review very closely, and I will continue to engage with them after today’s debate.

This is another fast-growing sector of our economy that has faced major challenges over the last 11 months. We all want to see the existing growth in the craft brewing industry continue. I know that such businesses and their trade body, the Society of Independent Brewers, are calling for changes to small brewers relief and supporting the pubs and taprooms that these companies rely on for most of their sales. They are also calling for recognition by Government of the role of smaller producers and the challenges they face growing their businesses.

As I have already said about the argument for changes to the spirit taxes, there is an opportunity to review the entire system of alcohol taxation. The Treasury said at the time of its call for evidence in September 2020 that the current alcohol tax structures are “complex—and arguably outdated”, and I agree. We can reform these structures and develop a system that is fairer and, importantly, encourages the growth we want to see in these vital sectors of our economy.

To close, my message is that it is time to right the historical wrong in our tax system. It is time to see Scotch whisky taxed properly, not to see it continue to be more heavily taxed in its home country than imported wine. It is time that we backed Scotch whisky with a tax system that supports home producers in their own market. I have met the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury on this matter, and I know her interest in the subject.

I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister is able to outline where we have got to with the review, the timescale for it and what more the UK Government need from stakeholders as the overhaul of this system progresses. There is a need to set out a clear timetable to complete the current review of alcohol duty, and this should deliver a pathway to reform that better serves consumers and enables growth that will benefit our whole economy.

I was proud to campaign on this much-needed reform at the last election, just as I have been proud to stand up for Moray’s huge array of Scotch whisky distilleries and other producers at every opportunity since I became the MP for this seat in 2017, but now words and promises must be turned into action. A duty review is long overdue, and I look forward to working with the UK Government to deliver our manifesto commitment on this. I think we can all agree that if we do that, it is something we can raise a glass to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I did not suspend the House after the Welsh affairs debate because both contributors to this Adjournment debate are coming via video link, but we have sanitised the Dispatch Box in the unlikely event that the video link goes down and we need to use it.

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

May I start my response by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) on securing this debate, particularly since his constituency of Moray lays claim to hosting the largest number of distilleries in any United Kingdom constituency? He has indeed been a tireless advocate for the interests of Scotland. From lobbying for the removal of US tariffs to ensuring officials press on with the alcohol duty review, he has continually supported the Scottish alcohol industry, and he is absolutely right to do so. Distillers such as those in Moray are not just a source of refreshment; they are part of our heritage, they are significant tourism attractions in their own right, and they are important employers up and down the country. In 2019, the number of visitors to the Speyside whisky trail surpassed 2 million. That is a reflection of the sector’s remarkable growth, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and the innovation that it has seen in recent years. I am confident that, post pandemic, the sector will continue to flourish, attracting millions more visitors each year. Distillers, like so many other businesses, have had a very challenging year, and as hon. Members will know, the Government have acted decisively to help them, just as we have acted decisively to help thousands of other businesses across other sectors.

Today, though, we are debating the future of the UK’s alcohol duty system—a system that in fact has a long and fascinating history. Dating back to 1643, it was first introduced by Parliament as a way of financing its fight in the English civil war. Over time, the UK alcohol duty system evolved to become an important provider of Government revenue, and that is very much still the case. As my hon. Friend noted, the sector has experienced an impressive period of growth, helping to generate billions of pounds for the UK Exchequer. Each year the UK’s alcohol duty system raises over £12 billion, helping to fund public services such as the NHS. In that way it helps to address the harm caused to society and public health by excessive or irresponsible drinking.

Those benefits, though, are balanced by the Government’s pragmatic, reasonable approach to the level of duty applied. The Government have cut or frozen duty at seven of the last eight Budgets. In fact, the price of a typical bottle of Scotch whisky is £1.79 lower than it would have been, since we ended the spirits duty escalator seven years ago, in 2014.

As hon. Members may be aware, the current UK duty system is comprised of four distinct categories—beer duty, cider duty, spirits duty and wine duty. That means that the tax applied to each unit of alcohol varies according to whether the alcohol used to produce it came from malt, grapes or apples. That inconsistency was, in part, a consequence of EU directives. Now that the United Kingdom has left the European Union, the Government have the opportunity to take a fresh look at the alcohol duty system to see whether we can create a system that is simpler, more consistent, less administratively burdensome to producers, and does a better job of protecting public health. I know that many of our constituents agree that there is need for reform.

My hon. Friend has once again eloquently voiced his concerns, urging the Government to create a system that works in the best interests of business, his constituents and the industry as a whole. As he noted, at Budget 2020 the Chancellor announced that the Government would review the alcohol duty system. That, of course, was a commitment made in our manifesto, which, as my hon. Friend said, was announced when the Prime Minister visited the distillery in his constituency at Roseisle during, I think, the election campaign, and this review came about only because of the campaigning efforts of my hon. Friend and other Scottish Conservatives to raise the need for reform. The review has come about in part because the Treasury recognises that the alcohol drinks industry is innovative and entrepreneurial, and that traditional assumptions may no longer hold. I was heartened to hear from his speech that Scotland is turning its distilling expertise to gin, with explosive growth in the number of Scottish gin brands.

Since that announcement at the 2020 budget, my officials and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary have engaged with stakeholders across the industry, as well as with public health officials and tax experts. Our goal has been to assess how well the alcohol duty system works now and how it could work better in future. A call for evidence launched in October 2020 asked a series of key questions such as: overall, how well do the different duties work when combined together as a system? Is there a case to move to a standard method of taxation? Would a more consistent systemic approach to indexing alcohol duties be of benefit? Could we reduce burdens by standardising the way businesses declare and pay their duty?

I am pleased to say that we received more than 100 submissions expressing, as one might expect, a wide range of views, which we—my officials and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary—are now analysing. We will provide further updates from the review in due course, as quickly as we can. I would like to assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary are taking a very close interest in this issue and the detailed analysis and work that has been undertaken and are keen to make the most swift progress possible.

Since my hon. Friend the Member for Moray has also raised the issue of small brewers’ relief, I should add that the Government are running a separate technical consultation specifically on this issue. That closes on 4 April. I encourage any craft breweries based in his constituency or in Scotland to make their views heard by responding to this consultation. The Chancellor will set out plans for the coming year at the Budget next Wednesday, and hon. Members will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any more detail at this stage. I note that my hon. Friend has also rightly raised concerns about the 25% US tariffs on Scotch whisky, and I agree entirely with his assessment that the continued application of these tariffs is particularly disappointing and unfair, given that they have nothing to do with the Scotch whisky industry. To be clear, the UK has negotiated intensively with the US and the EU on these disputes and remains committed to reaching a fair and balanced settlement. I share my hon. Friend’s desire to help struggling producers and reach a settlement that works for the UK as a whole.

To sum up, Mr Deputy Speaker, the UK’s alcohol duty system makes an important contribution to funding vital public services and addressing alcohol-related harms. However, as my hon. Friend has compellingly explained, once again the current system is in need of reform. Leaving the EU provides an invaluable historic opportunity to undertake that reform, and our guiding intention is to do what we can to support this country’s historic and vibrant drinks industry for the long term. By challenging and tackling existing anomalies and reducing inconsistencies that distort the market, our hope is to support innovation and growth within the industry and thereby give the sector the future that it deserves.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution today. I know that he will be a little bit frustrated that I cannot set out a clearer timetable, but he certainly can know that the Government are fully committed to addressing the issue and will urgently respond to the challenge that he has set us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

At the end of this week I thank everybody at the broadcasting unit, the technicians and their teams for working supremely well to ensure that the vast majority of Members were able to make their contributions remotely, thereby making this Parliament much safer for those who have to work here.

Question put and agreed to.