Finance (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

Second Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is my great pleasure to contribute to this debate. Today, 16 November, we mark the feast of St Margaret Atheling, Queen of Scots, one of our two national patron saints and, like the rest of us, an adopted Fifer. For those not familiar with it, I recommend a read through her life story, because a surprising amount of it has lessons that are as relevant today as they were nearly 1,000 years ago, when she was alive. For example, Margaret was revered for her generosity to the poor. She is said to have regularly gone into the streets dressed in poor clothing and given food to the hungry and money to the poor. She clearly believed that earthly power has no legitimacy unless it is used in the interests of others. We might want to bear that in mind in the decisions we take later today, and indeed every day, in this place.

I wish to look at some aspects of the Finance Bill, and at who it benefits and who it damages. I go back to the question I raised with the Minister earlier about prosecutions and penalties against promoters of the loan charge. I was disappointed that the Minister did not answer the question as to how many such penalties had been applied. I would have thought that, if it was that important to the Government, they would have made sure that their officials put that information into the briefing for today. I have no issue with people who deliberately went into loan charge agreements knowing that they were wrong and that they were doing that only to dodge their rightful tax liabilities going through the full legal process. However, a lot of people who signed up to the loan charge did so because they did not understand it or because they were assured by paid tax advisers that it was all okay, and a lot of them did it because they would have lost their jobs if they had not. They get hounded to the ends of the earth—some of them literally get hounded to death—yet very few of the people who made millions out of these schemes have ever been brought to justice. The victims in my constituency have serious doubts as to whether any of the real villains of the piece will ever be brought to justice or indeed whether this Government have any intention of doing that.

When we look at the impact of this Finance Bill, and of the Budget statement it is based on, we must not let ourselves be hoodwinked by the massive impact of other announcements that have been flipped through by the Government in other ways over the past six months or so to try to make it look as though their Budget was not quite as savage as it was. We must recall the £1,000 a year cut in universal credit; the ending of the pensions triple lock, leaving our pensioners more at the mercy of rampant inflation than they were before; and the national insurance hike, which has been trumpeted as the saviour of the health and social care sector, whereas the reality is that, for several years at least, very little of it indeed will go into improving the availability of social care in England. It might be there in three or four years, but this is not a crisis that is going to be there in three or four years—it is a crisis that has been there and has been ignored for far too long.

Of course, sometimes when the Government want to increase taxes, they like to find sneaky ways to increase taxes on low-paid workers in a way that does not make it obvious what they are doing. All they have to do to achieve that is to do nothing. There is nothing in this year’s Finance Bill about the thresholds for the different rates of income tax. There is nothing in it about the level of income at which someone first becomes liable to pay income tax, because they have left it exactly as it was last year in cash terms. With people likely to face inflation of 4%, people on low incomes will either take a real-terms cut in wage of 4%, or if they get enough of an increase to match inflation the Chancellor will say, “Thank you very much. I’ll have a bigger cut of it for myself than I had before.” People on low earnings who are already struggling need an increase of 4% to stand still and to continue to struggle.

The 1.25% increase in the national insurance charge might not seem to be that much; 10p or 50p an hour below the proper living wage might not seem to be that much, but it soon adds up. Take, for example, someone working 40 hours a week on the Government’s new minimum wage of £9.50 an hour, and paying income tax and national insurance according to the rates and thresholds set out in the Bill. Those are exactly the people the Government say the Budget is designed to help. They are exactly the people for whom work is supposed to pay. Now, take the same person but this time getting the real living wage of £9.90 an hour, let their personal allowances and national insurance thresholds keep pace with inflation, and scrap the national insurance increase, leaving it at 12%, instead of 13.25%. The difference in their take-home pay is £800 a year. That does not seem much to those of us lucky enough to be on an MP’s salary, but for those who are just about managing to get through to the end of the week, another £800 a year in their pocket—or £800 taken out of their pocket by the Budget—makes a significant difference. The impact of this year’s Tory cuts alone—they are cuts, no matter what the Minister might say—is that those people are suffering a pay cut of almost 5% in real terms.

We have not even started to look at the more fundamental issues referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and why we need a complete rehash of the entire tax system. Why should somebody who, by an agreed definition, is earning only enough to live on pay income-based taxes at all? Why do we not set tax and national insurance thresholds to match the proper living wage so that the tax authorities have no claim whatsoever on the wages of those earning only just enough to keep them and their family alive?

The Government may well say that times are difficult, that tough choices must be made and that we cannot afford to inflation-proof tax allowances this year, but the tax allowances of some have been inflation-proofed and more—not individuals but businesses that are, for example, lucky enough to be able to afford to buy a casino. In clause 80, on page 63, we see changes to the thresholds for the various rates of gaming duty: the tax that casino operators pay in what is termed the gross gaming yield, which is the difference between the stakes that people pay in and the winnings they take out. It is in effect an income tax on casinos and similar places. Lo and behold, the tax thresholds for casinos are going up by 5.4%, which is higher than the rate of inflation that the Chancellor expects to see. That is on top of their inflation-busting increase last year. They have had an increase of 8.7% over just two years.

To put that into context, a casino with a gross gaming yield of £10 million a year will pay £100,000 less in tax next year than it would have last year, while the poor souls working their tails off in the casino kitchen keeping the clients fed and watered will be paying higher taxes. How can it be right that a casino owner pays £100,000 less in tax while the people whom they employ on low pay in their kitchens and catering departments have to pay increased tax? That is not a necessity; it is a deliberate political choice, and it is the wrong choice.

If only other businesses had as much to celebrate as the casino industry clearly does. Hospitality businesses are—quite rightly—being told to adapt their business models so that all their workers get paid a fair living wage. I have had some quite difficult conversations with hospitality businesses in my constituency that are not happy at that. But why on earth do the Government think it is also the right time to tell them that they must pay more tax on every single job that they create? Why on earth is it right to tell them that the rate of VAT that they will pay next year will be 60% higher than this year? It is ridiculous.

I am not saying that we should not take difficult decisions. The UK’s finances, like those of many western democracies, are in a seriously difficult place. The Minister said that levels of debt and borrowing are affordable. They are—just about—but they certainly are not sustainable. We must turn that around quickly. Difficult decisions need to be taken, but the problem is that, far too often, the Government are happy to take decisions that are difficult for other people but not at all difficult for their friends, chums and millionaire donors. The economic impact of the covid pandemic has almost certainly been made much worse because of their total lack of planning on the economic impact of the action needed. That means nearly all the Government’s support schemes had to be thrown together at almost no notice, which inevitably means they did not achieve what they were supposed to achieve. Very few of them achieved optimal results from day one. Too many people, several million of them, were excluded from support altogether, and almost all the schemes that were implemented turned out to carry levels of fraud risk that were far higher than they needed to be. Billions of pounds of public money has been lost to fraud that would have been avoided if the Government had prepared better in advance.

The economic damage of the pandemic could have been lessened, although we accept it almost certainly could not have been avoided completely, but the economic damage of Brexit could have been avoided completely if, in 2016, people had been told the truth of what it would involve. Let us not forget that the Government’s analysis is that the self-inflicted damage of Brexit is likely to be twice as bad as the economic damage of the covid pandemic.

To a much larger degree than the Government will admit, the tax rises on the poor contained in this Finance Bill are the price of a Brexit that, let us not forget, was rejected by almost two in three voters and every single local authority area in Scotland. If that is the price for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, it is a price I do not believe the people of Scotland are willing to pay any longer.

Interestingly, a standard form of wording that I do not see in this Bill is, “Extent. This Bill shall apply to Scotland.” I do not expect it to be too much longer before those words are no longer part of any legislation passed by this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call John McDonnell.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Before we start the debate, let me tell Members that if they wish to participate in the debate, it is essential that they are here at the beginning. If they are not, they will not be called. It is also essential that hon. and right hon. Members stay to the end of the debate to hear the wind-ups. If there are those who have not put into speak but wish to do so, please can they bob so that they catch my eye?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. You are making the case for why you do not agree with the Government’s position, but I have been listening very carefully to hear what your position is. You have criticised the removal of the uplift in universal, but no Labour politician on the news or interviewed by the press has committed to keep it if you were to be elected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady really must stop using the word “you”.

[Dr Johnson]

I did not mean to, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that there is no plan from the Opposition. They are not giving any plan on what they would do instead; they simply criticise. They simply say we must spend more and tax less, but how does the hon. Lady propose to do such a thing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

In your constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Can I just stop the hon. Lady? She must not use the word “your”, but say “in the Minister’s constituency”.

[Kim Johnson]

In the Minister’s constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, the child poverty rate is 24.7%, smashing the national average of 19.1%, and up nearly 10% over the past six years. Can the Minister tell us exactly how he intends to justify his own Government’s decisions to hit the pockets of the most vulnerable families and disadvantaged people he represents?

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

In the public sector pay agreement that we reached, we accepted the recommendations of the independent pay review body. That is why we decided on 3% and why the NHS was treated differently from other areas of the public sector such as the police and teachers. This recognised the importance of those frontline workers and it was why those under the threshold of £24,000 were carved out. This recognises the point that my right hon. Friend has raised.

In conclusion, this levy will enable the Government to tackle the backlog in the NHS. It will provide a new permanent way to pay for the Government’s reforms to social care and it will allow the Government to fund our vision for the future of health and social care in this country over the long term. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that there will be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches to start with. If anybody wishes to speak, they should catch my eye, and to do that it is important to keep standing. If colleagues have not put in to speak but wish to do so, it would be helpful to let me know. They will have to have been here from the beginning of the debate, and they will be expected to be here for the wind-ups, which will start at approximately 4.45. Bearing all that in mind, I now call the shadow Minister, James Murray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a two-tier system. Is he saying that the millions of people in the public sector and the not-for-profit sector who have auto-enrolled pensions are rather daft to have a sensible pot under their own name, with the flexibility that it brings? Are you calling millions of taxpayers daft?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he should not speak directly to another Member.

[James Murray]

The hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) knows full well that his question is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the NHS and the social care system, and we need reassurance from Ministers that they will not entertain a two-tier healthcare system on the back of comments made by Conservative Members.

We need to transform social care into the service that people want, need and deserve, which is why our plan for social care would include: enshrining the principle of home first; making a fundamental shift in the focus of support towards prevention and early intervention; getting care workers the pay, terms and conditions they deserve—at the very least, a real living wage of £10 an hour—while transforming training to improve the quality of care; and, crucially, making sure that England’s 11 million unpaid family carers get proper information, advice, breaks and the workplace flexibility they need to balance work and caring responsibilities.

Of course, today we are not discussing how to transform social care. We are debating a Bill that introduces a tax rise that may never go towards helping social care, and one that is raised on the backs of working people and businesses that are creating jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

The point is that we do not know what we will get out of this. We do not know because it is not clear in the documentation that has been provided. We also do not know what will happen on the other side of that equation—money in other devolved areas could be whipped away from us at our expense. Organisations such as the British Association of Social Workers have pointed out that cuts to local government will fundamentally undermine the social care provision in England. Authorities will not receive anything for three years, which will also have an impact on the money that we have to spend in Scotland.

These moves tax the poorest. They come at the same time as £20 a week is being removed from universal credit. Some 2.5 million people across the UK will be affected by both of those policies at a time when they can least afford it. The tax on jobs will stifle the recovery. Rather than being a Union dividend as Ministers like to try to claim, this is a Union dead end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to try to get everybody in, I will reduce the time limit to five minutes, and I have been able to warn the next speakers of that. If people do not get in, let me remind them that there is a Committee stage to follow and they might like to bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Obviously we have had one or two interventions along the way, so after the next speaker I shall reduce the time limit to four minutes, but I think that it should be fairly consistent from then on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an important point. We should be on a quest for consensus, and it would be useful to hear more from Opposition Members in the wind-ups.

I pay tribute to the many dedicated workers in care homes across my constituency as well as their residents—from Barlavington Manor in the north to Valerie Manor in the south and from Villa Adastra in the east to Westergate House in the west. They are just four of the 28 care homes in my constituency providing fantastic quality care. It would be lovely to see more resources pumped into them as well as their staff.

Let me conclude broadly where I started. This is a down payment on a process of reform in our healthcare systems, building on the innovation that we have seen. However, a health and social care system cannot be managed permanently on an exceptions basis. We need reorganisation, better data and better decision making to build the high-quality health and social care system that both sides of the House want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before we move on, I remind colleagues—I am sure they know—that it is very courteous to listen to a lot of the debate before intervening, because many colleagues have sat here from the beginning and are waiting to speak.

Health and Social Care Levy

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I agree with much of what she has said to date. She may or may not know that in Northern Ireland today a leading gas supplier announced a 35% price increase. That will put significant financial pressure, particularly on the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady has been in for much of the debate, but it is important that interventions are very short because there are a lot of people who have put down to speak who may not get in.

[Carla Lockhart]

That will put significant pressure on the low paid and the squeezed middle. Does she agree that the increase in national insurance contributions on top of that will have an impact on them, even making—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have to stop the hon. Lady.

[Catherine West]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) is making a really important point about the unknowables. We do not know by how much our gas and electricity bills will go up in the next year. We do not know whether firms will take fright and stop hiring people. One thing we do know is that council tax will go up, because there was nothing in the announcement for councils. We know a few things are not going to get better. We know a few things could get better and might not get better. It does seem to be a bit of a risky move.

In conclusion, we have had a very strange return to Parliament. Sometimes I get very surprised by the Government. I think sometimes Ministers do, too. I hope there is urgent work between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Treasury to really make this work. It is likely to go through. I do not think there are quite enough rebels like the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen—he is shaking his head. Please try to make it work. In taking such a risky decision right now, we can at least get the dividend of people being better cared for, getting through the backlog and helping our constituents to be able to see GPs when they wish to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Everitt]

Absolutely. We need more providers in the market, but the market needs to be functioning for that to take place.

My hon. Friend made a very good point earlier about another aspect of how the money is spent. The £86,000 cap needs to be met and tweaked with a regional house price element to recognise the fact that houses are worth more in some areas than in others.

In conclusion, I will vote for this. Our job in this place is to make good laws, and we need to do that at every stage. This is a tricky problem. The Government are right to grasp the nettle and reform social care. The fundamental problem that we face is that the assumptions that we are basing our entire welfare system on were made in the 1940s when people went into work in their teens, retired when they were 60 and lived until they were about 65. Now, they are living much longer lives and retiring earlier. That is the funding issue that we face.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must gently point out that colleagues may think that they are helping each other out by making interventions, but at this stage they are going to prevent other colleagues from getting in.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) rightly said that to govern is to choose. One of the reasons for the result of the last general election was that voters knew that this Government were more likely to make the difficult choices that were needed. The choices we have to make are not always between the good and the perfect. Many of them involve choosing the less bad option. As a Conservative, I believe that raising taxes is certainly a bad option. It clearly breaches a manifesto pledge, and it is both economically and morally wrong. It is economically wrong because higher taxes will dampen growth and prosperity in the longer term, and it is morally wrong because it means taking money away from those who have worked hard, to be spent elsewhere. That needs to be kept to a minimum.

However, if raising taxation is a bad option, surely the alternative—not acting—is far, far worse. Not acting would mean allowing the backlogs that have built up in the NHS through the pandemic to continue. That would put people’s early diagnoses at risk and delay treatments further, clearly endangering lives. It would mean not reforming social care, despite there being almost universal agreement that that reform is long overdue. Government after Government have promised to take this on, to reform social care and to put it on a sustainable footing financially. There have been endless reviews, but each time they have ended up in the “too difficult” box.

How many of us can go for a week without getting an email from a constituent about social care, whether it is about the quality of social care, access to social care, top-up fees, their ability to pay or the fear that they will have to sell everything they have worked hard and saved for all their life? That is why something needs to be done. If we agree that action is needed and that we need more money to be spent on the NHS to clear the backlog and reform social care, the only decision we have to take is how we pay for it.

In the long term, borrowing to pay for this is not a sensible option. There are very few taxes that can raise anything like enough money to meet the challenges we face. Of course this could be put on VAT, but that is clearly a much more regressive option that would place a disproportionate burden on the least well off. There have been various fanciful ideas from some Opposition Back Benchers that basically suggested that someone else should pay for it, or that there was a hidden pot of money that could be raided. It is not there! The fairest way is to have a levy on national insurance contributions, sharing the cost between employees, employers, the self-employed and those who get income from dividends, so that those who earn more pay more.

I think the shadow Chancellor suggested that this could be funded by charges on the sale of land, property and shares, but the truth is that combined revenues from all stamp duties on land, property and shares comes to about £15 billion, which is nothing like enough to pay for what is needed. So national insurance is the fairest option. Gordon Brown was right, on this one occasion, that it is the most regressive option—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

One thing that concerns me is that I saw some polling earlier this week showing that only about 25% of the population know that social care has to be paid for. That in itself is something we need to address through a certain level of engagement. If a lot of the people who are dismissing and opposing the national insurance rise truly understood and comprehended the devastating consequences of out-of-control social care costs, they might think differently.

Where are we right now? We are in a situation where we have spent £400 billion since the start of the pandemic. We have waiting lists growing and spiralling out of control as a result of the pandemic. We all have constituents who are waiting in pain for hip and knee replacements and more serious operations. We have constituents, including mine, who are not able to see their GP face to face and all the consequences of that. That needs to be addressed urgently. My constituents should be able to see their GP face to face when they need to do that.

We are in this appalling situation, and I take issue with the dismissive way that Opposition Members have spoken about many of the individuals who could benefit from the social care cap, referring to them all as millionaires in Surrey. The people I know who have been clobbered by social care bills are not millionaires in Surrey; they are people who have worked hard their entire life, paid tax on what they earned and at the end of their life, they have something to show for it. It is not just bricks and mortar; it is a home that they love and that they raised their kids in. Not unreasonably, they want to pass that on to their kids. When their mental and physical health is deteriorating, to see everything they have worked hard for whittled away in a matter of years is utterly depressing and morally wrong. I am proud to support a cap that addresses that, and I make no apology for doing so.

In terms of the manifesto point, I stood on a manifesto—we all did—and there was a pandemic straight after we had the election. This is an extraordinary situation, and probably nothing has happened since the second world war that has had such a dramatic effect on cost and spend. We spent £400 billion. People make this inaccurate comparison with George H.W. Bush and “read my lips”. Over the summer, I had a few days off, and I read a very long book about George H.W. Bush. He did not have a pandemic happen a year after he stood for election. It just simply did not happen. It is like writing a manifesto in 1938 and then realising that thousands of Spitfires have to be built because the second world war is starting. The money has to be raised somehow, and to say, “We cannot possibly do that, because we cannot change the manifesto we stood on a year ago”, would be absolutely absurd.

What are we dealing with right now? We are dealing with a situation where we have a cap of £86,000. We need to know more. We need to know more particularly about those with £20,000 to £100,000 and how their care costs will be subsidised. We understand that the councils will help with that. I need to know more about how that will work in practice. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and others who represent areas with hard-working constituents where house prices are very different from those in London. We need to know more about that.

Ultimately, we have seen the Prime Minister speak on this issue, and we have seen his passion. He is right to be passionate about this. The easy thing for him to do would be to use the pandemic as an excuse to push this issue into the long grass, but he has not done that. He has done the difficult thing and grasped the nettle. I am proud that he is our leader and our Prime Minister. He is doing that. What else was in the manifesto? Sorting out social care. No one should suggest we push that into the long grass. The Labour party does not want to decrease international aid, it wants us to make the universal credit increase permanent and it wants us to spend £16 billion on this and that. Labour never says no to a pay increase. I know what will be in my manifesto: you voted against—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. One thing he has touched on, but perhaps not expanded on, is the efficiencies that local government has found. Are there any particular lessons that he thinks are relevant to the NHS as we move forward?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We really are pushed for time, and this is not fair on those who are winding up.

[David Simmonds]

Concluding rapidly, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a very important point. We need to recognise, as many constituents are surprised to discover, that as a matter of law very strict eligibility criteria restrict what they can access. We need to ensure, as we reform the sector, that we free up local authorities to use these resources to meet the demographic challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

On the subject of cases being demolished, one of the cases that the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have made great deal of play of today is that of the fictional Yusuf in the Government’s own document. According to the Government, Yusuf’s care home costs are £700 a week. They claim that under the current system they would have had to spend £293,000 before they reached the current cap. The Minister will be aware—I hope he can count—that in order to spend £293,000 at £700 a week—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I would like the hon. Gentleman to put his question.

[Peter Grant]

What percentage of people going into a care home have any chance of still being alive in nine years’ time?

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before we begin debating the new clauses and amendments to the Bill that have been selected, I want to remind the House that the scope of this debate is limited to whether or not the Bill should be altered or added to by any or all of those amendments and new clauses. This is not an opportunity to debate the Bill as a whole or the national insurance fund in general, and still less to discuss how to fund the NHS or adult social care. I expect that the House will have the chance later in the week to hear from Ministers, if and when they have any new policies to announce with regard to what I have talked about.

New Clause 1

Zero-rate contributions for employees of green manufacturing companies

‘(1) This section applies where—

(a) a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) of the 1992 Act in respect of earnings paid in a tax week in respect of an employment,

(b) the green manufacturing condition is met (see section [Green manufacturing condition]), and

(c) the employer (or, if different, the secondary contributor) elects that this section is to apply in relation to the contribution for the purposes of section 9(1) of the 1992 Act instead of section 9(1A) of that Act or section 1 of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of section 9(1) of whichever of the 1992 Acts would otherwise apply—

(a) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week up to or at the upper secondary threshold is 0%, and

(b) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week above that threshold is the secondary percentage.

(3) The upper secondary threshold (or the prescribed equivalent in relation to earners paid otherwise than weekly) is the amount specified in regulations under section 8.

(4) For the purposes of the 1992 Acts a person is still to be regarded as being liable to pay a secondary Class 1 contribution even if the amount of the contribution is £0 as a result of this section.

(5) The Treasury may by regulations make provision about cases in which subsection (2) is to be treated as applying in relation to contributions payable in respect of a tax week in a given tax year only when—

(a) that tax year has ended, and

(b) all contributions payable in respect of a tax week in that tax year have been paid.’—(Richard Thomson.)

This new clause provides National Insurance contributions relief for businesses engaged in green manufacturing

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Green manufacturing condition—

‘(1) The green manufacturing condition is that the employer is engaged in the manufacture of products within the categories designated under subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must by regulations designate categories of products that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are manufactured with the aim of increasing environmental standards.

(3) The categories of products designated must include—

(a) wind turbines, and

(b) electric vehicles.’

This new clause is linked to NC1.

New clause 3—Scottish Government Covid payments: exemption from primary Class 1 contributions—

‘(1) A primary Class 1 contribution is not to be payable in respect of any Scottish Government Covid payment.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a “Scottish Government Covid payment” means a payment of £500 pro rata to any NHS Scotland or social care worker in accordance with the announcement made by the Scottish Government on 30 November 2020.’

This new clause provides exemptions for Scottish Government Covid payments to NHS Scotland and social care workers.

New clause 4—Employment allowance for national insurance contributions—

‘(1) In section 1(2)(a)(1) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 (employment allowance for national insurance contributions), for “£4,000” substitute “£16,000”.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) will remain in force until 30 September 2023 and will then expire unless continued in force by an order under subsection (3).

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order made by statutory instrument provide that the provisions which are in force will continue in force for a period not exceeding two years from the coming into operation of the order.

(4) No order will be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament a review of the effects of the provisions in subsection (1) on employment, the performance of small businesses and GDP growth no later than 30 September 2023.’

This new clause would quadruple the employment allowance from £4,000 to £16,000 for two years. At the end of the period, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be required to assess its effects and would be able to seek parliamentary approval for the policy to continue for up to a further two years.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) the employer pays, as a minimum, a living wage to all staff it employs, and

(f) the businesses operating in the freeport in which the employer has business premises have collectively—

(i) put in place a strategy setting out how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 as amended by the Climate Change Act (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019,

(ii) put in place a strategy setting out how the businesses will ensure that no goods passing through the freeport are the products of slave labour, and

(iii) carried out an environmental impact assessment of the operation of the freeport.”

This amendment provides conditions to businesses in freeports. These include a strategy on how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK greenhouse gases emissions, a strategy ensuring no goods passing through the freeport are products of slave labour, and an environmental impact assessment of the freeport.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 11, at end insert—

‘(4A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e), the living wage per hour—

(a) for the financial year 2021-22 is—

(i) £9.50 outside of London, and

(ii) £10.85 inside London; and

(b) for each year after the financial year 2021-22 is to be determined by the Living Wage Foundation.’

This amendment defines the living wage, payment of which is one of the conditions businesses would have to meet under Amendment 1.

Government amendment 3.

[Richard Thomson]

I rise to support amendments 1 and 2 and new clauses 1 to 3 in my name.

I went over the reasoning for these amendments in some detail on Second Reading and in Committee, so I am sure the House will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go into quite that level of detail again. The arguments I made then still stand, that the Government should not forgo tax revenues or give advantages to some businesses that are not available to others in terms of national insurance exemptions without securing meaningful commitments in return and in advance.

For that reason, we believe reciprocal benefits should be baked in from the start, both in the strategic economic objectives that we presume are being sought and in ensuring the very best employer behaviour, so that we are incentivising the kind of corporate behaviour that we want to see and encouraging future manufacturing to develop in that way.

We particularly wish to see greenports evolve—greenports are the Scottish Government’s model for freeports—to help tackle the climate crisis and to ensure the protection of workers’ rights. SNP amendments 1 and 2 would help to ensure that freeports and greenports do not end up contributing to a race to the bottom on workers’ rights and broader standards.

New clauses 1 and 2 get to the heart of the matter, by ensuring that employers within the designated freeports pay, as a minimum, a living wage to all staff they employ; by setting out how businesses can ensure that no goods passing through freeports are in any way the product of, or have benefited from the contribution of, slave labour; by setting out how freeports can contribute towards achieving legally binding climate change commitments; and by ensuring that the environmental impact of freeports is properly considered in each case, so that they can be seen as an exemplar, rather than simply being compliant with existing legislation.

We believe firmly that if national insurance exemptions are to be made available, they should be for enterprises that are helping us to transition towards a low-carbon economy. In those new clauses, we have specified two categories of manufacture—wind turbines and electric vehicles—that we consider should be covered. The opportunity is inherent within new clause 2 for the Secretary of State to designate a much wider range of products that also can contribute towards that objective.

We have a choice here: we can grant these incentives and hope—this depends on one’s political taste—that we let 1,000 flowers bloom or that the invisible hand of the market will somehow deliver the economic and social objectives being sought; or, with some judicious framing of the Bill, we can help to increase the likelihood of achieving a set of positive outcomes from those objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Report on behalf of the Opposition. As we have made clear throughout the passage of this legislation through the House, we will not oppose the Bill. We have, however, used the opportunity of the debates we have had so far to raise important questions with Ministers about some of the approaches they have decided to take.

As we know, clauses 1 to 5 introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions for employers who take on employees in a freeport. The zero rate will apply from April 2022 and allow employers to claim relief on the earnings of eligible employees of up to £25,000 per year for three years. Clauses 6 and 7 also introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions, in this case for employers of armed forces veterans.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is important to address the amendments before the House at this point. We will have the Third Reading debate later.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall briefly address the amendments we have been discussing as they relate to veterans’ employers’ national insurance relief. As we made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, this is a vital issue. Veterans deserve the Government’s full support as they seek civilian employment after their service to our country. The Minister may remember that on Second Reading and in Committee I asked him and his colleagues to explain why the employers’ relief for veterans is for 12 months—much less than the three years of relief for employers in freeports that the Bill also introduces.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her strong speech. This has been a thoughtful and meaningful debate. I am particularly pleased that the Opposition Front Bench has given its support to the motion that has been tabled. That will strengthen the Government’s negotiating position considerably.

I will pick up one or two points. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about the need for flexibility, but then seemed to say that that could be achieved without any change to the protocol. That is just not realistic. The idea that the President of the Commission cannot change his mind because member states would have to agree may be a problem for the European Union, but it cannot be a problem for the paralysis of the British Government—the British Government will have to take action.

I invite all those who have almost signed up to what I call the Macron doctrine, after he said at the G7 summit that nothing was negotiable and everything was applicable—this attitude of “You’ve signed it, so you’re stuck with it,” whether or not that is good for the British people or the Northern Ireland peace process—to consider that that is a kind of blindness that we really have to drop. What we are looking for is flexibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, asked for—real flexibility. The EU will not win respect around the world for adopting a head in the sand approach to this, and we will not shoehorn the whole of the United Kingdom back into the single market to resolve these problems, because that is not what the British people voted for.

I leave my right hon. Friend the Minister with this fundamental thought. She talked about working hard and in good faith, and courage and determination, but I am afraid that we are reaching the point very quickly where the Government will have to take action, and it will be a question of letting the European Union know that its failure to respond in reasonable good faith to the entreaties with which the Government have been presenting it will lead to consequences. That needs to happen soon, because the longer this situation persists, the more economic disruption is caused in Northern Ireland and the more the faith and trust in the Good Friday agreement are ebbing away. Everyone has to accept that the protocol is bad for the peace process in Northern Ireland, and it must change or be changed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

This House supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets; recognises that new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade; notes that the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; further notes that significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market; regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am suspending the House for a few minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

I very much welcome the Exchequer Secretary’s intervention. I am happy to stand corrected, and I very much look forward to seeing the impacts of those plans right across the nation, because as far as I am concerned, the significant weakness of the plan for freeports is that it cherry-picks areas for investment while ignoring the needs of many other communities across the country. That is why I say that the Bill is a missed opportunity: because to target the national insurance cut just at areas that will have a freeport is to ignore the impact that such a cut could have across many sectors that could provide fantastic opportunities for employment as we come out of the pandemic. There is a very real danger that freeports will divert business activity from areas outside freeports, and that this measure will hit the public finances without any subsequent increase in economic activity.

I believe that the Government would make much better use of the national insurance contributions scheme by stimulating economic growth in ways proven to be effective. For example, an increase in the annual employment allowance to £16,000 could benefit every small and medium-sized enterprise. It would allow employers to take on up to five workers each without making contributions, which would be a substantial boost to communities across the country and would do much more to boost employment across the nation than these hand-picked benefits whose impact cannot be measured.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As the next speaker has withdrawn, we will go straight to Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to earlier points of order, as matters seem to have moved on, I seek urgent clarification on the process that we are in the middle of, given that Mr Speaker appeared to be deeply unhappy earlier and that we are now facing a wait of possibly up to two hours to hear from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on a matter that the Prime Minister has already addressed the press about.

We understand that the Prime Minister was not available at 3.30; we know that and that is reasonable. Since then, though, the Prime Minister has addressed the press. His comments are causing concern and confusion, but the House has to wait two hours more. This is treating the House with disdain. Parliament is sovereign. What is more, the Prime Minister himself ran on a campaign of Parliament being sovereign—sovereign, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our constituents deserve better.

I wonder whether those on the Treasury Bench have had time to reflect on the matter since the earlier points of order. Can you tell me, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you or the House have had any word from No. 10 about coming here now to clear up the confusion and whether the Prime Minister is willing to face questions from Members of Parliament on behalf of our constituents? I seek your urgent clarification, because we feel that the Prime Minister is treating this House with contempt.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order, and realise that she has set out the fact that the Prime Minister has made a statement to the press, not to the House. However, the best thing I can do is repeat what Mr Speaker said earlier:

“I have repeatedly made it clear how important it is that announcements should be made in this Chamber.”

He went on to say:

“The Secretary of State will be making a statement at 8.30 pm on covid. That will give Members of the House an opportunity to question him on the Government’s policy.”

He then went on to say:

“However, it is not what I would have expected, which is a statement to the House before an announcement to the press. It is not acceptable. The Government determine when Ministers make statements, but, in doing so, they must show respect to this House.”

That is what Mr Speaker said earlier, and I do not think that there is much more that I can add to that, but the hon. Lady wants to follow that up.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can we be absolutely clear that the Prime Minister has not made any attempt to contact Mr Speaker about making a statement and that there is literally nothing else to add at all? Given that Mr Speaker made it very clear in his ruling earlier that he was deeply unhappy, may I just check that there has been no response from those on the Treasury Bench or from No.10 about the Prime Minister coming to this House so that he, having made a speech to the press, can face questions from this House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As I have said, the hon. Lady can rest assured that Mr Speaker will have made his views very clear. I am not aware of any discussions that have taken place, but I think we would know if the Prime Minister were shortly to arrive here. Instead, I suspect that the Secretary of State will make a statement at 8.30.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is somewhat different. It relates to the fact that if the Government are extending the provisions in England in relation to the restrictions on people’s freedom because of covid beyond 21 June, that is also the date when matters change as to how we do our business here in Parliament.

It is actually quite difficult to get a rail ticket from Wales to London because of covid restrictions on trains. People have to book some time in advance. I just wonder when there will be a busines statement that will lay out exactly how we will be doing our business in a week’s time. There are perfectly sensible measures that could be put in place very quickly; I am sure that we would all want to assist in that, but it is important to get these things right. Sometimes, when the Government rush them or do not consult on them, we end up having to tidy them up afterwards.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I suspect that the shadow Leader of the House will be having discussions with the Leader of House about that issue, and it may be something that comes forward in a business statement at some point.

I am suspending the House until 8.30 pm.

0.7% Official Development Assistance Target

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

The decision by this Government to take essential, life-saving money from the world’s poorest people is absolutely shameful and it has confirmed, once and for all, that the idea of “global Britain” has already lost its moral compass. For this idea to have been confirmed at April’s integrated security review simply beggars belief; the idea that by making the world’s poorest people even poorer we somehow make ourselves safer is absolute nonsense and it takes gaslighting to new extremes.

Do the Government really expect us to believe that the best way to make the people of the UK more safe and secure is to slash vital humanitarian aid to parts of the world that are already ravaged by conflict, war and famine, and thereby to force tens of millions of people to uproot their families and go in search of a better, more secure future? It was breathtaking insensitivity, adding insult to injury, that that same Integrated Review announced that money that could and should have gone to help underprivileged and poor people across the world will instead be spent on increasing the UK’s stockpile of nuclear weapons—it is utterly abhorrent. This country has a historical moral obligation to those countries that are now in the developing world. We have to help them because we are responsible for where they are now. For more than a century the UK grew rich and powerful on the backs of the poor. The countries we invaded, conquered, divided and plundered need our help now and we cannot cut it off like this—it is abhorrent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Bob Seely, who has 90 seconds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, Mr Speaker said that the Government should come forward with a vote in this House; he was pretty insistent on it, in fact. Today, I see that the press officer of No. 10 has suggested that there will be no vote on the 0.7% because the Government feel that they do not have to have one. Could you provide some guidance on whether that is in keeping with what Mr Speaker said?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, but I am afraid it is rather a continuation of the debate that we have had. I do not think there is much else to add to what Mr Speaker said yesterday, but I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s views.

Finance Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

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

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 24, page 63, line 9, leave out clause 109.

This and the other amendments relating to clauses 109 to 111 would prevent the creation of freeport tax sites in the UK.

Amendment 25, page 63, line 31, leave out clause 110.

This and the other amendments relating to clauses 109 to 111 would prevent the creation of freeport tax sites in the UK.

Amendment 26, page 64, line 1, leave out clause 111.

This and the other amendments relating to clauses 109 to 111 would prevent the creation of freeport tax sites in the UK.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I rise to speak to new clause 25, tabled in my name, and those of the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friends. The new clause sets out a number of tests that we believe the Government must apply to each and every freeport created in the UK. Before I come to the detail of those tests, I will make a couple of brief points about the Government’s intentions behind freeports. As I said in Committee, Labour wants every area to succeed, whether or not it has a freeport. We want good new jobs to be created right across the country, and our great British industries to be protected and supported. We want to see the UK at the forefront of new green manufacturing and technology, and we want a genuine re-distribution of power and opportunity to places that have been denied that for so long.

The Government clearly believe that freeports are a silver bullet for solving regional inequalities, and I simply remind them that they have been in power for 11 years now. Let me repeat that: 11 years. They must own the choices they have made, such as abolishing regional development agencies, cutting local authority funding, and pulling opportunities away from young people in some of the most deprived regions of the UK. Just recently, they scrapped the industrial strategy altogether. We need a proper plan that creates jobs and opportunities for everyone, regardless of where they live.

I will now turn to the new clause, and to the tests against which we believe our freeports should be judged if they are to succeed. First, freeports must create jobs, not simply move them from elsewhere. Too often, attempts at regional rebalancing have simply shuffled jobs around rather than creating them in the places that need them. We must end the scandal of people being forced to move to the other end of the country to find a decent job. Our test will be this: if someone lives near a freeport, will new opportunities be opened to them that did not exist before? Conversely, if an area does not have a freeport, can we be confident that it will not lose jobs as a result of this policy? Of course, any new jobs must be secure and well paid, with trade union rights—the kind of jobs we have not seen anywhere near enough of over the last decade.

Secondly, freeports must deliver improvements in training and skills for local residents. As we begin to recover from the pandemic, the need for re-training will become even more acute. We need a genuine skills guarantee for everyone, and freeports must play their part in that. Labour will be looking to see how companies operating in freeports work with their local communities to provide skills and training opportunities. Rather than a race to the bottom, freeports should be helping to boost skills and open opportunities.

Thirdly, freeports must produce tangible transport and infrastructure improvements beyond the port itself. Too many places still lack basic transport infrastructure, and too many people still find it difficult to get around. The investment that the Government are making in freeports must go towards boosting connectivity for everyone in those areas. We want every community to benefit from affordable and reliable public transport.

--- Later in debate ---

These tests set out ambitions for freeports and for the future of our economy more broadly. We believe that people who work in freeports and those who live near them deserve nothing less. If the Government share our ambition, they should commit to meeting these tests and should support our new clause 25 today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We were having a little difficulty getting hold of the speaker at No. 2 on the list, so I will call Richard Thomson and then come back to David Simmonds.

[Richard Thomson]

I rise to support new clause 25. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and I would like to echo much of what she said.

We have had freeports before in the UK, as recently as 2012, and our EU partners still have them, with 72 free zones across the EU territory. Some contributors in these debates have taken an excessively, I think, dim view of freeports. I would like to take a more balanced view, but I still think we are absolutely right to proceed cautiously, and that is why I am happy to support new clause 25. Given the incentives on business rates that are on offer, the potential national insurance exemptions and the exemptions on customs duties, it is absolutely vital to make sure that the economic activity attracted to freeports is not simply being displaced from elsewhere, and that the activity is new, adding value and resulting in economic output that is greater than would otherwise have been the case.

Therefore, when we are measuring that impact, it is important to make sure that the Government do not get to mark their own exam paper by choosing their measures of success after the fact. That is why it is important to be able to report back on job creation, skills and productivity, the impact on tax revenues, the levels of financial criminal activity that have resulted around a development and the details of the resourcing needed to ensure compliance with the law, and also to understand the extent to which the mix of industries that will have grown up around a freeport development match those sought in the original bids.

The Scottish Government have sought to build on the freeport model with a green port version of it that embraces all the potential benefits of freeports, while ensuring that the principles of fair work are enshrined at their heart—the principles of fair work and fair pay through a real living wage—and putting environmental concerns to the fore, through placing carbon reduction at the heart of these developments. These proposals for green ports from the Scottish Government already have widespread buy-in from business, industry and investors in Scotland. The Scottish Government stand ready, armed with the fresh mandate they received from the Scottish people earlier this month, to press ahead as soon as the UK Government are willing to do so.

At the conclusion of the Committee stage, the Minister gave—I hope he will not mind me describing it in this way—a somewhat editorialised account of the development of freeports and green ports in Scotland. We could back and forth roundabout that, but I would much rather move forward, just as the Scottish Government would. I hope the Minister would like to do that, too, and will commit to working as quickly as possible with the Scottish Government to bring green ports to fruition in Scotland.

[Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to today’s debate on freeports, to voice my continued support for this commitment and to speak against the adoption of new clause 25. For me, new clause 25 typifies the stark contrast that exists between the sides of this House when it comes to delivering for the British people, with the Conservative side supporting a Government focused on delivery and the other side persistent in pursuing yet more division and delay.

As colleagues have already said, freeports will be central to the levelling-up agenda, attracting new businesses and jobs, creating opportunity and investment across areas of Britain. This policy is key to regenerating communities across the UK and I hope that may include my own constituency of Bridgend. Following the closure of the Ford factory in Bridgend, the establishment of a freeport in the Port Talbot and Bridgend area could mean a great deal to my constituents and the whole of south Wales, with the creation of up to 15,000 jobs. It is for those reasons that my constituents would expect me to back the Government tonight.

I am sure Opposition Members do not want to delay the investment associated with the measures in clauses 109 to 111. By implementing them, we will help to unlock employment in areas previously left behind and allow them the opportunity to prosper. The additional reporting requirements for freeports outlined in new clause 25 would impose unnecessary onerous processes, with little to no benefit over and above what has already been put in place; they would just cause further delay.

In Wales, as we know from oral questions to the Secretary of State for Wales in this House last week, the Welsh Labour Government have dragged their feet time and again and have refused to collaborate on this issue with Ministers here. The result is that, although bids have been received and locations have been identified in England, we still do not know what support, if any, a freeport in Wales will get from the Welsh Government.

We were elected to deliver and to get on with the job of making a success of post-Brexit Britain. Clauses 109 to 111 achieve just that. I will therefore be supporting the Government this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Speaker no. 5 has withdrawn, so we go straight to Andrew Jones.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

That was slightly unexpected, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much indeed.

The competition for having a freeport from colleagues around the House before the decisions showed how widely welcomed this policy was. We saw colleagues’ delight when their areas were successful. It is clear that freeports are part of a broader levelling-up agenda, which is at the heart of the Government’s policy and has significant public approval. When knocking on the doors of Hartlepool, I found support for initiatives to boost the economy of that area. I do not represent a freeport area in Harrogate and Knaresborough, but there is clear support, and it is therefore surprising that the Labour party is not more aligned behind it.

A well-designed freeport policy can boost trade. The key to that is the alignment of local bodies, whether the ports or the businesses, with local authorities to grow opportunity. Of course, all that is underpinned by tax reliefs and tax incentives. It is most important that we get tax reliefs on buildings and plant purchase right. If the policy does not deliver, we will have wasted public money and we will have seen the displacement of economic activity, rather than incremental economic activity. Even more significant, of course, would be the missed opportunity. The areas that are receiving freeports are those that have not had the chance that other parts of the country have had over the past decades. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister knows that.

The Labour party has said measures are necessary before it can even consider supporting the policy, but there are already measures in place to monitor, collect and review data. The Treasury always monitors and reviews its policies. I have seen that from my own experience, but it is a truth that we all know. Therefore, new clause 25 addresses a concern that is, frankly, already solved; it is not necessary. On transparency, costings will be published at the next fiscal event—in other words, in the usual way. On data collection for freeports, we will be collecting data on reliefs, monitoring effectiveness and so on. The main question now is not about monitoring; it is about how those running the freeports can make them bigger, seize the opportunities and maximise the chances available.

As this health crisis morphs into an economic one, the focus is moving to recovering livelihoods as well as saving lives. All the levers that can drive growth must be pulled and freeports are clearly a part of that. It was very good to see the proposals in the Finance Bill. I will be supporting them strongly this evening.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I am just going to wrap up.

In conclusion, it is apt that today the Opposition broke with a minor tradition, choosing to debate economic matters first, not last, and specifically to cite jobs as a focus—not the wider economy, as is the norm. I have been saying for over a year, since the very outset of this crisis, that protecting jobs and livelihoods was this Government’s No. 1 economic priority. It has shaped my decisions and actions and I have said it over and over again, to leave the British people in no doubt that this Government are on their side.

Last week’s results showed that, from Hartlepool to Harlow, the people heard us, so I cannot welcome enough today’s debate to share with the Labour party our plans to continue protecting the jobs of the British people and to defend a record that has seen millions of livelihoods protected and hundreds of thousands of businesses supported, and has created the conditions for one of the strongest economic recoveries anywhere in the world. We have a plan, and that plan is working.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind hon. Members that there is a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady seems to be accusing Members of this House of personally pocketing money. Will you ask her to explain exactly what evidence she has in that regard?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That is not really a point of order; it is part of the debate, and I do not want the debate to descend into points of order. I am sure that if the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer feels she needs to say anything further in response to the hon. Gentleman, she will do so.

[Rachel Reeves]

Two billion pounds-worth of contracts to friends and donors of the Conservative party—I will leave it at that, and let the record speak for itself.

Let us be clear about this Conservative Government’s record. They talk in this Queen’s Speech about a skills guarantee, but it was a Conservative Government who cut the education maintenance allowance; my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was a beneficiary of that and has spoken powerfully about the difference it made to her. And this Government have overseen a fall in the number of apprentices, leaving millions of people without the skills they need to thrive. They speak in this Queen’s Speech about investing in all parts of our country, but it was this Conservative Government who scrapped the regional development agencies—the very bodies designed to ensure that every part of our country could prosper.

The Government talk in this Queen’s Speech about levelling up, but it is this Conservative Government who have cut 60p from every £1 of funding to local councils, forcing them to close Sure Start and children’s centres, and to cut back on social care, libraries and leisure centres, degrading the very fabric of our local communities. The Government want the public to think that they have been in power for only a year. They have not; they have been in power for 11 years, and they need to take responsibility for their own record.

Throughout this crisis, the Chancellor has pitched our health against our economy, treating it as if it were a zero-sum game, with health on the losing side. To do so was short-sighted, misguided and dangerous, and he must take responsibility for that. In a pandemic of this kind, public health and the economy are two sides of the same coin. The Government’s failure to act speedily, pushing ahead with “eat out to help out” without sorting out test and trace, and the refusal to back an October circuit break or to level with the public about the risks of mixing at Christmas, have caused huge loss and huge suffering, as well as the largest economic decline in the G7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Two goals—economic recovery from covid and levelling up opportunity in every part of our country—are at the heart of this bold and ambitious Queen’s Speech. There are proposals to give millions of people the skills they need to make a success of their lives, proposals to upgrade our infrastructure, particularly 5G and faster broadband, proposals to create green jobs in the industries of the future and proposals to lead the world in life science and new medicines. All these will help to deliver progress on those two crucial goals.

I warmly welcome the return of the Environment Bill, with its ambitious framework to set rigorous new targets on matters such as protecting nature and improving air quality, and I am pleased to see action to bring an end to the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening, which is something I have campaigned against for nearly two decades. My time as Environment Secretary gave me some insight into the legal complexities of the issues around live exports, so I will be scrutinising the Bill carefully to ensure it does everything possible to bring an end to that cruel trade.

I sound a note of caution on one aspect of the Gracious Speech: planning reform. In December last year, more than 2,000 local councillors signed an open letter against key proposals in the “Planning for the future” White Paper. The White Paper would see England divided into growth, renewal and protected zones. Local democratic input into planning decisions would be removed altogether in areas designated for growth. That means there would be many thousands of developments over which local people would have no say at all. There would be no planning application to which to object, so the big campaigns led by residents, with which we are all so familiar, would become a matter of history.

The White Paper’s proposed substitute for the planning process in such growth zones is greater community input into the local plan, but that is just not an adequate replacement. It will require people to anticipate, potentially years in advance, proposals that might conceivably affect them in the future. Moreover, a drastic reduction is envisaged in the time allowed to complete a local plan, inevitably meaning less input from the public, not more.

Even in areas where planning applications would still be necessary, the White Paper proposes that, under the guise of simplifying and speeding up the process of creating a local plan, general development management policies should be set nationally. Deployed at local level, those policies currently perform a vital role in preventing overdevelopment. Removing this tool from planning committees and subjecting the whole of England to a one-size-fits-all model, imposed centrally, could give the green light to many high-density building proposals previously blocked by locally elected councillors.

In the weeks ahead, as Ministers—including, no doubt, the Chancellor—take final decisions on the planning Bill, I urge them to drop those aspects of the White Paper that reduce democratic involvement in the planning system. It is not too late to come up with planning reforms that help us to deliver the homes we need but do so with the consent and support of local communities, not by imposition against their will. I urge Ministers to do that, and I look forward to working with them on this important goal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Speakers Nos. 6 and 7 have withdrawn, so I call David Davis.