Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Peter Dowd

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

Which is a shame, I have to say.

The Minister referred to consultation. Consultation about what we want to do in the future, what people would like to see from the relief and how it might operate is in advance of the implementation. We consult, and we think this or that is a good idea, but it is also important to find out whether the relief has had the effect that the consultation wanted to achieve. One of the only ways to establish whether the consultation and the implementation have been effective is a review, and that is what we seek. If we are to have these reliefs, we must review whether they are doing the job they are supposed to do. The amendment is fairly simple in that regard.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I support what my hon. Friend said, and I hope Members will support the amendment and that it will be successful. I have a brief comment to make.

In my ideal world, we would fund museums and the rich cultural heritage we have not through tax reliefs but by direct funding. We would collect all the tax and then pay it to museums and galleries directly through local authority and national funding and by specific grants where necessary. There would, of course, be charitable and private donations as well, but the great bulk of it would be in the public sector. I hope we can look towards a world where we have direct public funding, rather than a complex jungle of tax reliefs, and collect all the tax and forget about the tax reliefs.

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Peter Dowd

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

That is a very good point. It is also actually creating an awful lot of work for us, given the amount of times we have asked for this to be dealt with. It is getting pretty repetitive. I do not know how many times we have to ask for this to be dealt with once and for all; no doubt we will come back to it time and again until something is sorted out.

This is not only about non-doms using offshore trusts to hide their money and essentially subvert the measures in the clause; it is about the source of the money and its value, particularly when we are discussing how to clamp down on tax avoidance. The Government should consider a register of offshore trusts, ensuring that non-doms have to register the sources of their property and income. Again, that request is not unreasonable to the public or to our constituents who elect and send us to this place, all of whom have to register the sources of their income with HMRC. In fact, a number of the measures in the Bill will require even more financial information to be passed on to HMRC through the bulk collection of financial data by third parties. It seems to many people that there is one law for one group and another for the rest of us. That cannot be right.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The issue of non-dom taxation has been going on for years. The reality is that Conservative Governments and perhaps even Labour Governments have not gone far enough to eliminate the problem by saying that these people are going to pay tax properly and not wriggle all the time. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to get rid of a world where rich people live in Monaco in the south of France and fly in a couple of times a week in their private planes, working in the City and making billions, just to avoid tax, and that we should be making sure they pay their taxes and be looking after ordinary people?

[Peter Dowd]

What we need is a fair taxation system—that is the key. I do not think it is beyond the wit of this Government or any Government, for that matter, to deal with that. That is not to say that we have not moved some. That would not be appropriate. We have moved on.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Peter Dowd

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The extent, nature and quality of advice received by a person wanting a pension is of great importance and significance. That is particularly the case considering that, in 2017, 30% of the working age population is at state pension age or older. The Department for Work and Pensions recently summarised perfectly the importance of pensions advice on its website:

“For most people in the UK, their pension savings will be their largest financial asset, which they will save towards over the course of their working lives”.

That gets to the nub of the matter. Hopefully, most of us will be saving towards a pension for the majority of our lives and we are ultimately relying on that to secure a good-quality standard of living when we retire. Therefore, the advice received matters a great deal.

For many, the securing of pension advice is, given the nature of their employment, for example, not as problematic. People who work in certain sectors, such as the finance sector, on the whole will find that their companies automatically cover pension advice. For others, the cost of such advice is minimal in the grand scheme of things. However, it has to be said that, for those who do not have much disposable cash and whose retirement is dependent on making wise investments with their pensions and ensuring that they save the right amount, good-quality advice is the key to a more secure retirement. I am sure that that will be greeted with unanimous nodding from Government members, if nothing else.

As Committee members know, the financial advice market review was launched in August 2015

“to explore ways in which government, industry and regulators could take individual and collective steps to stimulate the development of a market that delivers affordable and accessible financial advice and guidance to everyone.”

That is a laudable endeavour if ever there was one. It set out a strong and compelling case that there is a retirement “advice gap” for those without significant wealth. Research by Unbiased, an organisation of Financial Conduct Authority-regulated advisers who are independent of product providers, found that those who sought retirement advice increased their retirement savings by an average of £98 a month. However, less than one third of people have accessed financial advice on their pension. The financial advice market review found that many people perceived financial advice to be unaffordable or “not for people” like them.

The advice gap is not getting any smaller. Although the introduction of the exemption for the first £500-worth of pensions advice to employees is welcome, particularly as it replaces the provisions that limited the advice that people could receive—the cap was set at £150—we think that that does not go far enough. Most people in the pension advice sector would reasonably point out that £500-worth of tax-free advice is a relatively small figure given the importance of the decisions that people face. There are genuine questions to be asked about the impact that such a figure will have on the current pensions advice gap and, importantly, on the quality of that advice.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the affordability of pensions advice, but the trustworthiness of pensions advice is also an issue. Even I—I am fairly numerate—do not trust the advice I am given, although fortunately the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority gives better advice than most. Many ordinary people not only think that it is not for the likes of them and are rather nervous, but fear that they are not given correct and disinterested advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

We all agree that the current model of legal expenses or indemnity insurance for employees is wholly inadequate to the modern workplace. It is worth getting a plug in here in relation to the household insurance that people have for when they wish to defend their position in court, whether criminal or civil. I have experience of some of these policies not being fit for purpose. That goes to the heart of some of these issues, although it is not directly related. I am sure that other Members have had people come to them with insurance policies that they bought thinking they would cover them for this, that or the other, only to find that they are not fit for purpose. It is worth this Committee sending the message out that some of those policies are not up to scratch.

Getting back to the point, under the current system, only an employee who has had an allegation made against them can claim for legal expenses, which will be deducted from their earnings. Potentially, if a person is called as a witness at a public hearing, he or she will immediately be put out of pocket for any legal expenses. Similarly, if an employee is to give evidence at a public hearing, perhaps in one of our Committee Rooms in this building, under the current system they will be out of pocket if they need legal counsel. That is a deterrent to both employee and employer. The measure would tidy up and expand the current, rather vague, provision to cover employees giving evidence at public hearings, which we welcome; however, I have a number of questions.

How many employers will the new measure cover? Will it cover all employers? How extensive is it? Are any particular sectors affected by the measure? What is the estimated cost of such a measure to the Exchequer? Does the measure include cover for employment tribunals? That has been a bone of contention in the past few months, in the light of the Government’s introduction of quite significant fees for people making employment tribunal claims.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is evidence that thousands of people have been deterred from bringing a case to employment tribunals simply because of the fees.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why it is important to tease out the issues. People get confused and deeply worried about these matters, so we need clarity.

Our concern is that the measure will, in essence, be used as a tax break for employers, to the detriment of employees. I am not saying that that is the intention, but it is important to get clarity. Given the lack of detail, we believe that a review of the impact of the changes on the coverage of legal expenses is in order. It would focus specifically on the effectiveness of the measure, the value of the relief and, of course, how many employers and employees it brings within its purview. I reaffirm the point: it is important that this area is clarified and that people know the direction of travel, which is why we moved the amendment, to keep tabs on the proposal.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Peter Dowd

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head; that is an excellent forensic point that the Minister will have heard, and will, I hope, take up, especially in relation to our amendment.

The potential problems might be still bigger in the case of property income where the new relief interacts with existing schemes such as rent-a-room relief. Taxpayers will need to work out which relief applies before determining whether and how they need to make a self-assessment return. Although I am confident that the Minister is genuine in his desire to help more people get on the right side and make the right declarations for their taxes, I worry that the added complexity could easily put off more people from making the correct declaration. I suspect that none of us wants that, including him, because it is not particularly sensible. In many cases, it will not be due to anyone’s desire for dishonesty; it will be because taxpayers used to operating only within pay-as-you-earn will be confronted with a confusion of options in considering how they must declare to HMRC.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has rightly highlighted the complications that might arise for lower-income households. The new reliefs might free taxpayers from the need to declare very small amounts to HMRC, but will not have the same effect of releasing their obligations to account to the Department for Work and Pensions if they are universal credit claimants. Those are the households that would benefit most from simplification, rather than finding themselves subject to the most bewildering requirements to account to the state. I do not wish to waylay the Committee with the ongoing issue of universal credit implementation, as we will undoubtedly have a debate about that tomorrow, but the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group highlights a fair point: so-called simplifications involving tax and social security can sometimes have the opposite effect on those expected to use them. I think that we have all witnessed that to a greater or lesser degree.

Our amendment proposes an HMRC review, to report by 2020, of the use of the reliefs and the resulting effects on the Exchequer. I know that the inclination is to resist all Opposition amendments, but I can see little cause to resist this one. Inevitably, just like other measures discussed earlier, the reliefs will be revisited, unpicked, reworked and recalibrated in future Budgets. Sensible and calm review by HMRC must be in the interests of everybody involved.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. It is said that Britain has more accountants per head of population than any other country, probably because the complexity of our tax system means that we all need to use one. However, in this situation, as he said, the amounts involved might be small, and the cost of an accountant might be quite high. That could deter people from using accountants, getting them into more difficulty.

Is there not a case for a proper review by HMRC, which knows the score because it deals with such things on a daily basis? HMRC could advise the Government on introducing appropriate changes that would simplify the tax system as well as helping those who would benefit from tax reliefs in a more practical and pragmatic way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is a lot of evidence that the banks are still engaging in risky gambling on the international exchanges, and compensating for that by squeezing ordinary taxpayers, ordinary bank customers and small businesses in particular to back up their gambling losses. Would my hon. Friend say that we are still facing danger in the future because of the banks’ behaviour?

[Peter Dowd]

We always have to be vigilant—that is the key. Vigilance is crucial. Virtually no one had experienced anything like the banking crisis in living memory. Given that, we have to be on our guard that we do not all breathe such a sigh of relief that it was so long ago that we lose our vigilance.

It seems to me that strong regulations, which will not only protect the taxpayer and their savings, but develop practices at the heart of the industry, are the only bulwark against another financial crisis being created and enacted through reckless banking practice. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that, particularly given that when we finish the summer-autumn Finance Bill we will immediately start the winter Finance Bill. Given the Government’s delayed and, I have to say, sometimes chaotic timetable, it will no doubt end up being called the spring Bill instead. Dare I say it, we have a Minister who is the man for all seasons in that regard. [Interruption.] Don’t give up the day job, as they say—or perhaps hon. Members would like me to.

Many of the stakeholders to whom the Opposition spoke raised concerns about the complexity of the proposals and the speed with which the Government have attempted to take them through.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Peter Dowd

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

I agree with that particular point.

We know the Government’s overall stated aim is to crack down on what they say is significant avoidance related to non-contractual payments in lieu of notice. To do this, there is a complex set of formulas to mandate what will be considered as notice pay, even when that is not actually given in lieu of notice. Amendment 1 addresses our concern that the Government are giving themselves the power to change the meaning of basic pay for the purpose of calculating notice pay. That could significantly change the basis of the calculations, so the Minister should set out more clearly the intention of this measure.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, of course. Does he agree that a lump sum on termination of employment could be considered as potential income over a period of years, and should not be considered just as a lump sum to be taxed within one year?

[Peter Dowd]

Again, that goes to the heart of the issue. The Government are trying to focus on a particular moment in time, rather than taking into account the fact that a person might be out of employment for a long time.

We see a running theme of this Government in this Bill and so many of their other actions: they are removing powers from Parliament and giving them to Ministers. But other elements have been tacked on to the clause that are seemingly unconnected to the stated aims about payments in lieu of notice. It is clear that the Government are laying the ground so that workers who have already lost their jobs should pay tax on more of their termination payments. Is that the message that the Government are now sending to the likes of the BAE workers? Is it the message they want to send to the victims of redundancy? There can be no other explanation for this clause. It gives the Treasury powers through delegated legislation to raise or lower the tax-free threshold.

Changes to the tax-free allowance for termination payments were first mooted by the Office of Tax Simplification in 2013 when it cited such payments as an employee benefit that would merit further study. I find it rather peculiar that a payment to an employee who has just lost their job is considered as an employee benefit—how bizarre. It is as though a termination payment were some sort of added extra and a huge inconvenience for employers, when in fact that worker has just lost their job and this may well be the last payslip they receive for a long time. The Government have promised not to reduce the threshold, so it comes as a bitter pill that the Bill will allow them to do just that.

If there is no intention to reduce the threshold, Conservative Members should have no hesitation in voting for amendment 2, which would allow the threshold only to be increased through delegated legislation, removing the power to decrease the amount. I wait with bated breath for the Minister to keep the Government’s word and accept our amendment.

In the previous debate, the Minister went to great lengths to claim that the Government’s plans to give themselves the power to water down the tax-free threshold on termination payments, and to exclude injury to feelings from tax-free compensation payments, had nothing to do with attacks on those who have just lost their jobs. No, instead that is apparently part of some ambitious strategy that the Government have to tackle tax avoidance.

The Minister is so concerned about tax avoidance that he has claimed that

“when the Government find tax avoidance, we will clamp down on it.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 253.]

Such a bold assertion makes me wonder if the Minister has even read his own Finance Bill. Has he read clause 15, which we will debate later, through which his Government are loosening the rules to allow more non-doms to receive tax breaks if they use money from offshore tax havens to invest in the UK?

[Peter Dowd]

We will deal with that a little later. The hon. Gentleman may want to pay attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who will expose that fallacy.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is it not the case that the Government are squeezing money out of people who cannot escape from taxation—namely, less well-off people who lose their jobs—rather than chasing the big money people who evade and avoid taxes?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend, as ever, puts it in a nutshell. That is the case.

Has the Minister read clauses 29 to 32 and schedules 8 and 9? With those measures, the Government are deliberately signposting a loophole to ensure that non-doms can set up offshore trusts that are exempt from planned changes to non-domiciled status. That exemption completely undermines the Government’s planned changes. The fact is that this Government are not interested in tackling the scourge of tax avoidance and evasion, which costs the UK economy billions every year. They have no interest in ensuring that those who invest foreign money in the UK do so in a transparent and open manner.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Peter Dowd

Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jane Ellison]

I think we would all agree on the broad point about wanting people to have access to financial advice whatever their income, but we are dealing with this Bill. The Government will consult and take soundings on the successor to the Money Advice Service and the other advice services that will be brought together, and I am sure that we will have a good debate about that in due course. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contribute those broader thoughts to that debate.

Let me turn to the current regulatory framework around the LISA. It is worth saying that it is not the Government’s role to set that regulatory framework. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about the different regulatory landscape at the time when he was being sold products—not particularly well, apparently. We are all thankful that that landscape has changed greatly since those days, and rightly so, but it is the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority to regulate the providers of ISAs, and it will likewise set the appropriate framework for the lifetime ISA.

The FCA will consult on the regulatory regime for the lifetime ISA throughout the autumn and will, as is its ordinary remit, ensure that providers are transparent to customers about the products that they are offering and those products are sold with suitable safeguards in place. We heard in some of the evidence sessions on Tuesday about how the industry wants to get advice right. Everyone has been scarred by what has happened in years past. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, we will consult later this year on the scope of the new financial guidance body, as a complement to the industry’s advice. We heard people such as Martin Lewis talk about the common-sense advice that people need to hear, and that is also an important part of the landscape from which people can seek guidance. I am sure that Martin Lewis and others will contribute to the debate about the new advice services.

I reassure the hon. Member for Bootle that information about the lifetime ISA will be available so that potential customers can make informed choices about which financial products to use. We want people to understand what the right choices are for them, but it would not be appropriate for the Government to require advice to be provided, as that would create a significant financial barrier to individuals accessing the lifetime ISA. It is the independent FCA’s role, not the Government’s, to set the regulatory framework for ISAs. For those reasons—not because I disagree with the spirit of his new clause but because I do not think it would work in practice—I encourage him to withdraw new clause 2.

I conclude my remarks about clause 1 by saying that the lifetime ISA will benefit many young people by supporting them to save flexibly for the long term. It is designed to complement the pension system, not replace it. The clause makes provision for the fundamental feature of the lifetime ISA: the Government bonus. We think that is a positive product for young people, and we do not want them to lose out on, for example, a year’s worth of saving and the compound interest on that because of the delay that has been called for. I therefore ask Committee members to support clause 1.

[Peter Dowd]

I welcome some of the Minister’s comments on both new clauses, and the spirit in which she made them. In the spirit of trying to move on, we will not push new clause 1 to a Division. We acknowledge that the Minister has said that there will be reviews of some fashion, though maybe not statutory reviews; we will take that away and consider it, and may come back to the question of reviews. Our concerns in relation to auto-enrolment can be appreciated. It has been a good product, to use the jargon, and we do not want to lose that. However, again, in the spirit of moving on, we will pull away from the new clause.

We will push new clause 2, on independent financial advice, to a vote, because this House has to lay down a marker when it comes to people’s future and making a significant investment in a product. The lifetime ISA is a significant investment, whatever way we look it. Importantly, it is also a significant investment by taxpayers; that has to be taken into account. If somebody wants a lifetime ISA, and rightly understands that the Government will put a lump sum towards it, it is not unreasonable for us to say that we expect that person to take independent financial advice.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says, but is it not important to have that commitment in the Bill, rather than just rely on the apparent sympathy of the Government?

[Peter Dowd]

It is, and that is why I am trying to push that message home. To some extent, we need to draw a line in the sand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

New clause 3 would require the Government to conduct a review within a year of the Act coming into force of the potential impact of the lifetime ISA on house prices in the United Kingdom. The review must be made publicly available and laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Opposition recognise that many people want to own their own home. However, we are concerned that the Government’s housing policy will only inflate house prices further. We have concerns that the LISA will make things even more difficult in a housing environment that is already strained because of the limited number of houses being built nationwide, not to mention the huge cost of housing, particularly in London and the south-east; the average figure is £250,000.

Evidence to the Committee on Tuesday was cautionary. Martin Lewis from MoneySavingExpert.com, while acknowledging the potential popularity of the LISA, flagged up its potential impact on the housing market. He highlighted that

“Unintended consequences are possible—the lifetime ISA might pump the housing market, which is a concern”.––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 50, Q95.]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, referring to the Office for Budget Responsibility, made a similar point.

I do not want to over-emphasise the point, but it is worth noting—and perhaps assessing, as suggested in the new clause—the effect of the LISA on house prices overall. It is worrying that fewer homes were built in the last Parliament than under any previous peacetime Government since the 1920s. LISA may help—if that is the right word—to overheat a market that is already short of capacity. The Government’s priority should be to try to mitigate that, not to add to the problem. I do not think that is an unreasonable point to make.

The fact is that people are increasingly chasing a product in a market that has low supply levels. It so happens that the product is a house. The facts speak for themselves. Since I sat on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee around this time last year—it may well have been in this very room—the housing market has remained pretty tight, with supply remaining low. The national planning policy framework, which the Government were warned would create confusion, has done so. That all adds to the broth and is creating problems. By now, according to the plan, and the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), there have should been a better housing supply. Alas, he was wrong.

The lifetime ISA, which will in effect replace the help to buy ISA in due course, provides a Government bonus that can be used towards a deposit on a house—if one can be found. If I remember correctly, concern was expressed by a witness that the help to buy ISA had been poorly articulated, and that the current one was potentially being poorly articulated as well. There was the impression that an ISA could be used for a deposit. Of course, there was a smorgasbord of consternation, anger, disappointment, frustration and bewilderment when many young people found that that was not the case. The problem is that if people are encouraged to borrow money for a house in a tight market, the more house prices rises, the bigger mortgages they need, and so on. The fact that the Government are helping to do that is not helpful. The problem is exacerbated. When the growth of mortgage lending outpaces the supply of housing, prices just keep rising and rising, making it increasingly difficult for people to access the housing market at a reasonable rate. There is no doubt about that.

The Government have identified the right problem but are coming up with the wrong solution. We need to build more houses. That is the only way to solve the housing crisis. New products are fine, as far as they go. Lots of people welcome the LISA—I cannot argue against that—and many people do not, but the comprehensive solution is to deal with the continuing housing supply problem. It is worth noting that the house shortage is simply a physical manifestation of the shortage of skills in the construction sector in general and the housing market in particular.

The Government are almost two years through their five-year housing plan, not counting the previous five years, and we are still falling badly behind on targets. The question is whether the proposals really deal with the substantive issue of supply, and the answer is no. In that context, it is important to look at whether this policy will have an impact on house prices. If it will, in addition to there being a lack of action on housing policy in general, that is a concern. It is legitimate to ask the Government to review the impact on the housing market of this product.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I rise to support my hon. Friend’s new clause. Many of us have long been concerned about the massive rise in house prices. I will give a simple example. When I bought my first house in Luton in 1969, house prices were three times average earnings. Now in Luton, they are 12 times average earnings.

Millions of people are seeing the possibility of home ownership disappearing. Owner-occupation is in decline; it is becoming a smaller sector, and we are seeing an opening up of major social divisions between owner-occupiers and renters. For owner-occupiers, equity will cascade down the generations, and their children and grandchildren will stay in the owner-occupied sector because they will inherit the equity. Those who are not in the sector and do not have sufficient income will remain outside the sector, as will successive generations after them—unless they win the lottery or become extremely wealthy for some other reason, but that will apply to only a small number. The great majority of people will find it very difficult to become owner-occupiers if they do not have equity handed down by their forebears.

Adding extra cash to help people who are already likely to be in a position to buy their own home will simply increase house prices further and take home ownership even further away from those who do not have equity and are unlikely to be able to afford a home. We have to see some action by Government over time at least to stabilise house prices, so that more people can get into owner-occupation, and so that those who aspire to be a homeowner have a realistic prospect of becoming one.

I support what my hon. Friend said. We have to build many more houses. The only way to stabilise house prices is to raise supply, not increase demand, which would just push house prices up. It is not the price of houses that is increasing, but the price of the land on which they are built. The cost of building a house does not increase by that amount; it is the land on which it is built. There is a case for land value taxation and doing something about the price of land.

It is a mad world. In 1969, I thought becoming an owner-occupier was a bit of an adventure, but I could afford it on one income—mine, which was not massively high, because I was a trade union research officer. Nevertheless, I could afford to buy a three-bedroom house with a garage and gardens back and front—a nice, typically British home, which we might all aspire to. If I were trying to buy the same house now, with the same sort of income, in the same town, I would have great difficulty. On my generous parliamentary salary, I might stand a better chance, but not on the salary that I had at the time, so I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle is absolutely right, and I support his new clause 3.