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.

Financial Services Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

Financial Services

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reasonable question about the updating of the list. The Financial Action Task Force meets three times a year to determine the countries identified on its public lists. As such, the UK’s new autonomous high-risk third countries list could be updated up to three times a year to mirror the decisions made by FATF. We will look at that carefully. FATF monitors the UK—indeed, it did a mutual evaluation of the UK in December 2018 and gave us one of the highest ever rankings—and constantly updates countries who are high risk around the world.

I will make a few points in response to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East. In recent years, the Government have taken a number of actions to combat economic crime, including creating a new National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response to economic crime, and passing the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which introduced new powers, including unexplained wealth orders and account freezing orders, and established the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision to improve the oversight of anti-money laundering compliance in the legal and accountancy sectors. In 2019, the Government and the private sector jointly published a landmark economic crime plan that outlines a comprehensive national response to economic crime such as fraud and money laundering, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It provides a collective articulation of 52 actions being taken in both the public and private sectors in the next three years to ensure that UK cannot be abused for economic crime.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned the Cayman Islands. As of the FATF plenary in February 2021, FATF collectively agreed to include the Cayman Islands in its list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring. As that is one of the FATF public lists that the UK autonomous list mirrors, the Cayman Islands will be included in the UK’s list of high-risk third countries. The outstanding issues that the Cayman Islands must address are outlined in FATF’s publicly available statement.

I hope that the House has found the debate informative and will join me in supporting this important step to ensure that we have an up-to-date framework to protect the financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Keir Starmer relating to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No.7) Regulations (SI, 2021, No. 150) not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the business on that Motion may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(David Duguid.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will now have a two-minute suspension for cleaning.

Covid-19: Government Transparency and Accountability

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wragg]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, and the short answer is no. If the Government were to express the view that these are arbitrary decisions made because this is a difficult situation, that would be a more honest approach than vague references to following the science without bringing forward the evidence to underpin decisions. He hits the nail exactly on the head. I try to say this without sarcasm, which is a great effort for me, but we are surely driven by the data, and not dates.

The report also notes that local leaders did not always have access to the data that they needed to respond quickly at the height of the pandemic. As such, we recommend that going forward, the Government must share all available data with local areas in as much detail as possible, and ideally to patient level. Data that will be key to decision making on the road map should be shared immediately, and the road map indicators should be added to the dashboard with clear links to the data at lower local authority level underpinning each one.

Changing the topic slightly before I conclude, the Committee is now inquiring into the vexed proposal of covid vaccine certification or, indeed, wider covid status certification. The evidence we have heard so far reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability of data, as we highlighted in the report. Before the considerable ethical and legal issues about vaccine certification proposals are even taken into account, the purpose and effect of such certificates must be understood and the data and evidence underlying such a proposal set out. That means that the data needs to be made clear on issues such as transmissibility after vaccination, especially when considering implementing what we heard would be a permanent solution for what may well be a temporary problem.

I should say that I am pro-vaccination. I believe it is for the individual to decide whether they wish to take it. I would encourage them to do so and, indeed, when it is my turn—I am younger than I look, although perhaps not younger than I act—I shall indeed take the vaccine.

I will leave the House with one statistic, which I saw on the pages of The Daily Telegraph yesterday. It is that just 32 of some 74,000 hospitalised with covid between September and March had been vaccinated at least three weeks before. If we can get hold of more recent data than that, we will be proving that we can have confidence in the vaccine to deal with the worst aspects of this horrendous pandemic and that we can look forward to unlocking society, regaining our freedoms and allowing this country to move forward. I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and right hon. Members this afternoon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the next speaker, I emphasise that we have two debates this afternoon and a number of Back-Bench colleagues wish to speak. To save me having to put a time limit on, it would be helpful if speeches were confined to around five minutes. That will enable everybody to get in.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). I thank him for the fair and inclusive way in which he has chaired the Committee.

The sense of shock, uncertainty and genuine confusion that the public at large felt as this crisis began was in truth mirrored by the Government. That is at least in part understandable, and I will return to the issues of preparedness later, but the nature, scale and speed of that first wave was unlike anything our Government have ever faced before. It would have tested the boldest of leaders, the best prepared institutions and the most resilient of communities.

My father-in-law died in those early few weeks. I was grateful to be able to attend his funeral, but my children could not. Since last April, tens of thousands of families have faced this trauma, and the loss of life and destruction of our economy is not understandable, nor was it inevitable. The truth is that our leadership was woeful, our institutions already cut to the bone by funding cuts, our communities fractured and frayed, health inequalities widening, and it is no surprise that the poorest have faced the greatest burden.

In a democracy as old as ours, the Government rightly have less power to control us and force compliance than many others across the world, but that means that transparency and accountability are more fundamental to securing our agreement for the common good, and when the very Government who had previously eroded accountability and shirked transparency asked us to make those sacrifices, there were bound to be tensions. The starting point of distrust and dysfunction was made much worse by the unpreparedness with which we entered this emergency.

Emergency preparedness, resilience and response is a term that we use to make sure that we are safe before, during and after an emergency and national disaster. At our Committee session on 29 April the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared to talk about the work of the Cabinet Office, and we looked at preparedness. The pre-2020 timeline to our report is really important. Public Health England’s pandemic flu strategic framework in 2014 had as a key principle preparing for the worst. That 2014 document built on work in 2011, which followed work in 2009 regarding the previous flu crisis. In 2016 Operation Cygnus, the exercise conducted to understand our preparedness and test our resilience in response, was shrouded in mystery, and it was only released in October 2020, as even The Daily Telegraph reported, following legal action and the threat of the Information Commissioner. That document really exposed how poorly prepared we were.

In addition, in our meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in April we discussed the national risk register, which had not been published since 2017; it is supposed to be published every two years. I asked him whether the Cabinet Office monitored whether various Departments and agencies had completed the mitigations in previous risk registers. He answered that it was the Cabinet Office’s responsibility to do so. He wrote to us later, on 21 May, with less clarity on the Cabinet Office’s role, simply stating that work on the risk register for 2019—for 2019—was advanced, but would need to be recalibrated in light of the current pandemic.

Also, we were running the NHS at over 90% of capacity, when the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and many other royal colleges had been warning that 85% was more in line with patient safety requirements. That, plus the additional year-on-year Government cuts, including to public health, all meant that we were not prepared when we could have been, and any look back at this dreadful time in our history needs to expose that failure.

But fundamentally and unforgivably, we were hamstrung by this Government’s ideological opposition to the very things that could have helped save lives—an ideological opposition to experts, an ideological opposition to local government and local expertise, an ideological opposition to the principles of good public health. And what was it replaced with? The absurd reliance on mates and acquaintances—approaching a pandemic in much the same way as most of us would look for someone to plaster our bathroom. Underpinning it, the idolatry of the private sector, trumping every time the institutions and people who actually understood the communities we were looking to protect.

Crucially, the Government were bereft of a strategy, with no accountability, and that includes the legislation and our role as Members of Parliament who were presented with that rushed legislation and reliance on ancient public health Acts, rather than the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the scrutiny that had happened in this place before—a problem that we are still trying to extricate ourselves from.

The key part of that Civil Contingencies Act was the reliance on local resilience forums. None of us live in Whitehall; we live in our communities. That is why local forums are so critical, and any response should have been driven bottom-up and then supported by the national effort—and that is where so much damage has been done, in that local response.

For everything we have learned in our Committee, the transcripts are really quite shocking. As a previous emergency planner and someone who has worked closely with public health, I expected certain things to happen, and they did not. The test and trace debacle is the most obvious case in point—so many lives lost, so much time lost. Why would the Government not trust local leaders, and our colleagues in councils of all political colours, to get the job done that they were trained to do? Over the border from me only 20 miles, in Wales, the Welsh Test, Trace, Protect system is run as a public service and has delivered, by any measure, better outcomes for vastly less public money.

Things have got a bit better in terms of the local-national interface and response, but there are still some real issues that are hampering the public health response now and for the future. First, we must not reorganise the organisation that is doing this at national level in the middle of a pandemic and make people fearful of losing their jobs when they are trying to save our lives. Secondly, the consequence of the Lansley Act is that public health expertise in local government does not have the same access to NHS data that previously occurred. That has hampered the public health effort locally. Public health officials in local government need to be able to access data for public benefit and recognise the difference between identifiable personal data and non-identifiable data. That is something the Government can do something about.

We have to use this excellent report to look to the future. Does anyone here think that everything will be normal after 21 June? Again, after everything we have been through, the Government are still not on the front foot. They are still too late, as demonstrated by the decision about India going on the red list this week. I do not think everything returns to normal after 21 June, and the Prime Minister has now started hinting about a third wave. That means he has to take some actions. We are all so very weary. We are desperate to see our loved ones. We are desperate for everyone to get back to work, to go on holiday, to start planning our lives now. Our young people need radical change in our education system to be prepared for the future. Decisions need to be made now. We all want to be able to visit care homes and have people able to leave those care homes. It is an absolute disgrace, but the urgency is missing.

In conclusion, I am very proud to be a part of this Committee. I commend our Chair for the fair and inclusive way he has conducted it. Our Clerks and advisers have been superb in their support and responsiveness to allow us to do some great work in difficult conditions. I thank them for report they produced, and I thank our great witnesses. The Government, however, have not learned the lessons. I am not confident that they have taken on board these recommendations. If we are to secure compliance for the next stage, that really needs to happen: we need honesty and transparency about the data; honesty about the political choices that face us; honesty about the balance of risk; and, frankly, more respect for Parliament and the people we represent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I reiterate that we need to keep to five minutes, otherwise I will put on a time limit.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

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

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

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 2, line 16, leave out “2022-23”.

This amendment would mean that the freezing of tax thresholds at 2021-22 levels did not apply until 2023-24.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 18, leave out “2022-23”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 25, leave out “2022-23”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.

Clause 5 stand part.

Clauses 24 and 25 stand part.

Amendment 93, in clause 26, page 19, line 3, at end insert—

“, or for the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2”.

This amendment would extend the income tax exemption for payments to employees in respect of the cost of obtaining antigen coronavirus tests to cover antibody coronavirus tests too.

Clause 26 stand part.

Clause 28 stand part.

Amendment 92, in clause 31, page 20, line 13, at end insert—

“, where the person who received the payment is not a qualifying person by virtue of Paragraph 5 of the direction given by the Treasury under section 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020”.

This amendment would ensure that the one-off £500 payment to certain working households in receipt of tax credits could only be recovered where it is found that the individual was not entitled to the payment because they were knowingly concerned in underlying fraud either in relation to their tax credit award or the one-off payment.

Amendment 15, page 20, line 13, at end insert—

“(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 5 April 2022, lay before the House of Commons an equalities impact assessment of the provisions of this section, which must cover the impact of the provisions on—

(a) households at different levels of income,

(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),

(c) the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010,

(d) equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and

(e) child poverty.”

Clauses 31 to 33 stand part.

Clause 40 stand part.

Clause 86 stand part.

New clause 7—Assessment of revenue effects of supplementary income tax rate—

“(none) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 31 October 2021, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the effects on tax revenues of introducing a supplementary rate of income tax, charged at a rate of 55%, above a threshold of £200,000.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the effect on tax revenues of introducing a 55% income tax rate on income over £200,000.

New clause 8—Equalities impact assessment and distributional analysis of tax thresholds—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 5 April 2022, lay before the House of Commons an equalities impact assessment of existing income tax thresholds and a distributional analysis of—

(a) the effect of reducing the income tax threshold for the additional rate to £80,000, and

(b) the effect of introducing a supplementary rate of income tax, charged at a rate of 50%, above a threshold of £125,000.”

New clause 10—Review of changes to coronavirus support payments etc—

“(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 coronavirus support payments etc by sections 31, 32 and 33 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) A review under this section must consider the following scenarios—

(a) the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme are continued until 30th September 2021, and

(b) the coronavirus job retention scheme and self- employment income support scheme are continued until 31st December 2021.

(4) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

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

This new clause would require a report comparing the effect of (a) the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme being continued until 30 September 2021, and (b) the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employment income support scheme being continued until 31 December 2021 on various economic indicators

New clause 11—Review of changes relating to cycles and cyclist’s safety equipment—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by section 25 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,

(e) poverty, and

(f) carbon emissions.

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

(a) the cost of a cycle is made an allowable expense on self-assessment tax return forms, and

(b) the cost of a cycle is not an allowable expense on self-assessment tax return forms.

(4) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

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

This new clause would require a report comparing the impact of the impact of (a) making the cost of a cycle an allowable expense on self-assessment tax return forms and (b) not doing so on various economic indicators.

New clause 12—Review of impact of section 40 on equalities—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct an equality impact assessment of section 40 and lay this before the House of Commons within six months of Royal Assent.

(2) This assessment must consider the expected impact of section 40 on individuals and groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of Clause 40 on equalities.

New clause 22—Review of impact of section 40—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of section 40 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) the regional distribution of capital gains in the UK, and

(b) projected receipts.

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

(a) capital gains tax rates are changed so as to be equal to those of income tax, and

(b) capital gains tax rates remain at the level in this Act.”

This new clause seeks a report on the impact of equalising capital gains tax and income tax on (a)the regional distribution of capital gains in the UK, and (b) projected receipts.

New clause 23—Equality impact analysis—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the equality impact of sections 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86 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 impact of those sections on households at different levels of income,

(b) the impact of those sections on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),

(c) the impact of those sections on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and

(d) the impact of those sections on equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.

(3) A review under this section must give a separate analysis in relation to the following matters—

(a) income tax,

(b) employment income,

(c) coronavirus support payments,

(d) pension schemes,

(e) investments, and

(f) inheritance tax.

(4) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

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

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effects of clauses 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86 of the Bill on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a regional basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[The First Deputy Chairman]

We are having some difficulty hearing Seema Malhotra, I am afraid. Do you want to try again, Seema?

[Seema Malhotra]

[Inaudible.]

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I think what we should probably do is go to our next speaker and come back to Seema. We will go now to Sir John Redwood.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

Dame Rosie, I have declared my business interests in the register.

Of course, I am not going to vote against this Budget and I wish the Government well with it, but I would like them to pause a little, think through where we are and recognise that they may need to revisit some of these decisions in the months ahead. My worry is that they are being too tough in their tax measures and too tough on people’s incomes at a time when we need to build confidence and recovery, and they are doing so at a time when it is really impossible for their expert advisers and other economic forecasters to give them a clear steer of what the public finances will look like in two years’ time, let alone in three or four years’ time.

The Government seem to think that their experts can define a given amount of money that will be a shortfall in order to hit their longer-term Government targets, and therefore say that we need to make these tax changes for the next few years in order to fill the alleged black hole. It may be that they are trying to fill a hole that does not exist. It may be that we will have a much better recovery than the forecasters are thinking. It may be that the economy responds much better over the next two or three years or, indeed, over the next two or three months, as the relaxations kick in.

We can see the difficulty that the official forecasters have if we look at the numbers they gave us as recently as November 2020. Then, the OBR, forecasting the budget deficit—the amount of extra borrowing—for the year 2020-21, said that it would be £394 billion, an enormous amount. Bear in mind that it was having to forecast for only four months, as two thirds of the year had already gone. When we got the 11-month figures, up to February, recently, we discovered that they had come in at just £278 billion and so, subject to what happened in March, it may be that the OBR was the best part of £100 billion out on the deficit for the year in question when it tried to forecast, already knowing quite a lot of what had happened. It was, of course, massively too pessimistic. It is great news that we will have borrowed so much less than we feared, although clearly we are still borrowing far too much on an unsustainable basis, which is why we need to promote a strong recovery to get the deficit down.

I therefore say to the Government: let us show a little humility. The experts and advisers are not able to give us anything like accurate figures—I can sympathise with them, because extreme things have happened in response to the pandemic—so are we sure that we need to make these moves over the next three or four years?

There is also a case for showing a bit of humility and thinking ahead about whether we might need to show a bit more flexibility because the Government themselves have rightly said, now that we are out of the European Union and the economic world has been stood on its head, that they want to set out a new framework for guiding the economy. I encourage them to do that, and I hope it is a framework that promotes growth and considers real issues such as the increase in the number of jobs, the rise in real incomes and the productivity growth that can be achieved.

We need to get away from the Maastricht criteria, which have governed our policy for many years and still seem to be behind the architecture of this Bill. We seem to be driven by the need to get state debt falling as a percentage of our national output by the end of the period that we are talking about today for the tax changes. State debt is now a pretty useless figure to try to target in the way that the Maastricht criteria did. We now live in this age of monetary experimentation, where great banks such as the Bank of England, as well as the European Central Bank, have bought in very large quantities of state debt—indeed, they still are doing so. Surely, where that happens in a single sovereign country with its own central bank, owned on behalf of the taxpayers by the state, we should treat the debt that we have bought back in rather differently from the debt on which we owe money by way of interest to people outside—some our own citizens, some foreigners—who have been financing the Government. That makes state debt a very difficult number to use to guide the economy. Of course, the future system must have some control over the build-up of actual interest charges that we have to pay to third parties, but it should concentrate much more on promoting growth.

May we therefore have just a few words from the Government, accepting that these numbers are very difficult and that the current forecasts are likely to be very wrong? No one can say exactly how wrong they are going to be, because so many things will happen over the next two or three years and nobody has been through a bounce back of the kind of pace that is possible from such a big hole in our economy, created by necessary health measures to cure the pandemic.

We need a policy that is very supportive of more jobs, of higher incomes and of encouraging investment, enterprise, saving and, above all, self-employment and more small business activity. My worry is that the Government are being a bit mean with people and with small businesses in the name of controlling state debt at a time when we have no idea what the state debt will be in two or three years’ time, and when the state debt number is now very different because of the purchase of state debt by the state itself.

I would hope that the Government recognise that we may need to revisit all this, and I would want them to be on the side of people keeping more of the money they earn and, above all, of a much better deal for small business and the self-employed, where I think they are too tough.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

We are having one or two technical issues, so we will go straight to Richard Burgon.

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

I wish to speak to my new clause 7, which would require the Government to publish an assessment of the effect on tax revenues of introducing a 55% income tax rate on income over £200,000.

The coronavirus crisis has not only shone a spotlight on the deep inequalities in our society and their deadly consequences, but deepened them. Deep inequalities scar our nation. As we come out of this pandemic, if we are to learn the lessons and build a more equal, less divided and more inclusive society, then we need to address decades of failing tax policy. Ensuring higher taxes on those on the very highest incomes has an important role to play in building that fairer society. Since Thatcher, the Tory mantra has been that low taxes on the rich benefit everyone, but years of keeping taxes low for the very rich did not in fact boost economic growth; instead, it allowed inequality to run completely out of control. That has been proven by new research by the London School of Economics and King’s College London showing that reducing taxes on the rich leads to higher income inequality that has an insignificant effect, in any positive fashion, on economic growth or unemployment.

In short, trickle-down economics has been a lie. Now is the time to acknowledge that and address it by creating a fairer tax system. My amendment calling for a new 55% income tax rate would target those on very high incomes of over £200,000 per year—the richest part of the top 1%, or about 300,000 people. The current highest income tax rate is just 45% for those earning above £150,000—not much more than for those earning £50,000. Yet 40 years ago the average top income tax rate for the wealthy OECD member countries was 62%. The top income tax was 60% even under Margaret Thatcher, so perhaps even the Thatcherites on the Government Benches will consider offering their support for the amendment. This increase would affect less than 1% of the population—about 200,000 people, according to HMRC.

There has been huge suffering in our society over the past year, yet the very wealthiest in our society—the billionaires and the super-rich—have exploited this crisis to further line their pockets. We cannot go on layering inequality on top of inequality. Now is the time to act. Publishing an assessment of the effect on tax revenues of introducing a 55% income tax rate on income over £200,000 would be an important stepping-stone towards building a fairer and better society. That is why I would like to press my new clause 7 to a vote.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I have only a few moments. The hon. Gentleman may speak later.

We will vote for our amendment and against the Bill, to make it clear to people in our country that we understand that people need to be spared the Bill’s tax rises; that Amazon does not need any favours; that NHS workers deserve our support, that we need good new jobs in every region in the nation; that the economy will grow only through responsible investment; and that we need to fix social care, the climate emergency and the housing crisis. Above all, people in our country need a Government who are on their side, and it is absolutely clear from the choices that the Bill and their Budget make, and the problems that they choose to ignore, that this Government fail that test.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now go to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I, too, pay tribute to Prince Philip; in tribute to him, I am wearing my father’s tie. Like Prince Philip, he served in the Royal Navy in the second world war. He lost his own father at the age of 12; Philip was, of course, estranged from his father at 13. Both fought the Nazis.

I mention this partly because the main conflict there was the battle of the Atlantic, which was the attempt by the Germans to starve Britain. In 1939, half our meat, 80% of our fruit and 70% of our cereals were imported. Last year, 80% of our food was imported. Thanks to the botched Brexit deal—there was no mention at all of this in the Budget—we now have the prospect of self-imposed food shortages. In January our exports to the EU, our largest market, were down more than 40%. Imports were down by 29%. They will go down more when we introduce non-tariff barriers. The reality is that in Britain today, a carrot pulled up in Spain on Monday could be on our shelves by Thursday. That will no longer be the case. We face the prospect of food shortages and food inflation.

The Office for Budget Responsibility found that the botched Brexit deal would cost the economy 4% within 15 years, and something like 1.4 million jobs and £1,300 each. The reason we are seeing tax increases, taking us to a share of taxes not seen since the 1960s, is not the pandemic, which is a one-off hit that will be recovered, but the ongoing problems of the botched Brexit. We need to remember that. We need to look towards better realignment and better trade with our closest marketplace.

The other thing to bear in mind is that last year something like 1 million people from the EU left this country to go back to Europe. Many will not come back, partly because of the hostile environment here, and that creates an issue about the size and quality of our labour market when it comes to productivity and production. The EU is already questioning the legality of our breaches of the Northern Ireland protocol and there is a question mark over divergence of standards and protections in the future that might lead to tariffs. If we manage this badly, we may be hit even harder.

For those on the Government Benches who say, “Oh, don’t worry—we’re opening up loads of other markets,” it is worth remembering that, the Japan deal, for example, is worth £1.5 billion to GDP, but if it had been done through the EU, it would have been worth £2.6 billion, because it can negotiate a better deal because it is bigger.

The truth is that while the Government are spending enormous amounts of money on covid, that is not really the explanation for the massive personal tax increases that Britain will suffer.

The other thing to mention about productivity, other than the loss of young workers to the EU, is that not only have we had the highest rate of death in the world from coronavirus, but there is clearly a move, once we have got people over 50 vaccinated, to be reckless again. The issue is the fall in productivity of younger people with long covid. We all know anecdotal examples, but we do not know the full impact of that. I have knowledge of music students, for instance, who have had a shake—a violinist—or who cannot blow the trumpet as well because they have lost lung capacity. These issues are significant for the overall productivity of our economy in the future.

On the workforce being fit and ready to work for our recovery, we should also think about the fact that in today’s Britain, 7.6 million people are living in hunger, 1.7 million of whom are children—it is an absolute disgrace. They are left in food insecurity, as the UN calls it and as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently reported. In essence, that means that they do not have sufficient nutritious food on a daily basis. That is deplorable.

Interestingly enough, in 1952, when the Queen came to the throne and Philip was 35, rationing was still in place for sugar, butter, meat, cooking fat, cheese and so on. In that year, Aneurin Bevan, the founder of the national health service, famously wrote “In Place Of Fear”, in which he warned that while we had to confront poverty and that it was difficult to define, the basic requirement was to ensure that there was no hunger. He warned that if millions were left in hunger, our civilisation would be at risk. It is certainly the case that we now face a depleted, physically weakened and hungry workforce. That surely is not the recipe for the productive economy that we need for the future. On top of that, our youngsters have lost a year in education—[Interruption.] I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Government say that they have spent a lot on coronavirus and of course they have, but we have read in the newspapers and elsewhere that, in many cases, the money has not been well spent—personal protective equipment, track and trace and food parcels that have been done through Tory party dealers. We have also heard about David Cameron being involved with Greensill. There are question marks about how well this Government are treating taxpayers’ money.

When it comes to the Chancellor, of course we know that he was a founding partner of the hedge fund, Theleme, which presumably had a partner stake. We do not know about that because those tax returns and details are in the Cayman Islands, but we do know that that particular hedge fund appreciated in value from something like £7 billion to £39 billion shortly after we heard news that the Health Secretary had ordered 5 million doses of the Moderna vaccine, in which the hedge fund had invested. We do need to get to the bottom of these things and find out what happened. If it was the case, for example, that the Chancellor had, say, 15% of that hedge fund, his share of that increase—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I do think it is quite important that we address some of the issues in the Finance Bill, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be doing that.

[Geraint Davies]

Thank you very much for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just going to turn to the nurses’ pay increase. Had the nurses been granted a 5% increase in pay in this Budget, that would have cost £1.7 billion gross, but in fact, after looking at the recovery of taxes from both income tax and sales tax—consumer tax—we see that it would have cost just £330 million a year. On my calculation, that is about a 10th of the value of the appreciation in the hedge fund that I was mentioning—the 15%—that would have been privately earned by the Chancellor. Obviously, we need to have these figures disclosed. I am trying to put in context the fact that we can afford to pay the nurses a decent wage. There are tremendous amounts of money moving around at the moment and we do not really have a proper tie on it.

We should contrast that with what is happening in Wales, where we have a more effective system of track and trace, PPE is bought more effectively, food parcels are not bought privately but down to local authorities, and the sickness rate and death rate from coronavirus are much lower. We should contrast it with the way that money has been invested to help business. The Chancellor has put money into cutting stamp duty, and lots of that has been spent on second homes—but not in Wales—because that money is not well targeted where it is needed. Money has been given to large businesses with large properties, but again not in Wales, where the larger supermarket stores with big properties will not get the council tax relief because they are making extra-normal profits during coronavirus. The issue is investing money where it is most needed.

Turning back to the nurses, in Wales we have the highest proportion of single earner households in the country and the lowest average wage, which is 70% of gross value added in terms of the UK average. These people might include a nurse as the only earner in a poor household who has faced nearly 10 years of pay freezes and now another pay cut. It is no surprise that nurses are going to food banks. These things are not necessary; they are political choices. I am just drawing the contrast between those who have so much and those who have not enough.

Mention has been made of Amazon and the fact that it and others have basically decimated our physical retail side. There are questions about what should be done about that. In my view, local authorities should be empowered to provide digital marketplaces to support local businesses to sell to local people with overnight delivery so that people would have a choice between sending their money offshore to some huge American organisation that does not pay tax, is destroying local jobs and undermining workers and supporting local businesses through a collective approach with a modernised online service.

We have of course elections coming up, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and people are making these financial choices and comparisons—including, in Wales, those aged 16 to 18. In this Budget, prescription charges in England are now going up to £9.35, whereas in Wales people do not pay for prescriptions. In Wales, we have ensured greater safety by giving advice that people do not travel more than four or five miles, whereas in England people could go wherever they liked. In Wales, a two-metre rule was put into legislation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. May I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman again and say that we really need to address the Finance Bill? I think the feeling is that perhaps he might be bringing his remarks to a close fairly shortly.

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, that is my feeling as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply making the case that owing to a more cautious approach in terms of coronavirus, we have got to a situation where productivity is better supported.

I will bring my remarks to a close as you suggest, only finally to say that we need to do more on the issue of climate change and the environment, because 64,000 people a year are dying from air pollution, while nothing has been done about diesel or accelerating towards electrification. We need to look at a different approach whereby we can generate growth and opportunity for the future.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross]

The Minister outlines the figures excellently. I know that my own parents have benefited—they have been vaccinated in the Fiona Elcock centre in Elgin. People across Moray and across Scotland have benefited because of the vaccine roll-out in the UK and in Scotland. I want to reiterate that the two debates from the SNP today have been all about division and arguments about the past, with no positive vision for the future. The Scottish Conservatives are determined over the next seven weeks that we focus on Scotland’s recovery and on building back better than before this pandemic struck. We will be supporting jobs and livelihoods and communities right across Scotland. The SNP just want more division and I think that people across Scotland are beginning to realise that after 14 years of failure we can do so much better than that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I would like to try to get as many people in as possible, so after the next speaker I will take the time limit down to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As number 39 has withdrawn, the final speaker before the winding-up speeches will be James Daly.

Government's Management of the Economy

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I think Conservative Members must be living in some kind of alternative universe, because this Government have presided over the highest death toll in Europe and the worst economic recession of any G7 country. This was not an accident. It was not inevitable, and it did not need to happen this way. The 10 richest men in the world have seen their wealth increase by £400 billion during this pandemic—enough, says Oxfam, to prevent the world from falling into poverty because of the virus and to pay for vaccines for all. However, instead, the vast majority of us have been forced by this Government to pay the price, with a £20 cut in universal credit, a hike in council tax, and a pay freeze for our key workers. At the same time, billions have been squandered on private firms that have failed to provide a functioning test-and-trace system and have made a profit out of poverty. This Government have spent nearly £2 billion on crony contracts, taking public money away from local authorities that are more capable of delivering the vital services we need during the pandemic and instead giving it to their mates, who have inevitably failed to deliver. This is proof that the Government are the party of the bosses and the billionaires, not the workers as they keep telling us.

We are now staring down the barrel of the worst recession for 300 years—and why is that? Let us not forget that it was the Tories who dragged our country through over 10 years of ideologically driven austerity that undermined our economy, society and the public sector, and left us vulnerable to this crisis. The numbers in precarious work and on zero-hours contracts have gone through the roof, and the obscene practice of fire and rehire is now being increasingly used by unscrupulous employers to force their staff into low wages, work terms and conditions, and longer hours, essentially doing more for less.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about Kevin, a striker in the British Gas dispute and one of my constituents, who has kindly agreed to share his story. Kevin is a British Gas engineer who has spent the last few months standing on a picket line. I send my full support and solidarity to him and all the British Gas strikers who have just finished their latest round of industrial action, and urge Chris O’Shea to get around the negotiating table and treat these workers with the respect and dignity they deserve. They went back into work and put themselves at risk of covid to ensure that homes had heat and power. Kevin tells me that he is proud to have done this work because that is what engineers do—“It’s what we do.”

As British Gas is successful in forcing through these cuts to terms and conditions, we risk a domino effect putting hundreds of thousands more jobs at risk of having their terms and conditions undercut. This would further weaken our economy and our society, continuing an economic policy agenda that left our country and economy so vulnerable to the virus in the first place. We need to take decisive action to address the deep inequalities and injustices in this country. I call on Members to support this motion so that we can begin to reverse the damage done by the last decade of draconian economic policies—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I have to ask the hon. Lady to finish because we have one more Back-Bench speaker—Jim Shannon.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]]

The thrust of the Bill is long overdue and much needed, and to that extent, it should be welcomed. For far too long, an artificial and arbitrary barrier has been put in front of women who wish to serve their constituents in government. It has been a case of naked discrimination hiding in plain sight. By allowing the Prime Minister to designate a Minister on leave, we will in some respects be bringing the world of public office in line with the world of work. It should go without saying that we should be an exemplar of workplace rights, but in truth, this place has all too often treated the many women elected to it as an irritant or an afterthought.

I still have many reservations about the Bill. Why, for instance, have the Government wasted this opportunity by making the Bill applicable only to Cabinet-level positions? If we want to see a Government and legislature that reflect our wider society, they must be a welcoming place for all those who work across them. The Government should revisit that aspect of the Bill and correct it immediately because, by continuing with such glaring gaps in the system, we are sending out a dangerous message to employees across the UK. We are saying that it is okay to think of women as secondary to the needs of the organisation, that a token effort is effort enough, that protecting the management is a job well done and that women should be grateful for whatever small breaks are afforded them. That type of thinking leads us further down a path where women are de facto excluded from decision-making roles and positions of power, while needlessly snuffing out the aspirations of future generations.

It is all well and good speaking in abstracts, but for me, this Bill is also very personal. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am both an expectant first-time mother and a first-time MP. When I stood for election, I did so because I wanted to do right by my constituents in Parliament and to stand up for a set of principles that should transcend party politics. And yet, as a Member of Parliament, with all the vast opportunity and privilege that that affords me, I am scared. I am scared about taking informal maternity leave when my baby arrives in two months; it is informal as there is no formalised maternity leave for Back-Bench MPs. I am scared that it will be used against me politically and, most depressing of all, I am scared that, beneath the warm words of good luck and congratulations, some Members will take a dim view of my taking maternity leave at all.

Today we need to fix immediately the fundamental failing of the Bill before us, even while accepting its fundamental necessity. We must view this as a chance not to fix a problem for a Minister but to right a wrong for countless women—Members and staff—and start changing the culture around maternity rights in this place. We can send a signal to all employers that this is not just the right thing to do here; it is simply the right thing to do. That is where the majority of the country is. It is time that Parliament starts to follow in the nation’s footsteps and recognise the huge benefit that women bring to this workplace and countless others.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, and I would like to offer, on behalf of everyone here, our sincerest congratulations and warmest wishes to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

First of all, I add my congratulations to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).

As so many other right hon. and hon. Members have said in this debate, I find myself both supporting and welcoming this Bill, and at the same time being astonished at its shortcomings. Before being elected, it would never have occurred to me that representatives in this place did not have the basic provisions for parental leave that I had taken for granted during my career. Indeed, my daughter is now 24, and I was taken aback in 2017-18 when one of the first changes we discussed in the House after my election was about proxy voting for Members who were pregnant, and about maternity and paternity leave. I discovered that parents in the House did not enjoy the same rights that I had had more than two decades before, so while I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues support this Bill, we are disappointed yet again that it lacks provisions for paternity leave and other parental rights. It does not, for example, address rights for adoptive parents, and how someone becomes a parent should not determine what leave they are entitled to.

This was, as I say, a missed opportunity: an opportunity for the Government to bring parental rights up to date, and to introduce not just measures for Ministers, but measures that apply to all MPs. This place should not just pass legislation, but set a tone for so much in our society. Gender equality is something on which we should be taking a lead, not running to catch up, as we seem to be. Work practices such as shared parental leave are vital to creating new cultural norms and achieving that gender equality, but how can we expect that to happen if we do not, as I say, set the standard ourselves? As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out, if we get it wrong here, that will be reflected across the country. That is why I have signed, and support, the hon. Member’s amendment requiring the Government to produce an equalities impact assessment of these proposals. As has been mentioned, even well-intentioned legislation can, if it is rushed through, fail to recognise pitfalls. So please, let us not fall into one or fail on that account.

It is vital that the Government recognise that the Bill cannot be seen in a vacuum. It is certainly an important measure, but we must also send a message across the country and ensure that it is the correct message. It must send out a national call to action to protect the rights of all parents in all workplaces during these most difficult and challenging times.

There is still much more we need to do for parents. We need to increase statutory paternity leave, ensure that parental leave is a day one right and address the continuing inequalities that same-sex couples face. Organisations and employers must be required to publish parental leave and pay policies.

Like so many—indeed, all, I believe—of the speakers we have heard so far, I welcome the Bill. It has simply been too long delayed and does not go far enough.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid that we need to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople after the next speaker.