Financial Statement

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing that helpful tweet with the House, but I would say to him that the number he is looking for is 70%—70% of workers will pay less because of the increase in thresholds, even taking into account the new levy. That is why this Government are on the side of hard-working British taxpayers.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I do not think the Chancellor understands the depth of despair and fear among the very lowest-income households in this country, for example, those whose incomes were already below the thresholds for national insurance or tax—those who have to rely on social security benefits as they are not able to work because of caring responsibilities, health or disability. To uprate benefits by less than half the rate of inflation at the same time as families face particular pressures on paying for the basics of energy and food will simply leave those families destitute. Will he please heed the calls from around the House this afternoon and look again at his benefits uprating policy?

[Rishi Sunak]

As I have said, for those who are most vulnerable we are providing an extra half a billion pounds, and we are doubling the size of the household fund—local authorities are best placed to direct that funding. But we do want to support people into work, which is why I am proud of the record we have.

Covid-19: Economic Package

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support, and he is absolutely right. In Bury, as elsewhere, businesses have benefited from the support that the Government have put in place. They have been able to retain their employees through using the scheme. That means that Bury, when we get through this crisis, can be in the forefront of making sure that our economy bounces back as strongly as it can. I look forward to hearing from him what more we can do to support his constituents and his businesses through this crisis.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) [V]]

The Mayor of Greater Manchester’s United We Stream initiative has raised thousands of pounds for our creative industries, which make a vital contribution to our economy and to socioemotional wellbeing. With the sector likely to be among the last to exit lockdown, and with many artists working on a freelance or self-employed basis, will the Chancellor confirm that full support will be given to that vital sector for as long as is needed?

[Rishi Sunak]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has engaged extensively with that sector as part of planning for a future where people can get back to work and sectors can reopen in a responsible and safe way. That work is already ongoing. Of course, many people in that sector are benefiting already from our self-employment income support scheme, which opens this week for applications. People will start receiving their lump sum payment as early as next week, and I know that will make an enormous difference to the many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who work in that sector and will benefit from that scheme.

Coronavirus: Employment Support

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at the most comprehensive package that we can bring forward that deals with all sectors and all categories. We want it to be effective to deal with the reality of the challenges that our country faces.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

May I raise a specific question with the Minister? Childminders and childcare providers in my constituency tell me that, although they have insurance if they have to close their businesses as a result of a notifiable disease, which covid-19 clearly now is, insurance companies are saying that they will not provide the cover, because it does not appear on the list of notifiable diseases. Will the Minister take that up urgently with the industry?

[John Glen]

I have taken that up urgently with the industry. Businesses take out business relief, and then about 5% take out insurance for non-specified diseases, and 5% for specified diseases. We have made sure that for those that have taken insurance for specified diseases, that will be triggered by the Government’s announcement this week, and the other package of measures will support businesses that do not have that insurance. We cannot retrofit contractual obligations to insurance companies.

Economic Update

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

As I have said, we are considering employment support packages and what can be designed and implemented at pace. As for other countries, let me again put it on record that the fiscal interventions we have undertaken are comparable in size with those of any other major developed economy.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

There is huge fear, and also confusion, among my constituents this evening about a range of issues: whether measures will apply to start-ups, what will happen to VAT on advance sales, the position of businesses in the hospital supply chain, and what will happen if a freelancer cannot work because he or she must look after a family member who has been sent home. May I suggest to the Chancellor that local authorities will not have the capacity to deal with all those queries while they are doing many other things, including delivering vital services? It would be very helpful if a dedicated MP hotline could be set up to deal with such questions, so that we could go to one Government location to help our constituents.

Apprenticeship Levy

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

That is an important point, and the hon. Lady anticipates what I was coming on to. I have had my own apprentice now for nine years; they do a level 3 business administration course, and there will be other Members here who employ their own apprentices. There is a question mark about whether those at the starting levels of apprenticeships have been supported as well as they could be through the apprenticeship levy.

Interestingly, when I arranged an interview between Business West, which effectively took over the running of apprenticeships from the chamber of commerce in Gloucestershire, with the previous Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships, she said very clearly that in terms of small and medium-sized enterprises

“it has been difficult for the non-levy payers, but we are now transferring them over to a new system which we do want to be simpler for them.”

The Minister who is here in Westminster Hall—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan)—is not formally the Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships. Indeed, I believe it is true to say that there is still a gap in the Department for Education in terms of an actual apprenticeships Minister, which I hope will be filled soon through an appointment by our new Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister here today will be able to say a little about the speed of transferring the non-levy payers to the new system and how that has progressed. The previous Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships made her comments in July last year, so I hope there has been some progress in that regard.

However, just to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), it is quite true that the numbers of level 2 and level 3 apprentices have come down sharply since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, just as it is true that the numbers of levels 4 to 7 higher apprentices have risen sharply.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is absolutely right in his analysis of the figures. Last week, I had the great pleasure of shadowing a degree apprentice from my constituency who is studying at the University of Salford while working for Russell’s Construction—it was great to see a young woman taking such a good course in the construction industry. However, I asked Russell’s Construction what opportunity there was for it to deploy the levy through its supply chain to SMEs. The company seemed to be interested in doing that, but it could not see an easy process for doing it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is something the Government might like to think about?

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right in one way, but of course a lot has changed relatively recently. Levy employers can now transfer 25% of their levy to other organisations, and the obvious opportunity there is to do it through their supply chain. For example, in a briefing I received from it in November, Tesco said it contributed roughly £20 million a year to the apprenticeship levy but that it is able to spend only about 15% of it, due to the inflexibility of the system. We will come on to the inflexibility of the system, but the key thing is that there is now this opportunity for Tesco to deploy a quarter of its levy, which would be £5 million, to some of the companies in its supply chain, which are typically SMEs. That is incredibly valuable, and I hope it is something that Tesco has taken up.

As a result of the hon. Lady’s question, I hope that other levy employers out there will be more aware of this opportunity. Business West asked a very similar question of the previous Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships:

“What would you advise colleges to do in September if they have gone over their non-Levy allocation and have 16 year olds wanting to start an apprenticeship with a non-Levy employer?”

The previous Minister—the former right hon. Member for Guildford—replied:

“I would approach the larger Levy paying firms in the area…There are lots of Levy payers who have not spent their levy pots.”

That is quite true; the question is whether it is as well-known as it should be. I know of examples from Gloucestershire Engineering Training where our county council and I think another public sector employer have used part of their levy to help an SME to ensure that its apprentice receives the training they need. However, such opportunities are not as widely known about as they should be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

7. What progress his Department is making on its review of the implementation of changes to the off-payroll working rules; and if he will make a statement.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

17. What steps he is taking to review the implementation of changes to the off-payroll working rules; and if he will make a statement.

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

The review of the off-payroll working rules reform was announced on 7 January 2020. The reform is due to be extended to medium and large-sized organisations in all sectors from 6 April. It is determining whether any further steps can be taken to ensure smooth and successful implementation, and a series of roundtables with stake- holders has already been conducted. The review will conclude by mid-February, after which recommendations will be made public.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady may be aware that we have already made a small but important change to the roll-out as a result of the review. We are not aware of blanket determinations being made, although it must be said that many firms are choosing to acknowledge disguised employment and bring those contractors in-house. The hon. Lady should also be aware that there are various routes by which determinations can be challenged, including, if necessary, a submission under the income tax self-assessment process, for a final determination.

[Kate Green]

We all want to crack down on tax avoidance but legitimate contractors in my constituency face uncertainty about their status and tax liability thanks to unclear HMRC guidance and the unreliability of CEST—check employment status for tax—and the firms they work for are cancelling contracts because of the confusion. What is the Minister doing to address their concerns?

[Jesse Norman]

We are conducting a review to ensure that this is as smooth as possible. We recognise that there is difficulty here. Some 18 months have passed since the original reform of status determination was announced and in that process we have had a consultation, draft legislation and further discussions and consultation, and we are having a further review now to make sure it is properly and smoothly rolled out.

Privileges

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for this early opportunity to debate the report of the Committee of Privileges, which we published last week, and for tabling a motion in the terms requested by the Committee. She was good enough to inform me that she is not able to be present in the Chamber this afternoon to move the motion, and I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for doing so and for supporting the Committee’s report.

This case has proved rather protracted, for reasons I will come to, but it is essentially a very simple matter, so I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, Mr Cummings failed to obey, first, an order of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and, then, an order of the House itself to attend an oral evidence hearing. When the House referred this to the Privileges Committee as an alleged contempt, we agreed a resolution on process that is appended to our report. It is based on a resolution agreed by our predecessor Committee some years ago when considering the case of News International witnesses who were alleged to have committed a contempt by misleading a Select Committee. We have adhered strictly to the procedures set out in that resolution, even though it has had the effect of lengthening our inquiry.

We invited Mr Cummings to give oral evidence, but despite our giving him ample opportunity to agree a date, it proved impossible to do so. In an email to us, and again in his blog last week, Mr Cummings has made various mis-statements about this. I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I want to put on public record a rebuttal of one or two of his assertions.

In his blog, Mr Cummings states, in relation to the date of a projected evidence session before the Committee of Privileges, as agreed in December:

“We tentatively agreed 31 Jan”

but

“they cancelled the hearing in January and declined to reschedule it”.

Our report sets out what actually happened. At the start of December we offered Mr Cummings a selection of dates for a hearing in January. In response, Mr Cummings told us that he would “probably” come on 31 January—the latest of the dates we offered—but that he would confirm before Christmas. He did not.

I wrote to Mr Cummings on 10 January, seeking confirmation. I received no reply. The Committee’s Clerk emailed him on 23 January, also seeking a response. He replied on 28 January:

“helo ive just seen this, I will reply this afternoon”.

There was no further reply. On 29 January, with two days to go until the proposed evidence session, and having had no confirmation that he would attend, the Committee met and decided that it had no alternative but to cancel the session and bring our inquiry to as rapid a conclusion as possible.

In his blog, Mr Cummings states:

“My last letter to the Committee of 26/2 is below. I got no answer...”

That is quite untrue. On 28 February, two days after his email, I wrote to him to respond in detail to his comments. I received no reply. All these letters, emails and responses are published on the Committee’s website.

At an earlier stage—this is similar to the experience of the DCMS Committee—Mr Cummings had insisted that all Members of Parliament taking part in the hearing should take an oath. I replied, pointing out that that would not be possible; we were willing to administer the oath to him, at his own request, but the oath could be administered only to witnesses, just as in the law courts the judge and barristers do not take an oath. In his blog, he described that argument as “laughable”. He also says that the Committee

“replied that No, they didn’t want to promise to tell the truth and sadly they weren’t able to make such a promise(!) but would I come anyway”.

Those comments are completely fabricated. I will not continue outlining the exchanges; anyone who wishes to can read our full report, and the various letters and email exchanges published with it, and make up their own mind as to whether it was the Committee of Privileges or Mr Cummings who was behaving unreasonably.

Notwithstanding those responses from Mr Cummings, I want to assure the House that the Committee has done its very best to approach the case scrupulously. Our report assesses whether his conduct amounts to contempt of Parliament. It might seem obvious that a refusal to obey an order of the House, or of its Committees, is a contempt of Parliament. However, in certain exceptional circumstances it is conceivable that a prospective witness might be justified in declining to give evidence, if they have genuine grounds to fear that they would be treated unfairly, or that giving evidence might significantly prejudice future court proceedings against them.

The report considers the arguments advanced by Mr Cummings to see whether there were extenuating circumstances that might have justified his conduct, particular in relation to the risk of legal proceedings against him, which Government Members have mentioned today. The report concludes that the DCMS Committee had offered Mr Cummings a series of alternative dates for a hearing and that he had not supplied any evidence that he was at significant risk of criminal prosecution, or that suggested any significant flaw in that Committee’s inquiry or in its handling of witnesses. Legal inquiries into whether he or others might have been at risk of future criminal proceedings were assessed in the light of assurances that we received from regulators, which led us to understand that he himself was not facing criminal proceedings.

We agree with the DCMS Committee that Mr Cummings’s evidence would have been relevant to its inquiry—a few moments ago we heard more detail from the Committee’s Chair about why that would have been the case—and we agree that his refusal to attend was a significant interference with that Committee’s work. We conclude that he committed a contempt by his refusal to obey first the Committee’s order and then the House’s order. We recommend that he be admonished by resolution of the House, to be communicated to him by the Clerk of the House. We do not recommend the old practice of summoning him to the Bar, which we believe would merely give him an opportunity to grandstand. The motion before the House, in conjunction with the report that it approves, constitutes the admonishment. If agreed to, no further action by the House will be sought in this matter.

Finally—this point has been raised a number of times this afternoon—the report comments that

“the case of Mr Cummings has raised further questions as to the enforceability of the House’s powers and those of its committees to secure evidence”.

The Committee will therefore now return to its wider inquiry into these matters, referred to it in the previous Parliament, and we plan shortly to announce a series of oral evidence sessions. We hope to co-ordinate our inquiry with the Liaison Committee’s current inquiry into Select Committee effectiveness.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady’s Committee pursue comparisons to see what might be working more effectively in other democratic institutions?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that excellent suggestion. I urge right hon. and hon. Member to submit their own evidence to the Committee—we will shortly publish details on how that can be done.

It has been apparent to all of us for some time that the current situation is unsatisfactory. I acknowledge that admonishment is a fairly feeble sanction against an individual who does not appear to feel a sense of shame at his own behaviour. The historical punishments used by the House—fining and imprisonment—have not been used for many years and, although they have not been abolished, it is highly unlikely that any attempt to use them now would survive legal challenge. None of the alternative options—they may be summed up as doing nothing, attempting to assert the House’s rights through resolutions or changes to the Standing Orders, or legislating to confer powers on the House—is without objection, which is why the problem is still with us; if there was an easy answer, something would have been done a long time ago.

Notwithstanding that, the Committee wishes to canvass options vigorously, including, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) suggests, by looking at how other legislatures around the world have dealt with the issue. We will focus not only on ways of strengthening sanctions, but at ensuring, as we have striven to do in this inquiry, that the House is fair and scrupulous in the way it treats witnesses. We intend to report to the House with proposals as soon as possible.

I will conclude by placing on the record my thanks to my colleagues on the Privileges Committee for their assistance in bringing the report to the House, to the Leader of the House for tabling the motion, and to the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for introducing the debate. I urge the House to support the motion.

Equitable Life

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and then move on to the key points I want to make before winding up.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his co-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), on all the work they have done. I should declare an interest, in that I had an Equitable Life policy. I lost a very small amount of money, but over 2,000 of my constituents will have lost much more.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in addition to the financial benefits the Treasury would draw from money recirculating, doing such a thing would also mean that those former policyholders who are now having to look to other financial instruments to raise cash—such as equity release, which is equally inappropriate for them—would be protected from having to undertake other risky financial measures to sustain themselves in their old age?

[Bob Blackman]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady; she makes a valid point.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

This deal fails on so many counts. It does not give us back control; it does not give clarity and certainty; and it will do nothing to heal the divisions that so many hon. Members have talked of and that now pertain in our country. I find it particularly ironic that we are being told that one of the virtues of the deal is the certainty it will give to business. It does no such thing. After the transition period, the political declaration’s vagueness means that business can be no more certain than it is now. In my constituency, which is home to the first and, I think, still the largest industrial park in Europe, this is a matter of the utmost importance.

Businesses in Trafford Park span a vast range of industry sectors, all of which will be affected by the way in which the country leaves the European Union. They include sectors such as food processing, chemicals, paint, fire resistant product manufacture, furniture making, printing, service industries and logistics. This deal gives those businesses no guarantees on frictionless trade and no idea of what the long-term customs and tariff arrangements will look like. Those businesses have no idea of the long-term regulatory regimes that they will participate in, and they have no certainty about their access to European labour. It is quite disgraceful that, just days before we are required to vote on this deal, we have still had no sight of an immigration Bill or an immigration White Paper. The lack of access to labour in industry sectors such as food processing, construction, social care, hospitality and retail, all of which are crucial to my constituency and those of many other hon. Members, leaves a gaping hole that makes it impossible for us to vote for this blind Brexit.

I am fearful that this deal will not only compromise our prosperity and security but diminish our standing and influence on the world stage. It is incumbent on us to find something better, and something better cannot be no deal. That would take us down a black hole of no security arrangements, no trading arrangements with our nearest neighbours and no capacity to deal with the challenges that we face on a global basis, including climate change, conflict and population movement. Parliament can now try to find common ground and a deal that we can all agree on, but the evidence is that Parliament, like the country, is now hopelessly divided.

An election delivering a new Government with a new will to negotiate a deal that benefits the whole country is something that I look forward to and welcome, but I say gently to those on my own Front Bench that if we are in government and negotiating a deal, we will have to be realistic about the compromises that will need to be made if we are to continue to benefit from a relationship with our European neighbours that works. If nobody in this place can draw up a satisfactory deal, which looks increasingly probable, I, too, after a long period of soul- searching and as a fundamental believer in parliamentary democracy, believe that we will have to return the decision to the country.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to identify and characterise the businesses in her constituency in that way. They are deeply connected through supply chains to the European continent. That lies right at the heart of the political declaration and of our commitment to having the most frictionless trade possible and having no barriers, quotas or additional charges involved in that aspect of the relationship. I would say to her, respectfully, that she cannot view this deal in a vacuum. She has to consider it in the context of the alternatives. There is a danger, as she will recognise, that if we end up in no-deal territory, all the very things she fears may come to pass. It is really important for all of us across the House who have manufacturing businesses in our constituencies to stand up for them and support this deal.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister has been at pains to make it clear that he is speaking to a Government-wide document, so may I ask him about an aspect of Government policy that will be material to the economic outcome of whatever deal the Government bring forward—that is, policy in relation to migration? Despite promises of an immigration White Paper, last year through to this summer, it is still not in front of us. Will the Minister guarantee that we will have that White Paper, clarity about the Government’s immigration policy choices and a proper economic analysis of their impact, in time for the vote on 11 December?

[Mel Stride]

We will of course come forward with further information about the policies that we intend to pursue in the area that the hon. Lady raises, but I point her to the fact that within the analysis being presented today, there is of course an analysis on both a “no net migration” basis between ourselves and those based in the European economic area, compared with the free movement that we have today. So that is actually factored into the analysis that we are reviewing now.