Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Personal debt is the biggest worry for many people I meet. The figures released by the Institute for Fiscal Studies today show that a third of those on the lowest incomes are in net debt. This debt is persistent; it is a spiral that people get stuck in for years. What are the UK Government doing to improve the financial position of households with the lowest incomes?

[John Glen]

We recognise that on occasions people find themselves in challenging debt situations. That is why we committed in our manifesto to a six-week breathing space, and we will bring that legislation forward in due course in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Over a third of people aged under 45 live in households with financial wealth of less than zero. For too many people there is not enough money at the end of each month or each week. From next year individuals earning less than £26,000 in England will pay more income tax than they would if they lived in Scotland; how can the Minister justify that?

[John Glen]

The Government recognise the challenges facing those on lower salaries, which is why we have increased the tax-free allowance, have had the eighth successive fuel duty freeze, and have increased the national living wage above the inflation rate.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to be here. I am continually impressed by the breadth and depth of knowledge displayed by the hon. Member for Oxford East, who has been a brilliant addition to the shadow Front-Bench team; I am pleased to be taking part in so many meetings at which she speaks.

The Minister has written a letter to the Chair, stating:

“I have tabled three minor amendments to clause 35. They replace amendments 3 and 4 already tabled which are withdrawn and make sure the schedule works as intended. They are in response to expert stakeholder feedback. The concern about amendment 3 was that it had unintentionally switched off the onward payment rule”—

which does not sound like a good thing—

“and also that amendment 4 had contained an incorrect cross-reference.”

These have been changed because of expert stakeholder feedback. Given the discussion we had last week, if we had taken evidence from expert stakeholders, the Government might not have had to make those changes at this late stage. The next time we have a Finance Bill, I would appreciate it if the Government considered having that evidence session in advance of the Public Bill Committee stage, not in advance of consideration by Committee of the whole House, as generally we are discussing the less technical matters at that stage. These are incredibly technical matters, and the Government have clearly made a couple of mistakes in their amendments. They might not have done so had we heard the expert evidence and been able to ask questions at that stage. I support the Opposition amendments and urge the Minister to respond to my concerns.

[The Chair]

I will allow the hon. Lady to make that point, although it is strictly out of order. I am sure that it has been taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The clause removes certain transitional rules that are no longer required for the effective taxation of carried interest charged to capital gains tax. It amends the legislation that introduced the carried interest rules in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015. The purpose of the rules is to ensure that where carried interest is subject to CGT treatment, CGT is paid on the full economic award.

Investment fund managers are rewarded in a range of ways for their work. One element of reward is straightforward income in the form of a fee, while another involves what is known as carried interest, which is the portion of the fund’s value allocated to the manager in return for their long-term services to the fund. The manager’s reward is therefore dependent on the performance of the fund. If the carried interest relates to short-term investments, it is rightly charged to income tax and national insurance.

The changes made by clause 37 make the tax system fairer by removing a limited exemption from the carried interest rules. That carve-out applied only to transactions before 8 July 2015 where there was a delay in the carried interest being paid out. By removing this exemption, we clarify and strengthen the policy intention. Furthermore, we prevent attempts to reduce unfairly the tax payable in circumstances not intended by the original legislation. To prevent forestalling, this clause, if passed, will have taken effect from 22 November 2017. It will ensure that carried interest is always subject to the higher rates of CGT on the full economic award.

The clause removes a transitional rule that is no longer required and puts the taxation of carried interest beyond doubt. Asset managers should pay the full rate of capital gains tax on their full economic award if it relates to long-term investments, and I therefore ask that this clause stands part of the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman]

rose—

[The Chair]

Ms Blackman, you may wish to speak to new clause 2, but you understand that you will not, at this stage, move it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you, Sir Roger. New clause 2 is designed to enable us to find out more about the previous effects of this transitional arrangement. The changes that the Government are making to ensure that all carried interest is subject to capital gains tax at the higher rate are reasonable, but I am concerned about the transitional arrangement and its effect on the income of the Exchequer. Would it not have been better for the Government to make the initial change in the first place, rather than having a transition period in which they have received less tax and the disparity between the haves and have-nots—those who are receiving carried interest and those who are not receiving carried interest—has continued because of the transitional relief on carried interest from the higher rate of CGT?

It would be good if the Government told us the impact of the transitional relief on the income of the Exchequer, and therefore on the overall tax take. It would be good if they told us the differential between people who received transitional relief, and normal people who do not receive transitional relief and have probably never even heard of carried interest. It would be good if the Government came back with a bit more information.

We are clearly not opposed to these changes, but we are trying to find out more information and make sure that previous decisions on the matter were sensible. If we have an assessment, we can make better tax law. If we are looking at making changes, we can assess whether transitional relief is really necessary or whether we should move to a fairer system straight away, without the two-year period that has been instituted.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her observations. She says that the principal rationale for a review is to consider whether certain measures might have been brought in earlier and, indeed, whether the original transitional measures should not have been introduced, or should have been done differently. I am not sure that that, in itself, is a strong justification for a review. What matters is that we look closely at how these measures will operate, and I am grateful for her recognition of the fact that our proposed changes are positive in that respect. I assure her that we will closely monitor the operation of the measures and whether any further changes are needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Online marketplaces

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Labour Front-Bench spokesman for his support for the retrospective refund. If it is right to allow the VAT refund to be reclaimed now, it was right to do it four years ago when the changes were first made to fire services and the police in Scotland. Now that Scotland’s budget for frontline services has been reduced by £200 million, it is time for the Government to agree to give us back the money that our services have paid.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

The clause freezes the indexation allowance—a relief for inflation—for a company’s chargeable gains for disposals on or after 1 January 2018. It may be useful for the Committee if I set out the background to the clause, although other Members have touched on it, before I turn to amendment 48 and the questions posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central.

Removing this outdated allowance supports the UK’s competitive rate of corporation tax by removing a relief that is not available consistently across corporation tax to individuals, as the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, or in most major comparable economies. In doing so, the Government recognise the importance of being fair and proportionate. As companies may have factored in relief for inflation before the autumn Budget, relief will remain available for inflation before January 2018. However, it will no longer be available from 2018 onwards.

Companies pay tax on the capital gains they make on the disposal of certain assets, such as property. In most circumstances, the capital gain is based on the rise in value of the asset over the period of ownership. Indexation allowance relieves a proportion of that gain from the charge to tax, based on the rise in the retail prices index, during the same period. Companies therefore pay tax only on the gains they make over and above inflation.

The economy and tax system have changed substantially since the allowance was introduced in 1982, when the rate of corporation tax was 52%; inflation in the preceding decade had been in double digits. While I certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about the current level of inflation owing to the depreciation of the pound and other factors, the Office for Budget Responsibility projects that inflation will peak at 3.1% and tail off towards 2% across the period. While there used to be a rationale for such an allowance, it has become something of an anachronism.

The amount of indexation allowance due is calculated by multiplying the purchase price of the assets by the indexation factor. As I set out, that is currently based on the increase in the retail prices index over the period an asset is owned, from the date it is acquired to the date it is disposed of. Going forward, the allowance will no longer be calculated by reference to the date an asset is sold; instead, it will be calculated by reference to the final month before the relief is removed—in other words, December 2017. That means that, where a company acquired an asset before 2018, relief from inflation will be available from the date the asset was acquired up to December 2017. The indexation allowance will not be available for assets acquired from January 2018 onwards.

I turn to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. I recognise the points that she makes. While these changes affect corporation tax, they do, in the context of life assurance policies, have potential impacts on individuals and their income net of tax. I do not recognise the large number of 11 million policyholders that she mentioned. I am not sure what the source of that figure was. However, as she requested, I am happy to hear from her, speak to her or have a letter from her on any of the aspects she may have an interest in.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It would be welcome if the Government could offer clarification on the numbers before Report, because that will affect what we do on the clause then.

[Mel Stride]

That is perfectly reasonable. I am sure my officials are listening carefully, and we will ensure that we give a prompt response to the letter, which we await.

Opposition Members have requested a review of the revenue effects of this change. I am happy to say that the revenue forecast for the measure was confirmed by the OBR at the Budget as £30 million in 2017-18; it will raise £1.77 billion over the scorecard period. As per routine procedure, we will keep the measure under review through communication with affected taxpayer groups. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a delight to be in Committee discussing a Finance Bill again, although we seem to be discussing one every week. I hope we can move to a single fiscal event, and that we will have a single fiscal event this year, and not an extra one or two, as we have previously.

On the change to research and development expenditure credit, I completely agree with the comments about the need to encourage our companies to create good research and to develop excellent and innovative products. That need can be clearly shown by the lack of productivity growth in the UK in relatively recent years by comparison with our international comparators. Part of that is because companies have not been able to create or bring forward changes, including in how they run themselves, in order to improve productivity; and part is because the Government have been good at increasing employment, but those jobs are low paid and have low productivity. Increasing research and development is therefore a very positive thing.

As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, the UK leaving the EU comes with an awful lot of added negatives, particularly in the area of research and development. One is to do with universities and their research. A lot of our universities do absolutely excellent research that brings forward products. A number of universities have spin-off companies that have been innovated as a result of research, and they are brilliant places for such research to be developed. A lot of that could not have happened without the level of international collaboration that has been possible. A big concern is that there could be a backward step.

Another thing is that companies will find it more difficult to export to the EU. Although the Government are clear that we will have frictionless borders, a very small number of people believe that. There will instead be more barriers to exports, whether tariff or non-tariff, so companies will struggle to find the profitability and extra cash to put money into research and development that they do now. That is a big concern for the future. Frankly, increasing research and development expenditure credit by 1% will not cut it as the fix, to make that change that we need.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central mentioned the issue of ensuring that research and development can be monetised by companies. It is not good enough simply to create an excellent product; that excellent product or innovation needs to be brought to market and exported. Companies in my area have struggled with taking that step. They have got to the stage where they have been able to innovate, but either their intellectual property has been bought or they have not managed to get encouragement from banks to increase their capital. I appreciate what the Minister says about the patient capital review, which is a welcome step because of the funding gap. Companies being able to convert their excellent research into a product that can be sold and exported is a really positive thing.

Companies around Aberdeen in my constituency are involved in the research and development of oil and gas initiatives, particularly in the super-mature basin that we have in the North sea. We are one of the first oil and gas basins to reach the super-mature stage. We have the ability to innovate, and to do research and development that creates products that can be exported around the world when other basins come to that mature stage. It is appreciated that there is a research and development credit, but the Government need to continue to work to support businesses in making the next leap, so that they can take advantage.

[Dan Carden]

Does the hon. Lady agree that membership of the European Union has fostered a culture of research and development? We have innovation cities and other such initiatives. A 1% increase from 12% to 13% is not enough. We need the Government to show how they will innovate and work with companies to rebalance the economy from south to north when it comes to research and development and other such issues.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have had many benefits from the EU, and just one of them is the level of innovation. As a result of the level of free movement that we have had, we have been able to get excellent people in to improve our research and development, and to collaborate with places overseas. Our universities, companies and hubs of expertise have been an incredible success story in recent years in terms of the research that they have been able to do. There is a brilliant hub around Edinburgh that is involved in robotics. It is hugely important to take those steps.

The Government need to ensure that they continue to foster that culture. Leaving the EU is a big problem, in terms of us not being able to bring those people here. The Government need to not only increase the research and development expenditure credit by 1%, but make changes so that the UK can be a nation that welcomes scientists and encourages them to come here and make a positive economic contribution, as they already do. We do not want to lose those people.

[Alison Thewliss]

The point about not losing what we have is absolutely crucial. The Strathclyde Technology and Innovation Centre at the University of Strathclyde in my constituency has had £89 million, including money from the European regional development fund, to set up cutting-edge industries. Anything that loses that or puts it at risk will have a hugely detrimental effect on Glasgow and Scotland’s wider economy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A lot of these projects have been brought to fruition because of the benefits of EU money. The UK Government have not committed to filling the EU funding gap that there will be, particularly for universities and for the research and development of vital products that UK companies can sell on.

It is welcome that the Government are putting some focus on research and development expenditure. That is a positive thing. However, it is not in any way the end of the story. To simply stand still, the Government need to make significantly more commitments. We would appreciate the Westminster Government being much more positive about the innovation culture. They need to put their money where their mouth is and make sure they fund these things more appropriately.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Again, it is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Owen. I want to speak first to the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and then go on to my substantive comments on our amendment. It is worth noting what the hon. Lady says about funding research. Bill Gates, who knows a thing or two about research and development, said:

“I believe in innovation and that the way you get innovation is you fund research and you learn the basic facts.”

Are the Government funding research and development sufficiently? The answer, quite simply, is no. Neil Armstrong said:

“Research…is creating new knowledge.”

When set against that, the amount of research and development that the Government are funding, or indeed encouraging, is not creating that much more new knowledge.

Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about new clause 4, I am deeply concerned about the level of the Government’s research and development expenditure, particularly once we have left the European Union. The important question is not whether we are in or out—we are moving out; we recognise that—but how we fill that gap.

There is a rightly held concern that as a result of Brexit, the UK risks losing its reputation as a scientific powerhouse. In November, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee stated that we are “sorely lacking” in leadership from the Government to maintain Britain’s position as a leader in robotics and in research to tackle climate change. She was responding to a National Audit Office report that highlighted that between 2007 and 2013, the UK was a “net recipient” of EU research funding and received more than £7.9 billion. In 2015, the UK Government’s expenditure on research and development was £8.7 billion, so it is almost equal.

The Government will have to make up the funding shortfall once we leave the European Union if the UK is to keep its status as a world leader in research and development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 22 amends the definition of tariff receipts that are taxable to ring-fence corporation tax and the supplementary charge. Tariff receipts are income that oil companies receive from third parties for the use of their oil and gas assets. It is common for oil and gas producers to share the use of pipelines, terminals and other facilities, and tariffs are one type of commercial arrangement used in those cases.

The clause clarifies the fact that activities by petroleum licence holders in the UK and on the UK continental shelf that give rise to tariff income are oil extraction activities. That ensures that their treatment is in line with current industry practice. As a result of the change, oil and gas companies will have the certainty they need to continue investing in infrastructure. The change will also ensure that the Government can deliver on the Budget 2016 commitment to expand the investment and cluster area allowances so that they can be activated by tariff receipts. Delivering that commitment will encourage more investment in the strategic infrastructure that is crucial to the longevity of our vital national industry.

The Government introduced the investment and cluster area allowances at Budget 2015, simplifying the system for investors and driving new investment. The allowances replaced the complicated system of bespoke oil and gas field allowances. They give oil and gas companies tax relief by reducing the amount of profit that is taxable to the supplementary charge. The allowances are generated on investment expenditure on UK oil and gas assets and can be activated by income from the oilfield. The allowances therefore reward successful investment in UK oil and gas production.

At Budget 2016 the Government went further, announcing that they would expand the scope of the investment and cluster area allowances so that they could be activated by tariff receipts, in addition to the production income from the field. Including tariff receipts within the scope of the investment and cluster area allowances will encourage infrastructure owners to continue investing in the North sea’s vital infrastructure, for the benefit of third parties and to support the “Maximising Economic Recovery” strategy. Before the Government can deliver that commitment, however, it is essential that the current law is consistent with the objective of the policy.

Following an informal consultation with industry and analysis of the legislation, a degree of ambiguity was found in the current legislation, making it difficult to deliver the expansion as intended. The measure will resolve that ambiguity by clarifying that tariff receipts are treated in line with broad industry practice. The Government’s intention to clarify the legislation has been welcomed by the industry.

The changes made by clause 22 will provide oil and gas companies with the right conditions that they need to continue investing in the industry’s infrastructure. The clause amends the existing definition of tariff receipts to confirm that all tariff income earned by UK licence holders is an oil extraction activity, and therefore in the scope of the oil and gas ring fence tax regime. The clause also confirms that for ring fence corporation tax and supplementary charge purposes, there is no distinction between tariff receipts arising from old oilfields that are subject to petroleum revenue tax and new, non-PRT oilfields.

The UK oil and gas industry makes a significant contribution to the UK economy, supporting more than 300,000 jobs and providing about half our primary energy needs. To date, it has paid about £330 billon in production taxes. By clarifying the tax treatment in law for tariff receipts, whether they are generated from new or old oilfields, the clause will allow the Government to deliver their Budget 2016 commitment. That should encourage investment in the UK continental shelf. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I congratulate the Minister on getting through that speech, because the subject of oil and gas taxation is incredibly technical and complicated. As the Minister has said, the clarification is welcome. Also incredibly welcome was the promise in the Budget this year to institute the transferable tax history changes that are required, and I appreciate the fact that that has happened. Industry has been calling for that for a while, as I have done quite a number of times in this room and in the main Chamber.

On “Maximising Economic Recovery”, which the Minister mentioned, it is two years since former Prime Minister David Cameron came to Aberdeen and said that an oil and gas ambassador would be appointed, but we still do not have that ambassador. Will the Minister let us know when we are likely to get the ambassador, or has the idea been shelved permanently?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her recognition of the moves that we are making on transferable tax history. I agree that they are important for the sector, particularly given its current state of development. It is important to make sure that we keep the oil industry going in her part of the country. On her question about the oil and gas ambassador, I will make inquiries and come back to her. In terms of industrial strategy, as I mentioned in detail in my opening remarks, her part of the world and the oil and gas sector are extremely important to the Government and will remain so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Hybrid and other mismatches

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning and happy new year to you all. I have a few announcements to make; as there are a number of new Members on the Committee, they will be quite lengthy announcements, but they will set out the procedure for the whole Committee stage.

I remind Members that only water is to be drunk in the Committee Room—no hot drinks. I will pretend that I have not seen the one at the end of the room. That is a strict rule from the Chairman of Ways and Means. Mobile phones and iPads should be switched to silent. There are document boxes behind me, which people may find useful for storing their documents when the Committee is not sitting. I would appreciate it if Members followed those rules, so that I do not have to make many more speeches.

Neither I nor my fellow Chair will call Members to speak to starred amendments—amendments tabled without adequate notice. The notice period is three working days, so amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration the following Tuesday.

Not everyone is familiar with Committee procedures, so let me explain them briefly. The Committee will be asked first to consider the programme motion. The Minister will move that motion, and we will then consider the amendments to it. There is a strict time limit of 30 minutes for that. We will proceed to a motion on written evidence and then begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

The selection list for today’s sitting is available at the end of the room. Amendments selected for debate have been grouped. Grouped amendments generally relate to the same or similar issues. The Member who tabled the lead amendment in a group will be asked to speak first. Other Members will then be free to catch my eye and speak to the amendments in that group only. A Member may speak more than once, depending on the subjects under discussion. At the end of debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment to speak again. They will need to indicate before they sit down whether they wish to withdraw that amendment or seek a decision on it. If any Member wishes to press an amendment in that group to a Division, they will need to let me know. I will work on the assumption that the Government wish the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments—we will nod at each other, Minister.

Please note that decisions on amendments will be taken not in the order on the selection list—the order in which they are debated—but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. Decisions on new clauses will therefore be taken after the conclusion of line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Where a group includes the words “clause stand part”, Members may make any remarks they wish to make on the content of the clause during the debate, and there will be no separate debate on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Where those words are not included on the selection list, Sir Roger and I will use our discretion in deciding whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules. Clause stand part debates begin with the Chair proposing the question that the clause stand part of the Bill; there is no need for a Minister or another Member to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

As I indicated, I will first call the Minister to move the programme motion, as agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, formally. I will then call Kirsty Blackman to move amendment (a). There will be a single debate on the selected amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 9 January) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 9 January;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 January;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 January;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 18 January;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7; Clauses 9 to 11; Schedule 1; Clause 12; Schedule 2; Clause 13; Schedule 3; Clauses 14 to 16; Schedule 4; Clause 17; Schedule 5; Clause 18; Schedule 6; Clauses 19 to 23; Schedule 7; Clause 24; Schedule 8; Clauses 25 to 32; Clauses 34 and 35; Schedule 10; Clauses 36 to 39; Clause 42; Schedule 12; Clauses 43 to 50; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 18 January.—(Mel Stride.)

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment (a), leave out line 4.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment (b), in line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) The Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the chance to speak, Mr Owen, and I thank you for being our Chairperson.

Last year, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute for Government and the Institute for Fiscal Studies produced the “Better Budgets” report about the parliamentary process for dealing with the Budget. They raised a number of concerns, some of which have already been dealt with by the Chancellor, such as the fact that there are two fiscal events a year; he has moved to having one fiscal event a year, which is welcome.

The beginning of the report summary says:

“During conversations with people across the tax system, from officials and experts through to practitioners and representative groups, we have heard that the exceptional processes around tax policy making—in particular, secrecy, more limited scrutiny and challenge, and the power of the Treasury—have led to an ever-lengthening tax code, beset by a series of problems: confusion for taxpayers, poor implementation, political reversals and constrained options.”

Some of those are issues with the Budget, but others are issues with the Finance Bill process. One of the report’s key suggestions, which I have been pursuing in this House, and will continue to, even if I do not win today, is about the fact that the Finance Bill Committee does not take evidence. We have been told that that is due to lack of time, and that scrutiny of the Finance Bill needs to be curtailed and completed in a very short period. However, measures in the Finance Bill are very technical, and we have a short time in Committee. If we added just one extra day, we could take evidence.

The “Better Budgets” report said:

“The lack of stages in the House of Lords should mean that the Finance Bill is subject to particularly intense scrutiny in the House of Commons. But the reverse tends to be true”.

It also said:

“debate on the Finance Bill could be improved by using some of the committee sessions to take oral evidence”.

The three programme motion amendments that I have tabled allow us to do that. The Bill has already been in Committee of the whole House. I think it is reasonable, after Committee of the whole House, to take evidence on the generally more technical measures debated in Public Bill Committee.

The three amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central and I tabled suggest that this Thursday we take evidence from the Treasury, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. All those organisations will know more about tax, and probably about the impact of the measures, than most of us in this room. Obviously, the Minister will have briefings, and a whole team who can explain the issues to him, but we need to hear from those organisations and to be able to question their representatives. I have been frustrated in the past when asking the Minister questions during debates on the Finance Bill. Perhaps I have had a bit of an answer towards the end of his speech—the Minister is quite good at attempting to give answers—but that is too late. If we had had that conversation with many other people at the beginning, we would all have been in a much better position. That would have meant much better scrutiny.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point on the need for evidence. Some of the written evidence submitted to the Committee —it was made available very late, I must say; it came yesterday at around 4 pm, which gives us very little time to read a huge amount of evidence—suggested that there are things that need to be changed and that people would like to see tweaked. However, without having oral evidence and being able to interrogate people for it, it is very difficult to weigh up the evidence in the context of the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I would go so far as to bet that all Committee members have not read all the written evidence that has been provided. I bet that they have not had time, given that the customs Bill is running at the same time, and the majority of us who are Front-Benching for that Bill are also Front-Benching for today’s Bill.

The timescale is not working. If we were to allow evidence sessions this Thursday, and then allowed the Public Bill Committee stage to stretch slightly—I am not sure it would even end up stretching as far as 18 January, because we could have a number of sittings before then—that would be a really positive change for the Committee. We would all be better informed, and it would be a good step for scrutiny and transparency, which the Government and the ministerial code suggest that we should have.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I have sympathy with the Scottish National party on their amendment to the programme motion, which would require the Government to ensure that there was an evidence sitting this week. This is my third Finance Bill since becoming shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I have made the point on each one that we should have evidence sittings. The argument might be made, “We have had three Bills; what’s the point?” However, there is a pretty compelling argument that having had three Finance Bills is all the more reason to not just pause for breath but catch up, and get some people in to give evidence. The point is well made, and it was also part of the context for the debate in the House yesterday.

This is not simply an event; it is part of a process. Most of the traditions or protocols that we follow in the House have a perfectly rational basis, but there are occasions—I think this is one, in the light of the three Finance Bills this year—when we might want at the very least to step back from them. Every other piece of legislation that passes through the House gets its day in court, so to speak, as regards giving evidence, and of course the complex changes made to UK tax laws and systems have far-reaching consequences for everyone and for the economy.

It is important that when matters are incredibly complex—and, let us be frank, many of the matters in question are complex—we should be able to tease out issues with experts. It is not that I do not believe the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and everything that he tells us; I do, implicitly. However, I am sure that he would like us to test his assertions, and we might want to do that with other people—and with other experts.

Several provisions in the Bill, and in previous Finance Bills, rewrite earlier measures and close loopholes. It is important for us to tease out those things, too. Why are we where we are, and what could we have done differently? Possibly we could not have done anything differently, but I am sure that if there had been evidence sittings for previous Finance Bills, the experts offering testimony might have pointed out to the Government technical pitfalls in some of the measures they wanted to introduce.

The amendment is in the spirit of attempting to move things on; it is not a wrecking proposal. I acknowledge that we will not win the debate, but it is important to state the need to push for evidence sittings. I do not think that I am alone in that view. Not only does the SNP take it, but so do many outside the House: the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Institute for Government and the Chartered Institute of Taxation made a similar case in the report “Better Budgets: making tax policy better”, published in April 2016. Its authors pointed out that Finance Bills could be improved by oral evidence sittings, with little disturbance to the parliamentary timetable. I am sure that the Opposition would be more than happy to discuss parliamentary timetable issues with the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I look forward to vigorous debate on the Bill, today and in the sittings that will follow, as we take the Bill through the normal process.

The amendments from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—

[Kirsty Blackman]

North.

[Mel Stride]

North; how could I get that wrong? The amendments would introduce a day for oral evidence sessions, and would extend the period over which we debated the Bill in Committee. I understand why the hon. Lady tabled them, but I am afraid that the Government will resist them, for several reasons, not least because there was a Programming Sub-Committee, at which at least Labour party Members were present, in which we discussed the programme motion, and it was agreed unanimously.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Government changed the rules because they do not have a majority, so Scottish National party Members no longer have places on Programming Sub-Committees. We were therefore not able to make our case. We opposed that rule change, partly because we want to be on Programming Sub-Committees. If we had had the opportunity to make our case earlier, we would have done so.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is partly why I welcome her having the opportunity to have this debate today, as I said earlier. Let me start with the comment that the hon. Member for Bootle made about the Chair of the Treasury Committee. He urged me to engage with her on this matter, and of course I will do precisely as he asks.

Notwithstanding the fact that we had the opportunity in the Programming Sub-Committee to agree the programme motion or otherwise, several measures already give us a very high level of scrutiny of Finance Bills. We brought in a Government framework in 2010, under which, in a typical cycle, a Budget is followed by policy consultations, and much of the legislation that is to follow is then published in draft. In fact, around 60% of the Bill that we are looking at has been out there for consultation as draft legislation, despite the fact that this has been a rather unique cycle; the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out that this was his third Finance Bill.

These Bills have a very high level of scrutiny. We are moving to the new single fiscal event in the coming year; we will then have even more time to scrutinise Bills, because there will be more breathing space in that process, and obviously we will not have the interruption that we had last year.

--- Later in debate ---

Wherever we end up is really a matter for the usual channels, among our parties. This relates to parliamentary process; it is not for the Committee to take the kind of decisions and make the kind of moves that hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bootle seek. I reiterate that the Finance Bills are among the most scrutinised pieces of legislation that go through our Parliament. I therefore resist the amendments.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for his response. He did not give a reason not to take evidence; he gave the reason why he thinks the status quo is okay. I still have not heard anybody say why evidence would be a bad thing. The Government have previously said that timescales would be an issue, but they are not. As we have a single fiscal event, putting an extra week—an extra day, actually—on to the Finance Bill Committee would not be a problem. Having evidence sessions would be better for the Committee and for the rotating Back Benchers on the Committee—we have people here who have not sat on a Finance Bill before. As I said previously, having an evidence session after the Committee of the whole House is not a problem, because generally we discuss the more technical parts of the Bill after that. What the Minister said about 60% means that 40% of the Bill has not been consulted on.

[Mel Stride]

I need to clarify that point. I said that 60% of the draft legislation was out there and was therefore consulted on. That certainly does not mean that 40% of the Bill was not consulted on, albeit that the legislation was not out there in draft.

[Kirsty Blackman]

In a number of places in the written evidence, various organisations said, “This was not consulted on in draft; we would have suggested these changes, if it had been.” The Committee is losing out because it does not take evidence. It would be better if it did. I do not understand why the Government are scared to take evidence.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important to understand the position that Parliament is in? The Government do not have an overall majority, notwithstanding the arrangement with the Democratic Unionist party. Their position has changed. Given that, and given that the Government have taken control of the Committees, again notwithstanding the fact that they do not have the majority as a party, the question of scrutiny has changed a little.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. An added dimension is that because the Government do not have a majority, and because all the Brexit legislation is going through, there is an incredibly heavy legislative timetable with an incredible number of incredibly technical pieces of legislation. Therefore, it would be better for Members to have the opportunity to inform themselves. I do not think this is about increasing external organisations’ scrutiny, because, as the Minister said, there are a number of opportunities to do that. This is about giving Members the opportunity better to inform themselves and ask questions of those incredibly knowledgeable organisations so that we can make better decisions about tax law, and so that the Treasury does not create tax law that is not good and that it has to go back and fix a couple of years later. It would be better for everybody if members of the Committee were more informed and therefore able to take better decisions and make better laws.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 5 maintains the starting rate limit for savings income at its current level of £5,000 for 2018-19. As members of the Committee will be aware, the starting rate for savings applies to the taxable savings income of individuals with low earned incomes. The Government made significant changes to the starting rate for savings in 2015, lowering the rate from 10% to 0%, as well as extending the band to which it applies from £2,800 to £5,000. This welcome reform has done much to support savers on low incomes by reducing the tax they pay on the income they receive from their savings. Since then, savers have been further supported by the introduction of the personal savings allowance, which offers up to £1,000 of tax-free savings income.

The changes made by clause 5 will maintain the starting rate limit for savings at its current level of £5,000 for 2018-19 tax year. This change is being made to reflect the significant reforms made to support savers over the last couple of years, in addition to the substantial increases in the personal allowance. Most notably, in April 2016, the Government introduced the personal savings allowance, which will remove 18 million taxpayers from paying tax on their savings income in 2018-19. In April 2017, the annual individual savings account allowance increased by the largest ever amount, to £20,000.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is admirable that the Government are making changes to make it easier for people to save. Would the Minster let us know how many people have begun saving as a result, and how much saving has increased for families? If there are now so many people who are employed, and so many who are using the personal allowance, surely they have loads of extra cash that they are now saving?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 6 makes changes to allow marriage allowance to be claimed and backdated on behalf of deceased spouses and civil partners. Marriage allowance was introduced in 2015. It allows individuals to transfer 10% of their personal allowance to a spouse or civil partner if they are a basic rate taxpayer. Marriage allowance can currently be claimed and backdated by up to four years if taxpayers meet the qualifying condition. Currently, taxpayers cannot claim after a partner is deceased, even if they may have qualified in the current or previous years since its introduction.

I have heard representations from the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group highlighting the fact that it is unfair that this financial support is not available for people going through a period of considerable distress that accompanies the death of a partner. The changes made by clause 6 will put marriage allowance on a footing with other tax reliefs, where claims can be made by a personal representative after death on behalf of the deceased.

As a result, bereaved partners can now claim on behalf of their spouse or civil partner in the current year and any previous years where they were eligible, up to a maximum of four years. That will enable of thousands of extra people to claim the marriage allowance, worth £230 this year in tax relief, or up to £662 if backdated to its introduction. That will have a negligible cost to the Exchequer.

New clause 3 would include a review in six months’ time of the effects of the costs of the extension of the marriage allowance made by clause 6. It is the Government’s view that there is no need for a formal review of these changes. First, the new clause asks for a review of costs. As I have said, clause 6 is forecast to have a negligible cost, a judgment with which the independent Office for Budget Responsibility was content. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs also publishes the Exchequer cost of the main tax reliefs, including the marriage allowance, on an annual basis. The House will be able to examine the overall change in costs at that time.

Secondly, the new clause calls for a review of the effects of these changes. As the Committee would expect, we keep the effectiveness of the marriage allowance under review. Indeed, the clause was developed in response to concerns raised by the Low Income Tax Reform Group, a sign that the Government are willing to listen when concerns are raised. After six months, it will be too soon to tell how effective the policy has been, so a formal review would be a disproportionate response. I therefore urge the Committee to resist the new clause.

A total of 2.6 million couples have successfully applied for the marriage allowance and thousands more apply each week. That is a tax cut worth more than £400 million to couples on lower incomes. The changes being made by clause 6 mean that thousands more will be able to claim, recognising that bereaved partners going through extremely distressing times deserve all the support that they can get. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Scottish National party has a long-documented opposition to the married couples allowance, with which we have disagreed for a long time. The change the Minister suggests makes it slightly better and gets rid of one of our concerns, but it remains a tax relief that overwhelmingly benefits men. It remains a tax relief that leaves abused women out in the cold. Because they have to hand over part of the personal allowance, it is difficult for them to go back to work in some circumstances.

It remains a change that benefits only traditional nuclear families, whether people are in a civil partnership or are a heterosexual couple. Only those couples who choose to live together as married benefit. When the measure was first introduced, it was made clear that couples with children were less likely to benefit, because of the working structure that tends to exist with those couples. Apparently, only 15% of those who benefit from the scheme are women; it may even be less.

This issue has been raised by the Women’s Budget Group as one that creates further gender disparity in a society where we are trying to reduce the gender pay gap and make matters better by trying to create a situation where women can more easily go back to work and earn a reasonable amount of money.

The married couples allowance is incredibly flawed. Although this change makes it slightly better, it still has a huge number of problems. We will continue to support new clause 3 and press Government to get rid of the married couples allowance.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On the subject of the negotiations that the UK is having with countries with which it currently has free trade arrangements because it is part of the EU, and on the rules of origin issue, what discussions has the Minister had about cumulation and about whether the EU will accept UK-EU cumulation, or whether we will be required to have parts made only in the UK?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Lady will probably know, those are matters of ongoing discussion within the Department for International Trade, but this Bill and the Trade Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, are about ensuring that country-of-origin issues can be determined by ourselves under our own laws, rather than having to depend upon on those of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which I will call the customs Bill for ease during my speech. I am particularly delighted that we are considering it at the same time as the Finance Bill—that is excellent. I am not sure whether Hansard can capture my sarcasm there.

Is the Minister as concerned as I am about the issues that so many different organisations have raised? Perhaps the Minister and the teams in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have been meeting the organisations that are raising concerns, but I do not think that they have been listening. Part of the problem for me is the wide range of organisations that are raising a wide range of issues. As many hon. Members have said, they include UK Steel, the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance, the British Ceramic Confederation, the GMB and the TUC, but also the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium and the Law Society of Scotland. All those organisations have raised issues, which are not all specifically about trade remedies. There are therefore several problems with the Bill, not just with one aspect but across the measure.

The Bill has 166 pages and creates so many delegated authorities that the Government have had to produce an 174-page document detailing them. The majority relate to the negative procedure, though some relate to the affirmative procedure. In four instances, the UK Government create Henry VIII powers—the power to amend or repeal an Act of Parliament—which are particularly concerning. We have consistently raised concerns about Henry VIII powers, and we will continue to do that. The Chartered Institute of Taxation said:

“The Bill will, we understand, have the powers to amend primary legislation using secondary legislation; raising similar concerns around delegated powers as with the EU (Withdrawal) Bill.”

UK Steel said that

“key aspects of the UK’s trade legislation will evade proper parliamentary scrutiny”.

It is a major concern when UK Steel, a trade body that represents important manufacturers, makes such comments.

The number of organisations that are raising concerns is worrying for Members, as is the fact that so much of the Bill will dodge proper parliamentary scrutiny. Those who supported Brexit as a means to strengthen parliamentary sovereignty are being incredibly badly served yet again by the UK Government. Sovereignty for the Government is very different from sovereignty for Parliament. I urge the Minister to read the Law Society of Scotland briefing on the Bill. It suggests several amendments, and much of its concern is about the lack of requirement for Ministers to consult when making secondary legislation.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has mentioned at least twice the Law Society of Scotland briefing document, which I have in my hand. It is a very useful and positive contribution to informing Members of all parties about the Bill. I will quote from it so that we are all clear about the context. In its general remarks, the Law Society of Scotland says:

“We recognise the necessity for this Bill”.

That conclusively states that the Bill is a necessity. Does the hon. Lady accept that?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Because the UK Government decided that we are leaving the customs union and we will therefore need our own customs procedures, it is sensible, given that it was an entirely EU competence, for the UK to create its own customs framework. However, if the UK Government had done what we suggested and remained part of the customs union, the Bill would not be necessary. Although the Law Society of Scotland says that the Bill is necessary because of the decisions of the UK Government, it raises several concerns. I ask the Minister to read the briefing, which suggests a number of amendments, particularly on consultation.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), has my hon. Friend seen the briefing from the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance? It says:

“These proposals are much weaker than we have in the EU (and also weaker than those of most other Trading Nations). Weaker remedies cost jobs.”

Just because we have legislation—and bad legislation—it does not make what is happening a good thing.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks for us on international trade. She is right about trade remedies and I will come on to that specific point later.

Although the Bill is general, it is also wide ranging. I want to consider some of the issues relating to HMRC that the Minister mentioned earlier. The new CDS software is set to replace CHIEF—customs handling of import and export freight—the current system, in 12 short months. The Public Accounts Committee report in November stated:

“It would be catastrophic if HMRC’s new customs system, the Customs Declaration System (CDS), is not ready in time and if there is no viable fall-back option.”

It expects the number of customs declarations that HMRC must process each year to increase fivefold. Every time I and other hon. Members have questioned the Minister about this, he has been particularly blasé and unflustered about the tight timetable. The PAC also said that HMRC’s timetable is incredibly tight, given the amount of work still to do. HMRC will only know by July 2018 whether the system works as intended—I am surprised that HMRC will only know by July 2018, but the Minister thinks it will all be fine—which is only one month before the first traders start to use it, and gives very little time to take remedial action if anything goes wrong.

It is vital for our exporting businesses that the customs software works. We have consistently raised concerns about this and we will continue to do so. I appreciate that the Minister is nodding, but we will keep the pressure on to ensure that it happens.

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. How much faith does she have in the Government and the implementation of the software programme, given the disaster they are having with the change programme and the closure of HMRC offices?

[Kirsty Blackman]

UK businesses have several questions about the capacity of HMRC to deal with the volume of customs declarations, and many businesses will have to make customs declarations for the first time. Businesses are already concerned about the loss of the HMRC hotline that they could previously access. One business contacted HMRC with a query and received a reply seven months later. Seven months is not an appropriate timescale. If HMRC cannot respond to complaints and questions timeously now, how will it do so in the future after a fivefold increase in the need for customs declarations?

In a post-Brexit scenario, businesses will—in an incredibly short timescale and whether we have a trade deal or not—have to come to terms with new customs software. They will also have to come to terms with a new system of customs duties, ways to export and other massive changes. That means an incredible amount of uncertainty. When drafting the Bill, the Government could have been clearer about how the new customs system would work, therefore getting rid of a level of uncertainty. I know that they do not yet have a trade deal, but if they had been able to implement the software earlier or be clearer about how the processes will work, it would have been better for businesses.

Broadly speaking, businesses have been in favour of the replication of the Union customs code in the future. I mentioned the issue of rules of origin, and the Minister also referred to it earlier. There is a major problem with those rules. The Minister said that they should be determined by the UK Government in negotiation. As a side note, the current UCC, at 61.3, contains options for declaring origin. That does not appear to have been replicated in the primary legislation, and the British Chambers of Commerce, on behalf of its members, want to see certainty for the future on that matter.

Major problems are brewing on rules of origin, especially the duration of any transition agreement that the UK Government strike. At the very least, the Government need to negotiate interim free trade agreements with countries that the EU currently has FTAs with. Many of those trade deals allow UK companies to export because of the recognition of cumulation with EU content. For example, the trade deal that the EU has with South Korea, for example, says that

“a car will be originating in the EU if no more than 45% of the value of the inputs have been imported from outside Korea or the EU to manufacture it.”

So if the UK—in this brilliant scenario with its amazing negotiating team—manages to convince Korea, at least temporarily, to replicate the trade deal that it has with the EU, changing all references to “EU” to “UK”, for example, that will be all well and good, but it will not solve the issue of cumulation for many of our businesses. Take for example a widget that is created in the UK. It may have many parts from other EU countries. It may have 60% EU content, which it needs in order to be exported to South Korea. However, it may not have 60% UK content. Under the previous rules of origin system that we had as part of the EU, that worked fine and the widget could be exported to Korea. But if Korea says that it wants the widget to have 60% UK content, it will be a major issue for businesses which will no longer be able to export those widgets.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I am afraid that I am not very familiar with our trade level with South Korea. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has picked a particularly obscure example to demonstrate her point, rather than looking at the countries we will do substantial trade with in the future. I hope that I will be able to get some more information on that point.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I picked South Korea and car manufacturing because the percentage is particularly high. However, many other areas of trade and exports have percentage requirements. Because we have not needed rules of origin for products from the UK—we have been able to add all the EU content—it has not been a consideration for businesses. They have been able to export if they can prove that a certain percentage is from the EU. It is an issue not only for the trade deal with Korea, but for all sorts of trade deals that the UK has because it is part of the EU. The concern is not that we will not be able to do new trading, but that our current trading will become a major issue as of March 2019, if we do not get the appropriate rollover and grandfathering in place.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will join me in correcting the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), as South Korea is very important for Scottish trade. As a result of the EU-negotiated deal, whisky goes to South Korea on a 0% tariff. The former chief executive of the Scottish Whisky Association has expressed the view that without the heft of the EU, Scottish whisky—the UK’s biggest export—would not have had the benefit of that deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate that information.

There are so many technical issues that will have a major impact on jobs and manufacturing in UK. When I have asked the Government about this, the answers I received were pretty fluffy. I have asked about cumulation—mainly outside the Chamber—as it is a major issue that the UK Government have not taken seriously enough. It has been raised especially by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. If hon. Members look at how many times cumulation has been mentioned in the Chamber, they will find that it is very few.

[Vicky Ford]

I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the incredibly important matter of cumulation. It is by cumulation that a British car that has components from other parts of Europe manages to be sold to third countries under existing agreements. My recollection is that the Minister said that the Department for International Trade would look to continue having agreement on cumulation, and that the Bill will give it the legal tools to continue such negotiations. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill is necessary as an enabling package to allow us to have a customs relationship with Europe and other parts of the world in the future?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think that we should remain in the customs union and the single market, because then we would not have any of these issues. I appreciate that the Minister says that the Government are looking at this, but I am trying to make it clear how important this matter is, and I hope that I have been able to do that in my discussion of cumulation.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) raised the importance of the EU FTA deal with South Korea—indeed, it adds some £2 billion to our exports every year—but the interesting question is why the EU has been able to make free trade agreements only with South Korea and Vietnam. What about the rest of Asia? Does the SNP believe that sufficient progress has been made in expanding our trade, especially in Scottish whisky, across the whole of Asia, or could the process perhaps have been done more energetically and dynamically by Britain making its own free trade deals?

[Kirsty Blackman]

There are EU FTAs with many countries and we trade through them. Because the EU has such a large market, it is able to strike much better free trade agreements than the UK Government will be able to strike for their much smaller market. That is just the reality.

On the capacity of HMRC, I also want to talk about the issue of authorised economic operators, which was mentioned a lot in the customs White Paper. Relying on the AEO system causes a bit of a problem, as the UK is just not that good at either promoting or administering it. Some of the rules applied by HMRC are nearly impossible for many of the smaller operators to meet, such as the requirement we have heard about that the person who is in charge of customs in organisations has three years of customs experience. Some of our businesses have been trading exclusively with the EU, so they cannot meet that requirement very easily. HMRC must look at this as a matter of priority, and particularly consider the situation in Austria, where it takes less than three months for an initial AEO application to go through. Germany has increased the number of authorised economic operators incredibly successfully. The UK Government could benefit from looking at those countries when they consider making changes. It is not about making the regime slacker and enabling more people to jump through the hoops for AEOs; it is about making the process of applying for and getting AEO certification more accessible and streamlined. I know the UK Government have had representations on this matter, and I urge Ministers to consider them and act as soon as they can. We need to get the system in place as soon as possible so that companies can register and receive the certification to become AEOs in advance of the exit date.

As we heard earlier, there is also an HMRC capacity and streamlining problem in the area of VAT. That was also raised in the media recently in the context of the British Retail Consortium’s concerns. The changes to the VAT regime could create major cash-flow problems for businesses, and they might have to restructure or take on burdensome new cash-flow loans. The BRC says that there is no impact assessment produced by the Treasury about the costs of these measures in terms of additional compliance burdens for business, nor about what the costs of HMRC collecting and refunding these upfront costs would be. It seems that there is a real problem and that the required VAT changes have been pretty badly thought through.

I also want to raise the issue of virtual free trade zones. The Bill contemplates only physical free trade zones, but a virtual zone would allow businesses along the supply chain to benefit from simplifications and facilitations without having to incur the time and expense of individual applications, such as with inward processing relief. The British Chambers of Commerce has requested that the Treasury consider the possibility of including virtual free trade zones in its powers relating to designated free zones.

In the context of HMRC, I also want to mention import VAT on gifts from the EU, which I have spoken about before. Folk will be shocked when they get a bill because they have received a gift worth more than £39 from somebody in the EU. Such a system currently applies if people get a gift from elsewhere in the world, but the Government are suggesting that it should also apply in the case of goods from the EU. That is a major concern, because as there has been free movement and people have been able to live in other European countries, it is perfectly feasible that an awful lot of people will have family members in other EU countries and therefore will be likely to receive gifts of a value of over £39. I want to make it absolutely clear that if and when people start getting those bills, they will be totally caused by Brexit, leaving the customs union, and the proposed changes to VAT.

Trade remedies have been mentioned, particularly by Labour Members. Some of the evidence about the matter that the International Trade Committee received last year was concerning. The EU currently has anti-dumping and countervailing measures that would normally be expected to still be in place after Brexit day, such as a five-year measure that was put in place two years ago, meaning that it will have about two years to run at the time we leave the EU. Bernardine Adkins of the law firm Gowling WLG told the Committee that

“it won’t be possible to grandfather the measures, otherwise you will face problems with the World Trade Organization.”

If she is right, we have a pretty significant problem, especially because the call for evidence the Government issued at the end of November seems to suggest they do not know which trade remedies are relevant to UK companies. If the UK Government have to create a trade remedies agency, get it up and running, and furnish it with details that have not been provided in this Bill—how to conduct investigations, how subsidies are to be defined, how to assess if a UK industry has been injured, how to define a UK industry, and how to calculate the level of duties and guarantees needed to rectify the injury caused—and if they have do all that before putting in place even the trade remedies that currently exist, we have another problem.

UK Steel has been particularly vociferous in its criticism of this aspect of the Bill. It says that the chief and overriding concern is that schedules 4 and 5 to the Bill, concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures respectively, contain very little detail. It goes on to point out that for many of our major trading partners, including the EU and US, such issues are covered by primary legislation. The UK Government have chosen to deal with this through not primary legislation, but secondary legislation. That is yet another concern that we have about the Bill. The Bill does not even have the level of detail of the WTO agreements, so if the Government had included those, the Bill would have been substantially better.

The lesser duty rule is also a significant issue, as the UK Government are looking to go in that direction at a time when the EU is looking to move away from it. This is a concern for us, and for UK manufacturers and jobs in particular.

I and my party have general concerns about the loss of the customs union and the single market. We also have very specific concerns, which echo the views of businesses, about aspects of this Bill. A Fraser of Allander Institute report last year said that 134,000 jobs in Scotland are supported by trade with the EU, and Brexit threatens to cost our economy in Scotland £11 billion a year by 2030 and to result in many fewer jobs. The OECD highlighted in June last year:

“In case Brexit gets reversed by political decision…the positive impact on growth would be significant.”

There are major issues about tariffs if we leave the single market. The EU average tariff on imports from outside the EU was 5.2% in 2014. The average tariff on food was 15%. Skimmed milk exported into the EU from outside the single market attracts a tariff of 74%. If our organisations get hit by these tariffs when they are exporting—if we end up outside the EU single market and customs union as part of a no-deal scenario —we will not just have the problems I have mentioned about issues with the Bill, trade remedies and how HMRC will cope with all this. All these things are an incredible problem. Would it not be better and easier, and would it not be in the economic interests of everyone in this country, if the UK Government were to say, “Actually, we are going to stay in the single market and the customs union”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

If we are to deliver Brexit, the UK needs to leave the customs union and establish its own customs regime. Without doing so, the UK will be precluded from striking its own free trade deals and left open to certain judgments from the European Court of Justice. I fear that those who believe we can honour the referendum result while staying in the single market or customs union are simply wishing to deliver Brexit in name only.

The Bill is widely drafted in order not to prejudice the eventual outcome of any deal we strike with the EU. It instead ensures that the UK can respond to its new status, whatever the circumstances in March 2019. That could include a no deal scenario—something that would represent a wasted opportunity of historic proportions on the EU’s part. Our Government have already made it clear that the UK wants to maintain free, frictionless trade with the EU and that they wish to maintain continuity with EU law at this stage on customs, excise and VAT to give businesses certainty.

There would be no need for chaos at customs or increased tariffs if our standalone regime could be linked closely to the EU’s, potentially in a new customs partnership. The question is whether the EU has the capacity to recognise its own interests and, more crucially, the interests of the people it governs. Until 2008’s financial crisis, global trade had been growing at up to twice the rate of global output for decades. Ever since, trade has slowed to be in line with, or sometimes below, growth in the global economy and political upheaval has followed.

As a founding World Trade Organisation member, the UK has long been a passionate advocate for liberalised trade. It is time to regain that leadership role and push back against the superficial allure of protectionism. The Bill sets the scene for that. While it introduces the potential for levying tariffs, giving us the tools to protect against dumping, it also allows us to adopt a unilateral trade preference scheme for developing countries to ensure trade further replaces aid as the primary poverty alleviation tool.

The Bill also aims to manage the flow of goods at our ports. Over the summer, I visited London Gateway, a state-of-the-art port in Essex with modern HMRC and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs facilities and spare capacity. A logistical hub is being developed to deliver goods directly to London and the south-east rather than via midlands distribution centres. German grocer Lidl has already taken space there. The competition from nearby ports such as Tilbury, with its vast Amazon fulfilment centre, keeps freight costs low and ties into the Government’s ambitions to unlock the entire Thames Gateway with a new river crossing and more homes. This plan and these efficiencies strip out cost to retailers, helping to offset any potential increase in tariffs. Our customs systems are already highly efficient, but the Bill sets up an authorised economic operator scheme to indicate the fulfilment by exporters and importers of recognised compliance standards and makes provision for HMRC-approved warehouse operators. These measures should fast-track shipments. We now need to identify the sectors most exposed to any new cost and resource HMRC appropriately, which is what the Government are doing.

In my capacity as a member of the International Trade Select Committee, I would like to say something about tariff-free quotas. As an EU member, the UK is party to over 60 free trade agreements that permit our trading partners to export a certain volume of goods to the EU tariff-free. Along with the Trade Bill, this Bill provides the foundation for the continuation of these deals after Brexit. We hope that this grandfathering process will be straightforward, but our trading partners may use the opportunity to renegotiate terms, and rules of origin might add complexity to existing trade. Rules of origin define where a product was made and help to determine the application of quotas, preferential tariffs and trade remedies.

At present, the UK can export to the EU with no restrictions on the value of imported intermediates from third countries, and this will likely change once we are out of the customs union. Origin is generally conferred based on where a good was obtained or manufactured or where the last substantial transformation took place. Cumulation of origin allows for greater flexibility when using raw or semi-manufactured materials from certain third countries. Currently, as an EU member state, the UK benefits from the pan- Euro-Mediterranean cumulation zone.

Cumulative rules of origin may prove hard to negotiate, requiring trilateral discussion between the UK, the EU and the third country concerned. None the less, the UK’s departure from existing free trade agreements is not challenge-free for the EU either. Those FTAs were negotiated on the basis of access to an EU economy that included a UK market, which, in 2015, amounted to 17.5 % of the EU’s GDP, and which contains some of its most voracious consumers. If we withdraw that market from the FTA, there will inevitably be an impact on its functioning, if not on its legal character. The EU plans to remove the equivalent of the UK’s market share from the duty-free quotas that it offers its trading partners. Otherwise, EU domestic producers will have to compete with a greater inflow of tariff-free foreign goods. FTA partners, however, are understandably very unhappy at the prospect of a substantial reduction in their tariff-free quotas.

If the EU can think imaginatively and flexibly about a customs link to the UK economy, with potential agreement on rules of origin at least for a transition period, the potential problems of both sides can be addressed. The EU’s default arrangements relating to rules of origin are relatively liberal, and processes already exist for exporters to self-certify origins. Agreeing on those processes, and ensuring that businesses sign up to them now, should be a priority.

[Kirsty Blackman]

May I pursue the issue of tariff-rate quotas? Is it not the case that, even if countries receive the same amount in total—if they were previously able to distribute 100 tonnes of goods, and in future they could distribute 70 to the EU and 30 to the UK—they might challenge that on the basis that if the UK market collapses, they will not be able to transfer that amount to another country, as they currently can?

[Julia Lopez]

My point is that any issues relating to tariff-rate quotas will affect not just the UK but the EU, and it is therefore in the EU’s interests to try to reach an accommodation with the UK.

I welcome the Bill, which is about preparedness and which, given its wide drafting, allows for any negotiated outcome. I hope that it sets us up for a new chapter in our long history as a proud, global trading nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Ga’i ddymuno blwyddyn newydd dda i chi—may I wish you a happy new year, Mr Speaker?

I wish to confine my remarks to three key points. First, I wish to add my voice to those calling for our continued membership of the largest trading bloc in the world. Secondly, I wish to outline the concerns from Welsh ports, which would face immediate challenges to their existing position as a result of changes to our customs arrangements. Thirdly, the weakness of this Bill’s ability to protect our vital industries will form the final part of my speech, and we have heard many interesting contributions on that point already.

As promised, I wish first to reiterate to the British Government the illogicality of, and harm they will cause by, ripping us out of the customs union. A student of GCSE economics could explain the foundations of international trade as laid out by David Ricardo. His theory of comparative advantage is not complex to grasp. By specialising in particular industries, combined with free international trade, all nations will see positive results. The premise is simple: rather than creating a range of mediocre products, the highly specialised industries of each nation produce better goods, which are then traded internationally, satisfying domestic demand for the products made in other nations. Whether we agree that this commercial international order should be our goal or not, it has underpinned our economic approach to trade for centuries.

International marketplaces have moved on from Ricardo’s time. Instead of cloth and wine, the modern economy trades aeroplane wings, specialised steel products and microchips. To account for this complexity, policy makers have created institutions to manage commerce.

The European customs union is the greatest example of one such institution. By removing physical and financial barriers to trade, it has created the largest, richest, most powerful network of free-trading states in the world. As a result of our membership of the customs union, Welsh businesses can trade on a completely unfettered basis within the bloc, gaining access to 600 million consumers.

As a trading bloc, the EU customs union also applies a common external tariff on entering the bloc, and we should remind ourselves of the extra costs that will hit our exporters if we are no longer members and have no agreement on future tariffs. Carmarthenshire is known for its agricultural produce, so it is worth putting it on the record that the tariff for animal products can be more than 138%, with an average of 20%; the maximum tariff on dairy products can be as much as 134%, with an average of 45%.

I could also point to other major employers in Carmarthenshire who manufacture component parts for export and will obviously follow the upcoming negotiations with great interest. We should not be under any illusion: if it becomes burdensome, financially or through regulation, for those companies to move their goods, they will relocate. Our membership of the single market and the customs union has been invaluable in securing valuable foreign direct investment in areas such as my home communities in the Amman valley.

Before I am accused of scaremongering, today’s shambolic reshuffle was trailed in the press over the weekend as a reorganisation to prepare for a no-deal scenario. The 27 members of the EU are not the only ones with whom we will lose our existing free-trade arrangements. Sixty-seven countries have agreements with EU customs union members which must be grandfathered, although there continues to be some dispute about whether that is possible. The issue will be discussed in greater detail tomorrow when we deliberate on the Trade Bill.

By pulling my nation out of the European customs union in search of some false free-trade, low-tariff Brexit nirvana, the British Government risk the jobs and wages of my constituents. The Minister will undoubtedly claim that this is the will of the people. We can of course engage in a tit-for-tat argument over whether that is the case. However, that denies him the opportunity to outline the purported benefits of the British Government’s approach. For that reason, I ask him the following: if certainty is his aim, and the status quo is certainty, why is rolling the dice on more than half our imports and exports a good idea? Why is he gambling away my constituents’ jobs and wages? Why is he pulling us out of the customs union at all?

I also implore Labour Front Benchers to come to their senses. The constructive ambiguity of the Labour party’s Brexit position may offer marginal electoral advantage, but it provides the silver platter on which the Tories can serve up an extreme and damaging Brexit. Rather than playing hokey cokey with the single market and customs union, I ask Opposition Members to join us and take a clear stand to say we are better off in these great European economic institutions. Let there be no mistake: the Tories can deliver their current policy of an extreme Brexit only because the position of the Labour leadership is to leave the single market and the customs union after the transition phase.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does my colleague agree that Opposition Front Benchers are not supporting a jobs-first Brexit? If they wanted a jobs-first Brexit, they would keep us in the single market and the customs union.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for the intervention, and am aware that during the debate many honourable colleagues on the Labour Back Benches have made that exact point and implored Front Benchers to change their position. Some very interesting reports are coming out of the parliamentary Labour party meeting this evening.

Before the recess, the tangible and immediate chaos created by pulling us out of the customs union was vividly illustrated. The Prime Minister’s attempts to conclude phase 1 of the negotiations were almost scuppered by the issue of customs borders on the island of Ireland. Others will be able to expound with greater invested passion why no such border should exist. However, I would like to raise my concerns about the sea border that my nation shares with Ireland and thus the EU.

Wales and its ports are intimately linked with Ireland. Holyhead, Fishguard, and Pembroke Dock are vital trading links between Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Holyhead is the UK’s second largest port. In excess of 400,000 trucks pass through it every year. A hard maritime border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland will inevitably hit Holyhead hard, and I ask Ministers to read the excellent article of 4 January by my former university lecturer, Professor Richard Wyn Jones, on this specific issue facing Holyhead and his native isle of Ynys Môn, or Anglesey. In Holyhead there is simply no space in or around the port for the kind of infrastructure that will be required to process the number of lorries and trailers that currently pass through it. A hard border in Holyhead can yield only chaos. The same problems apply to Pembroke Dock and Fishguard.

The inevitable consequence of physical constraints in and around the ports is that freight will need to find ways to bypass Holyhead and Wales, especially if there is a soft border between the British state and the European Union in Northern Ireland. Without trade arrangements that mirror the outcomes of what we already have, Welsh ports will be in danger of becoming uncompetitive. With the intention of pulling us out of the customs union, the Bill and the actions of the Minister make it clear to the people of Holyhead that the Government consider their livelihoods to be dispensable.

Finally, I would like to highlight the concerns of an industry central to and symbolic of the Welsh economy—the steel sector. Primarily its concerns centre on trade defence provisions. These are found in clauses 13 and 14 and schedules 4 and 5. I am sure the Minister will have seen last week’s letter in the Financial Times from almost a dozen industry and union representatives highlighting the fact that these clauses

“set up a lighter-touch approach to illegal dumping by China and others than in the remaining EU and any other major economy.”

In the lead-up to the referendum, the exact opposite was promised by the leave side. In an ITV Cymru debate I took part in, Mr Nathan Gill from UKIP, speaking on behalf of the leave side, promised that a British Government freed from the shackles of Brussels would be able to impose prohibitive anti-dumping duties on China. I am sure that that clear promise influenced votes in some communities in south Wales. When he uttered those words, we know the British Government were selling the Welsh steel sector down the river. In March 2016, the British Government blocked attempts to strengthen EU trade defences against imports of cheap Chinese steel that devastated Port Talbot steelworks and took it to the brink of collapse—as we heard from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) earlier. Yet again, it seems that the Government have little concern for steelworkers, preferring to seek dodgy deals with Trump’s America and cosying up to Beijing to protecting Welsh jobs and wages.

Fundamentally, the Bill would be wholly unnecessary, and its deficiencies of no concern, if the policy of the British Government followed the sensible path of remaining a member of the European customs union. For this reason and other reasons I have outlined, my Plaid Cymru colleagues and I will refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading and will vote against it tonight.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I believe it comes down to priorities. If the Government were determined to do something about this, having the evidence base would be of great benefit to them. They do not want to do anything about it, so the evidence base is a hindrance because the Opposition can use it to attack the Government about the fact that progress just is not being made. That is the real reason why the Government are not making progress, and why they are determined not to support the new clauses. It would be far better for the country if the Government were to step up, to be honest and to recognise that the country has some really ingrained challenges that we need to face. Understanding the scale of the challenge from day one is important in making sure that we get into a better position.

My challenge is this: why not? If the Government believe that they are doing the right thing, and that by virtue of their second female Prime Minister they are the party of gender equality and the champions of all that is equal, now is the time to prove it. Members have two choices: they can go through one or other of the voting Lobbies. Perhaps they have a third choice, which is to stay away completely. They can get behind the new clauses and support our request for the data set, which will inform decisions; they can shirk responsibility entirely and stay away from both voting Lobbies; or they can keep their heads down and maintain their own position on the Government Benches, and vote against new clause 6 because it happens to have come from the Opposition. I would say that that is not putting the interests of the country first.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I would like to start by correcting an omission that I made yesterday. I should have said that our thoughts are with the Chairman of Ways and Means and his family at this time. It sounds like a really horrendous thing for a family to go through, particularly at Christmas time.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), not just for tabling new clause 6, but for the way in which she engaged with us in advance of the debate. I appreciate the time that she took to speak to us about the new clause so that we could discuss how it looked. I think it is absolutely brilliant; it is one of the best new clauses that we have seen when considering a Finance Bill, and I have tabled a few in my time. I want to speak in favour of the new clause and state our support for it.

I will start by covering why we need the new clause. Although there has been a bit of discussion, we have not talked about what it means in its widest sense. Subsection (2) talks about

“the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income”,

as well as on protected characteristics, the public sector equality duty and

“equality in different parts of the UK and different regions of England.”

A lot of the debate today has focused on women, which is completely reasonable, but the new clause captures several other things that could have been more fully discussed.

Why do we need an assessment of the impact on various groups, particularly those mentioned in new clause 6? We need it because people in the protected groups or at the lower end of the income spectrum have been disproportionately hit by the actions of this UK Government, as can be seen in a number of ways. It can be seen in the fact that we have young people in jobs on zero-hours contracts. We have those jobs, and the Government say it is wonderful to have so many people in employment, but despite that, we are not seeing an increase in household disposable income because people are not receiving the wages they should receive for such employment. They are in precarious jobs and they are not receiving enough money, and the benefits freeze has been a major added factor. It means that people are earning even less, because the benefits freeze has hit them doubly.

The Government have caused another issue by reducing disability payments. The UN has said that the UK has not done enough to ensure that the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities is being met, and no Government in any developed country or nation should seek to be in such a position. We have not had a proper assessment of the impact on disabled people of the changes that this UK Government have made.

The UK Government have also not taken seriously their responsibility to young people in society. We have a living wage that people cannot live on: it is not calculated as something that people can live on; it is a pretendy living wage put forward by the Government. It is not applicable to people younger than 25. Therefore, we have a living wage that people cannot actually live on, but the Government somehow think that the labour of people under 25 is worth less than that of those over 25, even though they may be in exactly the same job and should therefore be earning the same amount.

As has been pretty widely covered, the Budget and successive policies of this UK Government have a disproportionate impact on single parents, the majority of whom are women. We see a disproportionate number of them coming through the doors at our surgeries. Do you know what, Mr Owen? It is absolutely and totally ridiculous that we are seeing a rise in rickets in this country. We are seeing people who cannot afford to eat or to give their children nutritious food because of the decisions of this UK Government.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree it is a scandal that many children will be getting food and presents this Christmas only through the actions of food banks and charities, such as Moray Firth Radio’s Cash for Kids in my constituency? That should not be allowed to happen. With universal credit, this is happening far too often across the nations of the UK.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. This year—in 2017—my office has referred 35 people to food banks, and we have gone to the food bank on five occasions on behalf of constituents who have come through the door and told us that they have not eaten for a number of days. This is supposed to be a country that cares for people who are just about managing, but it is failing them. The people who go to food banks nowadays are working. They are not earning enough money from their jobs to feed their families, so they are having to go to food banks.

We have seen this Government attack people who have protected characteristics, but we have not seen any impact assessments because the Government do not want to admit what they are doing. We have seen attacks on the WASPI women, who, despite having worked all their lives, are being asked to wait even longer for their pensions. We have seen changes with the rape clause and the two-child policy, meaning that women should not have more than two children and, if they conceive as a result of rape, they must write that down on a form and say so explicitly. Why should they have to relive that just to please this Government? We have seen increasing household debt—that has been raised as an issue by the Bank of England—and decreasing household savings. We have seen young women unable to go to school because they cannot afford tampons and towels to provide themselves with a basic level of human dignity.

Another change that has not been talked about hugely in this place is the attack on a group of people with protected characteristics. A massive and increasing number of people come to my surgery because they have no recourse to public funds. It is a particular issue with those fleeing domestic violence, the majority of whom are women. The UK Government have determined that they should have access to public funds for only six weeks if they are from outside the EEA, and not at all if they are from inside the EEA. If they have been living on a joint income with their partner and are fleeing domestic violence, they have no protection from the UK Government because they are giving them no recourse to public funds. That is an attack on a group of people with protected characteristics, and we should no longer tolerate that.

The hon. Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) mentioned what local authorities have to do in relation to impact assessments. I was a local councillor for eight years before being elected to this place. When we produced budgetary measures, or anything we were going to do in the city that would have an impact on communities, we had to produce an impact assessment specifying how it would affect people with those protected characteristics. If a local authority making decisions for the third largest city in Scotland has to do that, why are the UK Government making decisions that affect every man, woman and child across these islands without producing an impact assessment? Is it because they are ashamed of what they are doing and unwilling to be honest with the people?

In Scotland we are looking at having a progressive taxation system. We are lifting the pay freeze and next year we will be the fairest taxed part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) says that we will be the highest taxed part. Some 70% of taxpayers in Scotland will pay no more tax next year than they do this year. Only the highest earners will be paying moderately more. [Interruption.] No one earning less than £33,000 next year will pay any more income tax than they would in England.

[Chris Stephens]

Is it not a bit rich for some Government Members to try to shout down my hon. Friend, complaining about people on high incomes paying a bit more tax but saying nothing about disabled individuals losing £30 a week in benefits?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. If Government Members cared about what they were doing to disabled people, they would produce the impact assessments that are being requested today, and they would be honest about the changes they have made and how the heaviest impact has been on the most vulnerable in society.

There are folk who have been left behind by this Government. There are folk who have been failed by the safety net. Those are the people we see—I am sure that Government Members see them, too—walking into our surgeries on a regular basis. They say, “I have worked hard all my life, but I still cannot afford to feed myself and my family.” People who have worked every day for years now find that their state pension is being pushed back as a result of this Government’s policies. People find themselves homeless because they have made one or perhaps two bad decisions in their lifetime, which is far fewer than those of us who have bought a safety net and have support structures in place are able to make.

We need a culture change. The conversations we have had in this Chamber are along the same lines as those that have been had in the context of the #metoo hashtag. Women have come forward with #metoo to say that they have been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or even raped, and people have replied, “We don’t believe you,” “It can’t be that bad,” or “You’re trying to make a big thing of this.” What the SNP and the Opposition are trying to do in this debate is to highlight the fact that these disadvantaged groups are being actively disadvantaged by the UK Government’s policies. We are asking the UK Government to produce the impact assessments, because if they deny that that is the case, they should not be scared of producing them.

--- Later in debate ---

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East. This Bill is weak; it needs to be much stronger. I look to a Labour Government in the very near future to introduce serious measures to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The discussion that we had earlier today and that we are having now in relation to tax avoidance really goes to the heart of the question: what kind of country do the Government want to be in charge of. It was clear from the earlier debate that the Government do not want to be in charge of a country that is open and upfront about tax changes and the impacts that they will have. They also have issues with tax avoidance and evasion and with the choices that they make. Their choices are very much not the ones that Scottish National party Members would make, nor indeed, I think, ones that Labour would make.

On the issue of the tax gap in particular, the UK Government took the decision that it was more important to have immigration officers who were concerned with ensuring that the “wrong sort of people” did not get into the country than it was to have customs officers. We have ended up in a situation where there are very few customs inspections, which is a major contributor to our tax gap. We are talking about tax avoidance and tax evasion and about going forward into a situation in which we will need to make many more customs checks, when the UK Government have got rid of most of the people who know what they are talking about in relation to customs. We have a major problem that needs to be solved if we are to fix those issues.

A Transparency International report mentioned 766 UK companies that had avoided tax. A quarter of those companies are still active in the United Kingdom. The UK Government do not seem to have taken any action to ensure that they cannot dodge tax in the way that they have. Among the actions that we have been talking about is protection for whistleblowers. We continue to call for whistleblowers to be better protected. It is really important for people to feel that they can come forward safely and that they can uncover major problems that exist at the heart of some organisations that operate within this country, and at the heart of some schemes that operate within these islands. If the UK Government produced stronger guidance and stronger protection for whistleblowers, it would allow and encourage more people to come forward.

On the issues around the general anti-avoidance rule and the complexity of the tax code, we have been consistent in our criticism of how complex the tax code is. Someone posted a picture recently of the new version of the UK tax code that had just appeared: the thing was almost as tall as me. An absolutely huge number of bits of paper are required to make up the tax code. Is it any wonder that there are unintended loopholes that people can exploit? If the tax code was much simpler, if there were fewer tax reliefs and if the UK Government chose instead to give money to people rather than a tax relief, it would make things slightly better.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

The hon. Lady suggested that there is a confusion in the tax codes. It is only in recent days that the Scottish SNP Government have introduced a raft of new bands for tax and indeed increased tax. I find that anomaly quite strange.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is not actually a raft of new tax bands. As far as I know, it is one more band in the tax system with slightly different numbers for the pennies. But that is only in relation to income tax. Some 70% of people will pay less tax and 55% will pay less tax than they would in England. Does the hon. Gentleman believe, therefore, that the English system is taxing people unfairly compared to the Scottish system?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for indulging me. She says that 70% of Scottish taxpayers will pay less tax, but will she accept the fact that that is largely due to the changes made by the UK Government in raising the personal allowance?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Scottish Government’s new starter rate of 19%, rather than 20%, for the first £2,000 that people earn is really positive. It is an incredibly progressive taxation measure, and it is something that the UK Government cannot claim; it is something that the Scottish Government are doing.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

If Conservative Members wish to debate the progressive taxation system introduced by the Scottish Government, maybe they should stand for the Scottish Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I do, however, want to say one more thing on the Scottish tax system, so I hope he will indulge me.

The Scottish tax system is progressive. It is making a difference by ensuring that people who earn under £24,000 pay less tax. That is a positive measure and a good way forward. If members of the UK Government have concerns about the Scottish Parliament’s choices on tax, perhaps it would be better for them to support an increase in the block grant. They could also tell us whether they would cut the money that is going to be made up from the Scottish Government’s tax changes from education, local authorities or the health service.

I will bring the Committee back to tax avoidance. I am sorry, Sir Roger, for testing your patience slightly. The Scottish National party has been consistent in its criticism of Scottish limited partnerships. My former colleague, Roger Mullin, was like a dog with a bone; he would not let go of this matter. That was to his credit because the UK Government decided to make changes to the SLP regime as they recognised that it is massively used for tax avoidance and dodging. There was a review of SLPs, but we are yet to see changes as a result. Will the Minister let us know at least the timeline for making those changes in order to ensure that SLPs are no longer used as a tax-dodging mechanism? This is an important change that really needs to be made, preferably sooner rather than later.

Talking about the UK Government not working as they should regarding tax avoidance and evasion, the Panama papers and the Paradise papers have both been published in my time as an MP. It is very clear that the tax system—not just the global tax system, but even the system in the UK—is failing. It is allowing people and organisations to dodge tax. It is all well and good to talk about overseas trusts. In fact, this frustrates me a huge amount because the Government try to give the impression that overseas trusts are used by organisations such as rural churches in order to fix their roofs. It is not the case that they are used by organisations like that; they are used by people who are trying to dodge tax. We need the hardest possible line on that.

We cannot see the United Kingdom turn into a low-tax, deregulated tax haven. If the UK Government are deciding what kind of country they want the United Kingdom to be, they should not choose one that involves deregulation. With Brexit, they have the opportunity to put their stamp on the future, but I am incredibly concerned about the way that it will go. In bringing back control, some of the reins that have perhaps been put on the UK Government will be taken off and they will be free, for example, to take away the working time directive, and to make changes to our world-class social security system, fair society and good business practices. That is incredibly concerning.

We have called before, and we will not stop calling, for powers to deal with tax avoidance and evasion to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We believe that we would do a better job because we could not really do a worse one. We would put forward a fair and moral tax system and a general anti-avoidance rule in order to discourage people from dodging tax, and we would ensure that our tax gap was way smaller than the UK Government’s.

[Mel Stride]

This Government are committed to bearing down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance like no other Government in history. While I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Minister, and I respect the spirited nature of her attack on our record, I am afraid she is misguided.

We have a strong record. We have brought in and protected £160 billion of potentially avoided tax since 2010 as a result of over 100 measures that we have brought in. We have, as we have heard in the debate, one of the lowest tax gaps in the entire world, at just 6%. Contrary to some of the suggestions from those on the Labour Benches, that is a robust and firm figure; it is described by the IMF as one of the most robust in the world. It is, indeed, produced by HMRC, but it is produced to strict guidelines set out by the Office for National Statistics.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I am delighted to offer a comment on that, because that is exactly in line with the point that I am trying to make, which is that the Laffer curve is exactly that—we increase revenue as we reduce taxation rates. It is very much at the core of what we believe on the Government Benches. At one time, it was what the SNP also stood by, but now the Financial Secretary in the Scottish Government has not even heard of Laffer. He told a Select Committee in Holyrood that he had never heard of the Laffer curve. That is where we are at in Scotland. When it comes to incentive, hard work and industry—I am referring this to the bank levy and the bankers’ bonuses that were mentioned by Opposition Front Benchers—we are now at a point where £33,000 a year is classified in Scotland as “rich”. I think that that is dismal. We are talking not about people with yachts in the marina bays of the west of Scotland, but doctors, teachers and middle managers—the working men and women of Scotland. Therefore, when it comes to the bank levy and to bankers’ bonuses, and we talk about incentives to work hard, to exercise initiative and to take a few risks, it is just not on in Scotland now. The Scottish Government are sending out a clear message, which I find dismal and dismaying, that that is not the kind of Scotland that they want. It is the kind of Scotland that I want. It is the kind of United Kingdom that I want, which is why I unreservedly stand to support the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

You will be delighted to know, Sir Roger, that I will be talking about the bank levy and the new clauses that have been tabled both by the Opposition and by our party. I wish to start by saying that I have rarely been more embarrassed to be part of this House than I am this evening. This debate followed hot on the heels of a statement on bullying and harassment and we ended up in a situation in which there was a ping-pong between Government Back Benchers and the Opposition Front-Bench team. It just was not acceptable. I appreciate the fact, Sir Roger, that you intervened and brought Members back to the matter under discussion.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

No, I will not give way.

The other concern about the tone of this debate thus far is that it has basically been a history lesson. Both sides have been talking about the history and how we have ended up in this situation. Very few people have spoken at any length about the future and about how the bank levy in the future will affect the tax take of the Treasury, as well has how it could be made to be more fair and ensure that we redistribute taxes and wealth in a positive way.

The SNP has a manifesto commitment to support the reversal of the reduction in the bank levy. We stand by that commitment and have been consistent in our views on that. We have also been consistent in supporting the introduction of a tax on bankers’ bonuses.

I am pleased with the way in which Labour’s new clause 1 has been written; there is a lot to commend it to the Committee. The suggestion of looking at the effects on revenue of the bank levy compared to the bank payroll tax is utterly sensible. It strikes me that this information should be in the public domain, so that we can all talk from a position of knowledge about the actual effects that this has had, rather than the projected effect that the Treasury thought it would have when it was first put in place or even thinks it might have now. It is totally reasonable for us to ask for a review of these things.

We would be able to go further and ask for more drastic changes if the Government had proposed an amendment of the law resolution, which would allow us to be more flexible in tabling amendments. As I think I have said before—if not, I am quite happy to say it now—the fact that the Conservative Government are not proposing an amendment of the law resolution means that future Labour Governments will be likely to do the same thing, so this creates a situation whereby the House is less transparent and there is less Opposition scrutiny. It would be much better for all parties if there was an amendment of the law resolution.

New clause 1 states that the proposed review would consider

“the effectiveness of the levy in reflecting risks to the financial system and the wider UK economy arising from the banking sector”.

That is key. Despite all that has happened since the financial crash, there are concerns about ensuring that banks continue to make less risky propositions and continue to be safe places for people to put their money. It is reasonable to look at the bank levy in the context of discouraging risky behaviour by banks, and the reference to the incoming revenue is key.

New clause 11, tabled by the SNP, would deal with two things: inclusive growth and equality. We will hear an awful lot in the debate tomorrow about equality, and this should apply across all measures. The review proposed in our new clause would consider whether reducing the bank levy would disproportionately affect, for example, people of a certain gender or people who are not wealthy. People who work for banks are more likely to be male and wealthy. Therefore, reducing the bank levy is more likely to support them than it is to support groups that are disadvantaged in the first place.

We in the SNP have been absolutely clear and consistent in our support of inclusive growth. We have also been clear that things such as quantitative easing—certainly since the first round of QE—do very little to support those people at the bottom of the pile or to inject money into the real economy, but actually have a disproportionate effect in organisations such as those in the FTSE 100. We will keep being clear that inclusive growth is important, which is why we have proposed progressive options for taxation. Particularly in this place, it is difficult to get any sensible answers from the Government about how their proposals will affect people across the spectrum. That is not necessarily because the Government have not done the work; they may have done the work, but they are unwilling to publish it. They do not produce comprehensive reviews of how the tax takes have changed as a result of the changes they have made to the tax system.

Hon. Members will be unsurprised to hear me calling again for the Government to be more transparent, but that is what I am doing. I will also be very clear that we are keen to support new clause 1 if Labour decides to push it to a vote.

[James Cartlidge]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). Interestingly, she mentioned inclusive growth, to which I will return shortly. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), whose speech was a real tour de force. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North criticised him for not talking about the future and dwelling on the past. Actually, he was talking about the present—the challenges facing his constituency today, in the here and now. The bank levy is incredibly important because it is all about the future prosperity of those constituents, so I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments.

Interestingly, the Opposition’s new clause 3 gives us a good way of looking at the bank levy as it stands. Subsection (2) of new clause 3, which would affect schedule 9—the schedule that contains the details about the bank levy—states:

“No later than 31 October 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before the House of Commons an account of the effects of the proposed changes in Part 1 of Schedule 9—(a) on the public revenue, (b) in reflecting risks to the financial system and the wider UK economy arising from the banking sector, and (c) in encouraging banks to move away from riskier funding models.”

I accept that those three points are incredibly germane. In fact, let us not wait until 31 October 2020. Let us stand here now and think about how a review would fit under Labour’s very own new clause.

Look at subsection (2)(a) of new clause 3, which is about the impact “on the public revenue”. What do we see? Well, the banking sector paid 58% more tax in 2016-17 than in 2009-10. That is under a Conservative Government. The average amount paid by the banks every year since 2010 has been 13% higher than under Labour. In 2016, the Government introduced an additional tax on banks—the 8% corporation tax surcharge, which we have been discussing—which will raise nearly £9 billion by 2022.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The types of borrowing that I have talked about were the reality, but what have we done since? It is no longer possible to get self-certified mortgages. It is very difficult—almost impossible—to get interest-only mortgages as a residential purchaser.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady did not give way to me, but because I believe in inclusive growth and equality, I will give way to her.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible case about the issues there were with mortgages before, but there are currently issues with consumer credit. The Bank of England has raised concerns about, for example, the card credit that people are taking out, and the fact that half of households have less than £100 in savings. When is he going to take the punchbowl away?

[James Cartlidge]

I did say that I would come to the current position on credit. I want to finish on the analysis of the three tenets in new clause 22 under which Labour says that we should consider how the bank levy has worked. According to subsection (2)(c), we should look at it in terms of

“encouraging banks to move away from riskier funding models.”

It is quite amusing to see a Labour new clause that contains the phrase

“encouraging banks to move away”.

My colleagues will appreciate that the whole point of reforming the bank levy is not to encourage banks to move away, but to encourage them to stay here and create wealth and jobs. Let us not forget that in all the figures we have heard about, we have not heard the key one. Banks contribute £116 billion of value added to our economy, not including any of the tax take.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right. We have made huge progress in making sure that the banks are fit and able to withstand whatever external shocks there might be. The Bank of England has been heavily engaged in that, as have the Government, and we are in a much more secure position—certainly than we were when we inherited the economy we saw when we first came to office in 2010.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Minister is being very generous in allowing interventions. I was concerned by the response he gave to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Given the Government’s stake in RBS, does he not feel that they should take some responsibility and use their influence to convince RBS not to go ahead with these closures? There have been over 90 since the start of the year, and this cannot continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was not particularly pleased with the answer that the Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) as to why the Government have not tabled an amendment of the law resolution, which would allow the Opposition to put forward more measures in relation to tax avoidance and evasion, for example. Why did they not put forward an amendment of the law resolution?

[Mel Stride]

We did not have an amendment of the law resolution on the previous Finance Bill, so we are carrying on with the situation that pertained to that Bill. As I explained, what matters is that we have an opportunity fully to scrutinise in this House the various measures provided and amendments that may be tabled in relation to those measures. There is nothing preventing that. As I have outlined, the Bill will go through its various stages, allowing for very thorough scrutiny.

Together, the measures that I mentioned continue the Government’s sustained crusade against tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance—an endeavour that we will pursue with undiminished vigour right through the course of this Parliament. Let no one ever doubt, for even the briefest moment, this Government’s commitment to hard-pressed families, and to championing business and the wealth creators of the future. On the matter of taxation as set out in the Bill, let no one misunderstand us: we will continue to keep taxes competitive and fair, but we will also continue our vigorous and ceaseless drive to bear down on avoidance and evasion so that all pay their due. We will ensure that all pay a just and fair share for the support of our vital public services: for doctors, paramedics and nurses; for our police, our teachers, our fire services, and our brave armed forces who make our country so great. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree that employee share ownership schemes are a good thing, and I would like to see an increase in them, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue that people have is not that they do not know about or cannot access employee ownership schemes, but that they do not have the money to save, given that 50% of households have less than £100 of savings? Is not that the biggest problem?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady refers to schemes that require the employees to pay for the shares. In my view, businesses should be allowed to gift shares to their employees, and that should not necessarily form part of their remuneration package. At the moment, there are a series of ways for companies to give shares to their employees, but none is particularly tax efficient or confers particular advantages to a company. I would like a company that had a certain percentage of its shares in employees’ hands to pay a lower corporation tax rate than one that failed to involve its employees in the balance sheet. That would address the general idea that the Prime Minister has talked about—that employees should be more involved in the way that businesses, especially large businesses, are run. If shareholders at the annual general meeting every year are also employees, so much to the good. Dynamising and democratising capital has to be the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am really pleased to have the opportunity to stand here on behalf of the Scottish National party for the Second Reading debate of this year’s third Finance Bill.

First, I would like to tackle the issue of the amendment of the law motion, which I have already raised with the Financial Secretary. I am particularly concerned that the Government are doing their best to use the rules of the House to dodge proper scrutiny and transparency. It is not the normal state of play to have no amendment of the law motion after a substantive Budget. I get that it is not easy for Ministers to try to hold a minority Government together when their Members are simultaneously pointing in about 300 different directions. Even so, they should be keen to come before the House, stand up for what they believe in, and allow proper scrutiny.

I would like to take the opportunity again to highlight deficiencies in the Budget process. The “Better Budgets” report, published by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the IFS and the Institute for Government, pointed out several ways in which scrutiny could be improved. One suggestion is for the Finance Public Bill Committee to take evidence in public. I am firmly of the opinion that such a change would improve scrutiny and increase Committee members’ understanding of a Budget’s measures. This will be my third Finance Bill Committee, so I feel that I can now speak with some expertise on the subject. I urge the Minister to consider this request once more, given that the previous two Finance Bill Committees I served on sat for only six sittings each. We have extra time in the legislative timetable before us, and two hearings on the first day, for example, would not stretch that. That has been the Government’s main objection, so I push the Minister to consider the proposal again.

Let me turn to economic impact assessments on particular tax measures. The Minister will be pleased to know that my point is not about Brexit, but the fact that the Government failed to carry out impact assessments on Brexit is not particularly surprising given that the tax measures that come forward in Budgets do not have economic impact assessments attached to them either. Whenever Ministers are asked about reviewing tax reliefs, we are told that they are regularly kept under review and that reviews consistently happen. Last year, however, I asked parliamentary questions on this matter, and the answers I received on the Government’s scrutiny of the tax reliefs that they had put in place were not very satisfactory. The Government were not particularly clear about whether the tax reliefs had achieved their aims. They were also not able to tell me how much money they had cost or gained for the Exchequer. If the Government are going to put forward tax reliefs—I agree that they should in certain circumstances, as they can be a good thing to encourage investment—they need to explain to the House whether they have worked. What is the point of having an absolutely massive tax code with a huge number of tax reliefs if we do not know whether they are incentivising people to do good things?

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Lady share with the House the economic and revenue impact of the SNP Scottish Government’s land and buildings transaction tax?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken to me before about the land and buildings transaction tax. I refer him to my earlier answer: 93% of people who have paid the tax in Scotland on properties over £40,000 paid either less than they would have done in England, or no tax at all.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will not let the hon. Gentleman intervene again. He is becoming one of my more regular commentators. I appreciate his interest, but I am going to make some progress.

On scrutiny and the amendment of the law motion, the SNP and the Labour party have been clear that the Government have not gone far enough on tax avoidance, so we would like the opportunity to table amendments. I am sure the Minister does not imagine that he and his team have a monopoly on good ideas. An amendment of the law resolution would have allowed the Opposition to put forward what the Government might consider to be good ideas to reduce the amount of tax avoidance. That would be a better situation for everybody. There are 650 Members of the House, many of whom have a lot of expertise and do not sit on the Government Benches. An amendment of the law resolution would allow better amendments to come forward to make better law.

The Budget and the Bill can be criticised for what they do not include, as well as for what they do. First, there is still no acceptance of the economic impact of Brexit and there are no taxation measures to fix that. In the 12 months to June, real household disposable income shrank by 1.1%. That is the longest period of falling living standards in six years. The increase in the price of food means that families are £7.74 a week worse off, and that is before we leave the European Union, the single market and the customs union. Coupled with what the IFS says about there now being two decades of wage stagnation instead of one, and the threat of 80,000 jobs being lost in Scotland, things are looking pretty bleak. The Minister and various Members have already spoken about the public sector pay cap. That does no good for increasing incomes. I would like the Government to change their mind on the public sector pay cap and to fund changes to it.

I have already called for the Chancellor to bring forward an emergency Budget and I have no hesitation in doing so again. Given that the UK and the EU have now come up with a deal on the payment of billions of pounds by the UK to the EU, the Chancellor needs to tell us how that will be paid for. We have already had two Budgets this year, but I would have no aversion to seeing another one to take that payment into account and explain where the money will come from.

We cannot continue to have the Chancellor pulling rabbits out of hats on Budget day. I believe firmly that there must be more openness and transparency, and better scrutiny. I would welcome it if the Opposition parties could move meaningful amendments on the Floor of this House, if nothing else to show how much better we could do things. Every time that the shadow Minister took an intervention from Conservative Members, they asked how his party would pay for things. If he had the opportunity to move meaningful amendments, he would be able to set out tax measures that he and his party thought appropriate. That would avoid the accusation about the magic money tree. The Government have chosen their route so that they can avoid scrutiny, but they then criticise the Opposition for not carrying out proper scrutiny. That is not a good way to run things.

I welcome the UK Government’s change to VAT liabilities for the Scottish police and fire services. My colleagues and I have raised this matter inside and outside the House over 140 times. It is particularly convenient that the Chancellor should suddenly U-turn and fix this inconsistency for Scotland’s services at exactly the same time as he should need to do so for combined authorities, police and crime commissioners and the London fire commissioner. If he now agrees that these liabilities should not apply, surely they should not have applied in the first place. Our police and fire services would very much like the £140 million in VAT that they have paid so far to be returned. I eagerly await Scottish Tory Members, using all the power they apparently have, joining us to convince the Chancellor to pay back that £140 million. If they do not do so, they will have to explain why to police and fire services in Scotland.

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will not.

On transferable tax history, I am pleased that the UK Government have committed to changing the tax regime for late-life oil and gas assets. The Minister nods, because he has heard me go on about this on a number of occasions. I welcome the change. I ask him to work with stakeholder groups on a deal for the oil and gas sector. Given the changes to the oil price, there is still a feeling of pessimism around Aberdeen on some days. I would like the UK Government to commit to supporting the Oil and Gas Authority’s “Vision 2035” for the sector, which I think has cross-party support. This is incredibly important. It is critical to the future of the north-east of Scotland in particular, but also that of the United Kingdom as a whole, for the oil and gas sector to be supported and for our supply chain to be anchored in the UK so that it can continue to pay taxes even when North sea oil has run out. “Vision 2035” is key, and it is part of the sector deal that Oil & Gas UK and other stakeholder groups are seeking. I hope very much that the Minister will sit at the table with those groups and ensure that what they need for the future—what they need to ensure that they continue to pay tax—is realised in a sector deal.

As we have heard, the Bill makes changes to allow first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. I have already made clear my concerns about the changes to land and buildings taxation that are proposed, which echo concerns that have been raised by the Office for Budget Responsibility, as well as a number of experts. To improve access to the housing market, the UK Government should follow Scotland’s lead and commit themselves to more social housing.

I spent eight years as a local authority councillor. By far the biggest part of my casework was presented by people who came through the door and said that they were unable to obtain a secure tenancy in a social house in the knowledge that the landlord would not chuck them out in a year provided that they continued to pay rent. The fact that that problem still exists, in Scotland and throughout England, is due to Margaret Thatcher’s right to buy. Unlike us in Scotland, the UK Government have not made any reductions in the scheme, and council housing stock has been decimated as a result. We in Scotland are trying to right the damage that has been done. We are focusing on social housing and will continue to do so, and I urge the UK Government to do the same.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point about the right to buy. Apparently about 40% of the houses that were sold off as a result of the scheme are now in the private rented sector, and a greater cost is being incurred in the form of housing benefits, so the policy does not even make economic sense.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Having observed the real-life impact on people who came through my door, who were having to squash themselves into two-bedroom council houses with their parents, brothers, sisters and children, I am certain that we need to build up our council housing stock, and that is what we continue to do in Scotland.

The last substantive issue that I want to raise is the unfairness that faces the WASPI women. The UK Government continue to fail those women. They could have made changes in this Budget and the Bill, but they failed to do so. We will not rest until fairness is won for the WASPI women.

There are so many problems with the Bill. It does not fix the many unfairnesses that the UK have created. Wages continue not to rise, and people and families are feeling poorer as a result of continued austerity and economic mismanagement. This Government are not strong and stable, and they are not helping those who are “just about managing”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

Well, education is another area that I could touch on. Reading scores and mathematics and science results are down in Scotland since 2006. England and Northern Ireland now outperform Scotland in every category.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Graham]

I will not, because I am conscious of time.

Under the SNP, more money goes in but fewer services are delivered. With a record like that, it is disappointing for Conservative Members that SNP Members stand in this Chamber and criticise what this Budget has delivered for Scotland. There is £2 billion extra for Scotland.

[Kirsty Blackman]

No, there is not.

[Luke Graham]

Yes, there is, and there is a real-terms increase, as the hon. Lady knows. There has been a whisky duty freeze, and police and fire service VAT has been returned to Scotland. Those are good things. I hope that colleagues in all parties in Holyrood can use this funding productively and work constructively so that the two levels of Scottish government can work together and deliver for their constituents.