Finance (No. 3) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 6, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment would take out provisions removing the legal link between the personal allowance and the national minimum wage.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.

Clauses 8 to 10 stand part.

Clause 38 stand part.

That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 39 to 42 stand part.

New clause 1—Additional rate threshold and supplementary rate—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 5 April 2019, lay before the House of Commons a distributional analysis of—

(a) the effect of reducing the threshold for the additional rate to £80,000, and

(b) the effect of introducing a supplementary rate of income tax, charged at a rate of 50%, above a threshold of £125,000.”

New clause 2—Impact of provisions of section 5 on child poverty and equality—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of the provisions of section 5 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the impact of the changes made by section 5 on—

(a) households at different levels of income,

(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),

(c) the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010,

(d) different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and

(e) levels of relative and absolute child poverty in the United Kingdom.

(3) In this section—

‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

New clause 3—Review of the effectiveness of entrepreneurs’ relief—

“(1) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief by Schedule 15, against the stated policy aims of that relief.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the overall number of entrepreneurs in the UK,

(b) the annual cost of entrepreneurs’ relief,

(c) the annual number of claimants per year,

(d) the average cost of relief paid per claim, and

(e) the impact on productivity in the UK economy.”

New clause 7—Review of changes to entrepreneurs’ relief—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made to entrepreneur’s relief by Schedule 15 to this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions on business investment,

(b) the effects of the provisions on employment, and

(c) the effects of the provisions on productivity.

(3) In this section—

‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

This new clause would require a review of the impact on investment of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief which extend the minimum qualifying period from 12 months to 2 years.

New clause 8—Review of geographical effects of provisions of section 9—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the differential geographical effects of the changes made by section 9 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This new clause would require a geographical impact assessment of income tax exemptions relating to private use of an emergency vehicle.

New clause 9—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act—

“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).

(2) Those provisions are—

(a) section 5,

(b) section 6,

(c) section 8,

(d) section 9,

(e) section 10,

(f) Schedule 15,

(g) section 39

(h) section 40,

(i) section 41, and

(j) section 42.

(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—

(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,

(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft, and

(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”

This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of this Act – alongside new clauses 11, 13 and 15.

New clause 18—Review of public health and poverty effects of Basic Rate Limit and Personal Allowance—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of section 5 to this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of those provisions on the levels of relative and absolute poverty in the UK,

(b) the effects of those provisions on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and

(c) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of those provisions.”

New clause 19—Personal allowance—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 5 April 2019, lay before the House of Commons an analysis of the distributional and other effects of a personal allowance in 2019-20 of £12,750.”

This new clause would require a distributional analysis of the effect of increasing the personal allowance to £12,750.

[Kirsty Blackman]

What a pleasure it is, Mr Deputy Speaker, to speak first in this debate. I very much appreciate the way the selection has worked out in my favour today. I rise to speak to amendment 6 and new clauses 7, 8, 9 and 19 in my name and the names of my SNP colleagues. For the avoidance of doubt, should the Opposition press new clause 1, new clause 3, or new clause 18, we will support them.

As I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and those on the Treasury Bench will be unsurprised to hear, I would like to start by raising my concerns about the process. It is the case that the personal allowance is reserved while matters relating to the upper limit of basic rate taxation are devolved. I therefore have issues with the way that clause 5 is constructed. I request, as I did on Second Reading, that in future years these two sections of the Finance Bill are split and considered separately. I hope that the Minister and officials will take that on board in drafting future Finance Bills. It would make the debate cleaner and easier to follow for MPs and for those outside the House. As I have said previously, there are real issues with the way that the House scrutinises both tax and spending measures, and this would be a simple change that would ensure that better scrutiny could be brought to bear on these matters.

Amendment 6 would take out provisions removing the legal link between the personal allowance and the national minimum wage. The legal link between the two was put in place to kick in in years where the personal allowance was below £12,500. I have two concerns with the removal of this link. First, we have no guarantee that the personal allowance will not in future be reduced to less than £12,500, because this House cannot bind a future House of Commons and a future Government might decide to reduce, rather than increase, the personal allowance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The shadow Chancellor did not speak from the Dispatch Box. I think the hon. Gentleman is thinking of the shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd)—the two should not be confused. On nationalisation, I think the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make is that we can simply look at British history to see how this works. If we take an asset into public ownership and the return from that asset is greater than the cost of the borrowing to take it on, there is no net cost to the taxpayer, and certainly, income tax will not have to rise to cover that.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not having a debate on party policy. We have amendments and clauses before us and we are straying from them—I know you wanted to get through your speech very quickly, Mr Graham.

[Richard Graham]

You are entirely right as always, Sir Lindsay. It was helpful to have it exposed that there is clearly a significant difference of opinion between the shadow Chief Secretary and the shadow Chancellor on whether there will be any additional costs from the policies of the Opposition—[Interruption.] I have taken a lot of interventions, so I will cease from taking them so that I can come, as you suggested Sir Lindsay, to a rapid closure, which I am sure will be welcomed by Opposition Members.

Having made the crucial point on our approach to investment in business, let me finish on the annual investment allowance, which is a crucial part of the Budget and the clauses under discussion. This is important because it encourages businesses to invest in expensive technology that, over time, will allow them to grow and employ more people. I could give a dozen examples from my constituency of where this has been true. To give it some flavour, I will highlight just one area. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will know, having visited China with me last week, how far we have gone in increasing our exports to China. From Gloucester alone, we are exporting a huge number of manufactured goods, including the landing gear on all Airbus aircraft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Does my hon. Friend recall that, along the same lines, the Labour Opposition were preparing for capital flight and a run on the pound, and does he share my alarm at that prospect?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I share my wisdom with you both? The debate is about the clauses and new clauses before us. Members tried to go down this route once before. The new clauses are quite clear, and the clauses are quite clear. I am sure Mr Docherty wishes to stick to that, and I am sure Members will not tempt him again.

[Leo Docherty]

You are absolutely right, Sir Lindsay. I certainly will not be tempted to stray from the clauses and new clauses that we are considering.

It is, of course, important to consider the approach to ownership of private property that the shadow Chancellor and his party laid out last year in a document that Members can obtain from the Library, entitled “Alternative Models of Ownership”.

[Leo Docherty]

It is relevant because it puts renationalisation at the front and centre of the Labour party’s economic policy. Regrettably, there are no figures in the document. That is because the cost of renationalisation, calculated by the Centre for Policy Studies, would be £176 billion: £6,471 for every single household. That is a deeply alarming fact.

That approach was given further voice when, just last week, the shadow Chancellor made a speech at an event hosted by Red Pepper. He discussed his broad economic approach, and his approach to tax and private property. He promised that the Labour manifesto would be even more radical than the last. This is relevant because, referring to Labour’s approach to the private ownership of land, the shadow Chancellor said:

“One of the big issues we’re now talking about is land, how do we go about looking at collective ownership of land”.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have strayed completely from where we should be. If the hon. Gentleman wants a debate on the Opposition, he needs to wait until the right moment. Today is not that moment. This is about the new clauses that we are discussing, and what he is talking about is not relevant. I have allowed him a little leeway, but we have now strayed too far. I would like him to concentrate on the new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir George Howarth)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 69 to 77 stand part.

Amendment 10, in clause 78, page 51, line 32, after “may”, insert—

“(subject to section (Review of expenditure implications of Part 3))”.

Antecedent to new clause 10.

Clause 78 stand part.

Amendment 14, in clause 89, page 66, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than the date provided for in subsection (1C), lay before the House of Commons a statement of the circumstances (in relation to the outcome of negotiations with the EU) that give rise to the exercise of the power.

(1B) The statement under subsection (1A) must be accompanied by—

(a) an assessment of the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of those powers and the circumstances giving rise to them;

(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects if—

(i) a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the EU had been agreed to, and

(ii) the United Kingdom had remained a member of the European Union;

(c) a statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the assessment under paragraph (a) and the comparison under paragraph (b).

(1C) The date provided for in this subsection is—

(a) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or

(b) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(6)(a) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or

(c) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(8)(b)(i) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or

(d) the date on which this Act is passed,

whichever is the earliest.”

This amendment requires the first use of the powers intended to modify tax legislation in the event of a no deal Brexit to be accompanied by a statement of the circumstances and a comparative analysis of their impact, accompanied by an OBR assessment.

Amendment 15, page 66, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) No regulations under this section may be made until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid a statement before the House of Commons setting out—

(a) a list of the powers in relevant tax legislation that the Treasury has acquired since June 2016 in connection with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union,

(b) a list of the powers in relevant tax legislation the Treasury expects to acquire if—

(i) a withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the European Union have been agreed to, or

(ii) the United Kingdom has left the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement.

(c) a description of any powers conferred upon the House of Commons (whether by means of the approval or annulment of statutory instruments or otherwise) in connection with the exercise of the powers set out in subsection (b).”

Amendment 22, page 66, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than a week after the passing of this Act and before exercising the power in subsection (1), lay before the House of Commons a review of the following matters—

(a) the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of those powers and of the outcome of negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union giving rise to their exercise;

(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects if a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the EU had been agreed to;

(c) any differences in the exercise of those powers in respect of—

(i) Great Britain, and

(ii) Northern Ireland;

(d) any differential effects in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) in relation between—

(i) Great Britain, and

(ii) Northern Ireland.”

Amendment 7, page 67, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) No statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would make clause 89 (Minor amendments in consequence of EU withdrawal) subject to affirmative procedure.

Amendment 20, page 67, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the United Kingdom has left the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement.”

Amendment 2, page 67, line 13, at end insert—

“(7) This section shall, subject to subsection (8), cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(8) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (7).

(9) No regulations may be made under subsection (8) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

Clause 89 stand part.

Amendment 8, in clause 90, page 67, line 16, after “may”, insert—

“(subject to subsections (1A) and (1B))”

This amendment is antecedent to Amendment 9.

Amendment 9, page 67, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) Before proposing to incur expenditure under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons—

(a) a statement of the circumstances (in relation to negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union) that give rise to the need for such preparatory expenditure, and

(b) an estimate of the expenditure to be incurred.

(1B) No expenditure may be incurred under subsection (1) unless the House of Commons comes to a resolution that it has considered the statement and estimate under subsection (1A) and approves the proposed expenditure.”

This amendment would require a statement on circumstances (in relation to negotiations) giving rise to the need for, as well as an estimate of the cost of, preparatory expenditure to introduce a charging scheme for greenhouse gas allowances. The amendment would require a Commons resolution before expenditure could be incurred.

Clause 90 stand part.

New clause 10—Review of expenditure implications of Part 3—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expenditure implications of commencing Part 3of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) No regulations may be made by the Commissioners under section 78(1) unless the review under subsection (1) has been laid before the House of Commons.”

This new clause would require a review within 6 months of the expenditure implications of introducing a carbon emissions tax. It would prevent Part 3 coming into effect until such a review had been laid before the House of Commons.

New clause 11—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 2)—

“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).

(2) Those provisions are—

(a) sections 68 to 78,

(b) section 89, and

(c) section 90.

(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—

(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,

(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft,

(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”

This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of this Act – alongside new clauses 9, 13 and 15.

New clause 17—Review of the carbon emissions tax (No. 2)—

“Within twelve months of the commencement of Part 3 of the Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the carbon emissions tax to determine—

(a) the effect of the carbon emissions tax on the United Kingdom’s carbon price in the context of non-participation in the European Union emissions trading scheme, and

(b) the effect of the carbon emissions tax on the United Kingdom’s ability to comply with its fourth and fifth carbon budgets.”

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

In these parts of the Bill, we make sensible preparations for our exit from the European Union. While right hon. and hon. Members across the House may well disagree on Brexit, I would hope that all would wish to see us prepare as carefully as possible so that we can maintain the stability of the tax system; provide as much certainty for the taxpayer as possible; in respect of carbon pricing, meet our commitments to the environment; and do all those things in all eventualities, including in the event of no deal, which is clearly not the Government’s preference but remains a possibility.

At Budget, the Government announced essential provisions to ensure that the tax system can continue to function in any outcome.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am very clearly on the record as having supported changing the tariff that people can spend on fixed odds betting terminals from £100 to £2; it is absolutely the right thing to do. Let me be clear that it is quite extraordinary for a Labour Member to stand up and start lecturing the Government on having made an incredibly important and valuable change to legislation that rights the wrong of this fixed odds betting terminals—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Graham, you have been here long enough to know that we have short interventions; you do not need me to tell you that. If you want to speak, I will put you on the list, but we must have short interventions.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I should say that I am not from the Labour party. The Government’s reasoning for the delay is what concerns me, especially when it is completely the opposite of the reasoning they are using about Brexit, where they are saying, “It’s fine. Everybody has heaps of time to prepare—loads of time.”

I thank the Government for the changes to transferable tax history. They have worked very well with the industry to ensure that late-life oil and gas assets can be exploited for longer. I first raised this issue in March 2016, so I am very glad that the Government are now moving on it. However, this is not the whole picture. It is appreciated that this change has been made, as it will have a small but positive effect. I am pleased that this measure has come through, but we still have not seen the oil and gas sector deal, nor have we seen proper unequivocal support for carbon capture and storage. I want the Government to make louder noises about carbon capture and storage, and they need to after pulling the rug from under the feet of the industry three years ago. They need to be even louder and more vociferous in their support because the industry has been stung. The companies that were keen to take part in carbon capture and storage have been stung by the decisions of the previous Chancellor, so the Government need to be as clear as possible about support for carbon capture, utilisation and storage, which is a real industry for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have 29 Members wishing to speak. There is no time limit, but Members should remember that we want to get everybody in.

Financial Statement

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available in the Vote Office at the end of the Chancellor’s speech. I also remind hon. Members that it is not the norm to intervene on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I hear the hon. Lady, but her point is slightly blunted by the fact that she made it in the autumn of 2016, again in the spring of 2017 and again in the autumn of last year.

As well as making work pay, we want working people to keep more of the money that they earn. When we came into office, the personal allowance stood at £6,475 and the higher rate threshold was at £43,875. In April, I raised the personal allowance to £11,850 and the higher rate threshold to £46,350, as steps towards our manifesto commitments of £12,500 and £50,000 respectively by 2020. Those manifesto commitments were, of course, made before our new funding pledge to the NHS. I have received representations that the least painful way for taxpayers to contribute to increased NHS funding would be to abandon our manifesto pledges and freeze the personal allowance and the higher rate threshold at current levels.

Let me reassure the House that, unlike the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my idea of ending austerity does not involve increasing people’s tax bills. I did not come into politics to put taxes up, and the improvement that we have delivered in the public finances means that, based on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast published today, I do not need to do so. I can therefore confirm today that I will meet our manifesto commitments for April 2020 to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000, before indexing both in line with inflation from 2021 to 2022. But our careful management of the economy allows me to go further, so I will raise both the personal allowance and the higher rate threshold to these levels from April 2019, delivering our manifesto commitments one year early. A tax cut for 32 million people, £130 in the pocket of a typical basic rate taxpayer, meaning that, since 2015, we have taken 1.7 million people out of tax altogether and nearly 1 million people out of higher rate tax. As a result of the announcements that I have made today, a single parent, receiving universal credit and working 25 hours a week on the national living wage will benefit by £890 next year—the hard work of the British people paying off in hard cash in their pockets.

We have turned an important corner and now we must pull together to build the bright, prosperous future that is within Britain’s grasp if we choose to seize it— embracing change, not hiding from it, building on the inherent strength of the British economy and the indomitable spirit of the British people.

Under this Conservative Government, austerity is coming to an end, but discipline will remain. [Interruption.] Austerity is coming to an end, but discipline will remain. That is the clear dividing line in British politics today: between a Conservative Government delivering on the British people’s priorities, supporting our public services, investing in Britain’s future, keeping taxes low and getting our debt down; or the Corbyn party, whose idea of ending austerity is to raise taxes to their highest level in peacetime history, which would send our debt soaring, squander the hard-won achievements of the past eight years and take this country back to square one. We are at a turning point in our history and we must resolve to go forwards, not backwards, and work together to build a Britain that we can all be proud of. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Under Standing Order No. 51, the first motion, entitled “Provisional Collection of Taxes”, must be decided without debate. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer please move it formally?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Formally.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Question is that, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effects shall be given to the following motions: (a) stamp duty reserve tax (listed securities and connected persons) (motion No. 49); (b) tobacco products rates—[Interruption.] Order. May I just say to hon. Members that they need to listen to what is going to affect their constituents? I will say it once again: hon. Members may be interested in what affects their constituents—I certainly am—but we will not know what affects them and what does not until I can complete the motion. Let us complete the motion—I do not need any help from those on the Back Benches.



Provisional Collection of Taxes

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 51(2))

That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

(a) Stamp duty reserve tax (listed securities and connected persons) (Motion No. 49);

(b) Tobacco products duty (rates) (Motion No. 57).— (Mr Philip Hammond.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled “Income tax (charge)”. It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The Questions on this motion and on the remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Thursday 1 November.

Inclusive Transport Strategy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak in the debate, although the opportunity has come around rather sooner than I expected, so I am afraid that my speech is in the form of a large pile of Post-it notes. I apologise if it is a little disjointed. I welcome the Department’s work on an inclusive—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I made a mistake. I should have called the Scottish National party spokesperson. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak now?

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Okay.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who is a valued member of the Transport Committee, for allowing me to continue.

I very much welcome the Department’s work on an inclusive transport strategy and the opportunity to debate these issues. We know that disabled people are often reliant on public transport, and much of my speech will focus on that. As the Minister said, disabled people face difficulties due to the accessibility of transport, its cost and attitudes, and as I have said already, many measures that can make public transport more accessible for people with a disability also make it more accessible for everyone. Audio-visual announcements on buses, which are standard in London and, I am pleased to say, available on almost all buses in my city of Nottingham, not only are essential for someone who is blind or visually impaired, but help everybody using the bus, particularly if they are visitors from out of town or going on an unfamiliar route. If people can hear what the next stop is, it helps everyone. We look forward to having visual announcements on all trains in the future. As people get older, they often experience greater difficulties with mobility and hearing, and with an aging population, addressing such issues becomes ever more pressing.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) talked about pavement parking. Guide Dogs has done important work to raise the profile of that issue and the problem it poses to many people with a disability, so I hope that the Minister will tell us when we can expect to see some change. Pavement parking was the subject of a private Member’s Bill some time ago, when the Government promised to act, so I would be grateful if she could give us a timescale. I also welcome the work around shared spaces, which is another issue that Guide Dogs and other organisations regularly raise on behalf of people with visual impairments.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Of course I welcome the commitment to getting more disabled people into work, but my concern is whether the Government are doing enough on a range of issues so that people have the support that they need to get back into work. Perhaps that is an issue for another day, but the availability of accessible and affordable transport certainly plays a key role in ensuring that disabled people can access the workplace.

Funding for these measures is really important, but sadly there is a problem in my city at the moment. In September, Nottingham City Council changed the rules for the concessionary pass for people with a disability. Until early September, disabled people could use their mobility pass before 9.30 am, which was a huge assistance not only to disabled people in work, but to many who would be travelling to attend hospital and other medical appointments. As a result of the funding reductions that the council has suffered, it has had to go back to the national system, which says that passes can be used only after 9.30 am. That enormously regrettable decision is having a significant impact on disabled people in my constituency, although I understand why the council made it. This is about the availability of resources as well as policy.

Another local issue—I wonder whether the Minister is aware of this at a national level, and whether it is a problem in other places—relates to payments for on-street parking through parking meters. Increasingly, meters that allow people to pay by cash are being replaced by services such as RingGo, which involve people paying for their parking by telephone or using their smartphone. I am concerned about the impact of that on older and disabled people, particularly those who are deaf or have a hearing impairment. Has the Minister considered that issue and asked local authorities that are implementing such changes whether they have properly considered the impact on disabled people?

I will come on to speak about a number of individual modes of transport, but people going on journeys do not think, “I’m going to take a bus journey and a rail trip, and then I’m going to walk.” People think about getting from their starting point—perhaps their home—to where they wish to go. We must ensure that there is joined-up thinking, because a disabled person needs to be confident that every leg of their journey will be reliable and accessible. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that there is the joined-up and integrated approach that a disabled person will need if they are to have the confidence to travel? Unfortunately, we know that many disabled people are stopped from travelling because they do not have that confidence.

A report published in April 2017 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission stated that transport options for disabled people are “very limited” because of access and expense, and that disabled people report feeling “trapped” by high costs and limited options. The report also refers to

“attitudinal or psychological barriers that prevent or discourage disabled people from using transport services. This could involve the behaviour and attitudes of some transport staff or concerns that people have about using transport, such as fear of crime, abuse or attack”.

Of course, those are not just issues for disabled people, as they often affect young travellers or women travelling late at night. There are many common issues that we can look to address.

Community transport has already been mentioned, and the Transport Committee’s first report of this Session considered the Government’s proposals on changing the regulations on section 19 and 22 permits. There is considerable concern among Members on both sides of the House about the potential impact of the Government’s changes. Indeed, it is not just a potential impact, because the Government’s actions in July 2017—that was before the Minister took responsibility for community transport, which is a recent development—have already started to have an impact on community transport operators. I wrote to the Minister only a couple of weeks ago to express concern about the actions of some local authorities, traffic commissioners and police. That is happening even though the response to the consultation has not been published and the Government have not issued new guidance.

When the Committee took evidence as part of our inquiry, we heard from hundreds of individual disabled people and the organisations that represent them. We were struck by how many people referred to community transport as a “lifeline”. I am sure that the Minister has listened to concerns raised across the House. I hope that she will take them into account when she publishes her response to the consultation and act to protect community transport, which is vital for so many disabled people.

I know the Minister is passionate about buses and I have been heartened by our discussions so far, but there are a number of issues to raise. One concern that has been highlighted by the Campaign For Better Transport since 2010 is the loss of supported bus services, which in part relates to the reduction in funding for local authority services. Thousands of services have been cut or scrapped altogether as result of those changes, and the impact of that on people who depend on buses—they might be people on low incomes, older people, or of course disabled people—is a great concern. Ahead of the Budget, I hope that the Minister has had conversations with the Chancellor and put in a plea for appropriate funding for transport, and particularly for buses, which are so important to communities up and down the country. Those cuts have had a particular impact on rural communities and more isolated locations.



The curtailing of services can have a particular impact on disabled people. Last week, the Transport Committee held an outreach event in Leicester where we talked to bus users. One woman, who had been a driver in the past but due to having had a stroke was now a bus user, described how on one of her local services the number of stops had been reduced. Where the bus had previously stopped at the hospital, it now stopped at the bottom of the hill before it reached the hospital, leaving her with a difficult journey uphill to access a very important local facility. That is just one example of how services are sometimes curtailed in a way that has a disproportionate impact on disabled people.

Reference has been made to the importance of wheelchair spaces on buses. Everyone is of course aware of the potential clash between buggies and wheelchair users for that space. I pay tribute to Doug Paulley, who took this issue on and confirmed that disabled people should have access to them. I welcome the Government’s commitment to act, but I would like more clarity on when it will happen. We raised this issue during the passage of the Bus Services Act 2017 about 18 months ago, so it would be helpful to understand when further action will be taken. We do not want to see a clash between the needs of wheelchair users and those with large amounts of luggage or prams and buggies. We want to ensure that buses are accessible for everyone. There are some really good examples of bus design. Nottingham City Transport, in my constituency, has large banks of tip-up seats that allow space for two wheelchairs or a large number of parents with children in buggies, so it can be done. We need to ask some bus operators why they are not acting more quickly.

The same is also true for audiovisual announcements, which I have already mentioned. Another shocking example from our visit to Leicester last week was told to me by a young woman. Her friend, who is visually impaired, had got on a route that normally has audio announcements, even though it is not standard in that city. She noticed that there were no audio announcements, so she spoke to the driver who said, “Oh yes, we’ve turned them off because I find them annoying.” That is really shocking, so what action will be taken to ensure that that cannot happen?

Finally on buses, the Minister knows that I wrote to her about the importance of transport to hospital. Many of those who use an older person’s concessionary bus pass use it to travel to hospital and medical appointments. I was really glad that, after I wrote to the Minister—alongside Age UK, which has done excellent work on this in its report, “Painful Journeys”—it appeared in the inclusive transport strategy. I just want clarification on some of the action that was promised. Has transport to hospital been raised at the disabled people and society cross-ministerial working group mentioned in the strategy? Is cross-departmental work currently under way? If so, what specifically is happening? What are the Minister’s plans for ensuring that the commitments in the strategy on transport to hospital actually happen? Will they definitely be built into the evaluation framework? I am sure that she will address those issues when she sums up later.

Trains often dominate our discussions. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am hoping we have plenty of time for this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure you will not want to take more time than the Minister.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will try to push on, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have such a long list of issues to raise.

On trains and the disabled people’s protection policy, we know that the Office of Rail and Road was looking at undertaking a review of the guidance. It stated that a consultation on draft revised guidance was planned for September this year and that completed guidance would be published by the end of the year. Will the Minister update us on what she knows about that work, because it was not published in September as planned?

On step-free access, I welcome the progress that has been made, but 202 stations out of 2,565 is simply not enough. What is the goal on that? Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether, when we talk about step-free access at 202 stations, that is from the train to the street or just from the platform to the street, because that makes a big difference. Step-free access is important, but I appreciate that it can be costly to implement. There are some much cheaper and simpler measures that can make a difference. Although it will not solve the problem of step-free access, one such measure is seating at stations. We have a “Take a Seat” policy across the city of Nottingham, and I have noticed that there is nowhere for people to sit down and have a rest at some stations. I noticed last week that people can sit down and have a rest at Euston station, but if they do, they cannot see which platform their train will be on. That leaves disabled people without very much time to get to their trains. Perhaps the Minister will raise that with train operators.

Another question is the accessibility of the rolling stock—the trains—for persons of reduced mobility. Currently, 78% of the rolling stock on our network meets modern access standards. That figure should be 100% by 1 January 2020. What assurance can the Minister give us that that will be the case?

I have already touched on staffing issues on trains and at stations. I was really pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mention the importance of attitudes to invisible disabilities. The TSSA’s work on neurodiversity is particularly significant. I am sure the Minister shares my concern about the report in The Guardian on Wednesday of the mum of a 17-year-old son who was humiliated by Great Western staff, who accused her of trying it on when she asked if she could take an earlier train because her son was overwhelmed by the station environment. Train operators need to do more to train their staff properly so that such circumstances do not arise.

The Minister alluded to the issue of taxi drivers who ignore customers in wheelchairs or try to charge customers more if they have assistance dogs.

Summer Adjournment

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We will start with a time limit of seven minutes, but of course we have two maiden speeches to come, so that might have to be adjusted accordingly.

Windrush: 70th Anniversary

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

That is an excellent point, and many of the Windrush generation people I have met or tried to help have been completely frustrated by the fact that they had a whole ream of paper showing that they had been paying tax for all these years, but still the Home Office rejected their claim that they had been legally here.

I am afraid to say that this is a product of a system put in place by this Government, and if anyone doubts that, they have to answer this question: who was it who said we would deport first and ask questions later? Was that not announcing in advance that people who were entitled to be here may well be deported and treated as if they were here illegally, and then they could appeal? Anyone who has ever dealt with Home Office appeals procedures must know what that means: the chances of the removal decision being overturned are vanishingly small. Of course, it was the Prime Minister who said we would deport first and have appeals later. Why she was speaking in that mode I cannot say, but some say it was all about chasing UK Independence party votes.

In any event, the Windrush scandal was the consequence. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central has, I think, written to the Prime Minister asking whether she was warned. She was warned: I warned her here in this Chamber when we debated the Immigration Act 2014 that the consequence of an Act designed to catch illegal immigrants in its net would be that people who just looked like immigrants would be caught up, and that is what we are seeing with the Windrush scandal.

Looking ahead, the new Home Secretary clearly does not want to go the way of his predecessor, and he clearly wants to put the scandal behind him, but it is a product of policy, not accidents, and that policy will continue to generate scandals for the waves of migrants who came after 1948, all the way up to 1973, and it will draw in broader and broader categories of people from the Commonwealth. This policy will continue to do that until it goes.

The Windrush generation came here to see the mother country. Some came to rejoin the RAF. Others just wanted new and more prosperous lives for themselves and their families, and they were what are now sometimes called economic migrants. In coming here, they enriched this country in so many ways: culturally, socially and economically. In our own cafeteria here, one of the most popular dishes, week in and week out, is jerk chicken with rice and peas. I could never have imagined that I would live to see that.

In general, a more diverse society is a more interesting one, a more challenging one and a more prosperous one. There is, however, an unfortunate aspect to this history, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. Despite being invited here—my own mother was recruited in the Caribbean—the Windrush generation did not always receive a warm welcome. There is an unfortunate history in this country of sometimes defaulting to seeing categories of good immigrants and bad immigrants. For a long time, anyone from the Caribbean tended to be treated as a bad immigrant, with all the stereotypes that were ascribed to black Britons. I have lived long enough to see things move on, however, and we now sometimes hear people who are happy to say the most vile things about Muslims and eastern Europeans exempting black people from their vitriol. History takes some surprising turns.

The Windrush generation—including people from the Caribbean as well as people from Poland by way of Mexico, and all the people from other countries who got off that ship in 1948—came here for a better life for themselves and their families, and they all made a contribution to our society and our prosperity. We were literally better off because of them, and that is what their modern-day counterparts are also doing.

Before moving to a close, I want to mention someone who has not received enough public tributes. Patrick Vernon is a social historian and grassroots campaigner, and he has led the campaign for a Windrush Day. I also want to add to what my hon. Friends have said about the importance of establishing a hardship fund. I have met members of the Windrush generation who have had to live off the charity of friends and family and who have run up debts because of all the uncertainty about their immigration situation. We really need a hardship fund to be put in place now. Those people cannot wait for the conclusion of the consultation on compensation. We also need to look at the workings of the Windrush taskforce, to see whether it is meeting the targets that it set itself to resolve cases. Some of the cases that I and my hon. Friends are dealing with seem to suggest that that it is not. Again, I join other hon. Friends in calling for an official Windrush Day.

Everyone in this House thinks fondly of their parents, but I can speak with confidence on behalf of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham when I say that if it were not for the courage, the hard work and the vision of our parents, none of us would be in this Chamber this afternoon as Members of Parliament. The Windrush generation has had a number of important effects, but none has been more important than forcing people to look at migrants as people—people with families, people with histories and people just like other people. If we could only extend the humanisation of the debate on migration from the Windrush generation to migrants of all generations and all times, we would achieve what I am committed to seeing—namely, a very different type of conversation on migration. We could achieve a change in the debate on migration. It should not have to take 60 years for people to recognise the contribution of a group of migrants to this country. I stand here bearing witness, and hoping for a better future when we come to discuss issues around migration.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Nigel Adams.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 31 October 2017, on the work of the Financial Conduct Authority, HC 475; Oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 30 January 2018, on RBS’s Global Restructuring Group and its treatment of SMEs, HC 737; Written evidence received by the Treasury Committee on the work of the Financial Conduct Authority, HC 475; Written evidence received by the Treasury Committee on RBS’s Global Restructuring Group and its treatment of SMEs, HC 737; Skilled persons report into the treatment of customers in RBS’s Global Restructuring Group prepared for the FCA, reported to the House and published on 20 February 2018; Correspondence between the Chair of the Treasury Committee and (a) the Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority and (b) the Chief Executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, relating to the report into the Royal Bank of Scotland Global Restructuring Group, reported to the House and published on 14 September, 17 October, 25 October, 31 October and 28 November 2017 and 17 January, 7 February, 16 February, 20 February, 27 February and 28 March 2018.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Martin Whitfield to move the motion, with up to 15 minutes to speak to it.

Economic and Fiscal Outlook

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

Particularly in relation to point 2, were the hon. Gentleman to be making the report to the EU, which of the options of the shadow Education Secretary would he be reporting—would Labour’s policy be shit or bust?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Those are not normal terms that we would use in the House.

[Peter Dowd]

I would rather not respond to a rather crude comment, which is quite frankly almost as crude as the Government’s economic policy.

Number 3 is profligacy. The right hon. Lady talked about it, but here is a bit of profligacy: since coming to power, the Conservative Government have added more than £700 billion to the national debt. There was no mention of that. The UK’s debt-to-GDP ratio this year stands at a staggering 86.4%, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George). The UK has a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than 20 out of the 27 other EU member states after eight years of this so-called economic miracle.

Sin No. 4 is misplaced pride. The Government have long prided themselves on being the so-called party of business, yet in eight short years they have managed to alienate the business community. Business investment has been revised down for the next two years, and businesses are holding off key investment decisions due to the uncertainty caused by this Government’s shambolic approach to the Brexit negotiations. Ministers claim that the Government have raised an extra £175 billion from clamping down on tax avoidance—another visit to fantasy island—but they have refused to offer a breakdown of this figure, a list of the anti-avoidance measures involved and the amount each has raised.

Customs and Borders

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

It does not bear thinking about. I and my hon. Friend are not alone in our concerns. Last July, when the North East chamber of commerce, which represents more than 3,000 businesses of all sizes across the region, conducted a survey of its members, 88% of respondents said that they wished to remain in some kind of single market and customs union. Unsurprisingly, the proportion is even higher among those who export solely to the EU.

The confusion and uncertainty is particularly felt by small and medium-sized enterprises in the north-east, especially those that currently export only to the EU and have no idea what the future holds. The situation has certainly not been improved by rumours that the Department for International Trade will in future provide support only to firms with a turnover of more than £4 million. I hope that the Minister will disabuse people of that concern.

The chief executive of the North East chamber of commerce, James Ramsbotham, wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in February to express his concerns about the forecasted harmful effects of Brexit on the north-east and the Government’s strategy to mitigate them. More than two months after he wrote that letter, he is still waiting for a reply. It is worth quoting from his letter at length:

“I was not surprised that the biggest potential impact is on North East England. As you know, we are the region with the best record at trading with the rest of the EU: an achievement delivered by many Chamber members. It is to be expected that anything which makes doing business with Europe harder will have a greater impact here. I am, however, very disturbed that Government has so far failed to adequately allay the obvious concerns this has created among our members, even before these assessments became public.

You will recall the Government was elected last June on a manifesto that said closing the gap between London and other parts of the UK is ‘the biggest prize in Britain today’, a ‘great endeavour’, and that the Conservative Party was ‘determined to lead the way in the next Parliament’. These forecasts suggest the gap will not reduce but grow significantly wider. If there are figures being shared around Whitehall that suggest your Government’s stated top priority could be seriously undermined, I would expect to see some concerted action to tackle it.

I assume that Government must expect a better outcome from Brexit than that indicated by these forecasts, otherwise you would not be going through with this plan. Given the manifesto commitments mentioned above, I also assume that you expect it to be at least as good for North East England, if not better, than for London. I therefore assume you must have some evidence to support this. It is beyond time for some more frank communication from Government so we can understand the basis of this confidence.

In light of these forecasts, Government should re-think its position on leaving the Customs Union. It seems clear that to do so will exacerbate the risks to the economy, particularly in our region. The freedom to pursue independent trade deals with other countries will present opportunities—but it will also present significant risks, involve great complexity and require huge capacity building. We have not yet seen any evidence to suggest that the opportunities can genuinely be greater than the negative impact of disrupting trade with our nearest markets.

If there is sufficient evidence to show there will be benefits from leaving the Customs Union, then there should be consideration of extending the implementation period. The time to put in place the capacity to deliver such trade deals, and the time for businesses to adjust to new terms of trade and respond to a signal that they should prioritise different markets, is perilously short.

In the meantime, we should be seeing significant investments going in to the support structures to help businesses make these adjustments, and in to the agencies that must manage major new processes—not least HMRC. At present we do not see this and businesses have very limited sources of expert advice available.”

It is difficult to imagine a more damning assessment of the Government’s approach. It is shocking that these calls for clarity, from a body that speaks on behalf of the north-east’s business community, have so far been ignored. I fear that that confirms that the Government do not have our region’s best interests at heart, or that they simply have their head in the sand.

I want to end by asking the Minister a fundamental question: how do the Government intend to close the gap between London and the north-east when all the evidence suggests that their Brexit policy—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

It is frankly arrant nonsense to suggest that staying within the EU or being in the customs union or the single market is in any way, shape or form an impediment to growing our trade outside the EU. The truth is that we have succeeded in doing that over the past 30 years from within the EU, and other countries are doing it even as we speak. It is utter nonsense, and we need to call it out as such and not accept the set of lies that continues to be propagated by those who are ideologically determined to drive Brexit through.

Finally, all I have just described as truth is completely contested. I fully accept our country is still very much divided, and it is not sufficient for the Government or for the Labour party in opposition to acquiesce, in respecting the will of the people, to allowing our country to become poorer, less secure and more isolated, but nor is it sufficient for us simply to overrule the will of people. The only way we can sort this out, the only way we can act in the national interest and secure the agreement of the British people, is to give them the opportunity, once we know the final terms of the deal—what is really on offer, not the lies that have been told but the truth that is then exposed—of a final ratifying referendum, a final say, a people’s vote, or whatever we want to call it. That would bring this country together. Frankly, it would save this country from a lesser future—a less secure, less prosperous and more isolated future. That is the right thing to do, and it is what we should—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

The Economy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

In the Treasury we try to deal in facts, rather than in comments, and the effect of reducing corporation tax has been an increase in revenue.

The Chief Secretary and other Conservative Members have said that we must make the case once again for free markets—something we thought we might never have to do again. However, as Margaret Thatcher and, I think, Tony Benn—an unusual pairing—used to say, “There are no final victories in politics, and if you want to continue to win important arguments, you have to keep making them and restating them over and over again.” The case for free markets is threatened as never before by the hard-left, heirloom policies and personalities of Labour Front Benchers. As someone who used to work in the auction business, I can spot an antique a mile away.

The central battle on this conflicting vision of our society is being fought again. That matters for two reasons. First, just as our parents and grandparents paid the price for this ideology last time it was employed in this country, we do not want our children and grandchildren to pay the price for its resurrection today. Last time, it left us a weak country saddled with debt and high taxes, unable and unwilling to embrace new technology or to invest in public services—and working people paid the price.

Secondly, to paraphrase Robert Kennedy, living in a democracy is not merely about the absence of tyranny but the presence of freedom. A free market matters to us and our constituents not just because we have learned that it is the best way to run an economy but because it underpins all our other freedoms. That is why we will continue to defend it as we build an economy and a country that works for everyone.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me just say to the Front Benchers that if they agree 10 minutes, they should stick to that, because I do not want it to break down in future with people taking advantage by allowing the Opposition to have 10 minutes and then you carry on for 17 minutes. I think we have to be fair to both sides. If we make agreements, let us please stick to them. If it is 15 minutes, I do not mind, but at least let us be honest with each other when we make those decisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the economy.