National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Let me start by saying that I agree with almost everything that the Labour shadow Minister said. I will not make any cricket puns because I do not know anything about cricket—I will just stay out of that one—but I will make a point of mentioning that Aberdeen is obviously the greatest football team and should be mentioned first in any discussion of sporting prowess.

First, on the issues raised by the Labour shadow Minister about the Bill process, I share his concerns about the fact that we were told we would be getting the Bill before it had been introduced to this place. That is a real concern. Perhaps the Treasury drew the short straw again, and when the Government announced that they would have a Second Reading of a Bill but panicked because they could not work out which Second Reading it should be, they scrambled around and said to the Treasury, “You guys must have something”, and the poor Treasury Ministers were dragged here to present this Bill.

The serious point is that this is a highly technical Bill and we have had a very short time to look through it. I looked through the explanatory notes, as I am wont to do in these circumstances, but they do not talk about the amount of consultation that was done or the number of people who contributed to that consultation. I am aware that perhaps there are tax information and impact notes that do talk about the amount of consultation that was done, but it would have been useful to have that information in the explanatory notes so that we could be clear about how many individuals and organisations had come to the Treasury and said, “These are the good things and the bad things about the Bill.” That would have put us in a much more informed position, although I am sure we will get into the meat of that discussion in Committee.

On the intention behind the Bill, it was announced some time ago that there would be changes in this policy area and it has taken a while for the Bill to come through. Why has it come through now? If it has been intended for some time, why has it taken so long for the Bill to come before the House? Was it just that the Treasury drew the short straw, as I said, and had to bring a Bill to the House today and just had to find something? It would be useful to know something about the timing for the Bill, why it has come along now and what the logic behind that is.

I have a couple of questions on some of the specific things mentioned in the Bill. In introducing it, the Minister said that if there is a contractual obligation that there will be a testimonial, that will be treated differently, but also talked about cases in which there is an expectation that there will be a testimonial, which to me does not mean the same thing as a contractual obligation. I am not clear what the Treasury means by an expectation of a testimonial. Somebody could score a goal in every single club game they have ever played, but that does not mean they have a contractual testimonial obligation. I would expect, though, that that person would probably get a testimonial for being such a big part of their football club. Is that what is meant by “expectation”? If not, will the Treasury confirm exactly what is meant by that word in the Bill?

On the amounts for testimonials, the explanatory notes say:

“The new Class 1A liability does not affect individuals as it is to be paid by the controller of the sporting testimonial.”

That seems a bit disingenuous to me, because although it does not affect the individual’s liability, it does affect the amount of money they will get. Has the Treasury done any maths on how much less sporting individuals will get from their testimonials because this liability might have to be taken off before the money is handed over to them? It seems to me that, rather than being something quite removed, it will have a direct impact on individuals.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation got in touch with me with queries about some things in the Bill. On the £100,000 limit, the institute said:

“The intention is that the NICs rules will replicate this and only impose Class 1A NICs on the amount chargeable to income tax. We have reviewed the NICs Bill and it charges to Class 1A the amount that is ‘general earnings’. We assume this means the amount above £100,000…but it is not clear. The termination payments legislation refers specifically to the amount chargeable under the Income Tax (Earnings & Pensions) Act 2003. It is surprising that the same approach has not been adopted here.”

Why has the Treasury taken a different approach to the drafting of this legislation to that taken to the drafting of the termination payments legislation that was passed previously?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

There is another question, about the definition of who is an employee and who is an employer. There have been various examples in the courts of people being treated as employers when they were actually employees. There is still a bit of obscurity about that when it comes to tax, which creates a lot of difficulty for people.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. When in a moment I talk about the termination awards for individuals, I will discuss that specific issue.

On termination awards for employees, the explanatory notes say:

“The new Class 1A liability does not affect individuals as it is paid by the employer.”

The reality is that, again, it does affect individuals, because they will receive less money. If the employer is going to give out a pot of £40,000, they will be giving some of that to the Exchequer, instead of to the individual as they currently would. The details show that the Exchequer expects to receive £210 million for 2023-24 as a result of the change; do Ministers expect individuals to receive £210 million less and that that money will go to the Exchequer instead, or do they expect employers magically to find some more money and to continue to pay employees who are leaving their organisation the same amount as before, while paying a slice to the Treasury as well? It would be useful to know how much less the Treasury expects individuals to receive as a result of the change, not just how much the Treasury expects to receive.

The NICs change is the only example of a class 1A charge on cash earnings that the Chartered Institute of Taxation could find. Why has the Treasury decided to take the route it has chosen? Class 1A contributions are normally paid in respect of things such as benefits in kind, rather than on cash earnings. The Bill seems to me to make a fairly fundamental change to how NICs are treated and to the different classes of NICs. It would be useful to know why the Treasury has decided to make this change. Is it part of some sort of long-term plan to use class 1A charges on cash in other circumstances? Or will they continue to be used mainly on benefits in kind?

It seems to me that it is a bit of an ad hoc change. Perhaps the Treasury is putting forward some grand plan, or perhaps it is just a small change. I have asked similar questions about the recent changes to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England. It seems that a lot of small ad hoc changes have been coming through with no blueprint for where the Treasury expects to be at the end of the process and what it expects the system to look like at that point. It would be useful to know more about that.

I would like to know about a few main things. On the £100,000 for sporting testimonials, is the Bill intended to operate in the way things operated under the previous legislation on sporting testimonials, but the language in the Bill is just unintentionally a bit woollier? On employees, we have that issue with the class 1A charge; does the Treasury intend to make further changes to class 1A contributions, or is this the last change it expects to make? We expect secondary legislation to come through as a result of the Bill, to tighten things up and make further changes in future, but when is that expected to come—in this Session, or quite close to the Bill’s implementation in 2020? If it is the latter and the secondary legislation does not come through in enough time, it might be difficult for employers to make sensible decisions.

HS2: Buckinghamshire

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Like the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), I have opposed HS2 from its inception; I recognise that she has been a sturdy fighter against it. I notice that the Minister has not answered questions on the total cost. She talks about the midlands benefiting from HS2, but Coventry will certainly not, because it will bypass Coventry. She says it will be a vehicle for ordinary people, but we do not actually know the train fares yet. Train fares on the west coast main line are very expensive to ordinary members of the public.

[Ms Ghani]

The train fares will be assessed and brought forward at the most appropriate time. We want this line to be accessible to everybody, and because thousands of people will travel on the line, we have to ensure that the fares are appropriate, as they will be. This line will be incredibly important, including to the midlands. I held a series of roundtables for midlands chambers of commerce, with one recently saying that it would be appalling if HS2

“were used as a political football…It is a key piece of national infrastructure at a time when we need to be showing something positive to the world.”

Loan Charge

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

What can I say in two minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker? Well, I will do my best.

I am a person who is naturally a bit cynical when constituents come to see me and I try to see both sides of the story, but in this case I had more than 160 constituents in the group in Watford to do with the loan charge. I commend Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—rather like the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), I sometimes still call it the Inland Revenue—for its efforts to deal with tax evasion, but it seems to me that in this case it is not tax evasion. These were schemes put forward by accountants and schemes where people took on employment and were told that that was the way they had to do it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that action should be taken against the employers who forced these people into these schemes and the financial advisers who sold them the schemes in the first place? I have had lots of constituents on at me about that. [Interruption.]

[Richard Harrington]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) says, “Spot on.” I too fully accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

Clearly, these schemes were not correct. The way to deal with this is to say that if people went into this because they were reasonably advised to, or told to by their employers, then even if they are liable, HMRC should have the flexibility, on a humanitarian and a mitigation basis, to say, for example, that the money should be paid back over a lengthy period—monthly, quarterly or whatever. I am sure that HMRC does not wish to bankrupt people, ruining their lives and so on.

My right hon. Friend the Minister is himself a man experienced in business who is very aware of the ways of the world. I am sure that he knows the difference between criminal tax evaders and people like my constituents in Watford and other hon. Members’ constituents. Because of that difference, HMRC should have the flexibility to deal in a humanitarian way with these unfortunate people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reality is that the SNP Government are putting people off relocating to Scotland and earning higher incomes in Scotland, because those earning £50,000 have to pay an additional £1,500 in tax every year.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What is the Chancellor going to do to help the WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—who have been denied their pensions? It has been going on for far too long and it is about time he did something about it.

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have had to take difficult decisions because of the state of the public finances that we were left with. We have already made improvements in relation to those women being able to retire, but it is right that we do not burden future generations as a result of our existing commitments.

Business Rates

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am sure that the tourists in my constituency will be greatly relieved to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. In my constituency, which is very dependent on tourism, I have been having a big battle with the local council to keep public conveniences open, because it is really important. If someone comes for a day’s outing to the Cotswolds or goes to my hon. Friend’s constituency, they cannot last all day. They need somewhere to go, and I was delighted when the Government gave that sort of relief.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Lady in the Chamber today, because she was one of the very few people who were present when I held my Adjournment debate on this subject on 8 October last year. If memory serves me—I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong—I think that on that occasion, she told the House that there were 24 empty shops in York. If it has gone up to over 50 now, that demonstrates a deteriorating situation. If I have the figures right— she is smiling so perhaps she would like to give the House correct figures for last year compared with now, if she knows them, but if not, I have them here and I will look them up at some time during the speech—clearly business rates are having a deleterious effect on the high street. I will come to that in my speech.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman and I came into the House together, so we know each other quite well. To be frank, we have had many debates about rates in general terms, whether they were about the poll tax or business tax and so on, and quite frankly, it is about time—I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries)—that there was an inquiry to have a good look at the whole system of funding local government in this country. What is happening now is that a lot of local government expenditure, because of the reduction in Government grants to local authorities, has been shoved under business rates. As I said about 18 months ago, we cannot go on like this. Something has to give and we have to look at that properly.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right: we have known each other and been friends for a long time, and he has had a long interest in this subject. I will certainly come on to the subject of wholesale reform of the business rating system. Indeed, the British Hospitality Association, which I will refer to later, is calling for a royal commission to look into wholesale reform of the rates. Indeed, it was a manifesto commitment of my party, but the party seems to have gone cold on wholesale reform of the business rates system, for reasons to do with protecting the £30 billion of revenue it raises, as I will refer to in a moment.

Beer Taxation and Pubs

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). This debate has been very good humoured, and it is a pleasure to take part—I’m fed up with this place at the moment! Beer duty has been mentioned, and I should declare an interest: the headquarters of the Campaign for Real Ale, which is in the forefront of the campaign on beer duty, is in my constituency. However, I want to focus on pub business rates.

Generally speaking, people do not go to the pub to get drunk these days. There are so many other things: some pubs run mini-libraries or toy libraries, while others run campaigns to support local people in need or help charities. Some hold darts matches. They are a focal point for many people who have nowhere else to go to meet friends and can be a place for celebrations with relatives as well. A pub is so much more than just the price of the liquid in the glass, and we really have to get that over. That is why I want to focus on the premises in which the liquid is served. A reduction in beer duty would be good, but as a wine drinker I want to focus on how we keep pubs in business so that we all have somewhere to go.

I took part in the previous, very well attended, debate on this issue in Westminster Hall. I am trying to get a meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to raise this important issue and some of my constituency’s pubs and landlords have come to meet my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who is on the Front Bench now. But the reality is that those people do not feel that there is a real awareness that the much welcomed reduction in business rates will not reach all the parts that other beers cannot reach. In my constituency, the reduction reaches a mere 50% of the pubs, on average. Many of the pubs have contacted me about a massive hike in business rates; they have to cut staff or close their businesses altogether. That cannot be the message that the Government intended to send out.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

This, of course, is not the first time we have had a debate about pubs; we have had them for years, although we never seem to make much progress when it comes to their taxation. The other affected area is the working men’s clubs, a lot of which are now dying out. It is important that the Treasury has a good look at the situation to see whether it can help pubs. At the end of the day, pubs are a catalyst for the community. The hon. Lady is on the right track.

[Mrs Main]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the community aspect in his valuable intervention. Some pubs threatened with closure are taken on as community assets, but it is incredibly hard to make the business case, given how business rates are. No matter how willing the community is, there are only so many pints of beer that anyone can drink to help provide the income it needs, unless we want to encourage people to be blotto night and day. We have to ask whether the business model is workable, and for many pubs it just is not.

The cut of 33% in rates for businesses with a rateable value of under £51,000 was a major step, but in areas such as St Albans it is not having an impact. Areas with high property values such as St Albans are almost totally overlooked. Many people have mentioned heritage and beautiful buildings: pubs in my area are under a huge threat of being turned into domestic properties. That is a real worry. They are struggling at the cliff edge, and we have to address the issue now.

The 2017 business rates formula for pubs uses a methodology for setting the rateable value based on fair maintainable trade. Nobody seems to understand how that works. The rateable value is driven mainly by the pub’s turnover and it takes into account property valuations. That means that even small pubs in St Albans are having huge hikes in business rates because they happen to be settled among much higher-value domestic properties. The formula does not take that into account, so it penalises small business operators.

The hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) mentioned micro-breweries: the formula also penalises the independents, which is a real problem. We may lose some of the quirky pubs on our high streets that offer that level of interest and difference and prove a huge pull for tourists who come into areas such as St Albans and appreciate pubs such as The Boot and Ye Olde Fighting Cocks, many of which have historic backgrounds and architecture to match. That means that it is difficult to expand or increase footfall, because they are extremely small.

Save UK Pubs has compiled a useful document outlining the increases that pubs face. I have given it to the Minister before, but I will send it to him again in case he has lost it. The Boot, which I have just mentioned, is an absolutely tiny heritage pub—some people have bigger sitting rooms. People there reckon they would have to sell an additional 22,000 pints to cover the additional £51,000 in business rates that they now have to pay—a 280% increase. That is unsustainable.

If the Chancellor came up with the model, he certainly was not looking at St Albans when he did. Christo Tofalli of Ye Olde Fighting Cocks told me that unless there is proper reform of the relevant taxes, licensing laws and duty costs, his pub will be finished. He bought this beautiful, historic pub; people can work out from its name that it goes back a long time. Bringing it back to life has cost him a huge amount of personal investment. Having pulled it back from despair, he expects people in this House to get how important a pub is. It is not necessarily a drinking outlet—there are plenty of those. A pub is family to some people and part of the community to many people. Once it has been turned into a posh house, as happens in my constituency, it will never come back. I put in a plea for the Minister not to hide behind all the different things that have been done. It is not enough, and we need to look at the situation again.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The UK economy is projected to grow under all circumstances. Our future is in the hands of individuals and businesses in this country. It is those people who determine whether we will be successful or whether we will fail. I have a huge amount of respect for the entrepreneurs in this country who are setting up new businesses, growing and investing. We have a very bright future ahead of us.

The reality is that the threat to British prosperity is not our precise relationship with the European Union, but the ideas of some in this Chamber who want to limit people’s opportunities, see public spending balloon and start increasing our national debt again by £1,000 billion. And what would happen then? Taxes would go up; people would be able to keep less of their own money; businesses would not have the funds they needed to invest in the future; and our economy would decline rather than grow. That is the real threat to British prosperity. Fundamentally, we have been successful and moved on from the post-crash era because we have backed the British people and British businesses to succeed. We have not gone out there and said that business is the enemy—something that should be fought against. We have said that business is a friend of success and aspiration, and we need to back it.

This year represents a big opportunity for Britain. First, 2019 is the year when we are leaving the European Union, but it is also the year of the spending review. As the Chancellor announced in the spring statement, we will be launching the spending review just before the summer and completing it in the autumn. That spending review will set the budgets for the next three years. For the first time since the financial crash we have choices, because there is now headroom in our budget. That headroom is thanks to the fact that there are more people in work than ever before, and they are contributing in taxes.

We now have choices we can make. First, we have the ability to cut taxes, which we will already be doing this April. People will see more money coming into their bank accounts from this April onwards thanks to the fact that this Government have decided to reduce taxes for those on the basic rate and for those on the higher rate. We are also able to invest in public services. Because we have taken these difficult decisions, we have allowed the economy to grow. We have an opportunity to modernise government to make it sleeker and better value for the people it serves.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

On investing in public services, what is the right hon. Lady going to do to invest in local authorities so that they, in turn, can invest? Coventry is a good example. Coventry has encouraged small businesses, and we have the University of Warwick science park and so forth. What is she doing to encourage local authorities to invest in their public services, as she knows that for the past few years that has been very difficult for local authorities, to say the least?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I was very glad to visit a successful business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I know that he is very committed to the development of business in his area. It is important that money spent is raised locally as far as possible. As a Government, we have rebalanced from central Government giving money to local government to more of that money being kept locally, whether through business rates retention or council tax. That is an important principle. However, we did recognise in the Budget that local authorities were under pressure. That is why we put in an extra £650 million, which can particularly be spent on adult social care and children’s social care where there is pressure. Of course, we will look at that balance in the spending review.

At the moment, we have a complicated landscape in the support offered to business. When there is a complicated landscape, it can sometimes be the big businesses that know how to work the system that end up getting the money. We need to move to a system where we have lower taxes and it is clearer and simpler to see where the support is. Of course, we are also investing in the infrastructure that helps business to succeed, whether it is local roads, fibre or rail. Ahead of the spending review, I am making visits around the country to hear from people on the ground to understand what the public’s priorities for public spending are. It can sometimes be easy in Whitehall to listen to the big lobby groups— the big organisations that have an operation here in Westminster—but I want to hear what people in Coventry and other places around the country think about what their priorities are. I have done a few of these sessions so far, and the topics that come up tend to be education, local roads, the NHS—for which we have already put in additional money—and police. We need very much to keep in mind what the public want to see our money spent on rather than just listening to the big organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I will pick up some of those points later.

The reality is that meanwhile, the Government have presided over the slowest recovery since the 1920s—stubborn fact. The OBR has revised down GDP growth, and business investment is now falling. Those are not my figures; they are the OBR’s figures. What about wages? I will touch on the points that the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) raised. Real wages are still lower than they were a decade ago, and according to the OBR,

“average earnings growth remains below the rates typical before the financial crisis”.

These are real people’s real lives—real wages are not going up. For many workers who have seen their wages stagnate, borrowing and debt has plugged the gap. Household debt relative to income is forecast to increase over the next few years.

What about transparency in Government spending? Long gone are the days when Tory Ministers hailed their Government as the most transparent in history—replaced by a culture of secrecy and a disregard for parliamentary convention that saw the Government held in contempt of Parliament for the first time in history. It is not a proud record to have.

Even on transactional issues, such as the regular and timely release of figures for departmental spending of over £25,000, the Government seem to have quietly backslid, in some cases releasing data series late, incomplete, or not at all. The question is: what are they hiding? The Chief Secretary has made much of the Government’s record on the deficit, yet the reality is that on her watch, and that of her predecessor, they have simply passed deficits on to our schools, our hospitals and our local councils, with departmental spending cuts of over £40 billion since 2010.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

When we talk about more money being put into Departments, whether for education or the health service, we have to remember that any additional money starts from a lower base. The Government are partially replacing what they took out in the first place. People do not seem to understand that major point. They said that austerity was over, but we still have it. Yes, people are in jobs, but they are very low-paid jobs. That is not taking people out of poverty; that is keeping people in poverty. What interests me the most, however, is that nothing has been said about further education, which has had major cuts. If the Government want to continue with austerity, they have to do something about further education.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend has obviously been reading Labour’s “Funding Britain’s Future” document, in which we picked up on that particular point. The hon. Member for Redditch mentioned tax cuts. Try telling that to people who have had 15% and 16% rises in their council tax, because the Government have shunted that on to the people. They are still taxpayers. Try mentioning to them that they have fantastic local services, when increases to their council tax do not even cover social care bills.

The Chief Secretary has bragged about the so-called Tory jobs miracle. However, she made no mention in the speech of the fact that it is built on insecure work, low pay and regional disparities. We have nearly 4 million people in insecure work and nearly 3 million people working under 15 hours a week across the UK. Workers in the north-east earn around £200 less than those in London, reifying the regional imbalance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary says that she saw some very good leopard-print shoes at Pavers Shoes—and she knows a potential customer for them. Pavers is a highly successful business; I have seen for myself in India the success that it is having in selling shoes. We are committed to increasing transport investment in the north of England; the Secretary of State for Transport recently announced the dualling of the A1237 York outer ring road as a scheme in development for the major road network funding.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the ways to increase productivity is by maintaining grants at European levels of investment in research and development? We have a lot of good universities in this country.

[Robert Jenrick]

This Government are absolutely committed to maintaining research and development; that is why we will be investing in it at record levels. We are also supporting the private sector, for example by making research and development tax credits more generous so that businesses across the country can collaborate with universities to drive the economy forward.

Communities: Charities and Volunteers

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I could not disagree, and that is replicated not just in Scotland, but across the whole UK.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), in Coventry we have volunteers who not only collect, but distribute, the food; and a lot of people are very thankful to them. Another issue is loneliness. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that every amount of pressure should be put on the BBC to revoke any plans it has to charge the licence fee to over-75s. Finally, there is another voluntary organisation in Coventry that is totally run by volunteers who help the blind using modern techniques. Has the hon. Gentleman come across anything like that in his constituency?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I could not disagree with the hon. Member on a range of matters, and I do not on the over-75s licence fee issue. It is incomprehensible to me why the BBC would even consider such a thing, given that social isolation is a profound issue across not only older age, but a whole gamut of ages. I may come to that point in a moment.

The right to form voluntary organisations—charities or unincorporated organisations—is a fundamental pillar of a modern, liberal democracy. Such organisations are founded on the lived experiences of communities, on geography, on choice and on need. Nevertheless, charity is no replacement for good government. Maybe that is what many have found with issues around food banks and services having to be replicated by volunteers.

The unincorporated organisations and charities challenge policy makers and Governments in general, campaigning on issues on conscience and locality. I think of the Women’s Aid organisations in my constituency, which—with the new local authority administration—are addressing specific targeted issues such as domestic abuse and violence, and access to services. They are also raising the matter of three-year funding strategies, rather than constantly having to come back to the local authority or Government Department year in, year out for the same type of funding scheme.

These organisations deliver public services in ways that are too numerous to mention, including by supporting people through drug addiction. This includes the Dumbarton Area Council on Alcohol in my constituency. Organisations such as Tullochan and Y Sort-It in West Dunbartonshire enhance the lives of young people through group activity and individual support. Importantly, the unincorporated organisations across all our constituencies run groups of all shapes and sizes, such as Clydebank’s Morison Memorial lunch club, which offers friendship and wholesome food every Thursday; I can testify—I am sure that Scottish Members will recognise this—that it has the best and finest tablet in Scotland.

Charities and voluntary organisations connect and enhance our communities socially and economically. In Scotland, the investment from the Scottish Government has again increased to £24.9 million, with additional resources and support from a range of other funding bodies and groups, such as local authorities and NHS boards. Indeed, voluntary organisations are seen as an essential part of shaping public service through community planning in each of the 32 councils of Scotland.

From a Scotland-wide perspective, the voluntary sector covers every facet of Scottish society, and I am grateful to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations for the following figures. There are over 45,000 voluntary organisations—on top of the charitable sector—in Scotland, employing more than 106,000 paid staff. That is 3.5% of Scotland’s workforce. The workforce is dominated by women, who make up 71% of it; this is significantly higher than in the public and private sectors. The sector also employs more people with disabilities than the public and private sectors. Over 1.3 million people in Scotland volunteer, and over 30% of women, people from rural communities and those aged 16 to 24 volunteer. There are over 250,000 charity trustees, many of whom will never actually see themselves as volunteers; and that is a clear point about many trustees and those involved in the governance process.

Securitisation Regulations 2018

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will not strain the House’s patience, but I fear that the Minister, who is normally very clear in his remarks, is mixing apples and pears. He mentioned credit rating in relation to sub-prime mortgage-related securities in the United States. There was a relationship with the US state in that case, because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but there was not a connection between that process and the British state. I fear that there was a little bit of confusion there.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Perhaps we can clear up the mystery of whose fault it was, because the previous Chancellor said that it was not the fault of the Labour Government at all.

[Anneliese Dodds]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important, pertinent and brief point.