Draft Individual Savings Account (Amendment No.2) Regulations 2017

Jake Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 General Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to work under your stewardship, as ever, Mr Evans. First and foremost, I have a complaint to make. It is a real shame that consideration of the regulations has been scheduled for today, when the Chancellor is making a strategic withdrawal in relation to national insurance contributions. I cannot let that go without comment. Given that those proposals have been withdrawn, I am glad that some self-employed people may have a little extra money to put into ISAs.

We had a fair old debate on this matter on the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill Committee last year. We received evidence from many people about the efficacy of not just this product but others. The Opposition welcome any scheme that encourages people to save, as long as the burden on the taxpayer is not too much. Does the Minister believe that the benefit to the taxpayer is commensurate with that resulting from the scheme?

We are also concerned about whether putting another product in an already crowded market is appropriate. We accept that the lifetime ISA is a simple product, but nevertheless there is a crowded market out there. The Minister may want to share her view on that and comment on the possibility of a future review following the scheme’s roll-out.

We must also repeat our concern that the scheme will discourage people from taking up pensions. We are genuinely concerned that it will lead to people not taking the conventional pension route and that they might duck out of auto-enrolment and put their eggs in a different basket that is not tried and tested.

Will the Minister comment on another concern of ours? We wanted a mechanism whereby there would be an absolute requirement for independent advice before any money could be withdrawn, but that is not included in the draft regulations. Has the Minister had second thoughts about independent advice on a matter of such importance, especially given that for some people it involves buying a house?

Many MPs have a genuine concern that is not directly related to the draft regulations, but it is worth expressing it in this Committee. Companies such as Bellway are selling on freeholds, which is costing people an arm and a leg. People enter the housing market and find that when they want to buy the freehold of their property after a year or two, they have to pay a huge amount to do so. On top of that, they experience almost exponential increases in ground rent. The freehold issue must be addressed. We have expressed concerns that it crowds the market, potentially puts people off buying and, through that latest scam, adds to the dissonance in the housing market.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

As a north-west MP, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is particularly prevalent in the north-west of England. The Government announced in their recent White Paper on housing that they will look at it. Will he join me in welcoming the Government’s proposal to look at ways in which we can modernise how people can buy the freehold of their property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which has historically been called the leasehold enfranchisement Act?

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. Of course I welcome anything that the Government do to stop such scams gaining ground. We are more than happy to participate in a bipartisan way in anything to stop that happening.

I raised that issue because it is a matter of concern, and one that we have expressed before in connection with the housing market. The last thing we want in this country is for people to stop buying houses and entering the housing market because they are frightened to death that something in the small print will be produced later. I have taken this opportunity to mention that.

As I have said, we welcome the fact that the Government are helping people to save. We still have concerns about whether the draft regulations are necessarily the right way forward, so although we will not oppose them, neither will we slap the Government on the back for this particular product, given all the concerns that we have expressed in the past.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Jake Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. As I have said, there is, as the economy changes shape, an increasing tendency for employers, in effect to drive people out of employment and into what is thinly disguised self-employment. That is one of the issues that Matthew Taylor is looking at in his review. I have had the opportunity to have a preliminary meeting with him. We are very much looking forward to receiving his report in due course, and we will respond to it.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a self-employed solicitor. I commend the Chancellor for coming to the House today and putting forward his views about changes in self-employment. Will he join me in commending the literally thousands of people across Rossendale and Darwen who go out, start businesses, make money and are self-employed? When they voted in the last general election, they knew that a Conservative Government would not only protect their tax rates, but create the economic environment in which they could start and grow their business.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about the environment being conducive to people starting and running small businesses. I congratulate those in Rossendale who do that—who get up every morning and who are prepared to take those risks. They will now benefit from the abolition of class 2 national insurance contributions, making them that little bit better off.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is customary to present forecasts for fiscal events over the forecast period which, as we progress through this Parliament, will stretch beyond its end. That is how it has always been done, and it would not be helpful to give the House only a shorter horizon.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

rose—

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I always listen to what the Chairman of the Treasury Committee says. I am considering the Committee’s very useful report carefully. Of course, it acknowledged that the digitisation of the tax service represents the direction in which we should be travelling, but we are looking carefully at the possible impacts on small businesses, many thousands of which we have already exempted through our existing announcements.

[Jake Berry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is Lancashire’s turn.

[Jake Berry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the subject of berries, does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor share my concern that too many JAMs are becoming jam tomorrow with the ballooning of household debt? What steps will he take to stop inappropriate and irresponsible lending by credit card companies and banks to low-income households?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The Government and the regulatory authorities take appropriate measures to prevent inappropriate lending and to make sure that credit products are not mis-sold, and we will continue to do so.

UK Economy

Jake Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I wish that we did not need to have this debate, because I wish that the majority had voted to stay within the European Union, but we are where we are. In the spirit of openness and transparency, it may be useful to set out that I well understand that the way in which I and my hon. Friends understand the problem and how we frame it is different from the way that people in other parts of the Chamber see it. In my view, the sovereign people whom I respect and on whose behalf I must act are the people of Scotland. I believe in a great continental principle of popular sovereignty. I do not believe in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. That is why I am particularly concerned that my colleagues and I reflect on what is in the interests of Scotland at this time.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) who is leaving—[Interruption.] He was leaving until I mentioned him. He made some of the best points in this debate thus far about the lack of a plan. Even Baldrick had a plan.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

A cunning plan!

[Roger Mullin]

A cunning plan at that. However, it would seem that the leave side had no plan and that the Government were unfortunately unprepared for this eventuality. The Prime Minister indicated at Prime Minister’s questions that we are having to spend the next few months modelling the alternatives without specifying what different scenarios were being planned for. Whatever the scenario, we must get some clarity about what we are going to say about Scotland’s place within the European Union. The Government cannot assume that we will meekly follow and be dragged out of the European Union against the will of the Scottish people. It is not our job to be dragged along; it is our job to represent the interests of Scotland and the Scottish people, and that we will do to the best of our ability.

At Prime Minister’s questions before the vote, I raised the case of Thomas and Elke Westen, originally from Germany, who lived in my constituency. Thomas runs a small business in the service sector. Elke is a distinguished artist in glass. They came to Scotland some years ago, bought an old home and refurbished it beautifully, created jobs in the community, and contributed to the community in lots of voluntary ways. Days before the vote, they decided that they could not stand the way in which they were being portrayed as immigrants and that they would leave the country for the period of the vote. They said that if the vote was to leave, they would want to leave Scotland permanently. They are in France at the moment. I am still in contact with them, and I am trying to persuade them to come back. I am aware that they are not the only people who feel that they have been hurt tremendously by the nature of the debate and let down by the Government. It is all very well for the Government now to say that they are welcome here when they denied them the vote in this referendum. Part of the problem we have in reassuring people is the way they have been treated up to now both by the Government and by those advocating a leave vote.

Elke and Thomas were small business people. There has been lots of discussion today about large businesses.

The Economy and Work

Jake Berry Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

That phenomenon is not just happening in London; we now have tents in the streets of Manchester. Is that not a shocking indictment of this Government’s housing policy?

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

It is a shocking indictment of a Labour council.

[John McDonnell]

I have a Conservative council. In my constituency tonight I will have possibly 200 families living in bed and breakfasts. There are individuals sleeping in our parks and along the canals. In my constituency, we have reinvented the back-to-back, where one family rents the front of a house and another rents the back. We have beds in sheds rented to families. It is a disgrace. This Government have been in power for six years and homelessness has escalated.

According to the Queen’s Speech, the Government will “spread economic prosperity”. Tell that to the steelworkers I met in Redcar, where the Government failed even to mothball the plant to save their local futures. Tell that to the British Home Stores workers facing redundancy as their boss, Sir Philip Green—a Government adviser—stripped their business clean.

In the Queen’s Speech the Government said they will

“continue to support the…Northern Powerhouse.”

That will be why they are closing its Sheffield office and threatening another six offices across the north with closure. That will be why, of the top 15 infrastructure projects with the most public funding, one is in the north.

In the Queen’s Speech, the Government say not that they will tackle poverty and deprivation, but that they will redefine them. The Chancellor’s shameful response to the 1 million people using our food banks every year is to

“introduce new indicators for measuring life chances”.

His failed austerity programme has a human cost, with 500,000 more children in this country forced into poverty and nearly 13 million people now living in poverty. More than half of those people are in work. This Queen’s Speech offers no solutions to those who have barely enough to feed their families and cannot pay to heat their houses. Instead, the Government will simply make sure that they are counting those people’s misery properly.

Short Money

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

The usual parliamentary process will be followed, so there will have to be a proposal. The statutory instrument for positive development grants has already been laid, and that can be either passed or prayed against in the usual way. The hon. Lady is right to say that, when we come up with proposals for Short money, they will have to be passed by a resolution of this House.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that during the consultation he will specifically look at protecting and supporting the interests of minority parties? They have a hugely important role to play in this Parliament, especially when we have such a divided and weak official Opposition.

[John Penrose]

I gave in my initial remarks an illustration of some of the peculiarities of the distribution of Short money. I gave comparisons between the money received by UKIP and the Greens, but there are other examples. Many Members of smaller Opposition parties will be able to quote examples of why they feel they are being either under or over-remunerated, depending on who they are. Therefore, it is certainly sensible for us to ask how that can be improved and whether the basis of allocation can be made better.

Domestic Politically Exposed Persons: Money Laundering Rules

Jake Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend mentions NatWest. I think that all banks are conducting their business in this way.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

And Coutts.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend has given another example.

If the banks’ tick-box approach is replicated throughout their wider compliance operations, it suggests that they do not have a clue what they are doing, or where the risk actually lies within their customer base. Of course, a less charitable interpretation of their conduct would be the suggestion that they have a very good idea of where the money laundering threat lies in their business, but the cost in lost fees of addressing that threat, and the consequential deterring of high-net-worth individuals as clients, is greater than the cost incurred through the occasional regulatory fine. Far better for the balance sheet to make a great deal of noise—noise that both dazzles and impresses the regulator and makes the lives of law-abiding minnows difficult—than to actually engage in the hard and costly yards of nailing the serious bad guys.

The money laundering regulations need to be revisited. Their purpose is to target despots and dictators, not law-abiding citizens. They are being disproportionately applied. Today I am discussing politically exposed persons, but tomorrow I could just as easily be discussing the aggressive application of these requirements in relation to my constituents, their businesses and their families. The Government must act now to end this nonsense across the piece.

Let me leave Members with this thought: if everyone is under suspicion, no one is a suspect.

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jake Berry Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Rob Marris]

Thank you for that clarification; I did not want that clause to be overlooked. I was doing quite well on the bicycles, and I thank the Minister for his clarification at the start of this session. I hope we can now make similar progress. I will be really motoring on clause 42. I think VED goes back to 1889. I want to thank my researcher Imogen Watson, who has done a sterling job in assisting me with the Bill, particularly clause 42.

I find the Minister’s explanation somewhat unconvincing. The first part of his explanation about equality and the fact that, if left unchanged, by 2017 75% of vehicles would be paying £30 or less VED a year, and that the average for vehicles is £166, but the average for new cars is £85. He seemed to jump from that to a suggestion that, because the banding based on CO₂ introduced by the previous Labour Government was successful, we should now abandon it.

I fully understand the revenue arguments for that. That scheme was predicated on giving a tax break to car purchasers, whether individuals or companies, for buying a car that is less polluting—no vehicle is environmentally friendly. The scheme has been successful, as the Minister’s figures attest, but the Government now propose to abandon it.

I can see an argument for looking again at the vehicle excise duty scheme to protect Government revenue, and I can see an argument, particularly in the light of the admitted outrageous behaviour of the Volkswagen Group, for reconsidering whether CO₂ should be the sole gas used in the metric for setting the vehicle excise duty that takes into account the pollution produced by a light passenger vehicle when in use. We could, for example, look at nitrogen oxides, commonly called NOx, as another component of pollution in a tax regime to dissuade purchasers of light passenger vehicles from buying vehicles that, through the tailpipe emissions of noxious gases other than CO₂, cause hundreds of deaths in this city every year and thousands around the country. Clause 42 does not do that. It sticks to carbon dioxide, which, of course, is a key greenhouse gas, is bad for our climate and is produced in great quantities by light passenger vehicles around the world.

Where I differ significantly from the Minister—I will invite my hon. Friends to vote against clause 42 in a Division on this—is that he said today, unless I misheard, that the rates on the most polluting cars will be increased under the new regime, but that depends on the calculation. I remember what the Minister said about some research indicating that it is the first year of vehicle excise duty that has a particular impact on the purchasing decision. However, it may surprise the Committee to hear that I am an avid reader of The Daily Telegraph on Saturdays.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

What about the Morning Star?

[Rob Marris]

The motoring column in the Morning Star is not quite as good as that in The Daily Telegraph, but then it is a big capitalist publication with lots of assets.

Few, if any, Opposition Members will be aware of this, but all Government Members who are avid readers of The Daily Telegraph on Saturdays will be aware—[Interruption.] It appears that Opposition Members are avid readers of all newspapers; my colleagues are so well informed. In the motoring section is Honest John, who answers queries from members of the public. He is so successful that he has a team of three others to help him. He responds to queries on car purchases, what tyres to use, and certain technical stuff that, frankly, I do not really understand.

[Jake Berry]

U-turns?

[Rob Marris]

Handbrake turns if not U-turns. I suspect that Honest John has considerably more expertise than anybody in this room, and he is always clear that manufacturers aim to produce a car that will last at least seven years. Certain models last longer, and we all know that Jaguar Land Rover engines will last a lot longer than seven years because they are made in Wolverhampton and because they are a high-quality product. But the fact is that from 2017, assuming clause 42 is agreed to, the vehicle excise duty payable over seven years will not increase for the most polluting cars. It will decrease.

--- Later in debate ---

A petrol powered Audi Q5 with a two-litre engine—

[Jake Berry]

Nice!

[Rob Marris]

It may be nice for the hon. Gentleman, but it will not be so nice for his great-grandchildren when they reap the havoc from climate change. That Audi emits 181 grams of CO₂ per kilometre. Under the new scheme, assuming it is still on sale in March 2017, the car will move up from band I to band J, yet those emissions will receive a discount, as it were, of £60; the current seven-year cumulative duty would be £1,700 but under the new scheme it will be £1,640. The change is not huge, but it is a 3.5% change in the wrong direction.

A petrol Infiniti Crossover, of the Nissan luxury brand, which as far as I know is not made in this country, produces an antisocial 265 grams of CO₂ per kilometre. It is currently in band M and liable for a seven-year duty of £4,130. Under the new regime, the charge will be £1,290 less, at £2,840—a 31% drop because of the interaction between the new vehicle excise duty regime and the £40,000 cost threshold, above which a different regime applies. That is a 31% drop in vehicle excise duty over a seven-year period for one of the most polluting light passenger vehicles currently on sale in the United Kingdom.

Now let us look at a Jaguar XF, which currently costs just under £50,000. It is now in band F because its CO₂ emissions are 144 grams per kilometre, and costs £1,015 over seven years in vehicle excise duty. Under the new regime, if a car costs less than £40,000, it will move up—up being less polluting—to band H and cost £1,040 over seven years, an increase of £25, or £3.57 a year, as my wonderful researcher, Imogen Watson, tells me. But as for the Jaguar XF, fine vehicle as it is, no doubt with an engine made in Wolverhampton, because its price tag is over £40,000—and remember: its CO₂ emissions are 144 grams per kilometre, which is still high, but nothing like the Infiniti’s 265 grams per kilometre—it will cost an extra £310 per year for the first five years, meaning that over seven years the duty will go up to a total of £2,730, an increase of £1,715 or 169%.

Now, I have nothing against the Infiniti—as far as I know I have never been in one—and Nissan is a fine manufacturer, but its luxury model emits 265 grams of CO₂ per kilometre, and yet there will be a 31% drop in duty for it over the seven-year cumulative period, whereas the Jaguar is much less polluting, at 144 grams per kilometre, but its duty will increase by just under 169%. That cannot be right.

I urge the Government to think again. They should think about the pulmonary diseases from which thousands of people are dying already. Much—not all, but much—of that illness is arising because of vehicles, including light passenger vehicles. The Government also need to think again about the mixture of bad gases, to put it in lay terms, used as the metric for calculating vehicle excise duty. I also urge them to think again about the CO₂ based regime they are proposing from 2017 onwards, because it cannot be that the successor to the greenest Government ever, which is a phrase that hon. Members have no doubt been waiting for me to utter, are moving in the wrong direction by jettisoning what has been—I will try to be dispassionate, although it was my Government who introduced it—a vehicle excise duty regime that has been extremely successful in lessening considerably the CO₂ emissions from the fleet of light passenger vehicles in the United Kingdom.

I take the Minister’s point that the way in which new clause 5 is worded means that the review would happen eight months after the new clause would come into effect if the Government do not withdraw clause 42, as I hope they will. If he were to say a little more about the Chancellor’s remarks regarding a review of the impact and effect of clause 42, something to which he adverted in his remarks, I might be reassured and so not wish to press new clause 5 to a Division at the appropriate time. I therefore hope for some reassurance from the Minister; although, capable as he is, he can only rely on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in that regard. I urge Members to vote against clause 42 if the Government do not withdraw it, as it will be bad for the economy, bad for the environment and bad for our children.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Jake Berry Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Roger Mullin]

That is one of the most helpful interventions of my entire parliamentary career. I hope I do not require any similar interventions in the future—[Laughter.] I am so glad that I can bring some levity—it was not deliberate. Where was I?

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Roger Mullin]

On that point, yes.

[Jake Berry]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it often pays to advertise?

[Roger Mullin]

Dare I agree? Back to a slightly less humorous point. When we had eight police forces in Scotland, some of them were very small, and at times that created difficulty in co-ordination on cross-border issues with forces south of the border. One benefit is that we now get much greater co-ordination of police forces across the United Kingdom. Terrorism and cross-border co-ordination are two serious areas where the police service is delivering benefits not for merely the people in Scotland, but for the people of the whole United Kingdom.

It seems strange, therefore, that the Government of the United Kingdom has continued to deny every overture made by the Scottish Government for VAT relief. My colleagues in Edinburgh inform me that no fewer than five letters from Scottish Ministers have been sent to the UK Government: two from the Justice Secretary, two from the Deputy First Minister and one from the Minister for Community Safety. There has also been: a letter from the cross-party Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee to HM Treasury; eight letters from Scottish Government officials; and six meetings or conference calls in which the Scottish Government have sought to have our police and fire and rescue services treated in the same manner as all other forces in the United Kingdom.

We are not asking for something completely unusual or out of order. Since the amalgamations took place, the new transport agency, Highways England, has been granted VAT exemptions, so there is precedent. It is matter of common justice that this should be looked at. In new clause 1, we ask the Government to produce a report and lay it before the House to examine in greater detail some of the problems that arise because the police and fire and rescue services cannot reclaim VAT.

Finance Bill

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Infrastructure projects must be proceeded with on the basis of an economic case, and that was the underpinning of the announcements that we made during the election campaign, but it is also the case that under the hon. Lady’s party, infrastructure spending is down compared with 2010, and she should accept that the record of her Government and her party on infrastructure post-2010 is certainly nothing to write home about. A Government who were really serious about narrowing our productivity gap would be majoring on infrastructure. They certainly would not be kicking big decisions into the long grass for party political reasons and because of leadership ambitions, especially when it comes to airport expansion.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Who are you backing?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman will be backing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he so loyally sits behind whenever we debate the economy.

The Budget and the Finance Bill have not lived up to some of the most pressing needs in our economy, and instead have actively imposed a work penalty and what can only be described as a living wage con. We will abstain on Second Reading. This is a relatively short Finance Bill, and we support a number of its measures, including raising the personal tax allowance threshold and the increase in business investment, particularly in respect of the annual investment allowance. We will want to scrutinise some of the other measures in much greater detail. We are concerned about the impact of some of the Government’s decisions, so we will return, especially in Committee of the Whole House, to issues on bank taxation, the climate change levy and the insurance premium tax.