Self-employed Persons: Financial Support

Debate between John McDonnell and Steve Barclay

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

For some within this population—not all—there will be some solution already through the £5 million loan that is available as of yesterday. That will not cover the entirety of this population, but, in accordance with the business needs of some who are self-employed, there is support. For some of the population—again, by no means all—there will be some relief through some of the measures the Chancellor set out on property and business rate relief, but part of the complexity of the target population is that different measures work for different groups. That is part of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is working through, but I recognise the point my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and others have raised. We do recognise the importance of timing on this issue.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman and other Members that no one is looking for a row over this? We are looking for a solution. The reason some Members became irritated earlier was the emphasis, in one of the Chancellor’s responses, on the rich self-employed. They are not the people who are contacting us. The ones who are contacting me at the moment are the plumbers and the hairdressers. Yes, some freelance artists and others are in desperate straits, but I do not think there is a Member who has not received representations. We are just looking for something we can go back with today to give them some assurance. We know how complicated it is, but we have to find a solution quickly. I urge the Government to at least set a deadline, so we can go back to our members and say, “By the end of this week, there will be a proposal brought forward.”

The other assurance that people want was raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). If we can go back and say, “You will get the equivalent of the 80% or whatever that was offered to other workers,” it would lift people’s spirits that something was on the way.

Many self-employed workers, just like other workers, are having to sign themselves off sick. They do not have access to statutory sick pay—still. I have to say that asking people to survive on £94.25 a week is just an impossible ask. When the Secretary of State for Health was asked on television last week whether he could live on it, he said no. I agree with him. We need the level of sick pay raised for everybody if we are expecting them to choose not to work, and not have to choose between health and hardship.

Finally, in Treasury questions my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised a point about different categories of workers. I know that it is complicated, but we do have to consider agency workers. I have had many emails and telephone calls from people working in the construction sector who do not know whether they should be at work today, or whether they would be safe if they were. Let us use this opportunity to look at the exploitation by payroll companies and umbrella companies of people who in many instances are forcibly designated as self-employed.

We do not want a row over this; we want to work with the Government. In fact, Anneliese and I are happy to come and work a shift in the Treasury, if that is what Ministers want. [Interruption.] We might come up with slightly different solutions. We need this quickly and we need it to be effective as soon as possible.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between John McDonnell and Steve Barclay

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I rise to speak to new clause 28, tabled in my name, which is much more modest than the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). It is simply about giving law enforcement more time in respect of multimillion pound money laundering cases.

At present around 316,000 suspicious activity reports are filed each year with law enforcement agencies. Those are cases where the banks, the lawyers or the accountants have serious concerns around money laundering. According to the Home Office’s own figures, between £23 billion and £57 billion are being channelled through the UK economy each year, so we know the scale of money laundering is significant. At present, when a suspicious activity report is filed the law enforcement agencies—the National Crime Agency has now taken on this responsibility —have just seven days to say whether they give consent to those multimillion pound transfers going ahead. That is just seven days on a case that might well have been built over many years, often involving jurisdictions where information is difficult to obtain, and if law enforcement decides it does not wish to give consent to these transactions, which the financial institutions themselves have said look suspicious, they have just 31 days to build the case to the satisfaction of the courts. If they fail to do so, they risk the penalty of costs against them, which sets a strong disincentive to law enforcement to take those cases forward. To put that in context, the proceeds of crime unit investigated only 110 cases from the 316,000 suspicious activity reports filed with it, so clearly the system is not working.

I thought I would give just one case to bring this to life. The Nigerian case OPL 245 has a bit of a jargony name, but it involves $1 billion paid by a British oil company for some offshore land in Nigeria with oil assets. To put this in context, $1 billion was paid for this land for drilling—they do drill offshore, I should point out for the benefit of any Members who might be confused as to how they obtain the oil—yet 14 years earlier this land was granted to a company owned by the then Nigerian oil Minister. In essence the land was granted by the Nigerian oil Minister to a company that he owned and for which $1 billion was then paid 14 years later. In investigating that case that had developed over many years involving complex financial arrangements over different jurisdictions, law enforcement has just 31 days to build a case that would block the transfer of $1 billion that is going to a corrupt official and his henchmen.

New clause 28 simply seeks to give law enforcement agencies more time to build their case. I shall not press it to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government believe that the current arrangements provide sufficient time, or whether they accept the substance of the new clause, which is that the current arrangements are insufficient and that they load the dice against law enforcement, meaning that corrupt assets can be transferred from the UK to criminals. If the Government accept my proposal, I hope that they will change the law at the earliest opportunity to create a more level playing field by giving more time for these complex, multi-jurisdictional cases to be investigated.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am in a state of confusion, so am here as a humble searcher for the truth on these matters. I know that the programme motion was not moved, but I am interested in discussing Government new clause 24 and new clauses 4 and 5. As secretary of the National Union of Journalists group in Parliament, I have been trying for the past year to get some clarity on the protection of journalistic sources. We have dealt with this matter under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, and now we are dealing with it under this Bill. I apologise for having bored the House on the matter at times. Sometimes I have been in the Chamber talking about it almost all on my own. We are now coming to the conclusion of this legislation, at least before the general election. I appreciate that the Government have said they will return to the matter after the election.

I am unhappy with all the amendments that have been tabled, from all sides. There are three principles on which the NUJ has been campaigning—in relation to RIPA, DRIPA and this Bill—in regard to applications for access to information on journalistic sources by the police, the intelligence services or anybody else. We have discovered that a large proportion of applications have come from people in that last category—“anybody else”—in recent years, including even local authorities. The first of the three principles that the NUJ has been trying to establish is that there should be an independent process with judicial authorisation to protect professional communications. The second is that there should be automatic and mandatory prior notification of requests. The third is that there should be mechanisms in place to challenge an application, along with the right of appeal.

As I said, I am here as an honest searcher for the truth. As far as I can see, none of the amendments tabled by the Government and others satisfies all three conditions. The first is satisfied, in that there will be at least a form of the judicial authorisation for which we have been arguing for at least 12 months. However, I can see no mention in the amendments of automatic and mandatory prior notification of the requests to the parties involved. With regard to data communication and collection, I see that there has been mention of notifying the company that has collected or retained the data, but there does not seem to be a proposal for a process by which the individual journalist would be notified. Journalists do not seem to be party to these proposals at all. As a result, there seems to be no mechanism for their views to be represented when the judicial authorisation is being sought, or for them to challenge the proposal or the court’s decision on the protection of their sources.

At the moment, none of the amendments satisfies those three criteria. I would welcome the Government’s response, because I know that they are proposing to introduce detailed amendments in future legislation. I would welcome information on whether such amendments would deal with the two other criteria. I can see that judicial authorisation is being addressed, but would the questions of prior notification and the right of appeal also be covered?

The Government have argued that amendments tabled by others related solely to serious crime and not to other matters, and that they do not encapsulate all the recommendations in the recent report. I understand that argument, but the Government are still not putting forward any proposals about the use of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—PACE—in relation to the way in which production orders are applied for. This was how the whole argument started. At the moment, if a production order is applied for under PACE, the journalist is informed in advance about the order. They are then able to put their case in court and, if necessary, appeal it and have it judicially reviewed. That does not seem to be the process that is being suggested here.