Oral Answers to Questions
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—our 10-point plan can create hundreds of thousands of jobs up and down the country. He is also right that we can lead the world in this journey. We have been one of the fastest countries to decarbonise over the past few years and are one of the leading countries not only in phasing out coal and internal combustion engine vehicles but in offshore wind and carbon capture and storage. Where Britain goes, hopefully the world can follow.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
This year, the UK Government have a chance to show global leadership on the climate emergency
as the host of the UN climate change conference in Glasgow. Green gilts will be a vital part of the transition to a clean economy. Last year, the Chancellor promised to launch the first ones this year. Will he tell us when and why not yet?
Rishi Sunak
We are doing the technical work required to make sure that the launch of our green gilts is successful. I hope to provide an update at the Budget, but the hon. Lady can rest assured that we are working very hard at it. As I said, this will be the first step in building out a green curve. By doing that and making sure that the curve has fidelity in terms of confidence in where the money is going, we can unlock investment for the private sector across the economy. I know that she will join me in welcoming that progress.
Customs Miscellaneous Non-Fiscal Provisions and Amendments etc. (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Dr Huq.
Throughout all discussions of the arrangements to be in place following the end of the Brexit transition period, we in the Opposition have recognised that it is crucial to handle those that relate to Northern Ireland with care—to protect the protocol and the people of Northern Ireland. We have repeatedly called for any technical challenges that arise on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain to be dealt with through the EU-UK Joint Committee. We believe it is right for outstanding issues to be resolved in that way, and we therefore support today’s statutory instrument and the technical amendments it makes following decisions of the Joint Committee.
Such an approach stands in stark contrast to that which the Government followed in the latter months of last year, when Ministers threatened to act unilaterally, break international law and undermine the Northern Ireland protocol. It is hard to overstate the damage caused by the Government’s reckless behaviour, which undoubtedly damaged trust among our partners around the world, and suggested that Ministers were prepared to put narrow political considerations above our long-term obligations. Today, I would welcome the Minister confirming, and providing unqualified reassurance, that all future technical challenges posed on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, such as that which this SI deals with, will also be dealt with through the Joint Committee.
We support today’s SI, but its content suggests that some of the Prime Minister’s promises about how trade will operate after the end of the transition period have been exaggerated. That will not surprise many of us, who are used to the Prime Minister’s operating style. However, it has real implications for businesses, if they make preparations based on the Prime Minister’s promises that turn out not to match the reality of the situation.
On 8 November 2020, the Belfast Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister had told Northern Ireland businesses that they could put customs declarations forms “in the bin”, because there would be “no barriers”, of any kind, to trade across the Irish Sea. Yet the third regulation in today’s SI introduces a modification to ensure that an entry summary declaration will be required for the movement of goods from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, where those goods are subject to customs duty under section 30C of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. Will the Minister explain how that modification made by regulation 3 is consistent with the Prime Minister’s comments reported last November?
More broadly, it is worth pointing out that the SI impacts only trade moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and that trade in the opposite direction, coming from Great Britain, is now facing a whole suite of customs and regulatory checks that the Prime Minister promised no Government could ever accept. The Government should reflect on their shambolic approach, which has led to so many empty supermarket shelves and to Northern Irish lorries being stuck in Great Britain or returning empty.
Ministers knew that there would be difficulties—indeed, they established the Trader Support Service to guide businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland through any changes—but they have let businesses down. The Trader Support Service was supposed to have up to 70 staff answering queries, yet it appears to be overwhelmed. It apparently cost £355 million to set up, but the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard earlier this month that phones called by traders were being left to ring off the hook. That is clearly unacceptable, and my colleagues have written to the Cabinet Office Minister to demand that the Government get a grip. I ask this Minister, as he is responsible for HMRC, what commitment he can give to traders that the Trader Support Service will be fully staffed with trained customs experts to meet the demands that businesses are undoubtedly facing.
As the Minister will know, people in Northern Ireland already have half the discretionary income of households in Great Britain, and they now face both a lack of choice and price rises as a result of disruption to trade. That is unacceptable when the UK Government could step in to support supply chains and avoid disruption, so I urge the Minister to commit to doing so.
We in the Opposition are happy to support the content of today’s SI, but its context raises a number of important questions about trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I would welcome the Minister addressing them in his response.
Covid-19 Support Schemes: Ineligible People
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Ms Rees. I appreciate that we are slightly pushed for time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing such an important debate on a timely issue. For nine long months now, many workers have had no support whatsoever from the Government due to glaring gaps in the Government’s various schemes and wider provisions—inadequacies that the Opposition have highlighted time and again. Many of these problems could be fixed with political will, but the Government so far have chosen to do nothing. Those problems have festered and worsened, and today they are endangering our economic recovery.
I pay tribute to the Members we have heard from, whose contributions showed the impact that being shut out of support has had on many of their constituents right across the United Kingdom, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who made such passionate cases on their constituents’ behalf. Like many Members, I have also heard from constituents who find themselves in this position. One constituent, newly self-employed after starting his own business, told me:
“I am from a working class background. I’ve worked and paid taxes since leaving school, funded my own retraining. I’ve not claimed any benefits at all during this time. I’ve worked hard to earn everything that I have achieved. I admit to feeling disappointed and let down, that due to a quirk of timing and dates, I won’t be afforded the same level of Government support.”
I have also heard from many of the unions representing working people in this country: Community, Equity, the Musicians’ Union, the Writers’ Guild, Prospect and the GMB about how many of their members are in similar situations. I have also heard from the Federation of Small Businesses. Across professions, the same issues come up time and again: the exclusion of the newly self-employed, the 50% threshold, and people who are not eligible for universal credit despite a huge drop in income. We also know that, despite some recent welcome changes, there is ongoing discrimination against women who have taken maternity leave.
I have said before, and will say again, that the Opposition accept that it was difficult to get everything right when the Government set up these income support schemes back in March—but we are months into this pandemic now. We know where the gaps are. We have pointed them out repeatedly and Members have made the case here today. I ask the Minister, again, what is being done to sort out these issues? No doubt he will list the schemes the Government have already made available, but surely he must understand that this will be cold comfort for those still unable to access support. Does he have anything new to say today?
The Government’s failure to address these issues is also storing up problems down the line. There are many self-employed people who have put money aside into savings accounts to pay for end-of-year tax bills. In many cases, these savings trigger an end to their universal credit eligibility or they can only claim at a reduced rate. This means that not only are they going without support for longer, but that they will face even greater financial difficulties when required to pay their end-of-year tax bill. As we have heard today, Government inaction risks the very economic recovery we all desperately need and want.
Entrepreneurship is the backbone of our economy. A dynamic economy needs people who are willing to take risks, become self-employed and start their own businesses. After all, after the 2008 financial crash, it was SMEs that spearheaded economic recovery and gave people hope and work. Now, however, when so many self-employed people are in need, the Government are not there to help.
Self-employed people have seen how the Government have treated them, and I worry that they will be wary of taking steps that could help to drive our recovery. As we have heard today, many people who are already self-employed are considering giving up on their careers and their businesses. That is of particular concern among women, those from low-income backgrounds, and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
We should do everything we can to ensure that an economic recovery benefits everyone in our country, and we should give the self-employed the confidence to keep going, not leave them to sink or swim. If we do not, we will face a much slower and less inclusive recovery. That is in the Minister’s hands. It is not too late to listen; it is not too late to act.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Would the Minister mind leaving a few minutes at the end for the summing up? Thank you.
Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)
Bridget Phillipson ExcerptsTuesday 8th December 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 View all Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (a), at end add
“; but any such provision must not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community which entered into force on 1 February 2020, and specifically its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of that Agreement.”
It is 1,629 days since the UK voted to leave the European Union. In that time, our country has managed two general elections, and we are now on to our third Conservative Prime Minister. It is just 23 days until the United Kingdom’s transition period following its exit from the European Union comes to an end, yet this afternoon, we still have little clarity on the Bill that the Government tell us they will present tomorrow to set the legal framework for future taxation in Northern Ireland, for value added tax, for aviation fuel duty, for insurance-premium tax and for state aid rules.
With less than four weeks to go, the single sheet of A4 in front of us is almost all the detail that the Government have shared with Parliament about their new tax plans for next month. The only other information we have is that, just over two hours ago, the Government confirmed that they would withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and that the provisions of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill would reflect the same approach. The Minister recently tabled a written ministerial statement to that effect, although he offered little more this afternoon by way of further clarity.
The clock has been ticking ever more loudly. People in this country might reasonably have assumed that by this late date, it would already be clear what the Government’s plans for Britain’s future were. They might have assumed that by this late date, there would be a clear agreement on our future relationship with the European Union.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Member makes an interesting point about the late stage of these negotiations. Who is she blaming for that—the United Kingdom Government or the European Union negotiators?
Bridget Phillipson
Time is ticking. We want to get a deal. We are frustrated that at this point, we still do not have a clear understanding about our future relationship. If the hon. Member shares those concerns, I suggest that he raises them with his own Prime Minister.
People in this country—especially those who live near our 300-mile border with the European Union, or those who live in or near our port towns and port cities —could be forgiven for expecting that trading relationships and rules on the movement of goods would long since have been finalised. Such reasonable assumptions would not have been partisan. After all, we have the Prime Minister’s own word for it: to leave with no deal would be a “failure of statecraft”.
One thousand six hundred and twenty-nine days is a very long time in which Ministers have chosen not to address the issues that leaving the European Union raises. It is 1,421 days since the Government announced that we would be leaving the single market. It is 1,350 days since the Government notified the EU of the United Kingdom’s decision to trigger article 50. It is 1,240 days since the Brexit talks began and 886 days since the Chequers plan was announced to the current Prime Minister by the previous Prime Minister. It is a little over 500 days since the Prime Minister took office. It is 320 days since the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 became law. They have had ample time.
John Redwood
Up to this point, Labour has always backed the EU position and not the UK position. Will the hon. Lady now use the Opposition’s voice to say that we should not give away our fish and our independent lawmaking?
Bridget Phillipson
That is, frankly, a ludicrous statement for the right hon. Gentleman to make.
With epic irresponsibility, successive Conservative Governments have wasted this time. Still businesses are not clear how they will be trading next month. Still people living along our land border with Ireland are unsure what daily life will bring in four weeks’ time. That epic irresponsibility comes in two forms. First, there is the immediate irresponsibility—the irresponsibility to businesses and working people; to everyone who needs to be able to plan their future and their finances; to everyone who wants the simple security, stability and certainty that a responsible Government should provide; to everyone who believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said on the “Today” programme a year ago tomorrow,
“We won’t need to plan for no deal because we will have a deal”;
and to everyone who believed the former International Trade Secretary when he told us that a trade deal with the EU would be
“one of the easiest in human history.”
That irresponsibility has meant months and years of uncertainty and insecurity for so many families and so many firms. Make no mistake: the Conservative party has now lost forever any claim to be the party of business. That irresponsibility means that people in Fermanagh, Galloway, Anglesey, Kent and all around our key ports today still face the risk of their roads being clogged with queues of lorries for months on end. That irresponsibility—a failure to engage with the problems of our country, to look ahead and to plan, to lead and to rise to the level of events—is sadly of a piece with the Government’s wider failures in recent months.
The country has suffered terribly from the pandemic: the worst economic hit in the G7; the worst level of excess deaths in Europe; a Government who are again and again caught on the hop, scrambling to catch up with the consequences of their own incompetence; a Government who never use the time they have to get ahead of the problems that they know are coming. It is all too familiar. It is the story of everything that this Government touch.
If the Government had got ahead of the issues that our country faces, we would have had a Budget, not a statement, in the summer. Instead of multiple episodes of the winter economy plan, we would have had a Finance Bill with proper time for debate, and proper time for businesses to plan on that basis. But just as the Government were behind the curve on covid, so they are behind the curve on Brexit. And here we are, with tax decisions for next month being bundled together into a last-minute Bill, which they have not yet even published—inaction, incompetence, and scrambling to fix the mess that they have created themselves, again and again, month after month.
Jesse Norman
I am awfully grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she possibly name any EU treaty that has not been concluded by the EU at the last minute?
Bridget Phillipson
I look forward to seeing in detail what the Government intend to bring forward on our future trading relationship, as that will determine so much around what our businesses will need for years into the future. I believe that our country is a great place to do business. I want all our businesses to succeed into the future. That is why it is so important that we see a good deal for our country, and that the Government use the time they still have available to them well. They have not done so yet. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister later about exactly what the Government intend to set out in this legislation, because he has not really offered a great deal so far this afternoon.
The Government’s irresponsibility has not been limited to inaction and incompetence in the face of a ticking clock. There is also the greater irresponsibility that we have seen in recent months—an irresponsibility of which I fear the consequences may last for generations—and that is the irresponsibility with which this Government have made it clear that they are prepared to break international law. The world will not forget that just weeks ago the Government introduced legislation to tear up an international agreement that was signed less than a year ago. We welcome the fact that they now propose to withdraw those measures, but we fear that the damage has been done. The Government threatened to break the law to get their own way. What message does that send to Britain’s friends and allies with whom we have signed that agreement, with whom we have other agreements and with whom we hope to conclude future agreements?
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
You talked about the notwithstanding clauses as irresponsible and said that the damage may have been done, but would you like to join me in welcoming the Government reaching an agreement in the Joint Committee, as was announced just a couple of hours ago, on the issues that those clauses were intended to address?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a gentle reminder not to use the word “you” to the shadow Minister, because “you” means me.
Bridget Phillipson
In fact, I had just indicated that very point. Everyone on the Opposition Benches is delighted that the Government have in recent days managed to conclude a trade deal with North Macedonia, but what message does it send to our friends in the USA, who have made their position on this point very clear, that the Government no longer regard it as at all times non-negotiable that they will uphold the rule of law? It is because of our concerns on that point that we have tabled the selected amendment to the first resolution. We wish to append the text of the first resolution, at the end, with a clear limitation that provisions under that resolution may not place this country in breach of its obligations under law. The amendment would insert new text at the end of the current text of the first resolution to ensure that
“any such provision must not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community…and specifically its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of that Agreement.”
Obviously, in the last two hours the Government have announced that they have reached an agreement in principle with the European Union on that protocol and will therefore resile from their expressed intention to enact legislation that would have breached those agreements. Of course, Opposition Members welcome that news, even as we find it astonishing that it should ever have been delivered and shambolic that it arrives so late. We would not, until this autumn, have ever imagined it necessary to make it clear in a resolution of the House that the Government, in exercising their powers, must obey international agreements into which they freely entered. Yet, as a result of the deep irresponsibility of the Government, that is precisely where we find ourselves today. We will not oppose the substantive resolutions, and we shall wait to see what further reassurances the Minister can provide before deciding whether to press our amendment to a vote.
We recognise that there needs to be a lawful basis for the collection of VAT, customs duties, aviation fuel duty and insurance premium tax, even while we do not yet know what the Government propose to table by way of a Bill. Let me repeat that: we do not yet know what the Government propose to table by way of a Bill—less than 24 hours before its Second Reading and Committee of the Whole House. Less than a month before we leave the European Union, we simply do not know with any certainty what measures the Government intend to set out. This extraordinary state of affairs undermines the ability of Members to give such important legislation the scrutiny it rightly deserves, not to mention the ability of businesses to plan. Is the Minister really telling us that it was not possible before today to set out the Government’s proposals on aviation fuel duty or insurance premium tax? Of course it was. These clauses were held back—they still are—so that the Government could, until a few hours ago, continue to brandish the threat of breaking international law as part of their negotiating tactics with the European Union, believing they have an ace up their sleeves, when in fact the whole world sees the Government as a pack of jokers.
Although we will not oppose these resolutions, we cannot and will not vote for any measures that the Government introduce that would breach agreements into which this country has entered with her friends and allies, because the consequences of such unlawful acts have been made clear to us. The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives said:
“The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border. If the U.K. violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing the Congress.”
Sammy Wilson
I note the hon. Lady’s concern for Northern Ireland, the Good Friday agreement and the people of Northern Ireland, but does she not recognise that if the protocol goes through in its present form, the EU has made it clear that it will require measures to be implemented that have already led to supermarkets saying that they will no longer operate in Northern Ireland—that they will withdraw from Northern Ireland? The goods that would be supplied from here to Northern Ireland will no longer be supplied. I am only talking about one limited area. How can she defend that protocol, which would so adversely affect people in Northern Ireland?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the point he raises, but I am afraid I do not share his assessment of the situation. I say to him sincerely that I think it is important that we have certainty around this area. The Government’s approach on this has been misguided and has caused real damage. However, while understanding his concerns, I am afraid I do not recognise his assessment of the situation.
We hope the commitments announced earlier today by Ministers will be further repeated in this place, and that the assurances regarding the withdrawal of the offending clauses of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will be honoured. Ensuring that the UK’s forthcoming tax legislation does not breach our international treaty commitments, and in so doing put the Good Friday agreement at risk, is the sole purpose of our amendment. I do not doubt that there will be those on the Government Benches who regard such an amendment as weakening their hand, even as they too welcome the Government’s recent announcement. To them, seeking to legislate to break international law may have seemed a way of showing that they mean business. The delusion would be comic were the consequences not so grave. A negotiation in which one party makes it clear that it cannot be trusted—not inadvertently, but by what passes for strategy—is not one on which strong future relationships will be built, nor one that will commend us to other nations as a reliable partner for trade or security. What the Government have tossed away this autumn in the search for a fleeting advantage is a reputation that will take our country many years to regain.
Ways and Means resolutions enable the House to give effect to the taxation decisions of the Government for the year ahead. Some of those taxes and duties will fall more heavily on some of us than others. But for the Government’s extraordinary irresponsibility, which today’s events illustrate so powerfully, I fear the price will be paid by all of us, not just next month or next year but for many years to come.
Bridget Phillipson
It is extraordinary that we have not yet had sight of the Bill and that all we have is a single sheet of A4, just 23 days until the end of the transition period. The Minister did not offer much this afternoon other than to merely say he regarded Opposition amendment (a) as unnecessary. I regret that our trust in the Government’s promises and assurances has run rather thin this autumn. In the absence of the publication of formal texts, I have not been persuaded by the Minister’s arguments this afternoon.
Covid-19: Access to and Acceptance of Cash
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Ali, and to have had revolving Chairs this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) also did fine work in the Chair.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for securing this important debate and for his excellent contribution. I should just draw the House’s attention to the fact that my husband is employed by the Bank of England. I will refer to the Bank later.
As many hon. Members have set out, the use of cash in this country has been declining for some time and the decline has been accelerated by the pandemic. Many consumers today are turning towards digital payment methods. However, as we have heard, that change in behaviour does not fall evenly across society.
According to the Treasury Committee report on increasing financial inclusion, there are still about 1 million people in the UK without a bank account and some older, lower-income households that rely on cash to budget or because of a lack of access to online banking. Many communities and many people, especially older and more vulnerable ones, still rely on cash. As we have heard, the Access to Cash review carried out by Natalie Ceeney estimated that that was the case for some 17% of the population.
We have been seeing a shift away from using cash and towards digital for some time, but that has clearly been accelerated by the pandemic. Data from LINK suggests that ATM cash withdrawals were down by 60% between March and April this year, compared with the same period in the previous year. Although ATM withdrawals have increased since that period earlier this year, the change in behaviour is likely to be long-lasting.
Many people are able to adapt to the changes and welcome them, but an unmanaged drift towards a cashless society risks seriously disadvantaging many of the people we represent. We have heard in many contributions today what that might mean for communities and individuals in regions and nations of the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, who brings to the House real experience in these matters, talked about the pressures faced by families on lower incomes and described how many people find it easier to budget using cash. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), I am a GMB member. I was very pleased to hear her raise its concerns about job losses. She is a passionate advocate on behalf of her constituents, and I know she will keep pressing Government on this issue.
It is clear that we need to find ways to manage and protect access to cash. Otherwise, we risk exacerbating inequality and shutting people out from access to various services. We know that a failure to manage the transition and a sudden inability to access cash will cause problems for many of our constituents. I saw that in my own constituency last year, following the decision by Barclays to opt out of the Post Office cash withdrawal scheme. That followed a bank closure not long before in a community in my constituency. There was significant worry about what this would mean for my constituents in Hetton-le-Hole and how they would adjust. We should not underestimate the anxieties that such developments can cause and what they mean for the local high street.
I welcomed at the time Barclays’ decision to reverse the plans, but notwithstanding the wonderful news on the vaccine that we have seen, the reality is that the future of our society may well mean reduced reliance on face-to-face everyday services for some time to come, and the Government should be thinking about how we protect those services for those in our communities who would otherwise be left isolated.
In the light of that, I welcome the commitment from the Government in the March Budget to legislate on cash access, and I congratulate organisations such as Which? that have been tireless campaigners in this area. However, I am worried that if we do not get to grips with this task quickly, the cost of inaction or, indeed, slow action will only make the inequalities that we see even more severe.
Without clear legislation, we risk the creation of cash deserts. We must not allow the financial exclusion of those who rely on cash purchases. I recognise that Ministers have previously recommitted to bringing forward that legislation, and that the call for evidence ended only last week, but can the Minister set out today a rough timescale for legislating on this matter? Does he agree that the longer the current situation goes on, the more severe the consequences may be, and that uncertainty is damaging? We know that an unmanaged transition to a cashless society would not just affect families who rely on cash, but could have a significant impact on jobs and businesses. As the GMB has rightly pointed out, many small and medium-sized enterprises rely on cash transactions. Many thousands of people work within the cash transit and ATM service industry, too.
Has the Minister considered the implications that this trend will have on jobs and livelihoods? If so, what are the Government doing to ensure that businesses can adapt and plan for the future?
We know that the infrastructure around cash is a critical element in this debate, as we have heard from Members of different parties. Joint research by the FCA and the University of Bristol found that the number of free-to-use ATMs fell 19% between March 2018 and March 2020, and that number is likely to continue falling. It should worry all of us that the conversion from free-to-use to pay-to-use ATMs appears to be concentrated in deprived communities where there is much greater reliance on cash.
There is also an obvious need to protect ATMs in rural communities, as we have heard this afternoon. Across the country, the Post Office plays a vital role for those who need access to cash. In 60% of rural settings, post offices are the nearest cash access point, yet thousands of post offices remain worried about the future. Of course, that concern is not limited to rural communities. Can the Minister tell us what work his Department is doing with the banks and ATM providers to review these matters and to ensure that people who depend on cash have good geographical, and free, access to it?
The Minister will doubtless be aware of the recommendations made in the 2019 Access to Cash review about how we maintain the infrastructure. It called on the Bank of England to redesign the high cost of the infrastructure we have today so that it is tenable for banks to provide free access to cash. The review also highlighted the role that the FCA can play in ensuring that the cost of handling cash is kept on a par with digital.
The pace of technological change in the past 60 years has been extraordinary, and it is important in any area of our lives where technology has transformed the questions of who can exercise power over us and how, that as a society we keep under anxious review the question of whether we have struck the right balance between enabling commercial success and ensuring public benefit. The GMB submission to the Government’s call for evidence highlights the importance of getting the regulation right. As the GMB says, there is
“an urgent and compelling need for regulation to ensure the sustainability of the ATM network.”
We have the Payment Systems Regulator, of course, but there is a wider strategic question about the relationship between the work that it does and the availability of cash. The GMB’s view is that
“a single regulator with overall statutory responsibility”
would be the preferred outcome, and it recommends the FCA for that role. The GMB also notes, however, that it would need proper support from Government to ensure it can perform its functions effectively, given the scale of the challenge. Will the Minister set out the Government’s current thinking on how the system will be regulated in future and how we might bring costs down?
There should be a focus on ensuring alternative access to cash. We have seen a number of pilots recently across the country—I particularly note the work of LINK and PayPoint—but can the Minister tell us whether any efforts are being made to promote pilots and to look at new, innovative solutions around the issue of access to cash?
At the heart of this issue is a transition to digital forms of payment, and no one must be left behind by this transition. Of course, one of the most significant factors is the level of deprivation in an area. We must ensure that deprived communities are not left behind, so can the Minister outline what more the Government intend to communicate throughout the transition? How will they support communities in all parts of our country through this process?
It is quite right that we focus on the impact on individuals, but we must not forget the security implications of an unmanaged transition to a cashless society. The Minister will doubtless be aware of the example of Sweden, a country that is much closer to becoming cashless, and where concerns have been raised about the risk of cyber-attacks or foreign interference in a totally digital system. Consumer privacy is clearly an issue too, given the traceability of digital transactions and how so much information is stored and used. What consideration has the Minister made of these matters, and will he address the potential vulnerabilities of a cashless society in legislation?
I want to close by saying that we all recognise that an unmanaged drift to a cashless society would do significant harm to millions of people right across our country. Once infrastructure has gone or communities have been harmed, rebuilding is very hard. I urge the Minister not to delay work on this important issue and to work with all of us across the House to get the response to this issue right.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
I know that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is meeting with that particular group. In that interview, I was making a general point about the fact that I and my team had met with various representatives of those who are self-employed. It is something that we did right at the beginning of this crisis as we looked to design the self-employed scheme and we have continued to do so throughout.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
We all understand that it was hard back in March to get every detail right on Government support schemes, but nine months on, why does the Chancellor still have absolutely nothing new to say to those millions of people right across our country who have been shut out from support since the beginning?
Rishi Sunak
Perhaps the hon. Lady could let me know whether she thinks that it is right to target support on those who are majority self-employed. She refers to the millions of people, but, as I have explained from this Dispatch Box, 1.5 million of the 5 million people who file self-employed tax returns are not majority self-employed; they earn the majority of their income from things such as employment, which means that they can access, for example, the furlough scheme. That was a decision that was made because we are targeting support in a certain way and we do not know what individuals are doing. By the way, the principle of our decision was supported by every organisation that I spoke to as we designed the scheme. Indeed, they were all supportive of a much higher threshold—a less generous threshold—than the one that we ultimately used, which was a majority of 50%. They were all supportive of something higher— 60%. Rest assured, Mr Speaker, that those who are in that category have median self-employment earnings of between £2,000 and £3,000; it is not the primary source of their income. At that level, all the various other things that we have done will be of some help to them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend—like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) and the Mayor of the Tees Valley, Ben Houchen—is a fantastic champion for the free ports agenda. They are all absolutely right: this policy can unlock investment and growth, and therefore create jobs in parts of our country that want to see that growth. I can assure my hon. Friend that I look forward to receiving the bid that, no doubt, he and his colleagues are putting together for us.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I am sure the Chancellor will agree that confidence will not return to our economy until we are able to control the virus with an effective test, trace and isolate system, yet the current system is not working and was described by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies as having a “marginal impact” on transmission. Will he explain why, although he has funded the system generously, it is failing so badly?
Rishi Sunak
I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that we have provided substantial funding for the test and trace system. Although there have been times when we would all have wished that the response would be faster—that is indeed what is happening now—it is worth bearing in mind how far we have come since the beginning of this crisis, when 10,000 or so tests a day were being done. We are now marching towards our target of half a million daily tests. That is enormous progress and it will make a difference in our ability to suppress the spread of this virus.
Bridget Phillipson
In March, the Chancellor was clear that if people could not earn a living by going out to work, it was the Government’s job to step in, “whatever it takes”. By July, he was moving away from that belief and today he has moved so far that his employment support schemes have more holes than a Swiss cheese. Will he tell the House: was he wrong in March or is he wrong now?
Rishi Sunak
I did say we would do what it takes, and I think that £200 billion pounds later, with almost 9 million jobs protected, we see the evidence that we have done. We will continue to do what it takes to protect this economy and people’s livelihoods.
Covid-19 Economic Support Package
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
We have heard today from many Members on the Opposition Benches, but, sadly, rather fewer from the Government side. Owing to time constraints I am afraid I cannot mention every Opposition Member who spoke in today’s debate, but the House will have heard the despair that so many of our constituents feel at the prospect of their jobs disappearing, the very real difficulties their businesses are under, and the growing anger that while the Chancellor thinks it is too hard for the Treasury to provide targeted support, he is very happy to write off businesses and jobs as unviable. What all those contributions have in common is the need for the Government to provide clarity and consistency. Health restrictions and economic support must go hand in hand, or else the restrictions will not work and the costs will spiral.
What is extraordinary is that we are having to have this debate at all. At the start of the pandemic, the Chancellor—what a delight it is to see him with us today in the Chamber, gracing us with his presence—set out an economic support package for individuals and businesses. The Government were clear, and our party supported them, that, if restrictions on people’s ability to earn a living were necessary as part of a national endeavour to bring the virus under control, support was also necessary to prevent destitution and the collapse of businesses across the country. But since June, as area after area has been placed under local restrictions, we have seen the Government slowly retreating from that obvious common sense.
Today, millions of people, not just in England but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, find themselves living under fresh restrictions. They may be local in scope, but the people of my constituency, and all the other areas facing such restrictions, rightly look to this House for answers. The restrictions strike at livelihoods, whether they are employed or self-employed. For others, it strikes at the heart of the viability of family-run businesses that for so many years they have put their life and soul into building up. It is heartbreaking to hear their stories and to hear the fear in people’s voices about whether they will still have a job by Christmas.
Families and businesses do not expect handouts from the Government; they expect fairness. They expect that, if the Government stop them working, the Government will step in to make sure they do not go hungry or lose their homes. As the shadow Chancellor rightly said, we cannot see people left to sink or swim. As well as the support needed to stop people’s jobs disappearing, the shadow Chancellor set out the Government’s failure to provide a safety net worthy of name for those whose jobs have already gone. I am aware that time is short, so I will not repeat her questions, but I note that, sadly, none of them was answered.
These are not new concerns. In July, we warned the Government that what was needed was not a stopgap statement, but a full back to work Budget. We warned that removing furlough too soon—a one-size-fits-all approach—failed to recognise the very different challenges faced by different sectors in the months ahead, with so much uncertainty about the future of the pandemic. We warned then that what would be needed was targeted support, and that the Government should be planning on that basis. We asked the Government then what they planned to do to support the excluded—the people who fall between the gaps of the Government’s schemes.
The refusal to think and to plan ahead and the refusal to fix problems until it is too late is becoming a theme of this Government. Five weeks ago today, Conservative Members argued and voted that
“any deviation from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy”.
Only a fortnight had passed before the Chancellor was dragged to this House by the shadow Chancellor and deviated from his plan—to announce a winter plan, a replacement for furlough. Within weeks, he was at it again, on television this time, announcing yet another deviation. Of course, we cannot claim perfect foresight, but I do not think anyone in this House would have foreseen, even in our darkest nightmares, that the test, trace and isolate system would still be such an almighty mess almost seven months after the start of this pandemic.
Whatever our frustrations about the mishandling of this crisis, what matters above all else are the jobs and livelihoods of the people we represent, and Labour’s alternative is clear. We would put in place a job recovery scheme that fixes the problems with the Government schemes so that employers can keep more staff on, rather than having to let them go; that ensures that no one on the scheme falls into poverty; and that is open to all businesses impacted by restrictions. We would ensure clear, consistent and fair funding to every local area as soon as local restrictions are applied. We would reopen the Government’s closed £1.3 billion fund to support businesses in need. We would fix the yawning gaps in the Government schemes for the self-employed. We would stop wasting money on failing private contracts to deliver test, trace and isolate. The money should instead go to local areas, and should not be delivered only once infections have skyrocketed. Our scheme would be designed and targeted so that public money was spent where it was most needed, not splashed on unnecessary bonus schemes or without proper safeguards for workers.
It is not too late for the Government to listen—to the Opposition, to businesses, to families, to trades unions and to everyone whose livelihood and business is now at risk—and I urge the Government and the Chancellor once more to stop, to listen, to think again and to put in place the support our country desperately needs.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
The £2 billion kickstart scheme has the potential to support more than 250,000 young people and, as my hon. Friend is well aware, it is part of a comprehensive package of £30 billion of support that my right hon. Friend set out as part of his plan for jobs in the summer economic update.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Despite countless warnings from these Benches, the Government are pulling away the job retention scheme just at the moment when infection rates are rising again right across our country. Businesses have said it, unions have said it, and even Tory Back Benchers are saying it: the one-size-fits-all withdrawal of wage support risks a jobs crisis this autumn. Will the Minister not listen and change course before it is too late?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is simply wrong. What she ignores is the fact that my right hon. Friend has put in place a furlough bonus as support that goes beyond October to retain that link for employees to come back. That is part of a wider package of measures that goes alongside the furlough and stands comparison with the most generous in the world.
Bridget Phillipson
The Chief Secretary knows full well that the jobs retention bonus risks giving all the money to companies that simply do not need it. We would happily support the Government in developing a targeted, flexible wage support scheme for hard-hit sectors central to our country’s future. We have been saying this day in, day out for months now—the Government just have not been listening. Rather than stubbornly sticking to a decision made back in July, can he not accept that the situation has changed and that the Government must also change course?
Steve Barclay
There seems to be some confusion because, just last week in the debate that we had in this House, the shadow Chancellor actually recognised that the Chancellor had indeed listened with regard to the design of the furlough. In fact, they claimed credit for the role, which I salute, of the trade unions and others. So we have listened, but the reality is that the furlough pays a higher rate of people’s wages than the scheme in Spain. It supports a wider range of businesses than the one in New Zealand and the scheme runs for twice as long as that in Denmark. That shows the flexibility and the willingness to listen on the part of my right hon. Friend.
Protection of Jobs and Businesses
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The purpose of today, and the theme of so many of the contributions that we have heard, is the need—now so desperately urgent—for the Government to change course and move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. To secure a better future for working people and businesses across our country, we need a targeted extension of the furlough arrangements for the sectors that face the biggest challenges in the months ahead. So many Labour Members have raised their constituents’ concerns. Although time constraints mean that it is not practical for me to name them all, the House will have heard their call, and Labour’s call, for the Government to change course.
We have also heard from many Government Members. Some Conservative Members have been prepared to say on the airwaves that Ministers should think again, and we heard from the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) about that today. However, with so many jobs at risk and so many sectors in trouble, I find it extraordinary to witness such a level of complacency, from so many of the Conservative Members who are here today, about so many jobs in parts of our economy that face very difficult months ahead.
We have had a lot of statistics today, but we can have some more. In Burnley, there are 3,050 jobs in sectors hard hit by the pandemic, across aviation, manufacturing, restaurants and car manufacturing; in Bury North, there are 2,420 jobs in restaurants, pubs and clubs, hospitality and tourism; in Keighley, there are 3,700 in restaurants, pubs and clubs and childcare; and there are so many more. People in all those constituencies, and people in similar sectors in constituencies across our country, will wonder why the Government simply do not seem to want to listen.
Rob Butler
May I ask the hon. Lady for one more statistic? How many months or years does she feel the furlough scheme should be extended for?
Bridget Phillipson
It is always a delight to hear from Conservative Members who think that the Opposition should make those kinds of decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Chancellor, has set out very clearly that we will work with Government to design a scheme that can be targeted more at the sectors of our economy that are in trouble, but only Ministers have access to all the data that can best point us to how the scheme could properly work.
Internationally, we are an outlier in our response. We are far from through this crisis, and it would be a mistake to pull away support prematurely. Doing so will damage our economy in the long run and hit world-leading sectors of our economy. We should not make that mistake, and we urge Ministers to work with us and to think again.
It is not just the Labour party that is urging the Government to change course and provide for such a targeted extension; the TUC and the CBI take the same view, and we even hear from The Daily Telegraph that it is far too soon to be ending furlough. Indeed, with every passing day, it is becoming harder to find people—apart from Conservative Members—outside No. 11 Downing Street who believe that the Treasury has got this right.
Aside from the furlough extension, the Minister has again shirked the opportunity to address the gaps in the schemes. The shadow Chancellor has consistently pressed the Chancellor for support for those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen through the gaps of the schemes that were designed to provide employment support—the excluded. Perhaps they are employees who were changing jobs. Perhaps their business has a high street presence that does not qualify for rate relief. Perhaps they have only this year moved from employment to self-employment. Perhaps they are in one of those situations and their partner is in another.
We understand that these are difficult decisions to get right, but the Government have had six months. Today we heard yet again the same reply about what they mean to do for those people. They have done nothing, they are doing nothing and they propose to do precisely nothing. In the years ahead, Conservative Members may discover that many of their electors have longer memories than they would like.
None of these arguments is one to which the Opposition have come lately or had a belated conversion. Quite the contrary; inside and outside this House, we have spent months calling on the Government to fix the shortcomings in their schemes. The shadow Chancellor has been absolutely clear that we are more than willing to work with the Government, with businesses and with trade unions to get this right.
I will not be able to quote every remark, because time is limited, but I will remind the House how often, and for how long, we have urged the Government to get a grip, change course and, above all, bring in a targeted extension of furlough. On 19 April, the shadow Chancellor said:
“Our main concern right now is that a number of those programmes are not fulfilling the promise that has been placed on them”
On 20 April, I said that the date set for the introduction of the scheme still set aside many workers. On 3 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the shadow Business Secretary, urged a second wave of support, including where necessary an extension of the furlough scheme. On 12 May, the shadow Chancellor warned again of our concerns, and again on 23 May. On 30 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), the shadow Transport Secretary, was already drawing attention to how often we have been making this point:
“Labour has consistently called for an extension to the furlough in the most impacted industries”.
On 15 July, the Leader of the Opposition made the same points to the Prime Minister, warning that
“the decision…not to provide sector-specific support to those most at risk could end up costing thousands of jobs.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1509.]
On 28 July, he added:
“We need a targeted extension of the furlough scheme for the hardest-hit sectors and proper support in place to help those who are unemployed back into work.”
It is not simply the Opposition who believe that a targeted scheme would be better value for money. The Government’s own civil servants required ministerial direction before pursuing the Chancellor’s poorly targeted job retention bonus. The Chancellor himself has accepted that there will be a deadweight cost that might stretch into the billions, yet the amendment in his name today suggests that any deviation from existing Government policy will cause damage to the UK economy. The self- confidence is breathtaking. Does the Chancellor really believe that his Government have got everything right? It is a pity that he has not graced us with his presence today to make that argument himself. The language of infallibility is not helpful to families who fear for their jobs. Persistence may be a virtue; obstinacy in the face of all evidence is not.
The frustration that people in this country feel at the Government’s refusal to listen, understand and engage is growing all the time. The Government amendment is clear that the man in Downing Street knows best. That is not the sense shared by many businesses and workers right across our country. People do not expect handouts, but they do expect fairness. They expect that in their hour of need the Government will not abandon them, their families or their businesses. The Chancellor has shown all summer that he is not prepared to engage with the concerns of businesses in sectors facing the toughest challenges now and in the months to come.
But what matters is not the Chancellor’s persistence in sticking to decisions made in March. What matters most is a secure future for Britain’s firms and Britain’s families. Today we have again seen the Chancellor’s stubbornness holding Britain back—holding back our people and holding back our economy. It is not too late. I urge Conservative Members, especially those who have only recently arrived in this place, to think of the conversations that they must have had, as I have, with local businesses worried about the months ahead and with families fearful for their jobs, and to back this motion.