House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I have absolutely no objection to equal-sized constituencies, but I do have an objection to gerrymandering and changing the boundaries to ensure there is a distinct advantage to one party rather than another. But perhaps the Minister will respond to the point about devolution.

The Conservatives have once again done what the Conservatives do best: look after themselves and their party despite the real needs of this country. While on the Opposition Benches there is broad agreement about equalising the size of the constituencies, we cannot support this Tory attempt at what we would class as establishing perpetual rule. Let me make it absolutely clear: the Labour party will emphatically oppose the proposals of the Boundary Commission.

On the question of the second Chamber, it is my party that has always sought to reform the Lords. We passionately believe in the role of the second Chamber in our great democracy: we believe that no Government of any colour should be able to implement legislation without the proper scrutiny that a bicameral legislature provides. But while this is true, I must add that my party firmly believes that the House of Lords should be a democratic Chamber, not one appointed to through the patronage of the Prime Minister. We will not support any curtailment of the powers of Cross-Bench Lords and other measures designed to weaken the ability of the House of Lords to properly scrutinise, and where needed oppose, Government policy.

Under this Government, the use of secondary legislation has soared and is now being used for controversial and far-reaching policy changes such as tax credit cuts that traditionally have been introduced through primary legislation. Last year we were left with the sickening sight of Lord Lloyd Webber being flown back to the UK to try to defeat attempts to stop the Tory Government punishing hard-working British families through the Tory tax credit cut. I think it is appropriate at this point to put on record our sincere thanks for the great efforts and deliberations of Labour Peers and others who ensured that the attack on tax credits was defeated. It is vital that the Lords are able to continue to use the powers they have to scrutinise the Government’s plans and prevent such disastrous Government policies from being introduced.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talked about fairness, but why does he think it fair that his constituency, which has an electorate of 62,000, should remain as it is, while my constituency has an electorate of 80,000?

[Ian Lavery]

I have already said I believe in equalisation, but not in the reduction in the number of parliamentary seats from 650 to 600. I firmly believe we should be looking at the equalisation of constituencies, but that is not the issue here: the issue is the unfairness of reducing the number of MPs while at the same time stuffing the other place ram-jam packed with people who are unelected and unaccountable. That is totally and utterly unjustified.

It is inevitable that during this Parliament the Lords will be required once again to properly scrutinise, and if necessary overturn, the actions of a Government increasingly dominated by right-wing populism, although in this we must be careful about the recommendations of the Strathclyde report, which was a rapid response by the Government to these actions and designed to render the second Chamber toothless against such authoritarian measures.

In the wake of the Brexit vote, the House of Lords must be allowed to get on with its vital role of scrutinising legislation. The process is likely to throw up an enormous number of statutory instruments, and without the Lords they would probably go through on the nod.

Labour has long called for reform. In the reduction of the Lords and in government, we have sought to find consensus. It is important to remember that it was a Labour Government who cleared out most of the hereditary peers, but we fully acknowledge that fundamental reform is essential.

Given the vote to leave the EU, the Government’s boundary review and the political estrangement felt by many voters, this is a timely debate. We live in a changed society in a modern age, where leaps in technology have resulted in an increase in people across the UK becoming more interested in political issues, but participatory democracy feels alien to many and, with a few noticeable exceptions, wanes every year. Many people feel that politics is unable to change their lives, their area or their country for the better. As parliamentarians and politicians, we face a huge challenge of how we widen democracy in this country and give people the power to make things better.

Some people may wonder why the SNP has chosen once again to focus on constitutional issues rather than its day job of governing Scotland, but I will leave that to its Members. It is very interesting that the party should take such an interest in matters relating to the House of Lords. In Scotland’s devolved Parliament, no such second Chamber exists. The forensic scrutiny of the Lords in the UK is said to be provided by the Scottish Parliament’s Committee structure, but sadly the political balance of those Committees allows the Scottish Government to proceed very much as they wish.

That said, I am happy to inform the House that the Labour party will vote in favour of the SNP motion, but this should be only the beginning. The Government have many questions to answer on the issue of democracy; perhaps the Minister will address them at some stage. Will the Government agree to abandon the proposal for boundary changes until a review of the bicameral system in its entirety has been conducted? [Interruption.] Somebody shouted “No” from a sedentary position. The Minister spoke just before me and pleaded for consensus on our democratic processes, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) was present at that point. We need to look at the system in its entirety.

Will the Minister give a guarantee that those Tory MPs who may lose their seats under the proposed boundary changes will not be stuffed into the House of Lords as a solution to the problems that the Conservatives themselves face as a result of those changes? When will a plan be put in place to deal with the unwieldy, unelected and unaccountable second Chamber, and to replace it with something more befitting the 21st century? How will we bring democracy back to the communities that feel abandoned by politics?

We have an opportunity to rebuild democracy in this country, making politics relevant to people’s lives, and to rebuild trust. We need to put giving people a real say in their communities and workplaces at the heart of our work as public servants. Labour sees transferring power from Westminster, Whitehall and, indeed, the boardroom to our communities as imperative to the future of our democracy. We want real devolution of power, not the phoney Tory con of regional mayors, designed simply to pass on the blame for swingeing cuts. Democracy needs to be revived in every nation and region of our country, and in every community, town and city. It must be transparent, it must be fair and it must be accountable. It must be a major improvement on the current Tory plans. We need progress, and we need it very quickly. We need an agreed workable timeframe. Democracy cannot be seen to be ignored; it needs to be embraced. I am pleased to say that the official Opposition will support the motion.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

Greg Knight Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said, the banks have acted very aggressively, and I shall return to that point in a few moments.

May I thank the Economic Secretary for her time and patience in dealing with this matter? I have been speaking to her about it for four months, and I admit that I have got a little over-excited on occasions. However, she has always maintained high levels of good humour and patience, for which I thank her. It is important to put that on the record.

At this late stage, without the intervention of new clause 9, the directive risks blighting the lives of decent people. They are not just people working in public life and service but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) pointed out, their partners, spouses, children, parents, siblings and in-laws. The directive is not proportionate.

Even more worryingly, the directive covers the close associates of politically exposed persons. I am aware that one such close associate is a member of the press lobby. He had some problems with an individual savings account and was subject to close questioning by his bank. When he asked the person on the other end of the phone why the bank was conducting itself in such a way, the response was, “Because we understand that you are an associate of the Prime Minister.” Even the media are caught up in this directive, or rather the banks’ de-risking in preparation for its introduction.

The Financial Action Task Force, whose guidance underpins the directive and is repeatedly referred to in it, states:

“For close associates, examples include”—

the House needs to listen carefully to this because it is quite an odd paragraph—

“the following types of relationships: (known) (sexual) partners outside the family unit (e.g. girlfriends, boyfriends, mistresses); prominent members of the same political party, civil organisation”—

that could be the National Trust—

“labour or employee union as the PEP; business partners or associates, especially those that share (beneficial) ownership of legal entities with the PEP, or who are otherwise connected”.

My fear is that, without clear Government-backed FCA guidance, as provided for in new clause 9, the banks, in their rush to de-risk, will continue to draw on the work of the Financial Action Task Force. The Financial Action Task Force states in paragraph 37 of its 2013 guidance:

“there should be awareness that middle ranking and more junior officials could act on behalf of a PEP to circumvent…controls. These less prominent public functions could be appropriately taken into account as customer risk factors in the framework of the overall assessment of risks”.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

The case that my hon. Friend makes is overwhelming. Will he tell the House whether he is aware of anyone who is opposed to what he is trying to do?

[Mr Walker]

I am sure that there will always be people who are opposed to what I am trying to do. That is the nature of society—we live in an open society in which people have different points of view on many issues. The fourth money laundering directive should be about capturing bad people in its scope, not capturing all people. If everyone is thought of as bad, it is very difficult to identify who is actually breaking the law. We want to go after the law breakers, not those people who, by accident, are described or identified as PEPs by banks in this country.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

Amendment 1 is in my name and those of 24 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as hon. Members from across the House. I think seven different parties have signed up to the amendment. I could not quite convince the UK Independence Party Member to unite with me on the amendment, although I may continue to try to persuade him if he attends the debate. Nevertheless, there is significant cross-party support for the amendment.

In many ways, I would prefer not to be here; I am sorry that we have to deal with this issue. We are having to do so not least because the proper procedure has not been followed, but also because of the issue of substance around Sunday trading. Some hon. Members will remember debates on the matter in the ’90s and the ’80s, which took up a considerable amount of the House’s time and attention. The previous time the matter came before the House, it took some two years of debate to reach the compromise that we reached. We have some three hours today either to unpick that settlement or, as I seek to do in the amendment, to delete the Government’s provisions.

Let us remind ourselves of what the Bill is about, and how Sunday trading fits into it. As I understand it, when it first came to the House, the Bill’s aims were clear. They were to

“make sure that Britain is the best place in Europe to start and grow a business and that people who work hard have the opportunity to succeed”

and to

“cut red tape for business, encourage investment in skills, and make it easier for small firms to resolve payment disputes by setting up a Small Business Commissioner”.

So say all of us, or certainly those of us on the Government Benches. The Bill is important, and I support it up to the point of its conclusion about Sunday trading.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell us why he is opposed to what the Government are seeking to do, which, as I understand it, is permissive, not mandatory?

[Mr Burrowes]

If my right hon. Friend will be patient, the purpose of my speech is to explain the reasons why I oppose the Government. We need to look at where the Government are taking us, even though they are trying to get there through a permissive, devolutionary approach. It is based on the premise that the deregulation of Sunday trading is good for small businesses, families and workers. We need to look at that premise. Deregulation is a one-way valve that local authorities would have the option of taking. I know that many Conservative Members are pure localists, who might want the decision about whether to restrict or deregulate Sunday trading to be a purely local one. The Government make the case that this is good for small businesses, but I object to that. I want to look at the way in which the Government have approached the question and carried out the consultation.

Overseas Voters Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Friday 26th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that point of clarification. I thought I had got my figures wrong. We have, as the Minister correctly points out, some way to go. That is the case not just overseas, but here in the UK. Millions of people who are eligible to vote are not even registered. It is an electoral crisis, and we need cross-party agreement on how we can deliver something much more democratic than what we have at the moment.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that extending the franchise is no good for democracy if, in so doing, we encourage or allow fraud to take place? Does he agree, therefore, that in any widening of the franchise or in any proposal to bring forward internet use, we must make sure that it is copper-bottomed certain that fraud cannot take place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I am grateful to him for allowing my name to appear as one of his supporters on the back page. I commend him for his excellent speech, but I want to condemn his remark that he feels as though his Bill is premature, because I do not think it is premature at all. He has introduced the Bill to advance a manifesto commitment in a week in which the Government seem to have backtracked on several manifesto commitments, especially with regard to our pledges on the renegotiation of our settlement with the European Union. I congratulate him on the fact that his Bill is commendably short and therefore highly understandable and digestible for everyone.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Is my hon. Friend aware that support for the Bill goes beyond the list of names that are printed on the back of it?

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend demonstrates that by his presence here today. I know that the subject of the Bill is being talked about in the pubs and clubs of Yorkshire, and he has brought the concerns of the people of Yorkshire to the House. On the south coast, where my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch comes from, the subject is the talk of the town. It is an extremely serious issue. The figures that my hon. Friend has revealed to the House will shock the nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

As the hon. Member for Wansbeck acknowledged, the 15-year rule is a bit of a hybrid. The limit has been as low as five years and as high as 20 years. Successive Governments have extended it or narrowed it over time. I do not want to be too specific about its history. The point behind the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is that, because the line has been moved about several times under successive Governments, it is inherently arbitrary to choose a particular length of time that people have been away. The Government made a manifesto commitment to enfranchise all British citizens, no matter how long they have been abroad, because we think that choosing 15 years, as opposed to 14 or 16 years, is inherently like sticking a dart in a dartboard. We need to say that if British citizens maintain British citizenship that brings with it rights, obligations and a connection with this country, and that that should endure.

I am encouraged by the Labour party’s view. I welcome the fact that it is willing to embark on a review of the 15-year rule. I also welcome the hon. Member for Wansbeck’s comments about the need for a cross-party approach to driving up registration among all under-represented groups, regardless of where they live—whether they are resident in the UK or abroad. He is absolutely right to point out that there are a succession of groups who are less represented and less registered than others. His colleague, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), wrote to me recently about students. They are one of the less well-represented groups. Some black and minority ethnic communities are also less well represented. Ex-patriots are the worst of all in terms of the percentage of rates of registration—down at about 5%, as we have heard from earlier speeches. They are probably the least well represented of all the under-represented groups.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and others made the point that we cannot—we would all, as politicians or democrats, be diminished if we did—proceed purely on the basis of narrow party political advantage. It is far better, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck observed, to proceed on the basis of what is right for democracy. We must proceed on a cross-party basis without working out which particular groups might be more likely to favour his party or mine. If we all drive up registration in all groups on that basis, we will improve our democratic credentials and reduce voter cynicism very dramatically. That cynicism is perhaps one of the more corrosive influences not just in reducing levels of voter registration but levels of voter turnout—people who are registered but choose not to exercise their vote. We are all familiar with that problem, and cynicism about politics, the political process and politicians is a key driver of it.

One thing we are trying to do, in improving both the registration process and the reasons for encouraging people to register, is to make registration more convenient, simpler, easier, cheaper and more efficient—what we call the plumbing of registration. We want to make it less of a hassle to get registered.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister confirm to the House that he is not looking at the possibility of introducing an Australian-type requirement that people have to vote?

[John Penrose]

I am happy to confirm that to my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. That has not been part of our democratic tradition in this country. It could, of course, be decided and introduced after debate, but it was not in our party’s manifesto and it is not part of our current plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I would observe that many of these soaps are also watched by overseas and expatriate voters living abroad, but I shall move on before I try your patience any further.

The Bill also deals with internet voting, which is potentially a very important area. It is interesting that we all increasingly take for granted the use of the internet for more and more things. If someone said 10 years ago that a large proportion of us—if not yet a majority—would be using internet banking or shopping, people would have been very surprised, yet here we are, and it is increasingly a part of normal life in this country. If online voting is not already happening—some, like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, are already asking the question—it will certainly start to happen in due course. People will start to ask, “Why can we not vote online?” The trade union movement has already asked the question, while other organisations are starting to use internet voting for some issues.

That said, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) rightly asked about the fraud issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has built this into clause 3. There is an important point here about fraud prevention. While we are increasingly used to online banking and shopping, and those sorts of things, if, in those cases, something goes wrong, broadly speaking, the bank or credit or debit card company—or whoever it might be—will usually stand behind the transaction and take the risk from the consumer. That is perfectly acceptable for commercial transactions. The difficulty is that it is extremely hard to work out whether a vote has been intercepted and potentially subverted—switched from a vote for Labour to a vote for the Conservative party, or from an aye to a no in a referendum—especially given that we have secret ballots, which are an essential part of our democracy. At the same time, the stakes could not be higher. Clearly, stealing the government of a country is an incredibly serious issue, and one that it would be extremely hard to unpick afterwards, in the way we can unpick a faulty commercial transaction, make good the money and undertake a forensic analysis.

I am not saying we do not expect online voting to happen in due course, but I believe that the fraud issues are not yet resolved. I am sure that the technology will continue to advance and be ready at some point, and that we will have a robust and transparently solid political and democratic process that will allow this to happen, but we are not yet there. However, given the way the world is moving—it is happening in more and more areas of our lives—it would be a brave man who said it will never happen, even if, like my hon. Friend, they are not that familiar with Skype. I suspect it is a question of when, not if, but I am afraid that, at the moment at least, the answer is, “Not yet.”

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on introducing the Bill, and I reassure him that we are working extremely hard and hope to bring forward a Bill that will do many of the things that his proposes, including getting rid of the 15-year rule and enfranchising British citizens living abroad. In parallel to but separately from the Bill, we are trying to drive up registration among under-represented groups, including expatriates.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister clarify the remarks he just made? Is he saying that internet voting is not part of the proposals the Government are currently preparing?

[John Penrose]

I will clarify that: it is not currently part of our proposals, because we do not yet think the technology is safe enough. We will keep the technology under continual review, and at some point there might be a democratic consensus that it has become safe enough, but that moment is not now.

To conclude, we welcome the intention behind the Bill and remain committed to the manifesto pledge. We will introduce our version of it, which I hope will be different in technicalities but congruent in direction with getting rid of the 15-year rule and therefore enfranchising all missing voters. In parallel, we will introduce new measures, on a cross-party basis if possible, to find those under-represented groups, whether they are overseas or domestic voters, and to drive up registration wherever we can. With that, I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured and feel able to withdraw the Bill, while he waits for our Bill to arrive, which I hope will not be too much longer.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I shall move on to my other points in a second, Mr Williams, but I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that if member states control their own fisheries, they will be able to stop irresponsible fishing and the plundering of fish stocks by other nations.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Going back to what the hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago about agriculture, is he aware that many farmers do not want to leave the EU because they feel they would be treated less generously? However, if Britain came out of the Union, would we as a net contributor not have more money to spend on farming if we wished to do so?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I have said that if we were outside the EU, we would be better off financially and could choose what we subsidised, how and to what extent. We could choose what sort of farming we wanted to sustain. I have made the point before that small hill farmers in Wales, who are part of our rural culture, ought to be preserved. They might not be very efficient, but we could perhaps choose to subsidise them. For other forms of farming we might choose to maintain the subsidies at the current level, but we would make that choice democratically through our Government and this Parliament.

European Union Referendum Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

I wish to make it absolutely clear for the record that the only sinners to which we are referring are those who were previously located on the Labour Front Bench. I am not talking about anyone else in the House.

There is a serious point. Whatever side of this referendum campaign we want to adopt, and if we are all agreed that it is important that everyone sees the referendum as fair and square, the rules should be drawn up in such a way to give a proper contest—a square goal, as some of my Glaswegian colleagues might say. If there is to be a genuine and fair contest, it does require us, when opportunities present themselves to defeat the Government, as they so rarely do, to ensure that those opportunities are taken. I appeal to the Labour Front Bench Members—perhaps they will communicate this to their colleagues—to see that that opportunity still beckons to ensure that that can happen later in our proceedings.

The Government’s position across a range of matters seems to be somewhat disorganised. I know that there was a great anxiety on the part of Government to rush forward with this Bill immediately after the general election. Perhaps they wanted to catch out the Labour party, which was still in a state of leadership limbo. A number of things already in our proceedings tell us that insufficient thought has gone into the Government’s position. There was that extraordinary climbdown, or cave-in, on Government amendment 55. I welcome the fact that respect has belatedly been shown to the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it does not have the smack of a Government that have considered their point of view. Across a range of matters, particularly with regard to purdah, there is a sign that the Government have not sufficiently thought through their position.

Earlier, I was told that it is in order for the Minister for Europe to circulate a letter, only to his colleagues, that says what might happen on Report if people do not press their amendments inconveniently. I see that the experienced hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who spoke from a sedentary position—we all welcome him back to his place—is smiling. He has been on the receiving end of many such letters over the years—probably more than the rest of us put together. I do think that it is somewhat remiss of the Government to distribute information only to those on the Conservative Benches.

Earlier, I was struck by the actions of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). He had not received the communication, but within seconds of it being passed to him, decided that he was in favour of it. That was a remarkable rush to judgment, I would say, both in terms of the climbdown we have seen on the date of the referendum and of the inadequate thought that has been given to this hasty revocation of the purdah considerations.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Should the Government not be commended for listening and being flexible, rather than condemned?

[Alex Salmond]

When in government, I always listened and was always flexible. One interpretation of events might be that, when the Government realised yesterday at about 7pm—when the Democratic Unionist party decided to sign the SNP amendment—that they were about to go down to a defeat not of ones and twos but of 10s and 20s because they could not carry a majority of the House, they prepared what can only be called a 9.35, spatchcock, last-minute amendment and tabled it as a starred amendment with the Clerks. That could be called flexibility and listening or blind panic that they would go down to a defeat. Whether it was blind panic, as most of us think, or whether it was the listening Government that the right hon. Gentleman aspires to, it is a welcome concession.

Future Government Spending

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an alternative to the Government’s long-term economic plan, namely the Labour party’s proposals, which would take this country in the direction of Greece?

[Andrew Jones]

I entirely agree. There is indeed an alternative, and that alternative is pretty stark. The choice to be made at the next election will be one of the most important that we have faced for a generation.

I am sure that, when the motion was drafted, the Opposition did not realise that the IFS would publish a report today highlighting the fact that average incomes have returned to pre-crisis levels. I recognise that the position is not the same for different groups in our community, and that much more needs to be done. I know that we all want to see living standards rise. I am strongly in favour of the living wage, and was pleased when it was adopted by Harrogate borough council. However, the motion is nonsense. Claims that we are heading back to the 1930s are ridiculous.

Yes, an incoming Conservative Government would see public spending fall as a percentage of our economy, from about 40% now to 35.2% at the end of the next Parliament. That is very similar to the 35.9% that we saw in 2000, and in real terms, when we allow for inflation, the level is the same as it was in 2002. However, we will then be living within our means, and the sooner we reach the point at which we are living within our means, the better it will be for our country.

Austerity has not choked jobs and growth, as the shadow Chancellor predicted. It has been a key ingredient in the progress that we have made. That is why we must continue our drive to balance the books, create the most favourable possible environment for the wealth creators in business, and not pretend that the job is done or that there is an easy way to make progress.

Insurance Bill [Lords]

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Will the provision affect third-party cover under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the level of insurance premiums taken out for motor insurance? May I also ask the Minister, en passant, to pay tribute to the Law Commission, on whose work this Bill is based?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that this part of the Bill is designed to assist those who have insurance claims against parties that are now defunct, where insurance was originally in place to cover such claims. In theory, that could cover a motor insurance claim, but it is certainly not designed specifically to that end. Likewise, the cost of motor insurance will be determined by claims by the insurance companies themselves, so it is not envisaged that this will affect the cost of motor insurance.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Law Commission has done an excellent job. Essentially, the Bill makes the insurance market more effective and fairer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Provision consequential on Part 2

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

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about keeping the arrangements under review. We want to ensure that people pay not just their fair share, but the right amount. The Government keep all taxes under review.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Clause 2 refers to the purchaser being able to elect that the new calculations do not apply, and the explanatory notes that my hon. Friend has helpfully supplied state:

“An election must be made in a land transaction return . . . and must meet any requirements specified by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”

Will any terms so imposed be subject to ministerial scrutiny and approval?

[Priti Patel]

Absolutely. Ministers are involved in the process and will be consulted. That is right and proper. The point that my right hon. Friend makes is about the transitional rules, which we touched on earlier.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) mentioned Scotland and the changes to stamp duty land tax, which has been devolved to Scotland. The Government will monitor how stamp duty land tax receipts change in the light of that. That is part of the usual policy-making process.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

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

We have reached the final stage of the House’s deliberations on the National Insurance Contributions Bill, and it is worth noting the broad, if not necessarily vociferous, support for the Bill across the House. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) has been vociferous and meticulous in her scrutiny of it, and I also thank external interested parties that have contributed to the consultation and to our deliberations. The Bill will make it easier for the self-employed to comply with their national insurance contributions obligations, while also making NIC avoidance harder.

Let me remind the House of the provisions in the Bill and what it seeks to achieve. Broadly, the Bill contains four measures: simplifying national insurance contributions paid by the self-employed; accelerating the payment to the Exchequer of NICs in dispute in avoidance cases and providing for the issue of follower notices where the scheme or arrangements have been shown to fail in another party’s litigation; applying new information powers and penalties to promoters of avoidance schemes; and introducing a targeted anti-avoidance rule—TAAR—to prevent people from circumventing new legislation tackling avoidance involving employment intermediaries and offshore employers.

At Budget 2014, the Chancellor announced that the Government intend to simplify the NICs collection process for the self-employed, who currently have to operate two different processes for two separate classes of NICs. This followed a 2012 recommendation by the Office of Tax Simplification and a consultation in 2013.

Two separate collection methods for class 2 and class 4 NICs cause confusion and extra work for both the self-employed and HMRC. The objective behind this measure is to modernise the way class 2 NICs are assessed and collected, making the system simpler and more straightforward and reducing administrative burdens on the self-employed. Class 2 NICs are currently collected via a flat rate charge of £2.75 per week paid through six-monthly billing or by direct debit, while class 4 NICs are a percentage charge on profits—of 9% between the lower and upper profits limit and 2% above the upper profits limit—paid through self-assessment alongside income tax.

The aim of clauses 1 and 2 and schedule 1 is to change the way in which class 2 NICs are structured; change the means by which class 2 NICs are collected by moving their collection into self-assessment, so that they can be collected alongside class 4 NICs and income tax; change the means by which class 2 NICs are enforced with changes to associated appeal rights to broadly mirror those for class 4 NICs and income tax; and make consequential changes to legislation relating to maternity allowance to allow women to continue to become eligible for it post-reform. These changes are proposed to take effect for the 2015-16 tax year onwards so that the collection of class 2 NICs under self-assessment will be from 6 April 2016. I wish to draw particular attention to the tax information and impact note published by HMRC about this measure. This indicates a very welcome net administrative burden reduction to the self-employed of £74 million over five years as a result of these reforms.

The provisions that deal with accelerating the payment to the Exchequer of amounts of NICs in dispute in avoidance cases also include providing for the issue of follower notices in relevant cases when the scheme or arrangement has been shown to fail in another party’s litigation. These provisions are contained in clauses 3 and 4 and schedule 2. The provisions on follower notices and accelerated payments in avoidance cases broadly follow, for NICs, new powers that are included in the Finance Act 2014 which allow HMRC to issue a notice—a follower notice—to taxpayers who have used avoidance schemes that have failed before the courts in another party’s litigation.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On the subject of avoidance, when does my hon. Friend expect his Department to review the scope of the avoidance measures—after the Bill becomes an Act, as I am sure it will—bearing in mind human ingenuity?

[Mr Gauke]

The broader point is the fact that the Treasury and HMRC constantly review measures to deal with avoidance. My right hon. Friend is right to say that, human ingenuity being what it is, we have to be constantly vigilant, and the Government have closed some 40 loopholes over the course of this Parliament. We will keep the specific measures in the Bill, and more broadly the measures we have taken on accelerated payments and follower notices, under review, but we believe that the measures that we have taken to accelerate payments so that those involved in tax avoidance schemes are no longer able to benefit from a cash flow advantage will have a dramatic effect on the flow of tax avoidance through tax avoidance schemes. We are already seeing indications that fewer schemes are being marketed and fewer disclosures are being made under the provisions on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes. Every indication suggests that this is a diminishing issue, but there is no place for complacency. The Government will continue to endeavour to take appropriate steps to deal with those who are seeking to defy the spirit of the law or make an interpretation of the law that has little justification but can involve HMRC in extended litigation.

I emphasise that the provisions in the Bill and the Finance Act 2014 are estimated to raise £5 billion in tax and NICs for the Exchequer. The House may find it helpful if I explain that a follower notice sets out HMRC’s view that a judicial decision in another case is directly relevant and that those who receive the notice should settle their disputes. If the taxpayer does not settle in response to the notice, they will face a tax-geared penalty if they are unable to show that their case is materially different from the other party’s litigation, or if they did not have reasonable grounds to continue the dispute.

An accelerated payment may be required from taxpayers in the following circumstances: where a follower notice has been issued and the taxpayer decides not to settle their dispute; where taxpayers are involved in schemes subject to disclosure under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes or DOTAS rules: and where taxpayers have used arrangements that HMRC decides to counteract under the general anti-abuse rule or GAAR. For both follower notices and accelerated payments, taxpayers will have 90 days to make representations. There is no formal right of appeal against the notices or payments, but taxpayers can appeal any penalties. These measures are expected to lead to the issue of payment notices to around 43,000 taxpayers involved in avoidance schemes currently under dispute with HMRC over the period to the end of March 2016.

The provisions that apply new information powers and penalties to the highest risk promoters of tax avoidance schemes are also contained in clauses 3 and 4 and schedule 2. Hon. Members may be aware that I mentioned on Second Reading that the measure on promoters of avoidance schemes was first announced in Budget 2013 and the Government’s intention was to extend the measure to NICs at the earliest opportunity. This Bill affords that opportunity.

The Finance Act 2014 included legislation that allows HMRC to issue conduct notices to promoters of tax avoidance schemes and to monitor promoters who breach a conduct notice. This Bill applies the tax legislation to NICs so that the legislation operates as one unified scheme that covers tax and NICs. Monitored promoters will be subject to new information powers and penalties which will also apply to intermediaries that continue to represent them after the monitoring commences. The monitored promoter will be named by HMRC—the naming details will include information on why the conduct notice was breached—and required to inform its clients that it is being monitored by HMRC. Clients of monitored promoters will also be subject to certain obligations, which have a penalty for non-compliance, and extended time limits for assessments.

Other provisions apply a new targeted anti-avoidance rule to prevent people from circumventing new legislation, tackling avoidance involving employment intermediaries. The proposed TAAR is contained in clause 5. On Second Reading, I mentioned that the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 strengthened existing legislation in respect of offshore employment intermediaries. That measure was specifically intended to address the non-payment of employer’s national insurance in the oil and gas industry involving the placement outside the UK of the employer of oil and gas workers who are working on the UK continental shelf.

The temporary labour market is quick to react to any legislative changes and to find new convoluted ways to reduce the amount of income tax and NICs that it would otherwise be liable to pay. Interested parties have indicated to HMRC that intermediaries involved in the facilitation of false self-employment may set up avoidance vehicles involving convoluted structures specifically designed to circumvent the legislation introduced in the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014. To dissuade such intermediaries the Bill includes a TAAR that would be similar to the tax TAAR included in the Finance Act 2014 for the same purpose—to deter NICs avoidance. The TAAR focuses on the motive for setting up the arrangements, namely the avoidance of NICs, and what they achieve—whether they result in less national insurance contributions being paid. In order that the tax and NICs TAARs operate as one, the tax TAAR and the corresponding provisions of the NICs TAAR will both take effect from 6 April 2014.

In conclusion, this is an important and necessary Bill. The modernisation of the way that class 2 NICs are assessed and collected will make the system simpler and more straightforward and will reduce administrative burdens on the self-employed. The Bill also includes a package of measures aimed at making activity that attempts to reduce the amount of NICs payable to the Exchequer harder to accomplish.

I thank hon. Members who participated in the debates on the Floor of the House as well as in Committee. The Bill is good for the self-employed and it makes NICs avoidance harder. I commend the Bill to the House.