Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out from “House” to end, and add

“declines to approve for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 the Government’s assessment of the medium term economic and fiscal position as set out in the latest Budget document and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent Economic and Fiscal outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, because it does not contain detailed analysis of the impact of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Framework for the Future Relationship with the EU on the UK’s economic and fiscal position; and calls on the Government to publish an assessment containing that analysis immediately.”.

I was curious to hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury start by saying she is so glad that this is the last statement she will ever have to make to the EU. I cannot agree, and the Scottish National party cannot agree either. It is surreal to be standing here days from the original day of departure from the EU attempting to fulfil this legal obligation as though things were business as usual. These past few days prove beyond any doubt that we could not be any further from business as usual in this House; we are absolutely through the looking glass. Events are developing every day around what kind of country we are going to be left with; there are grave concerns about the future from every aspect of civic society. So I certainly do not share the Chief Secretary’s optimism that there is a bright future ahead.

The Chief Secretary talked about young people. Young people are the most pro-EU group in this country, and it is their future that this Government want to take away, so shame on her for not recognising the limitations that young people will face when they want to set up businesses, when they want to trade with the EU, when they want to travel and advance their education and opportunities in life.

I do not wish by way of proposing the amendment to diminish the work that the Office for Budget Responsibility does. My colleagues on these Benches and I will always welcome efforts to make public accounts more transparent and independent. The OBR has conducted this analysis rightfully and properly within its remit, but unfortunately this is precisely the reason why the SNP cannot support the approval of this statement tonight: because the OBR can only make forecasts on the basis of stated Government policy regardless of whether the policy is likely to be achieved or, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, whether it is his party against the Government, or whether in fact the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is now the Prime Minister, because who knows? It is a Dorset thing; Dorset is leading the rebellion against their own Government. That is very interesting—and I see how happy the hon. Member for North Dorset is to be doing so. It is an absolute shambles when a Member who ought to be supporting the Government ends up leading the charge against them—although that is not at all uncommon these days; it is part of the whole madness of this Government.

The latest OBR fiscal sustainability report was published on 17 July 2018. It does not reflect the reality of the Prime Minister’s proposed deal, which was published much later, on 25 November 2018. In the OBR’s outline of the assumptions made in its economic and fiscal outlook, it is clear that the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU are unclear and that there is “no meaningful basis” on which to predict the nature of the relationship between the UK and EU. That is the situation in which we have we remained.

I checked and I have £3.52 in my purse and I would be as well throwing it down the stank as putting it on any outcome of the UK leaving the EU, so it would be an understatement to say that I could find it risky to endorse a fiscal spending plan based on one assumption of our future relationship with Europe. It is ludicrous for MPs to be asked to approve this motion without having any sight of any analysis of the Prime Minister’s deal. It is our job in this place as MPs to scrutinise the UK Government, but we are not being given the opportunity to do so effectively.

The Prime Minister has said that such an analysis of her deal does exist. She confirmed it in a letter to my colleague, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), so why will the Prime Minister not share the details of that analysis with the House? Is it because she knows, as we all know, that the economists are right and her deal will be bad for GDP, public finances and the living standards of all our constituents?

GDP growth has gone from being the highest in the G7 before the EU referendum to the lowest today. Imports have been slower than for other G7 countries, despite an unprecedented drop in the value of sterling, and it is interesting that for some time now the exchange rate on the cash machines at Glasgow airport, which I see when I come down to London every week, has been taken off, because nobody would take any money out if they saw how dreadful it was.

Inward and outward foreign direct investment have dropped, with some analysis suggesting that the drop in inward FDI is as much as 19% compared with a no-Brexit scenario, and we are starting to see job losses on a regular basis across these islands. It is no coincidence that this is happening. The Brexit job loss index says that more than 200,000 jobs have been lost already, without the UK having even left. In a no-deal scenario, Scotland can expect to lose 100,000 jobs, according to research by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which is based in my constituency. Speaking of my constituency, I recall hearing from a significant business there on Friday afternoon. It says that it is going down from a five-day week to a four-day week, that it has laid off temporary staff and that it is losing orders because of the uncertainty of this Government. It is unacceptable that businesses the length and breadth of these islands are being put into this position because of an internal dispute within the Tory party.

The OBR has not explicitly modelled the effects of a no-deal Brexit on the economy, but the London School of Economics has suggested that if the UK Government were to stick to their frankly unreasonable targets for reducing net migration, it would not be unreasonable to expect a long-term decline in output and productivity. The UK Government’s shambolic Brexit deal would also be hugely damaging, because EU nationals contribute hugely to our society and our economy. The Government’s aim to reduce the number of EU nationals here by 80% would have a massive impact on the UK’s economy, on population growth and, quite frankly, on our ability to survive as a country. The Government do not want poor people to have children—they have brought in the two-child limit—and they do not want people to come to this country and build their lives here, but we have an ageing population. Where do they think we are going to get the people from? I have absolutely no idea, and neither do they.

On top of all this, income inequality has risen since the Brexit vote to the extent that on two occasions the OBR could not predict the levels of tax that the Treasury was going to receive from the 1% in society. The tax windfall that the Chancellor is celebrating is not a sign that the economy performing well; it is a sign of deep-seated inequality, which is worsening under the UK Tory Government.

[Peter Dowd]

I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an extra £5 billion will be required to maintain services in line with population growth, along with an appropriate number of people to support those services.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely correct. Without people, the economy will falter. That is the economic reality.

The Resolution Foundation has said that the income tax take is up 8% so far this year, but that that is coming from the very highest earners. The wages at the bottom continue to stagnate. If the OBR cannot openly predict the short-term economic performance, it is unreasonable to ask the House to sign off on its guidance. It is more difficult now for families to survive on the money they have. Since the vote, the cost of bread is up 11%, the cost of butter is up 23% and the cost of milk is up 11%—and we still have not left the EU. If people cannot afford to put bread and butter on the table, this economy is heading for the drain.

It is a well-established fact that Scotland did not vote for or particularly want to leave the EU. I checked just before I stood up to speak, and 13,920 of my constituents have now signed the petition to revoke article 50. The Prime Minister has consistently ignored attempts by the Scottish Parliament to find any kind of compromise solution, such as staying in the customs union and the single market, which would limit the damage of this hard Tory Brexit. If she wants to drag Scotland out of the EU against its will, she should have the bottle to come to this House and present the analysis that she says exists. She should have the courage to tell people that it will cost jobs and businesses and that she cannot make guarantees about the future.

If the Prime Minister does not believe that her Brexit deal can stand up to scrutiny in this House, the UK Government need to face up to reality and ditch Brexit altogether by revoking article 50. They are throwing good money after bad on no-deal planning, on fridges, on staged traffic jams and on botched ferry contracts, when they could be spending that money on lifting the awful austerity cuts that we have seen over the past nine years. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talks about going round the country and listening to people’s public spending priorities, but I bet none of them talked about spending £33 million on Eurotunnel due to the shambles created by the Secretary of State for Transport, or about the £1 billion to bribe the Democratic Unionist party in an attempt to keep the Government in power.

Day after day in my constituency, I see the impact of this Government’s callous approach to cost-cutting. I see the benefits freeze, which is expected to cost families £800 a year, on top of the £900 a year that the Bank of England says Brexit is already costing every family. I see the two-child policy, which leaves families nearly £3,000 a year worse off if they have a third child and which makes a woman with three children on a 16-hour contract work the equivalent of 45 hours to make up the difference. I also see the thousands of pounds a year being lost by the WASPI women who are no longer entitled to their side of the pension bargain, having had their pensions cruelly stolen by previous Governments and by this one as well. How can any Minister look the population in the eye and say, “There is no money for you,” when the Government are asking us to sign a blank cheque for a hard Brexit?

I am a lifelong campaigner for Scottish independence and scarcely have I seen a clearer case for it than the shambles of the Conservatives and the incompetence of the Labour party in opposing them. The UK Government’s incompetence is changing hearts and minds all over Scotland on the merits of independence, and I hope that there will soon be an opportunity for the people of Scotland to take matters into their own hands.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Peter Dowd

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right, and the reality is that we are not going to get it from the Conservative party—it is as simple as that. It seems incapable of doing anything that is in any way constructive for the social fabric of our country.

The Government now pick and choose whichever target provides cover for their devastating treatment of children across the UK, including—when it suits them—using the very targets that they themselves scrapped. That is why new clause 1 is so important. The Government can no longer be allowed to ignore the plight of millions of children across the country.

The statistics do not lie. They show quite clearly that, prior to the Conservative Government coming to power in 2010 with their Liberal Democrat partners, child poverty in the UK was falling. The new Social Metrics Commission, which draws on the widest possible set of poverty measures, states concretely that there are now half a million more children living in relative poverty than there were just five years ago. The whole country knows that austerity is to blame, and we all know who introduced austerity—it was the Government.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I completely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that the two-child cap, which will apply to all new universal credit claimants from 1 February this year, and other measures that the Government are pushing mean that up to an additional 3 million children will apparently go into poverty?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady is right. The Government appear to want to put misery upon misery on families and children.

Despite the claims from Conservative Members, austerity was not some necessity nobly chosen by the Government of the day, but a political and ideological choice—it is as simple as that. If it was the only option, why did the United States not embark on a similar venture? Why did the likes of Germany and France not undertake a similar level of spending cuts, or Japan, or, for that matter, Australia? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are chuntering, but those are the questions that we need answering.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Thewliss]

The arguments are as compelling today as they were in 2015, in 2012, or at any other point. The coincidence of it having to be done for certain fire services in certain combined authorities in England and Wales makes the case that this should have been done all along.

We welcome this measure. We tabled our new clause, which we will press to a vote at the appropriate stage, because we would like to see some more detail about the administrative consequences and the impact on revenue of allowing retrospective claims. We know that the Government will do things in retrospect—other parts of the Bill enable them to enforce regulations relating to tax avoidance and claim money back in retrospect—so there is no argument that moneys cannot be claimed back if people should have known about them before. The Government are willing to make allowances and make changes if there are things that people might or might not have reasonably known. They have made such changes in other parts of the Finance Bill. We have received lots of correspondence from people who feel as though they have been hard done by a measure the Government are introducing now, which they see as retrospective and unfair. If the Government are allowing retrospective measures elsewhere, why will they not allow it here so that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland get the money they have been due all along?

[Peter Dowd]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to allow the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to claim retrospective VAT funds. The measures in the clause follow the Scottish Government’s decision in 2012 to establish a nationwide fire and rescue service for Scotland. The Treasury Minister at the time, now the Justice Secretary, wrote:

“Based on the information currently available it seems that, following the Scottish government's planned reforms, neither the new police authority nor the fire and rescue service will be eligible for VAT refunds under Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994.”

That Government decision meant that the Scottish police and fire services lost out on VAT refunds worth more than £30 million, of which Scottish police forces lost out on about £26 million. As a former chair of a fire and rescue service, long before the cuts to those services, I have to say that this amount of money would have been a strain even in those days. It is even more stressful now, so I can understand the anxieties and concerns of the Scottish Government.

To some extent, one could argue that it is a sign of recklessness that, in a time of austerity, the Government would effectively leave Scottish firefighters and police officers to fend for themselves. The Opposition therefore welcome the Government’s decision to reconsider their position, and to allow the Scottish police forces and fire services to retroactively reclaim the VAT—particularly given that the Minister’s reasoning at the time for denying Scottish police and fire services access to the funds was insubstantial at best. At times, it seemed to me and to other onlookers potentially malicious. I think that was the perception that people had at the time.

The then chief constable of Scotland, Sir Stephen House, when he testified to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament last year, said that he was bewildered by the fact that the Scottish police force was the only police force charged VAT, as none of the 43 police forces pay VAT, and neither does the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the National Crime Agency, both of which are centralised agencies.

The Government’s decision to allow the Scottish police and fire services to claim retrospectively should not be controversial, even if it has taken a little time to get here. The Government have acted a number of times in the past to ensure that public authorities do not pay VAT, which is laudable. A number of Governments have done that, in fact. In 2001, the last Labour Government introduced a scheme to allow eligible museums and galleries to claim back VAT paid on most goods and services purchased, in order to grant free rights of admission to their collections. In 2011, the coalition Government introduced provisions as part of the Finance Act 2011 to ensure that academies, which supply free education but are not under local authority control—the phrase “under local authority control” is a misnomer if ever there was one, but it is important to use the language that people use, so we all know what we are talking about—were allowed to recover their VAT costs in the same way as local authorities. Similarly, in the March 2015 Budget, the coalition Government announced that from 1 April 2015, hospice charities, search and rescue charities and blood bike charities would be entitled to recover VAT incurred on their business activities, so there is a fairly well-trodden path regarding this issue.

Although we welcome the Government’s change of heart, allowing the Scottish fire and police forces to reclaim VAT retroactively is a drop in the ocean compared with the levels of gross underfunding and cuts to police and fire services across the country, including services in Scotland. New figures obtained by the Fire Brigades Union show that almost one in five frontline fire service posts—some 11,000 jobs—have been lost since 2010, which is a post-war record of job losses in that crucial service. That is all the more reason why this money should come back to those services. Since 2010, almost 8,000 full-time firefighter jobs have been loss. Fire safety inspections have fallen by 28% since the Government came to power, which is all the more reason why this retrospective or retroactive decision should be put into effect. The general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union said that

“Continued cuts to frontline firefighters and emergency fire control operators…are a serious threat to public safety.”

That is worrying.

The VAT refunds, although welcome, will not stop the deeper cuts to the fire service that are currently taking place, resulting in significantly fewer firefighters across the whole country. It is increasingly clear that VAT refunds will not prevent cuts in the service. As far as I can gather, the Prime Minister oversaw that when she was the Home Secretary. This may be the hand of the Prime Minister seeking some sort of retribution—on herself, perhaps—or rather, putting paid to past decisions.

To sum up, we welcome the proposals, but it would be helpful if the Minister could offer some examples where the grant could be claimed and what the criteria would be for things such as rescue charities hoping to access the grant as well. It is regrettable the Government have chosen to spend the last four years playing politics with the Scottish police and fire services. I hope the measure will ensure that VAT on every penny the police and fire services in Scotland spend will be refunded and that the Minister, at the same time, will ask his Government colleagues to look at the state of police and fire services right across the country.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Peter Dowd

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

The measures in clause 26 are aimed at aligning and consolidating tax and accounts. This clause will freeze the indexation allowance currently in place for companies’ gains that are chargeable to corporation tax. As things stand, companies do not have to pay tax on the proportion of their capital gains attributable to inflation. Instead, as hon. Members know, what happens is that when calculating a gain on the disposal of an asset, companies apply an indexation factor on the acquisition, enhancement or disposal of the asset that reflects movements in the retail prices index over the period since the expenditure occurred.

This system is different from the treatment of individual taxpayers, for whom the allowance was first frozen in March 1998 and then abolished in April 2008. That prompts the question: why was the allowance for companies not reformed and abolished at the same time, to avoid the situation that we have had for the past nine years, whereby there has been one set of rules for individual taxpayers and another for companies? However, we are where we are. It is another example of a needless complication in the tax system that causes problems for lawmakers, tax accountants, financial advisers, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and taxpayers alike.

The indexation allowance is in effect a tax relief from capital gains tax on inflation. The allowance may have been minimal before the drop in the pound, but with inflation at 2.8%, 3% and so on, it is potentially becoming a substantial amount of money. According to the Treasury’s estimates, the change could be a significant revenue raiser. It estimates that it will raise £30 million this year alone, and that that will go up to £525 million for 2022-23. Of course, that revenue would be a welcome addition to the public coffers, but we have a degree of scepticism about the figures, because in the past we have had from the Government figures and costings for measures that have been out of kilter quite heavily.

The most recent example was the revenue to be raised from the soft drinks industry levy, which was introduced in the first Finance Bill last year. Hon. Members may recall that that was dealt with in the wash-up. Opposition Members agreed to it going through its stages pretty smoothly. We always have concerns when there is a question about whether we can sufficiently challenge Government proposals, but as this was the sugar tax, and it was not just a tax-raising measure but had broader public health benefits, we were happy to allow it to go through. It was suggested in the draft proposals that the levy would raise an ambitious £520 million. However, the Chancellor announced in the 2017 spring Budget that its estimated revenue had been revised down to £380 million, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in December, on the basis of the Government’s Red Book for the autumn Budget, that it would raise only £300 million. That is a whopping £220 million less than the Government’s original forecast, and a further £80 million less than the revised figure that the Chancellor provided in the spring Budget.

It is important for us to be clear. If the Government provide us with figures—I believe that they did so in good faith—we have a duty to challenge them. That miscalculation—I use that word rather than any other—only adds to the growing hole in the public finances. It is important for us to challenge the Government’s figures and assumptions.

That is why the Opposition tabled amendment 48, which would require the Government to commission a review of the revenue effects of freezing the indexation allowance for gains chargeable to corporation tax. I am sure that the Minister is sympathetic to our concern that some companies may still seek a way round the change, rather than paying an increasing amount on the inflationary element of gains. The amendment is an attempt by the Opposition to say, “Fine, the Government’s indexation proposal is okay—but let’s test the figures a little more.” Let us have a review. Let us ensure that we are not in the same situation as we were with the soft drinks levy, which does not raise as much revenue as we thought it might.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware that the insurance industry has raised concerns about the impact of the clause on fairly small savers, such as people with endowments that were sold door to door. There is a report on the BBC website that quotes Steve Webb, a former Minister who now works with Royal London, on the impact that the clause will have on Royal London’s savers. Standard Life is also reported to have concerns. We are therefore not entirely content with the clause. We will not oppose it at this stage, but we reserve the right to look at it again on Report.

We would like the Government to address the industry’s concerns, and I have a few questions for the Minister. It is estimated that the clause will affect 11.6 million policyholders, most of whom are basic rate taxpayers, and the industry estimates that the impact will be in excess of £250 million per year—double the figure implied by the Chancellor at the Treasury Committee in December. Individual life insurance policyholders may pay an average of £21, and in some cases up to £150, per policy per annum. That is a considerable impact given that such people have relatively small savings.

The Chancellor said in December in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who sits on the Treasury Committee, that the change will have a “modest impact”, but that is not a modest impact for those savers—it is significant. The policies that the clause will affect include non-pension unit-linked, non-pension with-profits and whole-of-life policies, as well as endowments, which I mentioned. On what basis did the Government reach the conclusion that the change will have a modest impact and affect a relatively small number of policyholders? We are talking about 11.6 million people—not a small number by any manner or means. Those policies may represent a relatively small amount of money to the Government, but the change will have a significant impact for those people.

Have the Government made an assessment of the number of policies affected? Have they produced a detailed impact assessment that can be shared with members of the Committee? Will the Minister commit to providing further information on the impact of the policy on individual savers? The coverage in newspapers at the time of the Budget and since raises concerns that more policyholders will be affected than the Government at first assumed.

I would like as much clarification as the Minister can give us today. If he could write to me later with more detailed information, that would also be welcome. We want to put on record our concerns about the impact there might be; perhaps there will be unintended consequence, and maybe the impact has not been fully considered. Given the concerns that the industry is raising, it would be good get a commitment from the Government on how those will be addressed.