0.7% Official Development Assistance Target

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter forward. The House is very much united behind him. It is not just the scale of the aid cuts, but the speed of the enforced shutdown of operations that is hugely harmful. Aid and development are not a tap that we can turn off and on whenever we like. It is time for the Government, on this occasion, to step up to the spot and make sure that they reinforce the aid budget and increase it back to what it was in the past.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just gently say that we have a lot of speakers and I want to hear from everybody? If you are going to intervene, I am sure that you will understand if you go down the speaking list.

Business Rates Reduction Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for highlighting the issue today.

I beg indulgence. The hon. Gentleman and I worked alongside an incredible person and I want to take a moment to place on the record in this House the passing of a gentleman whose work was monumental on regulatory issues. He was a good friend of mine and a good friend of the hon. Gentleman, and well known to many other Members of this House. He was Brian Little. He was one of my constituents, a good friend for nearly all my life, and all his life as well—we were of a similar age. He was a passionate advocate for the underdog, well known in this House in the realms of finance and reform. Brian will be sadly missed. His shoes are difficult to fill. I just want to have that on the record, Mr Hollobone.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s words? Brian was a great man—a great man who did much work for many businesses that could not fight for themselves, in the battle against larger banks. He did a tremendous job, in his inimitable way. He was humble. It was never for himself. It was always, as the hon. Gentleman says, for the underdog, fighting an almost impossible battle. He had many a great success in that regard.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His words resonate with my own. The family will be greatly encouraged by our comments.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and her reasoned and valuable contribution—a well-thought-out contribution, which we wholeheartedly support. She referred to cross-party support. I hope my comments today will add cross-party support to the two previous speakers.

I understand that the regulations for business rates relief are handled in a different way in Northern Ireland than here on the mainland, and in Scotland, but the issues are the same. The ten-minute rule Bill regarding business rates means that we perhaps can and should take a UK-wide, holistic view of this matter.

I read with great interest the comments that highlight the belief that business rates were designed for a bygone era, where business went hand-in-hand with high street premises. The way we shop is now changing forever and the coronavirus has exacerbated those changes. Online sales now account for 33% of all retail sales, compared with 20% only a year ago.

I have been very impressed with my local council in my constituency of Strangford, which is working with businesses on the high street to retain their presence while they enter online forums. I have seen businesses, many of which were only able to open last week in Northern Ireland, come to terms with the new click-and-collect era and other ways of doing business. As we have watched businesses roll with gut-wrenching punches, it has highlighted to me that perhaps we, too, in this place, must advocate for change that makes sense in the post-covid world, where we are today. I see the wisdom, as I have seen many times in the past, of the rationale of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. I am interested to hear more and learn more of the outworking of the proposals that I have heard from my respected colleague and friend, as well as of those from the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

When I read the Library briefing for today’s debate, I was dismayed but not shocked at the companies seeking to take advantage of struggling businesses who are appealing the rates. The scams were wide-ranging and intricate, and it is clear that the current system leaves itself open for the kinds of abuses that both hon. Members refer to—yet another indicator that something needs to change, and change soon. The FSB contacted and asked me to put on record, as others have done, that they believe business rate companies should be licensed to access business rates records on behalf of businesses. There would be a low barrier to access, but a condition of the license would be to ban cowboy practices. The hon. Gentleman for Thirsk and Malton’s introduction used a lot of descriptive nouns for them without using any bad language, which I thought was quite good and I really relate to that. We could probably think of other things which would be unparliamentary and not appropriate. Nonetheless, it illustrates how we all feel.

While recent business rates reductions during the pandemic were welcome, too many businesses find themselves with an unexpected bill from these companies. Their predatory payment tactics mean that where Government policy reduced the bill to nil, these companies claim the reduction as part of their work, and charge year on year. Many businesses end up with a bill for £1,000 plus, when the only change has been as a result of Government policy. The Government does it, and they do it because that is their job. These guys come along and charge for it, when the Government does all the work. It reminds me of the cuckoo. We all know what the cuckoo does—he jumps into the nest of another bird, eats all the food that the parents give and has nothing to do with the parent birds. These are cuckoo companies and in my opinion deliver something that is totally wrong. Too often the conditions are hidden in the trading terms and conditions.

I welcome the schemes in England, such as extra targeted support packages for businesses and relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and the corresponding help in Northern Ireland. I put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Government—my Government—for all they have done to help businesses in the constituency of Strangford, and across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They have kept those businesses afloat and we thank them for it. However, the fact of the matter is that businesses will need ongoing help. Rather than further complex and detailed schemes, now is the time to overview and change the entire system, as the hon. Gentleman for Thirsk and Malton referred to in his introduction. There must be a genuine review of how we can support businesses to survive, maintain a presence, and importantly continue with job creation. I believe we will get a bounce whenever we come out of lockdown, but we need to continue that bounce right through into the months and years ahead. When it comes to business, we have to play the long game, investing in small businesses, and knowing that in the end we will recoup every penny that has been outlaid when jobs continue and taxes are paid in manageable amounts to keep the business open and viable.

In conclusion, I believe the suggestions of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton are useful in moving forward, and I join him and the hon. Member for Walthamstow in asking the Government to put serious thought and manpower behind making this change for the good of business, our economy, and consequently, the quality of life throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Finance Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]]

When we look at our world today—a world in which half of global wealth belongs to the richest 1%, a world in which large corporations possess more financial power than many post-colonial countries, and a world in which British Amazon warehouse workers earn in eight weeks what the company’s chief executive makes in one second—it is clear that we need to radically reassess how we tax large corporations.

It is therefore shameful, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) made clear, that the British Government are the only G7 Government not to support US President Biden’s plans to halt the race to the bottom on corporation tax. However, I do not believe that even these plans for a global minimum rate of corporation tax for large multinationals go nearly far enough. We should be much, much bolder than the 15% or 20% threshold that is being discussed. After all, we are talking about corporations that have made super profits out of this pandemic and are paying low wages to our workers. The fact that our Government are not even willing to engage with this most basic of proposals reveals how unserious they are about reining in the rampantly unequal power of large corporations.

We know that tech giants currently pay a negligible amount of tax. A report by Fair Tax Mark found that for the Silicon six of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft, the gap between the expected headline rates of tax and the actual tax paid between 2010 and 2019 was $123 billion. This is as unsustainable as it is unjust.

It is important to bear in mind that billionaires exist when and where workers are exploited, as has been cruelly demonstrated by the testimony of Amazon workers who have bravely and painfully disclosed the conditions under which they are forced to work. Rather than blocking international efforts to address this crisis, the Government must properly tax large corporations and invest to build a radically fairer country. That means not only rejoining the international plan led by President Biden but making the case that the minimum threshold be increased. It is important to remember that in the period post world war two, the top rate of corporation tax was actually as high as 52% for large companies—this, after all, was introduced by a Conservative Chancellor—but in the 1980s it was reduced to 30%. Since 2010, the Conservatives have cut corporation tax from 28% to 19%—by more than most among relatively rich countries. This shows that they would rather raise funds by squeezing the British people than reduce the corporate profits of wealthy shareholders.

The super deduction is wasteful and open to abuse. Are we going to see, as has been reported by The Times and others, tax breaks handed out for investing in swimming pools and jacuzzis as opposed to targeting support at British businesses that have been struggling during the pandemic, or even as opposed to targeting investment to end child poverty? Currently one in two children in my constituency are living in poverty—that is 42% of children who could be saved. Child poverty is a political choice, and this Bill is the proof of that. Are we going to see this measure as opposed to targeting investment to end the starvation wage that workers in Leicester’s garment industry receive while making clothes to fund the super-bonuses of retail brands such as Boohoo and others? Quite simply, the super deduction will allow multinationals such as Amazon to write off their tax liabilities.

As we recover from the coronavirus, we must learn the lessons from the 2008 financial crash. The 99%—the many—must never again be forced to bail out the super-rich. The Government must recognise that in our country of deep and unequal wealth, the ultra-rich and large corporations should be asked to contribute their fair share. Corporation tax is a tax on profits, not people. Cutting it means more profits in the pockets of wealthy shareholders and less in those of nurses and other essential frontline workers. To enable much-needed investment, an increased tax on company profits is necessary and long overdue, and it should be raised above the Government’s 25% limit, which is still the lowest of the G7 countries. Above all, it is vital that we enter the debate around taxing the super, ultra-rich and large corporations with much more ambition, as it is one of the most powerful weapons in the Government’s arsenal to combat the rampant inequality that defines our era.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight a number of issues during the Report stage of the Finance Bill. I am always pleased to see the Minister in his place and I hope that I can put forward some points to which he will be able to reply.

I want to refer to clause 6, in part 1. I have spoken on this issue on numerous occasions, and I am thankful for the clarification the Government have sought to provide. However, I am still left disappointed at the rationale as regards corporation tax. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) referred to this as well. The measure sets the charge for the main rate of corporation tax at 19% for the financial years beginning 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2023. These changes mean that from 1 April 2023 the main rate of corporation tax for non-ring-fenced profits will be increased to 25%, applying to profits over £250,000. A small profits rate will also be introduced for companies with profits of £50,000 or less, so they will continue to pay corporation tax at 19%. Companies with profits between £50,000 and £350,000 will pay tax at the main rate, reduced by a marginal relief providing a gradual increase in the effective corporation tax rate.

The impact assessment that the Government have produced highlights the issue that I want to speak about. It states that there is no impact on families, but goes on to say:

“However, if businesses struggle or are unable to pay increased Corporation Tax, this could impact on their family formation, stability or breakdown. To support, HMRC can provide a Time To Pay arrangement.”

The issue is clear, at least in my mind and, I suspect, in the mind of many others: businesses have already struggled. While rates and wages may have been paid, and we are grateful for those schemes, the fact is that many small businesses have still had to pay out rent for equipment that they were precluded from using to make a profit, so their income was massively affected and many people’s personal savings were totally wiped out. They then took out a coronavirus business interruption loan to help them to make it through. We are beginning to come to the other side—thank the Lord for that—where they are seeking to rebuild, but instead of a meaningful reduction, there is merely a stay of execution with corporation tax.

That will affect many businesses and, by extension, many homes and families. It seems that it could well mean the end of many of our small businesses; while that is sad on a personal level, it is devastating on an economic level. We must remember that small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy. The Financial Secretary and his Conservative Government have been committed to helping small businesses. All those small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the whole United Kingdom—they certainly are in my constituency of Strangford.

I repeat what I have said before in this Chamber: there is no point in carrying businesses thus far, only to allow them to flounder now before any repayment is made. The Government have admitted that there will be a reduced incentive to incorporate businesses that would usually seek to take this step. All this has an effect on the long-term income to our economy. I know that the Government want a stronger economy; we all do, and I believe that we need some help.

Northern Ireland is well placed to be a central hub for business. We have much to offer, yet people can go south of the border to lower corporation tax and greater incentives. Along with my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, I have often argued for a reduction in corporation tax to attract businesses to Northern Ireland. I believe that the corporation tax rate repels investors, so I urge the Financial Secretary to look at the issue again. I understand that historically he has wanted a UK-wide rate of corporation tax. However, I want a UK-wide customs market, and that is not the case—ask the local small grocer who cannot even get in dog treats to sell because of the Northern Ireland protocol. There are differences made by this insidious protocol that affect our corporations and small businesses alike. It is clear that if the Financial Secretary insists on one size fits all, it must be applied in every aspect of manufacture, delivery and retail.

The Northern Ireland Assembly is establishing a working group on the consequences of creating our own corporation tax band and its effect on our block grant; maybe the Financial Secretary could highlight where those discussions have taken us so far. I believe that there is an opportunity for him to step in and do the right thing for the UK with a view to the long term. That is what I am requesting, even at this very late stage.

The UK is stronger together. I believe that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will always be stronger together. That has become the mantra of our Government, and I agree with it, but it needs to be more than words: action must follow the words and show our strengths. I believe that a reasonable rate of corporation tax across the board is a step to strengthen the Union, not cause more division.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to all Members who have taken part in this debate. Let me pick up on several issues that have been raised, starting with the super deduction. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I think some Opposition Members are not, that it has been described by the CBI as

“a real catalyst for firms”,

while the British Chambers of Commerce said:

“We particularly welcome the massive ‘super deduction’ investment incentive.”

They are absolutely right. It is a terrible shame that the Labour party has decided to try to tarnish the super deduction, a measure from which many capital-intensive businesses around this country will benefit, especially in the north, the north-west, the north-east and the midlands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) rightly picked up, it is a measure that benefits local businesses up and down the UK. He picked Wadworth, a well-known brewer, and rightly so, but there are many, many other businesses for which that is also true. He was absolutely right to highlight that.

Let me come on to questions of wider taxation, if I may. There seems to be an astonishing level of ignorance among Members on the Opposition Benches. They seemed to be unaware that the tax gap—the difference between the amount of tax actually collected and the amount of tax that could potentially be collected—is at its lowest rate in our recorded history, at 4.7%. It may be of some interest if I point out to them—they can reflect on this—that in 2005-06 under the Labour Government it was 7.5%, so it has fallen dramatically, I am pleased to say. Tax that was not being collected by the Labour Government at that time is now being collected by the Conservative Government of the present day, and a very good thing that is too. That is a record on which they should spend some time pondering. The fact of the matter is that this Government have always made it plain that they will be very tough—as tough as they can be—in order to collect the tax that is due and to make sure that corporations and individuals pay it wherever they are due to.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the Chancellor beforehand about this. During the lockdown, covid loans were made available to companies. Companies in my constituency have indicated to me that the repayment scheme is not over a flexible period of time and they have to pay back large amounts of money in one go. To ensure that those companies can survive beyond the lockdown and into next year, may I ask the Chancellor whether it is possible to make some flexibility in the repayment of those loans for those companies?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is one that, I hope, we have already addressed. He is right about the importance of companies having the cash flow to bounce back strongly, which is why late last year we introduced something called “pay as you grow” to help the 1.3 million small and medium-sized companies that have taken bounce back loans. It means that automatically, at their choice, they will be able to turn those loans from five-year repayment loans to 10-year repayment loans, which almost halves the monthly repayments. Furthermore, it gives them the option to go for interest-only repayment periods of six months or for payment holidays, none of which will impact their credit rating as long as they do it in advance. That should be automatically communicated to businesses by their bank. I hope that is helpful to the small and medium-sized companies in his constituency.

Financial Services Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am delighted to speak again on the Financial Services Bill following its passage through the other place, where it has been well looked after by my colleagues Earl Howe, Lord True and Baroness Penn. As our first major piece of financial services legislation since leaving the EU, the Bill will enhance the UK’s world-leading prudential standards, protect financial stability, promote openness between the UK and international markets and maintain an effective financial services regulatory framework and sound capital markets.

The Bill was thoroughly scrutinised in the other place, with more than 200 amendments tabled across Committee and Report. In total, the Lords made 21 amendments to the Bill. During the passage of the Bill, there has been a lengthy discussion about how best to address issues of consumer harm in the financial sector. Lords amendment 1 before us today proposes that this should be addressed through a requirement on the Financial Conduct Authority to bring forward rules that would place a duty of care on financial services firms in relation to their customers.

The Government are committed to ensuring that financial services consumers are protected and that steps are taken quickly to address new issues when they are identified. However, the Government believe that the FCA already has the necessary powers and is acting to ensure that sufficient protections are in place for consumers. The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment, but recognise that Parliament wants to be assured that the FCA’s ongoing work will lead to meaningful change.

I will today set out the standards that firms must already adhere to when providing financial services to their customers. These are governed by the FCA’s “Principles for Business”, as well as specific requirements in the handbook. These principles set out how specific requirements on firms work, and they include:

“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.”

The FCA’s enforcement powers allow it to ensure that these standards are met, although the FCA recognises that the level of harm in markets is still too high and is committed to taking further actions.

The Government agree with the concerns that were raised in the other place that this harm may in part stem from an asymmetry of information between financial services firms and their customers. The risk is that many firms may seek to exploit this asymmetry. The FCA is well aware of how informational asymmetries and behavioural biases can influence consumer behaviour, and is committed to ensuring that these issues are addressed where it considers that they may result in harm. The Government therefore support the FCA’s ongoing programme of work in this area and believe that it will deliver meaningful change for the benefit of consumers.

The FCA has considered its existing framework of principles, and whether the way in which firms have responded to the principles is sufficient to ensure that consumers have the right protections and get the right outcomes. Building on this, the FCA will consult in May on clear proposals to raise and clarify its expectations of firms’ actions and behaviours, and on any necessary changes to its principles to deliver this. These proposals will consider how to raise the level of care firms must provide to consumers through a duty of care or other provisions. Ultimately, the proposals in this consultation will seek to ensure that consumers benefit from a better level of care from financial services firms.

I have therefore tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1. This amendment will require the FCA to consult on whether it should make rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers. It ensures that the FCA will publish its analysis of the responses to this consultation by the end of this year. It also ensures that the FCA will make final rules following that consultation before 1 August 2022.

I hope that the establishment of these clear milestones demonstrates the commitment of both the Government and the FCA to delivering better outcomes for financial services consumers. In line with commitments made in the other place regarding Parliament’s scrutiny of the financial services regulators, I can confirm that the FCA will bring its conclusions to the attention of the relevant parliamentary Committees, giving them an opportunity to consider the proposals and, if they choose, to express a view or raise any issues. The FCA will respond to any issues that are raised by parliamentary Committees.

I now turn to Lords amendment 8 on mortgage prisoners. It is an issue I take extremely seriously, but I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this amendment. We must continue to be guided by the facts and the evidence. The FCA’s analysis shows that half the 250,000 borrowers with inactive firms meet the normal risk appetite of lenders and could therefore switch if they chose to without any Government intervention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have been contacted by many constituents who are in a precarious position and do not have such options. My hon. Friends the Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) have conveyed to me that some of their constituents are also in that position. I respect the Minister greatly, but is it not possible to reconsider given the precarious position that my constituents and others find themselves in?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his contribution. I will go on to explain the situation of the remaining 125,000 individuals who could be categorised in that way, the actions that we have taken to date and what we will continue to look for. If that category can move without Government intervention, they are not “prisoners”.

Of the remaining 125,000 who cannot switch, 70,000 are in arrears and therefore could not secure a new deal even if they were in the active market. Those borrowers need to work with their lender to agree an appropriate repayment plan. The remaining 55,000 who are with inactive lenders and are up to date with their payments but who cannot switch are paying on average only 0.4 percentage points more than similar borrowers on reversion rates with active lenders—those with similar characteristics. The reason these borrowers are unable to switch is not that their mortgage is with an inactive firm but that they do not meet the risk appetite of lenders. They may, for example, have a combination of high loan-to-values, be on interest-only mortgages with no plan for repayment, or have higher levels of unsecured debts, non-standard sources of income or poor credit history. Similar borrowers in the active market are also typically unlikely to be offered deals with new lenders.

As I have set out previously, the Government and FCA have undertaken significant work in this area to create additional options that make switching into the active market easier for some borrowers. In particular, the modified affordability assessment allows active mortgage lenders to waive the normal affordability checks for borrowers with inactive lenders who meet certain criteria—for example, not being in arrears and not wishing to borrow more.

--- Later in debate ---

As much as it pains me not to be able to pass a quick simple fix, patched on this problem by this amendment, it is not a workable solution that addresses the problem adequately. I will keep working with Ministers to ensure that, absolutely, we work with the FCA to look for the workable solution to this and to help borrowers end their misery. In summing up, I hope that the Minister will give us hope and progress on helping those people effectively.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate this evening.

As other Members have, I will speak to Lords amendment 8 on mortgage prisoners. In an intervention on the Minister earlier, I expressed concern about the issue. I do so having been asked by numerous constituents to highlight the dreadfully precarious position in which many have found themselves. I will give one example. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) also gave an example, and such examples are real-life ones of people on the frontline.

I have spoken on a number of occasions—I believe this to be the fifth time since 2017—on the subject of mortgage prisoners and, from the outset, I make it clear that my colleagues and I will vote in favour of Lords amendment 8. I have the deepest respect for the Minister, but there has to be more than cake tomorrow to assure my colleagues and me on behalf of my constituents. We hope that he and Her Majesty’s Government will do what is right for those people.

As we have all heard, the Lords amendment coined the phrase, “mortgage prisoners”. That is what my constituent has highlighted—she believes her family to be prisoners of their mortgage. She writes:

“My husband and I, like many others in Northern Ireland are classed as mortgage prisoners, through no fault of our own. Like many others in Northern Ireland, our mortgage was taken out with Northern Rock, which subsequently collapsed. Our mortgage was then sold to a vulture fund without our consent. As these vulture funds are not an active lender, they do not offer mortgages, hence are unable to offer alternative mortgage products.

We are penalised on very high interest rates, which at the moment is currently well over 4% above the BOE base rate. This is crippling us, never mind the detrimental effect that it is having on our mental health.”

Sometimes it is not just about the finances; it is the effect on mental health as well.

Her email was not the only one to use such terminology. My belief is that the Lords amendment would take strides to free those who have thus far been all but imprisoned through no fault of their own, unable to do anything but scrape by, not entitled to Government help or aid, as their wages are sufficient on paper, but not in reality. I agree that a cap on the standard variable rate of interest for mortgage prisoners on closed books would address the issue.

I do not propose to spend much time rehearsing the specific arguments, which others have done already. Instead, I wish to make two points that are self-explanatory. Last Monday, the Minister came to the House to tell us that a compensation fund for London & Capital bondholders—with a sum of £120 million of UK taxpayers’ money—would be necessary following the excellent forensic investigation and analysis report by Dame Elizabeth Gloster. I understand the rationale behind that decision, and yet it leads me to my second point : why not a solution for the mortgage prisoners tonight? As I said, and have been reiterating for years, there continues to be what I can only term a failure to regulate in any way vulture funds such as Cerberus, but at the same time Her Majesty’s Treasury rightly made the decisions on Northern Rock. Despite limited efforts by the FCA, due to the restrictions placed in legislation by Her Majesty’s Government on the regulatory perimeter, little or nothing has been done for those mortgage prisoners in more than a decade. It is time for that to stop and for Her Majesty’s Government to start finding credible solutions.

A constituent contacted me to tell me that there is a rumour that the Conservatives will impose a three-line Whip against Lords amendment 8. If that is true, it is very sad. I also believe, with respect, that it is disgraceful. Many of my constituents are worried. They have talked to me personally. My hon. Friends the Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), and my other colleagues have all expressed the same concern. We have to make a decision tonight on behalf of our constituents that ensures that their viewpoints are heard, and we have to do it in the best way that we can in this House, which is by how we cast our vote.

After seeing at first hand the impact of no action on the lives of mortgage prisoners in my constituency and beyond, I can do nothing but agree. If this is the line of the Government against these 250,000—or the half a million, as one hon. Member has said—struggling families, I will be supporting Lords amendment 8. I have no difficulty in that and I shall ask all other right-thinking MPs to do the same.

A decade of struggle has passed. We have it in our hands, right now, in this Chamber, to make a change. It is, I believe, right to do so. I shamelessly ask Members to do what is right on this occasion for those families in the middle section who have been squeezed beyond belief, physically, financially and mentally. Let us give relief to them, as today, right now, it is in our gift to be able to do so.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to all Members who have contributed to this debate. I will not to rehearse the arguments that I made at the outset, but will respond in the right spirit, in the right way, to the constructive and careful analysis that we have had from many Members across the House this evening.

Let me start by addressing the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I said to him during the Committee stage that I was always listening. I think that I have proved that to be the case in the way that the Government have responded on the climate change amendment and on “buy now, pay later”. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who spoke with characteristic deep knowledge of the sector. It is absolutely clear that we need to get the legislation and the intervention right when it comes to “buy now, pay later”. She rightly asserted the massive growth in that sector and the unfortunate consequences that will certainly befall, and that does befall, a number of consumers. We will work quickly to examine that market and what interventions will meet the need.

I am very tempted to address a whole number of points around Lords amendment 8. It is a real priority of mine to find a response that meets the unfortunate situation where people are trapped in very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) who made a passionate speech, identifying Louise, a mortgage prisoner, whose personal story was one to which the whole House was sympathetic. A number of other colleagues raised similar stories. None the less, I do need to have a proportionate response—a response that can take account of data. I appreciate the excellent work carried out by the all-party group and I recognise its dataset—449 people. None the less, when I am faced with data from the FCA, looking comprehensively at 23,000 cases, I cannot deny that asymmetry. I will commit to continued dialogue to try to find a way forward. Those are not empty words; they reflect the complexity of this matter—a matter that is underpinned by half a generation of different rules and regulations. Before the crisis, people could borrow in ways that today we would think totally unacceptable, and that are indeed unacceptable. The market must provide better solutions than it can provide at the moment, and I will look carefully at what we can do to ensure that that happens.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made a number of points on Lords amendment 1 about the duty of care, and I have set out at length my approach to that, which is again to examine and listen carefully to what the FCA is saying. It will then be obliged to come forward with rule changes. So these are not empty words; they recognise all the work of the charities and organisations that are highlighting this case. Of course, in financial services there is a strong dynamic of change, and the Government and regulators must be ready to step in and make appropriate interventions as that market changes.

I believe that this Bill is a key component of a new, broader regulatory strategy that will underpin the UK financial services sector as a genuine world leader now that we have left the European Union. I welcome the speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) and for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), which exhibited a deep knowledge and a constructive approach to this very sophisticated industry, underpinned with a lot of personal experience. I will take from this debate many points of detail. I do not agree with every point that has been made on Lords amendment 8, but I stand ready to engage with Members across the House to seek to find solutions. I am proud to have been able to lead this Bill through the House.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendments 2 to 7 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8.—(John Glen.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 1)
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

The Government have delivered an unparalleled package of support during the covid-19 pandemic, providing over £352 billion for public services, workers and businesses. This response has been fair and balanced, with the poorest households benefiting the most from the Government’s interventions. It is now necessary to take steps to ensure the sustainability of the public finances and continue to fund our excellent public services. Our approach to fixing the public finances will therefore also be fair and balanced. The fairest way to put the public finances on a more sustainable footing is to ask all taxpayers to play their part, as well as asking those people able to contribute more to do so. That is why, in these parts of the Bill, the Government are legislating for freezes to the personal allowance, higher rate thresholds, the inheritance tax thresholds, the pensions lifetime allowance and the annual exempt amount in capital gains tax. The Government are also making sensible changes to the tax treatment of coronavirus support payments and exemption-related adjustments to account for the impact of the pandemic.

Given the number of speakers and amendments, I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief. Before I turn to the changes announced at Budget, let me touch on clauses 1 to 4. These are legislated for every year and are essential for the Government to be able to collect the right amount of income tax for the tax year 2021-22.

I come now to the clauses that legislate to maintain thresholds. These clauses are an essential part of a fair and responsible fiscal approach to fixing the public finances. Clause 5 maintains the income tax personal allowance and the basic rate limit at their 2021-22 levels from April 2022 until April 2026. This is a universal, progressive and fair measure being taken to fund public services and rebuild the public finances, and it ensures that the highest-earning households will contribute more. Indeed, the top 20% of highest-income households will contribute 15 times that of the bottom 20% of lowest-income households.

I shall now respond to amendments 2 to 4 and new clause 7, which relates to clause 5. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 seek to delay the decision to maintain the income tax personal allowance and higher rate threshold until April 2023. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that UK GDP will reach its pre-virus peak by the second quarter of 2022. The Bank of England forecast that it will happen at the beginning of 2022. In the light of those estimates, it is reasonable and fair for the Government to uphold the start of this policy from April 2022. Nobody’s take-home pay will be less as a result of this decision. For most taxpayers, any real-terms loss will be very small in 2022-23. I therefore urge the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) not to press the amendments to a vote.

New clauses 12 and 23 would require the Government to publish equalities impact assessments for all the measures in this debate, and new clause 8 would require the Government to publish an equalities assessment of existing income tax thresholds. New clause 8 would also require the Government to publish distributional analysis on two changes that do not constitute Government policy—namely, reducing the additional rate threshold to £80,000 and introducing a supplementary 50% rate of income tax for income above £125,000.

The Treasury carefully considers the equality impacts of the individual measures announced at fiscal events on those who share protected characteristics, in line with both its legal obligations under the public sector equality duty and its strong commitment to issues of equality. The Treasury already publishes comprehensive assessments of income tax threshold changes. Alongside the Budget, the Government have published detailed distributional analysis of the decision to maintain income tax thresholds, both at a household and on an individual basis. The new clauses therefore do little to provide meaningful additional analysis further to the Government’s existing comprehensive publications, and I therefore urge Members not to press them to a vote.

Clause 28 makes changes to maintain the pensions lifetime allowance at £1,073,100 until April 2026. This will limit the pensions tax relief available to those with the largest pension pots and supports the Government’s objective of a system of pensions tax relief that is fair, affordable and sustainable. Clause 40 maintains the capital gains tax annual exempt amount at its 2020-21 level of £12,300 for individuals and personal representatives and £6,150 for most trustees of settlements for the tax years 2021-22 up to and including 2025-26. Maintaining the annual exempt amount at a 2020-21 level is a responsible decision, consistent with the decisions that the Government have taken to maintain the value of the other main allowances over the same period.

Clause 86 maintains inheritance tax thresholds at their 2020-21 levels until April 2026. This means that the nil rate band will remain at £325,000 and that the residence nil rate band will remain at £175,000. The tapering of the residence nil rate band will continue to start when the net value of an estate is more than £2 million. Maintaining these thresholds is forecast to contribute almost £1 billion over the next five years to help to rebuild the public finances, but this approach still ensures that more than 94% of estates will not be liable for inheritance tax in each of the next five years. Taken together, this Government’s approach to thresholds across the tax system is clear evidence of a fair and consistent fiscal strategy to repair the public finances while continuing to invest in public services.

Clauses 24 to 26 make minor adjustments to exemptions to account for the impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on businesses and workers. Let me also address one proposal relating to clauses 25 and 26. New clause 11 would commission a review of the changes relating to the employer-provided cycles exemption. I am happy to reassure the Committee that the terms of that exemption have not changed and only a minor time-limited easement is introduced by this Bill. It is not therefore necessary to review the changes. Clauses 31 to 33 relate to the Government’s package of support payments for individuals and businesses during the pandemic. Clause 31 makes changes to ensure that the one-off £500 payment to eligible working tax credit claimants announced at Budget 2021 is not subject to income tax. This will ensure that the recipients of the tax credit benefit in full and that the payment meets its objective of providing additional support to low-income working households.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Has the Minister had any discussion with the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which has indicated to me some of its concerns about how Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs required claims from individuals? It is a delicate matter, but there is problem there. Has he had an opportunity to discuss it with the LITRG?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I maintain a strong dialogue, through officials, and from time to time in person, with the LITRG and I have no doubt that the input it has given has been carefully considered in this regard. If he would care to write to me with his specific concern, I would be happy to pick that up as well.

It is right that HMRC has powers to tackle fraud and abuse of the self-employment income support scheme and that the Government provide legal clarity that SEISS grants are liable for income tax in the year of receipt. Clauses 31 and 32 will allow payments made in support of individuals and businesses by the Government to meet their objectives as far as is possible. Opposition amendments 15 and 92 are already comprehensively addressed by existing policy, and I ask that Members do not press them to a vote. Clause 33 makes changes to ensure that the repayments of business rates relief are deductible for corporation tax and income tax purposes. This ensures that any repayments of support are dealt with appropriately.

Taken together, these measures will help the Government to continue to support individuals and businesses through the coronavirus pandemic, and they will also begin to put the public finances on a sustainable footing as we continue to move out of the pandemic. I therefore ask that clauses 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]]

I speak to oppose clause 5 stand part, and in support of amendments 2, 3 and 4 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others, as well as amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and amendments from the Labour Front Bench.

The Chancellor committed to doing whatever is necessary to support people and businesses through the coronavirus pandemic. I want to believe him, but the £20 a week covid uplift to universal credit will be cut just at the time when the OBR has predicted that unemployment will peak. There has been no uplift at all, as we have heard, in covid support for those on legacy benefits or affected by the benefit cap. At the same time, an equivalent cut in working tax credit for households that have not yet made the move to universal credit will be imposed.

Further councils, whose budgets have been decimated over recent years, will be forced to increase council tax by up to 5%, pressuring household budgets even further, so the Bill is already sorely deficient in honouring the Chancellor’s original promise. However, in clause 5—the proposal to freeze the personal tax allowance—the promise is sadly contradicted entirely. The reality of the clause is that, if there is wage inflation over the next five years, someone earning just under the threshold now, for example, who then receives an inflationary pay increase for 2022-23 will start to pay tax.

As the Resolution Foundation has found, the poorest fifth of households are twice as likely to have seen their debts rise rather than fall during the crisis, so taking some of those lowest earners beyond the personal allowance threshold as their wages might slightly increase with inflation could result in their financial devastation. I therefore supported calls to remove clause 5, or at the very least for the Government to compromise and delay the changes.

I will also briefly mention clause 32 on self-employment income support. I do not disagree with the sentiment of the clause but, as the Government know, the support still does not go far enough. More than 2 million remain excluded from any Government support at all and, as I have repeatedly told this House, some have sadly taken their own lives as a result. I once again urge the Government to provide an immediate emergency grant to those affected, install new monthly arrangements while restrictions remain in place in complete parity with the extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, and remove the hard edges to eligibility criteria. Finally, they should backdate payments for a full and final settlement to deliver parity and fairness for those excluded from meaningful support.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I very much welcomed the Minister’s response when I asked him about the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. I will send him all the information that I am concerned about, which I hope he will be able to answer.

Clause 31 ensures that the one-off £500 payment for certain working households receiving tax credit is not taxable, which is welcome. The problem arises when a person receives a payment that they were not entitled to under the rules. As the payment is made automatically by HMRC without requiring a claim from the individual, if HMRC mistakenly makes a payment to someone who is not entitled to one under the direction and it is not subsequently repaid, it appears that the tax credit claimant will automatically be subject to a tax charge under the Finance Act 2020. That triggers notification requirements for the individual, assessing powers for HMRC and potential penalties.

I would like to understand whether consideration has been, or will be, given to ensuring that HMRC will set the bar high in terms of what constitutes fraud, and whether it will be limited to those people who fall under section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002, in relation to their underlying tax credit award. Over the last period, you, Ms McDonagh, I and everyone in this House has seen young families on the brink of financial collapse—in particular, in my office, due to the inconsistencies of the working tax credit as between those who are self-employed and those whose annual pay packs are constant.

Briefly on clause 32, I highlight the fact that taxpayers who have made amendments to their self-assessment tax returns on or after 3 March 2021 may have to pay back some or all of the grants that they have claimed. There is a real concern, which I share, that unrepresented taxpayers may not be aware of their obligations to notify HMRC and, accordingly, may face penalties, inadvertently and perhaps without right. Minister, how will we ensure that HMRC will take steps to ensure that taxpayers become aware of any obligation to repay in time to avoid such penalties? In particular, it is unsatisfactory that taxpayers who have made amendments on or after 3 March 2021 but prior to the date of the claim appear to be obliged to pay back some or all of the grant immediately upon receipt. Some may be unaware that they have to do so, but they face harsh penalties, which were originally aimed at fraudulent claims or for failing to do this on a timely basis. So I am concerned that innocent participants in this process may find themselves in difficult times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Lake]

It is a pleasure to have the privilege of opening the debate on this clause. I rise to speak in support of amendment 54 in my name, which would require the Treasury to have received consent from the devolved Parliaments before it could designate freeport tax sites as outlined in clause 109.

Although the amendment will not be pushed to a vote, the very need for an amendment requiring democratic safeguards and devolved consent is sadly indicative of the Government’s disregard for devolution and the interests, rights and ambitions of the devolved nations. It is jarring that today’s debate, and its pursuit of powers, paid for by taxpayers across the UK, is happening despite the Government’s failure to achieve consensus across all four nations of the UK.

That unilateralism by the Government is not only disappointing but, I would argue, economically self-defeating, as the overwhelming body of evidence, some of which has been gathered by Committees of this place, including the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, suggests that freeports will lead to the redistribution of jobs and investment, rather than their creation across the UK, unless the policy is very closely and carefully co-ordinated.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: one of the prerequisites of the opportunity for freeports is to ensure that every part and every region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland benefits. Although every hon. Member is right to claim it for themselves, it is important that we all benefit. Does he agree?

[Ben Lake]

I agree with the point that the hon. Member makes. If the freeport policy is to have real benefit and ring true to the rhetoric of levelling up every single nation and region of the United Kingdom, it is clear that no port—or no nation or region—should be disadvantaged by the location of any other. In effect, we cannot have a situation whereby the Government are asking for Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish taxpayers, along with English taxpayers, to pay for freeports in certain parts of England that may actively disadvantage those in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. If they did, it would appear that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor would be willing to trample over the devolution settlements in pursuit of this freeport master plan.

The Wales Act 2017 largely devolved the regulation and supervision of ports and harbours in Wales to the Welsh Government, while economic development is also of course a devolved competence. UK Government demands, such as capping the number of Welsh freeports to one—an outcome that would likely lead to an overall reduction in the number of Welsh ports—are direct infringements on the Welsh Government’s responsibility for the Welsh economy.

It is therefore especially dangerous that Wales cannot count, it would seem, on its Secretary of State to defend its interests at the Cabinet table. Instead, rather than side with Wales’s democratic institutions, the Secretary of State for Wales has threatened that a freeport will be implemented in Wales come what may, including if Wales’s Parliament were to reject such a measure.



I am conscious that there are others who wish to make perorations on this topic this evening, so I will draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to summing up at the end. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote this evening, I hope that the Minister will consider my remarks and ensure that freeports are established with the consent of all four nations and supported by an engaged public debate. Refusal to do so would be a tacit admission that this Government will not hesitate to trample over Wales’s economic interests and aspirations if they run contrary to the plans drawn up in London.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point and exposes again the hypocrisy in the Government’s approach. The fact is that, rather than helping families get through the tough times ahead, this Government are delivering a tax break for tech giants.

We know that Amazon workers have provided vital deliveries to millions of people across the country during lockdown. They need their rights at work to be protected and strengthened, and we all want that company to pay its fair share of tax. I see no one calling for a tax break for Amazon, yet that is exactly what this Government are providing. The Government would do well to learn from the new Biden Administration’s approach. The US Secretary of State has said that, rather than compete on lowering tax rates for corporations, the United States will focus on its

“ability to produce talented workers, cutting-edge research and state-of-the-art infrastructure”.

The new President has also been leading a drive to put in place a global minimum corporate tax rate. A spokesperson for the Treasury here has indicated that the UK might back those plans. Taken along with the Chancellor’s decision to raise corporation tax to 25%, this seems to be an admission by the Government that the last decade of Conservative corporate tax policy making has been totally wrong-headed. If that is the case, we welcome the Government’s admission, and it is vital that the UK plays a leading role in developing and implementing the proposals that President Biden is backing. We have not yet heard from Ministers on this matter in Parliament, however, so I urge the Exchequer Secretary to use her closing speech today as an opportunity to confirm to the House that she and the Chancellor back plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate and that they will do all they can to make this a reality.

While the initiative on international tax is being led by those overseas, closer to home the offer from this Chancellor of such a large tax break to companies will, of course, make people wonder what processes will be in place to prevent Ministers from intervening improperly on behalf of commercial interests in how decisions are made. The Chancellor is still refusing to properly account for his role in the Greensill scandal. To ensure public confidence in who will benefit from this £25 billion tax break, we strongly urge the Exchequer Secretary to today set out what new safeguards will be put in place to make sure that public money is not misused.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Before the debate, I spoke to the shadow Minister about insurance companies. It has come to my attention that some insurance companies are unfairly using business interruption insurance premiums to punish businesses that had the foresight to take out said insurance before the pandemic. Insurance premiums are being increased dramatically. Does the shadow Minister agree that when it comes to supporting small and medium-sized businesses, we need to close the loopholes that insurance companies are notorious for using and ensure that the spirit is legislated for? Perhaps—just perhaps—this Bill might be the way to do that.

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the Bill does everything for the big businesses that need the help most but does not do what is necessary to protect small and medium-sized businesses. I am sure that the Ministers present heard his points, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will respond to them in her closing speech.

Aside from all the concerns about the super deduction—from its potential for fraud, abuse and misuse to the fact that it offers to wipe out Amazon’s UK tax bill—the fact that the Government’s only national policy for growth and investment relies almost entirely on this tax break brings us to our third key concern about the Bill and the profound lack of ambition in the Government’s approach. There is simply no plan from the Government to make sure that we invest in what is needed for the future. The Bill follows a Budget of cuts. The OBR has confirmed that the Government will cut departmental resource spending plans by £15 billion a year from 2022-23 onward, and rather than bringing forward capital spending to invest in the green recovery that we need now, the Government have cut capital plans for this year by half a billion pounds.

Far from charting a course for the future, the Bill lacks any mention of a plan to tackle the big problems that we have faced in this country for a decade or more and that have in so many cases been brought into sharp focus by the covid outbreak. It is clear that over the past decade under this Government, our country’s social care system has been underfunded, with its workers chronically underpaid. Our country’s response to climate change has stubbornly lacked the urgency, ambition and scale that it needs. Our country’s answer to the housing crisis has been left to developers and speculators, leaving an entire generation let down and left behind. Investing in better social care, new green infrastructure and the council housing that we need would create jobs, improve lives and finally start to tackle the problems that our country needs to resolve.

The Conservatives have had more than 10 years to stand up to the challenges I have outlined, yet they have failed to do so. With the recent Budget and this Bill, they have proved themselves again unable or unwilling to do so. The Government’s whole approach is being exposed as one of failure rooted in the past and an inability to rise to the future. In fact, Conservative Ministers are continuing on the course that began in 2010—one that brought us a decade in which UK growth was below the average of all major economies and business investment fell to the lowest rate in the G7.

Our country’s economy will be £300 billion smaller in 2026 than was forecast at the start of the previous decade. At times during that decade, Ministers may have benefited from some international cover for their misguided and harmful choice of cuts rather than investing in growth in response to the financial crisis, but no more: a new international consensus has rapidly been gaining strength. As the International Monetary Fund’s head of fiscal policy said, our Government and others should use fiscal policy to beat covid and to stimulate our economies by reducing unemployment and restoring economic growth. That focus on growth, investment and jobs is at the heart of the approach set out by the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). Our framework will meet the challenges of our times—it is a responsible approach in which a balanced current budget over the economic cycle would never prevent us from protecting people and businesses during a crisis or making critical investments in our future.

As the Bill progresses through the House, we will look at the detail in respect of the points I have outlined so far, as well as on other measures in the Bill such as those relating to freeports. We want to see good jobs and economic growth in every part of the country, irrespective of whether an area has a freeport. We need long-term, locally led investment in every region and nation, and freeports will in no way compensate for Ministers’ inexplicable decision to scrap their industrial strategy and disband their industrial council just when we need a long-term plan to support our critical industries. Furthermore, with freeports elsewhere in the world having become magnets for organised crime, tax evasion and smuggling, we fear that at a time when HMRC is already overstretched Britain is not well placed to manage such risks.

In Committee, we will challenge the Government over their approach to tax avoidance and tax evasion more widely, following up our long-standing concerns that Treasury Ministers continue to drag their feet on tackling these problems. Although the Bill contains measures to tackle the promoters of tax avoidance and change the system of penalties, there is a clear sense that those measures are extremely limited in scope, rather than the comprehensive action that we need. Indeed, those changes are not even included in the Budget report costings, suggesting that their financial impact must be minimal.

We will use the next stage of consideration of the Bill to go through the detail of the measures it contains that seek to address the problem of plastic pollution and to increase the use of recycled content. The principle of a plastic packaging tax is one that we support, and because we want it to be as effective as possible we will ask Ministers to consider the detail of its operation in Committee. Overall, however, we cannot support this Finance Bill. The Bill, and the Budget that it follows, should have seized the opportunity to help people who are struggling now; to invest in good new jobs in every part of the country; and to be ambitious in finally getting to grips with social care, housing and other challenges that our country has faced for so long without solving. In fact, rather than supporting families out of this crisis and setting an ambitious plan for the future, the Government are prioritising tax breaks for tech giants.

If this Bill had been presented by Conservative Ministers 10 years ago, it would have been the wrong solution then; a decade later, their approach has not changed but the rest of the world has moved on. No longer will they find allies for their approach in international institutions, and the politics of the United States shows that the consensus around the world is shifting. The Government are out of step with economic reality. They are taking decisions that will push up taxes for people across our country while helping Amazon to reduce its tax bill. They are choosing to cut NHS workers’ pay while failing to fix our system of social care, and they are deciding to continue a decade of cuts to public services when we urgently need to invest in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My contribution will not be long, Madam Deputy Speaker; I just wish to make a few points.

As on several other occasions over the past year, I have looked to ascertain whether we are doing our best to offer support to help to sustain businesses and then encourage regrowth. I put on record my thanks to the Government for all that they have done, but I must also put something on the record on behalf of the aviation sector. I hope the Minister will forgive me for putting this on the record, but it is important that I do so.

Although I accept the difficult nature of presenting a Budget at this time and the immense pressure on the Chancellor, there were a number of gaps in the Budget, one of which was support for the aviation sector. The temporary extensions of the job retention scheme and the limited business rates relief for airports were welcome, but there was palpable disappointment in the sector that the Government failed to recognise in their Budget the impact of covid-19 on aviation.

The only aviation-specific clause in the Bill is one to increase the tax burden on international travel through air passenger duty—this at a time when the Government should be putting all their efforts behind the recovery of the UK’s lost aviation connectivity. As a member of the Democratic Unionist party, I have long opposed APD on internal travel—I believe it is a factor in the growing feeling of isolation that Northern Ireland is going through—but that is for another debate in which the Unionist voice must be heard and acknowledged much more than it is being currently.

The covid-19 pandemic is the worst crisis in the history of aviation. Last summer, passenger numbers travelling through UK airports were at their lowest level since 1975. Office for National Statistics data shows that aviation was the worst-hit sector of 2020 and will continue to be the worst-affected sector in 2021.

That tells me that we need to look at how we can encourage and build the sector. Not just the Airport Operators Association’s airport recovery plan but the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded their estimations of the recovery of levels of air passenger duty until as far away as 2024 and 2025. The Government need to acknowledge that other European countries are giving substantial grant-based funding to airports. The UK Government’s lack of support, other than limited rates relief and access to loans, risks UK aviation falling behind our European competitors. That cannot be allowed to happen given our vision of global Britain.

Instead of supporting the sector, the Finance Bill includes rises in air passenger duty that will harm the recovery of an industry that has largely been shut down for over a year. Added to that, there is the blow of the removal of airside VAT-free shopping at the end of 2020. That is another hit for airports, which rely heavily—up to 40% of their income—on retail and require a firm financial footing to successfully recover throughout the rest of the decade. The Finance Bill, unfortunately, fails to reverse that damaging decision, or put compensation in place such as arrivals duty-free shopping.

I conclude with this comment. In an intervention at the beginning of the debate, I made a comment about insurance companies. Some companies are unfairly using business interruption insurance premiums to punish businesses that had the foresight to take out said insurance before the pandemic. I believe there is a chance with this Bill— insurance companies are notorious for finding a loophole—to address this issue. I ask the Minister to do that.

Vaccine Passports

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

It is an absolute pleasure to speak on this issue. I have had many people contacting me. To make it clear from the outset, I have come back to my office today after having gone for my vaccine shot. That is the first one done, and I look forward to the second.

I annually take a flu shot due to my diabetes, and I booked in as soon as I was able to get the covid vaccine on the list as prepared. I am not a medical person, and I do not understand the in-depth biology and virology that is needed for a discussion of the vaccine. I made the decision in the same way as I trusted the doctor when he put me on my diabetes medication—I did not research the clinical trials. I am happy to take the vaccine, and have done so today. However, the key part of this statement is that I have chosen to do so. I was advised to do so and I followed the advice, but ultimately it was my choice. I am happy to encourage people to take the vaccine. I have often pressed Ministers in this House for greater availability for teachers, for instance. However, I will never instruct anyone to take it; that is not my place. It is my reasoned opinion.

The message that is coming through loud and clear to me is that there are many who are pleased to be able to access the vaccine. They see it as the first step towards regaining normality. I have repeatedly had correspondence and emails from people asking when they will be able to get the vaccine. Just as a GP will not force anyone to take medication they are not happy with, even if they sincerely believe it to be in the person’s best interests, neither can or should this Government play a part in forcing vaccination by introducing a vaccine passport.

It is absolutely right and proper that the Government investigate the pros and cons, and follow other nations in doing so. However, the most recent report I read made it clear that the vaccine programme had been incredibly successful without the threat of the removal of freedoms. More than 24 million people so far have had a first vaccine, and about 1.5 million have had a second. Let us hope that the number of doses rises over the next few days.

People want this. Eight in 10 people stated that they would take a vaccine if one was available for them in the week that the survey was taken. That is up from 55% in November, shortly before the first covid-19 vaccine was approved. To achieve herd immunity, it is understood that we should have about 80% take-up. We must understand that there are those who are unsure whether to take the vaccine, such as those with serious underlying health conditions. They should never be isolated because they cannot provide a copy of their up-to-date vaccination card.

Whenever I went away with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme to Kenya, we had to have vaccinations. It was required, and it was for our better health. That was some time ago. However, the right not to be isolated or, as one constituent said to me, ostracised for a personal medical choice can never be something that the Government enforce on our constituents.

I will end where I began. I got the vaccination and was very happy to do so, but it was my choice, and it must remain so without enforcement through covid passports. I urge the Government to hold fast to what their mantra has been throughout—that they are

“deeply, spiritually reluctant to make any of these impositions, or infringe anyone’s freedom”.

Throughout covid, the public have permitted the curtailment of personal freedom for the greater good, but I believe that this vaccine passport takes us a step further than many will be comfortable going. Again, I urge people to take the vaccine when they have the opportunity, but I will certainly not prevent them from accessing my advice centre, office and staff if their health or another reason forbids them from doing so.

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I will, of course, follow your advice as scrupulously as ever, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This Bill is about cash flow. It is not about all the stuff that we have just been hearing from the shadow Minister. All organisations have to manage their cash flow and meet their liabilities, and failure to do so is a significant reason for corporate collapses. It is, obviously, different in the public sector, but the rule about meeting liabilities remains as Government react to urgent situations. There are also clear mechanisms for making sure that in the event of a cash need, the cash will be there. That is what the Contingencies Fund is.

This Bill is about the Treasury’s capacity to make repayable advances to other Departments, so that they can react to events if needed. Parliament has long recognised that principle. The legislation governing it is 45 years old, but in fact the principle was established by Treasury minute in 1862, when the Contingencies Fund was created. For this financial year—and the next, if we pass this Bill—the threshold allowed in the legislation has been increased, and for obvious reasons. We are dealing with the greatest health crisis in 100 years.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand. Although I understand that this is specifically about cash flow, the whole House recognises that there is a real crisis in cancer treatment when it comes to diagnosis and surgical operations, and many people have died waiting for those to happen. Does he agree that covid-19 has increased the demand for cancer care, and therefore all requests that come from the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care must be treated sympathetically and urgently?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. There is no doubt at all that we have seen some health treatments delayed as a result of the crisis, and that is a real tragedy. He is right that cancer is one of those where we should be most concerned, and the requests that come in should be treated with urgency and compassion as we seek to catch up on the treatments that the people we represent urgently need. That was a wise point.

I go back to the core purpose of the Bill and why it has been introduced. The Government needed to respond quickly and at scale, and they have done so. The Bill before us is about renewing the increased capacity for the next financial year, and we are only three weeks away from the new financial year. We are being asked to approve a one-year increase in the limit from 2% to 12%. That is, of course, a big jump, which amounts to more than £100 billion. We should also perhaps remind ourselves that the House approved an increase in the limit to 50% for this financial year—truly exceptional in every way.

I support increasing the limit in the Bill. We are not through this pandemic, and it is not hard to imagine circumstances where the Government have to react urgently ahead of the regular voting provision under the normal supply procedure. One of the lessons of the past year has been that the course of the pandemic has not been linear. None of us can guarantee that the future will not require urgent action. In reality, we can probably all predict that it will.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, this is quite a dry Bill, but once a Treasury Minister, always a Treasury Minister. That does not mean, however, that we should not scrutinise; of course we should. But the Bill does not increase budgets, and it does not give the Government a blank cheque. These are cash advances, which are highlighted to Parliament through the normal estimates booklets and memoranda, and then we vote on them. There is transparency as funds are drawn upon by Departments. There is guidance agreed between the Treasury, the National Audit Office and Parliament. That means that written ministerial statements are published throughout the year and cash advances are included in the main or supplementary estimates. I hope we will not be facing a contingencies Bill for the 2022-23 financial year. The progress that we are making in tackling the virus is obviously fantastic, but the consequences will be felt for a long, long time.

It is too early to spend time on an inquiry on the lessons from the pandemic, but one thing I am sure we will consider in due course is how well and how quickly government—I am talking about the UK Government, devolved Administrations, local government and, above all, the NHS—have responded. They have been nimble and dynamic in their response. This Bill is simply about facilitating the cash flow to allow that quick response and that is why we should all support it.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

In the run-up to International Women’s Day, this is an opportune moment to welcome the Bill and the long overdue advancement of basic rights that it brings for women in Parliament. No Minister should be forced out of their post due to pregnancy, and participation in politics and public life should be accessible to all. However, gaping holes remain. The Bill only covers maternity leave for birth mothers and does not include paternity, shared parental or adoption leave, or considerations for parents of premature babies.

Centuries of struggle by women and trade unions and international best practice show that gender equality is best achieved when rights to parental leave are extended to all parents, so although this development is welcome it does not go far enough. The Bill fails to cover Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Ireland Assembly, so will the Minister commit to strengthening the Bill and making it more inclusive at the earliest possible opportunity? If we cannot get it right in the corridors of power, how can we expect the policies we decide in Parliament to effectively tackle gender discrimination throughout society?

After a decade of austerity cuts by this Government that fell heavily on the shoulders of working women, and particularly on black working women—cuts that the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty called so sexist that they may as well have been compiled by a group of misogynists in a room—is it at all surprising that the pandemic has disproportionately left women at greater risk of leaving or losing their jobs, reducing their income and taking on extra caring burdens?

Earlier this month, a report from the Women and Equalities Committee, which I sit on, warned that this Government’s plans for economic recovery risk turning back the clock unless the equality impact of every policy is fully assessed. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm the Government’s commitment to assessing the equality impact of their covid recovery plans? Women are more likely to be employed in sectors shut down during the pandemic, are more vulnerable to job loss or being placed on furlough, and are disproportionately employed on precarious contracts. The burden of juggling childcare and home schooling duty, as well as caring responsibilities for elderly or sick family members, has all fallen disproportionately on the shoulders of women.

Research by the TUC revealed that a quarter of working mums are using their annual leave to manage their childcare during covid, with nearly one in five being forced to reduce their working hours or to take unpaid leave from work. In response, the TUC has called for temporary access to the furlough scheme for parents and those with caring responsibilities, and I want to take this opportunity to add my voice to that call.

In conclusion, the provisions of the Bill barely scratch the surface when it comes to promoting gender equality in Parliament and ensuring that politics is both accessible and inclusive. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to commit to strengthening the Bill and to acknowledge the need for much more to be done to protect basic rights for women inside and outside Parliament.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I would like to say a few brief words and thank all other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. This is all about making sure that Ministers’ maternity allowances are in place, so the amendments are very simple, as has been suggested, and I believe that there should be no difficulty in accepting them.

I can well remember that when someone close to me had a miscarriage, she was told on Mother’s Day by a lovely lady who had given her flowers in her church with all the other mothers. “You do not have your baby, but you’re still a mummy.” Whether a mother holds her baby in her arms or only in her heart, the creation of life gives her that title and I believe that it is right and proper that we respect that in law. I support the amendments, which simply clarify that position.

I echo the comments of others who have suggested to the Minister in a very nice way that this should be the first stage in delivering for elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and for councillors and those who hold positions in local government. It is time to get it right. In her conclusion, perhaps the Minister can reassure us that those in the devolved Administrations and at council level will find the same liberties, equalities and opportunities.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. In closing this debate, I will respond to a few of the points made. The Government have been clear throughout the debate in both this House and the House of Lords that the Bill is an important step forward that at last makes provision for Ministers to take paid maternity leave. I repeat my thanks to the Opposition Front Benchers for their constructive support—not only on this, but on the future work we are planning to bring forward. I am pleased that the Bill will be able to make similar maternity provisions for Opposition office holders as well.

I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). In earlier consideration of the Bill, I spoke about the context in which we are bringing it forward. I am very conscious that even if we took into account future ministerial post-holders, this is still a tiny group of individuals compared with the general population.

There is work that we want to bring forward, not least the work that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been leading on, to help make progress on a number of related areas. This Bill has afforded me the opportunity to check in with those Ministers and to encourage them. It is understandable that the effort of that Department has been focused on the pandemic, but if we are to recover from that, we have to ensure that women are economically empowered and are supported, and many of the things that BEIS has been looking at will help do that.

The hon. Lady asks whether we have considered premature and sick babies. We have, and I think the provisions in the Bill will certainly help anyone in that situation. We originally drafted this Bill to incorporate adoption leave and shared parental leave, but it was too difficult because of some of the issues around the royal prerogative, Ministers, caps on payroll and so forth, which is why we need a little bit more time to do this additional piece of work before we bring back, I think, future legislation to address those issues.

That will also dock into work that hon. Members will want to do in this place with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. We recognise its independence, but clearly we are talking about the same individuals. Indeed, the Attorney General may have got her ministerial situation sorted—I hope, if this Bill gets Royal Assent—but she will still face the difficulties that other Members have spoken about as a Member of Parliament.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), I first thank him and the all-party group for the incredible work they have done not only on domestic issues, but internationally. When we in this place look back at footage of our predecessors and see some of the remarks made decades ago about LGBT people and the homophobia that was exhibited, I am sure that all of us cringe. I think we should ask ourselves whether, were we in the Commons at that time, we would have called it out. Would we have gone out of our way to send our support, empathy and understanding to gay people at the time?

The challenge for us today is exactly the same with trans people, and I hope that all Members of this House—I know that many Members do—take that responsibility extremely seriously, none more so than my hon. Friend. The amendments we are accepting today are legitimate and understandable, and critically they are also legally sound, but let me say in supporting them from this Dispatch Box that trans men are men and trans women are women, and great care has been taken in the drafting and accepting of these amendments to ensure that that message has got across.

So often these issues are presented as an intractable row between two incompatible positions. They are not; they are about all people being able to go about their lives and to be supported in doing so. I know that many hon. Members in this place and their lordships in the other place feel that very strongly and feel a huge responsibility. As a woman, I agree with many of the comments made today. I want the rights of all women to be taken care of and all men to be safeguarded, too.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) made some very good points. I have to inform her again, sadly, that Ministers have no rights because of the royal prerogative—I am sorry to say that—and, therefore, the Prime Minister is the arbiter of this, but I cannot imagine a situation where any Prime Minister would not allow someone to take maternity leave. If anyone has any idea how to get around that as a Minister, I am quite keen to have some rights. We will obviously keep that under review, but that is the current situation.