Finance Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Four weeks ago today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered the first Budget of this new Government. It was a historic, once-in-a-generation Budget—a Budget to deliver economic stability, to fix the public finances and to secure a step change in investment. It was a Budget to lay the essential foundations for growth, which is this Government’s No. 1 mission.

And let’s face it, after 14 years under the Conservatives, the foundations needed some fixing. That is why our Budget is built on tough new fiscal rules that will put a stop to borrowing for day-to-day spending and get debt falling as a share of GDP. Our Budget delivers fiscal responsibility while getting the NHS and other public services back on their feet and protecting working people. That is the difference a Labour Budget makes. That is not to say that the decisions have been easy. The very opposite is true. We have taken difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax, and this Finance Bill begins to implement some of those decisions.

Before I turn to the measures in this Bill, I will speak about what the Bill does not include. When I was a shadow Minister, shadowing the tax brief, I covered a total of six Finance Bills and probably as many Ministers. Through those Finance Bills, we saw the Conservatives repeatedly extend the freeze in the personal allowance and the higher rate threshold for income tax. The Finance Act 2021 froze income tax thresholds from 2022 until 2026, and then the Finance Act 2023 extended those freezes by another two years until 2028. The Conservatives were responsible for six consecutive years of rising taxes on working people’s payslips.

Our Government will not follow that path. In this Finance Bill, there are no tax rises on working people’s payslips, nor on many pensioners’ incomes, like those the Conservatives put into law. We have made no changes to the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax. We have made no change to the rate of VAT. And in next week’s National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, we will make no increase to working people’s contributions. We said that we would fix the public finances while protecting working people, and that is exactly what we are doing.

We also said that we would provide stability for businesses making investment decisions, and that we would cap the rate of corporation tax. This Bill delivers on those commitments, too.

In the last Parliament, we repeatedly saw Finance Bills being used to put temporary measures in place, leading to an unstable and ever-changing investment allowances regime. At the start of the last Parliament, the annual investment allowance had been temporarily raised to £1 million. That level was extended twice on a temporary basis before finally being made permanent. Meanwhile, full expensing for expenditure on plant and machinery was also introduced on a temporary basis. And, over the last Parliament, the super-deduction came and went entirely.

We are doing things differently. Our corporate tax road map, which was published at the Budget, and the Finance Bill before us today both make it clear that we are prioritising the stability that we know businesses need to invest.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with Gary Smith? This was supposed to be a Budget for growth and jobs. The increased energy profits levy is driving investment out of the North sea and will not make the slightest difference to how much oil and gas we consume, yet it is estimated that it will lose £13 billion of much-needed revenue for the taxpayer. This means we will lose environmentally, fiscally and in terms of jobs. Surely even the Minister can recognise how wrong that is.

[James Murray]

I will come to the energy profits levy in a moment, but we have engaged with the oil and gas industry to ensure that we raise the money we need for the clean energy transition while supporting investment and jobs in that industry. We recognise that oil and gas will play a part in the energy mix for years to come, but we also recognise that the industry must contribute to this essential transition.

This Bill maintains the 25% cap on corporation tax that we set out in our manifesto. It also makes no changes to the permanent full expensing regime or the annual investment allowance.

Before turning to other measures in the Bill, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has already committed to reversing several of them. If Conservative Members disagree with the difficult but necessary choices that this Government have had to make to repair the public finances and protect working people, they have every right to oppose our plans, but they must explain what choices they would make instead. So far, their new leadership has fallen at the very first hurdle of being a credible Opposition by trying to have it both ways. [Interruption.] They make plenty of noise, but I do not hear any alternatives.

The Leader of the Opposition has said that she opposes the measures in this Bill, but she also claims to support the investment that those measures fund. She says that reintroducing the VAT tax break for private school fees would be the very first thing she does if she became Prime Minister, yet she also appears to support the extra £2.3 billion that our Budget puts into state education. In fact, we have calculated that she has made unfunded pledges worth £12 million for every hour since she was appointed. By my reckoning, that is £1 million-worth of pledges since I began speaking five minutes ago.

By behaving this way, the Conservatives simply remind people how very far away they are from being a credible Opposition, and they are getting further away by the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am afraid I will not give the hon. Gentleman inside information on any ongoing discussions between the Treasury and devolved Governments. The policy for reimbursing increases in employer national insurance contributions is well established. The last Government followed a similar process in relation to the health and social care levy, whereby Departments, employees and other direct public sector employees are typically refunded the entire increase and third parties, contractors and so on are not. As for the devolved Governments’ settlements, they have their own process to go through with the Treasury. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot give a running commentary on that, but I am sure that his colleagues will pick that up.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will make some progress. I have been generous in giving way to the right hon. Gentleman in particular. [Interruption.] All right, go on, then.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister, who has shown his customary good humour and good will to the Chamber. He is unable to discuss the precise numbers for the devolved Governments, but can he confirm what the overall cost is to the Exchequer of compensating the public sector for the impact of NICs? I believe it is around £5.9 billion, but I want to check with the Minister that that is correct.

[James Murray]

I regret giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. I invite him to return to the Chamber next Tuesday for the Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, when I will also be speaking. We can have a full debate on national insurance then, which I am sure he and his colleagues are looking forward to. I hope they will support it in the Lobby because, no doubt, they support the extra investment in the NHS which that decision funds. I thank him in advance for signalling his good grace and support for our measures.

After we were elected, we said that we would take the difficult decisions necessary to fix the public finances. We said that we would close the tax gap, implement our manifesto pledges and protect working people. We said that we would deliver economic stability, fiscal responsibility and the certainty that businesses need to invest and grow. This Bill plays a central role in achieving those goals and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

On the Government’s watch. A number of measures in the Bill will further weigh on growth. Capital gains tax will go up, destroying wealth creation. The energy profits levy will destroy jobs, making us less secure when it comes to energy. Stamp duty will go up, and that is one of the worst taxes. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) will accept that, as he shares that view—I think he makes the point in his recent book. The level of activity in the housing market will be dampened, people will be discouraged from downsizing, which will put pressure on the housing supply, and labour mobility—an important component of growth—will be impacted.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is painting an accurate but bleak picture, as reflected by the IFS, the OBR and all the independent analysts of what the impact of the Budget will be. However, I put it to him that he is understating the weakness that the Budget will create for this country. Look back at the last 14 years. We were recovering from the financial crash. We had the pandemic, Brexit and the energy crisis. We are unlikely to make it to the end of this decade without some form of further shock. Is it not central to the weakness of the Budget that it makes this country so much more vulnerable to what we do not yet know is coming?

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the first Labour Finance Bill in 14 years, and an even greater pleasure to respond to the very first Budget delivered by a female Chancellor. It is also an honour to speak on Lancashire Day, and I would like to put on record my congratulations to all my constituents in Bolton West and further afield who are celebrating this important day.

As others have done, I congratulate the Chancellor and thank her for blazing a trail for girls in my constituency to follow. In response to the remarks from the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), I would say that having spent 14 years working in FTSE 100 companies, I believe that the measures in the Bill will be a turning point for our country. They are the first step in fixing the foundations of a broken economy after 14 long years of economic vandalism by the Conservative party.

Let me be clear: the Labour Government inherited a difficult financial situation, with debt above 90% of GDP, millions of pounds of public money wasted during the pandemic, including via contracts awarded through the VIP fast line, inflation at 11%, and a cost of living crisis that bore down not just on the most vulnerable in my constituency, but on working families, young people and many businesses. That is the economic inheritance bequeathed by Conservative Members, and we should take no lessons from them on how to manage the public finances. To that end, I very much welcome the measures in the Bill.

[Graham Stuart]

To take the hon. Gentleman back just a few months, he may remember that inflation was at 2% and down at target, and the level of employment was up by 4 million people on where it was in 2010. It would be fair for the hon. Gentleman, who is new to the House, to want to give a balanced picture, and he may want to reflect on those 4 million additional jobs, the fact that inflation was down, and the fact that the UK was the fastest growing economy in the first quarter in the entire G7.

[Phil Brickell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution, but I will return to the point I mentioned earlier about inflation at 11%. Frankly, the work was not done by the previous Government to mitigate that.

I very much welcome measures in the Bill that will increase stamp duty on those who own a second home. The blight of second home ownership in certain parts of our country has destroyed the housing market for local people, massively inflating prices and denying those otherwise invested in the local area the ability to put down roots. I am pleased to see the Chancellor delivering on our election promise to scrap the non-dom loophole, which has been abused for far too long by those who wish to enjoy all the privileges of life in this country without paying into the system. I applaud the Chancellor’s commitment to delivering fairness into the tax system through the Budget and the Bill.

In the light of the debate we have been having in the country at large over the past few weeks, I wish briefly to focus my comments on three key topics, which I hope the Government will soon revisit at some juncture during this Parliament. The first topic, tax justice, has been overlooked for far too long. According to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the tax gap—the difference between what it should collect annually and what it actually collects—is almost £40 billion. Let me repeat that figure—forty thousand million pounds. Closing that gap by just 20% could pay for 60,000 nurses, 40,000 teachers, and 40,000 police officers. Imagine the transformative impact that could have on our public services, on education, on health, and on tackling crime. Simply put, working people in Bolton West are expected to pay the taxes they owe, so why should big multinationals and the super-rich be able to avoid contributing their fair share?

The renewed focus on tax avoidance and evasion in the Budget is much needed, but we sometimes have to spend money to make money. We all know that tough decisions about public finances have to be made, but that does not have to come at the expense of boosting enforcement through our public bodies, including HMRC, which should be self-funding, with a greater proportion of cash raised from fines, asset seizure and the like returned to the relevant agencies. Our enforcement agencies work incredibly hard to claw back billions of pounds that are lost every year to economic crime in the UK, but they do not have the resources to protect us from all manner of crimes from fraud to money laundering and tax evasion. It should be criminals who are made to pay, not the hard-working taxpayer, and for me, that would be a sensible way to both combat economic crime and bolster our public finances.

We already know that every pound invested in the Serious Fraud Office returns three pounds to the Treasury—a 317% return on its budget—while every pound spent on the National Crime Agency’s international corruption unit results in £21 of illicit wealth frozen. As it happens, research published this month by Spotlight on Corruption—I hope the Minister will take note of this—found that just 17.6% of the £4 billion generated for the Government by law enforcement agencies and anti-money laundering supervisors between 2017 and 2024 was reinvested in those agencies or in crime reduction and community projects. If just 50% of those enforcement receipts had been reinvested, economic crime regulation and enforcement would have received an extra £233 million a year—nearly double the annual investment underpinning the 2023 to 2026 economic crime plan—at no cost to the taxpayer but with potentially substantial rewards.

The second area of focus that I would like the Government to attend to during this Parliament is council tax. For almost three decades, successive Governments have sat on their hands when it comes to reforming the levy, which is regressive and disproportionately targets the wealth of lower-income families and the young, as well as affecting local authorities. Bolton council finds that it does not provide an adequate funding base to provide critical services for my constituents. Last year, a modest property in Hartlepool worth £150,000 would have been taxed at over 1% of its value, while the owner of an £8 million mansion in Westminster would have seen a bill equivalent to just 0.02%.

The Fairer Share campaign has called for a proportional property tax, which would see homeowners pay a flat rate based on current and annually updated valuations, not the absurdly outdated 1991 numbers. It calculates that that would put an average of £600 into the pockets of households in Bolton West and leave 96% of people in my constituency better off. Indeed, in total, Fairer Share reckons that that reform could save households outside central London and the south-east £6.5 billion a year, helping to level up communities and genuinely boost local economies.

Finally, I would very much like to see the spending commitment to 2.5% of GDP on defence reached as soon as fiscally possible. I welcome the Government’s commitment to that effect. The increase of £2.9 billion for defence already announced by the Government is indeed welcome. We must continue to invest in defence to ensure that the UK will have the capacity to keep us safe in what is becoming an increasingly dangerous world.

This Finance Bill demonstrates that after 14 years of dither and delay, the Labour Government are taking the difficult decisions head on. With the measures announced last month by the Chancellor, I am confident that my constituents across Bolton West will be able to realise their full potential and that together we can build the healthier, more prosperous society that I want to see, with tax justice at its heart and those with the broadest shoulders paying their fair share to fix the crises in our schools, our hospitals and our prisons.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for her maiden speech. She and I share many interests, not least in technology, promoting women in technology and accessibility. I wish her well.

Turning to the matter in hand, the measures in the Bill are in addition to others announced as part of a Budget that has caused serious concern for businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Re-energising our high streets has been one of my key priorities, but the Budget pushes us further from that goal.

The Government plan to increase employers’ national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15% and to lower the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. That will force businesses to pay more sooner. Meanwhile, business rates relief for retail and hospitality will drop from 75% to 40%. Research shows that that will cause a 140% increase in rates, with the average UK restaurant seeing costs rise from £5,051 to £12,122l, a £7,000 hike that could force closures. Those changes come on top of existing pressures caused by covid, the war in Ukraine and energy price inflation. A local business has shared the impact of that on its profit and loss: its freight costs are up 126% since 2019, raw materials are rising by 6%, warehouse rents were up 24% last year, with another 6% rise in 2024, and utility costs were up 58% in 2023. Businesses already stretched thin cannot absorb the additional costs that the Budget imposes. Piling on national insurance contributions and higher business rates alongside steep minimum wage hikes, without supporting productivity and growth, is a recipe for disaster.

[Graham Stuart]

In painting this stark picture, my hon. Friend has not mentioned the Employment Rights Bill, which is expected to impose particular burdens on hospitality businesses, including those on her high streets—a total of £5 billion in addition to the measures in this Budget.

[Alison Griffiths]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. I have restricted my comments to the Finance Bill and the Budget, but the Employment Rights Bill places significant additional pressures on businesses, and I thank him for that point.

For towns such as Bognor Regis and Littlehampton where businesses already operate on razor-thin margins, these measures could be existential. Highly regarded local employers, including family-run small and medium-sized enterprises such as Temple Spa and Meridian Medical, are gravely concerned. Entrepreneurs like those take immense personal and financial risks to create jobs and support our economy, yet this Government treat them as an endless revenue source instead of engines for growth. The Chancellor’s projections may work on paper, but they are disconnected from reality. Our high streets, SMEs and family businesses need support, not policies that make survival—let alone growth—harder. I urge the Government to rethink their approach or take steps to mitigate the impact on our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. Let us travel back in time to those halcyon days for the Labour party: so confidently predicting victory in the election, so far ahead in the opinion polls and so clear on the prospectus they laid before the British people. It had a fully funded, fully costed programme. When the now Chancellor was challenged about whether she had a full insight into the public finances, she assured the interviewer, if I recall correctly, that absolutely she did. Therefore, people could rely on the cast-iron promise, which all Labour Members stood on, that Labour would not raise national insurance, would not raise income tax, would protect farmers and would not cut pensioners’ benefits. That was the promise.

But it is better than that. It is not just that Labour was not going to bring in all those taxes, but that it was going to make growth their No. 1 mission for a mission-led Government. Those who feared a return to a sort of socialist job-destroying and enterprise-wrecking past could be reassured that this was a moderate party that had put the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) well behind it, no matter how many Labour Members had said he was a great friend and would make a great Prime Minister. They had changed their mind. There was a moderate promise.

It was not only members of the public who were led to believe in the Labour mission and what it could bring for the country. Imagine Labour Members, the people who were selected as candidates for the Labour party, who came in not to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party but to this Labour party of enterprise, protecting workers and encouraging a low-tax system, but doing so in a way that none the less would prioritise the healthcare system, special educational needs children and the like. That was the promise and it did not just beguile many people in the country—although not that many, as only 34% of people actually did vote Labour, but none the less enough. Imagine what it was like—I say this to Opposition Members—to come to this place and be a part of that fantastic crew of hundreds and hundreds of Labour MPs to deliver that manifesto. And where are we now at the historic Second Reading of the Finance Bill of the central policy measures of this new Government. Where are they?

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

They have been humiliated in the Budget debate, as one after another repeated their rote words. It was the most intellectually empty Budget debate I have ever taken part in. I listened to Labour Member after Labour Member trot out their “14 years of chaos” and their “£22 billion black hole”.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Dickson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

It would be entirely wrong of me, given how few Labour Members there are in the Chamber prepared to defend the Budget, if I did not now give way to one of them.

[Nesil Caliskan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. I wonder if he might use the opportunity to reflect on the economic record of the previous Government, which saw the highest interest rates and inflation through the roof that affected people’s pockets and their ability to get on in life. Will he also reflect on the fact that his party lost the election and perhaps show some humility?

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am happy to do so, although it is worth pointing out that we are supposed to reflect today on the actual proposals put forward by the Government of which she is now a member.

But the hon. Lady is right to highlight the Conservative’s economic record. I have a criticism of those of us on the Conservative Benches: I do not think we do enough to talk about it. From 2010 to 2024, which economy in Europe grew the most? Was it Germany or the UK? Oh, it was the UK! Was it France or the UK? Oh, it was the UK! Which country in Europe created 4 million more jobs? For which Government did the horrible scar of youth unemployment, which was a permanent feature even in the good years prior to the crash—for those interested in the history of employment—stay horribly high, with its long-term scarring impact on young people? It was the Labour Government.

All that was turned around. People were paying tax at £6,500 when Labour left power. That was lifted to £12,500. They may be decrying and disowning their part in the coalition Government, but the Liberal Democrats should have some pride in what we were able to do together. We inherited an economic basket case. We brought discipline back. But while we were fixing the foundations, we did not lose sight of the fact that we knew where the wealth comes from. It comes from the private sector, not the public sector—from those small shops, those restaurants, all those other businesses on which the country relies for its wealth. This Budget has gone down and damaged each and every one of them, one by one. It has looked around for targets—the “broad shoulders” for the socialist envy to vent itself on—and who better than landowners?

So the Budget focuses on people. I am not an expert on every area of the economic life of this country, but let us suppose that I looked across the entire economy and tried to find people in private enterprise using their own assets. Where would people have millions of pounds in assets and be prepared to receive a 1% return on them? Who would keep that up, year after year, simply in order to feed the nation as part of a pact—a compact—between them and the Government, indeed the whole country? Who would be prepared to do that, and to feed us, while asking so little in return? Attacking farmers, of all groups in society, is one of the most retrograde and regrettable of attacks.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I worked for a charity for six years—or a decade, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer likes to call it. Would he care to reflect on the damage done to charities by this Government’s Budget? They are already in a squeeze, and the Government have squeezed them further through their decisions on employment rights and also through taxation in the Budget.

[Graham Stuart]

We are seeing a kind of socialist envy and attack on misguided targets. For instance, children with special educational needs in private schools will be pulled out of those schools mid-year because their families can no longer afford to send them there. That was not the intent; not only did Labour Members want to stand on an honest prospectus, but that is not, I am sure, what they wanted. Nevertheless, that is what is happening. [Interruption.] It is exactly what is happening.

My hon. Friend is right, however, to point out that this is not just about a class-based assault on people who do not deserve to be assaulted. It is also about sheer ineptitude. Let us consider the £22 billion for the NHS. Why so little for social care? Surely Labour Members, however green and new to the House, must be aware that the NHS depends on the social care system, but because of the increases in national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, its costs are rising by about £2.5 billion and it is getting £600 million. Hospices will be affected, and so will small charities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed all other Members, that this is, specifically, a Finance Bill Second Reading debate. We are not having a general debate on the Budget.

[Graham Stuart]

I am extremely grateful to you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to refer too much to the impact of national insurance contributions, because we will have that opportunity next Tuesday. None the less, my hon. Friend was right to talk about the impact of this Budget overall, and the effect on hospices and charities in particular.

Yesterday I met the chief executive of HICA, a large not-for-profit provider of social care homes and in-home care. HICA is a brilliant organisation, which has made real progress over the last few years. It finally managed to make a surplus last year, so it can pay its staff more than the minimum wage and invest in its stock. Now it is facing a £3.5 million impact on its £40 million turnover as a result of this Budget and this Finance Bill.

As well as farmers, oil and gas have been touched on today. When I was the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, it always struck me as absurd to look at the production of oil and gas rather than the consumption. It is the consumption that is the problem. We must change our factories, our vehicles, our buildings, so that they no longer need oil and gas if we are to move away from them. Attacking production when it is driven by demand is attacking the wrong end. In this measure, the Labour Government are raising the energy profits levy, on top of refusing to issue new licences. The net effect of that, notwithstanding the Liberal Democrats’ saying that they support the policy—I do not know why or how they can do so—

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will in a moment.

This does not make the slightest difference to how much we consume, but it means that we import more from abroad, and, in the case of liquefied natural gas, those imports have embedded emissions four times higher than the emissions of what we produce domestically. We are going to bring this in from places that are less careful than we are in its production. We are going to lose tens of thousands of jobs and £13 billion of tax revenue, and we are going to lose the engineering expertise and companies that we need for the transition. There is literally no way to make that make sense, and I hope the hon. Lady will now do a U-turn and see the logic of my argument.

[Daisy Cooper]

I will resist that invitation. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the nature of a windfall tax? It raises money on the windfall that a sector was not expecting. We know that the big oil and gas giants base their investment plans on the profits that they were expecting, but clearly they raised a lot more money because of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Windfall taxes have been placed on the big oil and gas giants for the profits over and above what they were expecting to receive.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady did not actually refer to the measure in front of us. I know it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to have a windfall tax on anyone who does not sound popular—big banks, big tech, and oil and gas. That is their answer. If anyone says, “How would you do it?”, they trot that out and lose not a single vote, because the very definition of not taking a tough choice is suggesting that there is easy money.

The measure in front of us, which the hon. Lady specifically said she supported, is not a windfall tax. It is a further tax, in tandem with the removal of any new licences, which effectively destroys investment in the North sea. I point to Apache—which says it is looking to withdraw by 2029, risking 500 jobs—Harbour Energy, JAPEX and Chevron, to name just a few. They are pulling out, and there is no environmental benefit. We are losing all that tax, all those jobs and all that expertise, which is exactly what we need for carbon capture, and for hydrogen, for the green economy. It is utterly insane.

I note that there are very few Labour Members present. I watched them as they came in for the Budget, full of cherry-cheeked enthusiasm and reading out their Whip-prepared rote remarks about the disaster left behind, which, as we know, was the fastest-growing economy in the G7, with inflation at target, debt coming down and the economy coming up. They are not all mad, socialist loons, and day by day we can see them losing spirit in the Tea Room and in the corridors as they realise that the deceit that their Front Benchers practised not only on the people, but on them, is coming home to roost.

The Government will pour all of the £22 billion into the NHS in the next year—it is in the figures—and we are supposed to believe that public services will rise by 1.3% or 1.4% in the rest of the period up to the next general election. Is that credible? It is not. I think Labour Members know that, which is what they have signalled by their absence, because they realise, as we do, that this Finance Bill and the Budget are ruinous for this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was absolutely right to say that they make this country more vulnerable to the shocks that may and most likely will come, and it will be the Labour party that owns the mistakes that are being sown today.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who gave a wonderful maiden speech. I am sure that her daughter Lillian will look on her as a lovely role model as she moves forward.

Earlier this month, we witnessed an historic moment as the first ever female Chancellor delivered the Government’s Budget—a comprehensive plan that is designed to support working people, rebuild our economy and bring fiscal responsibility back to the heart of Government. The Budget delivered a plan for recovery, a plan to undo the damage left by the previous Government and, most importantly, a plan that will benefit the people of Halesowen and the wider community.

However, let us be clear: this Government inherited a dire financial situation. [Interruption.] It is true. The Chancellor exposed a £22 billion black hole that was left by the previous Government, and a series of undeliverable promises that the Conservatives knew they would never have to keep. The last Government knew that they had no money to deliver their agenda, yet they concealed the truth from the British people, leaving the incoming Government to pick up the pieces. The Budget was about sorting this out, and we are committed to doing just that.

Our economy faces multiple challenges, including high debt, underfunded public services and rising youth unemployment, but the true cost of the past 14 years is felt most acutely by the people who have been left behind. In Halesowen I hear from residents every day: people who have been waiting weeks for a doctor’s appointment; people who are forced to travel miles to receive healthcare; and people who are completely unable to access their NHS dentist. Fourteen years of cuts have left our NHS in crisis, and no matter someone’s political affiliation, no one can deny the challenges our health service faces.

But it is not just in healthcare. Our schools, roads, railways—all of this infrastructure—has suffered from years of under-investment. Our public services are falling apart.

[Graham Stuart]

It is tempting for Members to read out the rote stuff that is given to them—as some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have been prepared to do, but are mostly not prepared to do today—but I just gently point out that there was never a reduction in NHS spending; in real terms it went up in every single year. If there is a belief that the NHS can be magically turned around by having above-inflation increases in spending alone, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not true, because we did it every year and we still had demand going beyond the resource.

[Alex Ballinger]

The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we reached record NHS waiting lists under the last Government, more than 7 million people waiting and many of my constituents waiting over two years. If he thinks the investment in the NHS by the last Government was enough, he is completely wrong.

Our roads are literally crumbling, working families are struggling and the hope of upward mobility is slipping further out of reach. We cannot let this continue. The Government are faced with what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as a genuinely difficult inheritance. The truth is that the last 14 years can be described as, at best, a period of managed decline; or at worst, wilful neglect. The last Government will be characterised as an Administration that allowed services to erode and future generations to be abandoned.

We must take a different approach and offer real change. We are not pretending that the work ahead will be easy, but we are determined to rebuild and restore. A key part of this recovery is investing in our most vital public services, especially the NHS, which cannot survive on good will alone. The Budget commits to injecting much-needed funds into our healthcare system, securing a lifeline for the NHS that will allow it to begin this recovery.

The Budget is also about presenting an offer to working people who have been neglected for so many years, including a rise in the minimum wage to boost the living standards of 3 million low-paid workers; NHS funding to support 2 million more operations, scans and appointments every year; fuel duty frozen for another year, providing relief to drivers and families; a £500 million investment to fund the construction of 5,000 more social homes; a significant increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit, because those who care for our loved ones deserve our support; and a crackdown on tax avoidance, fraud and waste, ensuring that the super-wealthy pay their fair share of tax.

The decisions in the Budget, though some are difficult in the short term, are the right ones for the long-term good of our country. This is a Finance Bill that prioritises public services and working people without raising taxes on the majority. It is about restoring fairness, rebuilding trust and setting the country on a new path towards growth. It is also important to remember that fiscal responsibility is central to this Government’s approach. The IFS has praised the soundness of our fiscal rules, ensuring that our efforts to drive growth are sustainable and the public finances remain on a stable footing. Changing the fiscal rule to allow more investment is both sensible and necessary, and this investment will boost long-term growth.

The Bill is not just about recovery; it is about securing a prosperous future. Businesses in Halesowen have been struggling, especially on our high streets, where many have been forced to close their doors in recent years. I have heard the concerns of small business owners and the concerns shared by the Black Country chamber of commerce, and I am pleased that the Chancellor’s plans include support for high street businesses, including business rates reform, which will give local shops the chance to compete against tax-avoiding multinationals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adrian Ramsay]

If the hon. Gentleman is aware of my campaigning background, he will know that I have been one of the strongest advocates for accelerating to move to renewable energy for decades, with all the benefits that brings for reducing bills. If he heard the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, he will know that we need to combine speed on renewables with bringing communities with us and assessing all the options available, and we had cross-party support in arguing for that.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Adrian Ramsay]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would let me make a little more progress first, please.

A wealth tax would go a long way towards funding the public services that our economy relies on and to delivering nature and climate-friendly policies that will benefit us all. For example, by maintaining the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, while investing in the roll-out of the street-by-street insulation programme, we could bring down household bills and carbon emissions and at the same time support the most vulnerable households with energy bills over the winter months, preventing hundreds of avoidable deaths. There are also nature-based solutions that would help to protect against the flooding chaos and misery caused, for example, by Storm Bert recently. Preparedness or adaptation is often neglected when it comes to climate action, yet this week has demonstrated what a difference it can make.

A wealth tax could see charities and not-for-profit health and social care providers, for example, exempted from the planned increases in national insurance contributions for employers, in recognition of the significant work they do in our communities and the significant further strain that this planned change will put them under. As Community Action Suffolk has warned, this financial challenge may be a step too far for some organisations that

“deliver vital services keeping Suffolk residents safe and well”,

and reduce pressure on other public sector systems, including the NHS.

The Government have taken, or have sought to take, some steps towards taxing wealth in addressing the real problem of very wealthy people investing in farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax. However, the way in which they have gone about doing so is resulting in huge problems. It is clumsy because it is impacting on small farms that may, on paper, have assets worth several million, but if the farmer is not actually earning any income, or very little, they never actually see the benefit of that.

The Exchequer Secretary is back in the Chamber, and I would ask him whether, in considering the agricultural property relief—I know it is planned for a further year’s Budget, so there is time for the Government to look at this—he will look at the work of tax analyst Dan Neidle. Dan Neidle has highlighted that the Government’s own intentions of rightly clamping down on tax avoidance will not be met under the current plans, which will impact far more small, ordinary farms than the Government have admitted. His proposals include an alternative suggestion for meeting the Government’s stated aim of clamping down on tax avoidance, not affecting ordinary farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

It was a difficult decision, and I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, but the reforms to agricultural property relief mean that farmers can access 100% relief for the first £1 million and 50% relief thereafter, meaning an effective 20% tax rate. It was a difficult decision, but we had to do it to fund public services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about tax avoidance and fraud. To stop people taking unfair advantage of our system, the Government announced in the Budget the most ambitious ever package to close the tax gap, raising £6.5 billion in additional tax revenue per year by 2029-30.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken enough times in the debate, so I will not be taking yet another intervention from him.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) raised questions about SMEs and high streets. The Government have been absolutely clear that we need to take difficult decisions to deliver long-term stability and growth, and that stabilising public finances is the only way to create long-term stability in which businesses can thrive. But we recognise the need to protect small employers, which is why we have more than doubled employment allowance—she may like to know that—meaning that half of businesses with mixed liabilities will either gain or see no change at all next year.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised questions about VAT on private schools hitting SEND pupils. To protect pupils with special educational needs and disabilities who can only have their needs met in a private school, the local authorities and devolved Governments that fund those places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees. I hope that reassures him.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised a point about faith schools. Of course the Government value parental choice and recognise that some people want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith ethos. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary met the Partnerships for Jewish Schools and the Association of Muslim Schools during the consultation period on this policy. To ensure fairness and consistency between all schools that charge fees, faith schools will remain in the scope of the policy. It is worth noting for the right hon. Member that some faith schools are likely to be less impacted by the policy if some of their income is derived from voluntary donations from the community, because donations that are freely given and for which there is no obligation are outside the scope of VAT. As such, not all the income that small faith schools receive will necessarily be subject to VAT. I hope that reassures him a bit.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Adam Thompson]

I will come to some of those points further on in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman is willing to hang on for a few minutes.

I trained as a teacher when the former Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath was Education Secretary. He made significant changes to the education system during his tenure, as the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) has just alluded to. Those were changes that I and the vast majority of my colleagues at the time strongly disagreed with. Those changes ignored decades of pedagogical research and favoured the metrification of our children over learning. They harked back to the rote learning of 50 years ago and set pedagogy back decades.

Austerity was already being very much felt in the sector. Teachers were expected to put in the same effort, but with fewer resources and with their pay frozen. Now it is worse. After a decade of Conservative Education Secretaries following in the footsteps of the former Member for Surrey Heath, teachers’ pay has taken a significant real-terms cut. In many ways, he inspired me to enter politics as a Labour Member—a sentiment that I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House share. Opposition Members may challenge me about why I raise these points, but I think they are all part of what the Bill is about. They are about keeping teachers in their jobs, paying them fairly and giving them the resources that they need to give our children the education that they deserve.

The previous Government set a goal that all children should finish year 11 with at least GCSEs in maths and English. That is a laudable goal, which has my full personal support, but last year just 45% of children in England—not even half—achieved it. Only one state secondary school in my constituency of Erewash attained results above that average, and even in that top-performing school, just half their children in year 11 attained GCSEs in maths and English. Every other state secondary school in my constituency was below that 45% average, and at the worst-performing the result was fewer than a third.

I should note that I place none of the blame for those issues on the local schools themselves. I have met several local heads and many teachers, all of whom it is powerfully obvious to me have made incredible sacrifices to deliver excellence in our local education system, and all of whom have been burned by the failures of education reforms introduced throughout the past decade. The people of Erewash elected a Conservative Member of Parliament in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019, and in return the previous Government let their children down.

I have been talking a lot about state schools, which is only natural when they are the schools that 94% of our children attend, but I would also like to highlight the major independent school in my constituency, Trent college in Long Eaton. In the run-up to the election and since then, I have been around as many of the schools in Erewash as I can, and Trent college is no exception. I have spoken many times to staff and pupils, and this weekend I attended a show put on by the incredible Wildflower community choir at the school’s chapel. It is a wonderful school, with excellent staff led by the brilliant Bill Penty. The staff provide fantastic opportunities to all the pupils who attend. The facilities are the best I have ever seen in a school and the staff do a huge amount for our community, but it is a simple fact that the vast majority of my constituents cannot afford to send their children to Trent college and that many of its pupils come from outside my constituency.

A great part of what this Bill is about is making sure that the incredible opportunities received by the children at Trent college, and the aspirations that they are encouraged to have, are available to all children in Erewash. I want every child in Erewash and the country to receive the best education they possibly can. This Bill will support the extension of those opportunities to every child in every state school in Erewash and the country.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a thoughtful and impassioned speech. Notwithstanding his support for the Government’s policy, I wonder whether he regrets the fact that it is being introduced midway through the year, so that children, including those with special educational needs, will find themselves struggling to get involved with the curriculum and to fulfil the examinations for which they have put in a lot of effort and preparation.

[Adam Thompson]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that if Opposition Members did not want us to have to take drastic measures to re-establish our country’s economy, they should not have left a £22 billion black hole in it.

I want to flag a particular failure in the education system that was brought to crisis by the previous Government: the provision of SEND education. It has long been under-supported, and after the past decade, things are worse. Opposition Members will claim that the Bill will make SEND provision worse still. Let me tell them that for SEND children and their families in my constituency and across Derbyshire it is scarcely conceivable that things could get any worse. Some 20% of the casework that I receive in my office relates to SEND problems. The recent Ofsted report on SEND services offered by Conservative-run Derbyshire county council found that it had “widespread” weaknesses, that communication with parents was “poor” and that children’s needs were often not accurately identified or provided for. The report is utterly damning—it is the worst Ofsted report I have ever seen—and Derbyshire county council’s failures are extreme. For my constituents, the local elections cannot come soon enough.

I was very pleased when the Chancellor announced in the Budget an extra £1 billion to support SEND services. Having spoken extensively to parents of SEND children in my constituency, I can say that they are not worried about whether private school fees might increase; they are worried about whether their children will be able to go to school at all. This Bill is about providing equality of opportunity. It is about ensuring that a child’s postcode or their parents’ income does not determine their chances in life. This Bill will provide funds to fix our state schools, reverse the bite of austerity, get more teachers into school and help them to stay there, ensure that all children are properly included, and ultimately provide them with the education they all deserve.

I feel strongly that supporting this Bill is my duty to my Erewash constituents and to its schools, its teachers, its children, their parents and the future of our towns and villages. It is my duty, therefore, to vote for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I will base much of my contribution on the latter part of this Bill, which deals with private schools. However, before I go into that, I welcome the changes that the Minister is proposing through this legislation that will massively benefit our high streets. The reality is that the past 14 years saw our high streets devastated by the previous Government. In particular, I welcome the permanent lowering of business rates in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which I think will be a huge boost to our high streets.

On the schools part of the debate, it would be remiss of me not to start by mentioning the 14 years of brutal Tory cuts that have led us to this moment, in which state schools are hanging on by a thread. They were abandoned for 14 years by a Government who brought zero investment to schooling—who simply watched the sector struggle through the covid-19 pandemic and left school buildings laden with asbestos or crumbling concrete. They knew that teachers were paying out of their own pockets for school supplies and food for hungry students, but instead of supporting them, the previous Government chose to attack public workers who were close to breaking point. Teachers have long paid the price, leaving the education system in droves, and can we blame them, given the treatment they have had over the past 14 years? In my constituency of Bradford East alone, 95% of schools have faced cuts to per pupil funding—cuts of £15.6 million since 2010. That is over £680 less per pupil.

As such, it is refreshing to finally see a Government share my values and my commitment to not leave state schools at breaking point, with a clear plan to deliver a much-needed lifeline directly to those schools by ending private schools’ eligibility for business rates charitable rate relief and VAT relief. The Minister was right to note that VAT relief is dealt with in a separate piece of legislation that is yet to come before this House, but both are connected in this debate, so I will also make mention of the VAT relief that private schools currently enjoy.

Frankly, the £1.5 billion that will be raised will go towards improving the education and life outcomes of all children by funding the recruitment of thousands more teachers and much-needed breakfast clubs for children. Many will welcome the Government ending the discount on education that the richest schools and the richest parents currently get, because what kind of Government arrange concessions for the wealthiest while working-class children go hungry as they learn? Despite some of the arguments we have heard and will hear, that is not a society that champions freedom of choice; it is one where the wealth bracket of someone’s parents, their postcode and their school determines the success of their life. If we let this inequality entrench itself any longer, we will never be able to end it.

I fully understand and endorse the spirit of the decision to close the tax loophole on private schools, but I also note the growing fear and concern in my constituency and other constituencies, particularly for the smaller independent and faith schools that, as we should also recognise, provide excellent and often specialised schooling for children. That is why I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that, where private schools are charities that provide education for children with education, health and care plans, they will retain the charitable relief, as they rightly should. My view is that the impact on smaller independent and faith schools should be considered too, and I firmly believe that it is not in the spirit of this legislation to punish them. We should draw a clear distinction.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the impact on small schools, which often have pretty low fees, so is he going to vote against the Bill tonight? The spirit of this legislation is to hit everything in the private sector, as if every institution was Eton, when he knows and we know that they are anything but.

[Imran Hussain]

The right hon. Gentleman is a brave soul because he often tries to defend the indefensible. He and I have often sparred between these Benches, but I would say to him that the place he comes from and the place I come from are distinctly different. I support the spirit and ethos of this legislation because I do not think it is right to give tax concessions and subsidies to the richest in society while the poorest of our kids go hungry in schools, so we come from different places. If he lets me make the point about where I am coming from about genuinely smaller and faith schools, I think it may at least answer part of his question.

When we talk about these schools, let us be clear that the average fees for some of the smaller schools are about £3,000, which is a great deal less than the average. They are maintained through community support and donations, and they are not in the same league as the Etons of this world. They do not reproduce class inequalities, and in fact they enable some of the most deprived communities to flourish. It would be a travesty if these schools were inadvertently punished by a decision designed to tackle the same inequality that some of them work so hard to break down.

If we do not consider the impact on them, the schools charging the lowest fees, which are often located in extremely deprived communities, will suffer and, sadly, the children whose working-class parents have often saved up for many years to get them into these schools will have to leave. Again, while I of course support children moving from that sector into the state sector, the reality is that 14 years of underfunding and under-investment have left us with serious capacity issues in the state sector, which is something Conservative Members may want to address when they speak.

I want to take this opportunity to recognise the massive contributions that faith schools make to society. I have a number of Muslim faith schools that do some excellent work in my constituency, and I want to put on the record my thanks to them for all they do. I must therefore urge Ministers to put in safeguards for smaller independent and faith schools, many of which, sadly, will not survive the policy in its current form. This can be achieved, because I believe the money that would be generated from the smallest of these schools is not at a level that would have an impact on the overall spirit of this legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are staring at me in a very telling way—although there is no time limit, I know that look. To conclude, I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot keep funding tax breaks for the top end of society while neglecting the rest. This is something I have spoken on and championed my whole life, and I believe this policy is the right one for our state schools. However, I must urge the Government to reconsider, and not let smaller independent and faith schools, which are some of the lowest-charging schools, to pay the price. I must urge Ministers to listen to their concerns, and put in safeguards as this and other relevant Bills progress through to their next stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over the weekend, I watched my second favourite film. At the end, the main character, or at least the main character in my opinion, utters the immortal line that

“the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

When I consider the ending of tax exemption and charitable status for private schools, I often consider that line. We want all children to have the best chance in life to succeed, and 94% of children in the UK attend state school. Like every child, they deserve the highest quality of support and teaching. I also believe that ending the tax break on private schools will help to raise the revenue needed to fund our education priorities for the next year.

But then I realised that the phrase “the needs of the many” does not quite cover it. The Conservative party talks about choice, but there are really only two reasons why parents would choose to pay tens of thousands of pounds each year to send their children to private school rather than state school—maybe three if they go to Eton. Those reasons are longer opening times and boarding facilities, and a lack of faith in local state provision. We want to take away the choice to go to private school, but not in the way that the Conservative party keeps parroting; we want to make state schools so good that no one feels the need to send their children to private school. There should be no necessity for private schools.

I think all Members in the Chamber, even on the Opposition Benches, will acknowledge the issues with SEND funding in schools. It has been underfunded. I was lucky enough to visit Newhall primary school in my constituency on Friday. I saw the work it is doing to support its SEND students, even though it is not a specialist SEND school. However, it could only do that with a small number of students. Imagine what it could do with additional funding opportunities: it could help so many more.

What many people fail to recognise is that these private schools have the choice to absorb some of the tax. We are not here to punish students or parents. Schools can choose to absorb some of the tax, in the same way that the state sector has been asked to do for the past 14 years.

[Graham Stuart]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Many private schools actually charge less than the funding that goes to state schools. Every school is not Eton. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the most vulnerable schools and the children therein? Should the proper design of any policy not be grounded in looking at the most vulnerable rather than the strongest?

[Chris Vince]

It is very exciting to take my first intervention from an Opposition Member, but I think the right hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the point that I am trying to make. I am saying that we need to support the state sector to be as good as it possibly can so that parents do not feel the need to send their children to private school.

The Conservatives groan when we mention the £22 billion black hole, but I do not even need to mention the £22 billion black hole—in fact, I will not mention the £22 billion black hole. What I will say, however, is that we have high streets that are already boarded up and school buildings left crumbling. I visit state schools in my constituency all the time and I see children of all ages and abilities full of compassion, intelligence and potential. I had the fantastic opportunity to visit St Mark’s Catholic school in my constituency again last Friday. The students asked fantastic questions. If they are listening now, I emphasise that they can aspire to achieve everything they want in life. However, classrooms are overfilled and underfunded. Paint is peeling off the walls, and some schools—not that particular school—have faulty heating. Despite all those things, the pupils could not be filled with more excitement or more desire to learn and understand.

I can see that you are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I had better get on. Labour is making the fair choice to support small business, to give every child the chance to succeed and to protect the public finances. I will finish with a line from my favourite film of all time, “A Matter of Life and Death”. At the beginning, David Niven says:

“Politics: Conservative by nature, Labour by experience.”

I am delighted that on 4 July, plenty of people went to the polls with that view.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I can understand the hon. Member’s concern, but of course, that £1.5 billion was already baked into the forecast—it is not new money to spend on initiatives. As she knows, we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances; we will set out the detail of that at the Budget tomorrow, but because of that, we have had to make very difficult choices. Even in those difficult circumstances, though, we have protected the winter fuel payment for the most vulnerable pensioners who are on pension credit. We have also boosted the uptake of pension credit, so that people get the support they are entitled to.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Residents of Joseph Rowntree’s St Ellens Court all gathered recently to tell me about the devastating impact that the cut in the winter fuel payment will have on their living standards, and people in Withernsea gathered Saturday last to demonstrate against it. Tomorrow, the Chancellor can do the right thing; will she?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman told them about the £22 billion gap in the public finances that his Government left, which has required the difficult decisions this Government have had to make to clean up the mess left by the Conservative party.

VAT: Independent Schools

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I am spoilt for choice. I give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Graham Stuart]

During the election, in the Monks Walk pub, I met a constituent who has stayed in his small home and has one car for the family, because they decided their bullied daughter needed to go to another school. They have sacrificed, with the support of wider family, so that that child with special educational needs can go to a private school. It is children and families like that who will be the victims of this spiteful policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend is right to identify that many parents make great personal financial sacrifices to do what they believe is best for their children. Some parents whose children go to independent school are rich, and some are definitely not. I include in that latter bracket most of the parents sending their children, for example, to small religious schools in Hackney, Salford or Birmingham. Very many more are in the middle, including many professionals working in our public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

This Government were elected to break down barriers to opportunity. We are determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent in our country to get the best education for their children. We are committed to doing so by improving state schools and making sure that every child has access to a high-quality education. We will start to make this happen by expanding early years childcare for all by opening 3,000 new nurseries across England. We will recruit 6,500 new teachers, alongside improving teacher and headteacher training, and we will roll out further mental health support to schools and colleges in England. Those improvements to the state education system will begin our work to make sure every parent’s aspiration for their children can be fulfilled.

We want to get on with these important changes right away, and to do so, they must be paid for. That is why to help fund improvements to our state schools, we have made the tough but necessary decision to end tax breaks for private schools. In the July statement, the Government announced that as of 1 January 2025, all education services and vocational training provided for a charge by a private school in the UK will be subject to VAT at the standard rate of 20%.

[Graham Stuart]

I know the Minister to be an honourable man, so will he take this opportunity to apologise to the House in the absence of the Secretary of State for Education for the malicious and spiteful tweet that she put out this weekend? That tweet was ill-advised, even if one believes that this policy is the right thing to do.

[James Murray]

Neither I nor any of my colleagues will make any apology for wanting to improve state education across this country to make sure that the aspiration of every parent in our country to get the best possible education for their children can be fulfilled. That is why we have announced that any fees paid from the date of the July statement, 29 July, relating to the term starting in January 2025 onward will be subject to VAT.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Member for her contribution. First, in terms of an impact assessment, while developing these policies, the Government have carefully considered the impact they will have on pupils and their families across the state and private sectors, as well as the impact they will have on state and private schools. In addition to having reviewed analysis published by third parties such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Government have conducted their own analysis of the likely impacts of these policies, which draws on a range of sources.

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[James Murray]

I am not going to give way, because I am responding to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a point of order, so you do give way, unfortunately.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Could you give any advice to me on how we can ensure that the impact assessment that must have been conducted on this policy is shared with the House? It is a fundamental—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As you know, that is not a point of order—do not waste my time. Carry on, Minister.

Winter Fuel Payment

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Government approved the use of the urgency exemption in section 173 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to make and lay the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 before the Secretary of State had referred the Regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee; further regrets that the Government decided it was not necessary to publish an impact assessment for the Regulations, despite, for example, the evidence which shows that living in a cold home increases the risk of serious illness for vulnerable people and those with disabilities and so restricting eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payment is likely to lead to increased burdens on the National Health Service; regrets that the Government made time to debate the prayer motion from the Official Opposition without the Social Security Advisory Committee’s Report, and Government response; and calls on the Government to lay those papers before Parliament without delay, and to publish a full regulatory and equality impact assessment for these Regulations.

The decision to remove winter fuel payments has come as a complete shock to millions of pensioners—pensioners on as little as £11,500 a year. We have had no adequate explanation as to why this measure is so urgent. We have had no explanation as to why the Government had to invoke the special emergency provisions that allow them to bypass the scrutiny of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We have had no explanation as to why no impact assessments were provided. This is a major policy change that will remove the entitlement for up to 10 million pensioners, including many who are already in poverty. It is a cut worth £7.5 billion over the course of this Parliament. Rushing such a policy through—without taking time to consider the impacts, ensure effective and fair implementation, and allow possible scrutiny—is impossible to justify. This is not the way to make good policy, and this is not good government.

It is worth considering the conclusions of one of the few bodies that have been afforded the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the Lords has been damning in its criticism of the Government’s approach, and I refer the House to my remarks in the previous debate, when I quoted the Committee at some length. As the Committee points out, such measures would normally be subject to the SSAC’s consideration. That is an important part of the process for any legislation of this nature, as I know well from my time as Work and Pensions Secretary. Conveniently, Ministers have claimed that the measure is too urgent to wait for the SSAC’s scrutiny.

We understand that the SSAC is due to consider the measure tomorrow. Can the Minister commit to the House today that the SSAC’s report, and the Government statement responding to any recommendations, will be laid before Parliament before the regulations come into force next week? As the Lords Committee has pointed out, it would seem wholly inappropriate for the SSAC’s views to be taken into account only once the regulations are already in force. In the words of the Committee,

“It remains unclear what the practical impact of any statement might be on regulations which will have already come into effect.”

If the Government do not intend to provide us with the SSAC’s observations before the House rises on Thursday, why were Members asked to consider and vote on the prayer motion against the regulations today, before the SSAC has met?

The lack of any impact assessment means that we are severely hampered in our ability to scrutinise this measure. We were told in the explanatory memorandum that:

“A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no significant new impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”

This seems a bold claim to make about a measure that removes hundreds of pounds of support from some of the most vulnerable elderly households in our country.

The guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is clear:

“For a vulnerable person, living in a cold home increases their chance of serious illness or death.”

It also notes that

“being housebound increases both the exposure to an underheated home and the cost of heating it.”

So can I ask the Minister on what basis it was concluded that there would be no significant impact from this policy on those charities and organisations that support elderly people or on the wider health and social care system? Will he now commit to the publication of a proper impact assessment?

The only basis for the urgency seems to be a claim that this measure is vital for public finances. We have even been subjected to the Leader of the House claiming that it was needed to avoid a run on the pound. I might ask the Minister to comment on that when he appears at the Dispatch Box. The only real relevance of a measure of this kind to the public finances is its impact on the Government’s fiscal rules. Those fiscal rules are based on levels of debt and borrowing at the end of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s fiscal forecast period in five years’ time. The rules that the Chancellor has claimed she will sign up to were already being met when the Government came into office, according to the OBR’s own forecasts.

The Government could have opted to bring this measure in next year, with greater time for scrutiny, better notice for pensioners, more time to drive up pension credit uptakes and perhaps time to consider whether there were much better ways of going about it. It would still have been a broken promise, and we on this side of the House would still have opposed it, but it would have been a much better way to make policy and it would still have delivered exactly the same savings at the end of the forecast period.

Ministers will claim that they needed to make immediate in-year savings, but that is based entirely on a black hole that they have confected themselves. The real reason this is being rushed is pure politics. The Government want to rush this measure through while they can try to blame it on their predecessors in order to avoid proper scrutiny. There is no need whatsoever for the haste with which this is being done.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend, like me, find it inexplicable that the Government should fail to go through the proper process when their own research suggested that thousands of people could die as a result of precisely this measure? That is something that the whole House should find deeply uncomfortable.

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This is a very serious step that the Government are taking. Of all the steps that should be properly scrutinised, surely this is one of them. I remember when I was sitting on the other side of the Chamber, I could barely breathe without the cry going out that an impact assessment should be held. It is extraordinary that on such an important measure as this, affecting millions of the most vulnerable, the Labour party should be utterly silent on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I would be interested to understand why the hon. Gentleman is backing a candidate to lead his party who supports the means-testing of the winter fuel payment. He might want to have a conversation with that candidate before he starts criticising our approach of targeting support at those in greatest need. The critical point is that the combination of the state pension rising under the triple lock with those in greatest need getting winter fuel payments alongside pension credit, not to mention the extension of the household support fund, means that the right measures are in place to give all pensioners the support they need.

Opposition Members want to know why the legislation is being progressed urgently. I will be really clear: it is urgent because we need to deal urgently with the £22 billion black hole—the huge in-year spending pressure—that we inherited from the Government that they ran. It is crucial that we act quickly to restore responsibility to our public finances and stability to our economy. On top of that, it was important that we made sure that regulations were in place at the start of the qualifying week for winter fuel payments, while wasting no time in doing all we can to raise pension credit take-up.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We have heard that the Transport Minister yesterday could give no assurance to pensioners about their transport concessions. Last week, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about the single person council tax discount. There is a very real prospect that pensioners could lose even more than £300—another £300 or £400. Will the Exchequer Secretary take this opportunity to reassure pensioners that there is no way that the Government will remove the single person discount from the council tax? It would be politically good for him and the Labour party, and it would be enormously important for people who need to hear some reassurance at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that committed to delivering economic stability, security and growth. After 14 years of Tory recklessness with our economy and after the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget drove up inflation, food bills and mortgage repayments and pushed my constituents to the brink, the public voted for change. That change must start with getting our economy back on its feet.

When the previous Labour Government left office, Trussell Trust food banks were giving out 40,000 food parcels a year. Last year they gave out 3 million. When we on the Labour side of the House talk about the recklessness of the previous Government, it is not academic. We are talking about taxpayers’ money being poured into ideological gimmicks while children are going to school hungry, working adults are one rent rise away from homelessness and a broken NHS is stalling productivity and failing those who most rely on public services, including our pensioners. We face a £22 billion black hole in the public finances that they covered up and walked away from.

Stability means bringing the economy and the country back from the brink to which the Conservative party knowingly pushed it. No one doubts that this policy is tough, and it is not a measure we want to take, but we have been left a huge bill to pay. Means-testing the winter fuel allowance will allow us to support those pensioners most in need as we take the difficult steps we have to take to right the ship.

Members across this House know that in our communities there are too many pensioners struggling. That is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to the triple lock, under which the state pension has risen by £900 this year and will rise by more than £450 in April. I also support the extension of the warm home discount, worth £150 for more than 1 million low-wage pensioners.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Tory triple lock was introduced by the Tories, precisely in order to deal with the legacy left by the previous Labour Government when, unless I have got this number wrong, there was a lower take-up of pension credit than there is today—we raised that. The triple lock raised pensioner incomes, and the first act of the Labour Government, of whom he is clearly aiming to be a loyal member, is to take £300 away from people who really need it.

[Peter Swallow]

Three million food parcels were distributed last year. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government. And the triple lock that the Conservatives purport to defend? They broke it in 2022.

I also support the extension of the household support fund to help the families most in need this winter, as well as the Government’s commitment to introducing tougher regulation to the energy market, which has let customers down for too long. I am working hard with Bracknell Forest council to ensure that pensioners in the Bracknell constituency who are in need but not claiming the support to which they are entitled are identified and encouraged to get help. I urge any pensioner who is concerned about their finances to go to Age UK’s benefits calculator to see what support they may be entitled to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), and to follow the angst-ridden journey with his conscience to ensure that he could abandon those in most need of their winter fuel allowance in this coming winter. It was good of him to highlight the Tory triple lock, which did take the absolutely woeful state of the pension left by the last Labour Government and transform it into a sounder one today. However, even in these conditions—where, thanks to the Tories, pensioners are much better off than they used to be—there are people, and this came from Labour research a few years ago, who will die, according to that research, if this policy, which he in good conscience thinks he should vote for today, is implemented. That is the truth.

That takes us to one key issue that we have been discussing today, which is process. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland seems like an honourable and decent man—at least he used the word “conscience” in this debate, rather than purely political theatre. The point is that when something could lead to thousands of people dying, the Government have not done what they are legally obliged to do—they used some rare exemption requirement—and produce an impact assessment. So we do not know. People who in good conscience want to do the right thing, like the hon. Gentleman, do not know what the impact is. If it was in front of us, and if it validated the Labour party’s previous analysis, and showed that 4,000 people could be going to die, could he really support the measure in good conscience for £1.1 billion when we spend more than £1,200 billion?

The £22 billion black hole is a sort of political theatre from a Government who said they were not going to do politics as theatre and performance, and that they were going to do it properly. In fact, this is a miniscule amount. It is significant, but it is miniscule in the overall scheme of things. A choice has been made and rammed through on a timetable that is not in order and does not follow the normal and proper way of things or allow new Members of Parliament, like the hon. Gentleman, to look at the issue, weigh it up and come to the right conclusion. It is truly shameful. Peter, one of my constituents, is one of 882 people who signed a petition in my constituency against this measure. He and his wife are £12 over the pension credit limit.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is citing concerns about the safety of vulnerable groups, and I wonder if he might reflect on the past 14 years, and that he enabled a Government that led to the decay and decline of every single public service. When public services decay and decline, that disproportionately affects vulnerable groups.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not true. I used to chair the Education Committee, so I know a little about that, and standards were lifted—[Interruption.] Look at the OECD or the PISA tables. It seems that the new Ministers do not want to take into account the most reputable international measure of educational performance, which showed that we lifted ourselves up massively. The NHS is under enormous tension and in crisis, but compared with five years ago we have 20% more doctors and nurses, if it was purely a budgetary matter. I wish the new Government well in reforming the NHS, but if we want to see what a Labour Government means for the health service, we can find it right now. We just need to travel to Wales, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not delivering.

Let me return to Peter and his wife. They are not the only people who are worried about this policy. I spent a little time yesterday reading Labour’s manifesto, as I hope Labour Members may have done, and I was touched by the quote from Gary on page 48:

“I’ve never struggled this much to keep warm. I can only afford to heat one room with a small portable heater. Sometimes I sleep in my armchair to save money…it’s no way to live.”

Surely Labour Members, in good conscience, recognise that he is right: it is no way to live. When 9.7 million people voted Labour, they voted for it on the promise of change. I do not think this is the change that Gary and others were led to believe they would receive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I honestly think that Conservative Members have some brass neck. During their time in power, we lost an average of 3 million working days a year to strikes because of their failure to deal with industrial action, and we lost 1.4 million NHS appointments which were cancelled, which meant that pensioners and others were in pain for longer than they needed to be. We will not take lectures from the Conservatives. We have had to take this difficult decision to means-test the winter fuel payment because of the £22 billion black hole in year, this year. [Interruption.] They may not want to hear it, but they should apologise for leaving that black hole. It was created by repeated and reckless unfunded spending—

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is the point of order directly relevant to the current proceedings?

[Graham Stuart]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want some guidance from you on whether it can be appropriate for Ministers and others on the Government Benches who have been directly funded by the trade unions not to declare that personal benefit before doing something like this, which is hurting millions of pensioners.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Members are guided to talk about any such conflict before they speak on the Floor of the House. I am not sure that this has a direct impact on proceedings, but the right hon. Gentleman’s point has been noted.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Far be it from me to give advice to Tory leadership contestants, but if I were taking part in this contest, I would want to distance myself as much as possible from the Government in the previous Parliament who caused this terrible mess.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Chancellor committed to long-term planning for capital expenditure. Last March, the then Chancellor committed £20 billion to carbon capture, usage and storage, without which a net zero future cannot be delivered. In the light of the right hon. Lady’s review, can she set out for the House what commitment this Government will make to investment, including to that £20 billion for CCUS?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have already created a national wealth fund, which will leverage in billions of pounds of private sector investment, including in carbon capture and storage, as well as green hydrogen and renewable-ready ports. We will set out all our spending in the spending review later this year.

Out-of-Turn Supplementary Estimates 2022-23

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)]

I thank all Members who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) spoke for His Majesty’s Opposition, and I say to him that the decision on the timing of this provision was made by the Monetary Policy Committee as part of the Bank of England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made, as usual, the most perspicacious observations, not least about the importance of grappling with the high cost to the public purse of these interventions. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, he was right to say that this very much depends on prices, and one hopes that we will see the costs coming in lower than in the estimate before the House.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about the impact of prices on businesses and other organisations in her constituency. She is right that these are significant prices. They are the result of global prices. She will be aware that the EU is in a similar position and is looking at how best to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices. She will doubtlessly support the elements of the Energy Prices Bill that look to decouple those prices and do everything they can to hold prices down.

The hon. Lady will also observe that the world-leading contracts for difference scheme brought in by the Government and now widely mimicked by others has provided the capital certainty to make renewables in this country investible, thus leading to the transformation of our offshore wind. Renewables have gone from, I think, a pitiful 6.8% of electricity provision when Labour left power in 2010 to more than 40% today. Contracts for difference, brought forward by the Government, have not only contributed to that, but right now we are seeing tens of millions of pounds being paid back into the pot because of their structure, thus reducing costs that businesses and consumers would otherwise see.

[Alison Thewliss]

I appreciate the points that the Minister is making about contracts for difference, but does he not agree that the grid charging regime penalises generators of offshore and onshore wind in Scotland, making it more expensive for them to generate electricity than a power station in the south-east of England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Grid charges need to reflect the costs involved. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we are reviewing and looking at how best to deal with the grid going forward, because the grid is fundamental to everything we want to do in this space. There is room for change, but I am not sure that I necessarily agree with her. I will wait for others more expert than me to come forward with recommendations for ministerial decision on how best to structure that. Removing price signals from the system would not be beneficial. We need price signals in there; that is right and proper.

The hon. Lady mentioned heating oil. I represent a rural constituency with many consumers on heating oil. The Government looked carefully and shared information showing that from September 2021 to September 2022, heating oil costs increased by average of about 147%. We also looked at what has happened to gas prices after the effect of the EPG, and they have increased by 130%. That is why the £100 covers that. The numbers are there—we can see what the average family spends and what the increase has been, so we can make the comparison.

Given the party that the hon. Lady represents, I understand that she will always say that we should do more. That is one thing, but what she cannot say—or she should not, and I appeal to her not to do so—is that it is not fair between those on the gas grid and those on heating oil. Some might want to do more overall, but I believe, and I think our numbers show, that we are creating something equitable between the two. It is important that people who are often in isolated rural areas and can feel hard done by are not told that they are being unfairly treated compared with others. They are not. Even if it suits a political purpose, it is important that politicians do not make such allegations unless there is a basis for them, because then they would be not serving those people well but misleading them. I know that she in particular would never want to do that.

Energy is an essential and unavoidable expense for households and businesses. The economic fallout from the pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine has led to unprecedented rises in energy prices. The Government will provide crucial support to families and businesses with their energy costs over the winter period.

[Munira Wilson]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I have finally won—he would not give way last week when I had an amendment to discuss on communal heating networks.

The Minister made a strong political point about fairness. Last week, I said that people on communal heating networks living in particular in blocks of flats in my constituency and across London and the country have faced heating price rises of more than 500%, yet the support package they were offered was not equivalent to that of other households, so there was a fundamental unfairness. Everybody is subject to the six-month review, so will the Minister guarantee from the Dispatch Box that when the Government review the package for other households, communal heat networks will get the equivalent support that they were promised all along? They were offered only six months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is great that she mentions particular difficult cases with such passion. She will recognise that moving at speed to try to create something comparable for everyone, as we did, is challenging and complex. The purpose of the review is absolutely to look across the piece. We will continue to monitor the prices that people have to put up with, whether they are off grid or on communal heating networks, and we will also look to ensure that any future intervention is done in a way that is as fair and well informed as possible.

Through the energy price guarantee scheme, we are capping the price that consumers will pay for their electricity and gas bills, reducing the average household bill by about a third this winter and saving a typical household about £700. The scheme will run from October to March 2023. That is in addition to the £400 energy discount provided by the Government for all households through the energy bills support scheme. Support will be provided to non-domestic energy customers including businesses, charities, schools and hospitals through the energy bill relief scheme. That will provide a discount on non-domestic energy bills to protect against the significantly inflated wholesale gas and electricity prices that have affected non-domestic customers. That scheme will operate from October to March 2023 and provide an equivalent level of support to the domestic scheme.

The schemes, taken together, will provide essential support to families and businesses to see them through the winter. Looking beyond April, the Government cannot continue to be exposed to the volatility of wholesale gas and electricity prices. That would be unsustainable for both the taxpayer and the public finances. That is why the Government are committed to reviewing both the energy price guarantee scheme and the energy bill relief scheme to consider how we may support households and businesses over the longer term from April 2023.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2023—

(1) for expenditure by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

(a) further resources, not exceeding £60,176,000,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 794 of Session 2022-23, and

(b) a further sum, not exceeding £60,176,000,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament; and

(2) for expenditure by HM Treasury:

(a) further resources, not exceeding £11,175,000,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as set out in HC 794 of Session 2022-23, and

(b) a further sum, not exceeding £11,175,000,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution relating to Out-of-Turn Supplementary Estimates, 2022-23;

That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Edward Argar, Andrew Griffith, Richard Fuller and Felicity Buchan bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Adjustments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading, and remaining stages

Andrew Griffith accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the year ending with 31 March 2023; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for that year; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for that year.

Bill read the First time; to be printed (Bill 170).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 19 October, and Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction): Business of the House

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Motion for Resolution ‘Stamp duty land tax (reduction)’ and to proceedings on any Bill brought in upon the Resolution:

Timetable

(1)(a) Proceedings on the Motion for Resolution ‘Stamp duty land tax (reduction)’, proceedings on presentation and first reading of any Bill brought in upon the Resolution, proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on the Motion for the Resolution and proceedings on Second Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(d) This paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the proceedings on the Motion for the Resolution have been concluded and the Bill has been read the first time and ordered to be printed, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.

(3)(a) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put.

(b) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(4)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;

(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (12)(a) of this Order.

(6) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Other proceedings

(9) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.

Miscellaneous

(10) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(11) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(12)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Motion for the Resolution or the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(13)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(14)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.

(15) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(16)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Richard Fuller.)

Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I have to say that a quick Google analysis of the SNP would not be particularly edifying. Despite noises off, this Prime Minister is focused on what matters to the British people and it is right that those matters conclude in an orderly way.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I welcome the investigation. We can see the absolute terror on the faces of the Opposition. For them, this is partygate, but they know that they are up against a Prime Minister and a Government who have brought youth unemployment to its lowest ever level. This Government, led by the Prime Minister, brought us the AstraZeneca vaccine and ensured that we had the most successful booster programme in the world. That is why there is absolute terror on the Opposition Benches that we should focus on policy in this place and on the priorities of the British people. That is why the Opposition are so desperate to land this even as the inquiry is going on.

[Michael Ellis]

I agree completely. The Prime Minister also welcomes the announcement by the Met police today, because alongside the Sue Gray inquiry, which he set up, we will offer the public the clarity that they need to help draw a line under these events.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

That is spot on. We have raised that issue time after time. Having sunset clauses and taking control back is a sign of a confident Government who are strong and stable and know their direction of travel. That is why I am sure that every Government Member of the Committee will support the amendment’s specific proposal for a sunset clause.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

I just want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to the Labour party, because Labour does not just talk about sunset clauses; it actually works on them. And it is noticeable, frankly, that with real momentum behind sunset clauses, moderate leaders, councillors and moderate MPs are being hounded out. That is a true sunset clause.

[The Chair]

Again, Mr Dowd, we will stick to what we are talking about here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Main. In addition to the other thanks, I think this has been a very good debate and we have spoken in a lot of detail about a huge variety of issues, because the Bill covers a number of different things. The amount of knowledge expressed in the room has been a good display of what Parliament can do when it is doing something in the right way.

In particular, I say a huge amount of thanks to the Clerks, who have been absolutely invaluable in their support to me. I could not have done this without them—they have been fantastic, so I thank them so much.

[Graham Stuart]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Main. I will not repeat all the thanks that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary so eloquently made. I agreed with every word he said. Obviously, as the new boy on the block I thank him for his support, and I thank the Committee for being indulgent of me. In fact, the astonishing amiability and amicability of Opposition colleagues even in the face of my tetchiness is something on which I shall have to reflect over the weekend.

I thank all the Department for International Trade staff who supported me in work on the Bill. With HMT, we are bringing forward a piece of legislation that has been subject to good humoured but forensic scrutiny, not only from witnesses but from members of the Committee. I thank all the staff, Clerks and others for their support.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said. We heard on Tuesday some of businesses’ concerns about consultation even relative to the Bill. It is important, when we move on to its exact provisions, that we have proper consultative mechanisms. I have certainly benefited hugely from the input into the process around the Bill and information from the Fairtrade Foundation and Traidcraft. If this Government are truly committed to policy coherence for development, it is important that they ensure that non-governmental organisations with expertise on the ground in international development can comment on preferential trade decisions, which could have a significant impact on different nations.

I was encouraged by what the Minister said to me when we talked about ensuring policy coherence for development when it comes to tax treaties. We need to ensure that that is the reality for our preferential trading regimes as well. One way to do that is by having appropriate consultation with experts in the area.

Finally, the Library note to the Bill, which was enormously useful as always, says that,

“the Government argues that the negative procedure is appropriate here as regulations might be lengthy, technical, frequently changed, not yet known and/or administrative.”

The note goes on to indicate what the EU process is for such schemes. It is quite different from what the Government propose:

“The regulations setting out the current EU scheme…were adopted by the EU Parliament and Council”,

meaning that there was debate within both those organisations. Our country is represented in the Council, and our MEPs represent us in the European Parliament. Then there are

“provisions allowing technical/routine updates through Commission delegated regulations.”

Again, delegated regulations can involve thorough scrutiny. I suggest that in many ways, it is far easier for an MEP to trigger a debate on a piece of delegated legislation on the Floor of the European Parliament than for an MP to do so in the British Parliament, certainly when the negative procedure is used, but also, potentially, when the affirmative procedure is used, given the arithmetic of Committees mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. It is enormously important that we have proper scrutiny of such provisions. One way of embedding that is by having appropriate consultation. We support the amendment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. It is an intimidating task that falls to me. I see many familiar faces, all pretty experienced and used to being in Bill Committees, as well as the Rolls-Royce Minister to my left. Fortunately, I am backed by the most extraordinary sea of talent behind me, as well as having on my right a much improved Treasury Whip, compared with his predecessor.

Amendment 108 seeks to create a statutory duty to consult on regulations relating to unilateral trade preferences for developing countries. The Government sought views on unilateral preferences as part of the trade White Paper and proposed creating a trade preference scheme that, as a minimum, maintains the preferential market access of countries in the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences, or GSP. The Government regularly engage with stakeholders on the issue, and—I can undertake—will continue to do so in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the Minister speaking on these matters in Committee, and I welcome him to his place. He is absolutely right about the importance of the preferential trade agreements, but perhaps we had a slight misunderstanding. I am not suggesting that opposition to such agreements would be likely. It is just that some organisations such as Fairtrade and Traidcraft have been in touch with us, and they might have better insight into what is happening on the ground in some of those countries. They might be able to provide more information to ensure that the preferential tariffs being provided unilaterally are the most appropriate ones.

The amendment is not about trying to create a blockage in the system. My reason for moving it is not about protecting our industries, but about ensuring that the best possible preferences are put in place for those countries that most need them. That is more likely to happen if there is an opportunity—a requirement, I suppose—for the Government to consult, in particular those bodies and organisations working in the country which can be absolutely clear about the best way forward for any trade deals.

If the Minister is clear that he will consult, that is useful. However, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.

[Graham Stuart]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady will press for a Division, not because the points she has made are not important, not because the Government should not consult and listen to those voices, and not because we should not seek to improve our programme of support for developing countries, but because to put consultation in at that particular point in the process will not deliver the outcome that she desires and might in fact cause damage to the very system that we all want to see improved and working properly after having taken such consultation.

We are in regular contact with external stakeholders. We hold roundtables with representatives of civil society, business and academia, and we have received about 20 responses on trade with developing countries as part of the White Paper consultation. We have heard support from some of the organisations that the hon. Lady mentioned for creating a UK preference scheme, and an understanding of our approach to maintaining in the first instance existing levels of market access as we leave the EU. In effect, we are replicating the system we have now. In the oral evidence earlier this week, the Committee heard someone from the Fairtrade Foundation say of the measure:

“It takes the best bits of current EU policy and brings them over into UK policy.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 21, Q23.]

In some areas, stakeholders have suggested changes for the future, including extending to more countries, simplifying rules and adding more products. All of that can be considered by Government. I suggest to the hon. Lady that it is not too late not to press this amendment to the vote, because I do not think it is appropriate, although I take on board entirely the points she is making.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I still intend to press this to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

This seems like a sensible amendment, particularly because accessing that nil rate is crucial for so many nations. If there is ambiguity around the conditions, they need to be clarified. Definition, initially, as a least-developed country, is partly with reference to vulnerability to economic shocks. Inability to access that nil-rate, or inability have it reinstated when it should be, could cause economic shocks. As we know, the value of access to the nil-rate to UK markets for least-developed countries is incredibly important—it is £323 million a year. It is important that we have no ambiguity and are absolutely crystal clear.

[Graham Stuart]

As we have heard, the amendment seeks to clarify that the regulations may provide for the restoration or reinstatement of the nil rate of import duty to least-developed countries where this has been suspended or withdrawn. It is clearly important that we can reinstate preferential rates of import duty after they have been suspended or withdrawn, but the Government do not believe that the amendment is required. The existing power enables the withdrawal or suspension of preferences to least-developed countries to be partial and reversible. That is in line with the general principles relating to regulation-making powers. It goes to show that even when you deal with lawyers as eminent as those at the Law Society of Scotland, they sometimes get it wrong, even technically.

The Government intend to use the power to suspend sparingly and, if used, we will work with the relevant country with a view to reinstating preferences as soon as is appropriate. For trade preferences to be effective, they must be relatively stable, so that businesses have confidence to make decisions to import from beneficiary countries. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to withdraw the amendments and give a categorical assurance that a provision to do what they suggest is already in place.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Having looked at subsection (2), I still do not think it is particularly clear. It says that the scheme can make provision about the withdrawal, but then does not make clear that it can be reinstated. I will not press it to a vote because I hope the Government will table an amendment on Report to make it clear that they have the ability to reinstate the rate. I would not like a situation in which the Government were unable to do so because there was a challenge around the language used in the law. The amendment seeks to make it as unambiguous as possible. The hon. Member for Oxford East was absolutely clear on the importance of nil rates, particularly in relation to economic shocks. SNP Members would echo that. I am not going to press it to a vote, but I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider returning to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 80, in schedule 3, page 57, line 18, at end insert “among other things”.

This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may have regard to things other than the classification of least developed countries by the UN in amending the list in Part 2 of Schedule 3.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 10, in clause 32, page 19, line 32, after “which” insert

“section (Preferential rates given unilaterally: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc) (7) applies and”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4.

New clause 4—Preferential rates given unilaterally: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc—

(1) No regulations may be made by the Treasury in exercise of the power in section 10(1) except in accordance with the steps set out in subsections (2) and (4) to (6).

(2) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons—

(a) a statement on the matters specified in subsection (3); and

(b) a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made.

(3) Those matters are the reasons for—

(a) the proposed application and non-application of the scheme to each country listed in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 3;

(b) any proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate, and

(c) any proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.

(4) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (2)(b)—

(a) each country to which the proposed regulations apply;

(b) the proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate, and

(c) the proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.

(5) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (4) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).

(6) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in subsection (4), give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (5).

(7) No regulations may be made under the following provisions unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons—

(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);

(b) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule).

This new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting lower import duties for eligible developing countries, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the key provisions of the proposed regulations, and also requires that certain other regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.

[Graham Stuart]

Clause 10 ensures that the UK can operate a unilateral trade preference scheme when the UK leaves the EU. It will provide the powers to implement a scheme that will enable the reduction of import duty on goods originating from developing countries. By legislating now, we can ensure continuity for businesses both in the UK and in those countries when the UK leaves the EU.

As you know, Mrs Main, the UK has a long-standing commitment to support developing countries to reduce poverty through trade. One important way to do that is to offer preferential access for their exports to the UK. Trade preferences will also provide opportunities for UK businesses, while enabling UK consumers to benefit from lower product prices. In 2016, the UK imported £19.1 billion of goods from countries receiving trade preferences.

The UK currently provides trade preferences through the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences. Under GSP, the product coverage and import duty rates for countries vary depending on their development levels and trade flows. The granting of a unilateral preference to facilitate the trade of developing countries should, under WTO rules, be based on objective criteria. The European Commission regularly updates EU legislation to reflect that. Examples include making changes to a country’s economic circumstances, or to the list of products in respect of which a country receives a preference. After the UK leaves the EU, similar legislative powers will be needed to establish and manage an effective trade preference scheme. Clause 10 provides for a power to create a trade preference scheme for eligible developing countries.

It is intended that the UK scheme will have tiers of preferences for groups of countries with different economic characteristics. The UK will reduce to zero the import duty on goods originating from the 48 least developed countries, except for the import of arms and ammunitions, which is called “everything but arms”. That fulfils an international commitment made in the UN sustainable development goals, and will provide vital support to the world’s poorest countries.

To maintain continuity at the point of exit, in the first instance the UK intends to mirror the EU’s scheme, which includes two further tiers, known as standard GSP and GSP-plus. The standard tier will reduce import duty on the majority of goods. The enhanced GSP-plus tier will reduce to zero the import duty applicable to those goods covered by the standard tier when such goods originate from economically vulnerable countries that make commitments on human and labour rights, environmental protection and good governance.

The trade preference scheme will allow for the variation, suspension and withdrawal of trade preferences in certain circumstances. For example, where the import of a good threatens serious injury to UK business, the preferential rate could be amended or revert to the standard customs tariff rate. That would take place following discussion with the specialised, expert Trade Remedies Authority. Importantly, a preference may also be varied or withdrawn from a country in response to serious and systematic human rights violations.

Schedule 3 lists the countries that are eligible to receive unilateral trade preferences. It is an objective list based on economic criteria. Countries in part 2 of schedule 3 are currently or recently classified by the UN as least-developed countries. Countries included in part 3 have not been classified by the World Bank as upper middle income or above for the last three consecutive years. Not all of the countries on the list will actually receive the trade preferences. Some of the eligible countries will trade with the UK under a different arrangement, such as a free trade agreement. In such a case, it is intended that the FTA terms will apply to that country instead. Schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the list of eligible developing countries when a country’s economic characteristics change. It is important that a UK preference scheme can react swiftly in such circumstances.

Amendment 80 will allow the Secretary of State to consider things beyond the UN’s classification of least-developed countries when deciding which countries must be provided with a nil rate of import duty. When determining whether a country is least developed, the Secretary of State must have regard to its classification by the UN but, importantly, other relevant considerations may be taken into account. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in such a prominent role now. In his role as a Whip, he was of course fundamental to the operation of all the discussions that we have had in this Committee room, but it is good to see him speaking on these issues.

As the Minister intimated, the amendment relates to part 4 of schedule 3, which sets out the conditions under which amendments can be made to parts 2 and 3, including the lists of least developed countries and other countries eligible for preferential trading schemes. Colleagues will be aware that those schemes arose out of the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which from the 1960s onwards argued for improved market access for developing countries as a means of fostering their economic development. The so-called generalised system of preferences was adopted in 1968.

The whole point about that—the Minister alluded to it—is that a generalised system of preference, just as with a customs union like that of the EU, is allowed as an exemption from the most favoured nation rules within the WTO. Those rules stipulate that no country can have a preferential trade agreement with any other country that is not offered to every other member of the WTO. It is therefore enormously important to have the ability to deviate from WTO rules to promote development.

As the Minister suggested, the arrangements have over time developed at EU level into, effectively, three different layers of preferential scheme for developing countries: the everything-but-arms approach, which applies to the least developed countries; the generalised system of preferences—GSP—and then GSP-plus which, as the Minister said, offers additional favourable terms to those countries fulfilling environmental and good governance requirements.

Will the Minister clarify one issue relating to GSP-plus, and my reading of the existing Bill, with regard to classification as another eligible developing country under part 3 of schedule 3? I thought that the Bill referred to the Secretary of State developing regulations with a view to

“among other things…classification by the World Bank”

and that those “other things” were not just economic factors but human rights and environmental considerations, as is the case with the GSP-plus system in the EU. I think that was what he intended to say, but it was not crystal clear and it would be helpful if he would clarify it.

Our amendment is focused not on the arrangements for GSP and GSP-plus countries, which I believe are all gathered under part 4 but, in practice, on the least-developed country regime—the successor to everything-but-arms, which the Government say they want us to take on board. It is positive that the Bill provides the possibility for a three-year transition period, so that countries currently described as least-developed countries can remain in the scheme for another three years, as a graduation period. However, particularly with regard to current EU developments, it seems that in the Bill, the Government are missing out on an important opportunity.

The Minister was correct to say that the current everything-but-arms regime does not explicitly include reference to human rights and the environment or other criteria, but there is pressure at EU level for those factors to be taken much more closely into account. Our country could play a key role in that. That is very important when we look at how the everything-but-arms process has worked in practice.

A very good case study is the sugar trade in Cambodia. The sugar industry in Cambodia has grown exponentially over recent times due to changes in the overall sugar price, but also due to the imposition of a preferential trading regime. That has not led to sustainable development. Instead, very large global conglomerates have captured much of the market. Ninety seven per cent. of Cambodia’s sugar exports went to the EU in 2012. Tate & Lyle bought 99% of those, and companies linked to it—or some of those which it has now sold off—were controlling much of the new sugar plantations in Cambodia.

Those plantations have been enormously controversial because they have involved the wholescale removal of families from their smallholdings. Many people illegally transferred into Thailand because the sugar plantations forced them off the land. The growth in the industry has not led to an increase in people’s incomes. In fact, the opposite has happened: it has led to many people becoming destitute who formerly were able to live at subsistence level at least. Some families from Cambodia have even taken cases against Tate & Lyle to our High Court because they were dispossessed of their land and are no longer able to live sustainably.

Other changes occurred around sugar in the EU—minimum pricing and its removal—but surely, given that example, we should think about whether we need to do more to try to stop developments of the kind that existed under the everything-but-arms initiative from occurring in any UK-specific schemes. There is certainly an argument in the development community about whether it is appropriate for human rights matters to be taken into account in trade deals. Particularly in the sugar market, very large corporations are making a huge benefit, but that has not led to a more sustainable income for ordinary people—quite the opposite.

In addition, it is important that other factors can be taken into account in these classifications and in determining whether countries should be on the list. Three years is a good graduation period but it may be necessary for some countries to have longer, especially if they are subject to a particular economic or other problem.

Furthermore, I understand that there are cases where countries have used additional considerations in relation to classification under these kinds of regimes. Norway has said that if a country is not classified as a least-developed country but is part of a customs union with other least-developed countries, it is a good thing because it promotes regional integration. That nation is also likely to share many trade characteristics with the least-developed countries, and therefore should be able to be allotted trade preferences on the same basis. Norway at least believes that it does not need a waiver from the WTO for that—not only is that not being actioned by the WTO, but Norway believes that it does not even need to approach the WTO for a waiver. We could be more ambitious in that regard, and I hope that as a result the Minister takes our suggestion on board.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her passionate espousal of a number of interesting issues. I will respond as best I can, but my three weeks in this post probably does not match her many years of expertise.

As highlighted, clause 10 and schedule 3 ensure that the UK can operate a unilateral trade preference scheme when the UK leaves the EU, supporting our long-standing commitment to support developing countries. The group of least-developed countries, as set out in schedule 3, are among the poorest in the world. As I said, providing nil-rate import duty access to goods from those countries helps them to reduce poverty through trade and is part of the UN’s sustainable development goals. Clause 10 enshrines that in UK law, ensuring that the commitment will be maintained in future. The clause is not prescriptive about the level of import duty for other eligible developing countries—they are listed in part 3 of schedule 3—that are not designated as least developed. However, as I have mentioned and as the Government set out in the trade White Paper, the Government’s policy intention is to ensure continuity at the point of exiting the EU by replicating the market access of all countries currently part of the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences.

I take on board the fact that the hon. Lady talked about being more ambitious. We have said that, as a Government, we wish to be more ambitious, but we need to bring into place in this country continuity from the existing system and give assurance and confidence that we are not opening up. If we open up the issues more widely, we will create uncertainty as to what we will continue—we may be strengthening in some areas; we might weaken in others. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to accept that I need to think and talk to her over time about some of the issues that she has raised. We do want to be more ambitious in the future, but for now, we believe that the right thing to do is to have continuity with the existing system and bring that as effectively as we can into UK law.

The amendment proposes that changes to schedule 3 be done by the affirmative procedure. As I have mentioned, eligible developing countries will be determined with regard to the classification by the World Bank or UN. The Government need to be able to react promptly to a country’s change in economic circumstances. Similarly, the power to specify the meaning of the term “arms and ammunition” is intended to allow the preference scheme to adopt the same nomenclature enabled through clause 8 for the customs tariff, which will itself be constrained by international nomenclature.

As I said, our intention is closely to replicate the EU’s preference scheme, including the GSP-plus tier. That is the enhanced tier of preferences available for economically vulnerable countries that ratify the international conventions I have mentioned. We expect beneficiary countries to continue to respect the conditions in GSP-plus, including meeting those international obligations. Those conditions will be set out in secondary legislation, as clause 10(2)(b) allows.

The question is asked why we would give preference to Cambodia even though land disputes have occurred following the EU’s everything-but-arms access. A key objective of the UK is building the UK’s prosperity by increasing exports and investment and promoting sustainable global growth. Greater prosperity leads to greater stability. We are aware that the Government of Cambodia have taken steps to improve their issue of economic land concessions, such as introducing a compensation process. Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment cancelled more than 20% of all economic land concessions. For now, therefore, we continue to work through the EU’s GSP monitoring system, and we seek to bring the existing system into UK law.

[Peter Dowd]

I rise to speak to the Opposition’s new clause 4 and will also touch on schedule 3, if I may. We do want to require a vote in the House of Commons on the giving of preferential rates unilaterally to developing countries—I do not mean in relation to amendment 80, but in future. We can all agree that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that our trade policy works for everyone, including the poorest in society, and how tariffs are set has an important bearing on that.

The Minister was very clear and comprehensive about the Government’s direction of travel. I welcome him to his position—as a former Whip, he has come out of the darkness into the light—but I also agree that the current Government Whip, the hon. Member for Macclesfield, is much better.

--- Later in debate ---

The issue is not clearcut. It is above my pay scale, but it raises larger ramifications that delve into the realms of foreign policy and international development more broadly and the question whether our trade policies should be linked or possibly subservient to British foreign policy interests or entirely independent of them. We do not want to get into a situation where the tail is wagging the dog. There is an important question that the Government must address in due course: should the UK have a selective trade policy in a world based on defined values and ideals or do we take a different approach? That is an approach that the Government have failed to define, and it needs to be reconsidered.

[Graham Stuart]

I will respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for Bootle has just made. I pay tribute to him for featuring so well. He must be another fine engine, if not a Rolls-Royce. I have certainly heard him purr in this Committee Room on many an occasion. As with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I have admired the style and content he has presented.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of whether the trade preferences will undermine human and labour rights. The UK has a long-standing commitment to universal human rights, and that will be reflected in our trade preference scheme. As part of transitioning EU arrangements, we will maintain a similar approach to human rights commitments in UK trade policy.

The hon. Gentleman raised Burma, based on the Rohingya situation, and mentioned the fact that the EU has, after all, suspended Burma before. I agree that this is an important issue. The UK is deeply concerned by the violence taking place in Rakhine state. The UK has been a leader in responding to the crisis in terms of both speed and size, helping to meet the urgent humanitarian needs that have arisen. For now, we continue to work through the EU’s GSP monitoring system. Under a UK scheme, it will be possible for countries to have their preferences suspended, although we intend to reserve suspension powers for serious and systematic human rights violations.

We must make sure that when we act, it is always to tackle the problems in those developing countries, and that the long list that was laid out—including climate change, forestry and various aspects of human rights—is not used as an excuse for protectionism of interests in this country while we are morally posing ourselves as helping those in developing countries. That is why the presumption is that we should let them trade with us; however, in serious cases we should act. I hope that both this Committee and the House can continue to take that proportionate and balanced approach.

On the clauses that the hon. Gentleman says give too much power to the Government, and on the question whether there is sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and due process in setting up this preference scheme, I would say that these powers are moderate and entirely necessary to create and maintain a trade preference scheme for developing countries, which is a goal that we all share. The overarching principles of the preference scheme are set out in primary legislation. That is important. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the inclusion of these principles and powers throughout the passage of the Bill. Parliament will later have the opportunity to consider regulations setting details of the scheme. The scheme will need to be updated regularly. As economies grow or contract, their eligibility for trade preferences will change over time. We must ensure that the legislation is kept up to date to ensure that we trade on fair terms and avoid challenge from the WTO.

I did not respond earlier to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford East about amendment 80 and why the Secretary of State cannot consider factors other than the UN’s classification when deciding which countries are least developed. The Government have chosen to enshrine in UK law the obligation to provide nil-rate import duty to least developed countries. This meets a commitment the UK made in the UN sustainable development goals to implement duty-free market access for LDCs. As a result, there needs to be significant certainty on the list of LDCs in part 2 of schedule 3, because it is in primary legislation that this legal duty will be in place. Therefore it is right that the Secretary of State is closely bound to the internationally recognised UN classification. The distinction in language between sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) in part 4 of schedule 3 reinforces this point.

As a final remark, I will quote the Fairtrade Foundation, which said that

“from the perspective of developing countries, where in some instances there is a high dependency on the UK market…changes to tariffs could make or break the livelihoods of producers. If you were to ask for a vote on every single tariff change, that would not be workable, so this is about finding the right balance”.—[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 19, Q21.]

Being balanced and proportionate is the basis of the Government approach, and I ask the Opposition not to press their proposed amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 11

Quotas