Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Robert Syms

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will speak briefly to the clause. The hon. Lady has set out the SNP’s reasons for tabling amendments 137 and 138. The official Opposition agree with those reasons, and it seems highly sensible to require regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have argued for that consistently in relation to our future relationship with the EU and the no deal process. We are concerned about the wholesale power grab that unfortunately appears to be continuing apace. We would support SNP Members if they decided to press their amendments to a vote.

We have tabled two amendments, and I am pleased to hear that the SNP support them. Under the Prime Minister’s proposed withdrawal agreement, the UK would initially, at least, continue to align itself with EU regulations, but little information has been provided alongside the clause to indicate how the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal would impact on Council directive 2017/1852, particularly if there was divergence later on. Similarly, the Treasury’s policy note offers no guidance about whether the EU’s resolution mechanism would be upheld for all future double taxation disputes in the event of a no deal Brexit.

That is of a piece with the general lack of information about the Government’s anticipated future relationship on tax matters with the EU. I have consistently asked whether we would seek to be a member of the code of conduct group, for example, and I have had no indication of the Government’s views on that matter. With that in mind, the Opposition have tabled amendment 149, which would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of the powers under clause 82 in the event that the UK leaves the EU under a no deal Brexit or under the current withdrawal agreement—or whatever it becomes. It is unclear whether it will be changed or whether assurances will simply be produced in relation to it. Whatever happens, we may or may not be voting on it at some point, hopefully in the near future. Amendment 149 would require the Treasury to offer a clear indication of how the EU’s dispute resolution mechanism for double tax disputes would be maintained, and the likelihood of the different possibilities.

Amendment 150 would require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the revenue effects of the measure. The Treasury policy note states that the measure will raise no revenue and will have no economic impact on taxpayers. That is rather hard to believe, given that even the most benign change to the tax system can have far-reaching and unseen consequences. They may be unpredictable, but surely it would be better to say that than to say that the change will have no impact. The Chancellor would therefore be required to outline in the review the possibility of any unforeseen economic impacts, and the revenues that are likely to be raised from this measure after the Treasury makes regulations to use the powers.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Had we had a meaningful vote today—we are not going to have one—I would have voted with the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North. However, I find it a little strange that those who intend to vote against the agreement should criticise the Government for a no deal Brexit, because ultimately that is not the Government’s position.

There are about 800 statutory instruments for leaving the European Union. About 600 of them are negative, and a hundred and something are affirmative. It is perfectly possible for the Opposition to pick any number of negatives to pray against. If the Opposition have a problem with something, they can pray against it when it appears on the Order Paper and get a debate. There is a remedy for hon. Members’ concerns, but the reality is that so many of these things are modest and technical, and there are more important matters of principle for us to discuss. I do not think we want to spend a lot of time in this Committee or others debating minor, technical issues.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am on the European Statutory Instruments Committee, as are other Committee members. Sifting the proposed negative statutory instruments and changing some of them into proposed affirmatives has been a really interesting and useful process, which has shown us that the Government do not always make the right decision. Something like that for the long term would probably allay some of our concerns.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Robert Syms

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Robert Syms]

Apart from paying the levy, the road haulage industry pays considerable sums of tax on fuel; it therefore pays quite a lot into the Exchequer for the provision of roads. I would make another important point: almost every good that we have in this country travels at some point on a road haulage vehicle. Almost all of what someone buys in a supermarket for Sunday lunch travels in such a vehicle. There is no such thing as a painless tax. If we raise the cost of vehicles delivering goods in this country, the costs are raised for supermarkets and businesses and that is passed on in the form of higher prices and inflation. There is a balance to be struck.

The other point is that the British economy has been growing since 2009-10. As it grows, there are more vehicles on the road, and that is a difficulty. The real way to deal with climate change is probably to crash the economy, so that unemployment shoots up and vehicles come off the roads. It is a problem that, if we have the economy growing, there are more vehicles on the road. On the whole, the solution is technological, both in the development of the levy—the hon. Member for Norwich South made one or two suggestions for that—and also in the engines and the information that people get this days. There has been a big improvement. The biggest incentive that there ought to be for the industry is to replace vehicles more regularly because, in the end, that will probably have more impact on climate change.

I do not think that the solution to this problem is to increase costs. There are technological solutions that I am sure will come to help with all of our concerns about climate change.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If we are going to disincentivise people from using HGVs or charge them more for using HGVs, we need to make sure that we have a positive route with alternative methods of transport. There has been a massive increase in the number of light goods vehicles, which is negative if we end up with older diesel models.

We could develop the rail freight network. I understand that it is pretty difficult for those who are looking to increase rail freight to get time on the lines because of the number of passenger trains. Solutions to assist that would be very helpful in ensuring that freight is moved around the UK in the least carbon-emitting way possible.

Subsection (6)(b) relates to Euro 6. It describes the definition of Euro 6, saying that it is as in the EC directive. I am keen for the Government to lay out what would happen about the development of new standards after Brexit and any transition period. Is it their intention that we would have our own standards on vehicle emissions? If so, how much does the Minister believe it will cost to assess vehicles? What would be the cost of UK-EU regulatory divergence, which will result in issues for car manufacturers?

Alternatively, do the Government intend that we should not diverge from using the European Commission directive standards? Obviously technology is developing and there will be new standards to which we should peg our decisions on tax rates. If the UK Government plan not to have their own assessment centre, with regulatory divergence, do they plan to continue to follow EC directives? What preparation are the Government making in that case to scrutinise or comment on the directives, given that we will not be in the room after Brexit, and will therefore not be able to influence the standards, either to support our car manufacturers or secure the best standards for the British public and get improved air quality?

I understand that the Minister may not have the answer at his fingertips, but I hope he can say something.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Robert Syms

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

In the event of independence, as was laid out in our White Paper, “Scotland’s Future”, the Scottish and UK Governments will have a negotiation about what will happen to decommissioning tax reliefs. We will do what we can to maximise economic harmony in the North sea and create jobs for the long term. It is incredibly important that those jobs are kept in the UK. The jobs could simply relocate if the Government do not take action. They could do more to support the supply chain, which has been squeezed by the cuts that the bigger operators have had to make because of the reduction in the oil price. The Government could do more to ensure that the supply chain companies are provided with the support that they need. The Oil & Gas Technology Centre is doing a very good job in that regard.

Access to finance is incredibly important so that companies can begin to support and monetise the technology that they have created. They have incredible reserves of intellectual property, some of which have not had the chance to be developed. I would rather not see the IP sold on to somebody else. I would rather the Government supported such development.

All the oilfields will need to be decommissioned eventually, but we want the jobs to be kept for the longer term. We are making a case for the maximum economic recovery to be made from the fields. It is important to note that once a field is decommissioned, there are no longer any jobs associated with that field. If we can prolong the life of that asset, we prolong a situation whereby jobs and therefore money for the Exchequer are secured. That is incredibly important for the north-east of Scotland. I will not support the Labour party’s amendments; I will choose to abstain. However, I will support the Government’s clause in relation to TTH. I thank them for taking action, although I would rather they had taken it sooner.

[Sir Robert Syms]

In my lifetime, the greatest British success story has been the development of North sea oil. As the Minister set out very clearly, billions of pounds of taxation have been generated. Under successive Governments we have had a tax regime that has been balanced against the risk of the investment that companies have had to take. It is therefore perfectly sensible at this stage of the maturity of the oilfields to use tax policy to ensure that the oilfields continue longer and continue to create jobs and to support, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the worldwide oil services sector based in Aberdeen.

I thank the Minister for what he is doing, which is perfectly sensible. It will generate more tax revenue. I hope we will oppose the amendments because they would make an intended simplification of the tax system more complicated. At the end of the day, we want people to continue to pump oil in the North sea and keep the jobs rolling. The Government’s policy supports that.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Robert Syms

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

I rise to speak to amendment 103 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, but I would also like to speak a little more widely about the clause and the Labour amendments. First, I would like to ask the Minister a question about the post duty point dilution, which was in the Red Book. Hopefully, he can answer or get inspiration during the course of the debate. The changes do not appear to be in the legislation, so it would be useful if the Minister could explain when the legislative changes to post duty point dilution will take effect. I understand that the hope is that it will be put into legislation to be enacted in April 2020, but it would be useful if we could have an idea of the legislative process to ensure that those changes are made. I have been lobbied heavily on this by one of my constituents. I know it is important to a lot of people and that the Government have to their credit committed to making changes in the autumn Budget 2017.

Returning to our earlier discussion, I am not clear what the Government are trying to do with the changes to alcohol taxation. Are they trying to incentivise good behaviour; are they trying to disincentivise bad behaviour; or are they trying to generate revenue for the Exchequer? It is important for the Government to clarify that and accept the Labour amendment on the revenue impact on the Exchequer and on public health. That would make a big difference, because we would be clear about the Government’s intentions and what the Government expect to achieve.

On public health, people who want to get drunk quickly often drink high-strength ciders. It is important the changes focus on people who are not drinking for pleasure in the main, but who are drinking to get as drunk as they possible can. Those are the alcohol deaths we are trying to combat in Scotland with the new minimum unit pricing we introduced, which is a clear and well-intentioned public health change. Minimum unit pricing is all about making sure that high-strength alcohols that can be bought very cheaply are increased in price, so that people cannot get hold of them as easily. We predict that we will see a reduction in alcohol deaths as a result of the changes to legislation in Scotland.

What do the Government expect will be the impact of their legislation, particularly the extreme impact on people who are dying from alcohol misuse? What numbers do they expect to see as a result of the changes? If the Government accept Labour’s amendments, it would be useful if the review included the number of people whom they expect to save so that we can measure them against that.

Lastly, it is important that the Government tax this stuff and increase the tax rates as inflation increases. We want the Government to take a step back and have a holistic look at the entire system and explain why they are taxing things in the way that they are, rather than tweak and bodge and make changes year on year, as often happens in this place, so that we end up with something that is unwieldy and does not fulfil the intentions of the Bill in the first place, let alone the intentions of the world as we see it. Will the Minister provide answers?

[Sir Robert Syms]

The Government have sensible policies on this. We debated an amendment earlier today about securing jobs in the North sea when there are relatively few jobs on oil rigs. The hospitality industry is one of the biggest employers in the United Kingdom. It is also very important for the tourist industry. The Government have been constantly keeping taxes under review to see what gets a reasonable amount of income and what is fair for consumers.

We also have to understand that we have been through a difficult economic period and incomes have not risen as much as one would like. One of the disadvantages of putting up some of these prices is that it will affect not middle class people, but some of those on the lowest incomes who have every right to enjoy a drink. I therefore think that the Government policy is perfectly sensible.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree that the hospitality industry is incredibly important, particularly to tourism. However, the oil and gas industry supports 135,000 jobs and is also very important to the livelihoods it supports.

[Sir Robert Syms]

I am sure it is, but I suspect the hospitality industry is 10 times that. The other factor about the drinks industry generally is that it is very regionally diverse, with the scotch industry in Scotland, and wine, cider and beer producers. We all have representations from the owners of breweries, which employ people and are sometimes very important parts of the local economy. We have all had representations from people who run public houses, which are also central to the community. One of the worst things that has happened over the past few decades is the number of public houses that have closed, which has had a material impact on many people and communities. This is a matter of balance, and the Government may be wrong or they may be right, but I think they are more likely to be right because their approach is more likely to secure jobs in the hospitality and brewing industries, and to achieve a proper balance so that people can enjoy a meal or a drink out.

There is a serious alcohol issue, but the producers of wine and beer label things very clearly to show the strength of alcohol. There is a strong “Drinkaware” campaign, so it is not difficult for people to find out the impact of alcohol, but we know there is a hard core of heavy drinkers, many of whom use A&Es and ambulances. It costs about half a million pounds a year to keep an ambulance on the road, and many of them are disproportionately used by people who abuse alcohol. The focus, if there is any focus, ought to be on addiction services and trying to intervene with those who abuse alcohol rather than on the vast majority of people who enjoy a drink.

The hon. Member for Bootle, in his amusing speech—we will miss him on Thursday when he is no doubt raising a cheer to Cicero in whatever he is doing—noted that the industry contributes substantially to the Treasury. Some of those billions of pounds have to go to the NHS because of drinking, but the industry also generates a lot of money for good causes and things that the Government need to provide.

This is a matter of balance, and I think the Government have it right. There may come a time when prices have to go up. If incomes start to rise more substantially—we hope that will be a factor in a few years and that there is evidence that pay is picking up a bit—it may be time to review the taxes, but I think the Government have got this one right.

[Robert Jenrick]

I gather there may be a vote in a few moments’ time, but I will begin by addressing, in no particular order some of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. We are interested in the Scottish and indeed the Welsh Government’s actions on minimum unit pricing. It is fair to say that the jury is still out on whether that has been effective, but we will be watching with interest, as will the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, and that will inform the decisions we take at future Budgets.

The hon. Lady asked about post duty point dilution. This is an issue that she has rightly highlighted, and a number of the producers who are likely to be affected by this and who are based in the UK will no doubt be asking the question she has asked. We intend to give this further consideration and lay draft legislation on L-day next year, in the early summer of 2019, with a view to legislating on it in the autumn Budget 2019 and its coming into force from April 2020. While I have spoken to some of the small number of British producers who will be affected and I note their concerns, this is a question of fundamental fairness in the duty system.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Robert Syms

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I have just a few points about where we are going. There are a number of events in Parliament that get quite a lot of public interest; the Queen’s Speech is normally one and the Budget is another. People make representations to the Treasury in advance of the Budget, but afterwards the Financial Times and almost every insurance company, bank and accountancy firm produce reams of information on what changes have occurred. The one sure thing about the Budget is that a number of trees will be cut down, to supply information to the great British public on what changes have already occurred. Actually, I do not think that this is one of those Committees that needs to take lots of information, because most of us will have lots of information already.

One could substitute vested interests for the point about experts, because there are an awful lot of vested interests in this country. As a large Committee of the House of Commons, we sometimes have to navigate our way through that, so we could sit for months listening to vested interests on a whole range of subjects and not actually make any decisions. The purpose of this Committee is to look at what the Government have done, maybe make some decisions and then report back to the House.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On that point, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that both the Treasury and HMRC have vested interests other than trying to make good law?

[Sir Robert Syms]

Out in the big wide world, there are an awful lot of people who would come to this Committee, given the chance. The biggest difficulty we would have would be deciding who to invite, and we could be sitting in this Committee for months. I think it is quite clear that most people understand the key points of the Budget, because lots of information has been produced. When I was in opposition and the Labour party was in government, I probably made a similar speech to the one made by the Opposition spokesman. The Minister will probably make the same speech that Labour Ministers made when we raised the same point. The only point of having additional information is that it helps the Opposition in tabling amendments. That is the only reason normally stated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms]

We could have a general rule that every single Committee of the House should take evidence on every single mater, but the problem is that Committee sittings would then last considerably longer. They would need to be staffed up and we would have difficulty getting Members to serve on the Committees and listen to all that evidence. Ultimately, governing is about taking decisions. There has to be a balance in understanding what points of view people take. We can sit here endlessly listening to advice, but we have to make choices.

[Kirsty Blackman]

We cannot sit hear endlessly listening to advice, because the Committee has to end by 11 December. We are talking about one day of taking information from people so that we can be better informed in the debates that we will have up until 11 December, at which point this Committee will end, because that is what the House has decided.

[Sir Robert Syms]

Members of the Committee have a mandate to scrutinise the Government. If we take one day out of that scrutiny, we are reducing our ability to question the Minister on some very important matters. Personally, I would like to take all the time to question the Minister on why decisions have been taken, and I am sure I will get very good answers.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and a pleasure to serve on my third Finance Bill Committee—I think that it is the fourth such Committee for the hon. Member for Bootle, but it is reassuring to see broadly the same team arrayed. We were a fairly jovial and decent lot in the last Committee, so I am pleased to be serving alongside them again. The hon. Member for Bootle said that he always believes everything that the Minister says, which is a fine start to our deliberations over the coming weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole said that I was probably dusting off the previous Labour Government’s speech from when they were faced with the same questions. Indeed I have, so I hope that will be acceptable to Opposition Members.

Amendments (a), (b) and (c), tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, seek to revise the programme motion by introducing a day of oral evidence and extending the time spent in Committee. It is of course important that the provisions of the Bill receive sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. The Government’s tax policy making framework ensures that that occurs, and I do not think that evidence to a Public Bill Committee would effectively further that aim.

The amendments would introduce a day of oral evidence from, among others, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Office for Budget Responsibility. Let me be clear that I agree that effective parliamentary scrutiny of this and any other Finance Bill is crucial, and I am always open to considering how that can be improved. However, for the following reasons, I am not persuaded by the merits of delaying the Committee in order to allow oral evidence to be taken. We accept that any additional evidence sessions would certainly increase the amount of scrutiny of the Bill, but that is not the same as saying that, in the absence of such sessions, the scrutiny of the Bill would be insufficient—as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has set out, there has been very considerable scrutiny already—or indeed that additional days of evidence would provide a proportionate response to the need for scrutiny.

First, in line with the new approach to tax policy making set out in the Government’s 2010 framework, the Government already undertake extensive consultation with stakeholders before legislating in the Finance Bill.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Robert Syms

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Committee will be glad to hear that I will speak only briefly. I am happy to support the Opposition’s amendments. I want to focus on amendment 16, which deals with the communication that is needed between HMRC and the charities regulator. That is incredibly important. We need such communication for individuals to be assured that their money will go to the right place and that the correct tax exemptions exist for that.

Amendment 16 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House

“detailing discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Charity Commission regarding the provisions of this section.”

If the Minister is minded not to accept the amendment, which is very sensible and the provisions of which it would be easy for the Government to carry out, is he willing to write to Opposition Members about the discussions between the charities regulators in England and Scotland and the Government, the nature of those discussions and the advice the Government have received from charities on the potential impact of the clause? Will he also cover the eloquent point made by the hon. Member for Bootle about ensuring that protection from fraud is built into any changes that are made under the clause?

If the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, that would be grand. If he is not, will he commit to contacting us with those details so that we are aware of the discussions the Government have had and we can be both comforted that our constituents who decide to give their benefits to charity can do so knowing they are less likely to be the victims of fraud as a result, and aware that HMRC is across the issue and ensuring that people do not unintentionally become victims as a result of the changes?

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I must admit that I am a little surprised by the clause, because it looks to me like the Treasury is giving away money. These days, many people are in pension schemes and, when they die, there is some money. That might go to a relative, but they might wish for it to go to a charity. The Government are being big hearted—dare I say big societied—with the clause, in that they want the individual who goes to meet their maker to leave some of their resources to a charity that is dear to their heart.

My guess is that Cats Protection and various dog charities will be the biggest beneficiaries of the clause, but it will come down to either an employer making a judgment depending on what their employee wanted, or, in the process of probate, a solicitor taking a decision that a particular charity should get that money. In most cases, we probably are not talking about multi-millionaires, and sadly, not enough people have sufficient pension or death benefits. We are probably talking about small sums of money. The simplest solution, given that there is already quite a wide definition, is to widen that definition a little more to allow someone who cares passionately about heritage or pets or some inner-city regeneration scheme to direct the money to their cause rather than to Her Majesty’s Treasury.

I am a bit worried about Treasury Ministers being so generous in introducing the clause, but it probably makes sense on better regulation terms—on reducing some of the red tape when people end up dying. It will give a little more scope for people to dispose of the money that they have earned, because they have worked all their lives for that pension, and when they die, I think it not unreasonable that they should leave it to the cause that they particularly want to support.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Robert Syms

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. The potential benefits of CCS are unquestionable and, as my hon. Friend says, we need to get ahead of the curve again. We need the UK Government to commit to putting the money in now. That is especially important because their pulling the plug means there is now a lack of trust among the companies that are developing CCS. The UK Government need to make a clear and unequivocal commitment.

On evolving technologies, Scotland is a global leader in tidal, and the UK Government must work with the Scottish Government on the contract for difference process to support the technology journey from development to commercialisation, which is particularly important for tidal.

On solar power, we have been contacted by so many individuals who are concerned about what is happening to export tariffs for homes, small businesses and community energy projects from next April. The tariff is a vital support that encourages people to invest in solar power, and it must continue.

Lastly, in order to reduce climate change and to increase the use of healthier methods of transport, this Budget was an opportunity to reduce VAT on bikes. Just as we would like to see VAT removed from digital books, reducing VAT on bikes would make them cheaper for all and would be a real statement of intent from the Government on reducing climate change.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady not aware that reducing VAT is very difficult while we are a member of the European Union, but it is something that we might be able to do after Brexit?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Actually, reducing VAT is quite possible for a member of the EU. Zero rating things is a problem, but reducing VAT is fine.

The Scottish fire and rescue service and Police Scotland are still owed £175 million of VAT. The UK Government have recognised that the system they had in place was unfair, yet they have refused to pay back the £175 million they owe our two vital life-saving industries. It would be incredibly useful if they could see their way to giving us back that £175 million.

On the subject of the UK Government reallocating funds that should rightly have gone to Scotland, the convergence uplift of £160 million should have been paid to Scottish farmers. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has admitted that the money has been spent elsewhere. We need a commitment that this money will come to Scotland in future years, and we need the previous years’ money to come to Scotland now, so that our farmers can have the cash they have been allocated.

I am pleased that the Budget includes measures to ensure that companies pay their fair share of tax in the digital sphere, but the reality is that this is a consultation and the measures are not going to be in place yet. We also do not have a solid idea of what those measures will be. The Scottish National party would therefore like to propose two measures on digital taxation, and we hope that the Government will take them into account. First, we believe that online retailers should be held liable for tax fraud committed by their suppliers. Sometimes when people order a product from a well-known online retailer it is delivered from China with a customs declaration and a stamp that says “gift”. Large online retailers should be held responsible for ensuring that those who use their platform pay the correct customs duties. We also believe that in order to combat tech firms that avoid corporation tax by registering implausibly low UK profits, the Chancellor should levy corporation tax on an assumed UK share of worldwide profits that is equal to their UK share of worldwide revenue. That could be subject to a dispute tribunal process to ensure fairness. The SNP will submit these suggestions in the consultation process, and we hope that they will be considered seriously.

Scotland’s cities have received city deal funding from both the UK and Scottish Governments. That is welcome, but what is not welcome is the fact that the UK Government have contributed far less to those deals than the Scottish Government. In total, the Tories have failed to match more than £350 million of Scottish Government funding for city deals and growth deals in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Stirling and Clackmannanshire, Tay Cities and Edinburgh. We believe that they should match our contribution, and we call on the Chancellor to make that commitment, as well as to fulfill the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s commitment to provide each part of Scotland with a regional deal.

I come to an ask, for the NHS, that would require only a small financial contribution but would have significant positive benefits. The UK Government could have used this Budget to follow Scotland’s lead on PrEP—pre-exposure prophylaxis. In Scotland, PrEP is available on the NHS, but England has been dragging its heels on making it available. The benefits in terms of the reduction in new cases of HIV are unchallengeable, and it is not fair that those in England cannot currently access the drug on the NHS. That change would not cost a huge amount of money, but it would make a massive difference to people’s lives.

If the UK Government are serious about taking their place on the global stage, they need to reform the immigration system. Countries will be looking for a more flexible immigration policy before signing trade deals with us, and we should start by getting rid of the fees that EU citizens will be expected to pay to acquire settled status. The OBR mentions the ageing population at many points throughout the Blue Book. The UK Government must recognise this challenge, and recognise that we need and want people to come to live and work in our communities. Last year’s Red Book said that a reduction in net migration of 20,000 would reduce GDP by about 0.2% by 2022. The Government need to be honest about the benefits of immigration and be clear that it is good for our country. They need to be clear that, with an ageing population, it is incredibly important that we get people to come to work here, particularly in the care sector and in the NHS. We also need a more flexible working visa policy that gives those who are seeking asylum the right to work, as the current system is dehumanising and unsustainable. Lastly, we should scrap the fees paid that families have to pay to get their children citizenship, which are ridiculously high and are yet another tax on families.

On health spending, the UK Government gave commitment after commitment that they would pass the full Barnett consequentials of the increased health spending on to Scotland, but they have chosen not to do so. They have chosen to short-change Scotland by £50 million. This comes on top of the fact that the Scottish Government’s fiscal resource block grant allocation will be almost £2 billion—or 6.9%—lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. Despite the addition of consequentials and other non-Barnett allocations in 2019-20 that the Chancellor announced, Scotland’s fiscal resource block grant is still lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11 and at the start of the current spending review in 2015-16.

The Chancellor had the chance to make a real difference. He had political choices to make and at almost every turn he chose the wrong path. Is it any wonder that people do not trust the Tories? This Government need to follow the lead of the Scottish Government, who have put dignity and respect at the heart of decision making, rather than punishing those who are not born rich. The reality is that people in Scotland are faced with a choice of two futures: they can choose to continue to have a Westminster Government, who make political choices that disadvantage those who can least afford it; or they can fight for a fairer Scotland, where our Parliament has the powers and the responsibility to make choices on behalf of our citizens—choices that will make our country fairer, not create further inequality.

Economy and Jobs

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Robert Syms

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

That does not make me feel confident about the gender equality legislation that is coming forward, but we can only hope that this Government do things differently to their colleagues in Scotland.

We have never had a female Chancellor of the Exchequer or a female shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Today, I proudly stand here as the first ever House of Commons female spokesperson on the economy. That demonstrates just how far we still have to travel to achieve true gender equality.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I just point out that Margaret Thatcher was shadow Chancellor under Ted Heath.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I apologise for that oversight. I did check the facts, but obviously not well enough.

To best protect our workers, we need a UK Government who recognise the importance of trade unions and want to secure their rights, rather than systematically dismantle them. As we leave the EU, the protections for workers will be reduced, because we will lose the oversight of the European Union. We need to ensure that workers have the protection that they need and deserve.

Successive Tory-led Governments have caused untold harm to the nations of the UK: they have increased inequality; created spiralling household debt; presided over drastic reductions in people’s savings; reduced access to in-work benefits; closed jobcentres, which has reduced the opportunity for people to get back to work; and attacked the vulnerable, the sick and the disabled. Those people who are most in need in the nations of the UK have been worst served by this Government.

This Government have consistently failed to support policies that recognise the problems that millennials face. Generation Y are set to be poorer than their parents. Everybody who was born after 1955, which I understand is when the Chancellor was born, is set to be poorer than their parents’ generation. We are seeing wealth accumulation by the age of 30 decrease, and that is storing up problems for the future. There are major issues for millennials, and the Government have not moved fast enough to recognise the difference in the level of home ownership, in the age that people have children, in the social structure, and in the way that millennials are coping economically. Our economic policies have not moved towards making things better. They also have not taken into account the massive levels of student debt. As an aside, it is a pretty terrible fiscal policy to have people paying off their student debt until, eventually, it gets written off, with most of them never managing to pay it all back.

The people who live in the nations of the UK cannot cope with another unfettered Tory Government. A message was sent to the Tories at this election that said that we cannot be dragged out of the single market. An end to single market membership means the loss of 80,000 jobs in Scotland and £2,000 per person. That would be an economic travesty. Given that the Tories have already presided over a decade of wage stagnation, spiralling household debt, decreasing household debt, decreasing household savings and the drastic dismantling of the social security safety net, I do not see how the nations of the UK can cope with the drastic economic hit that will come as a result of Brexit.