Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I said in relation to heating oil, a pot of money is going to be reserved to help people who are off the grid. We have already made announcements about that, but I would be very happy to speak with my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The upkeep of the Chester city walls costs about £600,000 a year, but that money has to come out of the local authority’s highways budget. Can the Government set aside a small amount of money to help local authorities with the stewardship of internationally important heritage assets?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Felicity Buchan)]

The Government continue to support the heritage and cultural sector. There are several sources of funding from Government arm’s length bodies such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England’s repair grants, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look into those.

Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has obviously given real thought to his proposals. Does he agree that the vast profits that the oil and gas companies make do not stay with those companies but go to their ultimate owners, the big City institutions which, in my view, the Conservative party represents these days?

[Richard Burgon]

That is an important point well made by my hon. Friend. That is what this is really about. It is a political choice that we are discussing.

On the Government’s major loophole that I referred to, which gives a 91p tax saving for every £1 invested by the oil and gas companies, we need to be clear that it is a subsidy to oil and gas giants. It takes money away from supporting families and encourages further fossil fuel production when we need to be ending all new oil and gas production to avoid climate catastrophe.

With another huge spike in energy prices now expected, much more needs to be done to help families. The Government should start by accepting my amendment and others that would see less going into profits for oil and gas firms, and more into bailing out people facing the biggest crisis in living memory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Those are precisely the kinds of forward-looking policies that we need rather than the backward-looking, dinosaur policies that seem to think that digging out more and more fossil fuels is the way forward.

[Christian Matheson]

To make the same point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), can I urge the hon. Lady to follow the money? For as long as these tax credits are given to the oil and gas companies, they are passed on to the people who control the Conservative party in the City—the big hedge fund investment billionaires who have massive incomes because of their ownership stakes in those companies.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating the new shadow Chancellor on her role. She will be cognisant of the fact that she has replaced an Aberdeen quine, so she has very big boots to fill indeed.

It is important when we look at the wider discussion of the Queen’s Speech to reflect on what it actually means. Of course, it is the Government’s legislative programme—a programme that they believe they have a mandate to put forward, and a mandate that the Conservatives got in the 2019 general election, when they won 365 seats in this place on 43% of the vote. Of course, in the 2019 general election they won just 25% of the vote in Scotland and hold just six Scottish seats in this House, yet over the last year we have seen the UK Government use that mandate to drag us out of the European Union against our express wishes. They introduced the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to ride roughshod over devolution, alongside the levelling-up fund and the shared prosperity fund—all a blatant attack on devolution. It is not just us nationalists saying that; it is the Labour party in Wales as well, because it is cognisant of the fact that the Welsh Assembly is also under attack.

What do we see planned for the year to come? We see a Conservative Government with a mandate in Scotland of 25% from 2019 seeking to introduce new legislation in relation to immigration—even more draconian than it already is—that will only make things worse, despite the express wishes of the people of Scotland to have a tailored immigration system fitting Scotland’s needs. Of course, we will also see legislation aimed solely at suppressing the right of people to vote by making them take photo ID to the ballot box. The Government are seeking to fix a problem that nobody knew existed, and they are doing it for their own nefarious means.

Of course, in Scotland we had an election last week. The Chancellor failed to reflect on that in his remarks; I do wonder why. On the constituency ballot—first past the post, which Members of this House are extremely familiar with—the SNP won an unprecedented 47.7% of the vote, and 62 constituency seats. In comparison, the Scottish Conservatives won 21% of the vote and just five constituency seats—six if we include Dumbarton, but I would not wish to do that—yet we are told we have no mandate to implement our policies.

Of course, in Scotland we do not just have a first-past-the-post system; we have a proportional Parliament. That has allowed the Labour party to gain some seats; I do not think the Liberal Democrats gained anything on the list this time; and of course the Conservatives gained some more seats on the list. That list vote was remarkable, because a majority of voters in Scotland voted for parties that had an express wish for the people of Scotland to have their say—to have a second independence referendum to decide our own future. A majority of voters on that list vote voted for such parties.

What we have ended up with is a Parliament in Scotland where 72 of the 129 seats are taken up by people who support Scotland’s right to choose. And has that right to choose ever been more important than it is at this moment in time? Has it ever been more important, as we seek to overcome a decade or more of Tory austerity, as we seek to overcome being dragged out of the European Union against our will, and as we seek to build back from the pandemic? But of course we have no mandate, because a Conservative party that has not won an election in Scotland since 1955 tells us that we will not get to decide our own future.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which is typically passionate. The trouble is that it is a speech that he could have given in any debate. May I urge him to bring his mind back to the criticism of the Conservatives for their appalling Queen’s Speech, rather than giving us the usual stuff, which we hear most days—day in, day out?

[Stephen Flynn]

I think that is the first reaction to the Scottish Parliament elections that I have heard from the Member—a Labour Member, I believe.

[Christian Matheson]

indicated assent.

[Stephen Flynn]

He is a Labour Member. That is astonishing, because I have yet to hear what the Labour party’s views are in respect of the Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland voted in favour of having that right to choose. I think he should reflect on the fact that the Labour party won just two constituency seats in Scotland. It is perhaps because of its arrogance when it comes to these serious issues of Scotland’s votes that that is such a thing.

I will turn to the Queen’s Speech now; if the hon. Member had bided his time, I would have got there. The reality is that the people of Scotland face the starkest of choices—a choice between deciding their own future, or the legislative agenda of a party that we did not vote for. What does that mean in real terms? It means that, as it stands, the people of Scotland will not have the power to borrow—we have been denied that throughout the pandemic by the Chancellor—that we will have to have nuclear weapons on the Clyde, despite our express wishes not to have them there, and that we will not be able to have climate change put front and centre. If we look at the Queen’s Speech, we see that there is just a cursory mention of net zero. That is simply not on. It is simply not right.

I appreciate that Government Members will likely point to the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I imagine that they will even point to the delayed energy White Paper. They might even point to the North sea transition deal, but the legislative footing needs to be more ambitious and the money required for change needs to be there. That has never been more important in the north-east of Scotland. Last year, we saw the price of oil and gas plummet—it collapsed—and the Chancellor did not lift a finger to help. What was the consequence of that failure to act? It was that a third of all job losses in Scotland came from the city and the wider region that I am fortunate enough to represent.

We now have the opportunity to go down the path of net zero, to invest in our future, to put carbon capture and storage into fruition and to make sure that the hydrogen economy is built—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) says, “We are doing it.” How much money are you giving to the north-east of Scotland to make that happen? I asked the Secretary of State that very question and he was unable to answer. The point I am making is that, while we remain within the United Kingdom, that investment must be targeted at the north-east of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) when he is talking about his work on the all-party parliamentary beer group, of which I am a proud member, but less of that for now.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to ban conversion therapy. I hope that that legislation will sail through the House, as long as the Government get it right. I also give a cautious welcome to the draft Online Safety Bill, for which we have been calling for many years. I just hope that the Government avoid their usual failing of caving in to the demands of foreign big tech companies.

I am extremely worried about the Government’s proposals to introduce a requirement for photographic voter ID. Let us call it what it is: it is voter suppression. It is straight out of the Trump playbook. It is sinister and authoritarian, and it will be opposed in this House.

[Ian Paisley]

I understand some of the hostility about this, but it was a Labour Government who imposed photographic voter ID on Northern Ireland, and it has actually increased voter turnout and reduced fraud. Let us not scare-tactic people out of their democratic franchise.

[Christian Matheson]

It was introduced in Northern Ireland because there was a specific issue, which the hon. Gentleman obviously knows about, concerning another political party, where there was clear, identified fraud. In the 2019 election, 49 million votes were cast and there was one conviction for fraud. This is not a problem and it does not require a solution.

There is too much left out of this Queen’s Speech. There is nothing on cladding for fire safety victims and those who are trapped in housing that is now worthless. There is very little on leasehold. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), my constituency neighbour, in his place. His leading work on this issue, along with others including the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), has been outstanding, and I pay tribute to him. Instead, we get a planning free-for-all, which Government Members have referred to, that will cause chaos locally and, frankly, line the pockets of big Tory donors. There is nothing on energy-neutral building standards and changes to building regs to make housing built to tougher environmental standards. In fact, as we have heard, apart from rolling over the Environment Bill, there is very little on environmentalism and a green recovery.

There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech for local government, which has been at the forefront of the community pandemic response. The Government have chopped £9 billion off social care and local government has had to pick up that tab. I say to Ministers that they must not use local government to pay off the debts from the pandemic that will need to be paid off. In Cheshire West and Chester, we have lost £337 million in the past decade. Just recently, the Government cut 20% from the money to fix potholes, which is one of the Government’s big schemes.

We know the modus operandi of this Government when it comes to cuts. They cut the budget of the local council or the public authority—police or fire, for example—and then, when the local authority is unable to deliver the services, they criticise the local authority for having to reduce the quality of service. If that public authority has to increase council tax, the police precept or whatever it is as a result, they criticise it for putting up council tax to make good on the cuts the Tory Government have imposed. It is dishonest, and there is a dishonesty that runs through this Government.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box:

“We understand this crucial point: we find flair, imagination, enthusiasm and genius distributed evenly throughout this country, while opportunity is not. We mean to change that, because it is not just a moral and social disgrace, but an economic mistake and a criminal waste of talent.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 18.]

He is absolutely right, but the Conservatives have been in power for 11 years and the Prime Minister has been a member of the Government for most of that time. Since I have been here, they change their leaders every couple of years like some kind of tinpot regime and try to pretend that all of a sudden they are a new Government. But just as a snake will change its skin, slither away and is still the same snake, it is still the same Conservatives in charge trying to deny everything they caused in the first place. It is dishonest. They cannot abrogate their own failings. They should stop blaming everyone else for their own failings.

Finally, let me turn to fire and rehire, which has been a scandal of this pandemic. If employers came to trade unions and said, “We’ve got a problem. The bottom has fallen out of our business. Let’s work together and solve this together,” then trade unions would have gone for that. Instead, we see this awful practice. One of my hon. Friends spoke earlier about British Gas. Loyal and skilled employees with 15 to 20 years of service are being fired and rehired on worse conditions. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech on that. The Minister responsible himself called it “bully boy tactics”, and he is absolutely right, but now is the time in the pandemic when it is becoming so common that legislation must be brought forward to ban this dreadful practice. If I am fortunate enough to win the private Members’ Bill ballot, I will bring forward legislation. I hope the Government will back me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The suggestion that promoters are being allowed to do just anything is quite wrong. If my right hon. Friend had looked closely at the current Finance Bill, he would have seen a range of measures in that Bill alone aimed at preventing the promotion of tax avoidance schemes and at the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, as well as other measures. HMRC takes such issues extremely seriously, and that is why the avoidance tax gap fell from £3.7 billion in 2005-06 to £1.7 billion in 2018-19—a fall of more than 50%.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

  If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

This Government have supported our economy through coronavirus with more than £350 billion to protect jobs, families and businesses. As we approach the next phase of our road map out of lockdown, our support continues to ensure that we emerge from the pandemic stronger and more united.

[Christian Matheson]

The Financial Conduct Authority has asked John Swift QC to investigate the mis-selling of certain business loans to small businesses, as well as their response to complaints about that mis-selling. The review has refused to take into account any loans that were settled with non-disclosure agreements between the businesses and the banks, giving a skewed view and a skewed outcome. Will the Chancellor speak to the FCA and ask John Swift to ensure that all evidence is taken into account, so that we get a proper review of the FCA’s dealings?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is on an important matter. I welcome the conclusions of the Swift review, and I hope he will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment or intervene on the scope of that review, as it was set up to be completely independent of Government. That said, we have always been clear that the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products is wrong, and nothing that the redress scheme does means that businesses cannot still go to the FCA, the Financial Ombudsman Service or the courts if they wish. If he wishes to raise particular circumstances with either the FCA or the Swift review, he can do that directly.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will make a bit of progress.

High streets are just one example of how the Government have missed those opportunities. Ministers have shown that they simply do not have it within themselves to offer solutions to the challenge we face.

First and most immediately, the Government are taking money from people’s pockets. Families in all their many forms are the target of tax rises from this Government. People will suffer and our economy will stall if families see money taken from them when they need it most. It is unfair and economically illiterate, yet it is exactly what this Government are doing. Half the country will pay more next year, thanks to the provisions in this Bill to freeze income tax personal allowances.

At the same time, the Bill does nothing to stop the sharp council tax rise that the Government are forcing councils to implement right now. It supports the Chancellor’s plan to cut £20 a week from social security this autumn for some of those who need that help most. It tells us everything we need to know about the Government’s priorities: they raise taxes and cut help for families immediately and without a second thought, years before an increase in corporation tax. At the same time, they are letting some of the world’s biggest companies stop paying tax altogether.

If that was not bad enough, the Government are also choosing in this year of all years to take money from the pockets of NHS workers. We now know how hollow those claps on the doorsteps of No. 10 and No. 11 must have echoed around Downing Street. The Government are cutting NHS workers’ pay. Ministers are breaking their promises, and the Conservatives are showing how little they have learned from the awful experience of the last year.

If we add that NHS workers’ pay cut to the personal allowance freeze, the council tax hike and the cut to universal credit, the scale of the impact of the Government’s decisions becomes clear. To give an example, a newly qualified nurse living with their partner and two children in rented accommodation will lose more than £1,100 a year. Rather than supporting families out of this crisis, the Government are prioritising tax breaks for tech giants.

That tax break is being handed to big businesses through the so-called super deduction—the £25 billion tax break for companies that the Chancellor and the Minister say represents

“the biggest two-year business tax cut in modern British history”,

and that forms our second key concern about this Bill. As the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation has made clear, investment incentives have been abused for tax avoidance purposes in the past, yet the Government have failed to say or do anything to address widespread concerns that the super deduction is open to fraud and abuse. Economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that the super deduction will

“create a risk of tax avoidance and even potentially fraud as companies essentially try to find ways to dress things up as plant and machinery investment”,

yet the Chancellor has done nothing to counter suggestions from industry consultants that the deduction could be used for luxury items, including jacuzzis.

The Government have also failed to address environmental concerns. With the deduction giving firms an incentive to buy new rather than existing assets, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury was recently unable to guarantee that the super deduction would be used to support green development. The Chancellor himself has seemed confused about the overall impact of the deduction, recently claiming that, as well as bringing investment forward,

“it will also increase the amount of investment”.—[Official Report, 9 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 641.]

That claim comes despite the Office for Budget Responsibility revealing a week earlier that cumulative business investment over the next five years will be £8 billion lower following the Chancellor’s announcement of his new scheme than had been projected before.

Particularly with a tax cut of this size, it is crucial that we understand who it is helping and what it will achieve. The truth is, as we know, that companies can already benefit from the annual investment allowance, a 100% tax break on investment up to £1 million, which the Bill extends to the end of this year. The Treasury Committee concluded in its report “Tax after coronavirus” that the annual investment allowance

“appears well targeted to promote growth in small and medium-sized enterprises.”

With the existing allowance apparently well targeted at the growth of small and medium-sized businesses, and with such businesses standing to benefit only marginally from the new super deduction, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: the main beneficiaries of the Chancellor’s new scheme will be the big firms that need help least. No wonder TaxWatch has nicknamed this the “Amazon tax cut”—a giveaway from the Chancellor that could wipe out Amazon UK’s tax bill entirely.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about what has been identified as an Amazon tax cut. Has he noticed—and I get the impression from his contribution that he has—that most of the firms that will benefit from this are foreign-owned large tech firms that are not British, and most of the firms that will not benefit are the smaller British firms that will feel the wrong end of the Government’s policies? Does he not find it rather ironic that the Conservatives, who wrap themselves in the flag, are actually being entirely un-British and damaging British interests? They claim to be patriotic, but they are doing exactly the opposite.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point and exposes again the hypocrisy in the Government’s approach. The fact is that, rather than helping families get through the tough times ahead, this Government are delivering a tax break for tech giants.

We know that Amazon workers have provided vital deliveries to millions of people across the country during lockdown. They need their rights at work to be protected and strengthened, and we all want that company to pay its fair share of tax. I see no one calling for a tax break for Amazon, yet that is exactly what this Government are providing. The Government would do well to learn from the new Biden Administration’s approach. The US Secretary of State has said that, rather than compete on lowering tax rates for corporations, the United States will focus on its

“ability to produce talented workers, cutting-edge research and state-of-the-art infrastructure”.

The new President has also been leading a drive to put in place a global minimum corporate tax rate. A spokesperson for the Treasury here has indicated that the UK might back those plans. Taken along with the Chancellor’s decision to raise corporation tax to 25%, this seems to be an admission by the Government that the last decade of Conservative corporate tax policy making has been totally wrong-headed. If that is the case, we welcome the Government’s admission, and it is vital that the UK plays a leading role in developing and implementing the proposals that President Biden is backing. We have not yet heard from Ministers on this matter in Parliament, however, so I urge the Exchequer Secretary to use her closing speech today as an opportunity to confirm to the House that she and the Chancellor back plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate and that they will do all they can to make this a reality.

While the initiative on international tax is being led by those overseas, closer to home the offer from this Chancellor of such a large tax break to companies will, of course, make people wonder what processes will be in place to prevent Ministers from intervening improperly on behalf of commercial interests in how decisions are made. The Chancellor is still refusing to properly account for his role in the Greensill scandal. To ensure public confidence in who will benefit from this £25 billion tax break, we strongly urge the Exchequer Secretary to today set out what new safeguards will be put in place to make sure that public money is not misused.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, which tempts me into indiscretion. He may be aware of this, but HMRC publishes annual estimates to illustrate the impact of changes in tax rates in a document sexily entitled “Direct effects of illustrative tax changes”. It is worth saying, however, that these estimates are themselves uncertain, because of different levels of behavioural response to tax changes, the potential for wider macroeconomic impacts and, of course, the interaction with other measures.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The pubs and hospitality sector so far has done everything that has been asked of it during the pandemic, but so far 46% of pubs have not received local restrictions support grants for November, let alone December, and 74% of pubs have yet to receive the Prime Minister’s Christmas bonus of £1,000, so what will Ministers be doing to speed up these payments and when will the pubs and hospitality sector get its money?

[Rishi Sunak]

It is absolutely right that businesses get the funds as quickly as possible. What I would say is that central Government have disbursed that funding to local councils across the country, so it is actually for businesses to take up with their local authority why they have not received the money. There are two sets of grants: there are of course our monthly grants, which have been going for a while now, and the one-off payments of up to £9,000 that we announced earlier this year. But the hon. Gentleman is right to urge urgency. I know my colleagues in the Business Department are doing exactly that with local councils, but ultimately the responsibility will lie with individual councils.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

When the Minister is meeting the Secretary of State for Education, will he also talk about funding for the early years and nurseries sector? The 30 hours of free childcare is not working, and many of these nurseries were facing unviability before the current crisis.

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because across the House people recognise the importance of early years and early intervention, but he will be aware of the wider package of funding showing the Government’s commitment to education, not just in primary schools and secondary schools but through the measures on further education set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

Detailed guidance is available. Further guidance will be provided and our aim is to build the new scheme so that it is operational by the end of April. That is a challenge. We are already working night and day to construct something from scratch, but claims will be allowed to be backdated to 1 March so that businesses have the security of knowing that the cash-flow rebate will be coming. As I have said, the aim is to have the scheme up and running so that the April payroll can be reimbursed through it.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

One of the problems with this crisis is that we do not know how long it is going to last. I have businesses in my constituency—events companies, conference companies and sporting companies—that have long lead-in times to organise their events, but they cannot cancel them yet and thereby claim insurance because there is no Government guidance. Do the Government have any plans to give guidance, particularly to the insurance companies and events companies, that will perhaps say, “No events for the next six months”?

[John Glen]

We are working closely with the insurance industry, and obviously events companies are underpinned by contractual obligations. We established that if they have cover relevant to non-specified diseases, the announcements by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have triggered those policies to be paid out, but I am happy to look at any specific cases that individual Members want to bring to me, which I can take up with industry representatives.

Contingencies Fund Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Committee stage & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I want to start by echoing the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The urgent need for provisions to support the self-employed gets greater by the day, and my concern is that desperation is turning to anger. The “What about us?” sentiment will be driving that anger, understandably, and making the situation a whole lot worse. I urge Ministers to bring that support forward.

We are also promised support for renters in both the social sector and private rented sector. That has not happened yet. Again, as days and weeks go by, the desperation and uncertainty become greater, and I urge Ministers to bring that forward. My right hon. Friend was right about the Government apparently going back on a commitment to bring forward provisions to ban evictions. If someone is evicted, where are they going to go at the moment? There is no reason at all why that provision should not be brought forward. If we are serious that people have to stay at home, let them stay at home by making sure that they are not evicted. It shows either misjudgment in making the promise in the first place, or misjudgment and bad faith in breaking that promise. I urge Ministers to take that back to the Prime Minister and ask him to make a change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) was absolutely correct in what she said about charities. In Cheshire West and Chester, we have brought together Cheshire West and Chester Council, West Cheshire Voluntary Action and lots of charities and church groups to try to provide a co-ordinated service to all those who need support at the moment. But as my hon. Friend said, the charities are running out of money because their commercial activities are running down, which is affecting their income. That is calling into question their ability to deliver services to the most vulnerable, which they do much of the time and which is often taken for granted. Right now, with everyone expected to stay at home, the ability of charities to deliver those services is perhaps limited anyway, but as this situation hopefully gets better, we will look to charities to get those services up and running straightaway. At the moment, without the support for charities, their ability to do that is diminished.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his point on rented accommodation? He is right that at the moment, all landlords should show forbearance when people are in difficult financial circumstances, and the Coronavirus Bill will increase the notice period to end an assured shorthold tenancy from two to three months. He is a fair man, so does he agree that we must be fair to both sides? If a tenant is unfairly withholding rent from a landlord, and it takes eight months to get a case to court at the moment, that is not very fair on the landlord. We have to be fair to both sides.

[Christian Matheson]

I do accept that, but that would be the case in normal circumstances anyway. We are talking about giving people peace of mind during this national crisis and ensuring that people do not even have to live with the worry of being chucked out on the street or into temporary accommodation. That is my concern.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington reflected on his childhood in Liverpool and on his priest considering him to be a lapsed Catholic. That reminded me of my mum and dad, who also grew up in Liverpool, albeit a couple of decades or more before my right hon. Friend. The formative period of their childhood was the second world war, when they were both young children, suffering the bombings in Liverpool and the uncertainty of the war. We all know that the second world war in Europe ended formally on 7 May 1945, but my mum and dad did not know that—they had no idea when the hostilities would end and things might start to get better. Listening to my right hon. Friend, I reflected that that is the situation in which we find ourselves now.

We have no idea how long this crisis is likely to last. That uncertainty drives desperation, anxiety and as the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and my good friend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, business uncertainty. That is why it is essential that the Government are clear in their statements and oblige other businesses—we have talked about the banks; I want to consider insurance companies—to ensure that they play their part. If we cannot plan ahead, we will not know how to address the problems, and it cannot simply be down to the Government.

I make that point because insurance companies are not living up to their obligations. I know of businesses in Chester that have been told that their business contributions to insurance do not apply because coronavirus was not a notifiable disease at the time of the outbreak or because the Government had only suggested, as was the case last week, that events did not take place rather than saying that they must not take place. As I mentioned at Question Time, for events, conferences and sports that have a long lead-in time to prepare, it would help if the Government were clearer now that those businesses could not get back up and running for four or six months and that insurance companies should ensure that their policies kick in.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman talked about the future and how we recover and rebuild after the crisis has passed, but does he agree that things have changed utterly and that footing the bill for covid-19 in the years ahead cannot fall to the people, and that the banks certainly should not be rewarded, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) suggested, with quantitative easing? It is important that we get this right. When we start to rebuild, it is important that people and organisations that have avoided and evaded tax are called to pay their fair share.

[Christian Matheson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The world will change, but only if we lead and make that change ourselves. As regards quantitative easing, which the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) mentioned, I would be happy to give all that money to local authorities and let them spread it out to places that really need it.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who is a good friend, and has respect across the House for his work on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, is right to talk about the banks, not only now, but in the future, when this is all over. We must ensure that they do not get up to the same games by looking at businesses and saying, “Your income’s declined, so we’ll start foreclosing on some of your assets.” That has happened before. I call on Ministers to give close attention to the way that banks operate, not only now, but afterwards, and ensure that they play their part.

In this crisis, there will be heroes and villains. We will remember the heroes and we will also remember the villains. I call on employers such as banks and insurance companies not to make their staff go to work if they are in a vulnerable group. I am getting complaints from constituents that they are being forced to go to work. Mike Ashley and Mr Wetherspoon should not flout Government advice just because their bottom line might be affected. We will remember the villains. I say, “Don’t be a villain at the end of this” because hopefully, those companies and corporations will receive the short shrift they deserve.

Loan Charge 2019: Sir Amyas Morse Review

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I intend to speak for only a couple of minutes. That is partly because of the outstanding introduction from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which was clear, logical and unimpeachable—I congratulate him on securing the debate—but partly also because the situation is simple.

I am clear about two facts. First, disguised remuneration loan schemes—DR schemes—were clearly a tax dodge and were used for people to pay less tax. It is absolutely right, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) hinted, that we should close down those loopholes. However, it is also clear that the loan charge was put in place unfairly and unjustly as a retrospective measure. What is the proof of that particular pudding? Well, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) beat us all to it, and he is absolutely right. Why on earth did we need to introduce the 2017 legislation to introduce the 2019 loan charge if, as the Government and HMRC claim, these schemes were already illegal? They were not. That is why the loan charge was brought in. It is utterly wrong to bring in retrospective legislation and retrospective taxation as a result.

HMRC is entirely within its rights to look at up to five years of someone’s tax records, but only if the information that the individual has given to HMRC can be proved to be incorrect. We are talking about individuals who had their correct tax returns signed off by HMRC, which agreed that they were perfectly legitimate and lawful under current tax law but then reopened them, not because there was a suggestion that the individuals had provided incorrect information, but because the law had changed or was not quite as HMRC thought it was at the time it signed off those tax regulations. That is HMRC’s problem, not the problem of my constituents.

Fortunately, I do not know of any constituents who have taken their own life, but I do know of constituents who have lost their business and their house. One constituent’s marriage broke up. One young lad doing his first contracting job was told on the first day, “This is the way that we get paid in this place.” He did not know any better; he was 21 years old and just out of university. That was how he was encouraged by the employer and, incidentally, his colleagues to undertake the scheme. He does not yet know what his liability will be. Will it be £16,000? Will it be £60,000? The uncertainty is dragging him down. At the moment, he does not even feel able to work.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and echo the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who says that it is not a party issue. Members will agree that it is a question of natural justice and fairness, and of not reopening tax returns that had previously been signed off by HMRC. By all means let us close the loophole, but let us not drag people into this dreadful sense of natural injustice.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am not in a position to take the right hon. Gentleman through the legal arguments, and I do not need to, because, as I have said, they have been described in detail by Sir Amyas Morse in his review which, of course, is based, as my remarks would not be, on a detailed interrogation with tax experts on all the specific issues behind it. I do not think we have any sensible reason—no one has in fact offered one—for disagreeing at length or in any detail with his conclusion.

[Christian Matheson]

The Minister knows that I have all the time in the world for him, but nobody in this House disputes the fact that it was tax avoidance and that loopholes needed to be closed. He is spending his time explaining why they were avoidance schemes, but hon. Members understand that. It is the question of retrospection and unfairness that is exercising us in this debate.

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but if I may say so, I do not think that has been true. I think the conclusion colleagues have been pushing in this debate is that they disapprove thoroughly of tax avoidance, and their view is that this is not tax avoidance in many cases. If they accept that this is tax avoidance and that the issue is merely as to the remedy, that is of course a slightly different position, and one that I am happy to respond to.

I just want to make it clear that this is a form of tax avoidance. It goes to the wider issue as to whether people should have known what it was. The point is that it is tax avoidance, and it costs the Exchequer hundreds of millions of pounds a year. That has two effects: it deprives public services of the money they need to operate; and it forces other taxpayers to pay more to make up the shortfall.

The purpose of the loan charge was to combat this form of abusive tax avoidance. The loan charge was introduced as a new measure in 2017. Following a public campaign last year, we asked Sir Amyas Morse, as has been noted, to conduct a review of whether it was an appropriate policy response to the use of the disguised remuneration scheme. He had full control of the review’s management and recommendations. He took evidence from a very wide range of individuals affected, and he spoke to interest groups, MPs, tax specialists and many other stakeholders.

Again, the facts are not in doubt. Sir Amyas Morse, as has been recognised by colleagues today, is an individual of huge experience and great independence of mind, and he is widely respected across the House. He was independent in his review, and he was given wide scope in expert support. He produced a thorough and exacting piece of work—a 76-page, 30,000-word report—that drew on over 700 individual testimonies and impact statements, and which painstakingly worked through the issues before recommending notable changes to the policy, including substantial carve-outs as to who was affected. Sir Amyas was clinical and at times unsparing in his criticisms, including of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and, be it said, of the Loan Charge Action Group. All but one of these recommendations were accepted by the Government.

Among those recommendations were two to which I want to draw the House’s particular attention. The first is Sir Amyas’s insistence, as we have heard across the House today, on the need for the Government to go further in going after and bringing to justice people who enable or promote tax avoidance schemes. I am therefore delighted that, as part of the Budget documentation we have produced today, we have published a policy document on “Tackling promoters of mass-marketed tax avoidance schemes”, and I draw the attention of all colleagues to it. It is a sober and thorough piece of work that looks at lots of different approaches as part of an integrated strategy.

The other thing that Sir Amyas pointed to—again, I think rightly, but also picking up on a widely anticipated and understood gap—is the importance of raising standards in the tax advice market. Again, I am pleased to say that, as part of the Budget documentation, we have published a call for evidence on this very topic, “Raising standards in the tax advice market”. I encourage all colleagues and their constituents to contribute to that approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I recognise the challenge of getting to the heart of the problems in different constituencies, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to better understand his specific concerns so that we can get to the heart of the problem in his constituency.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

5. What recent representations he has received on the application of the 2019 loan charge.

[Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

11. What recent progress has been made by Sir Amyas Morse on the independent review of the 2019 loan charge.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Given that it is my first time at the Dispatch Box since you became Speaker, let me just say that I recall running an operation in 2014 to prevent your predecessor from rigging the selection of the Clerk of the House of Commons; I think it speaks to the esteem in which you are held across this House that one could imagine no such thing under your speakership.

The Government published Sir Amyas Morse’s independent review of the loan charge on 20 December, alongside the Government’s response to his recommendations.

[Christian Matheson]

Clearly the loophole had to be closed, but not in the retrospective fashion that has hit so many of my constituents. If these arrangements were already illegal when my constituents were charged, why was it necessary to bring in the loan charge in 2017 at all?

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from reading the review, it is a very thorough and comprehensive piece of work and Sir Amyas goes into this question. He has accepted the case for a loan charge in principle—he recognises that it was important to address the issue of abusive tax avoidance—but he said that it should apply to loans taken out after a specific date. In his judgment, that represents a fair balance between the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises and the loan charge, and the Government have accepted that.