Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

Age assessments

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 58, page 52, line 19, at end insert—

“(3A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the ethical committees of the relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies and publish a report on the consultation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with ethical committees of medical, dental and scientific professions before making regulations in their area, and publish a report on the consultation.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 168.

Government new clause 29—Interpretation of Part etc.

Government new clause 30—Persons subject to immigration control: referral or assessment by local authority etc.

Government new clause 31—Persons subject to immigration control: assessment for immigration purposes.

Government new clause 32—Use of scientific methods in age assessments.

Government new clause 33—Regulations about age assessments.

Government new clause 34—Appeals relating to age assessments.

Government new clause 35—Appeals relating to age assessments: supplementary.

Government new clause 36—New information following age assessment or appeal.

Government new clause 37—Legal aid for appeals.

[Paul Blomfield]

I understand that the Government seek to delete clause 58 and replace it with new clauses 29 to 37, which provide more detail. However, the detail does not offer any reassurance; quite the contrary.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 32 makes amendment 150 superfluous, as it talks about the scientific input into age determination?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is completely wrong and I will explain why shortly.

In existing clause 58 and the new Government clauses, the Government want to introduce new regulations and a standard of proof for age assessments, to compel local authorities to assess age, to allow the use of “scientific methods” to assess age, despite widespread concerns from professional bodies about the validity or accuracy of any such methods, and to penalise children for not consenting to these potentially harmful interventions.

Children who come to the UK on their own, from countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea, face a unique problem when asked to prove their date of birth. The registration of births and the importance placed on chronological age differs across the world, and many are genuinely unable to show official identity documents, such as passports or birth certificates, because they have never had them in the first place, they have had them taken away from them, they have lost them in the chaos of fleeing, or sometimes they have had to destroy them en route.

Disputes over age can also arise from a lack of understanding of the way in which dates are calculated in other countries and cultures, and associated confusion over what is being said by a child about his or her age. So, one might reasonably ask, why are the Government making so much of this issue?

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are incentives for adults to pass themselves off as children? If the age assessment is done incorrectly, the result could be adults being placed in schools or local authority care, putting children at risk.

[The Chair]

I call Robert Goodwill—sorry, I meant Paul Blomfield.

[Paul Blomfield]

He can have another go if he wants.

I hear what the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is saying. I remember watching a BBC programme recently—I think it was on the BBC—on the Kindertransport. The same debate was had about Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany after Kristallnacht. Some were slightly older than the age restriction of the time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this legislation would have been appropriate at that time. We could have turned them around and sent them back to the Nazis.

Paragraph 24 of the explanatory notes states:

“Since 2015, the UK has received, on average, more than 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children per year. Where age was disputed and resolved from 2016-2020, 54% were found to be adults”.

Clearly, 54% is a big number, but the data in the notes is more than a little selective.

According to Home Office statistics, for the most recent normal year unaffected by the pandemic, which was 2019, there were 4,005 unaccompanied children applications. Of those, 748 had their age disputed and 304 were found to be adults. That is just over 7% of child applicants. The problem is that that is in no way as prolific as purported by the explanatory notes. The actual number is likely to be lower, because the Home Office stats do not include decisions later overturned following advocacy or reviews by judges.

Again, the Government have a problem finding evidence to justify a proposal in the Bill. This is clearly not the first time this has happened. I see that the Home Secretary got herself into trouble with the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee today by being unable to come up with the facts to justify one of her wilder allegations about those crossing the channel. Nevertheless, the Government are ploughing ahead with their plans to use scientific methods to assess age.

I now turn specifically to new clause 32, which does not offer any of the clarity that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby suggested. Proposed new subsection (2) mentions the

“types of scientific method that may be specified”,

and that the two specified might be included. However, proposed new subsection (9) goes out of its way to state:

“This section does not prevent the use of a scientific method that is not a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment under”

the previous proposed new section,

“if the decision-maker considers it appropriate to do so”.

New clause 32 is therefore saying: “Any scientific method that we can come up with at any time in the future will be legitimate.”

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I am worried that he is saying, “Well, we’ll give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt”, which could result in large numbers of adults being placed in settings that are appropriate for children. Surely he is aware that since the 2003 case, age assessments have been Merton compliant. Any actions that the Government take to follow through on the Bill becoming law will obviously be tested in the courts in the same way as the early years situation.

[Paul Blomfield]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what my amendment 150 proposes. All it asks is that the Government should be required to take into account relevant scientific and medical evidence, consulting reports of the ethical committees of the appropriate medical and dental professions, on the Government’s planned use of scientific methods for assessing age.

What do the experts think? The British Dental Association called dental X-rays for age assessments “inaccurate and unethical”, which is a theme that relates to the rest of the Bill—it will not do what it says it will do. The Government apparently told some journalists that they do not plan to use dental X-rays anyway, but the Bill leaves that option open, so forgive us if we do not take casual briefings to journalists on the side as a way to determine the Government’s future conduct on this issue.

The Government are apparently planning to use wrist X-rays, which the British Medical Association tells us it has “serious concerns” about because

“they would involve direct harms without any medical benefit to the individual”,

as radiation exposure over a lifetime should be kept as minimal as possible. The BDA agrees:

“The process of radiography is a medical procedure that should be carried out only for medical purposes, and where the patient stands to benefit. Exposing children to radiation when there is no medical benefit is simply wrong.”

The BMA also warns that

“the evidence supporting the accuracy of the process is extremely weak”.

We are back to the same old theme: there is no real evidence to support what the Government are doing. The BMA goes on to say that the process is particularly weak where,

“as in the case of most asylum seekers, there is a shortage of appropriate age and cultural comparators.”

Yet again, Ministers are introducing ineffective proposals without any evidence, making those seeking asylum—in this case, children—part of the narrative of “Let’s assume bad faith, and let’s assume that everybody is trying to play the system.” It will not work, but it is designed to grab headlines and to make it seem as though the Government are talking tough, rather than dealing with the genuine issues on which we agree, such as stopping those who are forced out of desperation to make journeys across the channel. I urge the Minister to accept our amendment or, better still, to just withdraw the clause.

[The Chair]

The Public Gallery is becoming a little crowded. I encourage everyone sitting there to spread out as much as possible, to ensure social distancing.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned the skeletal development of people from different ethnic backgrounds. We are conscious that ethnic and environmental factors may have an impact on physical characteristics that may be analysed as part of a scientific age assessment. We will endeavour to ensure that the scientific method used will consider the characteristics of people of different ethnicities and the environmental factors within a person’s country of origin.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister may be about to pre-empt me, but I do not think he has answered the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in relation to the national age assessment board, so will he at least undertake to write to us on that issue?

[Craig Whittaker]

No, I have not finished yet. I am not quite ready to sit down, but I will answer that question. Basically, the board will predominantly consist of qualified social workers who, through being dedicated to the task of conducting age assessments and through training and the sharing of expertise, will achieve a more consistent and accurate approach to the task of age assessment. As Members have probably seen, such professionals are referred to as a “designated person” in the new clauses, and the board will have responsibility for conducting age assessments on age-disputed persons on referral from the local authority, as I said. Local authorities will retain the ability to conduct age assessments if they prefer to do so. If they believe that a person is actually the age they claim to be, they must inform the Home Office accordingly.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central asked whether binding local authorities’ hands is just a power grab from central Government. The answer to that question is no. If local authorities wish to carry out their own assessments, they will be able to do so—without question, that will be the case. On that basis, I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

[Paul Blomfield]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s observations. To be fair, he made a good fist of defending the indefensible, but he failed to answer the concerns expressed by me and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in relation to the way that subsection (9) of new clause 32 drives a coach and horses through all the reassurances that we have been given. His criticism of the amendment as being a bit broad and involving quite a lot of work fails to acknowledge how narrow it is. It would simply require the Secretary of State to take advice before making regulations, and I therefore wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Processing of visa applications from nationals of certain countries

[Paul Blomfield]

I beg to move amendment 151, in clause 59, page 52, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must publish impact assessments on the effect of the provisions in this section on—

(a) nationals from countries falling within subsection (3), and

(b) the United Kingdom’s economy and trade.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish impact assessments with regard to the effect this clause might have on both nationals from countries in subsection (3) and the UK economy and trade.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 80.

Government new clause 9—Removals from the UK: visa penalties for uncooperative countries.

Government new clause 10—Visa penalties: review and revocation.

[Paul Blomfield]

The amendment would require the Home Secretary to publish impact assessments on the effect of clause 59 both on nationals from the countries in subsection (3) and on the UK’s economy and trade.

The Government plan to replace clause 59 with Government new clauses 9 and 10. This is a slightly more developed version of the proposal to punish the nationals of countries if the Government consider their Governments to have been unco-operative on returns. The explanatory notes for clause 59 do not explain its purpose—because it was a placeholder clause, there was no detail—so I assume it is to act as an incentive for countries to co-operate with returns, but I hope that the Minister will seek to provide some evidence of that.

The explanatory notes do state that

“a very small number of countries do not cooperate”

with returns, suggesting that penalties would apply only to a limited number of states. However, a report in The Daily Telegraph on 15 October—presumably briefed by the Government, which is the way we seem to get information these days—said that

“Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Philippines”

are countries understood not to co-operate with returns. We know that the majority of those on that list have conditions that mean returns are unlikely anyway, as there are strong asylum cases from them, so we know that the deterrents will not work. So, I would like to press the Minister a little bit more on what the Government expect to achieve with these revisions.

[Mr Goodwill]

Surely what the hon. Gentleman says defies logic. If we are going to give visas to nationals of a particular country and we know there is a risk they may overstay, surely we can be more generous and more engaged with that country if we know that those overstayers can be removed. In the case of visas, we will have biometric data, so that there is no doubt about a person’s identity.

[Paul Blomfield]

I hear what the right hon. Member is saying, but the scope of this provision seems to go much wider than that. It seeks to introduce punitive measures, including on visa charges and so on, for individuals who may be applying, and I will develop that point. It is nothing to do with overstaying. This is about countries that are unco-operative on returns in other contexts.

I want to press the Minister on what the Government expect to achieve by this. For example, it is not in our interests to sanction doctors, nurses or engineers who have been recruited to the UK from one country with longer visa processing times or higher charges, and that would be deeply damaging for our diaspora communities. Again, it feels as if we have proposals picked from headlines, which are not in the country’s interests.

[Mr Goodwill]

It might help some of these countries if we did not plunder their health professionals, who have trained at the expense of that country, and actually trained our own instead.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am interested in that observation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will lead the charge to persuade the Government to allocate far more resources for the training of health professionals and to tackle the crisis they have created within our health service over the past 11 years.

Amendment 151 will try to ensure that the Government are clear-eyed about the impact of their policy and the trade-offs they are prepared to make, as well as the impact on UK public services, communities and businesses. The amendment would allow the public to examine that trade-off, too. It would ensure that the Government track the impact of their policy, and are transparent with business and trade over the impact any visa penalties might have, either through reduced travel or through deteriorating relationships with those countries.

The Government talk a lot about global Britain, but through our examination of the Bill we have seen many threats to that and a lot of ways in which they plan on sowing discord with other nations around the world, damaging our reputation in the international community. I know that the Minister will not vote for clause 59 stand part, but I would welcome his thoughts on the wider impact of the replacement clauses, along the lines of my amendment. I would appreciate it if he could tell us whether any such impact assessments are being considered.

I have an important point to make about new clauses 9 and 10, to which I hope the Minister can respond. There is significant concern that these clauses will prevent people from joining refugees in the UK through the family reunion route. Let us consider the countries cited in The Daily Telegraph again: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and the Philippines. Since the start of 2019, 8,480 people from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Eritrea have been granted refugee family reunion visas to join loved ones in the UK. That equates to just over half—53%—of all family visas granted over that period. Some 3,584 of those visas were for children and 5,771 for women or girls. The new clause, as drafted, would potentially apply to visas for refugees coming to the UK under one of the Home Office’s resettlement schemes, including the relocation scheme for Afghan nationals who have previously worked with the UK Government or applicants from Hong Kong for British national overseas visas.

So, if the Government are determined to proceed with these new clauses, at the very least new clause 9 needs to be amended to include an exemption for refugee family reunion and other protection routes. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether the Government are willing to do that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

We support amendment 151 for the self-explanatory reason that we need to know the impact of these actions. We are not saying that visa penalties should never be imposed in any circumstances, but we share many of the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central and I will focus on a couple of them.

The Government say this clause will incentivise other countries to co-operate with the UK Government to remove those who have no right to be in the country, but they have presented no evidence that this will be the case. Saying it is one thing, but if they are so confident of it they should do some work and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central asks in his amendment, publish a report examining the impact on our relations with other countries.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants says that this clause will affect, among others, workers, including key workers. Have not the Brexit restrictions on key workers coming into the country taught us anything? There are also tourists and their massive contribution to our economies; performers; students—who pay thousands of pounds to study at our universities, many of which would struggle to survive without them—and academics, among others, including the family members of British citizens. Again, we are punishing the wrong people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Whittaker]

Starting with amendment 151, I reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that the penalties are there to encourage countries to co-operate. There is international precedent for countries to have the power to impose penalties on countries that do not co-operate on the matter of returns.

Both the United States and the EU have similar powers to those we are seeking. Recently, the Council of the EU decided to suspend temporarily the application of certain provisions in the visa code to nationals of The Gambia, owing to the country’s lack of co-operation on readmission of third-country nationals illegally staying in the EU. The new powers in the Bill will bring the UK into line with our international partners and ensure that we are no longer lagging behind other countries.

I assure hon. Members that, given talk of penalties and exemption, family reunion will be an exemption to the penalties, as discussed.

Turning to amendment 151, I can assure the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that the power to impose visa penalties will be exercised only after consideration of the potential economic impact on the UK, and with full agreement across Government. Contrary to the hon. Member’s assertion that there is another Government leak, there is no current list: this will be done on a case-by-case basis, based on the impact across areas such as the economy, but also taking each Department into account. I also draw the hon. Member’s attention to new clauses 9 and 10, which—as we have already touched on—set out those visa provisions in more detail. I feel that this is a fairly straightforward part of the Bill, with no need for the hon. Member’s amendment.

Turning to new clauses 9 and 10 and Government amendment 80, a key function of the Home Office is the removal of individuals who have no legal right to be here, either by deportation or administrative removal, usually to the country of which they are nationals. We expect our international partners to work with us, as they expect us to work with them, to remove such individuals, as the UK does where our own nationals in other countries should not be in those countries. This is a critical component of a functioning migration relationship, and the vast majority of countries co-operate with us in this area. However, a small number do not.

As has been said, new clause 9 is designed to give the Government the power to impose visa penalties. Countries should no longer expect to benefit from a normal UK visa service if they are unwilling to co-operate with us on the matter of returning nationals. We will be able to slow down or suspend visa services for that country, and require applicants to pay a surcharge of £190 when they apply for a UK visa. Specifically, new clause 9 sets out when a country may be specified as unco-operative and the factors that will be taken into account when imposing visa penalties. Additionally, the new clause provides detail on the types of penalties that may be applied. It is a critical step in taking back control of our borders.

Briefly turning to new clause 10, visa penalties are intended to be a matter of last resort, and must not be in place longer than necessary. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the application of visa penalties every two months and revoke those penalties if the relevant country is no longer unco-operative. This provision is a safeguard to ensure that any visa penalties applied do not remain in place by default. Government amendment 80 is consequential on new clauses 9 and 10, providing that they will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

I commend new clauses 9 and 10 and Government amendment 80 to the Committee, and by your leave, Ms McDonagh, I request that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central withdraw his amendments.

[Paul Blomfield]

I was reassured by the commitments on family reunion, and I look forward to the Government’s bringing forward an amendment on that topic, perhaps in the House of Lords. I have taken the Minister’s other comments on board, so I will not press this amendment to a vote at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

Question put and negatived.

Clause 59 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 60 disagreed to.

Clause 61

Special Immigration Appeals Commission

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 11—Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

This group of amendments and new clauses is not new. It was proposed in similar words in the most recent immigration Bill by, I think, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but I may be wrong. No Bill passes through this Parliament on immigration and nationality law that does not include amendments and debate about immigration detention. Perhaps, after the last couple of years, Members are more than ever acutely aware that the deprivation of people’s freedoms is keenly felt and should not occur without evidence as to its necessity.

We are talking here about the deprivation of liberty not because people have committed a crime but, essentially, for the convenience of the Home Office. The new clauses contain measures to end what is indefinite detention in the UK, whatever the Home Office says to the contrary, and to implement a workable system that ensures detention is used only as a last resort to effect lawful removals from the UK. That is what the situation should be. The existing power to detain without prior judicial authority would be retained but there would be important safeguards: a 28-day time limit, judicial oversight by way of bail hearings after 96 hours with clear criteria for continued detention and re-detention only when there is a material change in status or circumstances.

Immigration detention has declined over the last several years, which is very welcome. Nevertheless, there is no release date for immigration detainees, which is incredibly severe, particularly in terms of mental ill health. Although numbers have been falling, the length of time that people are detained has not fallen. The fact of falling numbers does not reduce the need for a time limit. We are talking about several thousand individuals leaving detention every year who have been detained for longer than 28 days and hundreds who have been detained for more than six months. In a minority of cases, detention lasts for years rather than months.

Why 28 days? It is not a number that has been pulled from thin air. It is already in Home Office guidance, which requires caseworkers to consider whether removal is imminent and goes on to define imminence in the following terms:

“Removal could be said to be imminent where a travel document exists, removal directions are set there are no outstanding legal barriers and removal is likely to take place in the next four weeks.”

This is a recommendation that has been made by many organisations with expertise in the area, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, the Bar Council and the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and on migration.

[Paul Blomfield]

As vice-chair of the inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred, may I ask whether he will add the House of Commons to the list of those bodies that have endorsed this? When our recommendation was considered on a votable motion in a Backbench Business debate, it was approved by the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Whittaker]

I want to be clear from the outset that this Government’s position is that a time limit on detention simply will not work and will not be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be here in the UK leave.

[Paul Blomfield]

One of the issues highlighted by the report referred to by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which had genuine cross-party engagement, was that the UK is an outlier in having no limits on detention. Every other country in Europe has a limit. Why does the Minister think it will not work here?

[Craig Whittaker]

Our immigration system must encourage compliance with immigration rules and protect the public. Those who have no right to be in the UK should leave voluntarily, but where the opportunities to do so are not taken, we have to operate a system to enable us to enforce removal and deport foreign national offenders who would otherwise remain in the UK.

I also want to be clear that we do not and cannot detain people indefinitely. It is not lawfully possible to do so.

Brexit: Opportunities

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. I agree about the almost inevitable direction of travel, unless there is an intercession, which is what the Government wish and intend to do with my statement today and the announcement that we are going forward with. I repeat my thanks for his work and assure him of our best intentions in regard to fulfilling his wishes.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Paymaster General is right—Brexit is now a fact—but clearly, the Government see advantage in keeping the grievance going. The EU remains our most important trading partner. It is hugely significant for businesses up and down the country, so instead of turning up the Brexit rhetoric, does he not think that the Government’s priority should be to listen to the problems raised by British business? Will he commit to looking at the recommendations highlighted in relation to those problems in the UK Trade and Business Commission’s report to be published on Monday?

[Michael Ellis]

I am happy to confirm that my party is the party of business. We do listen to business, and business prospers in this country under Conservative Governments and will continue to do so. Of course, our ears are open and always will be to views from all sides. That includes and, in fact, specifically in relation to regulations, will include businesses.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

During four long years as a shadow Brexit Minister, I sat through many debates peppered with talk of global Britain, as the Government erected barriers to partnership with our most important allies and closest neighbours with complete disregard for the consequences. The Prime Minister has been at it again this week, talking about the UK’s place on the global stage while trashing our reputation abroad, reneging again on international commitments to which he signed up.

It is a time for mature diplomacy—for rebuilding trust to sort out the problems with the Brexit deal as they become increasingly evident. Instead, the Prime Minister has put his former negotiator, apparently no longer trusted as National Security Adviser, back in charge. The now Lord Frost will bring to this vital role all the finesse of doing “origami…with a blowtorch”, as the former Conservative party chairman, Lord Patten, said so eloquently.

The Prime Minister may think that fuelling grievances will win good headlines in the Daily Mail, but it will not help those facing the consequences of his ideologically driven negotiations. Far from the frictionless trade promised, businesses are threatened by extra costs and bureaucracy, and many are taking the advice of the Government’s own officials in moving activities and jobs from the UK to the EU to avoid the barriers that the Government have erected, following many from the services sector, which was completely overlooked in the deal.

It is not just trade that is a problem; taking back control of our borders without the tools to use it is another feature of the deal. Our police and security services have access to less of the information they need to stop dangerous criminals and terrorists entering the country. It does not stop there: performers no longer have the ability to work freely across the continent we share, because the Government refused visa proposals offered by the EU. We have already seen the Government, no longer bound by the EU directives that we helped to write, threaten workers’ rights, if put off by a big backlash.

What about the promises to protect environmental standards? Well, tell that to the bees now threatened by neonicotinoids, which were banned under our EU membership. And in an act of senseless educational vandalism, our young people can no longer participate in the Erasmus scheme. Instead, the new Turing proposals provide a clearly diminished offer, with less funding, a more complex application process, stretched universities left to persuade international counterparts to waive fees without the reciprocity of an exchange, and just four weeks to sort it out. It is perhaps no surprise that the Government have given no guarantee of funding for Turing in future years.

It did not have to be like this. It is the result of choices deliberately made by this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

What a fantastically niche question from my hon. Friend, and how delighted I am to be able to answer it. He will know that scoring is a matter for the OBR. As the Budget policy costings in the Budget 2021 document set out, the costing for corporation tax has been adjusted to reflect behavioural responses to an increase in the rate of corporation tax. It is important to be clear that dynamic scoring can include a number of potential behavioural responses, such as adjustments to reflect the impact on the incentive to incorporate, on profit shifting, and on investment. If he is so minded, he can find further detail on page 196 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

As some students return to campus this week, those studying in Northern Ireland will each receive £500 support. The Welsh Government have provided hardship funding equivalent to £300 per student. In Scotland, it is £80. For those studying in England, hardship funds equate to just £36, so does the Chancellor not accept the case for equal support across the UK? Students have lost vital income from part-time jobs, paid rent on unused accommodation and faced other costs, so will he meet the all-party parliamentary group for students to discuss our recommendations for hardship support and funding to make up for missed learning opportunities?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss that matter in more detail. As he will recognise, one of the features of the Budget was the number of UK-wide measures, but at the same time he is quite right to point to the additional £2.4 billion of Barnett consequential funding that was allocated to the devolved Administrations, which has enabled them to apply further support as a result of the fiscal strength that is offered by the UK Treasury. I am of course happy to discuss the specific point with him in more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

To clarify for the right hon. Gentleman, the equivalence granting process is an autonomous, separate process from the MOU discussion. The MOU is about a framework to evaluate the future direction of financial services across the EU and UK. I remain very ambitious for the financial services sector. The Chancellor and I are continuing to have a dialogue—with roundtables with representatives of the sector this week and next week, as well as one-to-one meetings—to ensure that we listen to the sector, and respond appropriately and ambitiously for the future.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

What assessment the Government have made of the potential economic effect of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement on each region of the UK.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

We have secured an unprecedented free trade agreement with the European Union—the first free trade agreement that the EU has ever reached based on zero tariffs and zero quotas. Across sectors and regions, it is a good deal that will protect jobs and investment.

[Paul Blomfield [V]]

The assessment conducted by the Treasury in 2018 concluded that there would be significant regional variation in the impact of any Brexit deal. We are certainly seeing that, with fishing fleets grounded, manufacturers hit with extra costs, and the Department for International Trade apparently advising businesses to move parts of their operation to the EU to avoid problems. It is clear that there will be a significant regional impact. Does the Chancellor agree that he needs to redress that regional damage from the Brexit deal? Alternatively, does he agree with the new Business Secretary’s comments in “Britannia Unchained” that regional division is an “irrelevant” debate?

[Rishi Sunak]

No one can doubt the Government’s commitment to uniting and levelling up across our United Kingdom, with an unprecedented infrastructure investment programme. Notably in the spending review, we announced something called the levelling-up fund, which will fund the infrastructure of everyday life in communities up and down the country, on top of our once-in-a-generation increase in infrastructure investment in road, rail and broadband that will benefit equally all parts of our United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

What representations he has received from organisations representing people who are ineligible for covid-19 financial support schemes; and if he will make a statement.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

What representations he has received from organisations representing people who are ineligible for covid-19 financial support schemes; and if he will make a statement.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

What representations he has received from organisations representing people who are ineligible for covid-19 financial support schemes; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I am not making the point that every single person can access every single scheme that the Government have put in place. That is not what I am saying; everyone will have different circumstances. What I am saying is that across the suite there is a range of support—a sum total of £280 billion-worth—designed to protect businesses, the employed, the self-employed and public services. Indeed, councils have been given large amounts of funding—billions of pounds—to help those in their communities who need it most, and they are well placed to make those decisions.

[Paul Blomfield [V]]

In the summer, one of my constituents opened a new bar in a previously thriving area, but she shut it on 23 October as we went into tier 3. She paid her workers for that week, but she could not get furlough support until 1 November because, as hers was a new business, her staff were not eligible for registration with the previous scheme. She is just one of many who the Chancellor will know have fallen through the gaps in his support schemes. Will he recognise the problem, act to close the loopholes and provide the support that is needed, particularly in the hospitality sector and its supply chain?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned support for the hospitality sector and bars; he will of course know that support has been provided through initiatives such as the business rates holiday, which I am sure his constituent benefited from for this entire year up until the point she was struggling, as well as the cash grants for businesses earlier in the crisis, the VAT discount, eat out to help out and the further support provided to local authorities to support the supply chain. There is a significant amount of resource to help businesses like that of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, which I know have had an extremely difficult time.

Draft Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 General Committees

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller.

As the Minister has said, the SI sets out the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ in the context of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, about which the Opposition set out our concerns when it was debated in the Commons, and which was overwhelmingly amended last night in the other place by an extraordinarily broad coalition that included former leaders of the Minister’s party. They share our concern about the rule of law.

The Labour party clearly supports unfettered access of Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK market, so will not oppose the SI today. As the Minister said, unfettered access was a commitment made in the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ agreement to restore devolved government to Northern Ireland, and Labour strongly welcomed that. However, the Opposition have concerns about the SI, which I believe the Minister anticipated in her opening remarks, and we would welcome some further assurances on them.

Our first concern relates to the breadth of the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’—something to which the Minister herself referred. The Government appear to acknowledge that it is problematic. It will need further clarification in further legislation because that definition is not sufficiently tightly drawn to provide protections. The SI is provided for by the Henry VIII powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives the Government extraordinarily wide powers to

‘make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)’.

We opposed that when that Act was debated two years, but in terms of the specifics of the SI, the wide drafting of the definition of qualifying goods is the problem, because it includes anything that is in circulation within Northern Ireland without being subject to customs control while there. However, it also includes goods processed in Northern Ireland from GB-derived goods, which are themselves subject to customs control in Northern Ireland. For example, that includes whisky imported from Scotland to Northern Ireland which might be in duty suspension in Northern Ireland, but then used to make mince pies in Belfast. That would leave those mince pies as ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’, despite the whisky used to make them being subject to customs control. Therefore, as I think the Minister acknowledged, the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ is not sustainable in the longer term.

Separately, the National Crime Agency has warned that Northern Ireland could become a back door into the UK internal market, with the risk of counterfeit goods or, less likely, lower standard goods flowing into the UK. I am sure that the Minister is aware that UK farming unions have expressed concern that livestock and dairy could be disproportionately impacted by the measure. The potential problems were also raised by the Police Service of Northern Ireland in its evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, when it said that the definition offered in the SI is simply not good enough.

The Opposition recognise that the Government see the SI as phase one and, as the Minister said, it is suggested that they will come up with a more refined definition in due course. Can the Minister tell us when that might be? When will we have the clarity that we all need? Can she also update us on the anti-avoidance regime, which is still to be designed and approved by the end of the year, according to the Government’s intention, to address the risk of Northern Ireland acting as a back door to Great Britain.

The Opposition are also concerned about how the SI will contribute to the weakening of the devolved Administrations’ powers. It must be read alongside the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, clause 43 of which stops the devolved Governments imposing new kinds of checks or controls on qualifying Northern Ireland goods, and clause 11 applies the market principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. That means that the Welsh Government could not prevent something from being sold in Wales, or the UK Government could not stop something being sold in England, if it is a qualifying Northern Ireland good. If something is lawfully produced in, or imported into, Northern Ireland, it would have to be allowed to be sold in Wales, or indeed in Scotland or England. I appreciate that that was a principle within the EU internal market, and the Minister will probably cite that, but the issue here is the imbalance. In England, the Government have the power to amend the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to prevent that consequence from arising, either by modifying the exceptions in the Bill through an SI, or by getting Parliament to legislate. Those options are not available to Wales or Scotland, and therefore an asymmetry undermines the devolved powers. Can the Minister acknowledge that is the case, and whether the Government are content with that, given that it significantly undermines local voices as expressed through the devolved Administrations?

We are also concerned about the impact on standards across the UK. Given that Northern Ireland is essentially within the EU single market for goods, any good allowed to be sold within the EU, as complying with the EU single market, must be allowed to be sold in Northern Ireland. If, for example, Wales decided to exceed the EU environmental standards applicable to vehicle emissions, the combination of the regulations in the SI and the terms of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would mean that Wales could not succeed, because a lower-standard vehicle would be on sale lawfully in Northern Ireland and would be a qualifying Northern Ireland good, and the mutual recognition principle in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would have effect. Improving standards is an ambition that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster often espouses—despite the fact that he is refusing to sign up to any kind of safety net in the current negotiations with the EU—and I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman probably would not want such consequences to arise, but the combination of the protocol, the SI and the internal market Bill make it very hard to see how Great Britain’s standards could ever exceed EU standards in matters such as environmental protection. Is that also the Minister’s understanding? If so, can she explain how the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will achieve his ambition?

Given that processed goods coming from Northern Ireland may have components originating outside of the country, does the approach outlined in the SI for qualifying goods have wider implications for the UK’s approach to rules of origin with the rest of the world?

I appreciate that the Minister said that further work was ongoing, but the Government have had more than a year since agreeing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Frankly, it is disappointing that the issues I have highlighted have not been resolved by now, so I would be grateful if the Minister could answer my questions.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just reflecting on “something else”.

I am pleased to be able to respond to the debate and remind the House that when we debated the withdrawal agreement Bill in January, the Opposition warned of the foolishness of the Government tying their hands by committing the date for the end of transition to law. We argued that unforeseen events might result in the Government needing some flexibility, although clearly no one expected a crisis on the scale that we face with covid-19. However, our amendment was rejected and the departure date was locked in law. Clearly, the Government could have changed that before 1 July, but they did not and they must live with the consequences.

We are now past the date when an extension could have been agreed. The Government did not seek one and nor did the EU propose one. That ship has sailed and, frankly, it is the wrong focus for a debate on the negotiations that we need today. The issue is not the time available to the Government, but their approach to the talks. If, instead of the motion, the SNP had tabled something seeking to protect Scottish whisky or Welsh lamb, or to avoid non-tariff barriers in manufacturing, we could have worked together on it, because the country needs the best possible agreement—now more than ever—and we hope the Government will secure that, but it is now five months since we left the European Union. We have had four rounds of formal negotiations. We have had a high-level summit between the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament. We are into our third week of intensified talks. But judging by the Government’s own statements, we have seen very little progress.

It was not supposed to be like this. Remember the election campaign? Time and again, the nation was told by the Prime Minister that he had an “oven-ready deal”. That is what the people voted for: a deal negotiated by the Prime Minister himself and signed off last October —the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The withdrawal agreement delivered our departure from the European Union and the political declaration set out the principles for our future relationship. The two went together: a single package. As the Prime Minister said:

“The ambition for our future friendship is contained in the revised political declaration”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 572.]

That was the deal promised to the British people. I quote from it:

“an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership”

with

“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”.

It was a deal that would safeguard

“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”

and keep people safe with a

“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership”.

There was a promise that the Good Friday agreement would be protected through the proper implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

Those are the promises against which the Government’s deal will be measured, but it is not going well. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster chilled British business when he warned that the UK may accept tariffs on some goods if that is the price we have to pay to avoid the level playing field provisions. And let us not forget what exactly the level playing field is about: food standards, workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer protection.

The Government’s proposals in this area have been described as “a giant step away” from the political declaration. The UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, has said there is “fundamental disagreement” in most of the important areas. He went on to say:

“there is a big gap”.

The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), warned her successor that he will not be able to keep our people safe without access to the quantity and quality of data that is currently available through Prüm, passenger name records, the European Criminal Records Information System and SIS II, but her successor will not commit to that. Just yesterday, the Met police Brexit lead said that UK police forces’ ability to detain criminal suspects from the EU will become slower and less effective if the Government fail to secure a Brexit security deal. At the same time, Northern Ireland businesses are saying:

“we are really in a quandary as to what way to turn…We need a bit of clarity because we haven’t a clue where we’re heading—It’s like walking out into the fog.”

The Government have not even managed to negotiate the continuation of the pet passport.

The weeks ahead are crucial. The Government need to double their efforts to deliver the deal that they promised to the British people. They need to listen to business, whose voice, the CBI, said recently:

“A good deal with the EU will be just one strand of a national recovery plan as the UK responds to the coronavirus pandemic, but it will be one of the most important for the future of our economy, jobs and livelihoods.”

They need to listen to those reeling from the Government’s announcement on the border arrangements, which left the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association saying that he was

“completely at a loss to understand how this framework can be achieved by 1 January 2021.”

They should listen to the TUC, which has called on the Government to

“prioritise negotiating a deal with the EU that guarantees good jobs, rights and other protections rather than a deal with the US that stands to undermine these standards.”

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

We have already heard how important this decision is, so will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on where the Labour party is? Why are the Labour Benches empty? Where are his Back Benchers? Why are they silent on this important issue?

[Paul Blomfield]

I have elaborated our position clearly: we expect the Government to deliver on the deal that they promised the British people. I understand the anxiety among those on the Conservative Benches when they see how the talks are going and see that they—those who were elected on that pledge—may not be able to turn to their constituents and say that they have done that job.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

That really is not good enough from the hon. Gentleman. Not one Labour Back Bencher is down to speak in this important debate. They may not care about these issues, but our constituents do. As part of the official Opposition, surely he should be doing better than this?

[Paul Blomfield]

There is great concern and great appetite to have a serious discussion about the negotiations on the future relationship with the European Union. We have brought the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the House twice through urgent questions when he had refused to report to Parliament. Some of my colleagues may have anticipated that this debate would not be the one we needed to have, but instead would be framed by the leader of the SNP at Westminster as being about independence, as he did in his final words. We want a serious discussion about the negotiations.

The Government should also listen to voices in every part of our country, and they need to engage effectively with the devolved Administrations—

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman may want to hear my point.

[Stephen Flynn]

No, I am quite happy to intervene.

[Paul Blomfield]

Go on then.

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that the intransigence of his party on this issue is perhaps why it received 42% of the vote in Scotland in 2010, but just 18% in the general election of 2019?

[Paul Blomfield]

The nature of these interventions indicates why it does not seem that the SNP is serious about having a debate about the actual negotiations on which the future of our country is going to be so dependent. It is all about point scoring, not protecting jobs and protecting the economy.

The Government should listen more effectively to those voices of the devolved Administrations and recognise that the Joint Ministerial Committee is not working. It needs to be put on a formal footing, with its decisions properly recorded and respected. The agreement reached with the European Union will affect the nations and regions of the UK differently, and the devolved Administrations will be on the frontline of delivering it. They must be properly consulted and proper regard must be given to their views. It is not a question of vetoes, but of respect for the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the Government negotiate with and repatriate powers from the European Union. We need—I make this point both to the Government and to the leader of the SNP at Westminster —a spirit of constructive partnership between the four Governments of the United Kingdom, rather than division.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. To expand on that last point, the concern for the devolved Administrations must be not simply with the UK-EU deal, but with how they are involved in all free trade agreements and in organisations such as the Trade Remedies Authority, with how those deals are put together, and with how the Administrations are engaged and consulted? My real fear is that that will not happen.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is right to have that fear because the experience over the past months demonstrates that there is not the real consultation that there needs to be. The Government are playing with the future of our country if they do not respect, engage effectively and have regard to the views of all the devolved Administrations.

There are just five months left until we leave the transitional period—months in which we are already facing the biggest hit on jobs and livelihoods in our lifetime as a result of covid-19. The people of this country expect the Government to do everything possible to mitigate that damage, not to add to it. The Government will not be forgiven if we reach the end of the transition without a deal, or with a deal that falls short of the ambition that they signed up to in the political declaration. That was their promise to the British people, and it is that on which they will be judged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman as he took half an hour, sorry.

This is where we are in Scotland, and I thank Conservative Members from the bottom of my heart for helping me in my ambition and quest to deliver independence for Scotland.

It is so unnecessary. There are a couple of ways that we could do these things. We could have a separation of the ways peacefully and amicably, respecting each other, or Conservative Members could do the thing of shouting us down, disparaging us and trying to take the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I suggest this to the hon. Gentleman and hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches: why don’t we do it the friendly way? I will tell them something. They won their Brexit; have it. Please have it. If that is what England wants, please have it. I will be the first person to applaud them, cheer them and wish them all the best. We do not want it. We don’t want it—that is the simple thing. Why can we not both have what we both want? Why can’t they have their Brexit, have their splendid isolation and have their fantastic trade deals that they have in the bag? What we will do is reflect on what the Scottish people want, which is to be an independent nation within the European Union.

I am here to sum up today’s proceedings, so let us see if I can make a little bit of a job just about that. There have been some fantastic contributions. Looking around, even the Tories, with their disparaging remarks about Scotland, have been pretty interesting. [Interruption.] They have been great. They have been fantastic for us and we are so looking forward to putting a compendium together.

The opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was a trademark tour de force accurately summarising the situation in and condition of Scotland: talking about the power grab, the threat to the Scottish Parliament in terms of the devolution settlement, talking about where the Scottish people are in relation to Brexit, and saying why it is necessary to have an extension to Brexit. That is what he laid down so very effectively in his speech today.

We then had some fantastic speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Stirling (Alyn Smith), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). From Glasgow to Aberdeenshire to Lothian, there were fantastic speeches from my hon. Friends. “They do not speak for Scotland.” I do not know which one of the disparaging remarks that was from. But my hon. Friends speak on behalf of nearly every single community in Scotland. We have 80% of the Members representing Scotland in this House. From Ayrshire to Argyll to Aberdeenshire to everywhere, we have SNP Members who will put the views of their constituents. On no issue do they speak on behalf of those people more than on Brexit. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit. Every single constituency in Scotland voted to remain in the EU. What my hon. Friends did here today was to stand up for their community, represent their views, and make sure that they were properly represented and that their voice was heard. They did a fantastic job of that today.

Then, of course, there were the Conservative speeches. I am not going to say any more about them, because that was just great. But there is something I have observed—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Okay. They are saying, “More.” How about this, then? I have been in this House for 20 years and I have never observed a Conservative party quite like it: the new model Conservatives, the red wall Tories, the Commons commandos—how about that one? That is the way to describe them, or Boris’s Brexit bombardiers! How about that one? I cannot tell them apart. They are all the same. They are nearly all male and they are all standing there. They all beat the Labour party and they are all really thrilled about that. Well done. Gosh, we tanked the Labour party 10 years ago! It is not a big deal or a big feat.

The poor hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), sitting there having to take all this. I actually feel sorry for him. The Labour party could not even be bothered to turn up. It was just appalling. For goodness’ sake, they must have something to say about Brexit. Even if they turned up and just asked to open the window or something, at least they would have been on the record, but they could not be bothered to even do that. Does he want to say something? I’ll give way to him.

[Paul Blomfield]

indicated dissent.

[Pete Wishart]

He doesn’t. I do really feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. There is the one Scottish Labour Member, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who always has lots to say about the Union. He is not even here today—I would have thought that he might at least have turned up.

Budget Resolutions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Of the many learning points from the current coronavirus crisis, one stands out, which is that, in a crisis, people turn to the Government. Over the past 10 years, the capacity of the state to respond to crises has been deeply weakened by the funding decisions made for our public services, and it is a position that the Budget has left essentially unchanged. Capital spending is welcome, but, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, the revenue position is a completely different picture. Across the public sector as a whole, real-terms spending per person will remain about 8% below 2010 levels in the next financial year. We will pay the price for that, because we are facing this crisis with an NHS that is already stretched to the limit. Its resilience is corroded, and it has too little spare capacity. We had the warning signs—regular winter crises, patient stacked up in corridors—but not enough was done about them.

Beyond the NHS, the crisis in social care, which many Members have referred to, has clearly been deepening—not addressed but made worse by the disproportionate cuts faced by local government. Councils such as Sheffield have lost more than half their funding from central Government over the past 10 years.

On his accession to the job he currently holds, the Prime Minister said:

“And so I am announcing now—on the steps of Downing Street—that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all, and with a clear plan we have prepared”.

He might have even used the words “oven ready”. Eight months on, it is clear that he never had a plan and his Budget does not have a plan.

I would like to raise a different point now, because while I welcome the measures in the Budget to support small businesses through the coronavirus crisis, they do not go far enough. Steve and Sara contacted me over the weekend. They run the popular Harland Café in my constituency—one of hundreds of cafés, bars and restaurants that employ thousands of people. They were worried then about the future of their business, and that was before the Government’s decision today—not telling them to close, but telling people not to go through their doors, hanging them out to dry without clarity and without the opportunity to draw on business continuity insurance. The Health Secretary was unable to answer the questions on those issues a short while ago, or on the other help that the hospitality sector will need. I do hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, when he winds up, will be able to go further, because businesses such as Steve and Sara’s, and thousands more across the country, are on the line.

At the other end of the spectrum in terms of scale are our universities, which are key to the economy in Sheffield. We can already anticipate the impact of the coronavirus on their income. We have 15,000 international students between our two universities, worth over £210 million a year to the local economy. More than 7,000 are from China. Many of those planning to come this year will not be able to. If we lose, say, half of them, our two universities could lose £50 million in fees. Across the country, a 50% reduction in international students starting in September could produce a loss of £1.9 billion. Nobody has commented on that, so will the Economic Secretary also say what plans the Government have to support our universities?

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I want to pay tribute to a number of my colleagues in this House who have consistently raised this issue, and my hon. Friend is one of them. When we had the debate very early on—in, I think, 2012 or 2013—a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, started describing what was taking place as tax avoidance on an industrial scale. That is exactly what has happened, and it has not got better; it has got worse consistently.

At the moment, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is saying that the tax gap is about £35 billion, and it defines that as the difference between its estimate of the tax that should be paid and what is paid. But we know, and HMRC accepts this, that that does not include many of the abuses of corporate profit shifting, and HMRC acknowledges

“many sources of uncertainty and potential error”

in its own calculations. So other experts have suggested—this is the point my hon. Friend is making—that the tax gap could be as high as £90 billion overall. So let us look at who we know is not paying their taxes.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Each year I organise an annual community consultation, and each year there has been growing anger among my constituents about the sense that they are paying their fair share from very ordinary incomes while the level of corporate tax avoidance has been growing out of control as successive Conservative Governments have failed to step up to the mark in tackling it. We are apparently losing over £1 billion of tax due on UK earnings from just five of the biggest US tech firms; that is money that could pay for more than 42,000 rooms in care homes for people who desperately need them. So does my right hon. Friend agree that there is enormous public support for tough action on corporate tax avoidance?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can put the hon. Gentleman’s name down if he wishes to make a speech, but we must have shorter interventions.