Health and Social Care Levy

Richard Fuller Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, I will be supporting the Government on this measure. In so doing, I will be breaking a pledge in the Conservative party manifesto at the last general election. That is not done lightly, and I do it for two mean reasons.

First, the £400 billion cost of covid has created a gap in the country’s balance sheet that cannot be ignored or wished away. It has to be dealt with, and it is fiscally responsible for the Government to produce today’s measures. Secondly, as hon. Members have said, we have deliberated on the reform of social care for more than a decade, with every day of delay creating more risks for families. I want reform, and it is best done by this Government at this time.

However, there will be consequences from these increases in tax rates—they will hold the economy back. Public services require a thriving economy to fund them. In turn, a thriving economy requires people to be inspired to create, take risks, invest capital, make profits and grow their businesses, skills and talent. As Conservatives, this is something we understand. It is capitalism and competitive markets that deliver. I would like to hear a little more from our Government about how good the power of free markets is and a little less boasting about the latest ways in which they are spending taxpayers’ money.

With taxation rates already at highs for the past 60 years, for Conservative Members to describe themselves as “low-tax Conservatives” means that they need to be supporting efforts to reduce public expenditure. Every departmental Minister should right now, ahead of the Budget, be raising the bar for investment decisions and casting out those projects that fall short. Each Minister should be taking an axe not just to obvious waste and inefficiency, but to meaningful slices of expenditure that reflect an over-bloated state rather than an essential public need. That applies to all Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care.

The NHS is a great hallmark of British society, but it is not a religion. It is an organisation of people to achieve a social purpose. As an MP, my role—our role—is not to deify the NHS but to hold it to account for its effectiveness in achieving that social purpose. It is so dispiriting when taxpayer funding for healthcare is increased and the immediate response of those in positions of knowledge or responsibility in our health services is to say that the funding is not enough. It is dispiriting and it is irresponsible to the taxpayer. It is not acceptable that the leadership of the NHS shies away from even the most modest of productivity targets. It is not right that, by the British Medical Association’s own calculations, more than half—70,000—of the 134,000 people involved in general practice are non-clinical administrators, and yet so many of my constituents find it so hard to get an appointment.

I wish to see reform of social care that eliminates the excessive cost risk for families. I recognise that a private insurance market for these risks cannot exist without significant state intervention and that, for a period at least, taxpayer support is required as care services are reformed. As of today, we have promises but not guarantees for reform. I am placing considerable faith in these reforms being implemented by 2023. The Government and the NHS must deliver.

Economy Update

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The furlough is available—it extends to the end of September—but the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that it is there almost indefinitely, as opposed to being an exceptional measure in response to the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. Given the wider fiscal cost, not least the £352 billion spent to date, I do not think that that would be fiscally responsible.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for the Treasury’s response to the immediate challenge of covid, but also for having an eye on the longer-term challenge of inflation? We are now in the 13th year of competitive quantitative easing by the Fed, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England. May I ask for his reflections on its effect on his near-term economic plans?

[Steve Barclay]

Of course, decisions on quantitative easing are for the Bank of England, which is independent. The last time I looked, I think the initial response to the global financial crisis was approximately £75 billion, and there has been about a twelvefold increase in QE since then, so I understand my hon. Friend’s underlying point. Ultimately, what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been focused on is the plan for jobs and supporting the economic recovery. We can see from the output data that the economy grew by 2.3% in April, as I said earlier, and GDP data has come out of the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast.

However, as my hon. Friend, who takes a deep interest in the matter, well knows, the picture remains challenging. There were 1.9%—or half a million—fewer employees in May than in February 2020, and 3.4 million people are still on furlough. It is a challenging picture, but I think that the plan for jobs is working, and the data suggests that.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

There is so much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech, which will make our great country safer, stronger and fairer. I am particularly pleased to welcome the legislation to support the introduction of the UK’s first freeports. We have already seen the impact of this Budget announcement in the Tees Valley, where GE Renewable Energy has committed to creating 2,250 jobs, mostly within the confines of the freeport zone.

Speaking of the Tees Valley, it would be remiss of me not to congratulate my friend Ben Houchen on his astounding victory in the mayoral election last week. To win re-election with 73% of the vote represents a huge personal mandate but also a resounding endorsement by the people of the Tees Valley of this Government’s plan to deliver on their priorities. That stands in stark contrast to the remarks of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), which were so typical, I am afraid, of the doom and gloom that characterises the Opposition’s approach not just to the crisis and our handling of it but to the wider prospects and outlook of this country. That goes to the heart, I fear, of their electoral dilemmas.

Creating a more prosperous country where someone’s life chances are linked not to where they come from but to who they are capable of being lies at the heart of the mission of levelling up. A good job, a good school for their children and a good home of their own are what millions of people rightly yearn for. On the last point, the planning legislation in the Queen’s Speech is vital if we are to deliver the number of homes required where they are most needed.

In constituencies such as mine, an ordinary family can, with hard work, aspire to own a really nice home of their own. Sadly, however, we need to acknowledge that in too much of the south of our country, our housing system is more less, as a market, completely broken. People working hard, even two-earner couples, are priced out of any realistic prospect of owning the home that they want and are instead trapped in an overpriced and heavily subsidised rental market, which further diminishes their ability to save.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The issue of planning is particularly important for my constituency, which is growing at three times the national average already. Does my hon. Friend accept that one welcome aspect of reform would be that for the 1 million housing approvals already in place, the economic incentives are there and the pressure is there for those to be implemented?

[Mr Clarke]

I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point. He is quite right that this is a complex problem and we need to address aggravating factors, including land banking by developers, which undoubtedly makes the situation harder to address.

We must confront the difficult reality that this is fundamentally a problem of supply. We should not privilege the interests of those who have homes over those who do not. In 1979, the green belt was 721,000 hectares. It has since more than doubled to over 1.6 million hectares, much of which is not genuinely green. Up to 11% of UK brownfield land, over 4,000 hectares, lies within the constraint of the green belt. The Government are proposing sensible steps to release some more land, a fraction of the total, to build the homes that are so badly needed while protecting areas that local residents cherish and choose to exclude.

Striking that balance deftly is vital. I am not advocating a planning free-for-all, and nor is anyone on the Government Benches, but I make a serious appeal to the House to recognise the urgency of the problem that we are storing up in the south-east corner of England, in particular, and to take action to address this. Fundamentally, land scarcity is the problem. Today the land that houses are built on accounts for 72% of its sale value. In 1995, it was 55%, while in the 1950s it was roughly 25%. The pattern is clear. From a centre-right perspective, we cannot be surprised if it becomes harder to make the case for popular capitalism in communities where too many people, particularly younger people, cannot see a realistic route to build that capital in their own lives.

We have to fix this, and I make a plea for us to do so. The most important thing we can do is to focus on sensible solutions to this planning impasse, because if we do not get it right, we will cut a generation of people out of home ownership, and there will be very serious consequences that we are already starting to see in the capital. We ought to look at how we distribute the burden of planning more sensibly. Rather than there being some additional homes in almost every community, perhaps we should be looking more at garden towns and even cities, because that might concentrate some of the pressures and some of the agglomeration advantages of creating those new communities.

However we choose to address this problem, we cannot ignore it, and the Government are right to be addressing it as part of a strong Queen’s Speech that will ultimately deliver on the promise of levelling up not just in communities such as mine, which are the typical centre of attention, but in the wider sense, recognising that if we do not get this right there will be exclusion and deprivation in parts of the country that are typically associated with being much more successful and affluent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It was an engaging speech by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), and he made some important specific points that I am sure the Government will bear in mind. I wonder, however, whether he will accept this more fundamental point. In the 2019 election, when the country was looking for a person who could identify opportunities as the country went through substantial changes to its economic relationships by leaving the European Union, and a person who had the ambition and drive to fulfil those opportunities, it chose my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As we reflect on the elections last week, will he also accept that although there was a substantial amount of support for the successful vaccine roll-out, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s support for such a vast array of activity across Government was also rewarded by the public? Those fundamental points of trust in the Prime Minister and in his ambitions for this country are resonating with the public and are reflected in the Queen’s Speech, which I wholeheartedly support.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only person to whom the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) should be directing his comments in respect of fire and rehire, as the events of the weekend showed, is the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend, as is customary, makes a poignant point, which I am sure will be reflected on with glee by those on the Opposition Front Bench.

The longer context for this Queen’s Speech is that, since 2010, the thread all the way through has been a focus on the value of work. In the first period of 2010 to 2015, a lot of that was about benefit reform, so that people who had to go out to work did not look at their neighbours and think, “Well, they’ve got a better life living on benefits”. The second part was the Conservative Government implementing a living wage commitment—a commitment this Government continue with. The third, which we are seeing in this Queen’s Speech, is the identification that ultimately what we are looking for is a lifelong commitment from the Government to support people’s skills development.

What is so exciting about the skills and post-16 education Bill is that it is starting to focus on potential. It does not matter who someone is, where they are, how rich they are or how poor they are; what matters is what their potential is for this country. However, I would urge the Government to look at three ways of going a bit further. First, can we broaden even further the scope of what we understand as potential? As we have seen, potential can come in academic potential and it can come in skills potential, but it can also come in commercial potential and it can come in artistic and creative potential. Where are the mechanisms—creative mechanisms—for those talents and for unlocking that potential?

Secondly, can we also get a better balance of where the risks for taking part in these programmes comes? At the moment, all of the financial risk lies on the person choosing what they decide to do. As a paper by Peter Ainsworth on the education, enterprise and giving-back grant suggests, institutions should have more skin in the game. There should be a sharing of risks between the institutions that are trying to tap into and unlock that potential and the individual who is seeking such forward movement.

Thirdly, why is there not an opportunity now to have more competition both between types of providers for Government resources—between the academic track or the skills track, and potentially the commercial track or the artistic track—and within those types, between universities, based on an accountability of how well institutions are fulfilling potential?

There are a number of measures in the speech that are particularly relevant to the people of Bedfordshire. The commitments on air pollution will be particularly relevant to people in Sandy and other parts of the community along the A1 corridor. I welcome, cautiously, the Government’s obesity strategies, but I worry that some of the measures may inadvertently harm certain producers, including Jordans, which is a manufacturer of healthy cereals in my constituency.

I firmly welcome the Government’s commitments to drug and alcohol rehabilitation in criminal justice, which was such a crucial part of the successful election of Festus Akinbusoye as police and crime commissioner of Bedfordshire last week. On planning, I echo the concerns that other Members have mentioned.

I do think the Government need to make sure that the 1 million existing approvals are actioned—that there is a tax and build schedule—otherwise the Government will not just face a northern powerhouse group on the Back Benches, but have a southern alliance to tackle.

Finally, looking across the Atlantic, one wonders how powerful countries and empires end. There are two substantial ways they do so in peacetime: the first is that Governments spend too much, and then tax their populations beyond their tolerance to take it; and the second is that Governments debase their currency, and then inflation lets rip and destroys savings. Let us make sure that, as a fundamental part of this, we maintain and hold up the probity of public finance.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 1)
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but as I have set out, the annual investment allowance already appears to serve small and medium-sized enterprises well. The super deduction that we are debating now is designed to help companies such as Amazon, which do not need any help with their investment. It is important that we see this in the context of those companies that have done well throughout the outbreak and are already avoiding much of the tax they should be paying. It is no wonder that Tax Watch has nicknamed this the “Amazon Tax Cut”. This giveaway from the Chancellor could wipe out Amazon’s UK tax bill entirely.

Analysis of Amazon’s accounts from 2019 shows that the corporation’s UK operations made pre-tax profits of £102 million. In the same year, it spent £67 million on plant and machinery, £80 million on office equipment, and £15 million on computer equipment. The super deduction would have enabled Amazon to deduct £211 million from the calculation of its taxable profits— more than enough to wipe out its entire tax liability twice over. It is truly astonishing that, faced with all the challenges of this outbreak, the Government see their priority as giving Amazon a tax break.

Here and around the world, people agree with us that investment in jobs and growth is what is needed. A tax break for tech giants that already fail to pay what they should is not the answer. That is why our amendment 79 would explicitly prevent the biggest tech firms from taking advantage of the Chancellor’s tax break, as well as other big firms that do not support workers’ rights and the living wage.

The Government should be improving the lives of Amazon workers, who have helped so many people with deliveries throughout the pandemic, not giving a huge tax break to their bosses. Amendment 79 would prevent Amazon and other tech giants from accessing the super deduction by preventing firms from doing so if they are liable for the digital services tax. When the Government set out their plans for the digital services tax, they made it clear that it would apply to businesses that provide social media platforms, search engines, or online marketplaces to UK users. The detail of that tax means that businesses will be liable when the group’s worldwide revenues from these digital activities are more than £500 million, and when more than £25 million of these revenues are derived from UK users.

We are clear that those big corporations that should be caught by the digital services tax are among those that absolutely should not be benefiting from the Government proclaim as the biggest business tax cut in modern British history. We know that Amazon has brazenly made it clear that it will dodge the bill from the digital services tax by passing the cost on to its marketplace sellers. The fact that it is not even paying the tax that was designed for it to pay makes the prospect of a further massive tax cut from the Chancellor even more galling.

Furthermore, as well as excluding big corporations on the basis of their being liable for the digital services tax, we are seeking to use our amendment to stop those big businesses that do not support workers’ rights and the living wage from accessing the tax break. Both conditions would also catch Amazon and would also require other big businesses—those that are not liable for the digital services tax—to respect the right to organise and collective bargaining, and to be certified, or be in the process of being certified, by the Living Wage Foundation as a living wage employer.

When firms stand to benefit from what the Chancellor has called the biggest business tax cut in modern British history, the very least the Government should require of them is that they pay their workers the living wage and respect workers’ basic rights to organise. Alongside this, we propose in amendment 80 that the Government require big firms benefiting from the Chancellor’s tax break to make a climate-related financial disclosure, in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.

Beyond the specific issue of how the biggest corporations are set to benefit from this tax break the most, we have also tabled new clause 24 to reflect the widely-held concerns about the impact of the super deduction on levels of tax avoidance and evasion. As the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation has made clear, investment incentives have been abused for tax avoidance purposes in the past, yet the Government have failed to say or do anything to address widespread concerns that the super deduction is open to fraud and abuse.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that the super deduction will

“create a risk of tax avoidance and even potentially fraud as companies essentially try to find ways to dress things up as plant and machinery investment”.

Minsters were unable to reassure us on this point when I raised it last week, so we are asking for the levels of tax avoidance and evasion arising from the super deduction to be reviewed and put transparently before this House.

It tells us everything about the Conservatives’ priorities that they are taking money from people’s pockets at the very same time as letting tech giants off paying tax altogether. This Government are proposing to wipe out some of the biggest corporations’ tax bills through a £25 billion boon, aimed at the biggest corporations, that the Chancellor has called

“the biggest two-year business tax cut in modern British history.”

In the face of a struggling economy, a tax break for tech giants that already do not pay enough tax should be the last thing on the Government’s mind. Instead, it is top of their list. They are wrong.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

No, let me make some progress.

The Government are wrong, and that is why we will be voting to stop the Chancellor’s tax break going to the biggest tech firms or other big corporations that do not support workers’ rights and the living wage. We need a fairer tax system and we need investment in jobs and growth. This Government’s Finance Bill fails on both fronts. I urge Conservative Members to show that they understand this, support our amendments today and take a stand against the Amazon tax cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Charles. I rise to speak in support of amendment 53, which I hope will encourage the Government to bring some rigour and meaning to their rhetoric of levelling up and the use of taxpayers’ money.

In a Budget that confirmed £17 billion of spending cuts, relative to March 2020 plans, the Chancellor’s decision to announce the super deduction, equivalent to forgoing approximately 20% of the UK’s corporation tax revenues, was certainly a bold one, particularly as the Financial Secretary noted in November 2020 that the existing annual investment allowance already covers 99% of all UK businesses. The House has heard this evening that the super deduction is a major tax break for the top 1% of UK businesses. We have also heard many concerns that it is a blunt tool in need of significant refinement if its perceived benefits are to be targeted to those in greatest need of support. I also point to concerns that the super deduction will disproportionately benefit London and the south-east of England and that it flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to level up the UK economy.

I draw the House’s attention to a finding from the Centre for Progressive Policy, which has calculated that, although the super deduction could amount to a tax break worth up to £513 for London residents, it would be worth only half as much in Wales, whose sum benefit is the second lowest of the UK nations and regions, with only Northern Ireland benefiting less on this measure.

I am afraid that I disagree with other hon. Members who have suggested that the super deduction might, on the contrary, actually benefit and address regional inequality. My fear is the opposite—that the super deduction will, at best, lock in existing regional inequalities and, at worst, exacerbate rather than address the UK’s geographical economic imbalance. That is why Plaid Cymru wishes to amend the Bill to require that the Chancellor considers the impact and geographical extent of the super deduction across all the UK’s nation and regions and would support calls made by other hon. Members this evening that measures should be introduced to establish a deeper evidence base for these changes. Similarly, given the urgent need for climate action and the retooling of the economy for a net zero future, this amendment also requires the UK Government to consider the super deduction’s impact on efforts to mitigate climate change.

I hope that the Government will incorporate guarantees such as these into the Bill to ensure that we truly do rebuild back better from the pandemic, rather than resuscitate the UK’s deeply flawed pre-pandemic economy. Failure to do so would make it clear that their rhetoric of support for all nations, for the levelling-up agenda and for climate action are no more than fine words and lofty intentions.

[Richard Fuller]

It is right, as our hard-working business leaders emerge from the most torrid 12 months, that the Government set a clear course for their understanding of how those businesses will be taxed in future. I would have hoped that it would have been heartening for the people who have been running businesses through these most difficult times to listen in to this debate to hear what Members of Parliament have to say on their behalf. However, personally speaking, I think that most people who run businesses will be rather saddened by what they have heard—largely, a perspective that it is wrong for people to run businesses that are profitable, that there is sin in becoming rich by creating a business that creates products that people want, rather than virtue, and a complete lack of understanding that businesses that make profits are a sign of success, rather than a sign of failure.

Personally, I am rather in favour of us increasing taxes. When this or any Government seek to increase tax on corporations, I wonder whether they realise that, essentially, they are putting a tax on success—that every pound that we take away from a business, from its profits, is a pound taken away from things that the business owner may do him or herself. They might be radical things, such as investing in and expanding the number of people who work for the businesses, investing in machinery that will make their business more competitive in terms of exports, or lowering their debt so that they are on a more substantial and more stable footing for the long term. Every time a state takes away money from enterprise it is putting at risk the resources those companies have to do those things, and the future success of this country. Therefore the Government were right to consider carefully how to balance a change in corporation taxes, and given what has happened subsequently to the Budget, the Chancellor deserves a bit of a pat on the back for understanding what would be going on in the global realm of corporation tax, as well as the crucial importance of providing some short-term incentive for businesses to invest as we emerge from the recession.

Covid-19 Support Schemes: Ineligible People

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing the debate.

It is true that where the Government schemes have worked, they have worked well. It is also true that Government schemes are not an entitlement, but a use of very scarce taxpayers’ money. If we are honest with ourselves, many of those 3 million people are probably not high on the list of those who are in greatest need, because they earn a lot of money, or because a large proportion of their income comes from other areas. Notwithstanding, some specific areas need focus.

It is depressing that too often the Treasury looks like a wholly owned subsidiary of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, rather than having a broader view of the economy as a whole. I want to focus on company directors, because that group, as other hon. Members have said, has the grit and determination that will be so crucial to our recovery.

Becoming a company director is often a moment of pride. It says, “I’m going to do something. I am going to make something happen.” It is a tangible moment that defines why someone is going to contribute to society. As the hon. Member for Twickenham has said, as we emerge from the recession, these are the risk-takers whom the Government need to support.

My hon. Friend the Minister needs to find a standard reporting event. He needs to ensure that people can demonstrate a negative impact on their business and can confirm they have not received any benefit from Government under any existing schemes. Within those three parameters, it should be within the wit of man or woman—certainly within the wit of the Treasury—to find something, perhaps along the lines of the forgivable loan suggestion of Professor Francis Green of Edinburgh University, or the directors income support scheme supported by others.

This is a group on whom we will rely. I urge the Minister to ensure we do all we can to see if there are ways to support them with the scarce taxpayers’ funds available.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it was something about the Eden Project. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ambitions for his area and this project. I know he has put a lot of thought and energy into it, as has his community, and I very much hope we can make progress in the coming years.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

In his statement, my right hon. Friend said:

“The spending announced today is secondary to the courage, wisdom, kindness and creativity it unleashes. These are the incalculable but essential parts of our future, and they cannot be mandated or distributed by Government.”

He is right on that, and the private sector and businesses will respond to what he has announced today. When it comes to the consideration of taxes, will he look to protect the incentives for those who invest and grow such businesses?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment, as he is absolutely right, and from his own business experience he knows this well. He will know that one thing we do to incentive entrepreneurship through the tax system is our world-leading enterprise investment scheme and seed enterprise investment scheme programme, which provides significant support to private investors to help fund new businesses. We have expanded that scheme over time. I know he has thoughts on it, and I look forward to hearing them.

Future of Financial Services

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

What we are announcing today will ensure that the UK remains the most open, competitive, technology-leaning and dynamic place to do financial services anywhere in the world. It is a constantly changing industry and it is right that we are on the cutting edge of developments. Now that we are outside the EU and leaving the transition period, we have the ability to make further changes to our regulatory regime, to enhance our competitiveness and to attract jobs, capital and business to the UK.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Regarding the comment made by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), I do not know where Labour MPs have been these past few weeks, but the Chancellor has been here today, 9 November, and on 5 November, on 22 October, on 20 October, on 14 October, on 24 September and on 15 September. No Chancellor has been more responsive to the needs of Members of Parliament than this Chancellor, which is why I welcome his statement today. It demonstrates that neither the financial services sector nor he as UK Chancellor are going to sit around and wait for the EU to respond, but that he will point the way forward in leadership in green finance, in financial technology and in financial transparency. Will my right hon. Friend build on the green sovereign bond announced today, so that ahead of COP26 retail investments will be available for retail investors?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will know from his extensive experience in financial services how important the announcements today are. He makes a very interesting suggestion, and I would love to meet him to discuss it further and see what we can do.

Financial Services Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

It would not be for me at this point to set out the deductions to be made on individual funds, but I would like to follow up with my hon. Friend formally on that matter, because a process is under way for that to be examined, and I am happy to engage with him further in due course.

I will move on to the importance of ensuring that the FCA has an appropriate degree of oversight over firms that could register under the regime. To my hon. Friend’s point, there is a tension between the objectives set in Parliament and the regulators’ judgment on the ground. We need to ensure not only that they are accountable, but that we have set the right prescription for the outcomes we wish to see.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend spend a moment putting the Bill in context? Earlier today, we heard the Chancellor outline the bold initiatives on green finance and on making the UK a leader in transparency internationally and financial technology. As we leave the European Union, we are keen to accelerate away from a sclerotic, introspective set of financial markets. The Bill looks very worthy, but can he put it in the context of those broader ambitions for financial services? Is this the first of a series of Bills we will see, or is it clearing things up so that afterwards we are in a position where we can move forward to capture that opportunity?

[John Glen]

This is a portfolio Bill of 17 measures, some of which I have been wanting to introduce for some while. It is the first step on a journey, and there will, if the authorities allow me, be further financial services legislation that we will need to make following the consultation on the future regulatory framework. We need to be ambitious for financial services. We live in a dynamic world where financial services are evolving all the time, and we need to have regulators that are nimble in developing world-class regulation that allows us to continue to grow, and that is reflected in our appetite for FinTechs, stablecoins, digital currencies and the right regulatory framework for firms of different sizes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) referred to earlier.

The third objective of the Bill is to maintain the effectiveness of the financial services regulatory framework and ensure sound capital markets. Clause 28 introduces a streamlined process for the FCA to remove an inactive firm’s authorisation and position on the public register. That will improve accuracy, while reducing opportunities for fraudsters.

Clause 29 makes small changes to the market abuse regulation, making the regime more effective, while reducing some of the administrative burden facing firms. I draw attention to clause 30, which raises the maximum sentence for two kinds of financial market abuse from seven to 10 years in prison, bringing the penalties for those offences in line with other forms of economic crime, such as fraud. Clause 31 will ensure we can enforce the rules that apply to trusts. The Government are also taking proportionate and effective action elsewhere to prevent the misuse of these trusts, collecting a range of ownership information on those that have a connection to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). As an adviser to a venture capital firm, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I commend the Minister for such a thoughtful and thorough presentation of the Bill on Second Reading. I look forward to the Bill’s passage through the House. I also pay tribute to the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), for his general welcoming of the Bill and for some of the important points that he made. He mentioned two of the contextual factors for the Bill: the financial crisis and Brexit. On the first, one issue that came from the financial crisis was not the absence or otherwise of regulation, but the fact that the regulations themselves were confused, as was the responsibility among different agencies. The various Governments since 2010 have made some progress towards streamlining the regulatory framework, and the Minister talked about further moves to make sure that regulatory organisations and their roles were streamlined.

A second issue from the financial crisis, about which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his time on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, was the lack of criminal sanction for the people who broke the law and the effectiveness with which criminal sanction could be brought to bear on those who misused their position in financial services. Through the right hon. Gentleman’s work on that commission, that has now been changed somewhat, and today the Minister presented further steps forward in providing criminal sanction for those who misuse their powers or rights in the financial sector. Those steps are to be welcomed.

On leaving the European Union, I would say from the other side of the argument that Brexit is a great opportunity for the United Kingdom. One of the things we are leaving behind is the scale of the European Union, but that gives us the opportunity to focus on those things that matter most to our country and to have the agility to make changes. On the point of equivalence, about which we have heard some shroud-waving from Opposition Members, my personal view is that the EU will come to regret quite strongly the decision not to provide equivalence on a mutual basis with the UK.

I wish to add three further issues to those contextual factors. The next is that we now have the opportunity to define the role of the financial services sector. We want the sector to be world beating and world leading—the Minister spoke directly about that—but we also need to make sure that, as many Members have said, it contributes to the wider British economy.

The fourth issue has not been commented on today but will be an important test for the regulations under the Bill: the context that we are living through an era of very inflated global assets. What is that going to do to the financial services sector in the next five or 10 years as we unwind the context of quantitative easing and other inflated assets? I would not mind hearing a bit from the Minister on that when he responds.

The fifth point, which the Minister touched on, is on innovation and technology. These regulations will meet a period of much more substantial technological change in finance. This country will be faced with choices between regulation and innovation, and trade-offs will need to be made. Unfortunately, too often in this House, we make vacuous statements about regulations. We talk about maintaining a gold standard on regulations or avoiding a race to the bottom on regulations. Both those statements are completely meaningless because they are entirely in the eye of the beholder. They mean nothing when we communicate them to one another. We should be focusing not on how tough regulations sound when we talk about them, but on how effective those regulations are in doing what we wish them to do. What is important about regulations is that they do what they are supposed to do and no more.

There are obviously some areas where regulation is important, as we have seen in the Bill in relation to protecting vulnerable customers. I welcome those measures in the Bill, but it is important to have regulation that promotes competition rather than entrenching established interests. There is a balance to be struck there in terms of innovation, which it will be interesting to discuss. There is also an important need to avoid systemic risk, which has been mentioned.

What concerns me, on the day when we are celebrating the vaccine, is that in our zealousness in this House to impose regulations, we forget that the innovations of private sector companies left to their own devices often provide the best outcomes for the people of our country and around the world. Pfizer, the company that has developed the vaccine we are talking about today, directly refused any Government assistance because it did not want the regulation and bureaucratic hand-holding that came with it. Sometimes we feel that the private sector is unable to deliver things that are a public good, but the truth of the matter is that most public goods are delivered either directly or indirectly by the actions of private companies and private citizens, and not by state diktat. The Bill has to provide the underpinning for that principle of deregulation and freedom for innovation, and for the opportunity for us to take advantage of our leaving the European Union. It must not provide a cloud of regulation that makes us feel good when we talk about it but does not actually do what it says when it is brought to test.

One of my concerns about the Bill is that we might be putting too much reliance on regulatory agencies. This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and I know it will be mentioned by other hon. Friends later. There is a subsidiary tendency for us, in our zealousness to regulate, to then pass these matters on to a regulatory agency. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made the point that there is too little parliamentary oversight of such regulatory agencies. We do not have the necessary mechanisms in this Parliament. I hope that, as we progress the Bill, the Minister will consider that, given what is contained in the essence of the Bill.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

There will not be any gap in support, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman, because, as he knows, the CJRS runs all the way to the end of this month and the job support scheme starts on 1 November. There will be complete coverage and no interruption. We provided Barnett funding on the grants from the moment I announced them, so that is also available to the Welsh Government. With regard to the specific treatment of seasonal workers and the computation of the reference earnings, that is set out in the guidance for the CJRS and that will remain consistent in the new job support scheme.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

In his statement on 8 July, my right hon. Friend said his measures would be always

“unencumbered by dogma”

and

“driven always by the simple desire to do what is right.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 937.]

He was right then and he is right today in announcing these measures. I noted the extension in support for the self-employed, which will now extend all the way through to April. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is also working with the Health Secretary to ensure that we are doing whatever we can to get self-employed people and everyone else into work and back to work without restrictions as quickly as possible?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The self-employed are a part of the entrepreneurial side of our economy that will help to drive our recovery. It is right that they receive support and I am proud that the support we have put in place—over £13 billion benefiting almost 3 million people—is one of the most comprehensive and generous packages of support for the self-employed. Ultimately, however, his last point is the one we should focus on. The best way to help people is to allow them to get on and do the job they love doing, and allow them to trade.

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What a powerful start to this debate we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), laying out with passion the case that has, to some extent, not been heard by those on the Treasury Bench throughout this crisis.

I want, in part, to echo a number of the points the hon. Lady made and take hon. Members back to the start of the crisis when all of us as Members of Parliament were met with a series of increasing issues from our constituents. They were worried about not being able to get groceries from their local grocery store. They had loved ones who were overseas. They were worried about their jobs. People could not get loans to keep their businesses supported.

Time and again, those issues were sorted out by the Government to a greater or lesser extent and answers were found. At the end of all that, however, as many hon. Members will know, there was one group that remained excluded from a number of levels of support or where their ability to access that support was not sufficient—the millions of people in this country who are self-employed.

I want to go through some of those issues passionately, if I can, but also with facts. I am sure the Minister will respond with facts, and quite rightly so. She will, I am sure, mention the fact that the Government did find the right arteries, if I can call them that, to get the support to people, particularly those in the job retention scheme and others. That was a tremendous success. The ease with which people were able to access the support when they qualified was also a tremendous success.

The overall record for the Government in terms of economic programmes and international comparisons was also a great success. However, this debate is not about those successes; it is about the omissions from those programmes. A fact it would be helpful for the Minister to provide is to reconcile the difference between the Government’s assertion that 95% of the self-employed are covered and the other assertion that there are 3 million excluded. That would be a helpful reconciliation to have.

It is important for those on the Treasury Bench to understand the issues for the self-employed that have made that speed to get a response so difficult: the fact that their income is lumpy and unpredictable and the fact that they have a variety of employment structures, often taken up over the years at the request of those on the Treasury Bench, make it difficult for schemes to come into place.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to assert the fact that some people who are self-employed have been able to get back to work, but many involved in large industries such as culture, entertainment, film and music have not been able to because those events are not taking place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is precisely right. That is one of the three issues the Government really need to focus on as they consider their response to this debate. If we take wedding planners, theatre, live events or conferences, we see that the Government are asking those sectors to remain closed but what is their level of support? Literally hundreds of my constituents in those sectors still cannot earn an income anything like they would have earned in normal times.

I urge the Government also to consider the newly self-employed. We had issues with people who changed jobs from February to March, when the scheme came in. The Government did find some change there, but that was where someone’s change was measured in a matter for weeks. The self-employed can be measured for a matter of months and they still cannot get included because their tax returns are measured on an annual, not monthly, basis. What will the Government do, for example, for a pet care business in Biggleswade in my constituency that suffered precisely because of that?

The criteria for the self-employed were more complex than for those in any other of the schemes that businesses or individuals could apply for. It got to a point, which I will return to in my final comments, where something in what the Government were trying to do for the self-employed was beyond the issue of providing support. I had a musician from Upper Caldecote and a performer from Sandy who were not able to access the scheme because they felt they fell on one side of the criteria and not on the other. If it was good enough for the Government to think of complex criteria for the individual to claim, why could the Government not sort out the problems for people by cross-referencing their dividends so that they could say that they were genuinely self-employed?

It is important that the Government get to grips with the issue of those who feel that they have been excluded, because the self-employed provide so much for our economy. They are the innovators. They are the people who will undercut competitor prices to deliver a better product. They want to over-deliver, because for self-employed people, it is not just about business; it is about themselves. It is how they behave and how they interact with others that is so important. The UK gets so much from the self-employed. We get a quarter of a trillion pounds of contribution to the British economy. We get higher growth. We get a world-beating labour market in terms of its efficiency. We become a front-foot nation. That is why the Government need to act.