Economy Update

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Again, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. We are extending the support to all those on means-tested benefits, not just those on universal credit, who account for less than half of all households on means-tested benefits. What we are doing is more comprehensive than what he is suggesting and, in fact, it is more generous, because £650 of support is more generous than uprating, which in aggregate, on average, would be worth only just over £500.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Since 2011, the basic state pension has gone up by 35%. Today, pensioners across Grantham and Stamford are seeing additional support at this very difficult time. Does the Chancellor agree that, ultimately, we need to improve the culture of saving for a pension in this country, so that pensioners are well prepared for future challenges?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is thoughtful on that topic, and he is right. Previous Governments have reformed auto-enrolment to bring about that change in culture. The advantage that we are seeing now, with financial technology making it far easier for people to access and direct savings, means that we should only see that grow, and we will help to encourage it.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

Gareth Davies Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we debate the Bill, I cannot help but notice it is becoming a bad habit of this Chancellor to rush national insurance legislation through Parliament in a day. A little over six months ago, I stood here setting out the view of the Opposition on the Government’s Health and Social Care Levy Bill, which was similarly rushed through all its stages in just one day. As we know well, that Bill introduced a new levy that would be preceded by an equivalent increase in national insurance contributions for employees and employers of 1.25%. Since that national insurance increase was agreed, it has become ever clearer that it will be the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time.

The Opposition will support today’s Bill, as any help for people facing the Chancellor’s national insurance tax hike in April is something we welcome. There are benefits to raising the threshold at which people begin to pay national insurance, but we should be conscious that the Bill has more to do with the Chancellor’s increasingly desperate desire to paint himself as a tax cutter than it does with a well-thought-through package of measures to help people with the struggles they face. Even after the Bill passes, the tax burden in our country will still be at its highest in 70 years, and we are still the only G7 country to be raising taxes on working people this year. The Chancellor is making sleights of hand his speciality. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has pointed out, for every £6 he has taken in tax since he took on that role, yesterday he gave back just £1.

The Chancellor has realised that his national insurance hike in April is wrong. Labour could have told him that six months ago. In fact, that is exactly what I told the Minister in September last year when we debated the Health and Social Care Levy Bill. We set out clearly our decision to vote against that Bill on Second Reading. We set out how it broke the Government’s promise not to increase national insurance, and instead raised taxes on employment that would disproportionately hit working families, young people, those on lower and middle incomes, and businesses trying to create more jobs in the wider economy, while leaving income from other sources untouched. We were not alone in criticising that tax rise. The British Chamber of Commerce warned:

“A rise in National Insurance Contributions would represent a hammer blow to jobs growth at this crucial point in the UK’s economic recovery.”

At the same time the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, criticised the Prime Minister for

“raiding the pockets of low-paid workers, while leaving the wealthy barely touched.”

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that 14% of the highest earners in this country will pay 50% of the levy?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have debated the increase in national insurance at length, and today we are debating the package of measures that the Chancellor brought forward. Overnight analysis by the Resolution Foundation, which he would do well to consult, recognises that seven in eight workers will pay more in tax and national insurance in 2024-25, as a result of decisions taken by this Chancellor and this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

rose—

[Gareth Davies]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress. The record shows that the Chancellor likes putting up taxes. He has been busily defending his tax rise on working people, but when it comes to oil and gas profits he is suddenly nowhere to be seen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Bristow]

Like my hon. Friend’s mother-in-law. I went to a “politics and a pint” pub surgery in the Oxcart pub in Bretton in my constituency to talk to my residents. I wrote to a large number of people living around the area and told them that I would be there between 6 and 8 o’clock and that I wanted to listen to what they felt about the spring statement, and any other issues that they wanted to talk to their MP about. The single most popular measure in the spring statement that came up was the rise in the national insurance threshold.

Peterborough is a city of hard-working people and hard-working families and they want to see work rewarded. That is what this measure does. It will mean that if they work those extra hours and have the dignity of a job, they will keep more of their own money, pay less tax to the Government and be able to spend it on what they perceive to be best for them and their family. That is the Conservative way, and that is why I welcome these measures. I think they will go a significant way towards relieving pressure on families in my constituency. One lady I spoke to told me exactly what this extra money might mean for her. For her and her family, it would mean help with school uniform costs and help with the weekly food shopping bill, and of course it would also mean help with rising energy prices.

That was not the only thing raised with me last night, and it would seem partisan if I did not mention that constituents raised elements of concern. One constituent told me that, although the spring statement will go some way towards addressing energy prices, people need the heating on during the winter, and they asked whether there will be more measures later down the line. I also spoke to pensioners, who raised a concern about what this might mean for people on a fixed income.

The landlord of the pub pulled me aside to explain that, typically, he was paying about £1,200 a month for energy but, due to the rising costs, some of the deals on offer are almost £4,000 a month, which is an eye-watering amount for a local community pub like the Oxcart. However, he told me how pleased he is with the continued cut in business rates.

Far be it from me, as a new MP elected in 2019, to say this to longer-serving colleagues, but a “politics and a pint” pub surgery is an excellent thing to do because it supports local businesses. If we do not use pubs, unfortunately we will lose them. A “politics and a pint” surgery is a fantastic way to meet our constituents.

Returning to my central point, the rise in the national insurance threshold will reward work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) outlined, people who earn less than £12,500 a year will not pay any tax at all, which means more money in their back pocket to support themselves and their family.

A large number of people in my constituency are on universal credit while in work. One of the most popular things this Government have done in recent times is to alter the universal credit taper rate from 63p in the pound to 55p in the pound. That is an extra £1,000 in the back pocket of hard-working families in my constituency, which makes an incredible difference.

I praise the raising of the national insurance threshold because it simplifies the tax system. It was an anomaly that people did not pay income tax until they earned £12,500 but they were still paying national insurance. This measure creates a simpler and clearer tax system, which is in everyone’s best interest. We do not want tax to be confusing, lacking sense or difficult to understand. People pay their tax, so it should be as easy as possible for them to understand, which is what this measure does.

Finally, I want to talk about what the rise in the national insurance threshold will mean for particular people in my constituency. As I said earlier, work is plentiful in my constituency. We have lots of vacancies in Peterborough—in fact, there are more vacancies than people on universal credit—and this rise sends a message that the Government are putting their arm around everyone in this country, and particularly hard-working families. If people want to go out and find a job, work hard and make a contribution, they should be rewarded. There are plenty of those people in Peterborough and across the country.

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is a great champion of everyone in Peterborough, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he has done since his election in 2019. How do his hard-working constituents feel about the 6.6% increase in the national living wage, which makes sure that having a job is a way out of poverty?

[Paul Bristow]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes an important point, and it is another example of how this Government are rewarding those in employment who work hard and make a contribution. That is what this Government are all about, and it is what any Government should be all about. This Bill is another example of rewarding people who make the right decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I accept the measure helps other people, but the reality is that we have seen an increase, on average, of 40p a litre. As other hon. Members have said, there has been a 5p a litre increase in the last week. A 5p reduction is helpful, but it does not go far enough to support those who really need it.

Frankly, lowering the basic rate of income tax is the biggest wheeze of all. Paul Johnson of the IFS said in The Times this morning that we are experiencing “fiscal drag.” The freezing of income tax, which the Chancellor previously announced, means that, even as people’s wages increase, they will pay more tax, and the reduction is not happening yet. All the Chancellor has said is that he will do it at an unspecified time before the next election.

The reduction will help those on low incomes the least. It is a tiny reduction and, overall, the tax cuts announced yesterday are worth only a quarter of what is being increased. Arguably, it is not workers who benefit from the cut but people, such as landlords, with unearned income from investments. People who are wealthy enough to get their income from savings and property will pay less tax, while the least well off continue to pay more and more. This is driving another wedge between unearned and earned incomes. I tabled a further amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath to require reporting on the impact.

The Chancellor repeatedly spoke about hard-working families—that was his catchphrase of choice—but those hard-working families are not being helped. They are seeing their energy bills go up and the price of food to feed their children skyrocket, and working parents are being pushed into higher tax brackets by the choice to freeze the thresholds. They pay ever more tax. My final amendment addresses unearned income.

This spring statement is a huge missed opportunity. I would have liked to see a packed Chamber debating legislation that actually makes a difference to people, but I think we would all accept that this is not that Chamber and not that Bill. There are so many steps the Government could have taken today but did not. We had an Opposition day debate at the start of this week on pensioner poverty, which we know is increasing year on year. The Minister in that debate said he was sure the Chancellor would have been listening to Opposition Members calling for more support for pensioners and suggesting some of the ways in which that could be done—you were in the Chair at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly, the Chancellor was not listening, because pensioners were not mentioned at all yesterday. There was very little for pensioners who do not drive or own their house—or for those who do own their house but are not planning any energy-efficient home improvements.

[Gareth Davies]

I point out to the hon. Lady that 200,000 fewer pensioners are in absolute poverty now than were in 2010. I just put that on the record.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record, but we are looking at 1.3 million additional people, some of whom I am sure will be pensioners, going into absolute poverty in the next year. Our state pension is set to have a real-terms cut. Inflation is at 6.2% and is expected to go up to 8% in April, yet pensions are going up by only 3.1%. That was what the triple lock was designed to deal with; it was there to keep pensions in line with and up to the cost of living. As I have said many times in this Chamber, the state pension is not just about pensioners now; it is about ensuring that people in the longer term know that they have a state pension that they can look forward to, and that matters for younger generations, too.

This Government say that they oppose loneliness, but, as always, actions speak louder than words and the measures are leaving older people on their own, in the dark and the cold. There are very good reasons why some people cannot work. There is nothing at all for those receiving social security, who are also suffering the real-terms cut to incomes and are also struggling to pay their rent, because of the freeze to housing allowance—even the National Residential Landlords Association has called that out as being catastrophic. Frankly, it is more expensive to be poor. People on benefits are being unfairly punished by a system that is set up to make them fail. They are worrying about money, making ends meet and debts, and living in unsuitable housing that costs more to heat. These are not the conditions that set someone up to apply for jobs, to succeed in interviews or to move on to a better place in their lives. We know, as we have heard the evidence, that the benefits system can cause serious harm, damaging people’s mental health, sometimes to the extent that they take their own lives. This is not a system that helps people—often it harms them. We know that our economy is stronger when those who are able to work do so, but our system does not help people do that and it must be more compassionate. It must also receive sufficient funding so that those receiving benefits are not pushed further and further towards the edge.

Do the Government want this country to be one where destitution becomes normal? As I have said, the estimate is that 1.3 million people will move into absolute poverty as a result of the current cost of living crisis. The only support offered yesterday for those on the lowest incomes was the boost to the household support fund, via local authorities. That is no substitution for having a proper support system that stops people falling into poverty in the first place. As happens with pension credit, people do not always come forward for the support they need, so I echo the suggestion that anyone facing hardship contacts their local authority so that they can get support that may be available to them.

The Government could have cut VAT to 17.25%, which is what my party would propose to do. That measure would help everyone. Cutting VAT will shield our constituents from the worst of the increased costs, put money back in their pocket, and help those on middle and low incomes the most. With an economy that is struggling, because of a variety of factors, we need people to be out in our economy; we need people on our high streets, buying things that are made in our factories and marketed on our streets. A cut to VAT would give an immediate boost to every household, but it also helps us in the long term. That is what a meaningful policy would look like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. This is a Bill that really helps people because it will reduce the amount of taxation and put more money in people’s pockets.

We need to make sure that work pays. That is vital. I mentioned the £400 billion that the Government have spent; they have kept jobs going throughout the pandemic. That is vital. It is why unemployment in Rother Valley is only 3.6%, which is below the national average. Of course, that still means that 2,000 people in my seat are actively looking for jobs, which is why last Friday I held the first ever Rother Valley jobs fair. It was a great success: there were more than 30 employers and hundreds of people turned up, and I am told that dozens of people have already got jobs out of it. That is the Conservative view on the ground in a constituency, helping with jobs, and the Government are doing that nationally.

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic and eloquent speech. Is he aware that last year unemployment fell every single month, thanks to the Chancellor’s plan for jobs?

[Alexander Stafford]

I was not aware of that exact point, but it does not surprise me because that is generally what happens under Conservative Governments: we try to promote people and work.

The measures on national insurance that we are discussing will encourage more people into work, but we must also look at the wider context. It is not just about working people; the Government recently changed the universal credit tax taper, thereby helping people on universal credit. The simplification of that system will not only make a huge difference to everyday lives but, hopefully, reduce some of the accounting costs and make it easier for business. That will be a double help for business.

Fundamentally, I believe this is a great measure, in the sense that it will put more money into people’s pockets but also pay for the important health and social care levy. We all need that great NHS that protected us throughout the pandemic. This will fund the NHS, put more tax in people’s pockets and clearly shows the way for us to lower taxes in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am really pleased that the hon. Member is able to remember that figure; I hope he is also able to remind the House of the more than £100 million that has been taken away from Luton council over a decade of Tory austerity, which is why so many of the families in my constituency are living in poverty and are in fuel poverty.

[Gareth Davies]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[James Daly]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

As we know, there is energy price volatility in that the price of oil and gas will be going up and down, which is why the Chancellor has put in the measure for a 12-month period, but I should point out that that builds on the 12th consecutive year of fuel duty freezes.

[Gareth Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am going to carry on, because there are a lot of points to which I would like to respond and I have limited time.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made a very powerful speech about freedom, recognising the impact of global challenges. He mentioned the armed forces, and I would like to reassure him that last year’s integrated review was accompanied by the largest cash increase in the defence budget since the cold war, with an additional £24 billion.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) asked why the Chancellor is not using his £30 billion headroom. I would like to point out that the OBR has said that there is “unusually high uncertainty” in relation to the outlook, and the OBR has also said that the headroom the Chancellor has kept is the same as, or indeed less, than that of previous Chancellors. That is important because, if there is a 1.3% increase in interest rates, that will totally wipe out the headroom the Chancellor has given himself. We are already looking at £83 billion being paid in interest next year. Those of us on the Government Benches think we need to be fiscally responsible in the way we deal with our taxpayers’ money.

The hon. Member also said that to increase the national insurance contributions threshold as we are doing was not the right way to go. I would like to point out that Martin Lewis has said on Twitter:

“This is the big one. Increasing the National Insurance threshold so it now matches Income tax from July.”

He said various other things, and then he said, “Good call”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) recognised that there are no easy choices. He reminded us of Labour’s record on the economy, which reminded me that the shadow Chancellor had put forward a total of £170 billion of uncosted spending proposals just by September last year, and she has refused to rule out hiking up income taxes.

Financial Statement

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

The way that benefits and indeed pensions are uprated is the same every year, and it has been done in the same way for more than a decade. We are making sure that we support people from welfare into work, which is the most sustainable way to help them. Someone moving from UC into full-time work at the national living wage is £6,000 better off. That is why I am pleased that because of our management of the economy there are now record numbers of job vacancies and the support to help people get those jobs.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Thousands of people across my constituency will welcome the targeted measures announced by the Chancellor today. Will he reconfirm for the House that he agrees that the best way to tackle the cost of living issues that people face is through the dignity of a job and the security of a regular pay cheque? That is why it is so important that unemployment—[Interruption.] I ask Opposition Members to listen. It is why it is so important that unemployment has fallen every month for the past year, and they should welcome that.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts the point eloquently: the best way to help people is to get them into work. That is why we are creating record numbers of jobs and then making sure that not only are those jobs well paid, but people keep more of the money they earn. That is the approach of this Conservative Government.

Cost of Living Increases

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

We do not want to see council tax bills rising anywhere across the country, but my own council, the City of Edinburgh Council, has had £1 billion ripped out of its budget over the last 10 years by decisions to take Conversative austerity, times it by four and pass it on to local authorities. [Interruption.] I hear the cries of “What?” behind me, but these figures can all be checked. The 3% of Conversative austerity is multiplied by four and passed on to our local authorities who are delivering these services. Councils are forced to make decisions that they do not want to make. [Interruption.] All those figures can be checked, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the SNP Members chuntering from the back.

The Chancellor’s measly council tax rebate scheme, while welcome at £150, will distribute more money to the Scottish Government, but the SNP response is just to reflect that entire policy. The Minister mentioned this. To put that into context, there will be £150 off council tax in bands A to D in Scotland, which means I will get £150 off my council tax. How is that fair? Of course, I will be donating it to local charities, but that policy is money wasted that should be directed to those who need it the most.

What of this one-off windfall tax on the unexpected cash bonanza for the oil and gas sector? The SNP group here in Westminster has been more interested in standing up for Shell than standing up for Scottish taxpayers. [Interruption.] Again, Hansard has all of this documented. When my colleagues and I put down a motion in this House for a vote on a windfall tax on the enormous excess profits of the oil and gas companies, the SNP sided with the Conservatives and failed to back it. In fact, the SNP BEIS spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, who is sitting not yards from me and who moved this motion, defended that position vociferously in this House. The deputy leader of the SNP did not back our motion on BBC “Politics Scotland”, live on television, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said:

“I am sorry to say that I have not heard anything to persuade me why a one-off smash and grab on the North sea industry is the best way to deal with this crisis.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 239.]

Let us see what this crisis is doing. Shell’s profits have quadrupled, in what its CEO has described as a “momentous” year, to an unexpected $19 billion. That is $600 a second in profit, driven primarily by the huge increases in energy prices. While Scottish families face the heartbreaking choice between eating and heating, the CEO of BP is describing the energy sector as a “cash machine” for his business. Under our proposals, he would be popping his corporate credit card in the cash machine, and giving a little bit of that money back to struggling families. Before both Governments—the Scottish Government and the UK Government—trot out the usual defence of harming investment, most of that unexpected profit is going to additional bonuses for shareholders in dividends and buybacks of shares, so such businesses will not be using that money for investment.

Now we see that the SNP, after weeks of defending not backing a one-off windfall tax to help Scottish people pay their bills, has its own proposal with one line in the motion about

“a windfall tax on companies which are benefitting from…impacts associated with the…pandemic or the…international situation”.

Surely that means oil and gas. Does it mean oil and gas? Does the BEIS spokesperson want to intervene and tell us if it means oil and gas? [Interruption.] Nobody on the SNP Benches is saying it means oil and gas, so what on earth does it include? Will it not affect investment, if that is the defence for oil and gas, in other industries? Do they have any detail on how much that would raise, how it would be implemented or who would be impacted?

Does this include every business that has turned a profit during covid? What about small businesses such as the micro-breweries that turned their hand to making hand sanitiser during the pandemic—should they pay? What about Pets at Home, because of the boom in people buying pets during the pandemic? The critical argument is that these businesses’ profits are not driven by the increases in energy costs that are hitting family finances directly. It is the oil and gas companies’ profits that are driven by the crisis, and it is they that should pay a little more. It is their additional, excess and unforeseen profits that are directly linked to the rise in bills paid by millions of families, and I have yet to receive an intervention to find out whether the SNP motion includes oil and gas—nothing. Quite obviously, we can come to our own conclusion that it wants to tax Irn-Bru, but not tax oil and gas.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Not that I am going to make a habit of trying to defend SNP Members, but one of the reasons why they may not include oil and gas in their windfall tax plans is perhaps that they watched the Treasury Committee hearing with a panel of independent experts specifically on the windfall tax, who said that it would be ineffective and would damage investment. It would be ineffective because BP and other oil companies actually make their profits elsewhere, not in the North sea, and as a result, the costings the hon. Member describes are not up to scrutiny or robust. Could he explain to the House how he has got to the figures he is putting forward as fully costed?

[Ian Murray]

Yes, if we increase the additional rate on the oil and gas sector from 40% to 50%—10 percentage points extra—that will generate the money towards our fully costed plan for raising energy prices, but very well done for defending the Scottish National party, and both the Conservatives and the SNP knocked back the oil and gas sector’s windfall tax when it was brought to this House.

To go back to the central question of this debate on the cost of living crisis, many families are worried about the email dropping into their inbox telling them that a direct debit will treble, or the bill landing on the mat saying their energy bill will become unaffordable, yet both Governments refuse to ask the companies making the money, directly driven by the energy crisis and the energy prices that are generating those extra direct debits or those extra bills, to put a little bit more into the pot to help. With the SNP’s current policy in the motion, and SNP Members still will not tell us if it includes the oil and gas companies, AG Barr, a successful Scottish business that made more profit last year than pre-pandemic, would pay a windfall tax, but the oil and gas companies would not—taxing ginger, not taxing gas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend has rightly campaigned on this issue and she raises an excellent point. The good news on business rates is that, next year, thanks to the tax cut that we announced in the Budget, 90% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see at least a 50% cut in their business rates bill. That is worth £1.7 billion; it is the biggest business rates tax cut since the system was created, other than during coronavirus. On her point about offline and online, she will know that we have helped to bring in an international tax treaty to tax large multinational digital companies, and we continue to consult on the pros and cons of an online sales tax.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which we can reduce inequality is by ensuring that young people are equipped with the skills that they need to succeed, wherever they live? That is why the additional £126 million of funding for work placements and training is so important for young people in Grantham and Stamford.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I know that he is a staunch supporter of skills and getting young people into work in his constituency. He mentions traineeships, which are fantastic initiatives with a 75% success rate in helping young people and a great example of our plan for jobs in action, spreading opportunity right across the country.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]

Gareth Davies Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker; I will keep my remarks brief.

This fantastic Bill will unlock literally hundreds of millions of pounds to support communities and community businesses throughout the country. The Bill is clear about where the money is coming from, so let me talk briefly about where the money could go to. The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 unlocked funding to support our UK social investment sector, and I very much hope that this Bill will do the same. The UK social investment market has tremendous potential to transform communities up and down the country, and to support businesses that have a social benefit and charities that have specific, targeted interventions. While discussing this Bill, it is important that we reflect on the time since the 2008 Bill. In the brief time that I have, I will highlight three points.

First, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), in 2012 £425 million was taken from the dormant assets pool to form Big Society Capital, which was the world’s first social investment organisation. As she quite rightly pointed out, it has done significant and brilliant work to mobilise social investment capital, and has helped to fund a lot of businesses and charities around the country. However, it is important to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) did, that it is constrained by the very specific, ringfenced scope of the legislation at the time, to the extent that its mandate has almost become overtly philanthropic. If we are really going to unleash the potential of social investment, it is vital that we look at the organisation’s scope to be able to invest in businesses that have a social impact and make money. Their financial track record over the past eight years shows that they have a made a loss in six of those years. If we spoke to the organisations themselves, they would agree that if they were given more freedom to invest across the country in different types of business, they could do a lot better.

My next point is on what are commonly known as social outcome contracts, which were first launched in 2011. These are highly complex, very illiquid and somewhat risky arrangements. We have had 87 launched in this country since 2011. They were billed as a way of mobilising billions of private capital. Unfortunately, they have only mobilised £73 million. I therefore urge caution on the Government ahead of proceeding with allocations in future to make sure that they are not investing in social outcome contracts that may not deliver what they say they will.

However, there is one area that I would encourage the Government to look at as part of their consultation, and that is to bolster our liquid, tradeable social bond funds and the market that is out there. These are issued by corporates and charities to ringfence capital that has a social impact. We are a genuine world leader in this. Last year there was $59 billion of issuance that could multiply quite exponentially given what has happened with green bonds. I encourage the Government to look at that in more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

7. What fiscal steps he is taking to invest in new infrastructure.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

11. What fiscal steps he is taking to incentivise businesses to invest in new infrastructure and equipment.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

The Prime Minister is rightly ushering in an infrastructure revolution because infrastructure drives growth and productivity and creates jobs. We are doing that with over £100 billion of investment this year and, thanks to the efforts of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a world-leading UK Infrastructure Bank created and set up in Leeds.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on making sure that our investment reaches every part of the country, including his constituency. I am pleased to tell him that £760 million has been allocated by the Chief Secretary and the Transport Secretary to deliver East West Rail, and I understand that the Department for Transport is currently working with the East West Rail Company to figure out the best possible way to serve Aylesbury. I hope that my hon. Friend will engage with that process.

[Gareth Davies]

The Infrastructure Forum recently published a report that showed clearly that the super deduction is already having an impact, accelerating investment by businesses. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging businesses across Grantham and Stamford to take up the relief, and does he agree that this is exactly the kind of investment that will boost jobs and level up our country?

[Rishi Sunak]

From the Office for Budget Responsibility to the Bank of England, many people have described the super deduction as doing exactly what my hon. Friend has said, and that is why we know it is working. I recently visited BT, for example, which, because of the super deduction, is now increasing the speed of its roll-out to millions more houses and creating thousands of new jobs in the process. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I encourage his businesses to take up the super deduction, and, indeed, we see that; a Deloitte survey recently showed that business intentions to invest in this country are the highest they have been in years.

Economy Update

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly legitimate point about how acutely that sector in particular has been affected, as I think everyone in government recognises, but I do not think it fair to say that the Government have not announced any measures that reflect those challenges. Indeed, on commercial rent, he will have heard in my statement today’s specific announcement that applies to the sector. There are also other things, such as the furlough going long, the restart grant and a number of things within the comprehensive package, that are obviously of benefit to nightclubs.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

This morning’s ONS inflation report highlights the risk we face of rising rates, given the amount of debt that we have incurred during the pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important we focus on sustainable public finances, and that one way we can help is by mobilising more private capital investment?

[Steve Barclay]

I absolutely agree, and I think that the importance of securing private investment is a very good note on which to end. My hon. Friend will know that in May, on the consumer prices index, inflation rose to 2.1% and the Monetary Policy Committee judged:

“Inflation expectations remained well anchored.”

However, with debt at nearly 100% of GDP, we need to pay close attention. To finish on a more sobering note, perhaps, a sustained increase in inflation by one percentage point would increase debt interest spending by £6.9 billion in ’25-26, so my hon. Friend raises—as did the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—an important point that the House needs to keep under review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I am very sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s loss, and I know the whole House will join me in passing on those condolences. I am not aware of the particular proposal that he mentions, but if he writes to me, I will be happy to take a look at it.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

The Government’s commitment to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures highlights the importance of transparency in investment portfolios. Does my hon. Friend agree that more can be done to improve transparency and prevent the exposure of investments by financial services companies to modern slavery?

[John Glen]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. On modern slavery, the landmark provision in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 includes institutional investors that fall within the scope of the requirement and meet the criteria requiring them to publish an annual statement.

Financial Services Bill

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Finally, it would be nice if Opposition amendments were taken on board more often, or indeed at all, by this Government. There is so much that could be done in areas reserved to this Parliament, where the Scottish Parliament would also like to act but cannot do so. I hope very much that some day soon Scotland will not have to wait for a UK Treasury Minister to act, and that we will be able to do so ourselves, with the proper powers of an independent nation to protect our own people and to build a fairer, more inclusive, more prosperous nation.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will keep my remarks incredibly focused and brief. They will be entirely on Lords amendment 8, which I am afraid I cannot support.

Let me first congratulate and thank the Economic Secretary for all his hard work in bringing the Bill through so eloquently and in such a detailed way. I thank him particularly for his remarks on Lords amendment 8, which I will re-emphasise for the House. He set out very clearly that there are 250,000 people with inactive lenders, of whom 120,000 are unable to switch. Of them, 70,000 are in arrears, which means that they are unable to meet the risk criteria of other lenders.

However, it is worth pointing out that the Government are taking action to help financially vulnerable people and people in financial difficulty with mortgages, for example through the breathing space scheme, which helps to enhance legal protection for borrowers, and the pre-action protocol, which essentially puts repossession at the end of the queue, as a last resort for borrowers.

The centrepiece of Lords amendment 8 is, of course, the cap on SVRs. I entirely agree with the Minister and many others in the market who suggest that that would be unfair to borrowers with active lenders, but most significantly, it would represent a significant and radical intervention in private markets. It would represent a serious risk to financial stability, as the Treasury and the Minister have outlined. Lenders’ ability to adjust SVRs according to market conditions is critical, to enable them to take a risk-based approach to market conditions. Taking that away would make those lenders more vulnerable to financial shocks, such as a future financial crisis, which none of us wants.

This is a significant issue. The Treasury has said that it does not support a cap on SVRs, as has the London School of Economics, as many speakers have already outlined. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) outlined that Martin Lewis backed the LSE report. Martin Lewis has also said that a cap on SVRs would be imperfect and a temporary “stopgap”. That is not a ringing endorsement. For the reasons I have outlined, I simply cannot support the amendment.