Finance Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsWednesday 1st July 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2020 View all Finance Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 1 July 2020 - large font accessible version - (1 Jul 2020)
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Loan charge: report on effect of the scheme—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review, to be carried out by an independent panel, of the impact in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the scheme established under sections 20 and 21 and lay the 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 effects of the provisions on—
(a) business investment,
(b) employment,
(c) productivity, and
(d) company solvency.
(3) A review under this section must consider the fairness with which HMRC has implemented the policy, including whether HMRC has provided reasonable flexibility around repayment plans with the aim of avoiding business failures and individual bankruptcies.
In this section “parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
and “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 of the scheme to be established under Clauses 20 and 21.
New clause 31—Restricting the loan charge to cases where taxpayer knew loan was taxable—
“(1) In Schedule 11 to F(No.2)A 2017 (employment income provided through third parties: loans etc outstanding on 5 April 2019) in paragraph 1(1)—
(a) at the end of paragraph (b) omit “and”; and
(b) at the end of paragraph (c), insert—
“, and
(d) if the relevant year is 2015/16 or an earlier tax year, one of the conditions 1 to 3 is met.”
(c) After paragraph 1(1), insert—
“(1A) Condition 1 is that—
(a) P submitted a return in accordance with section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year,
(b) the loan or quasi loan was not accounted for in the return as income, and
(c) P knew that the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for as income in the relevant year.
(1B) Condition 2 is that P has not been issued with a notice under section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year.
(1C) Condition 3 is that P has been issued with a notice under section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year but that notice is or has been withdrawn under section 8B(2) of that Act.”.
(2) In Schedule 12 to F(No.2)A 2017 (trading income provided through third parties: loans etc outstanding on 5 April 2019) in paragraph 1(2)—
(a) at the end of paragraph (a)(ii) omit “and”; and
(b) at the end of paragraph (b), insert—
“, and
(c) if the tax year in respect of which the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for as income (or otherwise treated as a receipt of a revenue nature for income tax purposes) (“the relevant year”) is 2015/16 or an earlier tax year, one of the conditions 1 to 3 is met.”
(c) After paragraph 1(2), insert—
“(2A) Condition 1 is that—
(a) T submitted a return in accordance with section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year,
(b) the loan or quasi loan was not accounted for in the return as income (or otherwise treated as a receipt of a revenue nature for income tax purposes), and
(c) T knew that the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for in the return as income (or otherwise treated as a receipt of a revenue nature for income tax purposes).
(2B) Condition 2 is that T has not been issued with a notice under section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year.
(2C) Condition 3 is that T has been issued with a notice under section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year but that notice is or has been withdrawn under section 8B(2) of that Act.”.
This new clause provides that, in respect of loans made in 2015/16 tax year and any earlier tax years, the loan charge applies only if the taxpayer submitted their tax return and deliberately did not declare the loan to be income. The clause also extends this protection to taxpayers who were not required by HMRC to submit tax returns.
New clause 35—Review of Off-Payroll working (IR35) legislation—
“(1) The provisions of section 7 and Schedule 1 of this Act do not have effect unless the Treasury has conducted a review of Off-Payroll working (IR35) legislation and has laid a copy of the report of that review before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) A review under (1) must include assessment of—
(a) impact on individuals’ livelihoods,
(b) impact on individuals’ employment rights, and
(c) relevant business practices.
(3) Any review under (1) must be carried out no later than 31 December 2025.”
This new clause would provide that the IR35 provisions of the bill would not take effect unless the Treasury has conducted and published a review of off-payroll working legislation.
Amendment 16, page 2, line 23, leave out clause 7
Amendment 55, in clause 20, page 15, line 6, at end insert—
“(3A) An amount paid, treated as paid or due to be paid under a qualifying agreement is also a qualifying amount if—
(a) the amount is referable (directly or indirectly) to a qualifying loan or quasi-loan,
(b) the tax year in which an amount representing the loan or quasi-loan should have been accounted for as income (or otherwise treated as a receipt of a revenue nature for income tax purposes) (“the relevant year”) is 2015/16 or an earlier tax year, and
(c) one of the conditions 1 to 3 is met.
(3B) Condition 1 is that—
(a) the person to whom the income tax liability the agreement referred to in subsection (2) relates (“P”) submitted a tax return in accordance with section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year, and
(b) the loan or quasi loan was not accounted for in the return as income (or otherwise treated as a receipt of a revenue nature for income tax purposes).
(3C) However, condition 1 is not met if P knew that the loan or quasi loan should have been accounted for in the return as income (or otherwise treated as a receipt of a revenue nature for income tax purposes).
(3D) Condition 2 is that P has not been issued with a notice under section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year.
(3E) Condition 3 is that P has been issued with a notice under section 8 of TMA 1970 for the relevant year but that notice is or has been withdrawn under section 8B(2) of that Act.”.
This amendment is consequential on the new clause “Restricting the loan charge to cases where taxpayer knew loan was taxable”. It provides that a prior settlement with HMRC can be unwound unless the worker failed to account for a 2015/16 tax year (or earlier) liability in his or her tax return deliberately despite knowing that the loan should have been included as income.
Amendment 17, page 85, line 2, leave out schedule 1.
Amendment 20, in schedule 1, page 97, line 15, leave out “2021-22” and insert “2023-24”
This amendment and 21 to 36 and 57 seeks to delay the introduction of the IR35 changes until the tax year 2023-24.
Amendment 21, page 97, line 17, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 22, page 97, line 21, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 23, page 97, line 23, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 24, page 97, line 25, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 25, page 97, line 26, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 26, page 97, line 38, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 27, page 98, line 4, leave out “2021-22” and insert “2023-24”
Amendment 28, page 98, line 8, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 29, page 98, line 12, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 30, page 98, line 30, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 31, page 98, line 34, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 32, page 98, line 37, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 33, page 98, line 40, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 34, page 98, line 44, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 35, page 98, line 45, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 36, page 98, line 47, leave out “2021” and insert “2023”
Amendment 57, page 97, line 36leave out ‘2021’ and insert ‘2023’
New clause 12—Assessment of impact of provisions of this Act—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England the impact of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one month of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on—
(a) GDP
(b) business investment,
(c) employment,
(d) productivity,
(e) company solvency,
(f) public revenues
(g) poverty, and
(h) public health.
(3) A review under this section must consider the following scenarios—
(a) the Job Retention Scheme, Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme, Bounceback Loan Scheme and Self-employed Income Support Scheme are continued are continued for—
(i) six months,
(ii) the next year,
(iii) eighteen months,
(iv) the next two years; and
(b) the Job Retention Scheme, Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme, Bounceback Loan Scheme and Self-employed Income Support Scheme are ended or changed in any ways by a Minister of the Crown other than as specified in (a).
(4) 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 of the Bill in different possible scenarios with respect to the continuation of the coronavirus support schemes.
New clause 18—Review of changes in Act—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the changes in this Act in each part of the United Kingdom and each region of England and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—
(a) business investment,
(b) employment, and
(c) productivity.
(3) A review under this section must consider the effects in the current and each of the subsequent four financial years.
(4) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes in the event of each of the following—
(a) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period without a negotiated comprehensive free trade agreement,
(b) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period with a negotiated agreement, and remains in the single market and customs union, or
(c) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period with a negotiated comprehensive free trade agreement, and does not remain in the single market and customs union.
(5) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes if the UK signs a free trade agreement with the United States.
(6) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause requires a review of the impact on investment, employment and productivity of the changes made by the Act over time; in the event of a free trade agreement with the USA; and in the event of leaving the EU without a trade agreement, with an agreement to retain single market and customs union membership, or with a trade agreement that does not include single market and customs union membership.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Forgive me; I might have missed the reason why are we are not going to be able to divide on new clause 31, but I would be grateful if you could explain it to me. I have today become the longest serving Member for Reigate since the Great Reform Act, so I might have missed one or two things that are going on, but I would be obliged if you could tell me why we are not going to have the opportunity to divide on new clause 31.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, but I think we have to wait until the end of the debate before these decisions are made.
Mr Davis
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to the other issue that I want to discuss today.
Amendment 20 would delay the imposition of the IR35 rules from 2021 until April 2023. It is very unlikely that the economic crisis we are facing will be over by April 2021, and attempting to implement IR35 will cost jobs and do serious economic damage. A few months ago, the powerful Cross-Bench House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee wrote a report on IR35, and much of what I am going to say involves quotations from that report. I will start with this:
“It is right that everyone should pay their fair share of tax. But the evidence that we heard over the course of our inquiry suggests that the IR35 rules—the government’s framework to tackle tax avoidance by those in ‘disguised employment’—have never worked satisfactorily, throughout the whole of their 20-year history. We therefore conclude that this framework is flawed.”
It is right not to impose unnecessary burdens on business at a time like this. I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East had to say about the importance of preserving—and, indeed, not destroying—employment in the current circumstances. This goes right to the issue of IR 35. The report states that
“the government made this decision after considering the issue too narrowly, in terms of its tax take. It has severely underestimated the costs to business of implementing the changes…And it did not analyse sufficiently the unintended behavioural consequences of the proposed reforms or their wider potential impact on the labour market, and on the gig economy in particular.”
Many contractors in the coming years will be left in an “undesirable halfway house”. They do not enjoy the rights that come with employment, yet they are considered employees for tax purposes. In short, IR35 will create “zero-rights employees”. I am saying this directly to Labour Members, because the idea that a Government action can create a class of employee with zero rights is an issue close to their hearts. Such employees have no rights under employment law but under tax law they are employees.
The Lords Committee called on the Government to commission an independent review to devise a better implementation of the scheme. I think that is exactly right, which is why I want to see another two years before we implement whatever the decision is. We need that time to understand precisely what the effect of our new policy will be.
It would be a disaster if, in the context of the economic crisis and the growing gig economy, the Government accidentally created that class of zero-rights employees with no holidays, no sick pay, no pension, no redundancy —no employment rights whatsoever. We must stop that happening either accidentally or deliberately, and on that basis I ask the House to support amendment 20.
Taiwo Owatemi
I agree with my hon. Friend; that is completely wrong.
No business or individual should be left behind. Every livelihood deserves the chance to survive this crisis. Otherwise, who knows what impact it will cause? Where there are job losses, will the Government commit to retraining those workers, whether old or young, through a future jobs fund so that they can harness the jobs that will come out of the crisis? Those jobs should be part of a new, prosperous economy, and they should be green, well-paid and sustainable. We do not need a race to the bottom, the slashing of safety regulations or the austere measures that we have seen in the past 10 years. The Chancellor said that he would do “whatever it takes” and frankly that is the least that my constituents in Coventry North West deserve. We have seen 18 years of growth and millions of jobs lost in two short months. To restore dignity, to save jobs and create new ones and to stimulate this much-needed recovery, bold progressive action is required. Nothing less will do.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If Judith Cummins wishes to speak until 8.39, she may do so. Otherwise, I need to call the Minister.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I have 40 seconds. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker!
I want to comment on two things. The first is the beauty, aesthetic and wellbeing industry, which is far wider than the nail bars that the Prime Minister has flippantly referred to. It is a sector that contributes a hugely significant £6.6 billion to the UK economy, employs more than 300,000 people across the UK and provides 16,000 apprenticeships, yet it seems to have been forgotten. Hundreds of jobs are at risk. The industry needs clarity, and it needs it now. Those people want to know when they can go back to work. Also—
Jesse Norman
I take my hat off to the astonishing hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who brought so much content into such a short presentation, and I thank her for that. We have an enormous body of material to get through quickly, so I shall deal initially with the question relating to new clause 26 on job creation and related measures. The new clause would require the Government to conduct an assessment of the effect of the Act on job creation. As the House will know, the Government have announced unprecedented support through the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed scheme and the like. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that those actions will directly help to support the incomes of individuals. The Treasury does not produce economic forecasts and the OBR does, publishing them twice a year. For that reason, I ask Members to reject the new clause.
New clause 12 relates to a matter previously considered in the Public Bill Committee, the impact on regions and nations. The new clause would require the Chancellor, within one month, to review the impact of the Act. As I emphasised in Committee, the provisions in this Bill have already been developed with careful consideration. Analysis of Government decisions on GDP is also carried out by the independent OBR. Again, we will continue to monitor the impact of the crisis, but I ask Members to reject the new clause. SNP new clause 18 would require a review of the impact of the Act on investment, productivity and employment. Again, it would require the Government to look at hypothetical scenarios, whereas the OBR is required by law to produce its forecasts based on stated Government policy, so I ask Members to reject the measure.
I come now to IR35 and the off-payroll working rules. I have been pressed vigorously on this issue by my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell). Amendments 16 and 17 seek to remove the reform of these rules from the Bill, which would be a serious mistake, costing the country many hundreds of millions of pounds. The level of non-compliance at the moment with the rules is scheduled to cost the country £1.3 billion in 2023-24 if not addressed. As I do not believe the SNP really wants that, I encourage Members to vote against it.
I come now to the cross-party amendments framed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), as it is important to engage with several of the things he said. He said that contractors could be pushed into a state of no benefits employment. It is important to note the contractors already receive a number of benefits funded by the Government when they are employees of their own personal service companies. Such benefits include statutory maternity, paternity, adoption, parental bereavement and shared parental pay, and they are provided by PSCs, which are then able to claim 100% of those payments plus 3% compensation from the Government. My right hon. Friend said that at least seven people have taken their own lives as a result of the loan charge. It is important to put on the public record that of course every single death of an individual is a tragedy. The circumstances surrounding those deaths have been considered by the coroner, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and HMRC’s own internal independent investigations. None of them has suggested, in these four reports, that HMRC is to blame for these deaths; no conduct issues have identified either by the independent office or internal investigations that would warrant disciplinary actions.
Covid-19
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General for her tireless work in pulling together so many different strands of Government activity during the covid-19 crisis. We are very grateful.
I want to talk about the amazing community activity happening in South Derbyshire, as part of the local response to covid-19: our wonderful CVS, which has helped to co-ordinate volunteers across South Derbyshire, making sure that people do not run out of food or medicine and are not lonely; our wonderful individuals, such as Stephen Greaves and Andrew Astle; the teachers at Granville and Pingle Schools, who, as volunteers, have been making face visors with 3-D printers; and the Wood children of Melbourne, who made up and sold quizzes—all of whom have been raising funds for the local medical charities.
But against the good news of that great community spirit—[Interruption.]
Mrs Wheeler
But against the good news of that great community spirit, we have had the tragic news of over 19 people dying locally from covid-19. That number includes Eileen Landers of Swadlincote, a lady who worked tirelessly for decades at Burton Hospital on the housekeeping staff. Our thoughts and prayers are with all the South Derbyshire families who have lost loved ones to this dreadful virus.
That brings me to my ask of the Paymaster General, representing the Cabinet Office. I am asking for support from the Cabinet Office for my campaign to have a memorial placed at the National Arboretum, at the heart of the country, as a fitting way to commemorate the sad loss of essential key workers to covid-19. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has agreed to support the campaign. I am now looking at the Cabinet Office as another sponsor to help to co-ordinate all the different sectors of essential workers involved, whether in healthcare or transport, wherever they are across our nation. They carried on working when this virus was at the highest level. They gave their lives to keep our hospitals open, keep food in the shops and get people to work.
I am also calling on the relevant trade unions to get involved to help to raise public subscriptions to pay for the memorial. I am grateful to my local newspapers, the Burton Mail and the Derby Telegraph, for supporting the campaign, as well as the Daily Express, my colleagues in Parliament who are supporting the campaign and, finally, the good people of the South Derbyshire and Burton area who have contacted me with support. I also thank Brell Ewart of Whitehouse Construction Ltd of Derby, who, as part of a donation, has offered to install the memorial free of charge, an incredibly generous offer to help to kick-start the campaign.
As I know there are many MPs who wish to speak, I will wrap up my contribution by thanking Ministers, civil servants, local government officers, volunteers, shop workers, farmers and, of course, key workers for everything they have done for us at home here in South Derbyshire and nationally. The fight is not yet over, but this human endeavour is an excellent example of how when life is bad, good can come out of it. I, for one, am proud of the response from the Government and the country to this dreadful virus.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
My contribution today will also be mostly one of thanks. I thank my constituents in Clacton, who on the whole have acted responsibly and stayed home. I thank the local police and the district commander, Lily Benbow. They have been out on patrol regularly to enforce the lockdown restrictions. They have found a receptive and understanding populace, and they have seldom needed to step in. They are aware that they police by consent, and they still have that consent. For their work, both now and in normal times, our police officers will always have my sincere thanks.
Of course, I thank those on the medical frontline who continue to make significant sacrifices for us all. Because of their hard work locally here in Clacton we have not exceeded NHS capacity, despite the scale of this crisis. Over the last two weeks I have been in touch with local care homes, which have reported that they are coping well. They have protected a significant part of our populace. The residents and the staff have been the difference here, and they have my thanks.
For those who do not know, my constituency has one of the largest populations of retired residents, many of whom live in care homes. We are, and I include myself in this, quite elderly. This makes the Clacton constituency, and many others like it, vulnerable. We face the threat of someone thoughtlessly bringing infection into our area, which could have a disproportionately devastating effect on our population, so I ask: “Please, don’t come rushing to our coast until we have determined that the danger to our vulnerable population has passed.” Believe me, I understand the desire to come to a place as beautiful as ours, and we will welcome all with open arms when the time is right.
I put on record my thanks to Essex County Council and Tendring District Council, who have done so much to support local businesses and provide support for the vulnerable population. Tendring District Council saw an absolute army of volunteers step forward, and residents should be proud of the way in which they have come together to support our community. Of course, there are many unsung heroes, from the people who go out to do their job to keep everything going, to the people who go out to help their neighbours do their shopping. We must not forget them when we come to commemorate those who have steered us through this outbreak.
Now that we are slowly and conditionally lifting the lockdown, we must be mindful of the support that certain sectors need. The tourism sector continues to struggle. It was one of the first sectors to be impacted, and it is vital to our economy in Clacton. Nationally, tourism supports 3.1 million jobs and contributes billions to the economy. We must do all we can to support this important industry. For the Clacton constituency, this is imperative. Our coastal districts have suffered decline over recent years, even without the malign influence of covid-19, so I ask Ministers not to oversee further decline now. The Government must step in to help the tourism industry get back on its feet.
Given my background in the performing arts and my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre, it is no surprise that I ask the Government properly to support theatre as we lift the lockdown. The very nature of the theatrical experience means that the sector will probably be one of the last to be released. Theatre has, since the time of Shakespeare, been one of the UK’s greatest offers to the world, with significant benefits to the wider economy, English being globally the most widely spoken language.
The creative arts contribute so much to the UK economy, and I have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Prime Minister, supported by colleagues from the all-party group, to make the case for better supporting theatres. A further letter will follow with evidence from theatres themselves, setting out in greater detail the support that they need. It is crucial that the Government take these recommendations into consideration, because two key industries—tourism and theatre— are now at risk—
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). May I commend in the strongest possible terms the speech that has just been made by the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has given the best analysis I have heard today of the mistakes we have made? While I am at it, I also commend the Chairman of the Health and Social Care Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who made a similarly incisive speech earlier.
We should be honest: most of the western nations have handled this crisis badly. They have made mistakes, mostly in being late to control the virus—not all of them; some are different. For example, Greece, perhaps surprisingly, has controlled it much better than many of the others. It has about 15 deaths per million of the population versus us at about 477 at the moment. Those mistakes have cost thousands, if not tens of thousands of lives. A primary mistake, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, was the failure to test, track, trace and contain from the very beginning.
I would like to speak, in the brief time I have, about what we did once the disease took hold, because I think there are also potential mistakes there. The Government adopted a slogan—“protect the NHS, save lives”—which we all, including myself, took to enthusiastically and enthusiastically signed up to. My question for the Minister when she winds up is: did the strategy we pursued in good faith to protect the national health service exacerbate, in some respects, the death rate?
In addition to the lockdown, we did four things to protect the NHS and to protect it from being overwhelmed by the pressure on it. First off, we asked people with the illness to self-isolate at home and come to hospital only when the symptoms got really bad. When they did exactly this—exactly the same thing—in New York City, some of the doctors noticed that the patients were arriving in emergency too late, frankly, to be rescued. Their disease had advanced too fast, although they could have been cured earlier. My first question is: did that strategy cost lives?
The second question is: we applied triage on the basis of the so-called frailty index so that people who got a poor score on the frailty index were simply put on palliative care, again partly to protect intensive care unit capacity, so did that strategy cost lives? Two Members—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith)—have already raised the question of care homes. We discharged patients from hospital early, when some of them still had this disease, into care homes, with the consequences that we have heard in graphic terms already. Did that strategy cost lives?
The final thing we did to protect capacity was that we cancelled operations for other illnesses—cancer and other illnesses—and that almost undoubtedly cost lives. We can see it in the excess mortality rates. Indeed, Britain holds the highest place in Europe, equal with Spain I am afraid, for the highest excess mortality over this period, so the combined effect of these strategies has to be looked at very carefully indeed. Bear in mind that throughout this time our intensive care unit capacity was used only to 81%. That is normal for this time of year. The Nightingale hospitals stood almost empty, and now only 30% of ICU capacity is being taken up by covid-19 patients. Did we get this balance wrong? Did we, at the cost of lives, just give ourselves empty beds, rather than doing the best thing for the patients the NHS is there to look after? That is not the fault of the staff of the NHS; it is a question of whether the strategy was the wrong one to pursue once we were where we were.
I finish by coming back to the point made by the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. The best way to protect both the NHS and the lives of our citizens is the approach taken by other countries, and that is to use testing, tracking and tracing to isolate the illness as well as to bring it down. The Prime Minister talked about the R number; that is just an average. The R number in my constituency, a rural area, is lower than that for a care home. We must put all the resources—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We have to leave it there, I am sorry. I remind everybody that the wind-ups are not tonight but at the conclusion of the debate tomorrow.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I thank the people of Rotherham for following the lockdown rules, and for proactively helping the people in our town who are vulnerable; you have shown real community spirit and I am proud to represent you.
Tonight, however, I will speak as Chair of the Select Committee on International Development, as we are currently conducting an inquiry into the impact of the coronavirus pandemic in developing countries. There have been some clear and consistent messages. First, the ability to prevent infections in the global south is simply not there. How is it possible to maintain social distancing in a refugee camp or at a food distribution point? In Bangladesh, for example, 850,000 Rohingya refugees live in just 26 sq km. Secondly, healthcare systems in so many areas have been destroyed, like in Syria or Yemen, or are vastly under-resourced, like in Mali, with its single ventilator for the entire country. Thirdly, the economic impact has been immediate in the global south. This alone is estimated to have undone the development work of the last 30 years.
The consensus in our evidence to date is as follows. The coronavirus pandemic is emerging across the global south, with no country being safe. The outbreak is likely to peak in the next two or three months. The direct challenge of the disease and the seriousness of its effect on children will be exacerbated where there are existing illnesses, other morbidities and poor nutrition, as well as a weak health system and infrastructure. For example, it is estimated that only 51% of health centres in Yemen are fully functional. In north-east Syria, no district can even meet the basic emergency threshold of 10 hospital beds per 10,000 population. In north-east Nigeria, vaccine coverage is only 8% in some areas, and 2.7 million women and children need nutritional support.
The preventive measures that we have adopted in the UK will obviously be challenging, if not impossible, in crowded settlements such as refugee camps. Other illnesses are likely to embed, as existing health services are crowded out or avoided. Traditional vaccine provision, maternal and neonatal health, and basic public health—nutrition and hygiene advice, in particular—will be at risk. Where lockdown is being used as a preventive measure, our evidence makes it clear that the stress that this can impose, alongside the threat of family illness and loss of income, all place disproportionate risk on women and children. Lockdown-related domestic violence has been evidenced everywhere. Child abuse is likely to increase. The Committee received evidence that child marriage and child sexual exploitation, including via the internet, could be used by some to mitigate losses of income from a lockdown economy.
Food security continues to be a major concern, particularly in Africa and the middle east. Public trust and social cohesion are worsening across some countries, with increasing protests against Governments. The threat of successful radicalisation and recruitment by extremist organisations seems inevitable in the face of rising unemployment and deprivation. There have also been reports of very negative sentiments about the role of international NGOs and foreigners in relation to the spread of the disease.
I have welcomed the UK’s response to the emergence of coronavirus in the global south. However, in our evidence, NGOs considered the £20 million allocated by the Department for International Development for them to tackle covid-19 to be insufficient. There is also a consistent message that multilateral organisations are not reactive enough to disburse funds to frontline delivery in these urgent situations. I urge the Government to allow UK NGOs more flexibility in how they already use their existing funding. The UK’s response—totalled at £744 million—is weighted strongly towards the allocation of official development assistance funding for the development of a vaccine, so it is concerning that the Government have yet to enact safeguards or place conditions on the use of the funding to ensure—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, Sarah, but we have to leave it there.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) [V]
Let me start by thanking all the staff at Burnley hospital, and our carers, for their incredible dedication, as well as the volunteers of Burnley Together, and other groups who continue to support those who need it most. Through this period we have seen the incredible fortitude and generosity of the British people, and businesses up and down the country, including in my constituency, have stepped forward and played their part in manufacturing what we need.
One sector that has been particularly impacted by the coronavirus pandemic is the travel sector. Airlines have seen their business models collapse, and I warmly welcome the action taken by the Government so far, which has undoubtedly saved millions of businesses and jobs. I ask that they keep an open mind about any additional support for airlines that might be required, and look at measures provided in the United States as an example.
When travel restrictions are lifted and the global economy starts to tick over once more, this country will rely on the trade deals currently being negotiated by the International Trade Secretary in order to bounce back. For that to work, we must have the links needed to keep goods and people moving. I mention the travel sector to talk not only about airlines, but about the wider supply chain. As many Members of the House will know, Burnley and Padiham make up one of the northern areas at the centre of advanced engineering and manufacturing, supplying the components needed to build aircraft, and the engines that power them. Sadly, one of the largest local employers in my constituency has just announced more than 200 job losses, reflecting the deteriorating outlook for the aviation sector over the medium term, with airlines holding on to their existing fleet. Those jobs are high skilled, highly paid, and vital to keeping the UK at the cutting edge of manufacturing and engineering. They are jobs that Burnley, which had a higher claimant count than the national average before this crisis, desperately needs.
My ask to the Government is for any policy decisions that could have unintended consequences to be considered holistically. The 14-day quarantine for international arrivals will definitely have some merit for some countries for a short period, and the Government have my support. As a blanket policy, however, it will only kick the aviation sector when it is already down. The job losses that could follow will ripple through the entire supply chain.
With a clear, sustainable strategy of test, track and trace, such measures can be limited to dealing with an initial spike or specific hotspot areas, and not as a long-term solution. For test, track and trace to be effective, though, we need to get testing to a sufficiently significant scale, in terms of both the number of tests available and the number of test centres that exist to deliver them. That is how we can ensure that capacity is always hit. I encourage all Members to read South Korea’s playbook on how it flattened the curve there and developed a test, track and trace system. There, testing is done not only en masse, but also in small K-Walk-Thru booths, rapidly increasing how many people can get tested because it can be done closer to home. That is a model that could also be deployed in airports.
For track and trace, the development and deployment of the NHS app will be critical, and it can easily be mandated at entry ports to the country, to help to ensure that our approach is sustainable in the long term. I know that the Government are looking at both options for the tracing app, with the one currently being trialled reliant on a central database instead of taking a decentralised approach. There are benefits and drawbacks to both, but whichever method is chosen, it is vital that it is chosen quickly, because any delay in selecting a model and getting the app out there, or any change further down the line, will only delay when we can start to adapt to our own new norm.
Let me finish by paying tribute to the enormous amount of support already put in place by—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, Antony, we have to leave it there.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I should like to start by praising the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown throughout this crisis, despite having suffered from the virus himself. I believe the whole country is grateful to him for all his efforts.
We should also be really thankful for our tremendous NHS staff, care workers and other medical professionals, who are on the frontline in this fight against covid-19. Their skills, commitment and dedication are an inspiration to us all. We should also thank all the other key workers in our society for their work at this difficult and challenging time. I particularly thank those workers in my area of south-east London.
We are in unprecedented times and the Government have been proactive and responsive to the many issues that our nation faces. It is a national tragedy that so many lives have been lost to this terrible virus, particularly in care homes, which were not a priority early enough. Matters of testing and PPE provision will also need to be examined. There are many and varied questions that will need to be raised, nationally and internationally, in due course. Today is not the day for such questions, however, as I believe that at this stage, we need to be constructive, not partisan, and look forward.
The response to the crisis has brought out the best of Britain. Our people have risen to the challenge. That is particularly true in my borough of Bexley. At this stage, we need to be discussing the road map for the future. Therefore, I welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement on Sunday of cautious, careful and pragmatic progress to start to get the country out of lockdown. I think that the “stay alert” slogan is good and that the promised road map being dependent, of course, on people’s actions is the right approach now.
Many people are concerned about the impact of the virus on the economy and the future. Many businesses in my constituency are worried about the future and there are real economic concerns. That is why the measures from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer have been warmly welcomed. The huge and unprecedented programme of support for workers, businesses, jobs, the economy and the self-employed has been good news in a time of sadness and bad news. A too-early relaxation of Government measures could cause further damage and an even longer period of social distancing, but we must get the economy going again by opening up shops and businesses, getting people spending and working, and getting to some sort of new normality.
From communications that I have had with businesses across my area of Bexley, I know that the Government support is much appreciated, particularly the furloughing of staff and the coronavirus grant funding, which have been vital in keeping businesses afloat even if they are not operational at this time. In fact, a survey of local small and medium-sized enterprises and other businesses by McBrides Chartered Accountants in Sidcup revealed that without the current Government measures to support them, a quarter of businesses would not have survived the lockdown, and more than two thirds would have been forced to lay off staff. That shows how important the Government’s actions have been in protecting businesses and livelihoods.
Of course, those measures cannot continue forever, and we look forward to the Chancellor’s new proposals shortly. I hope that he will taper the furlough scheme rather than remove it completely, because it has been such a lifeline. He has been brilliant in his approach and understanding, and in the policies that he has put forward to help the economic future of the country and the current business problems.
We must look to the future and start up our economy, but it is vital that we do it in a measured manner, to give businesses, employees and consumers confidence that they are in a safe environment. In conclusion, there will be many lessons to be learned, and we can highlight areas such as care homes, testing and PPE where things could and should have been done better—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, but we have to leave it there and move on under pressure of time. I call Margaret Ferrier.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. During the pandemic, many have turned to their MP for help, and so far nearly 800 cases have been brought to me by constituents. That has proven to be a challenge at times —especially while I have been struggling with covid symptoms myself—but it has been rewarding to assist so many people. I thank all who have joined me in working around the clock to provide responses. I must also thank key workers at this immensely challenging time and pay tribute to all who have volunteered to help their communities.
I welcome the generous package that the Government have introduced to support individuals and businesses. A great number of my constituents have expressed their thanks for these schemes, and I would like to add my own thanks for the hard work that has been undertaken by Ministers, officials and industry representatives to construct these programmes.
In such difficult times as these, a united approach across our country is vital, and regrettably, much of my time over the last several weeks has been spent dealing with confusion and anxiety where that has not been the case. It started with national guidance to seek coronavirus advice via the 111 service, when no such service existed in north Wales. Soon afterwards, the Welsh Government were in such a rush to announce the closure of schools in advance of the UK Government that they did so without the initial mention of provision for vulnerable children and those of key workers. Following this, the very successful GoodSAM scheme, which recruited volunteers, was not embraced by the Welsh Government, with far fewer volunteers being registered in Wales as a result. While the UK Government ploughed on with their plans for the Nightingale hospitals, precious little appeared to be under way in north Wales. Following work with the health board, three temporary Rainbow hospitals are now available, and mercifully they have not been required as yet.
Perhaps one of the greatest issues in my mailbag has been the difficulty of obtaining supermarket delivery slots, because the Welsh Government were initially unable to provide supermarkets with electronic lists of shielded patients. To compound matters, the online form for registering as a vulnerable person would not accept applications from Wales. Shielding letters were greatly delayed in comparison with the situation in England. It then emerged that the 80,000 shielding letters sent out by the Welsh Government included 13,000 that were sent to the wrong addresses. Only a week ago, a shocking further 21,000 recipients were identified. A survey by Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation found that while 10% of its respondents from Wales had received a shielding letter, this rose to an average of 17% in the rest of the UK. I still have many constituents yet to receive a shielding letter, such as Eleri Humphreys from Rhuddlan. It is my belief that the dispatch process of shielding letters highlights critical failures in the IT systems in use in NHS Wales, which contribute towards poor performance of the system on a daily basis.
As covid testing has been ramped up in England, the Welsh Government failed to match that, with access to testing still unavailable to many groups. It is now belatedly available to some care homes. The online booking portal available in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland does not function in Wales, and until just days ago, all tests carried out in north Wales were being sent on a several-hour trip to Cardiff for processing, when sending them to the Alderley Park “mega-lab” would have reduced lab transfer times to as little as an hour. Most recently, it was revealed that poor communication between the health board in north Wales and Public Health Wales had resulted in a failure to report all of its 84 coronavirus-related deaths over the—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We appear to have lost James, but thank you very much for your contribution. Let us move now to our final speaker, Dan Jarvis.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
In South Yorkshire, where I am also the Mayor, the coronavirus has infected more than 4,500 people and, tragically, killed 576 people. My thoughts are with all of those who have suffered and lost, and those who are doing so much to keep our people safe and our society functioning. I will always seek to work constructively with the Government, but we do have a duty to test their policies and to hold them to account. One of their most crucial tasks is to keep the confidence of the British people, and without clarity, we will fail. So I have four immediate concerns.
The first is that “Stay alert” is vague compared with “Stay at home”. I am glad that the Prime Minister provided more detail today, but many people will still be confused, and confusion risks contagion. Secondly, we cannot ask people to go back to work if they cannot get there safely. Social distancing means much lower capacity on our public transport systems, and a switch to cars would mean instant gridlock. That means that getting people to walk and cycle is central to easing the lockdown. To be fair, the Government seem to understand that, but we urgently need to translate that into action together.
Thirdly, we cannot force people back to an unsafe workplace. The Government must monitor and support businesses to implement rigorous protective measures, in close collaboration with employees and unions. Until that is done, those workers should remain furloughed. Fourthly, the Government must be careful not to create suspicion, justified or not, that they are motivated by any concern other than fighting the disease. Things such as testing targets that are met just on the one day needed to avoid negative headlines inevitably undermine that vital public trust; this is no time for politics as usual. So the Government must be utterly transparent about the data, the advice they are getting and the compromises they are choosing. There must be a clear line between the science and the political decisions based on it. That applies right across the UK, and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority has led in supporting and informing local communities and businesses, in getting them the help they need and in championing their concerns at Westminster. We have kept our businesses and our light rail system running. We have lined up our local industries to supply PPE to the NHS, and we are developing a recovery plan that truly reflects local needs, but the Government must bring us in to the heart of their response, and fund and empower us accordingly.
Finally, that response must also serve a wider purpose, We clearly need massive—[Inaudible.] This is the moment for a green new deal, for fixing our crumbling infrastructure and for addressing the unacceptable inequality between our regions and nations. History will not forgive us if, as after 2008, we make such sacrifices only to see inequality grow and the planet burn ever warmer. For all our sakes, the legacy we aim for now must not be a return to the status quo; it must be a national renewal.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Apologies to those who were not called today; they will be on tomorrow’s list, and they will be called.
Finance Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsMonday 27th April 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2020 View all Finance Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
We are living in unprecedented times. Since the Prime Minister announced the police-enforced lockdown on 23 March, the country has experienced the biggest challenge it has had to face in a long time. During the weeks since the lockdown, I have received a high volume of correspondence from non-essential businesses forced to close and from constituents experiencing financial hardship and uncertainty during this crisis.
The Riverside constituency covers Liverpool city centre, with a large number of leisure and hospitality businesses, hotels, micro-businesses, universities, private dentists’ practices, and freelancers and the self-employed engaged in a variety of enterprises. It is vital that the coronavirus economic schemes are effective so that we can protect people’s incomes, jobs and businesses, and prevent a deeper and longer-lasting recession.
The current guidance states:
“The government will provide additional Small Business Grant Scheme funding for local authorities to support small businesses that already pay little or no business rates because of small business rate relief… This will provide a one-off grant of £10,000 to eligible businesses to help meet their ongoing business costs.”
By tying eligibility for these grants to the business rate relief schemes, there are unintended consequences that will result in legitimate businesses, which are contributing to the economy through the tax system, not being supported through the scheme as was originally envisaged by the Chancellor.
In Liverpool, Riverside there are thousands of community businesses and charities providing essential frontline public health and wellbeing services to our most vulnerable residents that are not eligible for the grant and face closure. It would appear that the criteria being applied by some local authorities are resulting in a large number of small businesses not having their applications approved, and this is specifically the case in a number of circumstances.
Businesses that occupy separate designated office space under their tenancy licence agreement pay a contribution to the shared business rates in managed workspaces where one rateable value is applied to the whole building. This is often advised as the most appropriate method for business rates collection by the business rates officer. Social enterprises can have many structures, and one such is charitable status. It has been suggested that as these small businesses receive mandatory relief for charities, not small business rate relief, they will not be eligible for this grant.
CBILS has been operational since 23 March, but as of Thursday 16 April, only 6,020 loans, worth £1.1 billion, have been made as part of the scheme, with the survey data indicating that just 1% of firms have been able to access it. The Government will provide lenders with a guarantee of 80% on each loan to give lenders further confidence in continuing to provide finance to SMEs. However, the commercial banks are not acting in a consistent way, nor are they operating in the spirit of the guarantee. Banks are pushing their own products and seeking collateral security from the business owners rather than the business interruption product. Not all banks are offering the scheme, and other banks offer it only to their current customers. There is significant variation in the interest rates being charged to small businesses, and the terms and conditions and rates being offered, despite interest rates being so low, can only be described as extortionate.
The Government must act to increase the uptake of CIBLs, including offering a 100% guarantee, as other countries have. Providing 16,000 loans in four weeks in a country with nearly 6 million SMEs is not good enough. The Government must recognise that the scheme is not working adequately and change it urgently. The future of many of our small firms depends on their decisions.
The Government should also act urgently to protect the incomes of those who are falling outside existing schemes and on to universal credit. There are 9,000 self-employed people in Liverpool, Riverside, many of whom are creative freelancers working in our film, theatre and music industries who have seen their income dry up overnight. The self-employment income support scheme is intended to support self-employed individuals who have lost income due to the pandemic. The scheme allows self-employed people to claim a taxable grant worth 80% of trading profit, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month, for the next three months.
But there are anomalies. Newly established businesses that have submitted their first tax return for part of a year will have the self-employment income scheme 80% profit assessed for a whole year on this amount. While waiting for assessment and the release of the self-employed income support grant in June or July, self-employed people with no income are advised to apply for universal credit. This application results in immediate cancellation of any other benefits to which they are currently entitled, such as working tax credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit, leaving them with no income and in some cases destitute. Self-employed people with personal business savings of more than £16,000 are not entitled to universal credit or associated benefits. They are expected to use their savings to subsidise their income. This compares with the larger businesses—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, but we have run out of time there. I call Miriam Cates.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) [V]
The Financial Secretary, who opened the debate and is my constituency neighbour, made the point that the Budget seems like a very long time ago. It does to me too, having spoken in the Budget debate. The concerns we expressed then do not seem quite so present today, with the Government having to deal with the huge threat from coronavirus. I want to make several national points and then I want to raise with the Minister a couple of issues that are specifically relevant to my constituency.
My first point is that we have heard a lot of talk about how we exit lockdown, but I think it is much more relevant to talk about a recovery plan. We are going to be living with coronavirus until we either find a vaccine or until we have a successful treatment. It is possible—I hope it is not the case, but it is possible—that we never find a vaccine, so we need to think about how we enable the economy to operate with this virus. It is going to be with us for some time. I have one question for the Minister, relating to the fifth test, on how the Government wish to start easing restrictions. When it was first set out by the First Secretary, the Government said that they wanted to avoid a second peak in cases, which would overwhelm the NHS. We all, rightly, want to avoid that. However, in the slides published today, that caveat at the end about overwhelming the NHS had disappeared. It seems to me that that is a very important omission, because, as we relax restrictions, we will inevitably see more cases. The question for us is not whether we will see more cases, but whether we will see them at a level that is able to be dealt with by our fantastic NHS. I therefore hope the Minister can answer the question about exactly what that fifth test is.
The second point I wanted to raise is about openness and how we develop that plan. I am pleased that the Prime Minister, in his very welcome statement today on his return to Downing Street, confirmed that the Government would work as openly as possible as they set out their case. He said, for example, that they would look at bringing with them industry, constituents and Opposition parties as they develop their plan. I want the Minister, as we bring industry in, to think about the businesses that will have to change their business models to reflect the fact that social distance will be with us for some time, and to think about how we might help those businesses deal with the effects of coronavirus going forward.
My third and final national point, which was raised by a number of colleagues, is how we get economic growth to go sufficiently fast to deal with the debts we are going to have. We need to go back to the measures in the Finance Bill that were in the Budget relating to driving up research and development spend, and to driving up spending on education and skills. They will be critical.
The local points I wanted to raise have been raised several times in the debate already. They relate to the use of the rates system to qualify for grants. have a number of serviced offices and business parks, such as Vantage Point at Mitcheldean and the Newent business park, where individual tenants have rates rolled up into their rent. Because they are not ratepayers, they are not eligible for any of the grants that the Government are using to assist businesses in trouble. I urge the Minister to see whether there is a way that those small businesses can be helped with the valuable grants that have been raised.
My final point is again about the use of the rates system, with the £51,000 rate cut-off, which has already been mentioned in this debate. It means that some businesses in my constituency, particularly those in the leisure and tourism sector, find they are not eligible for any of the help that the Government have delivered, because there is a hard edge at that £51,000 cut-off. As others have said, if that could be tapered, it would be incredibly valuable and welcome. With those national and local points, I pay tribute to all those who have made this virtual sitting possible. It is fantastic to have been able to participate in this debate in the House from my Forest of Dean constituency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To finish at 10 past nine, I call Ian Byrne.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Government. This is my first opportunity to congratulate the newly appointed shadow Treasury team and to welcome the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) to the Dispatch Box. I also welcome the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—I spent a lot of time with her in Committee debating Brexit matters before Christmas—to her role and welcome the constructive tone that she took in opening this debate.
In last month’s Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor initiated a coherent, co-ordinated and comprehensive economic response to the challenges of covid-19. As the shocking impact of the virus around the globe has become more apparent, the Chancellor has announced further unprecedented packages of support, doing so most recently this afternoon, with the new bounce-back loan scheme and refinements to make the CBIL scheme more accessible—points that I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will welcome, given what they said in their speeches. Such measures may not be to the taste of true free marketeers such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), or even my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), but when they and my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) and for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) welcome them, we know that such measures must be necessary.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) was among those who argued that we should invest in public services to protect frontline services—and we are. The Government have allocated more than £14 billion from the covid response fund to go towards public services, including the NHS and local authorities.
I recognise that some sectors of our economy are experiencing enormous disruption. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) highlighted the challenges faced by the aviation sector, which is of course eligible for the coronavirus jobs retention scheme, under which the Government will pay up to 80% of staff wages up to £2,500 a month. We have offered support to households, too, by increasing the universal credit allowance by £1,000; providing meals or vouchers for eligible home-schooled children in place of free school meals; and making nearly £1 billion extra available for local housing allowance.
I acknowledge that the task is by no means complete. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) eloquently argued, our wellbeing and our economy are not in competition. The Government will do whatever it takes to safeguard people’s health and livelihoods as the situation develops. We will continue to back NHS workers and those who support them on the frontline—for example, by exempting from vehicle excise duty medical courier vehicles that transport medical products and by reforming the tapered allowance so that doctors can spend more time treating patients without facing a higher tax burden.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire reminded us with his reference to the 93-year wait for a bypass in his constituency, the Bill also delivers on commitments made to the British people at the general election in December. It is vital that these measures are not delayed. The Bill furthers the Government’s ambition to unleash the potential of our economy by increasing the credit rate for research and development expenditure credit and for the structures and buildings allowance—measures welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
The digital services tax will improve the fairness and sustainability of our tax system by ensuring that digital businesses that access the UK market make a fair contribution to the Exchequer. It is anticipated to collect £2 billion in revenue. I welcome the support expressed from all parts of the House for the concept of a digital services tax, and thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), for his remarks on the subject. I acknowledge the work that he did on the matter while in government. I also note his reference to the need for better data on the loans scheme; the Government will address that and his letter will be responded to shortly.
The Bill reduces the tax burden on some of the most vulnerable and deserving members of our society, including the Windrush generation and victims of the troubles, for whom compensation will no longer be subject to income, inheritance or capital gains taxes. Kindertransport payments made by the German Government will no longer be subject to inheritance tax either.
This Bill helps in the Government’s efforts to move towards a greener and more sustainable economy, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), and confirms that the CO2 emissions figures for vehicle excise duty will be based on the worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedure for all new registered cars from 1 April 2020. In addition, zero-emission cars will no longer be subjected to the VED expensive car supplement. These measures will help to ensure that, as our economy develops and grows, it does not jeopardise our environment. I know that many of these measures will attract widespread support across the House. I thank Opposition Members for the constructive and collegiate approach that they have taken over the past few weeks. In that spirit, let me address some of the valuable points raised further in today’s debate.
The shadow Chancellor raised a number of important issues, including tax avoidance, which was also raised by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). This is a priority for the Government, and in last month’s Budget the Chancellor announced further measures, including legislation to strengthen HMRC’s existing anti-avoidance powers. The Government also plan to issue a call for evidence on the next steps to reduce or end the use of disguised remuneration schemes.
The shadow Chancellor also touched on the subject of entrepreneurs’ relief, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). Most of the cost of this relief previously came from those making gains over £1 million. With such extreme gains now ineligible for this relief, we can ensure that the support is targeted where it was intended: at small businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) raised the prospect of a unified income tax and national insurance regime. The Government are indeed committed to a tax system that is simple and easy to use, which is why we created the Office of Tax Simplification in 2010 and put it on a permanent statutory basis in 2016. We have implemented more than half of the 400 recommendations that the OTS has made to date.
Tonight, this House once again has the opportunity to come together in the national interest. This Bill gives us the tools we need to mitigate the worst effects of the virus today, but it also lays the foundations that will allow our economy to return to strength in the months and years ahead. This is a Bill that will ensure that we truly have a 21st-century tax system: one that is not only competitive but fair and sustainable—a Bill that will help to deliver our commitment to zero carbon emissions by 2050, positioning the United Kingdom at the forefront of clean and sustainable future growth; a Bill that will help Britain to bounce back, levelling up investment and opportunity and putting in place the pro-enterprise policies that will ensure that this country remains one of the best places in the world to start and grow a business, a point made very eloquently in an informed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne).
Through the action that the Government have taken, and with the support of the whole House, we will defeat this virus. We have heard speeches from the Shetlands to Central Devon, and from many constituencies in between. Everyone is committed to ensuring that the Government do everything they can to relieve the distress that our nation is now enduring. We will shepherd our country safely through this period of uncertainty and disruption. The United Kingdom will emerge from this crisis stronger, more resilient and more united than before. For all these reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I, too, would like to associate myself with the comments of the shadow Minister in thanking all those who have made today’s proceedings work so smoothly. Thank you very much.
Loan Charge 2019: Sir Amyas Morse Review
Nigel Evans Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have delayed my point of order, but it is pertinent particularly to this business. May I ask why the Financial Secretary’s excellent biography of Adam Smith has not been laid on the Table as one of the papers pertinent to this debate?
You will appreciate that Adam Smith was absolutely categoric in his view of taxation—that it should be fair, proportionate, not retrospective and not arbitrary, which is clearly the subject matter of this afternoon’s debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker
It is as if the right hon. Gentleman read my mind. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Thirteen other hon. Members—in fact, more than that—want to get in, so I plead for short contributions of the length that we have just heard from Christian Matheson, otherwise we will simply not do justice to the next debate. I call Julian Lewis.
Economy and Jobs
Nigel Evans Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I agree 100% with her points.
It is striking how often the words “maintain”, “continue” and, dare I say, “remain” appear in the briefing notes about the planned financial services legislation. The importance of the financial services sector to our economy is underlined, but the message is that, far from leveraging the opportunities of leaving the EU to enhance this key sector, every effort must be made to keep things exactly as they are. That is in direct contrast to the comments last week of the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, who said that close alignment on financial services would not be in the UK’s interests, as we would effectively be surrendering control of regulations to a body over which we have no power. That surely highlights the conundrum at the heart of Brexit. Do we want close alignment with the EU to smooth the path of our exports, or do we want to take control of our own destiny and set our own rules? The Queen’s Speech, alas, gives us no indication of the path that the Government plan to take.
We see that conundrum highlighted further in the trade Bill. Its commitments to transitioning trade agreements that we are currently party to as members of the EU are undermined by the Chancellor’s comments at the weekend that he wishes to see no alignment with the EU. We cannot transition trade agreements smoothly if we wish to renegotiate the terms on which they are agreed. Again, there is no clarity on what the Government have chosen—alignment without influence or frictionless trade? Are we to have cake or will we eat it? The Government announced their plans to set up a UK-based body to plead with the international community not to be unkind to UK firms. I wait eagerly to see whether this policy is more effective at protecting the interests of UK businesses than having a seat at the table of international rule-setting trade bodies.
The Liberal Democrats made changes to business rates a central part of our 2019 manifesto, because we recognise that urgent reform of this regressive tax is required to support small businesses and revive town centres. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to conducting a fundamental review of business rates, but I regret that they do not use their substantial majority in this place to commit to a more radical change. The Government state in the briefing notes that they recognise
“the role of business rates as a source of local authority income”,
as if to warn us that we can have thriving town centres or well-funded local services, but not both. It is disingenuous of the Government to pretend that they cannot resolve this conundrum through proper reform of local government finance.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to protect and enhance workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU, but regret that they have not provided more detail as to exactly how those rights would be upheld. Liberal Democrats would like to see employees on zero-hours contracts given the right to request a permanent contract after 12 months, but the Government only commit to enabling them to request a more predictable contract—a guaranteed single hour of work, perhaps.
It is disappointing that there has been no mention in the Queen’s Speech of reforming either the loan charge or the IR35 regime. The loan charge is causing intense distress to innocent taxpayers up and down the country that is unlikely to be alleviated by the recent recommendations from Sir Amyas Morse, and the IR35 legislation—a looming disaster for the self-employed in the private sector—is not mentioned either. The Chancellor has only committed to a review.
I take this opportunity to highlight the excellent neonatal unit at Kingston Hospital in my constituency, and the fantastic staff who work there. I should also like to mention the charity Born Too Soon, which does amazing work supporting families whose babies have to stay at the unit. To my deep and lasting sadness, we were once one of those families, so I feel qualified to welcome uncritically the Government’s commitment to paid neonatal leave for those parents who find themselves in that incredibly difficult position.
The Prime Minister promised us a radical and reforming Queen’s Speech, but the most striking feature of its plans for the economy and jobs is its timidity and uncertainty. There is bold talk of making the most of the opportunities presented by Brexit, but very little detail. It is almost as though the Government are not really sure what they want to do with the Brexit that they secured a mandate for. If the best they can come up with is to commit to keeping everything just the same as it was, I am forced to wonder why on earth we are leaving the European Union at all.
Several hon. Members rose—