Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Third sitting)
Jonathan Reynolds ExcerptsThursday 25th January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 View all Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2018 - (25 Jan 2018)
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 6, line 1, at end insert—
“(aa) the interests of manufacturers in the United Kingdom,”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the interests of manufacturers in considering the rate of import duty.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert “and
(e) the impacts on sustainable development.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the impacts on sustainable development in considering the rate of import duty.
Amendment 106, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert “and—
(e) the public interest.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the public interest in considering the rate of customs tariff in its standard form.
Jonathan Reynolds
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the interests of manufacturers in considering the rate of import duty. UK manufacturing makes a vital contribution to the British economy each year. According to House of Commons Library research published in 2017, it accounted for 8% of jobs in the UK, which is 2.7 million; £177 billion of economic output, which is 10% of the UK’s total; and 57% of UK imports, to the value of £243 billion. On a personal note, I remain one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on manufacturing. In my constituency, those figures are roughly double the national average.
Manufacturing industry is significantly exposed to Brexit in a number of ways, the first of which is the export relationship. The UK exported goods worth £134 billion to the EU in 2015. In other ways, manufacturing industry is more reliant on imports, as many goods are imported to be used in the manufacturing supply chain. It is well known that the UK has a negative balance of trade at present; in 2016, that deficit was £98.7 billion.
Secondly, keeping the supply chain flowing freely is essential and time-critical. For example, while giving evidence to the International Trade Committee in February 2017, Nissan said that its Sunderland plant—a place very close to my heart because that is where I grew up—holds only half a day’s stock and uses 5 million parts a day, 60% of which are imported. As such, Nissan has said that any disruption to its supply chains would be “a disaster”.
Thirdly, supply chain imports are also heavily exposed to movements in the price of sterling, which has become considerably more volatile since the referendum result, with the pound losing 15% of its value against the euro between June and October 2016. Sterling’s weakness against the euro continues, with the pound still 14% below its pre-referendum levels.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree. Every member of the Committee will recognise my hon. Friend’s constituency interest and expertise in this area. I felt that the evidence that UK Steel gave us earlier in the week was particularly helpful in being prescriptive as to where it believes the Bill falls short. As an industry, it is especially susceptible to gaps in trade remedy legislation given the historic damage that dumping has done to the sector.
Jonathan Reynolds
That is absolutely the case. Gareth Stace from UK Steel told us last Tuesday:
“The Government can promise anything they like, but more than a third of all tariffs in place affect the steel sector and it hits us hard, therefore, if this system, when it comes out, is not appropriate for what it is trying to do.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 68-69, Q105.]
That will clearly result in huge problems for the sector.
UK Steel’s main reservation with the Bill is the lack of detail, as my hon. Friend has said, which is present on a number of fronts where it believes the industry needs more certainty. Secondary legislation is being relied upon to provide a huge amount of the practical information we need. One of UK Steel’s specific concerns is around investigations relating to the dumping of foreign subsidies that can cause injury to UK industry. As related by Dr Cohen in her testimony, to which I referred earlier, there is no information on how dumping margins are to be calculated.
UK Steel goes further and sets out a list of other considerations that should be taken into account, including how to assess whether a UK industry has been injured; how to determine if such injury has been caused by the dumped or subsidised imports; what principles may be used in defining the products covered by an investigation; how subsidies can be defined; what evidence an industry needs to produce to trigger an investigation; how to conduct an investigation, including any time limits; and how to require guarantees to cover possible future duties when provisional measures are required. It is a long list and I could go on, but in the interests of the Committee’s time I will not. However, it serves to illustrate the point that there are a number of multi-layered and complex considerations to take into account.
I also want to underline that this is not a matter of protectionism. As Gareth Stace also made clear in Tuesday’s evidence session:
“The steel sector thrives on free, liberalised trade. A third of all steel produced in the world is traded across borders.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 67, Q104.]
At present there are zero tariffs between developed nations for steel trade. It was his belief that, without trade remedies, there will be an increase in protectionism, as they are essential to allowing free trade to take place. I thoroughly endorse that message.
The upshot of such deputations is that manufacturers are not asking for special measures from the outset, but pointing out that we are on the cusp of a complex world post-Brexit and they need more detail. It has been the Government’s choice not to include such detail in the Bill and it is too late to make that change now. It is clear, however, that the lack of certainty that results has not been optimal for our manufacturing sector and has inhibited its ability to make plans and prepare for the future.
As UK Steel has highlighted, the legislation lays out the bare minimum needed, delegating all detail to secondary legislation. It is true that we are on a tight timeline for negotiations, but there is a wealth of global legislation that could have been drawn upon to help inform the Bill, such as the US Tariff Act of 1930, the Canadian Special Import Measures Act, the EU Regulations 2016/1036—
The Chair
Order. The Member is straying slightly outside the remit of the amendment and needs to bring it back.
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, Ms Buck, I am just pointing out that it was possible to put in detail. If that is not in the Bill, we have to have amendments that allow for the detail to be included.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Opposition are asking for the Government to offer reassurance to manufacturers by enshrining consultation into subsequent procedures. Clearly there are a great many things to consider, which may be made clear only by close consultation with the industries themselves. We are concerned that there is potential for an abuse of power by subjugating the process to secondary legislation, which is subject to considerably less parliamentary scrutiny. For the final time, I refer to UK Steel’s words:
“UK industry needs to be able to ascertain what its rights in domestic courts will be to challenge the decisions of the Trade Remedies Authority and the Secretary of State”—
The Chair
Order. I repeat that talking about the secondary legislation matter is not within the scope of the amendment. Please come back to the scope of the amendment.
Jonathan Reynolds
Okay. I will take your advice on that, Ms Buck.
Over the course of the Committee’s remaining days, given the amendments we are due to consider, I believe there will be a fuller debate about the issues I have mentioned. However, as things stand, we appear to be shackled to this process and it is therefore vital to enshrine a right of consultation for manufacturers to guarantee the future of UK industry and the 2.7 million jobs bound up within it. No one wants to see a Brexit underpinned by a race to the bottom, leaving the UK susceptible to a repeat of the events that punished Tata Steel in 2016. We cannot risk these being repeated in the rest of the UK manufacturing sector. Parliament must work with and listen to those on the front line, consider their input and let them guide us on what we need to succeed as a global economy in a post-Brexit world, drawing on existing best practice from around the world.
I call on the Committee to support the Opposition’s amendment, to enshrine the right to consultation, to protect British jobs and British manufacturing, and to guarantee that our post-Brexit economy does not leave British industry out in the cold.
Kirsty Blackman
This aspect of the clause is about
“considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods”,
and we have tabled amendments. The Government have chosen not to include in this provision a reference to “any other factor” or even the preferable “any other relevant factor”, but have laid down a number of factors that they are believe are relevant in this case. Both the Scottish National party and the official Opposition, with amendments 1, 78 and 106, are trying to increase the number of factors that will be considered when the rate of import duty that ought to apply is being considered. The clause already includes
“the interests of consumers…the desirability of maintaining and promoting…external trade…the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity…and…the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”
On amendment 1, I associate myself with many of the shadow Minister’s remarks about the importance of manufacturing. It has been concerning that the Government have not taken into account the interests of manufacturing in many of the actions that they have taken. Therefore, it would be useful for the House to have the comfort that the Government would have to consider the importance of manufacturing when they were making these decisions.
The Scottish Government are in a much better place in that, in relation to steel and Tata Steel specifically, we have saved the Lanarkshire plants, and we have worked with BiFab. If the UK Government had previously taken actions like that, we would be in the much better position of feeling that they would be likely to protect the interests of manufacturing. We are therefore happy to associate ourselves with the Labour amendment.
Amendment 78 has been suggested by Traidcraft. I will talk about exactly why Traidcraft says that it is important. The UK has signed up to the sustainable development goals. They are incredibly important for the future of the world—for our children and our children’s children—in ensuring that there is sustainable development. Traidcraft says:
“It is therefore vital that consideration of sustainable development is contained in primary legislation to avoid the potential for the UK to inadvertently contravene its global commitments…If sustainable development were added to this list it would ensure the Government were able to fulfil its global commitments.”
That is a strong message from Traidcraft about this aspect of the clause. Because, as I said, the Minister has not included in it “any other relevant factor”, we want to be clear that the Government are protecting the interests of manufacturers, but also the interests of the future of the planet.
Amendment 106 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Again, the factors that the Minister is required to consider when setting the rate of import duty are not wide enough. We suggest including a reference to the public interest generally, so that the Minister and the Treasury, in making these decisions, would be required to look at whether the public interest generally would be served by the rate of import duty that they were imposing.
All three proposals are relevant considerations for the long-term future of manufacturing which, given the not-very-good productivity in the UK, is hugely necessary and something that we need to protect. I do not know how anybody could argue with looking at sustainable development, given that the future of our planet is at stake. On the point about the public interest in general, we are all here to represent our constituents—we are here to ensure that their views are heard in this place—so it is completely reasonable that the Minister and the Treasury, in making any rules under this aspect of the clause, would consider the public interest generally, as well as the other four factors already mentioned.
Mel Stride
I will be brief because the Committee is anxious to make progress and move on to some important clauses. I will not repeat the earlier comments that I made other than the overarching comment, which is that the provisions in the Bill as drawn are very broad and will pick up on the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised.
Jonathan Reynolds
I appreciate the Minister’s response and his words of reassurance, but if he were being fair-minded he would acknowledge that there is still significant uncertainty and concern in UK industry, particularly in the manufacturing sector. As the evidence session showed the other day, there are more known unknowns than anything else in this area, and amendments that seek to mitigate that and provide more reassurance are reasonable and prudent, so we would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 8, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 11, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty.
Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 40, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering whether to exercise the power to set lower rates of import duty.
Jonathan Reynolds
I will endeavour to take a little less time on amendment 2, Ms Buck. My enthusiasm and enjoyment of a Bill Committee perhaps gets the better of me at times.
The amendment would require the Treasury to have regard to the recommendations of any relevant Select Committee or those contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty. This goes to the heart of how the Bill is constructed and how we will seek to scrutinise it. For reasons we have already covered, the Bill is very much an outline framework Bill, the details of which must be added at a later date. That relates to the way in which the negotiations have progressed. We must think about how to ensure that there is no democratic deficit in how the detail of the Bill is filled in, and that the core objective of Brexit—greater democratic control for the House of Commons—is achieved.
The Opposition recognise the need for the Government to make the necessary preparations to create the UK’s customs and tariff regimes post-Brexit, but we do not accept that that means allowing the Government to concentrate all those powers in the Executive. It is the Opposition’s view that, in this instance, the Conservative interpretation of taking back control has simply meant moving it from Brussels to Whitehall. That is true not just of this Bill but of many parts of the Brexit legislation. In our view, tariffs should undergo the same parliamentary process as taxation, with similar levels of parliamentary scrutiny.
In the evidence sessions on Tuesday, we heard about the sheer diversity of areas that could be affected and that will need input into the detail of the Bill. We believe that Select Committees could play a crucial parliamentary role in providing some of that detail. If the Select Committees were allowed to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to the Government’s evidence base, we believe that it would widen the debate. It would also provide for a critical role in holding the Government to account. Select Committees’ ability to compel witnesses to appear to give evidence would allow them to interrogate Ministers about the consequences of some of the details of the secondary legislation and process as it unfolds, which could be invaluable. It could also help build political consensus by identifying common ground between different groups of politicians, which is especially important given how divisive Brexit has been thus far.
Lastly, Select Committees could engage with the media and public, which would be a key contribution to the transparency of the process, accountability and scrutiny. Where there is potential in the Bill for trade decisions to be made seemingly unilaterally by the Secretary of State, having public and transparent debates through parliamentary Select Committees could be critical. I therefore urge the Committee to vote in favour of the amendment, which would be a significant step towards ensuring that we make every effort to handle this once-in-a-generation event with the parliamentary scrutiny, accountability and checks and balances that it demands.
Kirsty Blackman
I have previously complained about the composition of Public Bill Committees, given the UK Government’s gerrymandering so that they can have a majority in Bill Committees despite not having a majority in the House. The change would mean that scrutiny would be done effectively, and not just by Committees with a majority of Government representatives who will win every vote by 10 to nine. The amendment is incredibly important and would ensure effective and appropriate scrutiny, and make for better legislation.
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (First sitting)
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Hardy
Q
Peter MacSwiney: It is hard to see the transition period being less than five years, in all honesty, based on experience of introducing systems over the past 20 years. Introducing a system is one thing, but educating the trade and getting the processes in place really does take a long time. It is hard to see that being done in much less than that.
Gordon Tutt: I would support Peter on that. We should not make the same mistakes as with the UCC. There are elements of that that cannot be introduced, even within the current transitional arrangements. We need to be mindful that it takes a long time to get the systems in place and, more importantly, to make sure that they have the connectivity to other trade systems around the world that are often providing this information. Five years sounds awful—and that is the worst case scenario. But if you work on a basis of five years, you can introduce elements much quicker, but some elements could take up to five years to introduce.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Peter MacSwiney: I think it would probably do the job. I have said it before and I will say it again: on this side of the channel, we will get our systems and processes sorted out, because that is what we do. I do not think it will address the issues on the other side of the channel. That is likely to be a bigger problem than what happens in the UK.
William Bain: The key issue for moving goods between the rest of the European Union and the UK is partly customs, but also regulation. The Bill puts in place different eventualities on customs, but it does not answer the questions on the regulatory framework, so that has to be dealt with. Also, these other issues about what happens to the common transit convention, to security agreements and to haulage permits and driver permits all affect the flow of goods. If those are not dealt with in this Bill, we encourage the Committee to explore how they can be dealt with otherwise.
The Chair
Q
Gordon Tutt: There is everything in the Bill that we need in terms of whatever the solution is. There are already provisions within that legislation to allow flexibility, to prevent goods from being detained at the border and to allow them to be moved up into inland examination points under controlled mechanisms. That already exists within that legislation.
The Chair
Q
Helen Dennis: I am Helpen Dennis and I work at the Fairtrade Foundation.
Jeremy White: I am Jeremy White from the Pump Court Tax Chambers. I am here today as the customs duties spokesman of the Chartered Institute of Taxation.
Sue Davies: Hello, I am Sue Davis from Which?
Jonathan Reynolds
Q
Sue Davies: I want to say at the start that from the perspective of Which? we focus on making sure that we get the best outcome for consumers from Brexit. We took a neutral position on the referendum, and that also applies to trade policy. Our interest in the Bill lies in making sure that it is as explicit as possible, within that, on how consumer interests will be taken into account.
In relation to what is in the Bill and what is dealt with by subsequent legislation, we want to make sure that any changes are limited to technical matters, and that anything with wider policy significance—particularly given the sensitivities of trade issues to some extent—is dealt with openly, so that we can see and weigh up its pros and cons. We feel that some aspects of the Bill need to be strengthened to make the consumer interest more explicit. There is recognition in the Bill, for example, of the need to take into account consumer interest when setting import duties. We also strongly support the inclusion of what is called the economic test in relation to trade remedies, because we want to make sure that we have a thorough understanding before we potentially raise consumer prices in order to support particular industries. There are aspects of the Bill that we think are important, but we also think that there could be greater clarity to make sure we see how the consumer impact will be assessed.
Helen Dennis: On the delegated powers issue: across the board we do have some concerns, more so with the Trade Bill and the process for agreeing future trade deals than are necessarily within this legislation. Here, we do have a lot of delegated powers around setting tariffs, establishing rules of origin. We are thinking about it from the perspective of developing countries, where in some instances there is a high dependency on the UK market and where there are products with tight margins, so changes to tariffs could make or break the livelihoods of producers. If you were to ask for a vote on every single tariff change, that would not be workable, so this is about finding the right balance in terms of moving forward.
It is a question to throw back to parliamentarians: to consider the role that parliamentarians feel they should have around parliamentary scrutiny, consideration of different tariff changes and rules of origin—the things we were discussing earlier. The Government have set out quite an ambitious vision about trade for development, for example in their trade White Paper, in which they want to use trade policies to improve access for developing countries. At the moment, however, we do not see those improvements in this legislation, because the focus is on continuity and maintaining the status quo for now, but we do not want to lose sight of future improvements and future discussions. I would say that actually, as things stand at the moment, there should probably be a process whereby Members of Parliament can call things in or request further scrutiny, but that is part of the wider discussion about trade policy going forward, including how the Houses want to be involved in that and how public consultation is built into it. It is something that needs to be thought about in tandem with the ongoing discussions about the Trade Bill, as well.
Jeremy White: I have a problem with the structure of the Bill, the consequence of which is that parliamentary scrutiny will be excessively difficult. I can illustrate that with this visual aid that I have brought in, which is a handbook that I edit. This is the regulatory framework for customs duties in the Union—the Union Customs Code—and its guidance. The UCC and its implementing provisions are about this wide, very finely typed—about 1,300 pages. The rest—this part here—is the necessary European and national guidance on the matter.
Therefore, when we think about the implementing provisions, of which we have maybe 15 or 20 pages of detail in the Bill, which are meant to be implemented by this, we know that the statutory instruments are going to be an enormous burden. The problem is that the Bill is overly ambitious. It fails to distinguish between those provisions that I will call just charges and the machinery—the regulatory framework. This book does not concern the charges, the tariff schedules, the trade instruments or the preferential agreements. They are in another book, of about the same size. I am not concerned about those, and the Bill would deal with them.
The trouble is that it brings into force the repeal of the UCC, in effect, on exit day. That being so—it is hard-wired into the Bill—its commencement provision requires there to be statutory instruments of this magnitude on exit day. The problem is that since the destruction of the Bill is a recast, they will be recast into other, English language. Such an approach might be appropriate for a no-deal arrangement with the EU, but it creates burdens of cost and risk in respect of any trading activity that follows afterwards, particularly if we have any transition period at all or are subject to obligations under the leaving treaty—I will call it the leaving treaty, but whatever it is—to preserve the regulatory framework of the UCC.
To be realistic, we cannot expect the EU to be in favour of or agree to any kind of regulatory framework that is different from the UCC. The UCC is what they have budgeted for. At the moment, it is in an implementation phase; we will probably come to that in other questions, and the problems of the timetable for its implementation now that, yesterday, the Commission has endorsed a report following the revised road map for the implementation of the UCC, which I could cover later.
The primary point then is that if we have a complete recast on exit day, anybody who is involved in trade, particularly if we have obligations to retain the same effects as the UCC, will have to be looking at both the UCC and the English implementation at the same time for every single piece of endeavour—almost every importation. As I said, the scrutiny will not just be on the basis of whether the legislation achieves its objective with respect to any changes from the UCC; it will also have to look at it on the basis of whether it preserves the effect of the UCC that was intended. That is an enormous burden, and I would say that it makes parliamentary scrutiny unnecessarily and excessively difficult.
Kirsty Blackman
Q
Jeremy White: That is an important point. The CIOT’s report brings out some evidence of some members having already amended their supply chains in order to cope with arrangements, because of the uncertainty. Uncertainty is a burden that trade faces at the moment, and it has to make decisions about it, so you are right. The CIOT has noticed that clients—enterprises that are members—are changing their supply chains because of the uncertainty, so anything that the Bill can do to reduce uncertainty would be good. For example, if the Bill can, by its commencement provisions, instead allow the withdrawal Bill to operate—therefore the UCC is automatically incorporated—and then exercise the powers to modify that application, that will reduce a lot of uncertainty and there will be no need to read this book—the UCC—and the English version. This book has to be read anyway, and this, and there will be a very small amount of variation where we want to improve on the UCC for the United Kingdom.
This is about uncertainty and cost, and what enterprises want to do. Everything can be resolved by law and by allocating resources to the issues, but that just increases cost, besides the parliamentary scrutiny being a burden for Parliament and for those who want to assist it—charities such as the CIOT and so on. Businesses themselves will see this as an issue of cost that it is unnecessary for them to incur.
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Second sitting)
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Rosa Crawford: A step forward would be to use as a baseline the new rules that the EU has adopted, whereby non-market economies are not regarded as reliable in having a price indication for the goods that they export. Rather, an analogue country of a similar level of development would be used to judge whether an unfair pricing practice was used. We hope that that will allow the EU to take stronger measures against countries—not just China, but Vietnam and other countries that are using undue levels of Government influence to set prices at a low level.
In the current UK legislation, we do not see any approach like that. Indeed, we know that the UK Government have been holding back EU attempts to take stronger measures against China and other non-market economies. I think we can be forgiven for not quite believing it when we are told that in the secondary legislation we will have adequate measures to deal with non-market economies. We do not have an indication that the Government are likely to introduce secondary legislation on that.
Ben Richards: A key new development within the European Union is that, when they are assessing an analogue country, where there is more than one, they can now also take social and environmental factors into account. That is obviously absolutely crucial, because if a country is abusing labour rights or environmental regulations, that is also trade distortion, and should be taken into account in our trade remedies regime.
Kathleen Walker Shaw: There are two more points that are vital in terms of dealing with the distortions in the UK within the Bill framework, the first of which is the timing of it. To expedite these procedures at a time when they can actually help the companies while they remain competitive and able to see off the challenge was a problem that we had in the steel crisis, as some of you will be aware. Even the EU timetables at that time were dragging on too long and exacerbating some of the problems that we had across the steel industry, so the speed with which we can move the procedures is vital. The placing of the economic interest test in there makes me doubt that we will be able to do that.
Again, setting the tariffs at a level at which they will have the effect of adding the effective protection that we need was something that we struggled with agreement on at European level. The European Commission was going to set the levels on certain types of steel much higher than the UK Government. In the end, it became a political process rather than an economic process of what was required to protect and maintain the competitiveness of British industries and other European industries in that case.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
My worry on the public and economic tests is that, even in something like the steel crisis, there were people arguing for the benefits of very cheap steel coming into UK for construction and so forth. If those tests are not drafted correctly, frankly, we do not have any trade remedies at all. If we are going to have them in the Bill, how can we draft them to ensure that they are robust and fair? Who should be involved in the Trade Remedies Authority to ensure that that is the case?
Ben Richards: We need an opportunity to have that debate, which we will not have at all with the Bill as it is currently drafted. It will simply be written into secondary legislation—we will not have that ability. We have four or five minutes left to have a discussion about how it should be drawn up. It would take us another couple of hours. That is what we want, as a trade union movement: an involvement in these discussions and debates.
We have huge concerns about the way in which the appointments are being made to the Trade Remedies Authority. In effect, in the way that the Bill is currently written, we are not seeing one economic interest test but three. To give you a one-sentence answer about how it should be is very difficult: we want to engage in that debate. We want to have a role in that process in the future to ensure that our members are confident that those decisions are being taken with their interests in mind.
Kathleen Walker Shaw: On the Trade Remedies Authority, its structure is very important. We would like to see it set up in line with the Health and Safety Commission, where we have three employers, three trade unions and three other interests. I am a bit concerned that we are limiting that to nine, because I have a strong concern that devolved Administrations need to be involved in that process as well.
I would also like to see the Bill developed to give a role for parliamentary scrutiny—for the TRA to be liaising with structures within wider parliamentary scrutiny—on the European economic area IT, and on the decisions of the TRA, and to remove the power of the Secretary of State to veto a decision of the collective scrutiny of Parliament and the TRA on remedies. In that way, we might be some way to getting to the bottom of a justified and effective remedy.
Peter Dowd
Q
Kathleen Walker Shaw: You are picking at a wound there. I was the poor person that drafted our response to the trade White Paper. I spent a lot of evenings doing that and I was more than a little concerned when I submitted that paper—less than eight hours later, the Bills were published. For people who take policy and their engagement with Government and Parliament very seriously, it was difficult not to feel the contempt with which that response that I spent hours sweating over to place before Parliament was received.
Consultation over the trade and customs Bills is vital because the Government have to get this right. There is no margin for getting this wrong. The future of Brexit hangs on these two bills: trade and the taxation cross-border. That is what our success or failure post-Brexit will hang on. I am very nervous about it, but I am more nervous about the fact that the Government are pretending that they are consulting us and they are not. We are very serious people and we want to be taken seriously. We want to help you to get the trade Bill and the cross-border trade Bill right, but we can do that only if we are a serious part of the process.
We have been engaging, but we have not been listened to. It is not enough for the Government to say, “We have consulted”, because if you miss off, “But we haven’t listened to a word you’ve said”, the quality and the integrity of that consultation is brought into severe question. It will not stop us from being delighted at being invited to come and have these conversations with you—we are not making this up, particularly Alan, who works for HMRC.
Alan Runswick: On delivery, my union wrote to Jon Thompson, the chief executive of HMRC, immediately after the referendum result to say that it was a game changer, that he needed to pause the office closure programme, stop making people redundant and evaluate this new situation. We have not even mentioned, and we will not get to, the issue of import VAT for business and for delivery. As well as customs duties, there will be a big increase in import VAT transactions. They will need to be processed, and staff will need to run a compliance regime under the new situation, to counter evasion and avoidance.
We also feel that we have not been properly consulted. We have been trying to engage the Department in serious talks about delivery, how staff can be recruited and trained and how we can retain the existing skills. We most definitely feel that we have not had those serious discussions about how HMRC can be made fit for purpose in the new Brexit position.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Q
Joel Blackwell: It is important that Members take note of the delegated powers Committee’s concerns on particular issues that it has highlighted. I do think that there is an issue with the use of the made affirmative procedure for cases that do not seem to me to be urgent; that procedure is used for reasons of urgency and should be confined to that. I have never been entirely clear or comfortable with the use of the first instance affirmative procedure. If it has been viewed that a provision should be subject to the affirmative procedure for the first time, it should be subject to the affirmative procedure all the time. The two Henry VIII powers are subject to the negative procedure as well. So there are issues with the Bill.
In terms of saying that the Bill is fine, yes, you have to use framework legislation for issues like this. What concerns the Hansard Society is when framework Bills are laid before Parliament and contain no detail whatsoever on the powers that they wish to confer on Ministers. The lack of an opportunity for the Government to provide draft regulations alongside scrutiny of this Bill, for example, will be a matter of concern, and is something we raised about the Welfare Reform Act 2012. So there are issues with framework Bills.
If there is a huge lack of detail on what the Government intend to do with delegated powers, what usually happens is that you get situations that we would like to avoid where you have clause 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that is so wide that there are issues regarding the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive.
Jonathan Reynolds
Q
Joel Blackwell: That is a question I have been posing to myself for the last few days. Honestly, no. We have to be careful, knowing that the procedures for the scrutiny of delegated legislation in the Commons are inadequate, that we do not just fall back on using a strengthened, enhanced or super-affirmative procedure for everything when the affirmative procedure would be appropriate. We need to play the ball rather than the man, to use a football analogy. You have to look at the powers that are brought in front of you and decide there and then whether the scrutiny period is appropriate.
The problem with this Bill, and with other supply Bills, is that the vehicle to highlight inappropriateness in the degree of scrutiny and the appropriateness of delegated powers is the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and there is no counterpart in the House of Commons. The Bill just highlights the lack of that counterpart. But no, looking at the powers, I do not think that the strengthened scrutiny procedure would be useful in this case.
Mr Wragg
Q
Joel Blackwell: Having said that I do not think the strengthened scrutiny procedure would be appropriate for any of the powers, they are wide powers. If we look at clause 51 in particular, the wording is very similar to that used for clause 7, so I think there are similarities. What has been highlighted is that people would like, potentially, to use a Committee to look at all Brexit statutory instruments and at the moment that will not happen. You could insert a change into the Standing Orders that would allow you to do that, which is something to consider.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right. Our level of debt is too high, and there is a reason why that matters. In response to the financial crisis in 2009, the then Government were able to allow debt to rise. If we had a similar crisis now—God forbid—we would be struggling to be able to do that, because debt is already very close to 90% of GDP. It is urgently necessary that we get our debt level down to create the headroom that will enable us to deal with any crisis that comes along in the future, whether internal or external.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is amazing that the Government should want to plant questions about high levels of borrowing, given that they have missed every single one of their deficit reduction targets, and let us not forget that this Conservative Government have borrowed more than any Labour Government in history. Under Labour’s fiscal rules, we would close the deficit on day-to-day spending over five years, but exclude investment spending from that figure. Given the huge challenges that the country faces in relation to productivity, infrastructure and skills—challenges that he has already mentioned—does the Chancellor not recognise that that is a prudent and sensible way forward?
Mr Hammond
No, and neither do the Opposition. That is why they have already recognised that their plans would deliver the run on the pound for which they are wargaming. I will take no lectures from a party that oversaw a 165% increase in debt, and is proposing to add a further £500 billion to our debt level just when the Government are delivering a reduction in debt.
Banks and Communities
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing this debate on a topic that is clearly of such central importance to many Members. I also congratulate him on his speech, which I mean not just with the usual courtesy. I thought it was an excellent introduction and a fair assessment of the situation the UK faces, and particularly Scotland.
This debate is the first in which I face the new City Minister. I warmly welcome him to his new role. He will find the shadow Treasury team always available with reasonable suggestions for a fairer and more prosperous Britain. I look forward to spending a great deal of time with him on statutory instrument Committees over the next few years.
I often think that banks have one thing in common with those of us who are politicians—with Members of Parliament in this place. People often say that they are not keen on politicians but that they feel quite affectionate towards their local MP. Similarly, many people do not feel particularly affectionate towards the banks, but do have quite a lot of regard for their local branch. We can see in this debate the strength of feeling that changes to the high street banking presence have generated.
The British banking industry is vital to our national economic infrastructure and is a sector that we should be able to be proud of. It is clearly important because of the revenue that it generates for the Treasury. UK- domiciled banks contributed an estimated £35 billion in tax in 2017 and they also employ 1.5% of the entire UK workforce.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Well done—perfect pronunciation as well. The UK has a problem with productivity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this move means that people will have to spend many hours moving about the country to get to the banks, which were much closer at one time, not on their core activity? It is a destroyer of productivity. On that basis alone, the UK Government should call them to heel.
Jonathan Reynolds
That is a very reasonable point. Hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) have shared stories of the round trips, the incredible journeys, that people have to make because of the lack of a banking presence locally. I thought that my constituency was quite badly affected, but the stories that I have heard today show just how widespread the problem has been.
The lending that banks provide is essential to financing growth in the economy, for both individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises. Many British people who are in credit benefit from free banking and 24/7 access to their money through a variety of channels and new technologies. However—and it is a big however—the memory of the British public is not so short that they do not recall the immense damage wrought on the country in 2008 by the financial crisis, which started in the banking sector. We should not underestimate the profound impact that those events have had on public trust in both retail and business banking.
Bailing out the banks, as the Government of the time did, was, without question, the right move. I often say that it would be more accurate to describe that as the Government bailing out the public from the consequences of what the banks had done, rather than straightforwardly bailing out the banks. However, those actions, which in some cases brought establishments into public ownership, clearly reiterated that the relationship between the banks and the public should be reciprocal. The fact that taxpayers’ money was made available to banks reinforces that financial institutions are of central importance to our economy’s wellbeing.
Banking is unlike other industries, in that dealing with people’s money gives banks a unique and special responsibility. That brings with it, rightly, higher expectations about conduct, culture and putting the customer first. As a country, we have in the past 10 years legislated for a considerable increase in bank regulation, much of which, we hope, will prevent us from ever having to witness events like those of 2008 again. I recognise that in tandem with that many banks have made efforts to bring about cultural change internally, to overhaul systems and processes and to show that they take their role in the economy seriously.
However, there is clearly still so much to be done in rebuilding the relationship between the banking sector and the public. A YouGov study released in March 2017 showed that just 36% of British consumers trust banks to work in their customers’ best interests. Last year, I was at Mansion House for one of the industry body dinners, where the chief executive of one of the big banking representatives said that its research showed that just 13% of SMEs felt that they could trust their bank to do the right thing for their business. That is no good for the banks or for us as politicians and it is certainly no good for the businesses that feel that way.
Now is the time for banks to demonstrate that they have learned from the past and to recompense for past failings. This is not just about a banking presence on the high street. The historic events involving things such as RBS’s Global Restructuring Group are a case in point. Serious mistakes, errors of judgment and, we have to say, in some cases, criminal activity took place, with appalling consequences for some businesses in this country. It is not enough that the requisite cultural change has taken place to prevent such events from happening again; rather, the banks must show that every effort has been made to rectify that behaviour, show that complaints are taken seriously and, crucially, show that changes are in place to ensure that customers can never again be exploited in that way.
That underpinned Labour’s decision to table an amendment to the Finance Bill calling for a reversal of reductions in the bank levy. The cut in the bank levy is in effect a tax giveaway to the big banks and is worth £1 billion in 2018 alone. Given that that comes at the same time as the Government’s baffling decision to sell off RBS shares at a huge loss just as the bank returns to profitability and after the taxpayer has paid the fines for past behaviour—
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Given the state of flux in UK politics, it is perfectly possible that within a year the hon. Gentleman could be sitting in the Minister’s seat. What would he do about all these branch closures if he were?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that such a promotion might be possible. It is not something we can take for granted, but I will specifically address the RBS branch closures later in my speech. I want to make the point at this stage that rightly, and for a variety of reasons, the British public are questioning the return that they have got for their investment in the banking sector.
Much of this debate has been about branch closures. I think that everyone in the debate has admitted that we are in a time when the banking sector is undergoing considerable technological change. The exciting bit of that is the potential to deploy some of the advances for the benefit of those people who have had trouble interacting with the traditional banking system. It always confounds me that this country can play host to the most successful and most global financial sector in the world, yet at the same time we have such high levels of financial exclusion. More than 1.5 million people remain entirely unbanked. In many cases, how the traditional banking system has worked has compounded the problems rather than seeking to solve them.
I want to see new technology give us new ways to address financial exclusion, rather than being used as an excuse to push more people towards the excluded position. There is no doubt that the reports that the sector itself is looking into show how low-cost, flexible and accessible services can be provided to people who are excluded. Doreming, for example, allows individuals to shop without access to a bank account. We want to work with both the banking sector and regulators to ensure that such initiatives can access a level playing field, with the right safeguards for those who use them. When I talk to people in the financial sector, they show huge enthusiasm and passion for using their expertise to make the sector world leading and to address some of these issues. However, 10 years on from the financial crisis, rather than having that moment of reflection and seeing what new opportunities we could use to tackle financial exclusion, debates such as this, about the sense that banking is being removed from more and more people, seem to dominate.
It is crucial that we use technology to benefit all consumers, rather than creating a pared down, automated banking sector that leaves vulnerable customers without the support they need or that gives us a situation akin to what we see in the energy market, where a small group of savvy consumers get quite good deals, but at the cost of a larger group of people subsidising them and getting quite a poor deal.
Specifically on branch closures, there is no doubt that the branch network has been shrinking at an accelerating rate. In December 2016, Which? reported that more than 1,000 branches of major banks had closed between January 2015 and January 2017, with nearly 500 more set to be axed in 2017. We have seen from recent announcements by the Yorkshire Building Society and, more dramatically, by RBS, which plans to close 259 branches, just how much that is accelerating. As I said, this has affected my own constituency: Mossley, Stalybridge and Hyde have all seen branch closures. But frankly, the scale of some of the stories that hon. Members have shared today has been quite shocking. I want to say clearly that we believe the scale of the closures is disproportionate and unwarranted and should be reconsidered. In 2015, the big four high street banks made profits of more than £11 billion from their retail businesses, which own and operate the high street networks.
Research conducted by the Social Market Foundation in 2016 found that a strong consumer appetite remains for a physical presence when banking. Nearly two thirds of consumers would prefer to talk to someone face to face when making a big decision, and nearly half of those who had visited a branch in the previous 12 months said that that was for reassurance and support with more complicated transactions. The report found that 11% of the population—nearly 7 million people—use no other banking service than their local high street branch and that those people are overwhelmingly older and less affluent. Another study found that lending to small businesses in the postcode area actually fell following a local branch closure—that has to be of concern.
If you bear with me, Mr Gapes, I will conclude in a moment, but I want to say specifically that Labour’s answer to this problem is to propose a change in the law regulating banks, so that no closure can take place without appropriate local consultation—not a tick-box exercise—and without Financial Conduct Authority approval. A future Labour Government would obligate banks to undertake a consultation with all customers and to ensure they involve representatives of the relevant local council. The branch would be mandated to publish details of the reason for closure and include the relevant financial calculations showing the revenues and costs of each branch affected. The share of central costs such as accounting systems, IT, cyber-security and personnel allocated would have to be separately identified, especially as many of these costs are relatively fixed and are not proportionate to the number of branches in the network.
I thought the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is absolutely the right one and I have considered it for some time, that is, how, when branches leave the high street, the sector can come together to provide a joint solution. Those of us who use online banking recognise that there will parts of our lives in the future when we might no longer be able to do that—whether because of dementia or Alzheimer’s—and we need a solution.
In conclusion, Britain has a world-leading and robust banking system, but the banks must work with all of us, as policy makers, to tackle problems such as the lack of investment in this country and financial exclusion, and crucially to make sure that we move away from a country mired in personal debt to one with robust savings. Only when they are able to do that and show that their branch networks are part of that, will they be able to restore some of the faith that was lost in the sector 10 years ago.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Jonathan Reynolds ExcerptsMonday 18th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2018 View all Finance Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 18 December 2017 - (18 Dec 2017)
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I will come back to that once I have set out the context of my remarks. The key point is this: there are some concerns, but in a growing economy, consumer debt will tend to rise, so we have to separate out that which is perfectly acceptable and that which may give cause for concern. I will come back to that point, but it is very fair.
In respect of proposed subsection (2)(b) of the Labour new clause, which talks about
“reflecting risks to the financial system”,
we conclude by reminding ourselves that it was the very explosion of the financial system that created the need for this bank levy. As I say, we have to debate the past—why we are here in the first place and where this all came from—and the fact that we are on a journey. The reason this tax is being tapered off is that the banking sector is once again becoming profitable, and we are allowing it to flourish again as a free enterprise-based banking system, but, of course, in the context of very strict regulation and a prudential regime.
Let me go back to the point about personal experience. It amazes me when members of the Labour party stand up and, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands of the huge impact of that crash. At the time, many of us approached the regulator—the Financial Services Authority—which Gordon Brown launched early in the first Parliament after Labour won in 1997. He claimed that that would avoid future financial crises. We must remember that and have accountability.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman be reasonable or fair enough to acknowledge that while it is entirely possible to say that the system of regulation on the eve of the financial crisis was not adequate— no one is making the case that it was—surely it is illogical and ridiculous to suggest that the Conservatives would have been doing anything different. After all, the banks themselves were not aware of the level of risk they had undertaken, so it was no surprise that the regulator did not appreciate it. One cannot claim that the Conservatives advocated anything different from the overarching framework of regulation that existed at the time.
James Cartlidge
I entirely disagree. The absolute root cause of it all was not saving enough and having a bad culture of over-reliance on debt. I well remember that back in ’98 and ’99 when Francis Maude was the shadow Chancellor, he kept saying, with regard to the low savings ratio, “We are storing up problems for the future.” At every Budget, no matter how high Labour was in the polls, our shadow Chancellors and shadow spokesmen—people like Howard Flight—would say that the savings ratio was way too low and we were storing up problems for the future. We did warn, we did say it, and we were ignored.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I wish to support Labour’s new clauses 1 to 3, which call for a review of the change in the scope and rate of the bank levy, the funds from which should be invested in young people’s and children’s services. Given the desperate state of young people’s and children’s services across the country, I am surprised that the Chancellor has chosen to reduce the bank levy, effectively depriving the Government of funds that could be spent on those vital services.
It has now been 26 days since the Chancellor delivered his Budget—his second Budget, and the 10th since the Tories took office in 2010, which is now nearly eight years ago. By coincidence, it is also nearly eight years since my baby was born, who is still my baby despite being eight years old. Every parent wants the best for their child and wants them to have every opportunity to fulfil their potential, but for the almost eight years of her life, we have seen her opportunity rationed and funding for children’s and young people’s services slashed. Sir Roger, I will quickly—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, Mr Owen.
Emma Hardy
You have been promoted, Mr Owen.
I want quickly to draw the House’s attention to the funding cuts to Hull City Council’s children’s services budget since 2010 and to argue that rather than reducing the bank levy the Government should be properly funding children’s services. The headline figures for Hull City Council are as follows. Spending on children’s and young people’s services is down by £19.5 million, with more than a quarter of its spending power cut since 2010. That is just half of the £37 million that the council has to cut before 2020. The time taken to get a diagnosis of autism is up, with the average waiting time now at 14 months. The number of Sure Start centres in the city is down since 2010. Those centres were instrumental in supporting me when I had my two girls.
Mel Stride
I am going to make further progress.
I will now move on to other changes relating to stamp duty. Clause 40 brings forward some minor changes to the higher rates of stamp duty land tax for additional properties, which will improve how the legislation works. The changes help in a number of circumstances, including in relation to those affected by divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership, where they have had to leave a matrimonial home but are required to retain an interest in it, and in relation to the interests of disabled children, where a court-appointed trustee buys a home for such a child.
We will also close down an avoidance opportunity. The Government have become aware of efforts to avoid the higher rates by disposing of only part of an interest in an old main residence to qualify for relief from the higher rates on the whole of a new main residence. This behaviour is unacceptable, and the Government have acted to stop it with effect from 22 November.
Clause 8 introduces a new income tax exemption for payments made to members of the armed forces to help them to meet accommodation costs in the private market in the UK. The exemption enables them to receive a tax-free allowance for renting accommodation or maintaining their home in the private sector. The allowance will also be free of national insurance contributions. That measure will be introduced through regulations at a later date. By using the private market, the Ministry of Defence will be able to provide access to similar accommodation, but with more flexibility.
Opposition Members have tabled amendments 2 and 3 to the armed forces accommodation clause, and I look forward to hearing about them in the debate. The amendments seek to prevent the Treasury from laying regulations that would increase the liability of a member of the armed forces to income tax. I am happy to reassure the Committee that the Government do not intend to use the power to increase tax liabilities either now or in the future. The regulation-making power is retrospective so that the allowance can be provided tax free before regulations take effect. As a standard safeguard, the Bill expressly provides that the Government would not retrospectively increase tax liabilities. I hope that, in the light of that, hon. Members will not press their amendments.
New clause 5, also tabled by Opposition Members, would require the House to expressly approve any regulations made under the clause. The Bill provides for regulations to be made under the negative procedure. Regulations made under the clause will align the qualifying criteria for the proposed exemption with the Ministry of Defence’s new accommodation model once more details are available. Any future regulations will ensure that the tax exemption reflects changes to the model. It would be a questionable demand on Parliament’s time, particularly over the next two years, for it to be called on to expressly approve regulations in these circumstances. The negative procedure provides an appropriate level of scrutiny. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the new clause.
The stamp duty relief for first-time buyers is a major step to help those getting on to the property ladder, and one that has been widely welcomed. The other changes made by these clauses provide relief from some tax costs associated with housing for several groups that deserve them. The clauses also tackle avoidance. I commend clauses 41, 40 and 8, and schedule 11, to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
This country is in the grip of a severe housing crisis that the Conservatives have allowed to spiral out of control over the past seven years. Making sure that people have a roof over their heads and can raise their families somewhere safe, decent and affordable is more than just a matter of sound public policy—it is surely a yardstick of a decent society. At the moment, we are falling short of this yardstick to a degree that is shameful for one of the world’s most affluent nations.
Now, after seven years of Tory government, the Government say that they have noticed the problem, yet it is on the brink not of being resolved but rather exacerbated. The Chancellor’s autumn Budget, from which the measures in the Bill are drawn, falls woefully short in addressing the scale of what is needed. Since 2010, house building has fallen to its lowest level since the 1920s, rough sleeping has risen year on year, rents have risen faster than incomes and there are almost 200,000 fewer homeowners in the UK.
Lucy Frazer
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether Labour built houses when it was in office or house building fell when Labour was in office?
Jonathan Reynolds
Labour’s record in office is 2 million more homes, 1 million more homeowners, and—something that is particularly important to me as a Labour councillor during some of that time—an incredible investment in social housing. In local government, we used to ask whether we could ever fulfil the backlog in repairs that the Thatcher and Major Governments had created, but we did, and it made a tremendous difference to people’s lives.
The one headline-grabbing move that the Chancellor made in the autumn Budget was the abolition of stamp duty land tax for first-time buyers up to the value of £300,000. I acknowledge that this was a Labour policy included in our manifesto for the June 2017 general election, but we were very clear in that manifesto that the measure should be proposed only if there were accompanying measures to increase supply. Without these, stamp duty land tax cuts risk further inflating a housing bubble that is snatching the idea of home ownership out of reach for the younger generation.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In St Albans, we are very grateful for the Chancellor’s abolition of stamp duty. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party is against it, and that he does not wish it to happen?
Jonathan Reynolds
I have just explained that the policy was our idea to begin with, but it is effective only if it is accompanied by measures to increase supply.
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman says that he will support the policy if it is accompanied by measures to increase supply. That is exactly what the Chancellor has introduced in the Budget, so will the hon. Gentleman support the measure, or is he against cutting stamp duty for first-time buyers?
Jonathan Reynolds
No, we are not, as I have just explained, but there have to be measures that genuinely increase supply. I will explain to the hon. Lady that the measures in this Budget do not in any way contribute to that, and we will get on to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s definition.
Lucy Frazer
The Budget states that 300,000 houses will be built every year. That is a measure to increase house building, so will the hon. Gentleman commit to supporting the stamp duty measure?
Jonathan Reynolds
Members have become accustomed to the fact that the number of homes that the Government claim to build is not always the actual number that are built. I will get to some of that record of failure later in my speech.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend think it is a bit ironic that when a similar measure was proposed in 2015, it was derided as a gimmick by the then Chancellor?
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As we know, sometimes the situation in the Government means that they tend to look around for ideas, and they often find best practice in the Labour party.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the additional capital that is being put into housing, the attack on companies that engage in land banking and the aid to enable small builders to build more houses are all supply side measures?
Jonathan Reynolds
We will get on to whether those measures will be effective, based on the assessments that have been made. I am old enough to remember when a tax on land banking was described as Venezuelan-style socialism, so it is good to see some permutation of that idea among Government Members.
The analysis by the OBR on the likely outcome of the policy shows that it will push up prices by 0.3% in 2018.
John Spellar
My hon. Friend is talking about land banking by the big house builders. Is not the evidence of that the utterly obscene bonus being paid to the chief executive of Persimmon, which is so outrageous that the chairman of the company has seen fit to resign in disgust?
Jonathan Reynolds
My right hon. Friend identifies another feature of a dysfunctional market. That will be corrected only by a change in Government policy, but we have not seen one in the Bill.
Conservative Ministers’ review of a previous stamp duty cut concluded that the tax relief, in itself, had
“not had a significant impact on improving affordability for first time buyers”.
That is why Labour has tabled an amendment calling for the publication of a review prior to the 2018 Budget on the impact of the relief on first-time buyers, including its effect on house prices and the supply of houses.
The Minister, as usual, talked an extremely good game on funding for new housing, which he said would help to ameliorate the supply issue. On further scrutiny, however, we find that no measures in the 2017 Budget will directly increase house building. Only one third of the £44 billion announced in the Budget is genuinely new, and there is no extra Government investment in new affordable homes. That builds on a legacy of failure. Let us remind ourselves that not one of the 200,000 starter homes promised by the Tories three years ago has yet been built. That lack of action is having a serious impact across every part of our society. During the Government’s seven years in power, homelessness has doubled. Shockingly, recent statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government show that nearly 80,000 households were homeless in September; that includes 120,000 children. The situation is extraordinarily urgent.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the mistakes that former Chancellor Osborne made was the cap on rents, which threw into complete chaos the planning of social landlords and housing associations in budgeting for building new houses? It had the effect of reducing the supply, rather than increasing it.
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely. A combination of policy measures—not just the failure on new housing completions, but a range of other measures—has contributed to this toxic situation. We see it perhaps most visibly in Greater Manchester—I live there and represent part of it—than in any other part of the country, and thank goodness that we in Greater Manchester have a Labour Mayor in Andy Burnham who is so determined to make a difference on this matter. If Labour was in power, we would set up a taskforce, led by the Prime Minister, to end this, and we would start by setting out plans to make available at least 4,000 homes for people with a history of rough sleeping.
The homelessness statistics obviously include the hundreds of families who tragically lost their homes in the Grenfell Tower disaster in June, four-fifths of whom are still living in temporary accommodation. Although Labour welcomes the additional funding for mental health services for those affected by Grenfell, we have profound concerns about the fact that no new money has been allocated for fire safety throughout the country. The Government ignored calls to fit sprinklers to all social housing tower blocks in 2013, after the disastrous and fatal events that happened at Lakanal House and Shirley Towers, so it remains the case that only 2% of tower blocks in the UK have sprinklers installed. That figure should be of serious concern to us all.
We can see that the measures included in the Bill fall far short of what is needed to fix the housing crisis in Britain. We want in particular to discuss one measure that the Opposition are concerned may be being used as a fig leaf for just another cut. This is in regard to clause 8, the income tax exemption for the armed forces accommodation allowance, which the Minister mentioned. The explanatory note to the clause states that this is
“to allow members of the armed forces to give up their entitlement to accommodation in exchange for an allowance to be used to rent or maintain accommodation in the private market.”
Labour is concerned that this manoeuvre is designed to force more servicemen and women into the private rental sector, as part of a Government shift towards selling off the military housing stock in which armed forces personnel would ordinarily be housed.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that Andy Burnham is the Mayor of the area he represents. Does he remember that, in 2010, when Andy Burnham was standing for the leadership, he said:
“These issues are important, particularly stamp duty as it stands in the way of young people getting on in life”?
Jonathan Reynolds
I commend the hon. and learned Lady for googling that so fast. I do not think that Andy Burnham’s resolution to tackle homelessness should be laughed at; it is admirable. As someone who has lived in Greater Manchester for nearly 20 years now, I see the scale of the social and urban decay on the streets around us. Anyone who travels to Manchester and moves a short distance in any direction from Manchester Piccadilly station will see what an appalling state of affairs we have reached. It is simply the case that every time the Conservatives are in power, they increase homelessness. For me, that is the most visible sign of a Conservative Government in office, and I commend any politician—Andy Burnham is leading on this for us in Greater Manchester—who makes the difference.
Gareth Snell
The shadow Minister is making an excellent contribution. I want to point out, as he has in relation to Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, that continual cuts to local government are forcing many local authorities to disinvest in their homelessness prevention services. For example, Stoke-on-Trent—a Conservative-run council—is cutting £1 million out of its homelessness prevention budget in the next five years. What does he say about such a situation, and what does he think could solve it?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with the point my hon. Friend has made. The fact is that we know the impact that a series of Government measures have had, and we can reverse or improve on them. Fundamentally, we can change the availability of housing stock, but we can also create a policy framework that prevents people from being made homeless in the first place, and that is what we need to do.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the wider measures, such as forcing through universal credit and local housing allowance caps, are forcing large numbers of people out on to the streets?
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely. There have been 13 consecutive cuts to housing association budgets, the cumulative impact of which is exactly as my hon. Friend describes. As constituency MPs, we are left requesting our local housing association simply to try to absorb the costs of this Government policy failure. In many cases, the housing association does so, but there is ultimately a cost. The cost is taking away available resources to build further houses, thus getting us into a situation in which the problem is never truly resolved.
I will return to the armed forces accommodation allowance. The Ministry of Defence has a target in the 2015 national security strategy and strategic defence and security review to sell off 30% of its estate by 2040, but the Conservatives have a track record of making poor decisions on selling off service family housing in the name of short-term savings. Annington Homes bought most of the service family accommodation from the Ministry of Defence for £1.6 billion in 1996. A 999-year lease was granted back to the Ministry of Defence at a discount, with the stipulations that the MOD would be responsible for maintenance and that Annington Homes could terminate individual leases and had the right to include five-yearly rental reviews and a breakpoint at 25 years. The National Audit Office has said that the MOD has therefore not benefited from the rise in house prices since the agreement and, in fact, has paid higher rental costs to Annington Homes. In 2016, Annington’s annual statement estimated its property portfolio to be worth £6.7 billion.
Mr Kevan Jones
Having tried to get out of the Annington Homes contract when I was responsible for armed forces housing, may I say that the situation is worse than my hon. Friend describes? The MOD is still paying not only for empty houses, but for houses that have been demolished. It was the worst deal possible for the taxpayer.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing his expertise with the Committee. It truly is an appalling record of failure.
As every Member knows, there are enormous problems in the private rented sector in respect of affordability, quality and security of tenure. By forcing service families into the private rented sector, we risk reducing the quality of their accommodation and their quality of life. It might therefore impact on recruitment and retention rates.
The Government have so far offered little detail on which members of the armed forces will be entitled to the new allowance or what the rate will be and have not said whether the Treasury has done an impact assessment on local housing supply. The proposal ignores the fact that there is not a supply of affordable housing to buy or rent near many military bases.
It seems clear that the Government are attempting to rush the proposal through to make short-term savings, without considering the potential repercussions. Labour is demanding more consultation with armed forces personnel and a full and robust impact assessment of any proposed changes. Clear communication with armed forces families must be a top priority throughout this process and their long-term interest must be considered, as well as the long-term value for money for the taxpayer. Committing to sell this Government-owned housing risks shackling the public purse to ever-rising rents, as well as poor outcomes for armed forces personnel.
Given Labour’s concerns over the lack of detail over the armed forces allowance and any potential safeguards for members of the armed services in the private rental sector, Her Majesty’s Opposition have tabled an amendment that calls on the Government to publish a review of the measure to Parliament before it is enacted.
Overall, the measure forms part of a housing package that barely scratches the surface in addressing the country’s housing crisis. All the measures are too minimal to make a serious difference to the housing pressures that people face and too late to make up for the Government’s lack of action over the past seven years.
Robert Courts
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I only wish to make some very brief comments because I have already spoken this evening and I am conscious of the fact that other Members wish to speak.
I will make a few comments about the armed forces exemption that we have just been discussing, because it has particular relevance to my constituency, where a great amount of the Royal Air Force is based at Brize Norton. We are awaiting the redevelopment of the two REEMA sites, which are particularly important. Already, a great number of Royal Air Force and Army personnel live either on the base or outside it, in particular in Bampton, Witney, Carterton and Brize Norton village.
I am glad that the Government have proposed this welcome measure. It falls into a similar bracket as the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill, which we have discussed in the House over the past few weeks and months. It is important that we understand that expectations are changing. The armed forces offer must be able to stand alongside what can be received in the civilian world. This measure has the potential to provide exactly that.
At the moment, there is the anomaly that if personnel live in Ministry of Defence accommodation, it is essentially provided tax free, but if an armed forces allowance is given, there is taxation on it. That is how the rules work at the moment, so clearly personnel would be disadvantaged. We have to accept that in many cases, armed forces personnel wish to live outside a base, perhaps close to where their spouse works or where their children go to school. I welcome the measure because it moves us a step along the road towards realising that.
Draft Scottish Banknote (Designation of Authorised Bank) Regulations 2017
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Bone. The Opposition are aware that these changes come about as a result of the ring-fencing of the banks. They are surely a positive sign that financial institutions are on track to implement ring-fencing regulations, which we hope will build a more sustainable and robust financial system, on schedule in 2018. We therefore have no objections to the changes, provided that the issuing party remains consistent in future.
I have no other matters to raise, but I will just say that I have always believed that, as we are one country and one United Kingdom—that is the will of everyone in each part of the UK—we should surely take steps to ensure that Scottish banknotes constitute legal tender not just in Scotland but in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, that is a little beyond the remit of the draft regulations.
Draft Risk Transformation Regulations 2017
Draft Risk Transformation (Tax) Regulations 2017
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure as ever to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and it is always nice to find time to talk about insurance.
One of the first visits I made to the City after I became shadow City Minister was to the iconic Lloyd’s of London building at the heart of the square mile. It is extraordinary modern architecture with a fascinating history, from simple beginnings as Edward Lloyd’s coffee shop to the insurance behemoth we know today, underwriting £30 billion every year. As a country, we should be very proud of the history of the insurance industry and its potential for the future.
The question of opening the insurance market up internationally is therefore of significant importance to the UK. The London Market Group, which, as the Minister said, has contributed in considerable depth to the initiative, has said that greater tax revenues on the insurance-linked securities market may come from an expansion and updating of the legal regime that the regulations cover.
We should always bear in mind the potential risks around securities markets, with the insurance-linked securities market being particularly affected during the global financial crisis and the collapse of the collateralised debt obligations market a decade ago. We also cannot ignore the context. I could not help but notice that the Minister said that this package of measures was announced in the 2015 Budget—that is a long time ago in political terms. Now we face an entirely different landscape, due to our exit from the European Union. I find it odd that the Government are taking this approach to ensuring the London market is well-equipped to compete globally, while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that a “no deal” Brexit would cut off the industry at its knees.
We have already seen reports that Lloyd’s has picked Brussels as the location for its new EU subsidiary, given its concerns about retaining access to the single market. The success of the UK insurance market is inextricably linked to cross-border market access and so the sector is perhaps more dependent than any other on the need for sound transitional arrangements. The ongoing validity of insurance contracts across borders is vital to the economy, but we have no insight as yet on the Government’s proposals for mutual recognition.
I have spoken with industry representatives who have made it abundantly clear that Solvency II provisions on equivalence will fall short of what is needed. They have also said that a transition must be agreed by the end of this year to have real value and prevent them from needing to enact their contingency plans.
Without considering the wider context of how the industry will thrive outside the EU, this initiative seems to me to be hamstrung from the beginning. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister some key questions. First, will he assure the Committee that safeguards will still be in place to secure the stability of the insurance-linked securities market following the adoption of the regulations? Is he comfortable that the processes are sufficient to ensure that there will be no contagion between different parts of the securities market and beyond? Most of all, will he say how the market will continue to operate in the absence of any deal with the European Union, and a hard Brexit taking place? Finally, will he commit the Government to reviewing the legislation after a short period and placing a report in front of the House on the operation of the insurance-linked securities market as a whole and the effect the regulations have had upon it?
Exiting the EU: Costs
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Elizabeth Truss
As the Prime Minister laid out in her Florence speech, we do want to abide by the commitments we made during our period of membership, and we also want to see progress on securing a deal. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that any settlement that we seek to achieve has to be contingent on getting a suitable outcome from the negotiations, as has been outlined by the Prime Minister, because we want to ensure that any money spent is value for money for the British taxpayer.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for raising this critical question.
As we all know, settling this issue is vital to continuing to the next part of the negotiations. Given that progress has been so much slower than we would have hoped, the Opposition support efforts to resolve this part of the negotiations as soon as is feasible, so that we can start to make progress to end the uncertainty that is impacting on jobs and the economy.
The financial settlement with the EU must meet our international obligations while delivering a fair deal for British taxpayers. The UK is a responsible country and there is no mileage in our refusing to meet our obligations. If we are to negotiate a comprehensive new trade agreement with the European Union, which we will need for future jobs and prosperity, we must be seen as a country that can be trusted to comply with the deals that we reach.
Given our long-standing membership of the European Union, the calculation will understandably be complex. Given that this is a sensitive part of the negotiations, we appreciate that the Government cannot announce a figure publicly at this stage, but they must be transparent about the process, especially once an understanding has been reached with our EU partners. That is why we have tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that calls for any financial settlement to be assessed by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office, and for Parliament to have the chance to scrutinise it. The Government’s handling of the presentation of the impact assessment studies to Parliament has left a lot to be desired, so may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to promise that, in the interests of transparency and clarity, the Government will support that amendment?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments. I am glad that he agrees with the Government’s strategy. The next step will be making sure that his Back-Bench colleagues also agree with his strategy. He is absolutely right that we should not reveal the details of negotiations while they are ongoing. However, the Opposition’s approach of saying that any deal is better than no deal is not the best way of securing a deal. Although our preferred option is an implementation period followed by a strong agreement, we are preparing for all eventualities, which is why we are putting in £3 billion. I suggest that the Opposition should also support that very responsible approach.
Draft Banking Act 2009 (Service Providers to Payment Systems) Order 2017
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak on behalf of the Opposition, Mr Robertson.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis, there still remains work to be done on strengthening and reforming our financial market infrastructure, to ensure that we never see a repeat of the events of 2008. One of the issues we faced at that time was that regulation could not keep pace with the speed at which markets were changing. That is vital in an era when financial innovation continues to surprise us all. Many of the recent developments have been exciting and encouraging, and indeed I spend much of my time in the City seeing at first hand how technology is being harnessed to the benefit of service provision.
It is also important, however, that new initiatives are given proper oversight, to ensure that consumers are protected and that the system is robust enough to withstand unforeseen consequences. The advent of the payment systems regulator under the auspices of the Financial Conduct Authority has been an important part of that. The PSR has already done critical work in the growing and changing market segment and is helping efforts towards better protection of consumers.
The Opposition therefore support the spirit of the order in ensuring that the appropriate supervision is in place. However, I ask the Minister for further clarity on the definitions of which service providers will come under the scope of the new rules. The draft legislation states that HM Treasury will have to specify which service providers are systemically important, in consultation with the Bank of England. It seems opaque that there are no draft guidelines on how that process will be undertaken.
In our consultation with stakeholders we have heard concerns that unintended consequences could arise from the legislation. For example, the proposed extension of part 5 oversight to service providers could distort competition in the market if applied unequally in the future. Will the Minister provide some insight into how that will be prevented and how the Government will ensure that application will be fair and proportionate? Further to the information provided by the explanatory memorandum, why do the Government feel that a shortfall needs to be met with further regulation, given that individual contracts already exist between payment service providers and system operators?
Our second concern is that the order gives additional supervisory responsibility to the Bank of England. We want to ensure that sufficient thought is given to how that will be resourced. In the previous 10 years, financial market infrastructure has become significantly more complex and systemically important following the financial crisis. It is important, therefore, that the role of the Bank of England is scrutinised in the wider context as its scope broadens.
The Opposition support any moves to make our financial system more robust. However, we believe that the purpose of this legislation and its scope must be crystal clear, with a strong case for its necessity, to ensure that its potential impact on the market can be fully understood in advance.