Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 21, page 12, line 31, at beginning insert—

“(A1) This section applies to any person who it employed for an average of more than 15 hours per week by an NHS body.”

This amendment would limit the removal of the lifetime allowance charge to NHS staff.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 22, page 12, line 31, after “charge” insert

“for a person to whom this section applies”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 21.

Amendment 23, page 12, line 36, at end insert—

“(3) The Treasury may by regulations specify a list of NHS bodies, or types of bodies, in respect of which this section applies.

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) may specify different bodies, or types of bodies, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and

(b) are subject to annulment by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 21 and gives the Treasury the power to define “NHS body” for the purposes of that amendment.

Clauses 18 to 24 stand part.

Amendment 27, in clause 25, page 18, line 23, at end insert—

“(4A) The arrangements must include that the Commissioners are required to provide to an individual their calculation of the appropriate amount under subsection (3).”

This amendment would require HMRC to provide recipients of the relief with a calculation of the payment so that it can be checked.

Amendment 28, page 18, line 26, insert—

“(5A) The arrangements must include procedures for the purposes of allowing an individual to—

(a) challenge the amount the Commissioners have determined to be the appropriate amount under subsection (3), and

(b) make a claim requesting that the Commissioners calculate and pay an appropriate amount in accordance with subsection (3) where the Commissioners have failed to make such a payment.

(5B) The individual must give notice to the Commissioners of any such challenge or claim no later than four years from the end of the relevant tax year as defined in subsection (1)(b).”

This amendment would enable a recipient of the relief to challenge the amount determined by HMRC if they think it is incorrect, and would allow someone not identified as eligible for the relief by HMRC to initiate a claim for it.

Amendment 29, page 18, line 41, at end insert—

“(8A) The arrangements must include a procedure for the Commissioners to correct, in accordance with section 9ZB TMA 1970, an individual’s personal return for the relevant tax year to include the appropriate amount paid under this section.”

This amendment would enable HMRC to correct the tax return of a recipient of a payment under the new section 193A FA2004, to reflect that the receipt of the payment has increased the recipient’s income for the year.

Clause 25 stand part.

New clause 4—Review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make a statement to the House of Commons on the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge introduced by section 18 of this Act and other changes to tax-free pension allowances introduced by sections 19 to 23 of this Act.

(2) The statement must provide the following information—

(a) the number of NHS doctors who will benefit from the policies referred to in subsection (1);

(b) the proportion of those benefiting from the policies referred to in subsection (1) who are NHS doctors;

(c) the number of people who are expected to—

(i) stay in work, and

(ii) return to work

as a result of the policies referred to in subsection (1);

(d) a breakdown of the figures in subsection (2)(c) by sector, including the number of people under subsection (2)(c)(i) and (ii) who are NHS doctors; and

(e) details of how a scheme that provided benefits equivalent to the policies referred to in subsection (1) only for NHS doctors could operate.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to make a statement setting out the impact of the tax-free pension allowance changes in relation to NHS doctors, and to set out details of how an alternative scheme targeted at NHS doctors could operate.

New clause 5—Review of alternatives to the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed—

(a) conduct a review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge introduced by section 18 of this Act and other changes to tax-free pension allowances introduced by sections 19 to 23 of this Act, and

(b) lay before the House of Commons a report setting out recommendations arising from the review.

(2) The review must make recommendations on how the policies referred to in subsection (1)(a) could be replaced with an alternative approach that provided equivalent benefits only for NHS doctors.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact of the tax-free pension allowance changes and to recommend an alternative approach targeted at NHS doctors.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is a delight to speak first in Committee of the whole House this afternoon. I had a few extra minutes to tweak my speech during the ten-minute rule Bill, as it is unusual for such a Bill to be opposed, and those extra few minutes will presumably have made my speech extra good. I am sure the whole Committee will listen very closely.

I rise to speak to amendment 21 in my name and in the name of my SNP and Plaid Cymru colleagues, but I will first talk about new clauses 4 and 5, which were tabled by the Opposition. The new clauses would require a review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge, with new clause 4 focusing on NHS doctors and new clause 5 looking more widely.

A significant number of questions have been raised in the House about the lifetime allowance and the problems it has caused, particularly for NHS doctors. I do not think any Opposition Member would consider that the solution to this problem is to abolish the lifetime allowance charge completely, which seems totally out of proportion. We have been raising this very serious issue for a number of years, but I never considered arguing against this solution because it never crossed my mind that the Government would do something quite so drastic or extreme.

New clauses 4 and 5 both ask for reviews, statements and information. Particularly pertinent is information on the number of NHS doctors who will benefit from the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge, as is a report containing recommendations in the light of a review of the effect of abolishing the lifetime allowance charge. The least the Government can do, if they are to make such a massive change to the lifetime allowance or the pension tax system, is provide us with as much information as possible so that we can consider all the potential and actual implications. We would then have all the information at our fingertips. The Government are able to access HMRC data in a way that the rest of us cannot, so we need details on the actual impact of these changes.

On the specific issue of NHS doctors, Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation has said that 20% of those who benefit from the change to the lifetime allowance work in the finance industry. He said that

“nearly as many bankers as doctors”

will benefit from this change. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called it “bizarre”, stating:

“if this is aimed at doctors then it really is a huge sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut.”

That accords with our understanding.

Again, we agree that this significant issue for doctors needs to be fixed, but the Government are going about it in totally the wrong way. During the covid pandemic, we clapped NHS staff from our doorsteps. We recognise how difficult NHS staff had it working on the frontline during the pandemic, and how difficult they continue to have it. When other people were furloughed, they were working hard, day in and day out, to keep as many of us alive and healthy as possible, yet the Government are giving exactly the same break to bankers as they are giving to those who worked day in, day out to keep us all safe. That does not make sense. If we want to support our NHS, to ensure that we have the best possible public services and to give the NHS our vote of confidence, our backing and our support, we should recognise that those working in the NHS provide a vital public service and therefore deserve different treatment from those who work in the finance industry, for example, and who do not provide that level of public service.

I thank the Clerk of Bills, who was helpful in drafting these amendments. I knew what I wanted to do, but I was not quite sure how to do it, so I very much appreciated that assistance.

Amendment 21 would mean that the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge applies only to those employed by an NHS body for more than 15 hours a week, on average.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

We all respect the hard work of NHS staff, but why does that argument not equally apply to, say, senior police officers?

[Kirsty Blackman]

An awful lot of people work hard. The specific issue that many of our constituents have raised is in the NHS. I have not been approached with this concern by senior police officers, but I have been approached by NHS doctors. If the hon. Gentleman feels particularly strongly about senior police officers, he could table an amendment so that people employed in the wider public sector, or in the police service, can be included in this measure. I think both police officers and NHS staff could be included, but it would be ridiculous to include everyone, no matter how little they do for the public good.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Not only NHS staff and senior police officers but state school headteachers, senior civil servants in our local authorities, air traffic controllers and senior Government scientists are affected by the lifetime allowance. In fact, about half the people affected work in the public sector. If the hon. Lady follows her rationale, she would end up with a completely different tax regime for public sector pensions. Does she think that would be fair for private sector workers?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Given how much we have relied on our public sector, and given how unwilling this Government are to come to the table on pay negotiations, it would be totally reasonable for this House to say, “Our public sector is incredibly important. We want to support our public sector workers, and therefore we want to give them differential access to lifetime allowance exclusions.”

Amendment 22 is consequential on amendment 21. Amendment 23 would allow the Secretary of State to specify which NHS bodies, or types of bodies, are covered, given that the NHS is structured in different ways in England, Scotland and throughout these islands. It makes sense for the Secretary of State to make that decision.

The amendments cover NHS staff who work, on average, at least 15 hours a week so that they cover all the NHS staff who have come to us with pension concerns, particularly doctors but also other senior NHS staff. I have a large teaching hospital in my constituency, and there is another hospital just over the boundary. There is a medical school too.

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Not just now.

A significant number of doctors live and work in Aberdeen, and a number of them have come to me with concerns about the pension regime. One of them did not realise that he was about to hit the lifetime allowance until his accountant came to him and said, “This is how much you are required to pay in tax.” He had tipped over into this additional tax because he had taken on hours to teach junior doctors and medical students how to be better doctors. He had taken those extra hours on at the request of the hospital. This was because the immigration laws and rules have meant that a number of our doctors are struggling to jump through the hoops that the UK Government have put in a place or they are feeling that the Home Office is particularly against doctors coming from other countries.

That constituent had been asked to take on those hours as a result of the changes in some of the departments. He had willingly taken on those hours because he knows how important continuing professional development is in the NHS and how important it is to have a new generation of doctors coming through, but he had then been hit with a massive tax bill as a result. When I met him, he said to me, “I do not want to take on any more teaching as a result of what has happened to me. The amount I have been taxed means that the teaching costs me money. I don’t see why I should be asked to do this when I am training the next generation of doctors.”

[Anthony Browne]

I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises the dangers of high levels of taxation in discouraging people from work, as I believe those on both sides of the House can agree on that. Her amendment mentions the NHS and people who work for “an NHS body”. What does she think about this applying to GPs? The overwhelming majority of GPs do not actually work for the NHS—they are self-employed or work for their partnerships. Does she think that GPs should be excluded from this legislation as well?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is one reason why our amendment 23 would allow the Secretary of State to make those specifications, so that all the people considered to be working for NHS bodies—GPs are commissioned by NHS bodies—are included. The measure was intended to allow that level of flexibility. If I had not intended to allow that level of flexibility, we would not have tabled amendment 23 to allow the Secretary of State that flexibility. We referred to NHS bodies and specified a number of hours so that someone who works for the significant majority of their time in private practice and private systems, and perhaps works an hour or so every few months for the NHS, would not be caught by this measure. The intention is that those people who work for a significant amount of their time in contributing to the health of the population, making people better and well, ensuring that they stay healthy and live longer lives, are recognised and given the opportunity to benefit from this measure.

My understanding, from everything that the Government have said previously about this, is that one of the biggest concerns in this area relates to NHS doctors. If the Government feel that there are other significant areas of the public sector where people could and should benefit, I look forward very much to the Minister standing up and explaining all of those. I am sure I will be asking further questions about this in Committee.

The lifetime allowance was in place for a reason and it does not work in relation to senior NHS staff, but it does work in relation to those places where people are not contributing to the health and wellbeing of our population and where people have not been on the frontline during the past few years, working under immense pressure for the public good. SNP Members will therefore vote against clause 18 standing part of the Bill if we have a vote on that. That clause is about the abolition of that lifetime charge. We do not agree that that should apply to everyone. The Government need to bring in a bespoke scheme to solve this problem, rather than applying it to everybody, no matter how much money is involved and how little public service they provide for that income that they receive. I ask the House to support amendment 21, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). We are covering clauses 18 to 25, which will remove the pension tax barriers to remaining in work that highly skilled and experienced individuals across the public and private sectors, including senior NHS clinicians, are facing. The clauses also ensure that the tax regime works appropriately for the winding up of collective money purchase schemes and legislates to provide taxpayer-funded top-up payments for up to 1.2 million of the lowest earners in net pay pension schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I was making, and does so extremely well. It is wrong for us in this House to seek to assign to ourselves the ability to judge the virtuous nature of people’s activity. I am sure that an accountant in the private sector works as diligently as an accountant seeking to drive value for money and the best medical outcomes in the NHS. With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North goes a little too far in seeking to “unbake” the wonderful cake of our mixed economy health system, which involves contributions from the private sector, private forensic laboratories and private diagnostic machines, and the wonderful work of our clinicians, and administrative, ancillary and domiciliary staff, who are mostly in the public sector. As I have said, her approach is the wrong basis on which this House should proceed.

Clauses 18 to 23 will reform pension tax thresholds to remove the current disincentives for highly experienced individuals to remain in the labour market or even to return to the workforce to build up their retirement savings. Currently, there are limits placed on the amount of tax-relieved pension savings individuals can make each year and an additional second restriction that applies to the total. That is an unusual feature of the tax system, where almost every other allowance is on an annual basis. The Government listened to stakeholders from across the public and private sectors, who have said that the annual and lifetime allowances can influence the timing of retirement and act as a barrier to remaining in the workforce.

The changes made by these clauses will increase the annual allowance from £40,000 to £60,000 and remove the lifetime allowance charge from 6 April 2023. The changes will ensure that pensions tax does not act as a barrier to staying in or returning to work, and will eliminate the chilling impact that the mere fear of triggering an extra tax charge has, even for those who are not immediately subject to falling foul of the cap. Much as the opposition parties may not wish to hear this, these changes command support across the economy. The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers told us that pension taxation risks causing its members to reject tasks essential for the safe and efficient operation of air traffic control in the United Kingdom.

Dr Vishal Sharma of the British Medical Association has said that this is

“an incredibly important step forward”.

He said that the abolition of the lifetime allowance will mean that

“senior doctors will no longer be forced”—

his words—

“to retire early and can continue to work within the NHS, providing vital patient care.”

The Forces Pension Society said that this is a positive development and that it had been lobbying for it for several years. It said that these changes will help keep our streets safe. Marc Jones, chairman of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, confirmed that, as it relates to the police, they

“will be a game changer for thousands who love their jobs and do not want to retire.”

To support those who have left the labour market to return and build up their retirement savings, these clauses will also increase the money purchase annual allowance from £4,000 to £10,000 from April 2023. This will enable more individuals who have previously retired to return to the workforce and to continue to build their savings. In line with these headline reforms, there are also technical changes. They increase the minimum tapered annual allowance from £4,000 to £10,000 and the adjusted income level required for the annual tapered annual allowance to apply to an individual from £240,000 to £260,000.

[Kirsty Blackman]

While the Minister is talking about all the public sector individuals who will benefit as a result of these changes, he has not made the case for why this should apply to bankers. Why should bankers receive this exemption from the lifetime allowance? What benefit will the country get as a result?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am sure that the significant number of people—over half a million—who depend on jobs in the financial sector, including in places such as Edinburgh, one of our great financial centres, are listening with consternation to the politics of envy. The hon. Lady singles out individual professions and invites us to set separate tax policies on the basis of a particular profession. That would be entirely wrong. If she had been listening very carefully—I understand that she wanted to get in, because this is a debate and is the opportunity to do so—she would have heard that I was talking about the annual tapered allowance. That is a feature in pensions policy that is there entirely to ensure that it continues to have a progressive nature. A banker who is earning £260,000 a year can get only a reduced amount. They cannot avail themselves of the same annual allowance as the hon. Lady’s friends, colleagues and those she seeks to represent in our public services. I can assure the House that this is not a charter for bankers. In fact, the annual tapered allowance remains unchanged in its operation. We are updating the thresholds here today.

Unless the hon. Lady wishes to withdraw her amendment at this point having heard the strength of our arguments, I will now turn briefly to the remaining clauses that we are debating today, covering collective money purchase pension arrangements and relief relating to net pay arrangements. Collective money purchase is a new type of pension arrangement. Clause 24 will prevent any unintended tax consequences should a collective money purchase scheme wind up. It will ensure that members and their dependants can receive payments and transfer funds without incurring an unauthorised payments tax charge—I do not think that that should be controversial for the House.

Finally, clause 25 relates to the introduction of top-up payments for the lowest earners—another highly progressive measure—who sit within net pay pension schemes. There are two main methods of giving pensions tax relief. Although they provide the same outcomes for most individuals, lower earners can have different levels of take-home pay depending on how their pension scheme is administered for tax purposes, and the Government believe they are right to rectify that.

Clause 25 makes changes to ensure that eligible low-earning individuals whose income sits below their personal allowance receive a taxpayer-funded top-up payment so that they will have broadly similar take-home pay regardless of how their pension scheme is administered for tax purposes. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) has tabled some amendments in this respect, and I wrote to him yesterday to provide some of the comfort that I think he was looking for. They were well-intentioned amendments, and I hope that the letter I have sent him gives him some of the satisfaction that he seeks. Fundamentally, we do not disagree with what he is trying to achieve, and it has the support of those who have been agitating for low-income earners. That measure could benefit an estimated 1.2 million low earners who save into an occupational pension under net pay arrangements.

In conclusion, as I have set out, we know that there is a problem that needs to be tackled. It is a fact that individuals are choosing to retire early to prevent incurring pension taxes. The changes today, which have been widely welcomed by sectoral representatives across the economy, will ensure that we can retain our most skilled and experienced workers in all sectors while also simplifying and improving the pension arrangements for millions of households. I therefore urge Members to accept that clauses 18 to 25 should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions to this debate. It has been brief, and I will try to keep my remarks brief, too. The Government do not want any doctor to retire early because of the way that pension taxes work, but as my hon. Friends have said, the issues that these changes address go much wider than doctors and affect workers across the economy. Nobody should find themselves having to reduce their work commitments due to interaction between their pay, their pension and the tax system. It is detrimental not just to those individuals who feel compelled to retire earlier than they would like, but also to the economy, and with them goes their often irreplaceable knowledge and experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) reminded us that today is a bad day for the purveyors of golf equipment, because this measure will allow people to come back into work. More than anything, we should be talking about the patients and others who will benefit, as well as the benefit to the economy from doctors, consultants and workers across sectors continuing to pay tax at their normal rate for those extra years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) conjured up the image of how it would oh so wonderful to be a fly on the wall for the recent conversations between the hon. Members for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Ealing North (James Murray) in respect of this policy. We took our cue from the hon. Member for Ilford North, who called the cap “crazy” and said that removing it would “inevitably save lives”. I find it remarkable that that is no longer the position of the official Opposition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) talked about the fiendishly difficult position of trying to create a special scheme. Though we take the amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) in good faith, she nevertheless conjures up an “Animal Farm” tax policy, where we hit GP practices, people who work in hospices and adult and social care, mental health consultants, those who work in air ambulances and medical charities, and give preference to NHS finance directors over long-standing public servants elsewhere in the sector. I could not make those unequal choices, and I am surprised that she and her party feel able to do so.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who speaks with such great knowledge on matters financial, reminded us of the fundamental principle. We could call it the Starmer principle: what is good for the Leader of the Opposition should be good for everyone.

Since this is part of the fundamental economic debate, I will conclude by reminding my hon. Friends what happened the last time Labour had its chance to put its hand on the economy: the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note saying that there was no money left. [Interruption.] I have answered the questions from the hon. Member for Ealing North, and I was kind enough to write to him about the matters that he raised with me.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Government have been battling manfully to attempt to retrofit a justification to a policy that was unveiled like a rabbit out of a hat on Budget day. We have been speaking about doctors’ pensions in this Chamber for years, and suddenly it turns out it is actually about air traffic controllers, senior police officers and others who were not being mentioned, because the Chancellor has made the decision to abolish the lifetime allowance. The Minister was continuing to try to pull at the heartstrings by mentioning NHS doctors and consultants in every second sentence as if they are the only ones who will benefit from the £1 billion tax cut that is being made, and as if we should all support this change because it is for our NHS heroes, but actually it is not just for our NHS heroes.

The Government have chosen to implement this in the widest, most ham-fisted way. If the current policy of the lifetime allowance was so bad, why did it take the Conservative Government 10 years to change it? Why did it take them so long to decide this was so horrific that they had to get rid of it? Why, if they cannot possibly have a scheme that allows for one profession or one public service to be treated differently, did they allow the scheme for judges to continue for such a long period of time? If that was so discriminatory and cannot possibly be replicated for NHS doctors, why have they only realised this in the last few months? Their arguments do not stack up. Therefore, we will do what we intended to do, which is to press amendment 21 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

You’re dead right—I stand corrected by my right hon. Friend. Tourists love it and it contributes a huge amount to the Exchequer. It matters passionately to my constituents and to me. If I do nothing else for my constituency, I will try to boost the economy in every way I can because every job counts. I rest my comments with that.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I fear that, if I was to talk about the names of all the distilleries in my constituency, the debate would be much shorter than if the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) were to do so. In fact, I have much more of a tendency to drink gin than whisky, although other spirits are available.

It was interesting to hear the words “economically fragile”. That is an incredibly good point. Rural depopulation is a real issue. The Scottish Government are doing what we can to ensure that it does not continue, but if the UK Government keep working against what we are doing to encourage people to live and stay in our rural communities, we will have a real problem. That is not a small thing.

We tabled our amendments because we specifically wanted the word “whisky” on the Order Paper and we wanted to make the case in relation to whisky. However, I will not be pushing our amendments to a vote, and will support that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) because I concede that his is better. I am always happy to do that in such situations.

The reality is that Scotch whisky is 4.9% of the Scottish economy. Some £8.1 billion can be attributed to the sale of alcohol, around 60% of which comes from whisky exports. The numbers stated by the right hon. Member about how the differential rates work and how much people are taxed on those 14 units were incredibly interesting. The Government’s purpose is to make money from some of the alcohol measures, but there is also a population behaviour change intention behind what they do with tax on spirits and alcohol, particularly the allowance on draught beer. They have different taxes to encourage a change of behaviour, or differential behaviour in people. The Government may intend to use this tax to shift some of the population, but they are actually discouraging people from buying the very spirits that a huge amount of our livelihoods relies on. It is the case that 90% of spirits in the UK are produced in Scotland. The Government’s measures therefore have a massive negative impact on Scotland.

The average price of a bottle of Scotch whisky is £15.22 at a supermarket in Scotland. Following the new alcohol duty plus the VAT, £11.40 of that £15.22 will go to the Treasury. That is such a significant amount, and does not compare with other alcohol. I appreciate what the Government are trying to do on draught, and it is important that they have laid out their rationale for doing so—that was very helpful—but this is incredibly unfair and risks damaging those economically fragile areas, particularly in rural Scotland. Those areas have already suffered as a result of Brexit, with people’s reduced ability to freely move here.

I want to raise a small flag with the Minister in relation to the Public Bill Committee. When we come to that stage, I will be raising questions around clause 87, which is on post-duty point dilution of alcoholic products. I know there have already been problems in relation to that, so when we come to that stage of the Committee, I would appreciate Ministers being absolutely clear about their reasons for the changes in clause 87. If they are able to lay out those reasons clearly, that will reduce the number of questions I am likely to ask.

In summary, we support the amendment proposed by Liberal Democrat Members. We agree with the Scotch Whisky Association and think that the increase in duty is unfair and hits spirits, particularly Scotch whisky, unfairly. We want to stand up for our constituents, our constituencies, rural Scotland and Scotland as a whole in supporting the amendment.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I rise to speak, on behalf of the Opposition, to the clauses that are related to the tax treatment of devolved social security benefits and the new alcohol duty regime.

I will address clause 27 briefly. Clause 27 introduces a new power to enable the tax treatment of new or new top-up welfare payments, introduced by devolved Administrations, to be confirmed as social security income through secondary legislation. That will allow the UK Government to confirm the tax treatment of new or new top-up payments within the new tax year rather than be subject to the UK parliamentary timetable.

I note that the income tax treatment of social security benefit is currently legislated for in part 10 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, and that this clause will introduce a new power to add new benefits to the table of taxable benefits included in the Act. I can see that the clause is largely administrative. Therefore, the Opposition do not take issue with the clause and will support it.

I will now move on to the clauses concerning the new alcohol duty regime. The Bill contains 77 clauses establishing a new structure for alcohol duty, but we will discuss just some of those today, before moving to consider the remainder in Public Bill Committee.

Labour agreed with the principles behind the alcohol duty review. We want to see the alcohol duty system made simpler and more consistent. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between supporting businesses and consumers, protecting public health, and maintaining a source of revenue for the Exchequer. We have consistently raised concerns about the Government’s rushed and confused messaging on this area.

Before I come to the clauses and schedules, I want to paint a brief picture of the context behind the changes. Back in October 2020, the Government announced a call for evidence, seeking views on how the alcohol duty system could be reformed. At the time, they said this would make the system

“simpler, more economically rational and less administratively burdensome on businesses and HMRC.”

However, what we have seen since then is indecision, U-turns and delays.

Businesses and consumers had to wait until September 2022 for the Government’s response to the alcohol duty consultation. What ensued was chaos. In the shambolic mini-Budget that crushed the British economy, the then Chancellor announced a freeze on alcohol duty that was due to come into force in February 2023, but then the new Chancellor scrapped the freeze in October’s autumn statement. Fast forward to December, and I was back standing at the Dispatch Box responding to another Government’s U-turn, that time deciding that the freeze was back in place until August 2023.

The Government have now confirmed that the freeze will end in August and a new system of alcohol duty will be put in place. Alcohol duty rates will be adjusted in line with inflation and moved to a system that links duty rates to alcohol by volume. Clause 47 sets out the new regime, while clause 48 and schedule 7 specify the new adjusted rates of alcohol duty for different drinks. I note that some sectors are concerned about these changes—particularly wine producers and Scottish whisky producers, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) highlighted.

The reason the Tories have hit people and businesses with stealth taxes is that they have failed to get the growth that our country needs and have failed to get a grip on inflation. That is what makes the boasts of halving inflation so hollow. Prices are already soaring, hitting industries with steep tax rises.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in a Finance Bill Committee of the whole House. I will raise a number of points, particularly in relation to the new clauses and to what the Minister said about them.

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) mentioned tax simplification. During later consideration of the Bill, we will raise questions about the removal of the Office for Tax Simplification, what has happened to the Government’s assessment of the benefit of that office, whether we will have an issue with removing that office, and whether there will be a cost to the public purse or to businesses as a result of.

We will support Opposition new clauses 1, 3 and 6. We would also support new clause 10 if it were pressed to a vote. I will talk a little about new clauses 6 and 10 on requests for transparency. It is incredibly important that we have transparency about how allowances, tax and everything else put in place by the Treasury—and, in fact, by every Government Department—work. The Red Book that is produced at Budget time gives us a genuine idea and expectation of how much any measure—be it an investment allowance, a new tax measure, or something else—is expected to generate, but the UK Government are not terribly good at putting in place post-implementation reviews of such tax measures.

We do not have enough transparency on whether the tax measures put in place have actually achieved what the Government intended. In fact, I tabled a written question on this some time ago, and various Government Departments were unable to tell me even how many post-implementation reviews they had carried out and whether there were any that they had not carried out. It seems to me pretty fundamental that the Government should fulfil their role of calculating the cost or benefit and saying whether the projection has seemed accurate. It is all well and good for the Government to say, “This is going to raise £100 million,” but if they do not then assess whether it did, how can we be sure that a measure had the desired effect, particularly when it is something such as an investment allowance? We are not saying, “We don’t think there should be allowances”; we are saying, “We want the allowances that are put in place to actually work in the way that they are intended to work.” I have concerns about that.

New clauses 6 and 10 would require the UK Government and the Treasury to provide transparency on the allowances and their resulting outturn. It is particularly important to look at our climate change obligations. In fact, we have tabled an amendment specifically on looking at the entire Finance Bill through the lens of whether it will help us to meet our climate change and Paris agreement commitments. There is no point in this House agreeing to legislation that takes us further from the Government’s stated aims and legislative commitments on climate change. I am still of the opinion that the UK Government are fairly good at talking the talk on their climate change commitments but not at translating that into checking whether our climate change objectives will be hampered by the policies that are put in place.

During the Committee stage of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022, for example, I requested that the new organisation be set up on a net zero basis from the beginning. Given that we have net zero targets, I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for any new Government department to be set up on that basis and, at least, to not contribute in a negative way to our carbon outturns. As I said, we will support new clauses 6 and 10 if they are pushed to a vote.

New clause 8, which relates to clause 10, addresses the R&D spend on data and cloud computing. We have tabled a probing amendment on that, and although we do not intend to press it to a vote, I would appreciate it if the Minister were able—either today or at a future stage—to answer some questions. We have particular concerns about clause 10 as it relates to part 2 of schedule 1. The explanatory notes—a hefty document—state that:

“Expenditure on data licences and cloud computing services only qualifies for relief to the extent that the commercial use of that licence or service is restricted to the particular research and development activity to which the claim relates, and that the customer does not have a right to…ongoing use after the relevant research and development has ended.”

I appreciate the Government’s intention, but we have tabled new clause 8 because we are concerned that this will hamper anyone applying for the allowance in the first place, as they may want to continue to use that data licence and cloud computing after the research and development. Surely they are only doing the research and development because they think it will be profitable and positive for their company. I am concerned that they may choose not to make the investment or to apply for the allowance if they know that they will have to pay it back at a later stage if this does what the company surely wants to achieve, which is to make money.

This could have been done in a different way, by allowing companies the investment opportunity and the R&D allowance for the data licence and cloud computing, and then stopping the allowance at the point at which it begins to make money, rather than saying, “If this does begin to make money, you have to pay us back.” It would be great if the Minister could answer questions on that issue today, but if not, I am happy to receive information afterwards, so that we have clarity on the Government’s assessment of this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to new clause 7, tabled in my name, which would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of changes to small and medium-sized enterprise research and development tax credits on the UK tech industry and on long-term economic growth.

The Conservatives’ constant flip-flopping on tax and investment rules and their badly targeted incentives have not achieved the growth they promised, or are promising. Just last week, the International Monetary Fund predicted that the UK economy would contract by 0.3% this year, making us the worst-performing major economy. Prolonged weakness in business investment and productivity are a major barrier to economic growth, and if the Government want to boost innovation and drive long-term sustainable growth, they need to implement effective and well-designed policy on tax and investment.

The Federation of Small Businesses calls research and development tax credits for SMEs the most effective industrial policy of the last 10 years, enabling small businesses to develop cutting-edge products and foster competition and innovation within industry. The Government’s decision to dramatically slash R&D tax credits has therefore come as a blow to thousands of businesses. The Chancellor’s new policy of targeting tax breaks at research-intensive firms has been celebrated by the life sciences industry, but many other industries will fall outside the 40% intensity threshold. The Institute of Directors has also warned that targeting tax credits at research-intensive firms could lead to less innovation across the economy more widely.

We need to incentivise companies across all sectors to innovate, and particularly to encourage those that have not habitually been innovators. The manufacturers’ organisation Make UK has warned that further damage has been caused by the Conservatives’ chopping and changing on tax credit policy, which leaves businesses struggling to keep up and weakens business confidence. On Second Reading I urged those on the Treasury Bench to reconsider their policy and to reinstate the R&D tax credits for SMEs in full, and I am disappointed to see a lack of movement in that area.

The Liberal Democrats would introduce the kinds of incentives that have been proven to boost productivity, such as tax breaks for training to ensure that employees can continue to develop their skills, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of their employers; allowances for digital investment, to enable businesses to invest quickly and early in the newest digital tools in order to make productivity gains; and, most importantly, encouraging proper, ambitious, bold investment in energy efficiency. Whether for switching a fleet to electric cars or installing solar panels, reducing demand for energy is essential not only for decarbonising our industrial sector, but for bringing down production costs.

The need for targeted incentives for energy efficiency has been underlined by the ongoing energy cost pressures that businesses are experiencing, and the Conservatives’ decision to slash energy support for businesses by 85% will force countless shops, pubs and restaurants to pass increased costs on to their consumers, further fuelling inflation. The Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called on the Government to do more to tackle rampant inflation by supporting businesses with their energy bills. Amidst Government inaction, last month the rate of inflation in the UK jumped to 10.4%, driven largely by the cost of food and alcohol in hospitality venues. I urge the Government to look again at their policy on energy support and tax incentives offered to business, to tackle inflation, to stimulate economic growth and to drive productivity across all sectors.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Lady is making an important speech on new clause 7. I did not mention this in my speech, but we will support the new clause if it is pressed to a Division today.

[Sarah Olney]

I welcome the Scottish National party’s support for our new clause.

I ask the Government to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment proposing an impact assessment on the changes to R&D tax credits. It is essential that this policy is kept under review and its impact on the UK’s tech industry and long-term economic growth is monitored if we are to ensure that the UK becomes the powerhouse of technical innovation it so badly needs to be if we are to drive the productivity we need to increase growth across all economic sectors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank all Members for a most interesting debate. It is not often that the public—if people have been watching this debate—are able to see us scrutinise measures in this way. Committee debates often take place in rooms off the Committee Corridor, and although they are sometimes available for public consumption, it is very helpful when they happen on the Floor of the House. I am genuinely grateful to all who have contributed.

I am afraid I cannot resist picking up, very gently, the points made by Opposition Members about the role that my hon. Friends have been playing during this Committee stage in scrutinising legislation. This is exactly what Members of Parliament are supposed to do. Their job—your job, dare I say it to Members—is to scrutinise our legislation, and I welcome that. It may well be that Opposition Members have highlighted a fundamental difference between the Labour and Scottish National parties and the Conservative party: we have the intellectual self-confidence to hold these debates, and to debate policy. [Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but we know how difficult internal debate has been in the Labour party. It has meant inquiries by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it has meant a Labour MP being protected by the police in order to attend her own party’s conference, and I understand that a member of that party is currently being ostracised because her views on what a woman is differ from those of the Leader of the Opposition. So we on this side of the House do welcome debate, and we are able to conduct it properly and professionally within the rules of this Chamber.

[Kirsty Blackman]

rose—

[Victoria Atkins]

I will not give way, because I know it has been a busy day for the SNP. [Interruption.] I will not say any more.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) rightly raised the subject of the corporation tax increase, but so, significantly, did Opposition Members. They have made much play of the tax rate, and I thought it important just to remind everyone why we are where we are.

The Government borrowed an additional £14 billion in 2020-21 and 2021-22 to fund the response to covid. I cannot imagine that any Opposition Member—including those on the Front Bench—actually disagreed with, for example, the furlough scheme, which protected more than 11 million jobs and companies throughout the country. However, that enormous sum has to be repaid. In response to the energy crisis, the Government have provided just over £100 billion to help households and businesses with higher energy bills in 2022-23 and 2023-24. That has contributed to a significant increase in our public debt, which is forecast to reach 100.6% of GDP in 2022-23, the highest level since the 1960s.

That has happened precisely because the Government have responded to the pandemic, to the international crisis in Ukraine and, importantly, to the knock-on effects that that has had on our cost of living. I cannot imagine that Labour Members really begrudge the support that we are providing—more than £3,000 for every household, including households in their constituencies, to help those people with the cost of living.

However, as my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out, we also believe in the principles of sound money. In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained that some very difficult decisions had to be made. Indeed, even with the increase in the rate to 25% that was originally announced by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, we will still have a corporate tax system that remains one of the most supportive of business anywhere in the world, with the lowest headline rate of corporation tax in the G7, the joint most generous capital allowances regime for plant and machinery in the OECD, thanks to the full expensing in this Bill, and the joint highest uncapped headline rate of R&D tax relief support for large companies in the G7. That is in addition to the features of the corporate tax system that make the UK an attractive location as a global hub, including having the largest tax treaty network in the world, mitigating the risk of double taxation. I point out for the sake of clarification that at 25%, the rate of corporation tax will be lower than at any time before 2010 under the last Labour Government.

I will move on to the provisions in relation to pillar two. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised some important questions, including about capital flight. We have looked carefully at this and I understand why she is asking about this. I hope she will be reassured that this has been at the forefront of negotiators’ minds as we have looked at this agreement. The rules contain defensive measures to prevent capital flight. If a country does not implement them, the top-up tax will be collected by other countries instead, so there is no incentive to move or escape from these rules.

My right hon. Friend also asked about the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s view that this measure might raise less than expected. Again, I hope she will be reassured that the costing for pillar two was certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility and published at the autumn statement. The estimates are that pillar two will raise £2 billion a year by 2027-28. This includes revenue arising from UK-headquartered groups that are subject to low tax on their foreign operations, the diminished incentive for groups to shift their profits out of the UK and the qualified domestic minimum tax.

My right hon. Friend also asked about Japan. It has passed its legislation and it is implementing this in April next year, three months after we are legislating for. I hope that that timeframe gives her some comfort. I also note that 40 countries have implemented or announced pillar two or a similar rule, and I am told that they make up around 60% of global GDP. It is precisely because of the interlocking nature of the rules that revenues will be taxed at 15%, no matter where they are shifted. I am going to move on to three new clauses that I have a feeling might be the cause of contention and therefore Divisions tonight, but I will happily write to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) about her point on data licences, because I want to reassure her on that.

On new clause 1, the Government are committed to sharing expertise on implementation and to co-ordinating our efforts internationally. We are playing an important and active role in the design of pillar two rules and we are achieving the delicate balance between having rules that are effective in tackling profit shifting and being proportionate. It would not be appropriate to provide a running commentary on international discussions ahead of the agreed outcomes of these meetings, which are published by the OECD, including in the administrative guidance to the rules published in February. We therefore say that the new clause is unnecessary and we urge colleagues to vote against it if it is pushed to a Division.

New clause 3 would require the Government to conduct a review of the UK’s business tax regime. This is business as usual for the Treasury and the Government. We have done, and continue to undertake, significant work to understand the impact of tax incentives on business investment. The tax plan published at spring statement 2022 set out the Government’s vision for using the tax system to incentivise investment in capital assets and in research and development, and we have set out detailed information on the Exchequer, macroeconomic and business impacts of these policies at the Budget. The evidence for this continuing work lies in both the full expensing policy in clause 7 and the increase to the annual investment allowance in clause 8, both of which I trust the Opposition will support.

I remind colleagues that the full expensing policy is equivalent to a £27 billion tax cut for businesses over three years. It saves eligible businesses 25p in tax for every £1 they invest. That is the Conservative approach to sound money, and that is what we will do to help grow our economy. The impact of our plan to halve inflation, to grow the economy and to reduce debt is demonstrated in the rising confidence of finance executives, as reported in the recent Deloitte survey. Do not listen to the doom-mongers opposite; listen to British businesses.

Turning to new clause 6, the Government expect the energy profits levy to raise just under £26 billion between 2022-23 and 2027-28, helping to fund the vital and unprecedented cost of living support orchestrated by this Government. This includes the impact of the investment allowance. HMRC regularly publishes estimates for the cost of various tax reliefs where relevant data is available and identifiable in tax returns. For example, estimates for the cost of the investment allowance against the supplementary charge and the first-year allowance of the ringfencing regime are regularly included in that publication. HMRC intends to make a cost estimate for the investment allowance against the energy profits levy in due course.

We have always been clear that we want to see significant investment from the sector to help protect our energy security. Oil and gas accounted for 77% of the UK’s energy demand last year and, as set out in the energy security strategy, the North sea will still be a foundation of our energy security, so it is right that we continue to encourage investment in oil and gas. Supporting our domestic oil and gas sector is not incompatible with net zero 2050, as we know we will need oil and gas for decades to come.

As the energy crisis in the UK has shown, constraining supply and dramatically increasing prices does not eliminate demand for oil and gas. A faster decline in domestic production would mean importing more oil and gas at greater expense, potentially resulting in additional emissions, especially in the case of gas.

On the climate targets, the Treasury carefully considers the impact of all measures on the UK’s climate change commitments as a matter of course. It should be noted that the Government have made the UK a climate leader and have reduced emissions faster than any G7 country over the last 30 years. We are on track to deliver our carbon budgets and on course to reach net zero by 2050, creating jobs and investment across the UK while reducing emissions.

I hope I have been able to reassure Members. I have genuinely enjoyed the scrutiny they have brought to this important piece of legislation. I urge the Committee to reject new clauses 1 to 3 and 6 to 10, and amendment 26. For the reasons I set out at the beginning, I commend Government amendments 12 to 13 and 15 to 20.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Relief for Research and Development

Amendment made: 14, page 283, line 27, at end insert—

‘(3) In section 1057 (R&D relief for SMEs: tax credit only available where company is a going concern), after subsection (4C) insert—

“(4D) For the purposes of this section, where a company (“A”) is a member of the same group as another company (“B”) and A’s latest published accounts were not prepared on a going concern basis by reason only of a relevant group transfer, the accounts are to be treated as if they were prepared on a going concern basis.

(4E) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a “relevant group transfer” is a transfer, within the accounting period to which the latest published accounts relate, by A of its trade and research and development to another member of the group mentioned in subsection (4D);

(b) A and B are members of the same group if they are members of the same group of companies for the purposes of Part 5 of CTA 2010 (group relief).”’ —(Victoria Atkins.)

This amendment would make an amendment to section 1057 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 that is equivalent to the amendments being made by the Bill to sections 104T and 1046 of that Act.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 15 and 121 to 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clauses 126 and 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15 agreed to.

Clauses 128 to 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 174

Amount of covered tax balance

Amendment made: 12, page 119, leave out lines 4 to 8.—(Victoria Atkins.)

This amendment omits Step 4 in clause 174(1). That Step is unnecessary as it duplicates the effect of provision in clauses section 175(2)(e) and 176(2)(i).

Clause 174, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 175 to 222 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 223

Adjustments

Amendment made: 13, page 163, line 19, at end insert—

‘(10) Where the covered tax balance of an investment entity includes an amount allocated to it under section 179(1) or 180(3)(a) (allocation of tax imposed under controlled foreign company tax regimes), only so much of its covered tax balance as is not comprised of amounts allocated under those sections is subject to adjustment under this section.’.—(Victoria Atkins.)

This amendment prevents adjustments being made to the covered tax balance of an investment entity in relation to amounts of controlled foreign company tax allocated to the entity (to avoid the same adjustments being effectively made twice).

Clause 223, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 224 to 260 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16

Multinational top-up tax: transitional provision

Amendments made: 15, page 395, line 8, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

‘“(a) assets are transferred from one member of a multinational group to another member of that group,

(aa) either—

(i) the Pillar Two rules do not apply to the transferor for the accounting period in which the transfer takes place, or

(ii) an election under paragraph 3(1) (transitional safe harbour) applies in relation to the transferor for that period, and’.

This amendment provides for the anti-avoidance provisions in relation to intragroup transfers to apply to transfers from a member of a multinational group until that member is fully subject to the Pillar Two regime.

Amendment 16, page 395, line 17, leave out “beginning of the commencement period” and insert “relevant time”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.

Amendment 17, page 395, line 19, leave out from “transfer,” to end of line 24 and insert “and”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.

Amendment 18, page 395, line 27, leave out from “assets” to end of line 32.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.

Amendment 19, page 395, line 32, at end insert—

‘(3A) For the purposes of this paragraph “the relevant time” means the later of—

(a) the date of the transfer, and

(b) the commencement of the first accounting period in which—

(i) the Pillar Two rules apply to the transferee, and

(ii) an election under paragraph 3(1) (transitional safe harbour) does not apply in relation to the transferee.

(3B) Where the relevant time is after the date of the transfer—

(a) the value of the assets at the relevant time is to be adjusted to reflect—

(i) capitalised expenditure incurred in respect of the assets in the period between the date of the transfer and the relevant time, and

(ii) amortisation and depreciation of the assets that, had the transfer not occurred, would have been recognised by the transferor if the transferor had continued to use the accounting policies and rates for amortisation and depreciation of the assets previously used, and

(b) the tax paid amount in relation to the transfer of the assets is to be adjusted to reflect the matters referred to in paragraph (a)(i) and (ii).’

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.

Amendment 20, page 398, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—

‘(3A) Information derived from qualified financial statements as to revenue or profit (loss) before income tax must be adjusted—

(a) as the information was adjusted for the purposes of its inclusion in a qualifying country-by-country report in relation to the territory, or

(b) if the information was not included in such a report, as it would have been adjusted had it been included in such a report.

See also paragraph 6 which provides for circumstances in which further adjustments are required to profit (loss) before income tax and circumstances in which adjustments are required to qualifying income tax expense.’—(Victoria Atkins.)

This amendment makes it clear that in determining whether the transitional safe harbour provisions apply for the purposes of multinational top-up tax, revenue and profits are to be as stated in a country-by-country report, or adjusted as if they were included in such a report.

Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 261 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clauses 262 to 275 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clauses 276 and 277 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Statement on efforts to support implementation of the Pillar 2 model rules

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on how actions taken by the UK Government since October 2021 in relation to the implementation of the Pillar 2 model rules relate to the provisions of Part 3 of this Act.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must provide updates to the statement at intervals after that statement has been made of—

(a) three months;

(b) six months; and

(c) nine months.

(3) The statement, and the updates to it, must include—

(a) details of efforts by the UK Government to encourage more countries to implement the Pillar 2 rules; and

(b) details of any discussions the UK Government has had with other countries about making the rules more effective.’—(James Murray)

This new clause would require the Chancellor to report every three months for a year on the UK Government’s progress in working with other countries to extend and strengthen the global minimum corporate tax framework for large multinationals.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On investment in renewables, does my right hon. Friend feel, as I do, that the Government are missing out on an opportunity? This is the opportunity to capitalise on the move towards a just transition to renewable energy, and the Government are putting down exactly the wrong markers. When we want to build up investor confidence and the industry and to take advantage of it, the UK Government are choosing not to give confidence to those who are keen to invest.

[Stewart Hosie]

This is absolutely the opportunity to invest properly, to deliver the just transition that we all speak about and want to see, and to protect the jobs, abilities and skills of the hundreds of thousands of people in the oil and gas sector across the UK as they transition into renewables, so that Scotland is no longer the oil and gas capital of Europe but becomes the Saudi Arabia of renewables—what a thing we could achieve. However, some of the decisions that are being taken, including the obsession with nuclear and the reduction in funding for real green renewables, are deeply problematic.

I also want to address the lack of action on, and support for, trade. The OBR said that while it is true that

“additional trade with other countries could offset some of the decline in trade with the EU, none of the agreements concluded to date are of a sufficient scale to have a material impact on our forecast. The Government’s own estimate of the economic impact of the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU, is that it would raise total UK exports by 0.4 per cent, imports by 0.4 per cent and the level of GDP by only 0.1 per cent over 15 years.”

As an aside, if this is the much-vaunted benefit of Brexit, it is very, very thin. What that means is that the OBR estimates the economic impact of the free trade agreement with Australia, for example, will raise the level of GDP by 0.1% over the next 15 years, while estimating that Brexit will cause a drop in GDP of 4%.

With families still burdened by high inflation, and also feeling the pinch from rising mortgage and rental costs; with energy costs still way higher than they should be; with the long-term problems of the economy, particularly poor productivity, inadequately addressed; and with the self-inflicted economic harm of Brexit hampering trade and GDP growth, I am afraid that this Budget and this Finance Bill simply are not enough.

Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Women’s Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2023

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 General Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mrs Murray. It has been a while since I have been on a Delegated Legislation Committee, so it is quite nice to come to one; I say that without any measure of sarcasm at all.

I—like many people, I am sure—spend a good chunk of my Sundays standing at the side of a football pitch watching my daughter play football, so it is really good to see the women’s game being treated with parity alongside the men’s game. It is also incredibly good to hear that this game is sold out, because although we are trying to improve access to the games, we do not see stadiums as full for some women’s games as we do for the men’s. Teams like the Lionesses and the Scotland women’s team have done a great job of popularising the sport for people to watch, and it is quite nice that in Scotland people can watch a chunk of the women’s football on the excellent BBC Alba. I pitched to the BBC recently that it should keep this custom up, because it is improving access to the women’s game.

Particularly for young people playing sport, men’s football has sometimes seemed pretty inaccessible and quite far away, whereas the pathways in the women’s game are much clearer and more obvious; people can look at Scotland players and at the Lionesses and think, “I could be that one day” in a way that they may find more difficult to do with the men’s game. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North, I am more than happy not to oppose this statutory instrument. It is a sensible measure and I hope the event is a big success.

[The Chair]

The Question is that the Committee has considered the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Women’s Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2023—[Interruption.] Oh, sorry; I call the Minister. I have really not got it together today.

Finance Bill

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

We have Schrödinger’s Finance Bill. For a while, there was no Finance Bill. Then yes, there was going to be one. Then, no, there was not going to be one. Now, finally, we have come to the decision that the cat is alive and the Finance Bill is here before us.

I am old enough to remember Philip Hammond standing up and being very clear that there would only be one fiscal event in a year, that we would move to having an autumn statement and that would be the fiscal event, and that the spring statement would only be a statement and an update. I would be the first to admit that this year has gone somewhat wrong, so there are some excuses for having a different scenario this year, but I am keen to know what the intention is. Do the Government intend to have one major fiscal event a year, or are they planning to have more than one? If we are going to have a spring statement next year that will, presumably, from what was said earlier, have a Finance Bill attached, will we also be having one in the autumn next year? Will we have an additional one in September that will crash the economy? One would hope not. It would be good to know what the plans are.

We heard from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), in quite a lot of detail, comparisons of the UK’s economy and economic state with that of many other countries. He laid out the figures nicely, which saves me from doing the same thing; I will not repeat what he said. What he said makes it clear that there is a unique issue here. Something is happening in the UK that is not happening in other places, apart from Russia, where there are sanctions, and it is understandable that the Russian economy is not in the best of states. What could possibly be happening to the UK economy? What is it—what uniquely is happening?

I keep wondering what has happened to this Brexit bonus. If our economy is so much better as a result of Brexit—if that has massively helped our economy, and many Brexiteers have made it clear over many years how much of a good thing it would be for the UK economy —can the House imagine the state we would be in if Brexit had not happened? Can the House imagine how dreadful things would be if we had not seen this Brexit bonus, which has still left us somehow, unexplainably, in a worse economic condition than has happened with other countries? I am baffled by this scenario.

We have been hit by a major number of issues. It is absolutely the case that the war in Europe—Putin’s illegal invasion—has had a major impact, and it has also had a major impact on other economies across the EU and the world. It has had an impact not just on energy prices, but on the price of food, for example. All those countries are seeing prices increase, yet none of them is struggling with growth in the way that the UK seems to be. None of them is seeing the level of recession predicted for here, and it is entirely down to Brexit and the decision-making processes of this UK Government. It is also down to the choices made earlier this year, which failed to take into account the scenario we are in. They failed to listen to the situation facing our constituents.

It is all well and good for Government Members to stand up in the Chamber and talk about the importance of growth—I will not for one second deny that growth is important, but if growth means that rich people get richer and people in Aberdeen and our constituencies still cannot afford to buy rice and pasta, that growth is not worth it. It is not worth it to see people get unimaginable amounts of money. Some £29 million in profits from personal protective equipment is an unbelievable amount of money for somebody or a family to get. Most of my constituents and most people across the UK will never see anything like that money in their entire lifetimes, yet it seems to be acceptable to the Government—while the fact that my constituents and people in Aberdeen, across Scotland and across the UK cannot afford to pay for the very barest of necessities is not remarked upon, is not mentioned and does not seem to be happening.

The Conservative Government keep talking about how much they care about vulnerable people—it has been mentioned a number of times—but that is not borne out and it is not what is happening on the ground. People’s lives are not being improved as a result of the decisions being made by those on the Government Benches. We are not seeing people better able to afford their energy bills; their energy bills are still significantly more than they were this time last year. The benefit cap still needs to grow massively to keep pace with its 2013 levels. The childcare allowance included within universal credit is at the same level it was when it was first introduced, when universal credit first started. It has never been increased. These are decisions that could be made that would make a difference to my constituents’ lives on a daily basis, but they are not being made.

We will not get our way out of this with innovative jam. That is not how it will work. We need to ensure that those who need it most—the people who can afford the increases least—are the ones being targeted by Government support and receiving the funding to help them to afford the basic necessities: food, clothing for their children and energy to get them through this winter. That is why the decision-making processes of the Scottish Government have been the way that they have.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pointed out, the UK Government have talked about the additional money from Barnett consequentials, but that does not assist people this year, because of the constraints on the Scottish Parliament’s budget and because of the decisions taken by the UK Government. It will not help us to work on our second child poverty action plan, which we are now in the process of doing. We have put tackling child poverty at the forefront of what we are doing in Scotland. The eligibility of the Scottish child payment increased again the week before last, so more children in more families can get it than ever before.

We in the Scottish Government are targeting our support there, because that is where we feel that we need to make the most difference. We need to ensure that children are not living in poverty or in cold homes that their parents cannot afford to heat. We need the UK Government to step up, and not in an empty way by saying that there is an extra £1.5 billion—I do not know—in Barnett consequentials over two years, because that is not helpful. We need the money now—my constituents need the money now—to afford to get through the winter.

Another thing that has been mentioned is that hon. Members regularly use the term “hard-working people”, which is one of my biggest bugbears. When Conservative Members talk about hard-working people, they are talking about people earning £40,000 or £50,000 a year; they are not talking about people working in minimum-wage jobs. When they say that hard-working people have to pay higher taxes in Scotland than the rest of the UK, they are failing to recognise that we have an additional lower-rate tax band that means that people on the lowest incomes pay less in Scotland, and they are denying that people on the lowest incomes are hard-working people. It is the case, however, that a significant proportion of people on universal credit are in work. Just because someone is in receipt of social security does not mean that they are not hard working or that they are less deserving than people earning an awful lot of money from dividend incomes or other sorts of unearned income.

Stats came out earlier this year about the level of sanctions on people receiving universal credit, which said that there had been a monthly increase in the total amount of reductions being levied—money taken back from individuals who are claiming universal credit. Right now, the Department for Work and Pensions should not be trying to increase the amount of money that it is clawing back from people in receipt of universal credit.

We already have the issue that, when the DWP decides to make debt reductions from people’s universal credit payments, it does that not on the basis of whether those receiving universal credit can afford it, but on the basis of an arbitrary 25% threshold. As a result of DWP actions and the failures of the UK Government, we will have a situation where people cannot afford to heat their homes or feed their children purely because of the reductions that are being made to their income.

I have harped on about immigration several times. A number of years ago—I am a veteran of many Finance Bills—the former Chancellor George Osborne stood up and spoke about public sector net debt. In fact, his Red Book that year talked about it specifically and made it clear that an increase in net migration to the UK reduces public sector net debt. By trying to do everything they can to reduce immigration, therefore, the UK Government increase public sector net debt.

The UK Government could decide that one of the best ways to do something about the lack of growth and the amount of debt, about which they are concerned, would be to encourage people to come and live here, and to make that easier. Instead, my constituent is going to move away from the UK because he cannot get a visitor visa for his family to come and visit, so he is fed up and has had enough. As a software engineer, he is somebody who we need to have and whom we should be encouraging to stay; we should not be as obstructive as possible in our decisions.

The UK Government have also failed to tackle—in fact, they have gone out of their way to oppose—our climate change ambitions and targets in this Finance Bill. We are looking at issues in relation to electric cars, as was mentioned earlier, and allowances for oil and gas companies to extract more oil and gas, rather than the allowances that could be given to companies to develop renewable electricity. The electricity generator levy is also being levied on people who are producing renewable energy, which is the kind of energy that we need. We cannot talk about COP only once a year when it is COP26 or COP27—it should be threaded through every single decision that we make.

We have heard about R&D credits and tax reliefs, which I do not have a problem with in principle, although I am concerned that we need to see whether they work. I do have a problem, however, with how decisions are made to give people R&D tax credits. When the UK Government created the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, why did they refuse point blank any amendments that would have put tackling climate change at the heart of its decisions? We said that it should be climate neutral and that the Government could lead the way with a brand-new Government agency working on a net zero basis, but they refused. We said that they could convince or ask it to focus on innovations and inventions that tackle climate change, but they refused to do that, too.

We need to see an actual effort made—actual things done and decisions taken—to ensure that we tackle climate change and meet our net zero ambitions. If we could meet our net zero ambitions even earlier than we have proposed, that would be the best thing for the planet, rather than trying to push things until the last possible moment. We cannot just ignore climate change and pretend that it is not happening—it is!—so it should be in every Government statement, and the Government should talk about the effect on climate change of every spend that they decide to make. The decisions in the Finance Bill take us backwards rather than forwards.

The Scottish Government are supporting a just transition in Scotland with £500 million of funding to ensure that we move away from the reliance on fossil fuels that we absolutely have in the UK, particularly in Aberdeen, where there are a huge number of jobs in oil and gas. We need to support a transition that is just and fair for my constituents and for people across the UK. We need to ensure that people in oil and gas are given, or have the opportunity to move into, high-earning jobs in the new industries of the future that do not cause an increase in climate change.

Austerity has been levied on the poorest people for years. Conservative Governments have consistently made decisions at the expense of our worst-off constituents. I have never been less optimistic about the future for the poorest people in the UK than now—not even through the Brexit process and decision-making. The Government have shown no willingness to understand the genuine dire straits that people are living in, to take action on that, and to prioritise the most vulnerable people—not just to say it, but to actually do it—by looking at the universal credit system and the decision-making process to ensure that people can afford rice and pasta, and to heat their homes. How is it that we have to be asking that in 2022? How is it that we have to be living in a situation where the next generation are currently set to be poorer than our generation? We have that lack of optimism, and this Conservative Government continue to hammer that home, rather than attempting in any way to make it better.

That outlines very clearly the difference between the two Governments. The difference is that the Scottish Government are doing everything they can, with their very limited powers and limited ability to do anything in-year with their budgets, to try to make life better for those struggling the most, and this UK Government are continuing to refuse to do so.

The Growth Plan

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We have made lots of progress in respect of the fair wage and we have also increased the national minimum wage. We have always sought to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Chancellor seems to believe that there are two fundamentally different groups of people in these islands—two classes, if you will. Why does he believe that those who earn mega-bucks will be incentivised by increasing their already excessive wealth, while those who have had to skip meals over the summer in order to survive will be incentivised by having their paltry amount reduced even further?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is a complete misrepresentation, or wilful misunderstanding, of our position. What we have done in the growth plan is protect millions and millions of vulnerable people. We have allowed them to keep more of their own money—I know that the hon. Lady is not necessarily in favour of that—and we want to drive growth and entrepreneurialism in our economy.

Economy Update

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesman, Kirsty Blackman.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is quite amusing to hear the Chancellor talk about this announcement being timely. I mean, it is timely: it just happens to have happened in the week of the Sue Gray report. It just happens that that report came out yesterday and the Chancellor has suddenly realised today that people are really struggling. He has suddenly realised that he needs to announce something.

At the spring statement, when the Chancellor announced the energy loan, he stood up and said, “Look at these amazing things that I am announcing.” He genuinely seemed to believe at that time that that was the best this Government could do. Now, he has changed his mind. He has listened to the calls of the Opposition and of the people up and down these islands who are struggling, in many cases more than they have ever struggled before.

I do not understand why the Chancellor has announced only a £15 billion package. He has £28 billion of fiscal headroom in public sector net debt and £32 billion of fiscal headroom in balancing the current budget—those are the Office for Budget Responsibility’s figures from March—yet he is refusing to spend that money now in the timely and targeted way that is needed for people now.

I am glad that the Chancellor announced money for the poorest households and that it has been targeted in that way, but it is not enough. What he has announced fails to uprate benefits; fails to account for the fact that the energy price cap that is coming in October will still be in place next year; and fails to ensure that benefits keep pace with inflation.

I have to laugh at the Chancellor’s comments about inflation. Brexit has increased food prices by 6%. Brexit has done that. People who are struggling to meet the most basic costs—the majority of their costs are for energy and food—have been hit incredibly hard by Brexit. The poorest 10% of households are seeing a massive inflationary increase in comparison to the richest 10% of households, because of the percentage of their budget that is spent on energy and food. The Chancellor needs to uplift benefits as well as making payments.

It was pretty cheeky of the Chancellor to choose to include the £150 council tax payment in all the figures he read out. That went only to people who live in homes in bands A to D. It certainly did not go to all pensioners and certainly cannot be included in the money that is going to all pensioners. It cannot be included in the money that is going to all universal credit claimants, and it cannot be included in the money that is going to all disabled people. It cannot be included in the cost of this support package because it is absolutely not universal. On that point, the payment that we made in Scotland went to a higher percentage of households than the payment made in England.

This package does not go far enough. We are going to see an energy price increase of more than £1,000 for all households because of the increase in the energy price cap, yet the Chancellor is providing only £300 extra for pensioners. That will not even touch that £1,000 increase. He is only including these things. The uplift should have been 9%, to match inflation, and there should have been a further £25 uplift to universal credit and a further £25 uplift to legacy benefits. Lastly, he has failed in the uplift for disabled people, who face the very highest cost because of the increase in energy costs and in the cost of, for example, their diets.

I am glad that the Chancellor has put in place the windfall tax. I am very disappointed that it covers only oil and gas companies. It should have gone much wider. We have been calling for this since 2020, with Kate Forbes and Ben Macpherson. [Interruption.] The Labour party failed to support our amendment on this last week, so Labour Members are a bit cheeky as well in suggesting that we have not moved on this.

I would like the Chancellor to go further, to make a difference and to actually care about the poorest people in our society.

[Rishi Sunak]

I know that, for some people, it will never be enough. That is why the SNP’s plans would leave Scotland with, I think, a 20% budget deficit and bankrupt the country. That is not something that we will ever do to the people of Scotland or the United Kingdom.

The hon Member’s point on food prices was surprising and slightly puzzling, given I have just returned from a meeting of Finance Ministers from around the world where everyone was talking about increasing food prices. As far as I know, they did not all leave the European Union, but I will leave that to her.

The hon. Member talked about benefits uprating. Perhaps she did not understand exactly what we were announcing. What we are doing for those on means-tested benefits is more generous than uprating. On average, uprating would be worth just over £500, whereas the one-off payment is worth £650.

The hon. Member also talked about timing. She mentioned many things that have happened this week. The other thing that happened this week is that we heard from Ofgem, and we got more certainty on what the price cap will be in autumn. That is the single most important factor in trying to size the support that we are providing to people, because it is energy costs that are the biggest driver of the inflation that we seeing now.

National Insurance Contributions Increase

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

It is, and my right hon. and learned Friend is precisely right because, in the end, it is poorest who will lose out the most if we lose control either of our public spending or of inflation. To illustrate, a 1 percentage point rise in both inflation and interest rates would increase spending on debt interest by nearly £23 billion a year, and that threat is not a notional one. In January 2021 we spent £1.6 billion on servicing our debt, but in January this year we spent £6.1 billion. We cannot fund increases in spending on our health service and social care by increasing borrowing. Members will surely agree that to leave ourselves vulnerable at this time by further increasing our debt burden would be highly irresponsible. These are not always easy choices, but we will be the ones to reconcile the need to reduce our debt burden with the growing pressures on the state, and that means responsible choices about taxation.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I have given way many times, and I am afraid that I must make progress.

The Opposition claim that they would instead grow the economy to finance their choices. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Leeds West, that is not a credible solution to an immediate problem. I remind the House that this is the same Opposition who want to place a windfall tax on our vital North sea oil and gas producers—companies that already pay a headline tax rate on their profits of more than double the rate of corporation tax. With investment in the sector hitting an all-time low in 2020-21, such a tax on oil and gas would not be an appropriate solution. It would only create uncertainty, deter investment and displace the investment that we need in clean, renewable technologies.

As the Chancellor has recently set out, we firmly believe in lower taxes. The pounds generated by our country are better spent by individuals and businesses than by Government. However, cutting tax sustainably requires hard work and prioritisation, especially when demands on the state are growing. We must reach our goals in a responsible way that addresses our challenges, too. This levy is the best and most equitable way to raise the funds needed to protect health and social care across the United Kingdom, and I await any credible explanation from the Opposition of how they plan to cover these costs in a responsible way.

I will end by saying that this Government recognise the difficulties that people across this country are facing right now. We know times are hard, and we are working hard to alleviate that pressure, but as a responsible Government we must not shy away from difficult decisions. It is only by meeting such challenges head-on that we will succeed in building a health and social care system that is fit for the future and that truly supports our citizens at every stage in their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I want to speak about quite a few matters, but first I want to focus in the plight of younger people—and by “younger people”, I mean people under 40, not just people in their 20s. I am talking about everyone in that younger slice of the population.

We have talked about the last massive increase in inflation, which, in 1992, reached the same levels of increase that it has reached in recent times. I am 35; in 1992 I was six, and I did not know what the rate of inflation was because it did not really matter to me. For a significant period I have been living in a property that does not belong to my parents, and I have a 10-year-old and an eight-year-old. There are many, many people like me out there, people who have been living their lives and paying their bills and have never seen an inflation rate like this, have never seen the increases that are coming down the line, and have never felt the massive squeeze that we are feeling now.

This is a cost of living crisis, one that is unprecedented for members of my generation who are having to face these massive costs, and it is compounded by the UK Government’s terribly poor decisions. It is compounded by the fact that people in Scotland must pay massive fees for attending university in England. It is compounded by the fact that people will be paying off student loans throughout their lives; indeed, they will never be able to pay them off. It is compounded by the fact that we do not have a real living wage, and that is even worse for people who are younger than 23 or 25, because the UK Government refuse to provide a single living wage. The “national living wage” is a pretendy living wage, because people cannot actually live on it. The Government refuse to provide a single set rate, apparently believing that somehow a 20-year-old can survive on less food or less electricity than someone older.

It is ridiculous that the Government are doing this. People my age and younger do not have savings on which to rely. As I said in the House some years ago, the average household has less than £100 in savings—and that was pre-covid, before the period during which people’s incomes have been so massively squeezed. People my age—younger people, people under 40—cannot just dip into their savings in order to fund the massive increase in energy bills that is coming, and the massive increase that is coming as a result of the national insurance hike. This is the least sensible time to be introducing a national insurance hike. People will be paying a massive amount more purely because of the choices of this Government—purely because the Government are choosing to fund health and social care in this way.

We in Scotland went into the 2019 election spending more per head of population on our NHS than the UK Government was. We went into that election calling for the UK to up its spending on the NHS. In Scotland, we are making different choices. We are making better choices. We are already funding the NHS at a higher level per head of population than England is, and we are already increasing the Scottish child payment to make sure that the number of children in poverty is decreasing. The Resolution Foundation says that the UK Parliament

“is on track to be the worst parliament on record for income growth”.

I do not want to see a world being created by this Tory Government where my children’s generation will be poorer than my generation and where my generation are poorer than my parent’s generation, but the UK Government continue to bake that in.

If the UK Government want to make money and reduce public sector net debt, a great way to do that is through immigration. In 2016-17, migrants reduced public sector borrowing by £4.4 billion. We would get to £450 billion pretty quickly if we added up the amount of positive benefits we can get from migration. If we made better choices—if we chose to not spend money on weapons of mass destruction, for example—we could have more money to spend on the NHS. We should be making better choices that reflect and assist the wellbeing of the population. This is a political choice. The Government have been asking people at the bottom of the pile for more than a decade to just pay a little bit more and cope a little bit more with austerity for a little bit longer, and now they are in the midst of a cost of living crisis where families’ energy bills are going to be shooting through the roof next month, with a £639 increase a year for every household.

In that time, the UK Government are ploughing ahead with this increase on national insurance. This is going to compound the increases that are being put in place. The increase will be nowhere near covered by the Government’s increase to the national living wage or by the universal credit taper rate. None of that will cover the cost that my constituents are being asked to pay to fund something that could be funded from somewhere else. The UK Government are choosing to balance the books on the backs of the poorest constituents that we have, and they need to change track now.

Climate Goals: Wellbeing Economy

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am delighted to be called to speak first after the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who I thank for securing this debate on the most important issue. I genuinely cannot imagine two more important priorities for an independent Scotland than ensuring that we have action on climate change and that we put wellbeing at the front of everything we do.

We are lucky in Scotland that we are already on this road. We have begun to make the changes that are required to move away from focusing entirely on economic growth and toward looking at the wellbeing of our population. When we are looking at budgets, such as the national performance framework, as was mentioned, our decisions are looked at through a lens. Do they improve wellbeing? Do they reduce our negative impact on the planet? I think it is wonderful that we do that.

There are also good things happening in schools. Bairns throughout Scotland are aware of their rights under the UN convention on the rights of a child. It is taught throughout Scottish schools. I can speak to kids as young as five and ask them about their rights. It is important for people’s wellbeing that they are aware of their rights and are able to fight for the rights that they deserve. It is important that they are able to make their voices heard. The only way we are going to get to wellbeing is to ensure that everybody is empowered to get those rights.

There is absolutely no point in focusing on economic growth for economic growth’s sake. The UK economy has been growing, but inequality is still stretching. We have still seen an increase in inequality. People who are on the bottom of the pile continue to be on the bottom of the pile. We are not improving societal wellbeing if we are not ensuring that decisions benefit everybody, rather than those currently at the top of the pile. For all our constituents, we need to ensure not just growth, but fair growth. We must focus on reducing inequality—and focus on everything that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said—and on making sure that decisions, particularly budgetary decisions, are taken with the wellbeing of people in mind, not simply growing the money of this country’s richest people.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

The guideline is that Members have around four minutes.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am incredibly proud to be part of the extraordinary transformation of Teesside’s economy, which is taking incredible shape under the work of our Mayor, Ben Houchen. Of course, that was reflected in the fact that the Tees Valley voted by 73% to re-elect our Conservative Mayor just this May. Why was that? It happened because of jobs and growth, and hope and pride in place—all the things that this Government are committed to delivering, and all the things that a Conservative Government are doing after years in which Labour neglected areas such as Teesside and left us with no plan, no options and no future.

Peak unemployment is now forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility as being substantially lower than initially expected. All the evidence now points to a rebounding labour market. Just last week, the Office for National Statistics reported that vacancies are at a record high, while the headline unemployment rate has fallen for seven consecutive months and now stands at 4.6%.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am a bit concerned that the Minister has not actually read the motion on the Order Paper. This is about people who are in work. I absolutely agree that people have been kept in work as a result of the schemes that are being scrapped—that is the case—but the thing is that if people are not being paid the living wage and are not being paid enough money to actually live on, they are going to continue to be in poverty no matter whether or not they are in work.

[Mr Clarke]

I can assure the hon. Lady that I have read the motion closely, which is of course why I am celebrating the fact that the ONS estimates that underlying regular wage growth is between 3.6% and 5.1%. It is why I am so proud that we are the Government who introduced the national living wage, which has of course meant more money in the pockets of working people. So this is exactly about bearing down on the cost of living and about supporting families throughout a really difficult time. That is what we have managed to do and what we will continue to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a delight to follow my Procedure Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). It is helpful because we are ideologically opposed on every single matter, so I can pretty much stand up and say exactly the opposite of what he said, and it will be grand. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to take to take you back to 1915. In 1915, my great-great-grandfather John Murray was killed when his steam herring drifter was cut in half by a British warship. My great-granny’s mother Barbra Helen Murray, who was known as Babeellen, was left to raise five girls by herself. When she was left in that situation of abject poverty, there was no Government funding to help her. She had no support from the Government to get through that very immediate crisis. Her sister stepped up and offered to take the youngest child off her hands—offered to give that child a home and pay for that child’s upbringing. Imagine having to make such a choice about whether to keep her child. Imagine being forced into that choice of whether to keep that child, whether in 1915, or in 2021 with the rape clause. Imagine having that choice. Thankfully, she chose to keep her child, and she brought up my great-grandmother.

The family were helped: they were helped by the church, their friends and their relatives. However, the reality was that people did not have a lot to spare and people did not have a lot they could give in such charitable situations, so the family really had very little money. This was despite the fact that my great-granny’s mother worked in every single job she could find. She knitted things, she sewed things and she mended things. She cleaned every building she could possibly get access to and that she could convince people to pay her for cleaning. She did not get any money at all from the Government until she turned 70, when she got 7 shillings and sixpence for her pension, which was an absolute fortune to her. She had spent 37 years working in every job she could have and in every moment she could find in insecure employment—like people are being forced to do in the current system; trying to work every single hour in multiple part-time jobs just so that they can try to put food on the table.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Member makes me reflect on a family matter of my own. When my grandad was killed in a pit accident, my dad had his apprenticeship, and my granny went out and scrubbed floors to ensure that he completed his apprenticeship. But today we find that grandparents are looking after grandchildren—perhaps because somebody is in prison or because they have a drug problem—yet they do not get help, and even those people are going to lose this £20 of universal credit. Would you credit that?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Stories like this belong 100 years ago; stories like this do not belong in the 21st century. We should not have constituents who are in absolute poverty coming into our constituency offices.

This motion is about the working poor. My great-granny’s mother did not have money to buy what she saw as necessities; she obviously did not have enough money to buy food and stuff but was helped out in that, but she also could not go to church because she could not buy clothes for church. She had her working clothes but could not buy Sunday best clothes to go to church; that was her biggest regret about not having money. Nowadays, people on UC may not be able to afford internet access, which they need to get their UC, or to afford other things we see as necessities. Not many people are wanting a Sunday outfit to go to church—some are, but not that many—but they desperately need access to the most basic of services so they can get their UC and make their claims, and so that they can speak to friends and family and not be hugely isolated.

A cut of £80 a month is a huge amount. For a lot of people, £80 a month is their council tax bill, or two mobile phone bills, or—goodness knows—one pair of shoes for the kid, maybe two pairs for those who are particularly lucky and their child is going to wear something a bit cheaper. It is a huge amount of money, not pennies; it means people will have to cut back on a big, major bill when this cut is implemented. My great-granny remembered her mother crying because winter was coming and she could not afford to buy shoes for the children. That was over 100 years ago; this should not be happening today—we should not be having single parents crying because they cannot afford to buy winter shoes for their children.

[Catherine West]

What does the hon. Lady make of the fact that there are 23 more billionaires in The Sunday Times rich list this year?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am going to come on to that, because I am thinking there is a divide across this Chamber: the constituency cases we on the Opposition Benches are seeing do not appear to be reflected in the cases being seen by those on the Government Benches, or they would not be making this cut. If they were sitting around those tables with people crying because they are living in absolute poverty and destitution, they would not be choosing to cut this £20 a week.

Some 72% of families who need food bank help have at least one parent in work. In my constituency more than four in 10 families will be hit by the UC cut. Aberdeen has been hit by a triple-whammy: the oil price crash has meant many people have been made redundant; we have seen the reduction in the reliance on oil; and we have seen both covid and Brexit. All those things are having a significant impact on the people of Aberdeen, and particularly my constituency. We have seen massive house prices in our city, too, so people have not been able to save money, and they have not been able to get council houses because of the right to buy, which we have, thankfully, cancelled now in Scotland. They have not had the opportunity to get back on the housing ladder, and they are doing the kind of insecure work my great-granny’s mother was doing: they are cleaning hospitals and working as porters and carers. I defy anyone to tell me those people are not working hard; these are hard-working families, yet they are being slammed consistently by this Tory Government.

We are talking about absolute destitution. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), mentioned prepayment meters. I do not know how many Members have had a prepayment meter, but I lived in a flat with one when I had hardly any money. If a prepayment meter goes £20 into the red, it stops working—the electricity stops—and people do not just need a fiver to bring it back; they need to pay the full £20 to get back into the green. Many of my constituents are faced with those numbers ticking towards that negative £20 and wondering, “What on earth are we going to do about this? How are we going to pay for the electricity so our children have heat and do not freeze?” We had a guy come into my office one day. This chap was on universal credit, and he was one of those single people on universal credit who is literally destitute. That is a significant portion of single people on universal credit; they are living not just below the poverty line but below the line of destitution. This chap came into my office to say that he did not know what to do. He had not eaten in three days. His dog had not eaten in three days. He had sold every single item of furniture that he had in order to try to keep them both fed. He had sold his bed, so we managed to source a bed for this chap.

That should not be happening in 2021. We should not be having those conversations with people, yet Government Members talk about £6 billion and say, “Oh, we’ve given £80 million to this scheme” or whatever. It does not matter if they have given £80 million to that scheme; it does not make a difference. What makes a difference is ensuring that these folk have enough money to eat—enough money to feed themselves and to clothe themselves. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) talked about hope and aspiration. How can someone have hope and aspiration if they spend every single moment of every single day—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Worrying.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Worrying—exactly. Worrying and thinking about what on earth they are going to do tomorrow, and what they are going to do the next day. Half of people who go to Trussell Trust food banks are in debt to the DWP because the universal credit system is so rubbish. People are in debt because they have had to take crisis loans due to the universal credit system.

That is before we talk about the £20-a-week cut. That is absolutely a cut for people who have been going through the hardest times. Government Members can talk about the £6 billion all they like, but the reality is that the damage that this cut will cause to people—the number of hospital admissions we will see and the number of people who will die as a result of the cut—will be far more and cost far more than £6 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

The crisis in Heathrow has impacted not only my Slough constituents but regional airports and the economy of Wales, about which I know my right hon. Friend feels passionately. That is why we must help the aviation sector. Heathrow used to be the busiest airport in Europe but is now no longer even in the top 10; that is diabolical and is a direct consequence of inaction by this inept Government. Not only is it the right thing to do to help the aviation sector, but it is how we will effectively recover as a nation.

One of the most immediate dangers facing my constituents from the Government’s barrage of cuts and policies is the cut to universal credit of £20 a week. Over £17 million will be cut from my constituency, and this will affect families who have battled through a pandemic, who were clapped, who face a very difficult job market, and whose children have only just returned to the routine of school. I have been contacted by constituents who have been furloughed then had their UC capped, and are struggling to make ends meet. There are self-employed people using up all their income and being told to use food banks and claim UC. Continued cries from the Government Benches that that is a solution is insulting to all the families who work tirelessly just to put food on the table.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disrespectful of the Secretary of State to say that such people can just pick up another couple of hours of work? A working mother already on part-time hours because of childcare cannot just suddenly become an HGV driver overnight or pick up a couple of extra hours; that is not how it works.

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Lady eloquently makes my point, and even that calculation of two hours has been demonstrated to be completely off the mark; the number of extra hours hard-working Brits will need to work is actually nine.

Another main issue on which constituents ask for my help is housing, and, sadly, that is unsurprising. Average rents have risen by £456 in a year, the highest rise since 2008, rising above average wages by over £2,000, leaving home ownership a distant or impossible dream for too many in the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend; she is incredibly generous to suggest that I might be of a similar age, but I will take that compliment from her. Of course, I agree. Certainly, I think about my generation and what happened to inflation in, say, 1990 and 1991, as someone who was paying a mortgage at the time and seeing 60% of my income going on the mortgage because of the excessive interest. Those on tracker mortgages and so on will be really worried about what is happening, because their incomes are certainly not keeping up with that kind of increase. I speak as someone who suffered—okay, I am nowhere near, and never have been, the sharp edge of the sort of extreme poverty that we are here to talk about. However, we should realise the pressure that that puts people under emotionally and psychologically, and the impact on mental health. What inflation can do, in eroding pensions and impacting on household budgets, should be a real concern to everyone in this House.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On that point, we got our first mortgage in 2009. People who have had a mortgage for as long as I have had, which is about 12 years, have never really seen interest rate hikes. There are people in the group that the hon. Member is talking about who are not worried because they have never met this in the face, and they are going to get such a shock when interest rates rise, as he is describing.

[Matt Western]

I thank the hon. Member, or perhaps I can suggest friend. Indeed, we have been insulated these past 10 years from the ravages of inflation that some of us know—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) would say this—can erode business confidence and have an extreme impact on household budgets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a succinct and powerful point about how people voted in good faith for something that has turned out to be a fiction and a fantasy. I would always argue for more money to help those who are most in need—there is also an economic benefit to that in the boosting of consumption—but one of the first steps we could take is not to take money away. If the hon. Gentleman waits patiently, he may hear that I have more to say on that later in my speech, but he makes a powerful point.

In the Minister’s response to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), he spoke of the need to make tough choices. It is that macho rhetoric—fine, easy words that fall a great deal harder on those on whom those choices impact than they do on the perennial Conservative and Unionist party’s self-conceit of being a party of low taxation, which it seldom ever lives up to in office in any meaningful way.

Those tough choices come with very long-standing consequences: they impact on people’s children; they impact on family life and well-being; they impact on a person’s health; they impact on their self-esteem; they impact on their opportunities; and they impact on life chances, and they do so across generations.

In the past fortnight alone, we have seen the triple lock gone, removing the link between earnings and pensions. We have seen the end of furlough. We have seen the £1,040 cut to universal credit. We have seen a breaking of the manifesto promise not to increase national insurance, in a move that will hit the youngest and the poorest the hardest and that will embed generational and geographical inequalities and bake them into our social and economic reality for generations to come. As has been said, this has all been exacerbated by Brexit, with the shortages of products that that will bring, allied to an accompanying increase in prices.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does my hon. Friend feel that, after a decade of austerity, after all the hits from Brexit, and after covid, this is the worst possible time to be taking money away from people?

[Richard Thomson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I was deficient—I should have said what a magnificent speech she made earlier on, encapsulating as it did what it really means to be without and to be in search of that dignity. She is absolutely correct in what she says: this is absolutely the worst time to be taking away that support. It is almost like the Chancellor has gone out to the pub for a round of drinks. He has carried the drinks away from the bar—it was a very complicated order—and staggered across the floor with a big tray, and when he is about one yard from the table, he drops the whole lot, and leaves it smashed on the floor. It is the same with the economy, having carried it thus far. It is inept to say the least.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

Absolutely: jobs, jobs, jobs is the right message, but very little of that has been heard in the Chamber this afternoon from those on the Opposition Benches. On jobs fairs, it is vital that people come through our doors and see what is out there, because it is time once again to be, as this Government are being, forward-thinking, pragmatic and responsible as we push to build back better. The reality is that it is unsustainable to carry on spending the amount that we have been on welfare measures during this pandemic without ongoing increases in public expenditure, which Opposition Members have complained about. Inevitably, that would also affect working people’s taxes—which is what the debate is about.

The extra provision this Government have provided during the pandemic was temporary, to deal with the pandemic head on. Now that public health restrictions have been relaxed, it is right that these temporary support measures come to an end. Of course we also have our successful vaccine roll-out, and pleasingly—we must remember this—we are no longer in the same situation we were in at the turn of the year, and nor is our labour market. We have been able to reopen society, and our economy is recovering strongly. Growth is forecast by the OECD to be 7.2% this year, reflecting the bounce back we are already seeing right across the UK. So it is a time to be bold and empower people to harness their opportunities and help them progress on to their next stage—to give people both the hope and the skills and training they need to thrive in this changing economy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

What would the Minister say to the working parent who is already trying to juggle hours around childcare and who cannot simply pick up another few hours of work a week? How are they going to make up this shortfall?

[Mims Davies]

I would say, “Talk to your work coach.” We heard from two hon. Members from Liverpool today. I was in the Toxteth jobcentre meeting the first people taking the digital online level 3 programme, which people can earn a lot more money by taking part in. There are so many opportunities in jobcentres. I know that the hon. Lady has not been to her jobcentre recently, because I checked. Please do go and visit.

[Kirsty Blackman]

rose—

[Mims Davies]

I will make some progress, because I think it is important to talk about the 1 million vacancies that we have in our economy. We have jobs in growing and emerging sectors; we have green jobs, we have tech roles, and they can all be accessed through our jobcentres.

I am determined to help those with the biggest barriers to move closer to the labour market, to ensure that, as the hon. Lady says, people progress into work and see the reward for their efforts, and to help people increase their hours or get into work for the first time, like—I must correct the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke)—the more than 69,000 young people who are now in kickstart roles, on that important first rung of the career ladder.

My message today to everyone in the Chamber and everyone looking in is: if you want to progress in this jobs market, whoever you are, wherever you are—at any age or any stage—we are here for you. We will get behind you. We have dedicated work coaches, and we have boosted them by 13,500 as part of our plan for jobs. We will give you tailored support and we will help you progress. We will not leave you behind.

We are directly investing in our young people most at risk of long-term unemployment with the £2 billion kickstart scheme, a life-changing scheme of a six-month work placement—a springboard into a future career. With over 188,000—I got it right this time—kickstart roles, young people must turn to their work coaches to hear about these amazing opportunities.

Meanwhile, I must let the House know that we have a new youth hub across every Jobcentre Plus district throughout England, Scotland and Wales. By Christmas, we will have 150 new youth hubs open. These are valuable new partnerships—interventions for direct life chances—with local councils, football clubs, charities such as the Prince’s Trust, and local training providers.

We are also seeing lives changed by our job entry targeted support programme, which is known as JETS, with over 25,000 people starting new jobs since our plan for jobs was launched. That is not forgetting our £2.9 billion restart scheme, which will, crucially, help those who are leaving furlough. We have also refreshed our “50 PLUS: Choices” offer, and we have stronger support for those who need any extra skills through our lifetime skills guarantee.

I am passionate—I hope the House has noticed it this evening—about getting people into jobs, but also about progressing people when they are in work. This Government’s longer-term ambition remains to build an economy that ensures that everyone, no matter what their background, has the opportunities to enter work and progress out of low pay.

We are absolutely taking action. The in-work progression commission was launched in March 2020 by the DWP. We will respond shortly to its report, but it is all about getting that understanding about the barriers that people in low pay face and, crucially, as we talked about this afternoon, ensuring that work remains the best route out of poverty.

Our plan for jobs programme is also helping claimants to gain the skills they need to progress in work. Our sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs—are helping people get new skills to retrain and pivot into growing sectors, from viticulture to construction, infrastructure and social care. Haulage has been mentioned this afternoon; we have a programme in that, too. We also have DWP Train and Progress, which provides the ability to access the Department for Education skills bootcamps in growing sectors. With over a million—