Finance Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Again in this place, we are talking about the challenges that have been created by the coronavirus—the challenges to our businesses, to individuals and to those who have been excluded from Government support—and the taxation that will have to be used to try to rebuild. In the Finance Bill that the Government have laid before us, I believe that they have missed important opportunities to do that for the benefit of all our constituents. I would echo what the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said when laying out new clause 23 and when speaking about Biden’s proposals. We have to look at this crisis in a way that we have never approached any crisis before, and on a scale that we have never done with any crisis before. We have to look for measures that will be enacted on a scale that we have never seen before.

I would also like to express my support for the amendments tabled to address and, indeed, stop the malpractice that is rife. These include an amendment tabled following the inquiry by the all-party parliamentary loan charge group into how contracting should work, to stamp out the malpractice and mis-selling to public and private sector freelance and locum workers by unregulated umbrella companies. Those practices have created a climate where tax avoidance schemes are rife and are being mis-sold.

These amendments follow the powerful report by the loan charge APPG, as I have said. BBC Radio 4 has estimated the cost to the Treasury—£1 billion a year in lost tax revenue—and The Guardian has reported that the hidden cost of umbrella companies in the UK may actually be more than £4.5 billion a year. These are some of the opportunities that I believe the Government are missing.

There are also specific amendments before us tonight about measures that would require the Chancellor to review separately the effectiveness of furlough and the self-employment income support scheme, the impact of the Finance Bill on small businesses and the impact of the Bill on transitioning to zero-carbon domestic flights by 2030. All of these, I believe, are opportunities that the Government are failing to take.

The coronavirus has caused the worst economic crisis in three centuries and brought real hardship to our constituents up and down the country in all lines of work. The furlough scheme and SEISS have helped countless people so far, and millions continue to depend on them, but the Government need to think again and review their decision to end the schemes in September. They need to think about extending them into next year. We have all been glad to see cases dropping and restrictions being eased thanks to the vaccine and the NHS, but unfortunately this does not mean that the crisis is behind us.

Covid has left businesses saddled with debt and more vulnerable than ever, especially small businesses, and many are worried that they will not make it through the year. Their employees are rightly worried about their future. As experts warn us about the potential dangers of the new Indian variant, there are worries that the final step of the reopening road map might need to be delayed, or that we might not have seen the last of social distancing.

For all those reasons, it is essential to give workers, self-employed people and small businesses certainty about the future and keep job support in place at least until the end of the year. Even at this late stage, the Chancellor must correct the injustice against the 3 million excluded, who have spent more than a year with no help at all, by finally bringing them under the umbrella of Government support.

I would also like the Chancellor to review the impact of the Bill specifically on small businesses and whether it will offer them adequate help with their debt, rent arrears, solvency and ability to employ people. Small businesses are, as countless Prime Ministers have said, the backbone of our economy and the heart of our local communities. They create the jobs that we all rely on, with 16.8 million people working in small businesses and accounting for six out of 10 private sector jobs. Local shops, cafés, pubs, restaurants, hairdressers and florists all serve our communities and bring life to our town centres and high streets. If allowed not just to survive but to thrive, they can be the engines for growth and jobs in the months and years to come. At the moment, they are struggling under record amounts of debt and months of rent arrears; the collective debt burden is more than £100 billion. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, something like a quarter of a million of its members could close by the end of this year. On top of that, they have been badly hit by the terrible EU trade deal. That is why the Chancellor must adopt a revenue compensation scheme that could help those struggling with their finances and fixed expenses to stay afloat. At the very least, the Government should be undertaking a review to assess the state of UK small businesses and offer the necessary support off the back of that.

Opportunities are also being lost to transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2030. These are all opportunities with which this challenge of many lifetimes has presented us, and which we should seize in order to help individuals, businesses, families and communities up and down the country to recover. The opportunity was there with this Finance Bill, but I do not believe that the Government have grasped it in the way that they should. I ask them to reconsider and accept the amendments.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I, too, will abide by your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, to keep my speech as short as possible.

When I was an economics correspondent a very, very long time ago, tax competition between countries was all the rage. There was a sort of mainstream consensus that it was a good thing because it helped give countries an incentive to be an attractive place to do business, but in the last couple of decades it has become clear how easy it is for international companies to run circles around national rules and reduce their tax bills by shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, and we end up with this outrageous, unconscionable position of some of the world’s largest companies paying some of the smallest corporation tax rates. That causes anger across the UK and on both sides of this House; we are all aligned in the objective of ensuring that big companies pay a fair share of tax.

This Government have been doing an awful lot, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) recognised, to try to tackle this issue both within the UK and internationally, including through measures such as the diverted profits tax, the digital services tax and changes on tax to subsidiaries. When I was chief executive of the British Bankers Association, I was involved with a lot of the implementation of those rules.

We need to take measures internationally as well; this is an international problem, so ideally we need an international solution. The difficulty, though, is getting an agreement between a large number of different countries. Normally these sorts of discussions go through the OECD, which is so big that it is difficult to get agreement and progress is absolutely glacial. That is why, on things such as the digital services tax, the UK has opted to act unilaterally before an international agreement can be agreed. I very much welcome the fact that the initiative is now being led by the G7, because we are far more likely to get agreement from seven major countries, and then to expand that out to the G20 and then to the OECD.

As we have heard tonight, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), these are complex negotiations. There are two interlinked pillars at the OECD: the scope of the tax and the level of the tax if there is a global minimum rate of corporation tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, there is no point in agreeing a global level of corporation tax if all we are doing is taxing companies in California; the two parts of the negotiations are intertwined. I very much welcome the fact that Government are involved in these negotiations. I completely respect that they may wish to negotiate more in private than in public, as that is often the best way; I know that their intentions are absolutely right.

That brings me to new clause 23. It is the wrong review at the wrong time. The new clause asks the Government to review the corporation tax set at 21%, but, as the hon. Member for Ealing North said, it actually looks like Joe Biden and the US are now looking at 15%, so this proposal is already out of date and it has not even been voted on yet. It is also at the wrong time because what we do not want to do in the middle of an international negotiation is tie our hands, display all our cards and show what we are doing. It could create a dynamic in the negotiations that would actually set back the UK’s ambition to ensure that companies pay a fair rate of tax. I therefore fully support the Government in rejecting the new clause. I also fully support them on reaching a strong global agreement to ensure that the world’s biggest companies pay their fair share of tax.

I hope that that was less than five minutes.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that every time he says “we” in reference to Scotland, he is not respecting the fact that, in the election last week, approximately half of the population did not vote for independence and did not vote for the SNP. It is unfair to stand in this House and not reflect on that.

[Stephen Flynn]

We can, of course, take that wider question to the Scottish public in a second independence referendum. I am sure that the hon Lady, whose party was roundly destroyed in the elections last year, will back up that support for independence.

I was talking about climate change and its importance in the context of the north-east of Scotland. That investment is important when it comes to securing jobs. The Scottish Government have one hand tied behind their back when it comes to energy, because it is this UK Treasury that has coined in in excess of £350 billion of oil and gas revenues over the decade, and it is this UK Treasury that has a responsibility now to act and to ensure that the north-east of Scotland is protected.

It is not just a case of making sure that there are job opportunities for those whose jobs have gone or whose jobs are now at risk because of the transition that will be made; it is also about protecting those who are currently in employment. If someone is in employment and they look at the Queen’s Speech, they will be asking, “Where is it— where is the Employment Bill that was promised? Where is the protection of workers’ rights?” More than that, they will be asking, “Where is the action that this Government are intending to take when it comes to fire and rehire?” We heard warm words once again from the Chancellor, but my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has had a Bill before the House for many months now seeking to outlaw the practice of fire and rehire. Where has the Government’s support for that Bill been? They could end that practice and they could end it now, but, of course, they have chosen not to do so. They are not interested in protecting people’s employment rights.

There is one group who deserve to have their rights protected more than any other moving forward and who deserve to have jobs and opportunities and that is our young people. Although there has not been much agreement on a lot of what I have said so far today—that is an understatement—I think that we can all agree that young people have been perhaps the hardest hit by the pandemic. We should not forget, of course, that it is not just the pandemic that is before them. Many people are still feeling the difficulties of the global financial crash of 2008. They are the same people who have had their ability to live, work and study in the European Union taken away from them. These are the people who deserve our support. In Scotland, we are seeking to support them from the earliest of ages.

We are going to ensure that young people have the freedom to go to university without paying any money. In stark contrast to the Conservatives, we are going to make sure that our young people are fed with free school meals. We are going to make sure that the digital divide is ended for our young people, as they are going to have the opportunity to have a free laptop or iPad, all in contrast to the UK Government, and of course we are introducing a jobs guarantee to ensure that every 16 to 24-year-old in Scotland has the opportunity to go to university or college—

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

A short time ago I had to remind myself that this debate is about the Queen’s Speech and about better jobs and a fair deal at work for people throughout the United Kingdom, as I did wonder at one point whether I had stumbled into yet another SNP Opposition day debate on independence. They did, however, have one thing in common with today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, because each of those debates was a missed opportunity—a missed opportunity to scrutinise the Government, question their policies and make proposals as to how they could better reform the world of work and create a fairer deal.

In this Queen’s Speech the Government have missed an opportunity to bring forward an employment Bill. We speak at a time, as has already been mentioned, when the economy has shrunk by 8.7% since before the pandemic and unemployment is standing at 4.9%. That is why I believe and the Liberal Democrats believe that this was an opportunity. We have had many vague promises and hints about employment measures, but an employment Bill would have been welcome, perhaps with something for unpaid carers and something to make flexible working the default position in British society.

I believe it has become clear, with the proposals we have heard this week, that the Government have no long-term strategy for jobs. We are still in a position where the Government are giving us a knee-jerk reaction and patchwork responses to the economic crisis we will be facing later this year. Earlier this year, the Conservatives tried to water down workers’ rights with the post-Brexit review of employment law, but thankfully that effort was stopped in its tracks. Now it looks as if the Government have passed on an opportunity to legislate for the post-pandemic world of work.

The pandemic has created huge shifts in how people work, whether they are office workers working remotely or gig economy workers experiencing a spike in their workload. We need to ensure that, in the post-pandemic world, people can keep on working flexibly where that is right for them, while receiving the support they need from their employers wherever they live and work in the United Kingdom. We also need new protection for vulnerable workers in the gig economy, such as the right to paid breaks and leave, plus a 20% higher minimum wage for zero-hours contracts.

Our recovery must start with small businesses. Small businesses employ more than 16 million people across this country, and it is acknowledged that they are the backbone of our economy. Much of our recovery could come from green jobs if we are to make real progress in tackling the climate crisis, such as long-term programmes to refit homes, cutting bills and emissions, as well as investing in public transport and supporting our farms to plant trees and restore peatland. All that would create jobs, and I believe the recognition of that is also missing from measures set out in the speech.

There are two specific things I would like to appeal to the Government to think about on work. One is giving asylum seekers in this country the right to work. Not only would it give them dignity, but it would contribute to the economy. They would be making a contribution in the workplace and paying tax and national insurance, and they would become valued members of our community. I would also at this time, when we are thinking about recovery from this pandemic, appeal to the Government to think about all those working in the national health service on visas, and offer them indefinite leave to remain as a thank you for what they have done for this country in this crisis.

One last step would be a revenue compensation scheme that would reimburse struggling small businesses for the money they have lost due to the pandemic by covering up to 80% of their fixed costs—rent, insurance, loan payments, bills and so on. Let us send a message to this country that we care. The Government could send the message too that they care about small businesses and that they are thinking about the people who have made such a contribution in this crisis. In September, when furlough is due to come to an end, they could think about tapering it and allowing it to continue until we are truly out of this pandemic, not miss the opportunity to support people building a new future.

Financial Services Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks short, because I know it is late and we have a lot of work to do.

There are many amendments to welcome from the other House, particularly the regulation of “buy now, pay later” by the Financial Conduct Authority, where there is clear risk of consumer harm. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a remarkably ineffective piece of legislation but it is right that it is extended to e-money, as there is a clear loophole there. On cashback without purchase, there is no risk of consumer detriment there and we need to increase access to cash. It is right that it is brought outside the FCA’s remit.

On Lords amendment 1 and the duty of care, I spent five years of my life trying to get the banking industry to improve the care given to vulnerable customers, and clearly many consumer harms carry on. I launched schemes, actually in this House, for the banking industry to help customers with cancer and customers with Alzheimer’s. I am very attracted to the idea of some sort of blanket duty of care, but I do not support this amendment, for two reasons. The first is that, as written, it is so wide-ranging that there would clearly be massive unintended consequences, which even vulnerable customers would live to regret. The second is that, as the Minister said, the FCA already has very wide-ranging powers, almost certainly enough to deal with all the consumer harms that need to be dealt with. I very much welcome the Government’s move, through their amendment, to push the FCA to look at how to reduce consumer harm and implement an effective duty of care.

On Lords amendment 8, mortgage prisoners absolutely need help. They have suffered massively, through no fault of their own, losing tens of thousands of pounds, if not more. We have rehearsed all the arguments tonight for and against this measure. We agree that we need to help these people, but the question is: how do we do that? The cap of interest rates is, as people say, a sticking plaster—even its supporters say that. I can see the appeal of it, but this sticking plaster comes at great cost: Parliament would be setting out interest rates in primary legislation. That could lead to huge unintended consequences in lots of ways—for example, through the impact on financial stability that we heard about earlier on some of the firms. It would also set an extraordinary precedent, with the Government doing price controls in that way. One does not have to be an historian of the 1970s to know of all the dangers of price controls.

It is also really not the solution we need. Where someone is trapped in a horrible prison with their guards abusing them and they are very uncomfortable, would they want that prison to be made more comfortable and the guards to behave themselves, as this cap in effect proposes, or would they want to get out of the prison? They would want to get out of the prison. We need to make sure that mortgage prisoners can move to other mortgage providers. That should apply to all people who are mortgage prisoners, including those who are in arrears, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) set out. This is very complicated stuff. There are lots of reasons why people cannot move, whether it is their loan-to-value ratio or their income stream, or because they are in arrears. It is absolutely right that they should be helped to go to regular mainstream mortgage lenders that are offering other suppliers, and I very much welcome the Government move to really push on that, working with the FCA. I take on trust their commitment to really push in that direction and get a solution to that for all the mortgage prisoners.

For those reasons, I am happy to vote against Lords amendment 8, so long as the Government do everything they can to help those prisoners.

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

I, too, will keep my remarks brief. In the debate tonight I, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, will be opposing the Government’s motions to disagree with Lords amendments 1 and 8.

In particular, I would like to focus my comments on Lords amendment 8. This amendment would offer significant relief, I believe, to thousands of so-called mortgage prisoners caught in a vicious cycle of debt through no fault of their own. We have already heard the arguments rehearsed and some terrible stories of what they have been through. All that has been the result of the original decision, after the collapse of the mortgage providers, to sell off those mortgages to investment funds, and that has left as many as a quarter of a million homeowners trapped in spiralling mortgage costs for more than a decade now.

It is a situation that the Government have failed to address, even though there is clear evidence that it is jeopardising wellbeing. A recent study found that mortgage prisoners experienced higher rates of physical and mental health problems, and that they are up to 40% more likely to default as a result of coronavirus. The significance of this amendment is that it would finally unlock this trap and offer an escape from the nightmare of the past decade. Significantly, it would lower interest payments through a cap on the standard variable rate of interest for mortgage prisoners who are borrowing from a firm that no longer lends to new customers. The cap would be no higher than 2% above the Bank of England base rate, which is currently a mere 0.1%. It would also require lenders to offer mortgage prisoners new fixed interest rate deals in certain circumstances—for example, if they have kept up with payments in the past 12 months, if they have an outstanding loan amount of over £10,000, or if they have not received consent to let the property.

The misery caused to tens of thousands over the past decade and the continuing threat it poses demand that we act. We have heard tonight why. To me, it seems simple. It seems the correct thing to do, and therefore I strongly urge the House to reject the Government’s motion to disagree with this amendment—Lords amendment 8 —as well as with Lords amendment 1.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

There is a famous saying, is there not, that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but the problems born out of the banking crisis in 2008 still persist. Indeed, there are a quarter of a million households with mortgages affected by lenders who suffered at that time. They are with inactive lenders, and in simple terms their mortgages are stuck with non-lending asset management funds.

We know that the Government have looked at many of those borrowers to try to help them so that they can switch lenders. Many of them can—almost half of them—and they can benefit largely from doing so, but it is the remaining half that are our real problems, the so-called mortgage prisoners. Their rates, as they came off the original term deals, moved on to the standard variable rate we have heard about tonight, leaving them paying such disproportionately high repayments. Their lender’s debt was sold on, and as such they cannot remortgage or switch, leaving many families struggling immensely to manage each month. Lords amendment 8 would require the FCA to introduce a cap on those standard variable rates and ensure that mortgage prisoners can access new fixed interest rate deals.

I know there are huge amounts of work going on to try to help these people, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—I thank him for all the work he has done—but also by the Minister, who has been a tower of strength. He has been talking to me far too much about how we can help these people, and I thank him greatly for that. It is an absolute must that we do keep helping these people.

First, the 70,000 mortgage prisoners who are in arrears, would—for many reasons, unfortunately—potentially not be a better position if they were in the active market, as borrowers are unlikely to be able to switch within the market, given the very stringent risk criteria there are today. The Government are trying to support these householders with the initiatives we have heard about, such as the breathing space scheme.

It is the remaining 55,000 who have kept up their repayments that I particularly want to make sure the Treasury can really help and work on solutions for. I know there are again attempts to modify the affordability criteria assessment to try to move those people on to a new lender. Notwithstanding such efforts, those solutions are not the final answer. So what is the answer? Is it Lords amendment 8? Do we interfere with a market?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 2)
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely accept that our tax system is very complex, and I have proposed a number of measures on the Floor of this House to try to simplify it. For example, abolishing business rates and replacing them with an increase in VAT would simplify the tax system, instead of having an online sales tax. However, in terms of this debate I do not think it is the complexity of the issues that catches people out. We can see that 99% of tax avoidance schemes in the UK involve disguised remuneration—these are very contrived schemes. We should look at amendment 77 carefully. As to whether it is unfair on a person who is a promoter of what I would say is an extremely contrived tax avoidance measure, I am not totally sold that that should be a problem.

One of the biggest problems we have is faith in the system. This Government have done a huge amount to reduce the tax gap, which is at a record low of 4.7%, but if there is a £20 billion tax gap from fraud, the person in the street might reasonably say, “Why should I pay my tax?” This creates an incentive then for people to look at ways of avoiding tax. As to whether tax avoidance is fraud, the Government’s own call for evidence last month says clearly:

“The Government recognises that the design of arrangements that are sold as avoidance schemes may in fact enable fraud.”

So there is a good case for being able to take these further measures, as the Government are doing through stop notices, further civil penalties and stopping individuals hiding behind corporate structures.

The trouble is that, as we see in many areas, not least the banking sector, which I am pretty active in through my work in the all-party group on fair business banking, these kinds of organisations see a fine—a civil penalty—as a cost of doing business; the real deterrent for people is a criminal penalty. One of the best examples of this is to be found in a completely different sector, with the personal liability for a director in the construction industry. As soon as that personal liability came in and there was the potential for someone to go to jail if they did not make sure their sites were safe or they did not put measures in place, there was a huge decrease in the number of injuries and fatal incidents in the workplace in construction. That speaks to the point that if there are real criminal sanctions that we are willing to take forward and people think that that is going to happen, this promotion of avoidance schemes will start to drop significantly.

We probably have better resourced areas in terms of the prosecution of avoidance; I believe there are about three and a half times this number of people in the Department for Work and Pensions looking at benefit fraud, despite the fact that it is a much lower level of fraud—the level of benefit fraud is about 10% of that seen by HMRC. A beefing up of the resources in HMRC is therefore something we should consider. We have seen very famous schemes. I believe the Ingenious film scheme cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion, but not a single promoter has been held to account for it. We need more resources, but we should also look at legislation. This country does not have a great record on prosecuting serious fraud. There are a number of examples where the Serious Fraud Office has failed to make charges stick—I think, for example, of cases involving Tesco and Barclays. That is why the SFO wants to bring in more legislation, which the Government have agreed to do, to create a corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime. This would be a personal sanction on the directors of a corporation that failed to do that. Of course, in banking we now have the senior managers regime that the Financial Conduct Authority put in place following some of the scandals there, when nobody was held to account for the disgraceful abuse of both consumers and businesses through the past couple of decades in the sector. The excellent Minister might say that amendment 77 is not the right vehicle for this, but some beefing up of the legislation to make it easier to prosecute fraud—criminal activity—is something that we should seriously consider.

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).

I welcome the action that the Government are finally taking against the promoters of tax-avoidance schemes. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will be supporting new clause 29, which would require the Government to review the impact of provisions relating to tax avoidance and publish regular reports that set out the findings. We will also support amendment 77, which would cause the promoters of abusive tax-avoidance schemes to be treated as acting dishonestly for the purposes of criminal prosecution for tax offences, without dishonesty having to be proved separately by the prosecution. We believe that the measures we are considering are what the Government should have been doing earlier. The promoters of abusive tax-avoidance schemes have deprived the public purse of millions of pounds and defrauded countless people who thought that their services and the advice offered were legitimate.

The action being taken now comes too late for so many victims of these schemes who had no intention to do anything unlawful or to evade taxes and have already been unfairly penalised. Liberal Democrats are committed to clamping down on tax avoidance, but the retrospective nature of the loan charge is causing uncertainty and financial hardship to ordinary working families, most of whom acted in good faith. Thousands of IT support professionals, social workers, teachers, cleaners and nurses—all of whom acted in good faith, based on professional financial advice that what they were doing was legal—now face immense pressure, which is impacting on their mental health and causing serious financial hardship, which will only be magnified by the economic consequences of covid-19.

Meanwhile, online tech giants and international corporations have been avoiding tax for years but have not been clamped down on in the same way, even internationally. With the load charge, the Government are going after nurses and teachers. Like many other right hon. and hon. Members in this place, I have a number of constituents who find themselves in exactly the position that I have described, facing retrospective taxation since HMRC changed its rules in 2017. One constituent whom I have been representing has attempted to correspond with HMRC on anomalies in the settlement agreement policies, but to no avail. Although he is categorised as fully compliant and not liable for the loan charge and pre-2010 loans, he is not being refunded any settlements that include pre-2010 amounts. The fully compliant are not benefiting from the pre-2010 amendments, while other categories are.

As I have said, we undoubtedly need to clamp down on tax avoidance—the deliberate evasion of taxes—but we should be clamping down on those who promoted it, not on those who took advice believing that it was lawful. The Chancellor must also go further than his recent decision merely to limit, in the Budget, the retrospective element of the charge to 2010; he must end the retrospective application of the rules altogether so that nobody who fell victim to such schemes before 2017 should be unfairly penalised. The Government must also further re-examine IR35.

I shall end my speech there, but it is important that we recognise that the steps that we must back today should have come before us much earlier.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), but I must pick up on one of her points. She indicated that the Government had done nothing to crack down on online companies, but the evidence shows that the Government took action to ensure that if we buy something from an online marketplace such as eBay, Wish or Alibaba, the seller charges VAT. That was a significant source of lost income for the Exchequer.

It is right for Opposition Members to raise the Panama papers, because they highlighted to the general public—to residents up and down the country—the actions of a small number of tax-avoidance advisers and very wealthy individuals who did not want to pay their fair share. I think it is right that we should look at that in the context of the action that the Government have taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Charles Walker)]

We now go to Christine Jardine, who is joining us virtually.

[Christine Jardine [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[The Temporary Chair]

We will move on to Felicity Buchan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker (The Temporary Chair)]

Christine Jardine, welcome back.

[Christine Jardine]

Thank you, Chair. Apologies, I do not know what happened just then, but it is now a pleasure to take part in this debate.

I will be supporting amendment 81, as will the Liberal Democrats, which would ensure that the stamp duty land tax holiday no longer applies to the purchase of second homes. I will keep my remarks short, in the light of the earlier mishap. Suffice it to say that we believe that the SDLT holiday is not effective in helping first-time buyers on to the housing market. Giving a tax break to people who have already saved money for their property and can already afford a mortgage does not entirely solve the problem. Extending the SDLT holiday would serve only to avoid a cliff edge, depriving the Treasury of much-needed funds at a time when there are many extremely pressing calls on our public finances. Combined with the new lower deposit mortgage scheme launched in the Budget, its only effect is to increase demand for housing without increasing the supply of homes. For me, and for the Liberal Democrats, that is crucial. Members can see where I am going with this: we need to increase the supply of homes.

The Government need to take steps to increase the number of homes being built. They first must make and then keep to their targets, support local authorities that want to build new homes and enforce affordable homes targets. That must include building 100,000 new social homes a year. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a new rent to buy scheme, where people can build up shares in housing association homes through their rent. I ask the Government to examine the merits of that proposal. These steps would be more effective in getting people on to the housing ladder. Therefore, I ask that the amendment be supported and I ask the Government to consider the rent to buy scheme as a way of realistically helping people on to the housing ladder without increasing demand for housing that is not there.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome many of the measures in the Finance Bill, particularly the measures on stamp duty. Like many people who called for a stamp duty holiday, I welcomed it when the Government announced it and I am glad to see that it has been one of the most successful stimuli to economic activity that the country has seen. The moribund market is now racing ahead, albeit possibly slightly too fast. I recognise that homeowners need certainty—many of them are in the middle of transactions —so this is good. We are not out of the pandemic yet, so I welcome the Government’s move to extend the stamp duty holiday to the end of June. I also welcome the fact that they are removing the steep cliff edge and replacing it with a smaller cliff edge by tapering it out and extending it at a lower rate until the end of October. Those are both good measures that will keep the housing market going and give certainty to homeowners.

I do not support amendment 81, which proposes that these measures should not apply to second homes, although I understand the social justice argument behind it. The purpose of the stamp duty holiday is to stimulate economic activity, and whether a home is being bought to live in or as an investment property, that still involves economic activity in the housing market. Our focus here is on stimulating the market, and both those activities have equal effect.

Back in 2012, I co-founded an organisation called the HomeOwners Alliance, Britain’s first and only consumer group for homeowners. Our aim was to champion homeowners and aspiring homeowners and to help people to get into the housing market, recognising that home ownership is a valid aspiration for all young people, and indeed older people, and that the primary role of homes is to be lived in. They are not investments or casinos; they are to be lived in, and that should be the role of Government policy.

I wrote various papers on the reform of stamp duty. I will not go on about the details, but there were two particular reforms that I called for. One was an increase in the stamp duty on second homes, investment properties and buy-to-lets. The other was an increase in the stamp duty for non-residential buyers. The Government have already introduced the first of those, and I think they have raised almost as much money from that as they do from residential stamp duty. Now, in this Bill, they are introducing the stamp duty surcharge for non-residential buyers—the people who want to buy homes in this country but who have no intention of living in them. As a country, we have been very generous to such people—far more generous than most other countries—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) said, this has a real cost in terms of preventing other people from buying a home that they actually want to live in.

It is very welcome that the Government are introducing the 2% surcharge for non-residential buyers who do not want to live in the UK. It is right that it should start low—2% is quite low; that is often the fee that we pay to the estate agent—but the Government should monitor it. There will be an opportunity to increase that rate, while ensuring that doing so does not have really bad effects on the market but that it does have an effect on demand and helps to free up properties for people who want to buy a home to live in. The money from these measures is being used to house rough sleepers, which is very welcome, but in the longer term as we raise the rate and more money is brought in, I would use that revenue to reduce the burden of stamp duty for those buying homes that they want to live in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington so eloquently said, stamp duty is a big burden for homeowners. Following those thoughts for the future, I will be fully supporting the Government’s policies.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I find myself in a curious position in this debate in that while I agree with SNP Members that the EU deal is disastrous for this country, I am dismayed by their motive. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about the negative impacts of Brexit: a 40% decrease in UK goods exported to the EU; the UK economy shrinking by almost 3% in a single month; and trade groups telling us about fundamental problems with new trade barriers. The Scotland Food & Drink trade association tells us that the seafood industry has suffered an 83% fall in sales to Europe—an 83% fall. The impact is clear for us all to see but, unlike the hon. Lady, I want to fix it, not to double down and make things worse.

I appeal to SNP Members to listen to their own argument and to assess the logic of the motion they have put before us today. They must acknowledge the damage, which they highlight, that is being done to our economy by leaving a strong, successful economic union. If they listen to their own argument, they will stop their incessant and baseless claims that independence is the answer to every problem from economic decline to bad weather.

If ever the people of Scotland wanted an example or blueprint of what separatism and leaving the United Kingdom might mean for their jobs, livelihoods and wellbeing, they have it. Look at the damage done to our small businesses, our exports and our fishing and farming industries and at the economic dislocation that is being brought about by Brexit. That is what this country is going through. Rather than work together to combat it and to use the benefits of being part of the world’s oldest and strongest economic union, the SNP would, as I say, have us double down and make things worse—separate Scotland from its biggest market, put up a border, cut us off. Yes, I have heard the claims about an independent Scotland rejoining the EU, and it will come as no surprise to anyone in this place that I wish all the UK could at some point rejoin the EU, but the reality is that that is simply not on the table.

Countries that apply to join the EU have to meet criteria. Scotland does not meet the criteria at the moment, and it would be further from attaining that if it were not part of the United Kingdom. Please, let us address the problems we have, rather than create more. Let us make a joint effort to fix the situation that this Government have created with this disastrous Brexit deal. We must not forget that that was a kind of nationalism, too. That deal, together with the pandemic, has left us in a perilous condition. That is what worries my constituents in Edinburgh West this week. People are worried about the recovery. They want their politicians, at all levels, to focus on recovery, and that is what we should do.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). However, I am profoundly disappointed that we have to discuss this amendment to the language in the Bill today against a background of an increasingly bitter and divisive debate about LGBT and transgender rights. I thank the Minister for her reassurance at the beginning of the debate that there is no undermining of LGBT rights and that these issues will be addressed in the future.

I am sure that I am not alone when I say that it is the proudest boast of my life that I am a mother. I am completely committed to the rights laid down in this Bill. When it was first debated, I was concerned, as were many others, that it had taken too long to bring the legislation before us, and that it did not go far enough in recognising all forms of parenting and the need for wider parental leave. Today, I am more concerned that this important piece of legislation is potentially being, or could be, sidetracked. Regardless of my frustration about the background to the debate, I would not want that delay to happen. I know that there are those in this place who believe that there is an important political point about the language, but I do not believe that it is as important as the necessity for this Bill.

As a liberal—in this context, I believe that there are many liberals with a small “l” in this place on both sides of the House—I am firmly of the view that language that excludes or remove the rights of any group in favour of another is unacceptable. That is precisely why, for me, gender-neutral language is preferable and why it is used. It does not erase anyone. I certainly do not feel in any way compromised as a woman by its use, or that my rights are in any way undermined. For me, it also reflects more accurately the reality of modern life.

The Bill relates to benefits accruing to those who give birth, extending them to Government Ministers and some Opposition spokespeople who currently do not have those benefits. It does not deal with the registration of births; it is not proposed that that process be changed. Neither does the scope extend to legal gender recognition or restrictions. In that context, I would have no objection whatever to the gender-neutral language if it were used, and I have no intention of objecting to the change. However, I cannot see why Parliament would not persist with gender-neutral language in the future. As the Minister made it clear that there will be further legislation, that this legislation does not affect LGBT rights, and that, if the occasion arises, a trans male Minister would not be disadvantaged, I feel that the importance of this legislation —and of having it enacted as quickly as possible—means that we should not delay over perfectly legal language.

Government's Management of the Economy

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak today and to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). When I look around me, I see that the Government’s handling of the pandemic has left us with the worst economic recession of the G7 and that their botched trade deal with the EU has caused unnecessary avoidable damage.

I am slightly disappointed with this debate. At a time when this country faces an enormous challenge to its future, when my constituents are crying out for an economic plan that will save their jobs or allow the company that they have invested years and their family’s future in to survive, and when taxi drivers, hairdressers and florists who have not been able to earn for most of the past year are desperate for some hope that the Government will help them, I am disappointed that the Labour party wants to talk about the past. It is a past that we cannot change. Surely Labour Members must appreciate that when they look back to the times when their own economic policies were less than universally successful. So please let us park the political tribalism and avoid point scoring. Let us look at where the country is and what it needs.

The economy has shrunk 10% in the past year. Unemployment this morning is at 5.1%, and half of those who have joined that massive figure from paid employment are less than 25 years old. Our young people do not know if the future they have worked and planned for is now going to be possible. The future is uncertain for so many. Of course we should learn from what has gone before, but we should be talking about and planning for what is ahead of us, because this is about recovery. Our experiences may differ, but surely we have all felt the pain of the past year and more, through the people we serve. Many have felt it more acutely than others, and that is the point. We have to keep people in work and businesses afloat, so that they are as strong as they can be as we slowly come through to the other side of this. Some will have to rebuild, and it is our responsibility to give them the tools to be able to do that. That is why the country is holding its breath, hoping to hear some hope from the Chancellor next week.

We need to innovate our way out of this crisis and to put the environment back at the heart of the UK’s agenda. We need to tackle mass unemployment and establish ourselves as the country of the green industrial revolution. We need to bring under Government support the countless self-employed people who have been excluded from all help, and we need a long-term extension to the furlough. We need a bold green recovery plan, an increased carers allowance, access to free school meals and better mental health services, and maybe the time has come to recognise that universal credit has gone wrong. We need to investigate a universal basic income, and listen to the voices from our cross-party parliamentary groups, the devolved Administrations, the Mayors and the public bodies up and down the country—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Time’s up.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

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

Exiting the European Union (Excise)

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). My desire to speak in this debate was driven not only by my serious concerns about the immediate impact of the measures on our airports, our retail sector and our tourist industry, but by my concern about the potential for manipulation into yet another grievance strategy by the Scottish National party and all separatists, as part of their continual campaign to undermine the United Kingdom—something that we have, sadly, seen amply demonstrated in the debate.

I ask the Government to think again, revisit this decision and re-examine the detrimental impact that it could have on our economy. Tourism and the individuals it brings here are a major contributor to the economy of the UK and each of its constituent parts, collectively and individually. Visitors who take advantage contribute around £6 billion a year to our national coffers, which are being dipped into heavily at the moment. More than that, it protects thousands of jobs in our tourist centres and elsewhere.

Attracting high-spending overseas tourists is an economic strategy that is internationally recognised and has worked for us. It has kept our cities on an equal footing with international competitors such as Paris, Milan and Madrid. By removing this incentive, we would be boosting them, to the detriment of our own cities, and detracting from the UK’s international appeal. We would also be adding yet another blow to our hard-hit retail sector at a time when it is already reeling. Experts have warned that this measure would cost my city of Edinburgh an annual loss of £92 million. Those are the figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which also estimates that it would cost Manchester £60 million, Liverpool £32 million and Leeds £18 million, at a time when all our cities can least afford it.

The impact will be felt initially by tourism, retail and airports, but experts have warned that it will gradually spill out and affect other sectors. Hospitality, which is already hard hit, will suffer as tourists choose other countries and other cities in which to spend their money in restaurants, cafés and bars. Manufacturing, too, will feel the pinch. Tourism industry bodies have warned that as many as 70,000 jobs are in immediate jeopardy throughout the United Kingdom, while it has been estimated that the broader damage could affect as many as 138,000 jobs, at a time when unemployment in this country is already rising at an unexpectedly rapid rate.

Our country’s retail, hospitality, events and entertainment sectors, and just about every sector imaginable, are struggling to cope with the impact of a crisis that was beyond our control. The pandemic was visited on us; it was not due to any choice we made. This change would be self-inflicted damage. It would undermine vital industries and cost jobs. I appeal to the Government to think again about the danger inherent in this statutory instrument, the benefits to the country that would be lost and the damage it could do to our future.

Equitable Life

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege, but not a pleasure, to take part in this debate, it being 20 years on from the moment when more than 1 million policyholders lost part of their pension savings. They are still waiting for full transparency about what happened and justice regarding the retirement they planned and thought they were saving for. They are victims of maladministration.

We have already heard how Equitable Life policyholders who did not have with-profits annuities have received compensation worth only about 22% of the loss they faced, how in 2008 the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have had, and how the coalition Government promised to do so. Numbers and statistics are an easy way for us to hide what that all really means. Hard-working people who have done nothing other than seek to provide for themselves and their families after years of work have had their lives turned upside down. Nurses, teachers and war veterans have all been left behind—and now, more than ever, we have seen exactly what being left behind can mean. Yesterday, in his inauguration speech, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden, asked Americans to walk in each other’s shoes. That is advice that we would do well to listen to in this place. We should put ourselves for a moment in the shoes of those whose lives are behind the statistics—pensioners whose lives have been affected.

I have personal experience of knowing how important retirement pots can be at any age. At the age of 45, my mother was suddenly alone with three daughters. She worked miracles for us, none of which would have been possible without my father’s pension pot. He was only 44, so it was not huge, but if it had been depleted by maladministration in the way that these pots have been, our lives would have been very different. Let us not forget that Equitable Life pensioners are not the only pensioners in this country who have been let down by successive Governments. I am sure that women who are approaching 70 and have had their state pensionable age changed feel a great deal of sympathy for the Equitable Life pensioners. There are so many in a generation who have been let down in their later years.

We must not now use covid or Brexit to shield us from the problems that still exist. They have not gone away, and, if anything, those involved will now feel further away from the Government than ever before. A constituent who wrote to me was one of the many people across the country who did not receive the full redress—in fact, less than a quarter of it. As grateful as they were, this is still a drastic depletion of their retirement funds. That is acknowledged by the Treasury but blamed on the state of the public purse—a bit much when we consider some of the spending decisions that have been made since.

Perhaps the worst thing in all these years, which have seen protests, lives lived and lives lost, is that this could have been avoided. No one should be penalised, particularly in their later years, for having done the right thing. The Treasury has not been transparent enough about how these payments came to be. It has not given this due diligence. Over 1 million people deserve better. Many people have had any semblance of financial stability whipped out from underneath them in what was and is one of our worst financial scandals. They deserve better. They deserve more than just another inquiry.

The coalition Government decided that people should be compensated. We must fulfil that now; it is our job in this place not to hinder it. We are duty-bound, morally bound, to help to fix this.