National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak, on behalf of the official Opposition, to amendments 13 to 18 and new clause 1, which stand in my name.

First, it is important to remember the context of the situation we find ourselves in today. Throughout the election, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister promised the British people that they would not raise taxes on working people. They committed specifically to not raising national insurance, but here we are in Committee debating a national insurance tax on working people worth some £25 billion. Each and every Government Member made specific promises to their constituents on national insurance, which they have now broken. We have it here in black and white.

Clause 1 raises the rate of secondary class national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. To compound the impact, clause 2 drastically cuts the secondary threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. This two-pronged attack on business means that while clause 1 squeezes more from businesses, clause 2 simultaneously pushes more businesses into the taxman’s grasp. Taken together, based on data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a staggering 940,000 employers are set to lose out in net terms from the Bill. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that each one will be hit by an average of £26,000 in additional tax.

On Second Reading we heard the same old script from the Government and their Back Benchers. Time and again we hear that the Bill will hurt only the largest businesses, but that is not correct. Most high street hair salons would not say that they are a big business with mounds of profit to give away to the Exchequer, no matter how much hair mousse this Prime Minister buys from them. A village family butcher surely would not regard themselves as profiteering fat cats. Community pharmacies providing vital services to residents young and old surely cannot be put in the same category as a large multinational pharmaceuticals company. Yet they are.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent argument against increasing the employer’s part of national insurance contributions. Yet he himself voted for the health and social care levy, which was an increase of greater proportion on both employees and employers. I have just checked Hansard—he made none of the arguments that he progresses today when his Government were putting that through. Why has his mind been changed now that he is in opposition?

[Gareth Davies]

I find it difficult that the Labour party says that we are irresponsible with public finances, yet when we faced a once-in-a-century pandemic and spent £400 billion or £500 billion to support residents, business and families in Stoke and across the country, we decided that we needed to pay that money back and did not want debt to keep on rising. Yes, we made difficult decisions in the face of a global pandemic. There is no global pandemic today. This is a political choice, and that is the difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

Yes, I am aware of that and I agree that it is a good way forward.

Another business in my constituency, the Family Building Society, is also facing substantial repercussions. Last Friday I met its chief executive officer, Mark Bogard, who shared that this national insurance increase will cost him approximately £300,000 every year. He said:

“Even as a mutual building society, with no shareholders to generate returns for, we cannot simply swallow that cost. So, going forward, we will inevitably now employ five or six fewer people.”

Madam Chair, these are real-world examples of the damaging ripple effects of the Bill. It will hit not just businesses, but employees, with fewer jobs, lower wages and missed opportunities. This Government claim that they want to kickstart economic growth, but how can firms grow when they are forced to cut jobs instead of investing in their business. How can the economy thrive when ambition is replaced with survival? This Bill does not kickstart economic growth; it slams on the brakes.

Across the board, this Bill threatens sectors vital to our economy and to society. Social care providers, GPs and hospices, already at breaking point, will now face further financial strain. Most of these organisations do not qualify for the employment allowance, meaning that they are exposed to these increases.

The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt these essential providers from the tax rise, but those calls have been ignored. This decision will worsen the crises in our NHS and social care system, pushing more providers to the brink of bankruptcy.

Six in 10 care homes in the UK are operated by companies vulnerable to even mild economic shocks. How then can the Government justify imposing additional financial burdens on a sector already struggling to stay afloat? Let us be clear: the Government’s own analysis admits that nearly four times as many employers will lose out under this Bill as will benefit. For many employers, this will translate into an average annual tax increase of over £26,000. This is not just a jobs tax, but a growth tax, a productivity tax and, ultimately, an attack on people’s living standards.

This is a deeply inefficient way to raise funds, especially when fairer alternatives exist. The Liberal Democrats have proposed several measures that would raise revenue without harming jobs and growth. These include reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increasing the digital services tax and introducing a fairer form of capital gains tax to ensure that ultra-wealthy people pay their fair share. These measures would protect small businesses, support families and safeguard essential services, while still addressing the country’s fiscal challenges.

The people of Epsom and Ewell deserve better. They deserve a Government who support, not stifle, innovation, enterprise and community spirit. They deserve a Government who listen to small businesses, healthcare providers and families who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs and stagnant wages. This Bill is not the solution to our economic challenges; it is a blunt instrument that will do more harm than good, jeopardising jobs, living standards and essential services. I urge the Government to reconsider this unfair and counterproductive measure and to work with us to develop a fairer, more sustainable approach to taxation that prioritises people and communities.

[Gareth Snell]

I wish to start by reflecting on something that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said in his opening speech. He talked about socialists thinking that taxes just flow in. Given that he was a member of a Government that raised taxes to their highest level in history, perhaps this season it is less secret Santa for him, and more secret socialist. Perhaps, if he is lucky, under his Christmas tree on 25 December he will find a red flag that he can fly. I jest, Madam Chair, but the point is that that Government agreed with tax and spend—they taxed; the trouble was what they chose to spend the money on.

That is the difference between this Government and the Government that came before: we have made clear commitments about what we will spend the money raised by this national insurance Bill on. We will make investments into the NHS and our public services, such as our schools and hospitals, and we will fix the railways. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) chunters, but I cannot actually hear what he is saying. If he wishes to intervene, I will happily give way—no, I thought not.

The fact of the matter is that although this is not a decision that I would particularly have liked the new Government to make, having looked at the levers available to us and having made a political choice to protect the pay packets of individuals in work, this is a way of raising revenue.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

I often think that we do not hear enough from the right hon. Gentleman, so on this one occasion I will give way.

[Graham Stuart]

Given the competition on the Labour Benches, the hon. Gentleman is one of the more honest and up-front Members in addressing some of the issues. Does he regret the exclusion of the various groups we have heard of today, from hospices to social care and childcare? Will he urge Ministers to look at whether they can create a more coherent and joined-up approach, so that the £22 billion—or whatever it is—going into the NHS actually works to improve the healthcare of the nation?

[Gareth Snell]

If the right hon. Gentleman hangs fire, he may be surprised by some of the things I will say as I try to progress my speech. Although, in that context, is it not laughable and ludicrous that some of the most important parts of our social care sector—our air ambulances and our hospices—are dependent upon charity; that they have to rattle tins in supermarkets, dependent on handouts and philanthropic grants on a non-reoccurring basis, just to continue the service they deliver? There is a much broader conversation that we have to have as a nation about how far general taxation should fund some of those programmes. The right hon. Gentleman rolls his eyes, but I would rather make a small contribution to ensure that hospices and air ambulances can run than to have to watch people sit in baths of beans to try to ensure that vulnerable people get the help and support they need when they need it. He may disagree with that, but we should discuss that broader point of how we fund some of those things and whether we consider them to be vital infrastructure to our health and care system.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that any fair taxation system should place the biggest burden on those with the broadest shoulders? That means taxing the wealthiest in this country, rather than hospices and the charitable sector.

[Gareth Snell]

Again, if my hon. Friend bears with me, I will get to that point, but I absolutely agree in principle that taxation in this country should fall on those most able to make that contribution. There is also a question about how we spend that money and use it in preventative services. Again, there is an argument to be had about how much of the money given to, for instance, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board is spent on reactive services that treat people, as opposed to preventative services that keep people well in the first place. There is definitely a discussion to be had in our communities about whether the commissioning bodies that have the money are commissioning the preventative services necessary to reduce acute demand.

Last Friday I listened to the charities convened by Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, and they themselves said that their biggest challenge before the national insurance increase was even mooted was the fact that they cannot get recurring funding year on year from health bodies, councils and the public sector. When they manage to get to the end of a project, they are told, “You’ve done that project. Come up with something new.” They are asked to redesign their service to chase a pot of money in order to deliver what essentially is the preventative service that stops the more acute services from facing greater demand. Again, we as a nation need to have a conversation—in part it is brought to a head by this Bill—about what role we see for charities in this and how we fund those services.

[Daisy Cooper]

For a long time we in this place have had debates about ensuring that the shift happens upstream in the sector, to support public health and primary care. Does the hon. Member accept that this measure will undermine the effort to put more investment upstream, and that it will force many charities to do even more fundraising to backfill the gap created by the national insurance contributions hike?

[Gareth Snell]

I absolutely agree. If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come to exactly that point later on.

My constituency is often in the top 50 for social and economic deprivation, and we are often wholly dependent on the charitable sector picking up people when they are at their lowest and most in need. Charities often do the really hard work in getting those individuals back to a place where they can even begin to access statutory support services, such are the demands placed on them by the services with which they are seeking to engage.

Let me take the example of supported housing. We talk quite rightly about giving people homes, but many of the people in Stoke-on-Trent who access the services that will be impacted by the national insurance contribution increases would not be able to live independently on their own in the months to come if it were not for supported housing. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) points out, that has a huge bearing on the acute cost at the presentation of final service.

Last Friday, Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, an excellent organisation run by Lisa Healings and her team, convened a meeting of local charities and the three Members of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent. Lisa helped me by compiling some of the specific impacts that the national insurance increase will have on charities and organisations in my community, and with the indulgence of the Committee, I will refer to some of them so that Members can hear the scale of the challenges that we face.

The first relates to the citizens advice bureau in Stoke-on-Trent, which does a phenomenal amount of work. It will see an increase of £150,000 to its national insurance contributions. Although it will be able to mitigate some of that impact, the change will just mean that people wait longer for help, or, perversely, that more people will enter MPs’ caseloads and visit our surgeries because the CAB often signposts to other agencies when it cannot meet demand.

The second largest impact I was told about is to the YMCA North Staffordshire, which will see its NI contributions rise by £101,000. That organisation routinely provides homes for young people who would ordinarily find themselves on the street, works with families to ensure that family units can stay together, supports community meal initiatives to bring together different Stoke-on-Trent communities, and does a lot of work on community cohesion, which is a particularly contentious issue in my city.

A smaller organisation, Savana, which I must declare is run by my ex-wife, although we are still on favourable terms—

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

No—I will give way in a second. Savana is the provider of the rape and sexual advice service in Stoke-on-Trent. It gets all its money from the Ministry of Justice; it is essentially running a Government service by virtue of contracts, yet it will now see an increase in its national insurance contributions of something between £16,500 and £17,000, which will reduce the number of people it can support with independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advocates. The other half of its money comes from the Home Office via the police and crime commissioner. Again, that is essentially public money providing a public service that just happens to be provided by a charity that is not covered by the rebate provided to other organisations.

Disability Solutions helps those who are entitled to additional support to access it. That charity brings millions of pounds a year into the city, which has a cumulative economic benefit, because the money brought in is spent on our high streets and in our local economy. The people it helps are not the wealthiest in my city; they quite often have very little in their pockets, and every penny that is given to them is spent in the local economy. They do not hoard it in a savings account, put it into the Cayman Islands or use it as a downpayment on a new car or furniture; they go out and buy food, shoes and school uniforms for their children, or they use it in one of the local entertainment venues.

North Staffs Mind faces an impact of £55,000. That organisation is specifically designed to help people with their mental health, which the Government have rightly identified as a huge inhibitor to economic growth, because if people cannot get their mental health sorted, they cannot get back into work. Another mental health organisation, Changes, wrote to me to say that these changes to national insurance would be unsustainable for them. Finally, the Dove Service is a bereavement counselling service that faces a cost of £2,000. All those organisations are filling a void in state provision in my city.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

In essence, the hon. Gentleman has described what we on the Conservative Benches would have called the big society some years ago. Does he share my concern, however, that that huge bank of volunteers who often prop up and form the supports for the organisations he has described are likely to drift away as their organisations come under pressure? Not only will there be a financial pressure, there will be a pressure on the resource of people who are volunteering, because they will just say, “If the Government are not prepared to help us this one little bit, why should we help?”

[Gareth Snell]

I actually do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment, because in my city of Stoke-on-Trent, when there is need, people arrive to offer help. It is one of the things that people often say; we are a friendly, welcoming people, and if someone is in need, we roll up our sleeves and get stuck in.

However, I agree that although dedicated volunteers are excellent, they are not a replacement for staff. In particular, they are not a replacement for the highly trained staff who provide very bespoke services, such as some of the ones I have mentioned. There are thousands of volunteers across Stoke-on-Trent, and I thank every single one of them for every moment of their time that they donate, but as the hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, we sometimes talk about voluntary organisations as if they have no costs associated with staff, because they are entirely volunteer-run. I think everyone across this House would recognise that that is simply not the case; if it were not for the cadre of professionals who help co-ordinate those volunteers, things would fall apart.

Although I have set out the challenges faced in my city, I am not necessarily drawn to some of the proposed amendments that would set differential rates for charities or other organisations. That is not because I do not believe those organisations should not be protected from the national insurance increase that is coming, but if we are saying that they should have a differential rate, why should that rate not be zero? Why should we not just exempt them entirely? I am also not convinced that we would not see people seeking to reorganise their own businesses to try to claim charitable status and reduce their own liabilities. Fundamentally, I believe that paying tax is a patriotic duty—if someone should, then someone must.

There have been record levels of settlements for the NHS, and I accept the points that have been made about hospices and GPs. I sincerely hope that Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB will make use of the better care fund, putting some additional money into that fund to pay for the social care that could help offset some of the national insurance increases that will make those jobs much more difficult. However, many of the organisations I have mentioned receive their operating budgets from Government, albeit passported through funds, a local council or another public body. They are essentially running Government services—they are running a public service on behalf of the Government. Is it not incumbent on us to make sure the services we ask them to provide are provided at the level we expect, and that we resource them efficiently? I would like to think that the difference between this Government and the previous one is that we value the work sufficiently that we will pay those organisations correctly and accordingly. If the Minister could address those points when he sums up, I would be most grateful.

[Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who I am pleased to say honoured his words at the beginning of his speech, quite rightly. I think that is because he has been in this House for some time and knows the difference between legislative intent and legislative outcome. No one believes that the Minister on the Front Bench or other Ministers wilfully want to damage GPs and hospices —how could anyone reasonably want to do that? However, that is the effect of this Budget of broken promises overall, and of the particular measure on national insurance contributions that we are debating today.

No one has really explored where this measure came from, but the genesis of it was actually a desire, in the pre-election period, to reassure those with long memories who thought that Labour was not a party of growth. In trying to reassure the nation that Labour was on the side of business, it was saying, “Economic growth is mission No. 1, so if you are an entrepreneur, you can relax, because we are on your side.” The other big fear about Labour Governments over time is that they will come along and raise people’s taxes. Labour therefore came out with very specific pledges and oft-repeated promises again and again, saying that it would not raise an array of taxes, including of course national insurance contributions. That is why Paul Johnson, who is an independent commentator, said that he thought this measure was an absolutely clear breach of that pledge.

On coming into power, the Government said there was this £22 billion black hole, and Labour Members have mentioned it again today. I think the hon. Gentleman was notable in not doing so, because he knows there is no substance to it.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman can intervene to rectify that in a moment if he feels the need to do so for reasons of tribal loyalty. Again, the OBR said there was nothing in its calculations that supported or validated—I think the word used was that it did not “validate”—the so-called £22 billion black hole, but let me give way to him so that he can rectify that omission.

[Gareth Snell]

The phrase damned by faint praise springs to mind. To be clear, I think the analysis of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the state in which we found the public finances is absolutely accurate. I think the remedies we are taking, while unpalatable to some, are necessary. I just wish we were able to mitigate some of the worst aspects of them.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and it is good of him to show that tribal loyalty. He did not criticise the OBR, but it said that it could not validate the so-called analysis. The £22 billion black hole does not exist, and it is quite clear from the OBR that that is true.

Let us, however, assume that the black hole is true: I think the Government are spending £1,270 billion this year, so let us assume that, in that £1,270 billion, this gargantuan black hole of £22 billion actually has veracity, while it does not. Having gone to the lengths of forcing even someone as up front and candid as the hon. Gentleman to feel obliged under tribal Labour rules to keep backing this measure, and having established the figure, one would think that the Government would want to come forward with a tax rise, if that is what they wanted to do all along. Alternatively, to give the Government credit, perhaps they came into office and found that things were much worse than was thought to be the case beforehand, in which case they would want to come up with a rational way of raising the funds with minimum possible damage.

I suggest it could be said to be a fib, but let us say there is a £22 billion black hole and they need to fill it. The Government should come forward with sensible tax plans. The Government have reneged on their pre-election promises, so why not renege on this one, and come forward with a sensible tax that does not particularly disincentivise those who are furthest from the jobs market? That is what the reduction in the NIC allowance to £5,000 does, and we know that it is particularly going to hurt people are struggling to get back into work, perhaps after a mental health episode, or perhaps because they are young and are struggling to get into the jobs market.

There may be worse taxes than the way this one will work out. I think £26 billion is the headline amount that will be raised and taken out the economy, but 76% of that in year 2 or 3—whichever it is—will come out of wages. By my rough arithmetic that means about £19 billion is going to come out of pay cheques, which is the very thing the Government were trying desperately to avoid doing. This measure will take £19 billion out of pay cheques, and because of the reduction in investment, the reduction in employment and the resulting reduction in profits, it will net only £16 billion.

Then the Government, having got that £16 billion, have decided to compensate the public sector, and we know about this because of the changes the OBR put out at the time of the election. It had to make a correction, because it had clearly been asked and told to allow another £800 million or £900 million for social care, recognising the issues that have been raised so powerfully by colleagues today. However, that was changed and removed, and it had to make an amendment to its response. By the time we have taken off the compensation as currently restricted to the public sector, which I think rises to about £5 billion, that takes the net receipts to £10 billion or £11 billion. That is a £26 billion hit to the economy, a reduction in investment, higher interest rates, lower growth, and £19 billion removed from working people’s pay packets—the people who Government Members believe they are on the side of—yet the measure nets only £10 billion or £11 billion to spend on public services. It is truly a ruinous approach to raising the money.

Finance Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about people who may wish to claim that they have a paddock at the back of their house. Does he have any numbers to back that up? If he does, I would be really interested to know them. I am racking my brains, thinking of how many homes in Stoke-on-Trent Central could claim that they had a paddock that allows mixed-use tenure. He may have that information to hand; I do not.

[James Wild]

I am sure that Stoke-on-Trent is a great place, but not everyone lives there. As I said, a number of such cases have gone to the first-tier tribunal, so the hon. Member can probably look that information up or ask the House of Commons Library. The point is that none of that information is in the impact note that the Government have provided on a measure that they are bringing forward. The onus is on the Government to give the information to Parliament, and they have failed to do so in this case.

We share the concerns of experts about the impact that the increases will have on the private rental sector and the wider housing market. The Government have ambitious plans for house building, which we have mentioned, but debates on their proposed changes to the planning system to enable that are for another day. This afternoon, our focus is on whether people looking to rent will find that harder to do as a result of the measures that the Government are introducing, with reduced supply and higher costs. Our new clauses would make the Government publish an assessment so that we can tell.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The Budget forced businesses to compromise on growth—those are the words of the CEO of the Confederation of British Industry. The OBR has said that the jobs tax will reduce wages by £7.5 billion and increase inflation. Both the OBR and the CBI say that it will result in higher prices, so it is no surprise that, over the past few weeks, my inbox has been full of local organisations that are gravely concerned about this £25 billion stealth tax. We are shocked, and they are heartbroken, because Labour promised not to raise national insurance. Indeed, the then shadow Chancellor called it a jobs tax, and said that Labour would never pursue such a thing.

Of the organisations that have written to me, which are the most worried? St Barnabas Lincolnshire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance, Uppingham GP practice and Stamford GP practice—the Royal College of GPs has said that it will cost 2.2 million appointments to service these increases—as well as the Vista (The Royal Leicestershire Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind), local nurseries, my local citizens advice, and my care agencies and hospitality businesses have all written to me. As we approached Small Business Saturday, I had my independent shop competition, where around 100,000 votes were cast for the favourite local independent businesses, but those businesses are writing to me to tell me how worried they are. Family businesses are particularly worried. The tax will affect rural communities most of all, because they have smaller margins—they are already worried about farmers going out of business, on whom they are reliant—and we have small, symbiotic communities who support one another.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the impact the changes will have on small businesses. In 2021, she voted for the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021. I have checked Hansard, and she mentioned none of these concerns in 2021. That Act introduced an increase of 1.25 percentage points in national insurance for employers and employees. This is a smaller rise, and it protects employees. Can the hon. Lady say why all of a sudden she is now concerned, when three years ago she was not?

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman may not realise, but at that point we were just coming out of something called the pandemic, and it was a health and social care vote, so yes, I absolutely voted to do what we needed to do at that point in time. It was a specific levy to raise specific funds for our health and social care. I will happily stand behind that vote.

It is interesting, because this tax will make it harder for businesses to recruit; indeed, it will cost three times the price, at about £800 per employee. That is not how to get growth. It is how to lose staff as employers let people go; how to see increased demands on our welfare budgets; how to kill off our town centres; how to see hospices closed; and how to see local authorities ending up reducing services.

Financial Services: Mansion House Speech

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

We will build on the success of the pools that already exist. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with my answer, the Minister for Pensions is happy to meet with him.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I am a proud member of the Co-operative party, so to have so much co-operative and mutual content in the Mansion House speech, the new co-operative and mutual business council in particular, was music to my ears. Will the Minister say a little more about how she anticipates that Ministers will interact with the new business council? Will her Treasury colleagues consider new financial instruments to help co-operatives and mutuals meet the growth that they know is available to them?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I know that my hon. Friend is an active member of the co-operative and mutuals movement. The Government have already taken the first step, with two statutory instruments laid on 14 October. We are committed to progressing the remaining changes to the Building Societies Act 1986 following Royal Assent of the Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024. I will look at further SIs to try to further the work here, but I want to support the industry-led council, and I welcome the opportunity to work with it and discuss and test policy proposals with representatives and experts from across the sector. I know that view is shared across the Treasury, including by the Chancellor, who asked about it this morning in our ministerial meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The United Kingdom is not the most unequal society in Europe; it is not anything like that. The Government’s policies, such as our policies of investing in infrastructure and in boosting productivity, have been designed to level up the parts of the UK that need it the most. When it comes to poverty and living standards, things are improving. Real wages have been rising for 10 consecutive months, and more people are in work. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, unemployment has fallen by 60% since 2010.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

23. One way in which the Minister could easily help to raise living standards would be to pay those under 25 the same national living wage rates as those over 25. I know he will not announce that at the Dispatch Box, but will he tell us what concessions under-25s are given in their housing costs, insurance costs and living costs that warrant their being paid less than those over 25?

[Robert Jenrick]

Our priority has been getting young people into work. In 2010 we inherited a youth unemployment rate of 20%; we have almost halved that. The priority for this Government will be ensuring young people get a great education; more young people are in good or outstanding schools than when we came into power in 2010, and we want them to get apprenticeships and get into work and get on in life.

Co-operative and Mutual Businesses

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the work of programmes such as Co-op UK’s Hive programme, the resources that are available from Stir to Action, some of the local measures that we have seen in Manchester and Preston, and Social Investment Business’s mutual Reach Fund, but these are all relatively small-scale and need to be scaled up.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear me—and, I suspect, other hon. Members—urge the introduction of further legislative reform to help credit unions offer more services to their members and enable them to invest their members’ money in an expanded range of ways to generate a return for savers. Credit unions are the most active, responsible lenders to the poorest and most financially vulnerable and excluded people in the UK, but they are held back from doing more by outdated legislation and a digital approach to regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I declare my interest as a former director of the Staffordshire credit union, which sadly went bump because the FCA’s misunderstanding of the difference between the capital reserves we had to hold and the sustainability of our loan book meant that we could never meet its ever increasing targets and thresholds. That has left a number of former consumers unable to access even the basic banking arrangements that we offered, and I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the way in which the FCA regulates. It needs to better understand what credit unions are, and how they differ from commercial high street banks.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There needs to be a significant culture change in the FCA’s approach to credit unions and other financial mutuals. I recognise that there has been some Government support—indeed, the Minister has been helpful in ensuring more support for credit unions—but wholesale reform of the objects and powers of credit unions through primary legislation, providing a clear basis for innovation and development in the sector, is overdue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like many people, my first interaction with the co-operative movement was going to the local Co-op store with my gran when she was doing her weekly shopping. At the end of the walk around the supermarket, the shop assistant would put the things through the till and say, “What’s your divvy number?” and she would say, “207619”. That was her getting her slice of the dividend back. I did not really understand what that was about until I was a bit older, when she explained to me that every Christmas, she got back her dividend from how much she shopped in the Co-op.

I did not think about it much until I reached my teenage years and went to university, where I remember other people talking about it. That number has always stuck with me. I grew up in a relatively poor household, and the Co-op basically funded our Christmas, because my grandmother used the dividend she accrued throughout the year to buy the nice things we had at Christmas that we did not have for the rest of the year. I am sure I am not the only person who has memories of enjoyable Christmases because of the dividend points that their families received through Co-op shopping. That is not something we should dismiss.

There have been a lot of excellent contributions—including from my fellow west midlands Co-op MP, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey)—about the huge opportunities in the co-operative movement to contribute to our economy and the greater good of the United Kingdom. We should also focus on the small co-ops and the little interactions of co-operative goodness that improve the everyday lives of individuals in our communities.

Labour has made a commitment to “at least” double the size of the co-operative sector—my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on the shadow Front Bench will realise that doubling it is not the end point in itself. Our aspiration in government is to at least double it and then go even further with growth of the co-operative and mutual sector in our economy, and I am sure that, having heard the many great contributions today, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will seek to replicate that.

There are so many great examples. Much like the one described by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), there is a wonderful building society in Stoke-on-Trent called Hanley Economic, which was formed in 1854 and originally called the Staffordshire Potteries Economic Permanent Benefit building society. Its purpose was to enable people who worked in the pottery industry to own a home, get on the housing ladder, have savings and manage their money better. It still exists today. Much like the Stafford Railway building society, it provides affordable, low-cost, sustainable and secure financial products for a number of people in north Staffordshire who ordinarily may be viewed by high street banks as being a bit too much of a risk. Because they can access suitable finance, they are able to make a better life for themselves. By building societies’ own admission, they are not going to change the world or overturn the economic hegemony of our current banking system, but they are making a difference to my constituents every day through the way that they operate and their business model, which is sustainable, ethical and fundamentally about trying to improve individuals’ lives.

That is where I want to add my contribution. I agree with pretty much everything that has been said by Members on both sides of the House about the opportunities if we were to properly unleash the co-operative movement and harness its economic potential. There are other things that we can do with the co-operative model. Someone—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), but I do not want to attribute it to him, in case it was not—once talked about drainpipe devolution and the idea that if a decision is made in Westminster and Whitehall by half a dozen people, and then that decision is devolved to half a dozen people in Greater Manchester, the west midlands or north Staffordshire and called devolution for the purpose of devolution, we have not really devolved anything; we have just moved the decision makers to another office. We can harness the co-operative and mutual benefit by expanding the number of people who make the decisions in the first place.

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

Perhaps my hon. Friend wants to correct me.

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend is right. During the EU referendum, people were talking about feeling powerless and wanting to take back control and have more say over their lives. We need to look at public services, and the Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network is leading on that.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he takes me neatly to my next point, which is about learning from good practice on a smaller scale that directly benefits our economy. The Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network, of which he and I were both members when we were council leaders, demonstrates overwhelmingly what can be done if we put a small amount of investment into local projects. Tudor Evans, who leads the council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and Sharon Taylor in Stevenage are just a few examples of people who are pushing this agenda nationally.

If we put a small amount of investment into a group of people who want to change the way that their town works, we can get huge dividends back. If we move away from a simple contractual relationship for a new business towards profit share for rental purposes or an equity share in lieu of rent, we can suddenly start to sustain our high streets better. We can see empty units revitalised by businesses that can think about long-term business planning, rather than short-term business planning to meet next month’s rent and rates bill. We end up with a greater economic benefit to the local community.

If the Government thought about how they could help local authorities to do the sort of work that the Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network is doing across the country, they would see an increase in potential tax take, because there would be more thriving small businesses. What do we know about thriving small businesses? We know that the people they employ spend their money in the neighbouring shops, and we have a circular economy, whereby one or two different thought processes about how we include more people in decision making in a community leads to economic benefits for not only the Treasury but local communities. That should surely be looked at by this Government or the next Government or as part of Labour’s commitment to at least double the co-operative sector.

The mutualisation argument extends to not only high streets but things such as public services for buses and trains. There is an argument for utilities to be mutualised, because these are things that we all use. If we mutualise and say that the people who use those services should have a stake in the control of them, those services can be driven to a higher quality and standard. There can be financial dividends for the users, but there can also be improvements in standards of delivery, because the people using the services are in control of how they are used. That is a fundamentally simple model that is not being exploited sufficiently by a number of Government bodies at the moment.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point, and I agree with everything he is saying. One body that is, in effect, a mutual and is growing month by month almost under the radar is the National Employment Savings Trust—NEST. It is growing by several hundred million pounds. Last I saw, it had £5 billion, and by the end of the next decade, it will probably be one of the largest financial institutions in the country. It is doing a great job in many ways, yet almost all the top 10 investments of NEST are in overseas companies, not ones in the UK. It may have operations in the UK, but they are overseas investments. Does he agree that, given that it is a mutual, or at least owned with social purpose in the mutual interest, at least some of those investments could be put into precisely the things he is talking about?

[Gareth Snell]

I agree entirely. The hon. Gentleman, as always, has touched on a pragmatic and simple way of fixing something that should not be a problem to start with. He talked about the Staffordshire Credit Union. The reason the Staffordshire Credit Union ended up folding was that we were unable to meet the Prudential Regulation Authority’s 3% threshold rule between capital and assets. With a very small investment that a body like NEST could have provided, we would have been able to continue helping the thousands of people who were members, offering secure, low-return financial products to people who need it the most—people in communities such as Stoke-on-Trent, where payday lenders prey because they know that people want to borrow money quickly. While credit unions do not provide an immediate alternative to payday lending, they are part of the mix that is available. I can immediately think of a number of organisations that would benefit from the sort of investment the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and then the mutual role of NEST would get to grow and become even greater.

I want to go back briefly to my point about railways and buses. I may end up falling out with my Front-Bench colleagues on this issue, as on many others. State ownership is still a monopoly, and if we are talking about ways in which we could open up public services to be democratically controlled by the public, we need to mutualise them. We should allow and facilitate worker and management buy-outs of existing companies that are looking to be sold, and enable places to allow municipal bus companies to come back into the mix. This would help to sustain the market and—again, I go back to this point—make sure that people using those services have some semblance of taking control of those services and delivering them in a way they think is appropriate for their communities and sustainable in the long term.

This goes not just for public services. We have not touched on the potential economic benefits of things such as fan-owned football clubs and how we should do more to push fan-owned stadiums. In many other countries, it is not uncommon for sporting facilities and sports clubs to be owned, operated and managed by the users of those facilities. In this country, we have not particularly got into that model, as far as I can see, with the depth and the courage that others have.

Finally—I am conscious of the time—about 18 months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) ran a very clever social media campaign pointing out that if the 5% profit of some of the largest companies in the country was shared among their employee base, each employee would receive a certain amount of money, emulating the French profit-sharing law. To turn full circle back to my first point, if we had such a law in this country—it is not necessarily a co-operative solution, but it is about profit sharing and sharing the values of co-operation—what would happen to that money? Most people who work in such companies and small-scale industries will spend that money locally: more money in their pockets means more money going into their local high streets, shops and facilities. I am sure the Government have already looked at the circular effect of an economic benefit coming from a co-operative solution, even if it is not a co-operative model, and if they have not already committed to looking at the French profit-sharing law, I would encourage the Minister to do so.

It would be wrong of me not to talk about the Co-operative Group as a whole. As has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues, it is not just about the financial products and services it offers, but the values and ethics it brings to them. The Co-operative Group is leading the way on dealing with modern slavery, food injustice and food hunger, and retail crime. It knows that, at the heart of everything it does, is its staff and its consumers, and those are the values that I am sure the Minister will have heard about in every contribution today and will want to make part of any Government strategy on co-operatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great honour to follow the current chair of the Co-operative party, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). I am glad that her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), was able to secure the debate. I am grateful to him for all he did, including taking the party through some quite difficult periods. The movement has also suffered, because of some of the well-known controversies that we had to face down. I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who is no longer in his place. It is good that there is at least some support from those on the Government Benches for something that some of us, as proud Labour and Co-operative party MPs, feel is very important. We feel that the co-operative message is not always heard as much as it should be, in this place or, more particularly, in wider society.

I just want to touch on three quick points, but I will just mention what has already been said, which is that we need to see the growth of co-operation. It is an alternative to capitalism and state socialism, and it is important that we see it as an answer to the problems of the 21st century, rather than as purely a historical legacy. I hope the Minister will say some nice things and respond in kind to the suggestions I will make. I am not going to talk about credit unions, but it is important we recognise that they have a part to play in financial arrangements. I was one of those who set up the Stroud co-op union, which is still flourishing. It needs to grow and we need some help to make it grow, but it is an answer for those who find it difficult to access finance in other ways.

My first substantive point is on what I have always felt is a great problem with co-operation: where to get advice to set up a co-operative. State business support organisations, whether local enterprise partnerships or their previous incarnations, have all suffered from the same problem, which is that the people offering advice have either had no experience at all of co-operation, or their experience has been limited to what they have read about it. Co-operators need to be able to advise other potential co-operators. I hope the Government will consider this issue, because too often this is a huge lacuna. There is no one to go to who knows enough about the opportunities that the co-operative movement as a whole can bring. Since the loss of co-operative development agencies, which many of us have sadly witnessed over the past few decades, this issue has become much more acute.

Secondly, co-operative housing can be a solution, particularly in rural areas where community land trusts have now come into their own, but we need a number of things to happen to make them more available than they currently are. First, we need changes to the planning system. I am pleased that the Government have now looked at small sites and made them more accessible to this form of provision, but at the moment the planning system is such that too often communities and neighbourhood planning groups who want to have a small clutch of housing either give up because it is too bureaucratic, or they get turned over and it ends up as executive housing in villages, which is just what they did not want. They want affordable units. Dare I say it, they want social units.

The great benefit of community land trusts is that the land remains held mutually in perpetuity. That is very important, because losing the land means losing control. It would therefore be very helpful if the Government looked at the planning system in that regard and at what financial help they could provide to such groups. It is expensive to go through the rigours of trying to set up a community land trust, so I hope the Government will be generous and consider ways to help such communities solve these problems. They do not want masses of housing; they want 10 to 12 units and they want them to remain affordable in perpetuity. That is why community land trusts, as a form of co-operative housing, are so important.

My final point is on the role of co-operation in farming. The Agriculture Bill will one day come back to this House, but so much of it is predicated on public moneys for public goods and none of us quite knows how that will work. We are waiting to examine the environmental land management trusts in more detail so we can know how they will work in practice, but the simple fact is that farmers are already co-operators. More than half of all farmers belong to some form of co-operative. They may not always recognise that. They may think that NFU Mutual is a pure insurance company, but it is a mutual. It is a co-operative.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend describes a situation that applies to many people, not just farmers, who are members of a co-operative organisation. I think of the Asian community in Stoke-on-Trent, who have a savings scheme for funding family funerals. They would not think of it as a co-operative, but that is exactly the sort of mutual and co-operative model we are talking about.

[Dr Drew]

Exactly. That is partly the problem of the movement, because it is not overt enough. It does not broadcast the fact that they are mutuals and co-operatives. On farming, the changes that are going to come will, to some extent, demand upscaling. Some of us may worry about that, but the reality is that with the change in the funding mechanism there will be a drive towards larger units. The only alternative to that is some form of greater co-operation among those who practise farming at the moment. We want more people to come on to the land and particularly younger people, because the average age is 59. It will hardly be a burgeoning, growth-inspired movement without younger people coming in to do the exciting things that we all know could happen to provide more of our own food.

I hope we will look at how co-operatives are not only built into the Agriculture Bill, but given encouragement. All the pressure is on selling smaller units, whether that is what is happening to the county farms estate, where they are being gradually cut away one by one—some of us worry about that—or the fact that when land comes up for sale, the big guys come in and buy it.

Beer Taxation and Pubs

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my friend, the chairman of the APPG on beer, the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). It is an honour to serve as his deputy and as the Labour lead in the House on the issue of beer.

I must declare an interest—not one in the register—in that I am the hon. Member for the Titanic brewery, the best small brewer in the United Kingdom.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I’ve got the pubs.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I think I am going to be heckled throughout by my hon. Friend and neighbour.

Titanic has benefited hugely from small brewer’s relief, which I will touch on in a moment. First, I would like to put on record my thanks to Keith and Dave Bott not only for the support that I receive from them, but for the investment they have made in my community. They have ensured that small brewers have had a voice in this place, and others, for many years.

It is a pleasure to talk about a B-word that has nothing to do with Brexit. I think we can all agree that we have spent enough time on that for a little while. Instead, I would like to talk about the value of pubs to our society.

While the sector supports more than 1 million jobs in the country, and we heard various statistics from the hon. Member for Dudley South about it, we need to touch on the other things that the pub sector delivers, such as the impact on loneliness—especially providing somewhere for older gentlemen to go—and on our communities.

Transport for Towns

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this debate, which has demonstrated the strength of feeling across the House on the issues that face our local transport networks, particularly in towns.

Stoke-on-Trent is one city, but it is in fact six towns linked together by an artery of roads that all too often neither get people to the place they want to be, nor get them there on time. We struggle in Stoke-on-Trent because of the non-traditional geographical nature of our city. Towns that are no more than 2 miles apart do not have a direct bus route. In one instance, people can stand in one town and almost see the other, yet they have to travel through a third town to get there by bus. It is telling that since 1991, bus usership is up by 8% across the country, but network coverage is down by 30%. That is disproportionately affecting the small towns we all represent.

In places like Stoke-on-Trent, bus companies make operating changes, and that has consequences. In my community, a morning bus service at school time was changed, meaning that young people could either get to school an hour early or 10 minutes late. I am not convinced that the consequential impact of such changes on the day-to-day lives of those we represent is being taken seriously by bus companies or the Government. The Government have given additional powers to the combined authority areas to do proper regulating and franchising of buses, but they have also extended that power to local authorities outside of those combined authority areas, if they can prove they meet the criteria and standards set by the Department for Transport. When the Minister sums up, will she tell me how many times the Department has granted to local authorities that cover small towns those powers to get directly involved and bring their bus routes back into public ownership?

Municipal bus companies have not been mentioned. There are multiple examples around the country of small towns running their own bus services for public benefit at a profit to the taxpayer, meaning that services can be subsidised from a commercial interest. That is not being talked about and the Government appear to be opposed to the idea. When the Minister sums up, will she explain why she does not think small towns should be in control of their own bus services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Lady shakes her head. If she wishes to get in touch with the Department, we can lay out how the plans can work for her local authority so it can take the relationship forward.

I believe the constituency of the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) sits under the mayoral authority of the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). Through the powers in the 2017 Act, the Mayor has the opportunity to franchise bus services. I had that conversation with him in person when he met me about HS2.

The hon. Lady was also keen to make sure that the right investment was made in the rail network in her region. About £48 billion of rail investment is projected between 2019 and 2024. There has also been a substantial amount of infrastructure funding—about £300 million—to help with HS2.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) was keen to understand how the 2017 Act could help his local authority. Local authorities can have a voluntary or statutory partnership with their bus companies. They just need to get in touch with the Department. We would welcome any interaction, because we are always delighted to enable local authorities to take that forward.

[Gareth Snell]

Having read the 2017 Act, I am acutely aware of what possibilities exist in it, but my specific question to the Minister is how many local authorities have taken up those powers outside mayoral combined authority areas. Simply having something on paper does not mean that local authorities are doing it. Can she give me a figure today of how many local authorities have taken up the powers that she references?

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valuable point. Previously, the argument was that the powers were not available. The Department made those powers available in 2017—they have been in place for only a few years—and we are in conversation with a number of local authorities and Mayors. We need local authorities to put business cases together, come forward and be bold and responsible for the bus services that they should be making available to their local communities. The hon. Gentleman might also have noted his area has been shortlisted for a slice of the £1.28 billion transforming cities fund. I know that is a city and we are talking about towns, but we can ensure that buses are central to how that fund is allocated.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I shall make a bit of progress, then give way again.

I was saying that the benefits flowing from new FTAs would not compensate us fully for the loss of EU trade from a no-deal exit. That is why we have fought so hard for a deal that delivers the closest possible trading relationship with the EU, while respecting the outcome of the referendum and giving ourselves the ability to form new trading arrangements with countries around the world. Today, the case for this deal is that, uniquely among the options open to us, it does deliver on our commitment to leave the EU and on our collective duty to protect the jobs and living standards of our constituents.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

While the Chancellor is explaining the deal, will he explain to the House which trade unions he has sat down and briefed on the deal, and what their response was? The feedback that I have had from ordinary trade union members in my constituency is that, although this deal is preferable to no deal, it is still a long way away from the certainty that they would have hoped to have had in the proper arrangement that they were expecting.

[Mr Hammond]

The deal that is on the table provides the key elements that we will need to maintain our trading relationship with the European Union. It makes a commitment to maintaining our borders as openly and free-flowingly as possible. It eliminates tariffs, quotas, fees and charges. It will protect the vital supply-chain business that is at the heart of our trading relationship with the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been elected to this House twice since the referendum: first in a by-election, and then a short 12 weeks later in the general election. Both times, I was elected on a clear promise and a manifesto commitment that said that we would respect the outcome of the referendum. In my mind, that means that we leave the European Union, but do so in a way that causes the least economic damage. That does not mean a hard no-deal Brexit or a second referendum, which I do not support and think would do nothing but further entrench the divisions in our society.

The anomaly of this debate is that, frankly, everyone contributing today has made up their mind. Everyone who will contribute on Monday and Tuesday has made up their mind. In fact, we could probably have a good guess now as to the final numbers in the Division on Tuesday—that is, that the Prime Minister’s deal is dead; it is sunk; it is no more. The real debate we should be having is about what we do next. What does this country do next that avoids the current default option of no deal, but at the same time allows us to honour the spirit of the referendum and untie our political union with the European Union?

My leave-voting constituency was 70:30. In parts, it was 80:20. My constituents were quite clear. Contrary to the emails I have received, they were not racist, prejudiced or thick. And it was not the case that they “did not understand” or “did not know”. My particular favourite was the lady from London, who emailed me to say that I should get a subscription to The Guardian for every person who voted leave—then they would really understand what life is like in this country.

We should be looking at how we can heal the nation as a whole. I say to my constituents who say that we need to get out of Europe at all costs, Europe is not the cause of our problems, but nor is it the salvation. It was not until ’97 when a Labour Government came to power that we signed the social chapter, despite it being a piece of European policy from ’93. When workers’ rights were attacked by the Conservative Government by doubling the continuity of service before workers could access them, it was not Europe that stood up for them; it was the trade union movement. When the Trade Union Act 2016 was introduced to try to take away that power, it was the Labour party that stood up against it, not the European Union.

In my constituency, we have lower wages. We rank 13th in social deprivation tables. We have a hospital in financial special measures. Young people in my constituency struggle to get a house, get a job or go to college. That is while we are members of the European Union. The European Union offers no bulwark against the social inequalities we see today, which are predominantly driven by domestic issues perpetrated by the Government. We should spend our time and energy working out the radical domestic policy agenda that we want to enact as a Parliament and as a country to deal with those social ills.

So far the debate has focused almost entirely on process. We have talked about votes, amendments, the order of amendments, the membership of sifting committees, whether the House of Lords gets to have a vote that stops something, or whether an amendment is binding. My constituents frankly do not care about that. They want to know how they will feed their kids and heat their house, and how they will get to work if there is no bus. How will they make ends meet if they have to move from their current benefit on to universal credit? Those are the issues that motivate people in my constituency, and the sooner we move away from Brexit the better.

That does not mean, however, that we should simply sign up to any deal that the Prime Minister puts forward. I do not know what the alternative is, but no one else in the Chamber appears to know either. Everyone says that no deal is not an option—fine, let us take that. We are unlikely to have a general election because the Conservative party does not voluntarily give up power. That is not what it does, although it might fall apart in front us, which is delightful. I do not support a second referendum, so I simply ask the House: what do we do next?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

I will not give way again.

The Government have made it clear that we want to take a balanced approach to the question of our future trading prospects. We acknowledge the need to maximise our access to the EU market, but without damaging our potential to benefit from the emerging trade opportunities in other parts of the world. I remind the House that the International Monetary Fund has said that 90% of global growth in the next five years, bringing its forecast forward, will occur outside continental Europe.

Ambitious arrangements have been made in the political declaration for services and investment—crucial to this country—arrangements that go well beyond WTO commitments and build on the most ambitious of the EU’s recent FTAs. But we have also been clear that our future relationship with the EU would recognise the development of an independent UK trade policy and not tie our hands when it comes to global opportunities. The 27 nations of the EU constitute some of our largest trading partners. As a whole, some 44% of this country’s exports of goods and services still go to the EU, although that proportion has diminished somewhat over the past decade or so. We have set out an approach that means the UK would be able to set its own trade policy with the rest of the world, including—let me be very clear—setting our own tariffs, implementing our own trade remedies and taking up our own independent seat at the World Trade Organisation. It is at the WTO and like bodies that proper global liberalisation is likely to take place. In an economy that is 80% services-orientated, the liberalisation globally of services will have a far greater impact on the future prosperity of the United Kingdom than anything that is likely to be done on a bilateral agreement in goods, which has largely been liberalised over the past 20 or so years.

Britain is well prepared for a global future. No other country has the same combination of fundamental strengths, which will allow us to thrive in an age where knowledge and expertise are the instigators of success. The inward investment into this country in recent months is testament to that. Not only have we maintained our place in global FDI—we have improved it. According to the UN, in the first six months of 2018, Britain was second only to China and ahead of the United States in terms of inward investment because of the strong economic fundamentals of this country that have been set down since 2010 by the Conservative Government. Our export and investment performance shows that the sceptics have been wrong and that Britain is flourishing. The divisions of the referendum now need to be consigned to the past. It is time to set aside our differences and lead our country to a future of freedom, success and prosperity.

Let us be clear about one thing. There are those who claim, and it has been claimed today, that Parliament can override the result of the referendum because Parliament is sovereign. I say this to them: on this particular issue Parliament subcontracted its sovereignty to the British people when it said, “We cannot or will not make a decision on this particular matter. We want the people to take this decision and issue an instruction to Parliament.” The people of this country made that decision and issued that instruction. If we want to retain the public’s faith in our democratic institutions, it is time for Parliament to live up to our side of the bargain. In politics, we cannot always have the luxury of doing what we want for ourselves, but we always have an abiding duty to do what is right for our country. I commend this motion to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 10 December (Order, 4 December).

[Mr Speaker]

I fully understand the purport of what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I think that he has set the record straight. It is not for me to act as arbiter of the merit or demerit of what a particular hon. Member says. Each Member takes responsibility for his or her own observations. However, in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman described to me briefly some little while ago at the Chair, I quite understand why he wanted to say what he has just said. I thank him for doing so, and I think it will be noted and appreciated by colleagues.

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the debate we have just had, you made it very clear that it was expected that Members who participated in the debate would attend the Chamber for wind-up speeches. If I have misjudged this I will apologise, withdraw and sit down accordingly, but one Member spoke for well in advance of 20 minutes in this debate and subsequently never returned for the wind-up speeches. That was in excess of five times as long as some Back Benchers got. If there is a good reason, I will apologise and withdraw. If there is no good reason, how might this be placed on the record so that my dissatisfaction, which I think is shared by many on my side of the House, can be recorded?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is entirely correct in recalling what I said at the outset of the debate. That was a repeat of what I had said yesterday, which could brook no misunderstanding. Off the top of my head, and I do not think it is proper to air it here on the Floor of the House anyway, I am not sure to whom he is referring. Suffice it to say, unless there is a peculiarly compelling reason why somebody has to absent him or herself, and can therefore not be present for the wind-up speeches, Members who choose to speak in a debate should then be present for the wind-up speeches. The hon. Gentleman has registered his point with some force and obvious sincerity, and I respect what he has said.

2019 Loan Charge

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on securing the debate. It is clear from what we have heard that the issue has caused much consternation and anguish for many people, so it is right that those concerns have been aired here.

As much as the next person, I believe that if tax is due, it should be collected. Without the ability to raise funds, our public services would grind to a halt. I am sure there is unanimous agreement about that. My concern, and that of many hon. Members, lies in the way the recovery of the 2019 loan charge has been handled. It raises questions about whether HMRC can say, hand on heart, that all those who are subject to it have had what I would call a fair hearing. I want to make it absolutely clear that if, following due process, the money is owed, it should be paid, but what I have heard from a constituent does not give me confidence that that will be the case.

My constituent, Mr Crook, was working as a geologist in the oil industry when the agreements that are being scrutinised were set up. His work has dried up and he is now unemployed. He tells me that he is not in a position to repay everything he owes—not that he has been told how much that is—and that because of the uncertainty and the failure of HMRC to engage with him, he is concerned about the risk of bankruptcy.

I have corresponded with Ministers and officials to ask someone to look into Mr Crook’s case but I have had nothing back but the standard response. With Mr Crook understandably anxious to resolve matters, he has contacted HMRC at the email address provided on 9 April, 8 May, 30 August, 31 August and 28 September, and by post on 2 July. His emails have had an automated response and he has had no response to his letter at all.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on his constituent’s behalf. I have a constituent much like his who has been told that he may have to pay back more than £100,000 over the five years, which could cost him as much as £2,500 a month. Does my hon. Friend accept that even when people are still in work, if they are trying to provide for their families, those sorts of sums are simply unobtainable for most of our constituents and will lead to bankruptcy, whether that is what the Government intend or not?

[Justin Madders]

There is a lack of reality and a lack of genuine engagement with the individuals affected. As I said, my constituent has not had a discussion of the sort that my hon. Friend refers to, and until he does, he is in no position to know whether he will be able to repay anything at all. Will there be genuine discussions before the loan charges become due? Is the Minister confident that the Department has sufficient staff and resources to deal with all the inquiries that we have heard about?

My constituent tells me that although he submitted his tax returns each year when he was working they were never queried, and because of that HMRC has at the very least implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted that the moneys he received as a loan were indeed just that. He is concerned by the retrospective nature and long reach of the loan charge, and states:

“We really are normal people, who operated within the law at the time, itemising everything on our tax returns, paying benefits in kind tax on the loans and operating under a registered scheme with a reference number lodged with HMRC at the time.”

I contrast those words with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said earlier about the string of multinational companies that are clearly paying less tax than they ought. When individuals are being driven to despair by the sort of hectoring we have heard about, it is perhaps right if they conclude that there seems to be one rule for the big corporations and another rule for the man on the street. If individuals are made bankrupt we will all lose, but it looks as if we could end up in that situation by default because of a lack of resources and engagement by HMRC. Will the Minister look carefully at how the recovery operation is working, so that we avoid that? Finally, I ask that HMRC acts with competence and compassion.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

In the course of my speech, I will address that point. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to come back to me later if he feels that I have not done so.

To be clear, I am the Economic Secretary; the Financial Secretary wanted to be here but he is in the main Chamber for the Finance Bill, so I am here in his place.

I acknowledge the early-day motion tabled by Members. It has attracted 103 signatures, and I also acknowledge the concern throughout the House on this matter. The concerns expressed are for people who have used a disguised remuneration scheme, who expect to have outstanding loans in April 2019, and who will be subject to the charge. I recognise that the Government need to be clear about why we legislated for this charge, which received Royal Assent following a full debate during the Finance Bill process in 2016-17. I will outline the steps that the Government have taken to help those individuals who may be affected.

The Government believe that it is not fair to ordinary taxpayers, who pay their tax on time and in full, to allow people who have used tax avoidance schemes to get away with it. Disguised remuneration tax avoidance schemes are contrived arrangements that use loans, often paid through offshore trusts, to avoid paying income tax and national insurance contributions. The schemes may have involved provision of a loan with no intention whatever to repay it. I spoke to the Financial Secretary this morning, while preparing for the debate, and he said, “Earnings are earnings, and a loan is a loan,” and that is what the issue boils down to.

[Gareth Snell]

I understand the Minister’s point, but before he progresses with his speech, will he clarify whether he accepts what many Members have asked this afternoon-that those who undertook the scheme did so in good faith, and therefore that the people ultimately in trouble for this system are those who perpetrated it, not those who signed up to it?

[John Glen]

I am happy to concede that for the 50,000 indivi-duals affected, there are obviously responsibilities for those who promoted this. It is absolutely the case that HMRC is pursuing those individuals. They often promoted the scheme to large numbers of individuals. Five cases are before the courts—that seems a small number, but each one covers a large number of individuals—and there has been a judgment in one, with the other four cases still moving through the courts. It is not right to say that HMRC is not engaged with those who promoted the scheme.

[Gareth Snell]

Others set it up.

[John Glen]

Others did, I appreciate that—that is fair. I take on board the sentiment of the Chamber with respect to ensuring that HMRC is engaged with those who promoted the scheme, as well as the other individuals.