Energy (oil and gas) profits levy

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

Anyone who looks at the autumn statement and sees it for what it is understands that poverty will increase as a direct result. The decision to increase benefits by 10.1% next year does not match the rate of inflation, which is 11.1% in the most recent monthly data. Millions of the poorest in our country will still face a fall in spending power as inflation soars. This follows years of cuts to the real value of benefits that affect the lives of 9 million households; and, particularly for some Government Members and members of the press who like to demonise people on benefits, I point out that 7 million of those households include someone who is in work. The situation is even worse than the headline inflation data suggest. The Office for National Statistics estimates that consumer price inflation is actually higher for lower income groups—11.9% for those in the second income decile, and a truly shocking 12.5% for those in the very lowest. So as a result of the decisions on benefits, the very poorest will get even poorer.

The picture is similar for the minimum wage, which Conservatives continue to falsely claim is the national living wage. This was not, as the Chancellor claimed, a generous offer. A rise of 9.7% is also below inflation and way below the inflation rate for the poorest. The Real Living Wage Foundation says that a living wage worthy of the name would be £10.90 across the country, and in London it would need to be £11.95 per hour to take account of the higher costs of living in the capital. So the announcement in the autumn statement was in fact a real-terms cut that leaves the lowest paid workers worse off and still struggling for a wage they can actually live on.

Much of the excess—not all—relates to the cost of housing, either rent or mortgage. We all know very well the damage this Government have already caused in terms of mortgage costs, but we have yet to hear Ministers apologise for their actions during this debacle, which is their responsibility and theirs alone. The Government seem to treat people like my constituents in Streatham as though they are all junior investment bankers or recently hired City lawyers, who are taking their first steps on the housing ladder that leads to a lovely town house worth millions somewhere in central London—but they are not. They are young people living together in cramped accommodation because they cannot afford to pay rents, or families who have just seen their mortgage interest payments shoot up because of the actions of this Government; or they are simply forced to live at home, unable to pay for a place of their own.

In fact, this Government’s whole propaganda campaign on levelling up never included the poorest in London. How can there be levelling up when the poorest are made even poorer by this statement and when the cost of living is being made unbearable by the direct actions of this Government? We should not be surprised by this con, because we know what the Prime Minister thinks about the reality of levelling up. He was caught on camera boasting that he had redirected funding from deprived urban areas to well-to-do areas.

Most notably, the statement did not once mention the disastrous impact of Brexit. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), said that no one wanted to talk about Brexit, but I do. I remain proud of my decision to vote against the implementation agreement—not a deal. Contrary to what was said repeatedly in this House, no deal was put before us in December 2020. We, the representatives of the people of this country, were not given a say in the details of the deal, and we were given no meaningful vote on it. Instead, we were presented with a shoddy implementation agreement at the eleventh hour, strong-armed again into being for or against, and threatened with crashing out of the EU without a deal.

What do we have to show for Brexit? Spiralling inflation, travel chaos, labour shortages, crops rotting in the fields, a significant reduction to British exports, a loss of work and opportunities due to visa restrictions, food prices hiked up in our supermarkets, and the sharpest fall in living standards on record—and that is not even all of it. Whether people voted to leave or whether, like most of the people in my constituency, they voted to remain, nobody voted for this. We can no longer hide behind the economic effects of the pandemic when all the other G7 countries have bounced back and ours is the only country with a smaller economy now and is set to have the lowest growth in the G20 bar Russia. Yet the Chancellor was arrogant enough to come to the House and pretend that Brexit had nothing to do with the situation we find ourselves in.

If the people of this country are the most important thing in this country, then there is no patriotism and certainly no freedom in the inept economic policies the Government have inflicted on all of us. Brexit has been a complete and utter disaster, and if the Government do not address it there will be a reckoning. In the meantime, the average person in this country is left to pay the price.

[Jonathan Gullis]

The hon. Lady is giving a very passionate defence of why she believes Brexit to be a disaster. Obviously, I think differently. If Labour was in Government, would she be giving the same speech to her Front Bench?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I believe the hon. Member does not know me very well. I would be giving exactly the same speech.

I could say much more about the reinforcement of entrenched discrimination that the Government have carried out and which the statement exacerbates, but in conclusion, the vulnerable have not been protected by the Government and the statement has made them even worse off.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, and of course the hon. Member is right. The new clause’s proposal is not revolutionary; it is common sense. It is joined-up Government and application of the principle of trying to ensure benefits for British-based seafarers from the growth predicted for the maritime sector, particularly in relation to zero-carbon and offshore. That is particularly important, given that the Government could seek to use clause 25 to attract more flags of convenience into the tonnage tax scheme. Tonnage tax is a tax break that has already provided £2.165 billion in relief from corporation tax for UK and international ship owners.

In truth, the new clause would be a modest change. The real measure required to boost seafarer jobs and training, including in some of our most deprived coastal communities—including mine—would be a new mandatory link to ratings training, as well as officer cadet training, as advocated by the ratings’ union, the RMT. I do not propose that, however, because that is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Amendment 34, which is linked to new clause 2, seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to consult maritime trade unions over compliance with environmental safety and working conditions on non-UK flagships in the tonnage tax scheme. That would be consistent with the minimum standards on seafarer safety that everyone in the House would seek to support and which are part of the maritime labour convention to which the UK Government are a signatory along with all other maritime nations. I could say a little more but time is short, so, in the interests of progress, I shall leave it at that.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 7, on equality impact analyses. The Government’s efforts to date on equality impact assessments overall have been woeful. There should not be a need for me to speak to any detail of the new clause. We cannot talk about sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, poverty and regional inequality properly without talking about the economy, because we know that structural inequality and discrimination hold many of our communities back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said, we have a right to know exactly who benefits from the Government’s policy agenda, but their continued refusal to publish proper impact assessments for their Bills speaks for itself.

I want to emphasise how the Government and the Bill are deepening already existing inequalities. For all the talk of levelling up, the Government’s policies amount to a sharp widening of all types of inequality, which are already among the widest in western Europe.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the opening portion of the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), specifically where it states that he

“supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets”.

We should all support those aims. In this Parliament, we have a historical and moral responsibility in relation to the whole of Ireland, yet we debate Government policy on this matter too little. It is a reminder that both the Good Friday agreement and the protocol are solemn and binding international treaties. From a moral point of view, this country should uphold the treaties that it signs. Supporting our commercial and other self-interests also dictates that we should follow the spirit and letter of these treaties.

I am afraid to say, however, that the Government have not fully upheld either treaty. Please do not just take my word for it—this is what the EU negotiators and the US Government believe. Why else would they issue this country with a formal diplomatic reprimand or a démarche? Otherwise, most importantly, it is what parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly believe. They think that this Government are trying to rip up the Northern Ireland protocol, which is a part of the Brexit treaty. They believe, too, that the Government are behaving recklessly in terms of the effect of undermining the Good Friday agreement. They also think that if loyalists commit violence on the streets of Belfast and in other areas, they believe that they are encouraged by the British Government in their joint aim of tearing up the protocol. What other inference are they supposed to draw when Ministers go to Belfast, meet members of the Loyalist Communities Council and say afterwards that the protocol they signed is not sustainable in its current form?

The motion also talks of upholding the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, with which I wholeheartedly agree, but I think we may mean very different things by that. The Good Friday agreement is 23 years old, but large parts of it remain unimplemented. Where is the Bill of Rights that was promised? Where, too, is the recourse to the European convention on human rights in the courts of Northern Ireland that was also promised, or the convention’s full incorporation in British law, or the language Act? I could go on.

I fear that opponents of the protocol want to rip out one phrase of the Good Friday agreement regarding not changing the constitutional position without consent, but this cuts both ways. It was the determination of Government Members to have a disastrous Brexit that changed the constitutional position, and it was against the will of the people in Ireland who voted clearly to remain in the EU. Consent was not given. It is this Government who have upset the status quo, this Government who signed the treaty and this Government who now want to change elements they do not like. I am afraid that that is not how treaties work. If they continue to try to have their cake and eat it on the protocol, they will come up against opposition from Labour Members, the EU Commission, President Biden and from the people of Ireland.

In conclusion, the Prime Minister personally negotiated this protocol. He has a personal responsibility to make it work for communities, and the peace process must always come first, yet this Government’s actions repeatedly destabilise it. This is a reckless path and they should cease and desist.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend is right that local authorities have a very important role to play in this space. I am very pleased that he has actually read the recommendation and not just the reports about the report. Local authorities have played an important part in mitigating the disproportionate impact of covid on some ethnic minorities via the community champion scheme, for which we announced funding last autumn. With regard to his other comments, the Government response is not yet prepared; it will be coming in due course in the summer. We will consider the recommendation that he has made in the light of the full report.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

In her responses, the Minister repeatedly conflates disagreement with this report with misrepresentation or not having read the report, so let us draw a line under that—we have read it, but we know that institutional racism is still felt across every area of the UK and that there is no new story to tell about slavery and colonialism. She may disagree, but does she at least recognise and understand why people—more specifically the people this report is about—overwhelmingly see this report as steeped in denial and why it is viewed as a complete insult to those who have been the victims of institutional racism, such as black women, who are four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth? Does she recognise that denial is a core mechanism of institutional racism? Can she explain how she plans to push ahead with this report when it is so widely rejected by those it impacts?

[Kemi Badenoch]

If the hon. Lady reads beyond The Guardian and perhaps statements in the Morning Star, she will realise that the report has been welcomed by many, many organisations, not just the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but even the Royal College of Physicians and many more. I am not here to reel out a list of who supports the Government. It is interesting that she says that I confuse disagreement with divisiveness, because it was her colleague the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) who just stood up there and called people “racial gatekeepers”. I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees with that comment, which is unbelievably divisive rhetoric. What I would say to her is that she does not speak for all ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities are not uniquely left wing, and to claim that a report about black and brown people can only talk about issues from her perspective completely ignores the fact that there are many of us, of various skin colours—she can see my face and she knows I am a black woman, just like her—who disagree. We disagree. She raises the point about maternal health, and I would like to take the opportunity to make this point: in a debate on 11 March, she said that

“one in four black women dies in childbirth”.—[Official Report, 11 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 1089.]

That statistic, which thankfully she has now corrected, is completely wrong. The actual figure is not 25% of black women, but 0.34%. It is a very confusing statistic because we often represent the numbers in terms of numbers per 800,000.[Official Report, 27 April 2021, Vol. 693, c. 2MC.] What I have been doing is working on maternal health. I have spoken to the chief midwifery officer and to Dame Donna Kinnair, the head of the Royal College of Nursing; we in government have had conversations and they all accept that because the numbers are so small, it will often be very hard to target effectively, but that does not mean we will not try. We do have a maternal health strategy, which I know the hon. Lady has seen, and I wish that for once she would acknowledge the work that the Government have done, rather than repeating false statistics and pretending that nothing is happening, when that is far from the truth.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

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

[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.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

I speak in support of amendment 15 and new clause 8 in my name, and amendments and new clauses in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon).

My amendment 15 is tabled with the aim of highlighting the importance of the so-called £20 uplift for tax credit recipients from the covid-19 support scheme, and the damage that the Government’s decision to not continue this beyond September will cause. In March 2020, the Chancellor announced a temporary uplift of £20 per week to universal credit via the standard allowance of the working tax credit basic element for the 2020-21 financial year. A one-off payment is being made to tax credit recipients to cover a six-month period from April to September 2021 to continue this support.

As Members will know, payments from the covid-19 support scheme for working households receiving tax credits are being introduced under the Coronavirus Act 2020. Clause 31 introduces an exemption from income tax for payments made to tax credit recipients. My amendment 15 would require the Government to publish an equalities impact assessment of the provisions of clause 31, which must cover the impact of the provisions on households at different levels of income, people’s protected characteristics, equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England, and child poverty. That is because while the £20 per week top-up will temporarily be retained, helping some 6.5 million families for a further six months, this does not allay the fears that families will have going into next winter. Rather, it is clear to almost everyone—Action for Children, Child Poverty Action Group, Save the Children, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the trade union movement and so on—apart from the Government that the £20 increase and the associated tax relief, as per clause 31, should be made permanent and paid to all claimants, given that poverty levels were already too high pre-pandemic. Extending the £20 uplift is vital because struggling families cannot keep afloat without it, but that will be as true in six months as it is now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney [V]]

I wish to speak to clauses 6 and 7 relating to the rates of corporation tax and also to the super deduction.

Businesses everywhere, of all sizes and in many different sectors, have had an extremely challenging year. As we hopefully move into a time when business as usual can return, I know that Members in all parts of this House are united in wanting to support businesses to flourish once more. But this has also been a year of unprecedented demand on the public finances. Much of that money has been directed towards households in the shape of our furlough and SEISS schemes to ensure that incomes can be sustained and, in turn, to maintain revenue for those businesses providing essential services. Many businesses have seen increases in revenue this year as indirect competitors have been forced to close or prevented from making their goods and services available. Any business that provided a digital or delivery service found an unexpected increase in demand compared with those that provided an in-person service.

Why should the businesses that have profited from the pandemic not pay their share in restoring the public finances that have been expended on supporting us all through this difficult time? The Liberal Democrats have called for an excess profits, or windfall tax so that those businesses that have done well can contribute their share to the recovery. This could most easily be done by an immediate increase in corporation tax whereby only those companies that have remained profitable would pay it. Instead, the Government propose a sharp rise in corporation tax in 2023. This delayed increase will give larger companies time to rearrange their affairs, potentially limiting the amount of revenue that can be captured by the planned rise. It will create an artificial boost to the economy in the short term as profits are brought forward, to be reported against the lower tax rates of the next couple of years.

The Government’s changes to corporation tax rates come when the global nature of trade presents a major challenge to national autonomy on tax rates. The Liberal Democrats are in favour of higher corporation tax rates to ensure that businesses are paying their fair share. The challenge to implementing this has always been that we are in competition with other countries attracting investment by setting lower tax rates. I am interested to hear how the Government plan to react to the plans by the new Biden Administration in the United States to set a global floor for corporation tax rates. This is a fantastic opportunity to introduce a fairer and more progressive tax regime in all nations and reduce the options for corporations to reduce tax. I very much hope that the Government will sign up to the Biden plan and set an example to the rest of the world.

The Chancellor’s most eye-catching announcement in the Budget was the super deduction available to businesses over the next two years to get back 130% of the cost of new plant and machinery. I know that this will benefit many businesses, but I fear that the impact will be more limited than at first appears. First, it creates a cliff edge in investment, especially when coupled with the tax increase in the third year. Secondly, many manufacturing businesses invest for the long term and plan their capital expenditure in 10-year cycles, so a two-year incentive will not make a big change to investment plans. Thirdly, a great deal of equipment is leased rather than bought outright, so investment incentives like these will make no difference.

It would have been a better policy if the expenditure recovered could have included measures to get our economy to achieve net zero carbon emissions or have included expenditure on training and development to help us to build the high-skill economy that we need. These expenses could then have been claimed by a far wider number of businesses in many different sectors and made a genuine contribution to future prosperity and green growth.

The Government need to be clear about their business tax policy so that businesses have time to plan and an understanding of how tax policy interacts with an overall strategy to support enterprise and productivity. Many of our business owners feel a real loyalty to their communities and will maintain those connections regardless of the tax rates, but they need to know that this continues to be a country that welcomes entrepreneurs and supports small businesses. Much more can be done in our tax system to support small and medium-sized enterprises, and I regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity to do this. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a tax cut for SMEs and quadruple the annual employment allowance to allow small businesses to employ up to five people without paying any national insurance contributions. The Government have shown a lack of commitment to small and growing businesses in this Bill and no strategy for private sector growth.

The Liberal Democrats oppose the corporation tax clauses in the Bill because they mean that profitable corporations are not paying their fair share as we recover from this pandemic and the overall provisions do not provide the support we need for small businesses.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy [V]]

I shall speak in favour of new clause 9 in my name, and the amendments and new clauses in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the Labour Front Bench.

The thread that weaves through these amendments and new clauses is utter outrage at plans for big corporations, including big firms that do not support trade union rights, that pay below the living wage or that avoid tax, to benefit from the Chancellor’s astonishing super deduction tax break giveaway. In particular, new clause 9 would require a meaningful equality impact assessment of capital allowance super deductions that must cover the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income; people with protected characteristics; the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty; and equality in different parts of the UK and different regions of England.

For most of us, one of the key consequences of the pandemic has been to illuminate far-reaching health and socioeconomic inequalities in many countries. However much this Government try to conjure otherwise, it is just a statistical and factual truth that, as a result of years of cruel Conservative austerity followed by the callous Conservatives’ handling of the covid crisis, the pandemic’s impact has fallen disproportionately on the most vulnerable individuals and along gendered, ethnic, occupational and socioeconomic lines.

Inequalities in people’s protection from and ability to cope with this pandemic and its tremendous societal costs have stressed the importance and urgency of the societal changes needed to protect population health and wellbeing. According to the statement issued by independent experts of the special procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, condemning the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities’ report:

“The reality is that People of African descent continue to experience poor economic, social, and health outcomes at vastly disproportionate rates in the UK.”

Women—particularly the poorest women, black, Asian and minority ethnic women, disabled women, lone parents and young women—not only have been badly hit by the pandemic, but have suffered for years under this Government’s brutal austerity onslaught. Yet, coming in at an enormous £12 billion for 2021-22, the Chancellor’s announcement of a super deduction on purchases of capital goods by businesses was one of the largest spending items in the spring Budget. In fact, some argue that it is one of the largest single-year tax giveaways ever enacted by a Government. And who will it benefit? Although the Chancellor claimed in his speech that the Government’s response to covid had been “fair”, women, those on low incomes and those from BAME backgrounds stand to benefit the least from the untargeted tax breaks for large companies through the super deduction. We know that more businesses—and larger ones—are owned by men than by women. As such, it is important to recognise there are many potential equalities impacts to business taxation.

Incentives such as the super deduction are biggest for large firms and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that only 1% of firms will benefit this year, as the rest are within the annual investment allowance. How can the Government justify the fact that under this Bill the rich and big business will be treated to mouth-watering tax giveaways and reliefs, despite unclear evidence about whether that will actually create the investment needed?

The Women’s Budget Group argues that this provision is likely to have “substantial deadweight costs”, bringing forward investment rather than generating new investment. The group also raised the point that it is unnecessarily limited to investment in “plant and machinery”, thereby excluding training and other human capital investments, and missing opportunities regarding the transition to a lower-carbon economy that recognises the economic benefits of spending on the social infrastructure that our public services provide. This goes to the crux of the problems with this Finance Bill, and with the Government’s lack of vision for a green recovery based on intersectional socialist economics and progressive taxation.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Charles. I rise to speak in support of amendment 53, which I hope will encourage the Government to bring some rigour and meaning to their rhetoric of levelling up and the use of taxpayers’ money.

In a Budget that confirmed £17 billion of spending cuts, relative to March 2020 plans, the Chancellor’s decision to announce the super deduction, equivalent to forgoing approximately 20% of the UK’s corporation tax revenues, was certainly a bold one, particularly as the Financial Secretary noted in November 2020 that the existing annual investment allowance already covers 99% of all UK businesses. The House has heard this evening that the super deduction is a major tax break for the top 1% of UK businesses. We have also heard many concerns that it is a blunt tool in need of significant refinement if its perceived benefits are to be targeted to those in greatest need of support. I also point to concerns that the super deduction will disproportionately benefit London and the south-east of England and that it flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to level up the UK economy.

I draw the House’s attention to a finding from the Centre for Progressive Policy, which has calculated that, although the super deduction could amount to a tax break worth up to £513 for London residents, it would be worth only half as much in Wales, whose sum benefit is the second lowest of the UK nations and regions, with only Northern Ireland benefiting less on this measure.

I am afraid that I disagree with other hon. Members who have suggested that the super deduction might, on the contrary, actually benefit and address regional inequality. My fear is the opposite—that the super deduction will, at best, lock in existing regional inequalities and, at worst, exacerbate rather than address the UK’s geographical economic imbalance. That is why Plaid Cymru wishes to amend the Bill to require that the Chancellor considers the impact and geographical extent of the super deduction across all the UK’s nation and regions and would support calls made by other hon. Members this evening that measures should be introduced to establish a deeper evidence base for these changes. Similarly, given the urgent need for climate action and the retooling of the economy for a net zero future, this amendment also requires the UK Government to consider the super deduction’s impact on efforts to mitigate climate change.

I hope that the Government will incorporate guarantees such as these into the Bill to ensure that we truly do rebuild back better from the pandemic, rather than resuscitate the UK’s deeply flawed pre-pandemic economy. Failure to do so would make it clear that their rhetoric of support for all nations, for the levelling-up agenda and for climate action are no more than fine words and lofty intentions.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]]

The Government’s mishandling of the pandemic and an inadequate social security system have caused widespread financial hardship, unemployment and debt, yet the Finance Bill falls short in tackling poverty, low pay, insecure work and the ever-deepening divisions in our society. Instead, it includes a whole host of damaging measures, such as cutting working tax credit to its lowest level in decades.

Action for Children estimates that 2.5 million families with children currently on universal credit and working tax credit will miss out on a combined total of £1.3 billion across this financial year when these cuts are implemented in October. Today, the Child Poverty Action Group’s new report looking into the Government’s two-child tax credit limit estimates that at least 350,000 families, including 1.25 million children, have now been affected by the policy since it started four years ago; a far cry from the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda when those in the poorest parts of the country—children—will suffer even more.

But should we be surprised when the austerity policies pursued by this Conservative Government continue to have widespread and devastating impacts on the most disadvantaged? Years of austerity, welfare cuts, benefit changes and cuts to public services have disproportionately affected women, disabled people and black, Asian and minority ethnic people—a fact that has been repeatedly outlined by the TUC, the Runnymede Trust, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many more. That is why it was so utterly astounding and offensive that the report of the Government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities sought to downplay the existence of institutional racism, against all the evidence and facts showing that economic outcomes in our country are rife with racial disparities. Equally, the covid-19 pandemic is widely noted to have exacerbated these trends. It is disingenuous and misleading to seek to divide ethnic minority working-class communities and white working-class communities, which is what the report did. The same issues affect all our working-class communities. Opportunistically cherry-picking figures cannot alter what is clearly laid out in extensive research by a wide range of credible researchers and actual experts over a number of years.

When it comes to such legislation, as the Women’s Budget Group has rightly argued, meaningful equality impact assessments should consider cumulative impact, intersectional impact, the impact on individuals as well as households, impact over a lifetime, and the impact on unpaid care. Conversations about sexism, ableism, racism, poverty and the economy must go hand in hand. That is why I have consistently called on the Government to carry out and publish equality impact assessments, and I will be tabling an amendment to insist that they do so for this Bill.

Tax Justice UK and the Women’s Budget Group rightly argue that taxation and wealth is an equality issue. On average, women not only earn less than men, but they own less wealth than men, with women in the UK owning approximately 40% of the country’s total personal wealth. Coupled with the very obvious way in which the pandemic has hit women the hardest, it is clear that the Government should really be publishing equality impact assessments. Equality is our law, yet the Government refuse again and again to do that, and they have not done so for the 2021 Budget or for this Finance Bill, either measure by measure or cumulatively. While tax information and impact notes for each tax measure are available, they lack detail and quantitative estimates of impact, or simply state that no equality impacts are anticipated. That is not good enough for legislation that will so fundamentally impact on our society. I hope that the Minister will confirm why the Government have not published the information needed for Members to fully assess how the Bill impacts people right across the country.

Incentives such as the super deduction are biggest for larger firms, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that only 1% of firms will benefit this year, as the rest are within the annual investment allowance. How can the Government justify the fact that, under this Bill, the rich and big business are being treated to mouth-watering tax giveaways and reliefs despite unclear evidence about whether that will actually create the investment needed? For example, who benefits from Amazon paying no corporation tax in the UK as a result of the super deduction?

This Bill is a missed opportunity for a green recovery based on intersectional economics and progressive taxation to create decent, well-paid, unionised jobs and address our care crisis. It has the wrong priorities, it will create further inequality and it has unfairness and injustice rooted at its very core, so I will be voting against it today.

Black History Month

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing this important debate, and I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler): it is not enough for someone not to be racist, they have to be an anti-racist, because if they are not part of the solution, they are just another part of the problem.

I have been pleased to listen to the contributions today, or at least most of them, because every time I hear about black history, I learn more and more. Like most people in this House, I never learnt black history at school. The majority of my learning came from my love of reading and my frequent visits to the Brixton library. I love learning about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, and those international perspectives are so important, but the UK has its own rich civil rights struggle, and I want British children also to learn about that. I want them to learn about the Bristol bus boycotts, Mary Seacole, Claudia Jones, Olive Morris, CLR James, the first black Members to enter this House and much more.

Those who do not think it necessary to learn black history in schools, or that it should be confined to certain lessons, have to acknowledge how damaging it is not to see yourself reflected in your history. Black history is British history, and how can we possibly learn about this country in its fullness and how it came to be if we do not learn about slavery and colonialism, and the impacts they have directly had on how our country is today?

This debate is extremely timely because, as Members will have just heard, we found recently that no subject has received more signatories for parliamentary petitions than getting black history taught as part of our national curriculum, yet the Government have refused requests from campaigning organisations such as the Black Curriculum to change our curriculum. Given that this is coupled with the new guidance about anti-capitalist texts in schools, I am a bit suspicious, because I also did not learn about the miners’ strikes, the poll tax riots or the achievements of trade unions at school.

Decolonising our education is every bit as much about class as it is about race. Heaven forbid that working-class kids are taught about movements for change—they might start to get ideas that they have power as citizens, that when they see injustice they should challenge it and that if they persevere they might just win.

I remember that the first thing I wrote in my year 7 history book, in Mr Smart’s class, was, “We study the past to live the present with an eye on the future.” I believe we need to address our shameful past and shameful present and look to a future of racial equality. We have to be willing to do that to inform and inspire the next generation, because nobody is born racist. Racism is ignorance, and what is education if not the absence of ignorance?

This history is not something that we need just to be added on at the end of a lesson, one day a week, one day of the year, in one single section of our curriculum or even in this one month. Too often, the burden is left to our teachers to move things around and find time. Recently, I was proud to go to Streatham Wells Primary School and find nine and 10-year-olds learning about unconscious bias. I applaud our teachers who make this special effort and ask the Government to follow their lead.

When we learn about black history, it has to be done properly. Yes, we must learn about our allies, such as William Wilberforce, and what they did to help the struggle, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out, slavery ended because of the slave revolts. It ended because of those people who were willing to risk their lives. Colonialism ended because people were no longer willing to have this country rule over them.

We need to applaud those sheroes and heroes in history. We need to look at people such as Toussaint Louverture, Nanny of the Maroons and Yaa Asantewaa, who shares the same heritage as me and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead. We need to look this again as a form of reparations. In my maiden speech, I spoke about reparations, how they do not have to be about just giving large sums away and how instead they are about looking about how we address things such as giving certain artefacts back and offering an apology. I would add educational reparations to that: decolonising our education.

Too often, when we challenge racism in this House, we are told that we do not recognise progress and that we do not like our country. I would like to say: we are the progress. When we look at the Benches on both sides of the House, we are shown the progress that we have made. But I came to this House to change things, not just to clap my hands for the mediocre things that have gone in the past. To quote a modern-day philosopher—naturally, a Streatham native—the rapper Santan Dave:

“least racist is still racist”.

We have a long way to go. So when I challenge in racism in my country, I do not want anyone to tell me that I do not love my country and I should go back to somewhere else, because what more love could you have for your country than to make it the very best place in the world for all people to live, no matter the colour of their skin?

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I very much appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments. I will speak to the amendment and to clause 70, as well as to the SNP’s new clause 11.

Clause 70 requires the Government to review the DST and submit such a review to Parliament in 2025. It is a Government priority to secure an appropriate global solution to the corporate tax challenges posed by the digital economy, as we have discussed. As we have also said, once such a solution is in place, the DST will be removed.

Should the DST remain in place in 2025, the review will consider whether it continues to meet its objectives and whether international reform means that it is no longer required. However, it remains our strong preference to agree and implement an appropriate global solution, and to remove the DST as soon as possible.

The hon. Lady raised a point about the absence of a sunset clause. The 2025 review allows a context in which the Government can have an in-the-round consideration of whether this tax—were it, unexpectedly, still on the statute book—was doing its job and if it is, how it could be improved, and if it is not, where it could be tweaked to further advantage.

The amendment would require the Government to produce a review of DST annually rather than in 2025. It is not clear what the hon. Lady means by a review, but there are already very substantial processes in place. HMRC regularly reports on the taxes that it is responsible for collecting and DST will be no exception to that. It will be possible for parliamentarians and the public to scrutinise what tax has been collected by this measure. It is a new tax, so there may be some variety or it may come in higher or lower than expectation.

A review in 2025 as a backstop ensures that, should the DST remain in place at that point, its continuing relevance can be considered against the relevant circumstances at the time. However, the Government keep tax policy under continuous review through the annual budget process and, as I have said, it is our strong preference to agree and implement an appropriate global solution.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Minister said that tax policy was constantly under review and that if things changed, so would the legislation. What is the logic against an annual review? Is that not more flexible than waiting until 2025?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I am trying to understand what the Government’s understanding of temporary is. How long is temporary—five years? The Minister has said that it is a temporary measure. I understand what he is saying about a review being a substantial undertaking, but if the measure is meant to be temporary, do the Government have set guidelines about what they think temporary is?

[Jesse Norman]

It is not often that I am invited to engage in philosophical speculation on the nature of time. Temporary, as far as I am aware, does not have a definition in law. We are framing the measure in the context of currently existing practices and discussions within the OECD. We expect those to come to fruition in the next five years.

As a long stop date, we have left a review in 2025 in place, but of course the Treasury may decide to vary that, or indeed the Government may decide to take it off the statute book, if such a process is forthcoming. The hon. Lady will be aware that taxes have a tendency to mutate. When the income tax was introduced by William Pitt, it was allegedly temporary, but it was temporary only for a while and then came back. It is a good point, however.

I will turn to a couple of wider points mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. She talked about tax avoidance, and she will be aware that, as I have touched on, the Government have done a great deal to tackle and address tax avoidance; there are several such measures in the Bill, which I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team for supporting. Indeed, it is worth noting that the tax gap has continued to fall, which reflects the excellent work of successive Administrations. That is over and above the passage of a variety of measures designed to cut down on tax avoidance and evasion and, of course, an anti-promoters strategy, which is currently the subject of consultation with the public and which we hope to bring to fruition later this year. A series of initiatives is already under way, in addition to much previous work in that area.

On the issue of country-by-country reporting, the hon. Lady will be aware that we already, with the strong encouragement and support of the Government and our predecessors, have private country-by-country reporting, which was an important move forward. The difficulty is that public country-by-country reporting requires a measure of international consensus. If it does not have that, it runs the risk of setting all kinds of incentives that might actually have the effect of undermining the policy and the transparency that we move to, so it is an evolving position in this country, as in the OECD. We hope that the general move towards more integrated global solutions and greater transparency is one that we can reach in all those areas.

The SNP new clause 11, which would require the Government to report to the House within six months of the Act passing—

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I appreciate that, of course. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for welcoming the principles behind this, as she is right to do. For the same reasons I described to my hon. Friends, I do not think it appropriate to think of this as in any sense delayed. We are at the forefront of a developing area of tax law. We have not thought it appropriate to wait for international procedures. I am sure that, on reflection, she would prefer that we not have waited, both because of the revenue generated for public services but also because we deem it important—I have no doubt that the Labour party feels the same way—to try to make progress in this important area, removing what we see as ineffective rules or improving the working of the rules within the tax code.

I think it is fair to say, without blowing the Government’s trumpet too hard, that whether it is the diverted profits tax, work on base erosion and profit-shifting, corporate interest restriction rules or, indeed, on private country-by-country reporting rules, the Government have been at the forefront of much of the most progressive tax changes of the past few years, which is entirely appropriate.

The hon. Lady raises the question about the relationship with high streets. No Member of Parliament does not feel the concern about the high street, because they go back to their constituencies every week and see the effects of change. It is important to be aware that this tax is about addressing changes, or the way in which the tax rules are not fully capturing the value that is being generated. The high street is a rapidly evolving entity, as has been pointed out. Many high street businesses—even quite small ones—have online businesses of their own, which are effective supplements to what they do. They will not be caught by this tax, because in many cases their activity will be too small. However, it is in those hybrid models, which are evolving, where I think much of the future of the high street may lie.

It is not by any means obvious that the effect of the pandemic has been solely to privilege the online versus the offline. Plenty of online businesses have been clobbered by the pandemic in a way that many offline businesses have as well.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Minister raises a valid point about this tax generally creating more revenue. However, he mentions the pandemic, and I am clear that we are heading for one of the worst recessions in history. Does the Minister not think that we would do best to do what European countries are doing, with a much higher rate of tax? The £1.3 billion that we will potentially lose is no small fee. The public coffers need that money. Does he not agree?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her question. As I said, the estimate by the independent OBR is of £2 billion over a five-year period. Our estimate is certainly £2 billion over a five-year period. I do not think that is a trivial amount. As has been discussed, we of course recognise the importance of generating revenue, but we also think it important to introduce a tax that is sustainable and that lays a framework that can be effective while it is in operation. There are countries that have had higher taxes, and we have offsetting rules regarding the interaction with those taxes in order to create equity as between the different jurisdictions, so it is a perfectly fair question, but we have taken the view that 2% is an appropriate level for a new tax. As I said, it is a tax that we will be very happy to take off the statute book as and when the OECD process starts to yield effective results, which it may well do before too long.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

What I cannot seem to understand is why—the Minister mentioned sustainability—if other countries in Europe see it as sustainable and we have no evidence to the contrary, we have decided that it is not sustainable to have a higher rate.

[Jesse Norman]

That is, of course, a proper question to ask, but we have taken the view that this is a tax that we would like to take off the books in due course, when there is an OECD agreement. That agreement may take a variety of different forms; it may raise more tax or less. Different countries have different overall tax systems and seek to address different forms of corporate behaviour in deriving revenue. In the UK, there are plenty of businesses deriving revenue from user-generated content. Some of them will be over the thresholds that we are talking about, and those are the ones that are within the scope of the tax.

It is absolutely open to other parties to disagree about how they would put it, but the Government have taken the view that this is the appropriate level for a new tax—it is on revenue and, as I have said, is therefore potentially distortive. We have had feedback and consultations that reflect concerns on both sides of the issue.