Coronavirus Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, many thousands of people will be stranded in other countries. We need an evacuation plan, in the light of the Prime Minister’s remarks, to get them back to our country safely. I thank the Minister and the Government for their work.

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

I rise to welcome the Government’s new clause 19 and to support in spirit the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

The idea of two years was unconscionable; six months is liveable with, but three months would have been better for this draconian Bill. We need that reduction because it provides a much more reasonable basis not only to assess the unparalleled restrictions that may be imposed on people, but to enable an alignment of timeframes between our medical responses and the impact on the economy.

I wish to make some brief comments on the issue of balance between those two features. At the moment, we are passing this legislation when a monopoly of voices point in one direction—do more, go faster and impose more restrictions. What we need is an environment of balance to understand that all those measures, as we pursue with all of our hearts and heads the medical cures, the support for our NHS workers and the care for the sick, have consequences: consequences for our economy and for the mental health and well-being of our citizenry, and consequences as yet unforeseen.

A restriction in the timeframe for the legislation is absolutely crucial. Embedded in the phrase “whatever it takes” is a blank cheque that has to be paid at some point. It may not be favourable in public discourse to talk in that way. It may appear callous to talk in that way, but, at some point in the future, a reckoning for the decisions that have been made in response to this medical crisis and the economic consequences for families across the country will come. Whether the Government like it or not, the Bill they are passing today—new clause 19 that they are passing today—will become the vehicle on which they are held to account.

Let me give the Minister some suggestions that she may like to pass on to the Government for them to think about in terms of what we might be discussing in six months’ time. First, we need to set a clear goal. Secondly, we need to outline the reasonable, measurable benchmarks needed to show that we are making progress in achieving that medical goal.

We need to explain the exit strategy for our medical plan. In six months’ time, or at some other time, the Government have to say what considerations they have made if the approach to secure those medical goals has not achieved what they wanted it to achieve, and what the costs and consequences are for the economy. There are no easy answers here, of course, but as we pass this legislation at this difficult time, it is important that we understand that we will have to do that evaluation in a mood of much more balance than we can today.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of the amendment and new clauses that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have tabled. We are not seeking to divide the House, but we are keen to put our concerns on the record. In the interests of time, I want to focus on two areas—social care and the self-employed.

There is unanimity in the Chamber about the fact that exceptional times call for exceptional measures. It is strange to find myself in violent agreement with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). In these difficult, challenging times, the measures must be proportionate, strictly time-limited and with appropriate safeguards in place. I therefore welcome the Government’s concession that the Bill will be reviewed every six months, although our amendment seeks a review every three months, with a full review by both Houses. I note the concerns about whether we can amend or discard parts of the Bill in each review, and I hope that that will be taken on board by Ministers.

The Bill gives the Government sweeping powers over our civil liberties, and impacts on how we look after the most vulnerable in our society, which is dealt with in our amendment 14 and new clause 14. Social care provision is inextricably linked to NHS provision—they are two sides of the same coin. Fast and safe discharge into the community is essential to free up hospital capacity for those who are critically ill.

The system is already stretched to breaking point, and many people think that care standards are on the border line. The Bill seeks potentially to lower standards, which could be dangerously reduced, putting many elderly and disabled people of all ages at risk. Although the Secretary of State told me that the provisions seek to do the opposite by enabling local authorities to prioritise, I fear that the only safeguard is the European convention on human rights, resulting in many vulnerable people being harmed. They must not be cast by the wayside in this crisis.

The Bill has been introduced to tackle a serious threat, but it potentially raises another threat for the most vulnerable people in society. The Chancellor made it clear that he would give the NHS whatever resource it needed to deal with coronavirus. The same commitment must be given to social care, as the sister service to the NHS. Amendment 14 seeks to address that very point.

I turn to new clause 13, on statutory self-employment pay. The Chancellor has rightly stepped in with a far-reaching set of economic measures to support the millions of people across the country whose livelihoods and incomes have been decimated by the pandemic. As many Members from all parts of the House have said, the 5 million self-employed and freelancers feel that they have been completely overlooked. With over 11,000 self-employed people in my constituency I, like many others, have been inundated with hundreds of emails, from childminders to event organisers, to tradesmen and women, to musicians and those who work in the TV industry, begging for action. Many have seen their incomes dry up overnight, with no prospect of knowing when they might be able to work again.

New clause 13 seeks to provide for the self-employed on the same terms as the wage guarantee scheme for employees. I fully understand that the mechanism for delivering such a provision is not straightforward for Government, but let us not let the best be the enemy of the good. The situation is urgent for millions of people across the country who are struggling to put food on the table for their families and keep a roof over their heads right now.

In 2008, the Government stepped in to bail out the banks. Now it is time to do the same for everyone whose livelihood is under threat, whether employed or self-employed. At this time of national crisis, of course we support the Bill with an extremely heavy heart, but I implore Ministers to take on board our grave concerns, particularly on care of the vulnerable and providing for the self-employed. Let us make sure that not one single provision in the Bill is in place for a minute longer than it has to be.

Loan Charge 2019: Sir Amyas Morse Review

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. His point backs up mine. Any team that the Treasury sets up—and there should be one—to deal with people affected by the issue should treat them as people, not as numbers, which is unfortunately how HMRC has a track record of treating them.

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

My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the core points. Who is running the show here? Is it HMRC, or are the Government making sure that law on this matter is paramount? Does he not find it ironic that HMRC’s annual report this year says that HMRC wants a system that can

“be trusted and seen to be fair, with the right safeguards in place to protect customers”?

Does this case not show that it is falling woefully short of meeting that ambition?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely. This is not the only case of people being treated unfairly by HMRC. I really hope that the Minister listens to the concerns being expressed across the House, particularly about the issue under discussion. There is a wider point here about HMRC. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, it has decided to charge people retrospectively although the situation arose through its negligence. Never again—I feel this strongly—should it be allowed to adopt retrospective measures to cover its failure to get its policies in order.

Lastly, the Minister needs to make it clear, hopefully today, that the people affected by this are victims. They are struggling after following advice given to them by independent tax experts. I hope that he will look at lengthening the repayment period, commit to dealing fairly with the people affected by this, and never allow this to happen again. Ideally, he should at the Dispatch Box this afternoon scrap the loan charges affecting so many of my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is right; that is very sound advice. Everyone who has spoken so far today has been a credit not just to the House, but to their constituents, because there are far too many people—such as my constituents, his constituents and others—who are in despair because of this issue.

[Richard Fuller]

On the importance of Members of Parliament speaking up, is the hon. Member concerned, as I am, that effectively, HMRC is smearing constituents as tax dodgers and adding to their mental anguish, rather than trying to assist them through this process?

[Chris Stephens]

I am not only very concerned, but angry about some of these actions and what I have heard today about what HMRC is up to. I will speak more about that.

When constituents such as Fraser Kennedy and Jason Millington come to us to discuss this issue, three immediate things leap out at us. This has come up in the debate, including in a fantastic example from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans). In this Parliament, we really need to deal with the relationship between an employer and a worker and their status in the workplace, because it really is time to end the bogus self-employment that we have heard about in this debate and in other examples. This needs to be addressed because what this issue has proven is that the wrong people are being targeted.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that when people first come across this issue, it looks like some sort of tax avoidance scheme, and I think it is perfectly natural for someone to think that when it is first explained to them. In the back of my head, when I first heard about it, I thought, “Well, maybe I will approach HMRC as an MP and try to get the same sweetheart deal that Google got only a couple of years ago,” when it paid the equivalent of 4% corporation tax. It seems that there is a disproportionate way that the people who have been caught up in the loan charge are being dealt with compared with other people who can get a sweetheart deal. That is how I thought I could try to deal with it, because if the answer is, “Yes, it is tax avoidance”, then the people HMRC should really be going after are those who contrived and promoted such schemes, because they are the ones who are directly responsible. They should be pursued and punished, and there should not be the blunt instrument that is being used for those caught up in the loan charge.

The third conclusion is, as the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, that there have been disproportionate actions from HMRC towards the individuals who have been caught up in this and how they feel. My constituent, Fraser Kennedy, sums it up well. His employer, Winchester, assured him and HMRC that it had paid all the tax and moneys, but he is still getting chased by HMRC. He feels bullied and harassed, and is suffering from stress and anxiety because of how it has handled the matter. He believed that it was settled a year ago, but he is still getting correspondence.

Economy and Jobs

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Quite simply. It is a good question, because we wanted to scrap the tax credits and put direct investment into R&D. Some of the very advisers the Government have called upon, such as Mariana Mazzucato, have been ripping apart some of those tax credits for inefficiency and ineffectiveness. We shared the objective, but we found a different and more effective route.

We have referred in the past to the differentiation between types of investment, and the example that we have used in previous debates is stark. Planned transport investment in London is 2.6 times higher per capita than in the north, so it is no wonder that rail infrastructure in the north has been falling apart. After a decade of decline, the Government at last seem to have at least acknowledged their mistake in refusing to invest in the regions—something we have been crying out for—but we will see what scale of investment is produced after the fine words.

However, this is not just about capital investment in infrastructure. There is also a desperate need for revenue investment in the social infrastructure of our regions and nations. It is interesting that many cities and towns in the north have borne the brunt of austerity. Seven out of the 10 cities with the largest cuts in the country are in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire. That came about not by some miracle, but as the result of deliberate Government policy.

Imitation, they say, is the highest form of flattery, so I suppose Labour should be flattered that the Government are now looking to rewrite the Treasury Green Book to reorient investment decisions towards the regions outside London and the south-east—an exercise that Labour undertook two years ago. I suppose we should also be flattered by the Government now following Labour in adopting a fiscal rule that enables them to take advantage of low interest rates to borrow, which we advocated at least four years ago.

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

As we are in the habit of stealing clothes, as the right hon. Gentleman would present it, the Labour Party had its election manifesto and the costings—two documents that obviously have been consigned elsewhere—but the third document was about corporate tax breaks, so does he suggest that the Government should look at existing corporate tax breaks and reorient them to support investment in other regions?

[John McDonnell]

Again, Labour undertook work to look at exactly that. We looked at the regional impacts and at how tax breaks are distributed unequally around the country. There is an important and exciting piece of work to be done, and some of those issues were considered by the Kerslake review in 2017. There will be some element of consensus on how we can direct future investment, and we can build upon that in the long term, because if anything comes out of the lessons of the past 10 years, it is that we need a longer schedule than just a five-year parliamentary process for capital investment of that scale.

Returning to fiscal rules, the Government have now advocated a fiscal rule that largely follows Labour’s advice, but it is this Government’s third or fourth fiscal rule—I have lost count. Some of them have been adhered to—no, actually, looking back at it, none of them have actually been adhered to, which largely defeats the object of having fiscal rules. It will be interesting to see how long this one lasts and how far it is achieved. The problem is that, even if they use all the headroom that their new fiscal rule allows, they are only paying lip service to the need to invest at scale and for the long term. If we are to tackle the issues of poverty, regional inequality and, yes, climate change, the amount of new investment mooted so far by the Chancellor is nowhere near the scale needed to address the dilapidation of our infrastructure outside London, and it is certainly not at the scale needed if we are to tackle climate change. From what we have heard so far, the maximum amount of increased investment talked about by the Chancellor is less than today’s estimate of the cost of High Speed 2.

The Chancellor’s idea in his Financial Times interview, of splitting the Treasury and sending some of its officials to work in satellite offices outside London, is a pale imitation of Labour’s plans not just for regional offices but to move whole sections of the Treasury to the north, to move the Bank of England to Birmingham and, similarly, to locate a national investment bank outside London. If the Government are going to plagiarise Labour’s policies, they at least have a duty to do so competently.

What all these things have in common is a failure to tackle the root causes of the problems to which the Government pay lip service: the grotesque levels of inequality in income and wealth in our society; the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few; the ownership of the economy by an elite, with the vast majority of people locked out of decision making and having no say on how the economy works or on who it works for; and an economy increasingly serving the few, not the many. There is no sign that the Government recognise the root causes of the crisis we face, whether social or environmental—at least, there is no sign of them doing anything about it.

Of course, all these investment proposals will count for very little if the Government fail to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with our EU partners that protects jobs. On that score, it is hardly surprising that businesses’ fears rose when the Chancellor, in his weekend interview, cavalierly threatened to throw our manufacturing sector under a bus, as he rejected the calls from business for alignment with the EU to ensure his own Government’s long-standing promise of frictionless trade. He casually said:

“There will be an impact on business one way or the other, some will benefit, some won’t.”

Let us be clear that if frictionless trade is not achieved in a future trade deal or, worse, if there is no deal, the bulk of our manufacturing sector, including cars, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and food and drink, will be in the “some won’t” category. One recent estimate identified that, in the past decade, we have already lost 600,000 manufacturing jobs.

Today, business leaders and unions have combined to warn the Chancellor that his promise to split from the EU will cost billions and damage UK manufacturing. Bizarrely, he blames the manufacturing companies for not having already prepared for any regulatory divergence coming out of any future trade deal, when no one knows what the deal or the rules will be. There is an element of Samuel Beckett or Kafka here, I am not sure which.

We hear that the Chancellor is the only Minister to be secure in his job ahead of the possible “night of the long knives” reshuffle in February.

--- Later in debate ---

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

In marked contrast to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), I will start perhaps a little quieter and say a few words about my predecessor as Member of Parliament for North East Bedfordshire. Alistair Burt served the constituencies of Bury North and North East Bedfordshire from 1983 until he stood down at the last election, with a very short break between 1997 and 2001. I got to know Alistair in 1984, and on almost every political issue he and I found ourselves in accordance, with the great exception of our views on membership of the European Union. And on football—Alistair loves it; me not so much. In addition to being well respected across the House, Alistair had great knowledge and understanding of the middle east—an issue he continues to pursue—and a unique ability to be trusted by all sides.

The Register of Members’ Financial Interests has not yet been published, so, given some of the things I might say, let me I point out to hon. Members that I am a director of software companies.

A new dawn beckons, and a new Government have been formed to set the initial course for our country—a course to shape the success, or failure, of our refound independence. The most likely error that this Government will make will be to underestimate the scale of the opportunity for change, or to prefer the comforts of the known to the uncertainties of the unknown. It is that the voices of well-connected incumbents will drown out those of precocious challengers. This is not a time for a Government to take timid steps; it is a time for giant strides. Every ounce of radicalism that is lost today will be repaid in pounds of future regret for opportunities lost. Our country needs this Government to argue with the “fierce urgency of now” that President Obama summoned America to embrace a decade ago.

I wish to outline three areas from the Queen’s Speech where I believe that such radicalism can take place.

For decades, competitive capitalism has driven enormous gains in human progress, but the case for capitalism now appears tarnished by the consequences of globalisation, by regulatory capture and by repeated examples of corporate excess. This place of Smith, Locke and Ricardo is best placed remake the global case for capitalism for a new century as we define our new role in the world. At the heart of that case we must place the entrepreneurs, the small businesses, the start-ups and the innovators.

The Government should also review the primacy of shareholder value as the sole mission for our companies. We should simplify the governance code, yes, but also give oversight more clout so that excesses are more effectively curtailed and companies are more accountable for the externalities of their actions. We need measures to weaken the grip of crony capitalism: dysfunctional privatisations, public contracts repeatedly handed to the same-as-before conglomerates as the only game in town, disallowing the socialisation of losses from private risk-taking, and, yes, reviewing our corporate tax breaks.

As we leave the EU, we should not inadvertently leave out the welcome mat, encouraging lobbyists to decamp from Brussels to Westminster—or, for that matter, York. We need measures to provide people with swifter redress and greater protection from business and regulatory failure. For example, in my own area the simplest thing of a local plan not being accepted means creepy private developers trying to put in developments in that short space of time between plans, and constituents of mine in Willington, Harrold, Ravensden and Potton having to deal with a lifetime change just from one small bureaucratic failure.

The UK should make free markets and free trade hallmarks of our foreign policy. I see the Prime Minister is back from his UK-Africa Investment Summit, which was precisely the place he should have been today. I urge him to place a trade deal with Africa at the core of our new relationship, one that casts off the protectionism of the EU and reasserts the value of free trade over development aid.

An urgent imperative for Government action is the reform of markets based on the utilisation of data and, more specifically, the actions of digital platforms. The evidence of externalities in these markets is compelling: the undermining of local accountability through the impact on local newspapers; the unquantified but evident impact on mental health and wellbeing; and the unequalled political leverage dispensed by the machine-learning models, remote from inspection or democratic insight. These only hint at the scale of the potential distortion of competitive capitalism—a distortion in which we are willing and gullible participants. The extraction of our data from our actions and our preferences to enable predictive analysis to be sold for profit make British citizens in this century the equivalent of those exploited by colonial powers in earlier centuries. The new colonists, these casual exploiters of our future tense, require intelligent and more demanding regulation.

We need accountability in our infrastructure. Recent announcements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicate that he understands the need for radicalism: his proposed infrastructure fund, his commitment to changing investment algorithms to give the regions a fighting chance and his declaration that no industry should expect the state to relegate the national interest to their private interests in our trade negotiations with the EU.

May I encourage my right hon. Friend further with three thoughts? First, he should maintain fiscal discipline and not use the current experience of low interest rates as a windfall, but rather as a way for reshaping public pensions. Secondly, he should create compelling tax incentives that support local community investment in local free trade zones. Finally, he needs an early cross-departmental example of an infrastructure bid that makes sense. And I have an oven-ready deal.

North East Bedfordshire is already shouldering a substantial amount of the nation’s need for housing. Across the constituency, we see shortages of public services, such as GPs. We await announcements shortly on east-west rail. We have a long-standing need for the realignment of the A1, which will be a benefit not only for my constituents but for those in the midlands, as we heard earlier. This is the deal—this is the example that I am sure Ministers will want to point to as precisely what we need as the Government embark on the next stage in our country’s great future.

London Stock Exchange

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to one of my constituents for drawing my attention to this issue. I want to hear what the Minister has to say because, if we look at all of the recent mergers and acquisitions activity, whether between ARM Holdings and SoftBank, PSA and Vauxhall, Unilever and Kraft, or even Liberty House and Tata Steel, the Government are saying something. The Government have a view, so I think, as many hon. Members have said, it is appropriate to hear the Government’s updated view.

It is clear from other aspects of Government policy that there was no planning for post-Brexit circumstances for our country, so it is appropriate that they should have a new and fresh look at this. We need to know if our rules and regulations for competitive markets and a national interest test are suitable and up to what is needed in this new period of uncertainty in our economy. We have inherited those rules from the past, but should we rely on them as if we were part of the European Union and say they are fine and fit for purpose now, or is it appropriate for us to look at them anew?

It is also important to hear from the Government, because their crucial role at this time is to reduce uncertainty in our economy, so that people, companies and banks start investing in our country. It is fair to say that there is not a conspiracy—I do not think there is a conspiracy in the City—but when there are mergers and acquisitions involving a vast number of advisers, their interest will be focused on the deal and not necessarily on the impartiality of their advice to the Government. Without a clear review from the Government, there is a risk that the City will just let the merger through on the nod because so many people have vested interests.

Echoing my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I would like to know the Government’s role in reducing uncertainty on three specific issues. First, he mentioned a significantly increased systemic risk for the Bank of England from linking the two clearing houses, therefore exposing the UK to systematic breakdown of the euro. What assessment have the Government made of the extent of that? Secondly, as has been mentioned, on exposing the stock exchange to political risk from political groups outside the UK, what is the Government’s policy for managing that increased political risk if the merger goes through?

Thirdly, the harmonisation of business models has been mentioned by both sides during the debate. That is a way forward, but it is not the only way forward. Do the Government view the City of London harmonising with the EU as a priority, or should it better be looking to independently frame arrangements with the world?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The five-minute guideline limit for speeches will be displayed on the clocks to help the opposition spokesmen to keep the debate on time.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

However, I want to stress—I hope this reassures the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who was not on the Bill Committee—that the Bill does allow HMRC to approve a credit union to be an authorised account provider, if we decide to adopt a multiple provider model of account provision in future. NS&I has been adopted in regulations as the provider at this stage, but nothing in the Bill would preclude expanding the provider model in future. I want to assure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) that nothing precludes credit unions from being further involved in future.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I listened with interest to the points made by Labour Members about credit unions. I am a member of the Bedford credit union. Will the Minister look specifically at this issue? I think the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was saying that the Bill was an opportunity to expand the role of credit unions—they could be given almost a preferred provider status. When the Minister considers expanding the provider model beyond NS&I to include alternative providers, will she look specifically at expanding it solely to credit unions, rather than more broadly?

[Jane Ellison]

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it would be pre-emptive of me to make such a commitment at this stage. However, we have been clear that we think that credit unions have a big role to play. The primary legislation does not preclude them from being part of a multiple provider model in future. Indeed, my officials have been in constructive discussions with the credit union movement throughout the passage of the Bill. We are working with the credit union sector to ensure that the final design of Help to Save meets the needs of the target audience. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is looking forward to meeting the hon. Member for Harrow West and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) to discuss the issue further with the Association of British Credit Unions. Therefore, this is not about excluding the credit union movement. We are in regular, constructive discussion with credit unions. We just feel at this stage that the amendment would not allow us to offer that simple nationwide model on the introduction of Help to Save.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The reforms that we have announced will enable us to spend £330 million on practical support to ensure that people in the work-related activity group can work. May I point out that, over the past three years, the number of disabled people in employment has increased by nearly 600,000?

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The key insight of the Government’s productivity plan is that value can be unlocked through more timely implementation, so will the Chancellor have a word with the Transport Secretary to see how he can speed up the completion of the final part of the Oxford to Cambridge link from Bedford to Cambridge?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I will certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend. This is partly about smart delivery, but it is also about having certainty and a pipeline that allows contractors in the supply chain to plan ahead.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, the percentage of people on zero-hours contracts remains about 2.5% of all who are in work. Secondly, as he will know from the small print of the Budget, for every £4 that somebody saves, the Chancellor will put in £1. That means that at the rate that the hon. Gentleman cites, for example, it is possible to consider taking up a savings product.

It is vital that those who come out of education and skills training have every possible opportunity, which is why the Budget is right to keep up job creation and investment in infrastructure. It is also crucial that we try to represent the values of the next generation. Generation Y —my own generation—and those coming after us value enterprise. Many will set up their own businesses, and many will work in a totally different pattern over their lifetime, so the Budget is smart to turn attention to the growing army of the self-employed. Many of the smallest businesses of all will welcome a drop in their NIC burden.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend use this opportunity to congratulate the Government on the start-up loans scheme, which has done so much to help young people to go into business and fulfil their entrepreneurial objectives?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly will, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s reminder of that. I am sure he will agree with me on my next point, which is that we should also prize the ethical approach to business of many of those entrepreneurs. We should welcome the measures in the Budget that begin to make sense of taxing multinationals in the 21st century. The Government have my full support in ensuring that our tax system demands and gets a fair contribution from companies large and small, domestic and global.

Let me turn to the welfare measures in the Budget. As is well documented, Generation Y has a sceptical approach to the welfare state, and support for the welfare state has steadily declined by generation. We should therefore remind ourselves of the basic principles of what welfare is for. It is a safety net for when we are unable to look after ourselves, perhaps because of sickness, old age or disability. It is a safety net that we will all need in one way or another, so we all have a responsibility to maintain it. Because we are going to live longer on average than previous generations, we need to make sure it is affordable for the future. We also, of course, expect the richest to pay most. In summary, we need a sensible method of working out who needs most support and how to get it to them.

I did not support the measures announced in the Budget seeking to reduce support for the disabled through PIP. The manifesto on which I and my hon. Friends stood at the last election made it clear that we would spend less on welfare, but that we would do so by protecting the most vulnerable. I have supported the Government’s welfare reforms since 2010, principally because they put work first. Universal credit puts work first, as does the most recent reform of the rate for those who are on employment and support allowance and can work. In the 21st century, we should not write off people from work and independence; the policy of spending more on helping people to work despite a disability or a health condition is right.

In some cases, our welfare reforms have been about injustice in other ways, such as in relation to the removal of the spare room subsidy. For example, the pay to stay policy in our current Housing and Planning Bill will relieve taxpayers of subsidising the housing of those who may well earn more than they do, such as, dare I say it, the leader of Norwich City Council. These reforms are about fairness for taxpayers who foot the bill for a benefit they themselves could not expect to enjoy.

I am in the Chamber today to speak up for many constituents who simply want us to use limited resources to provide properly for those who need support. I helped constituents to record their concerns during the consultation on aids and appliances, and I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has stopped that measure. We should protect the disabled and make savings elsewhere.

Our manifesto clearly pledged us to back pensioners. At some point in the future, however, we will have to look again at universal benefits. As I have said, the welfare state is a safety net, which means that pensioners need a decent income. That is why I wholeheartedly support the triple lock. But it does not necessarily mean that the most well-off pensioners need benefits as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) have already argued. When others are more in need—and, indeed, when there must be a balance with other generations—is it right to maintain such policies?

A Mrs Brown recently wrote to the Norwich Evening News letters page:

“Excuse me, but as a baby boomer I was…brought up in post-war abject poverty. We got an apple or orange for Christmas...I worked for everything I have. We never had credit and only had anything we could pay for or we went without.”

She is of course right. I deeply respect her and all my constituents, from any generation, who have worked hard and done the right thing. I am making an argument for fairness in the future, for helping those who most need it and for balance between the generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Parents in Bedford and Kempston will have wanted a Budget that said, “Yes, we are going to make sure you get a good job. Yes, we are going to make sure you get a decent amount of pay, whatever job you do. Yes, we will make sure you can keep as much of your taxes as possible. And, yes, we will deliver a Budget that will make sure that your children have a better future than you do.” The Chancellor, in his robust performance today, has demonstrated that this Budget can deliver on all those items.

I was shocked to hear the response from the shadow Chancellor, as he seemed to spend 20 minutes of his speech trying to hold the Chancellor to account for something that the Chancellor is not doing. That shows part of the Labour party’s problem: there is no coherence in its approach to this Government. I would therefore like to provide a bit of coherence in my criticism of one aspect of this Budget—the sugar tax. I do so because it is not what it says it is, it will not raise the taxes ascribed to it and it will not achieve the health benefits that were its original vaunted purpose.

It is clear that this is not actually a sugar tax. There will be no tax on sugar in cakes, puddings or confectionary. That might be great for food manufacturers, restaurant owners and chefs, but it is not actually a tax on sugar. It is not even a tax on soft drinks, because sugars in milk-based drinks or fruit juices are not covered either. In fact, it appears to be a tax not on sugar, but on five companies: Coca-Cola, Britvic, AG Barr, Nichols Vimto and Lucozade Ribena Suntory. The Government ought to be careful about having very specific taxes targeted on very specific companies, because they will be open to challenge at the Commission or in the courts.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it very clear in the Budget that one of the objectives of the so-called sugar tax was to get companies to change their behaviour by making low-sugar drinks rather than full-sugar drinks. I used to drink a lot of full-sugar Vimto, but I now drink no-added-sugar Vimto. Does my hon. Friend accept that that is also one of the aims of the tax?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

It is bizarre for the Government to attack one of the sectors of British industry that has done the most to innovate and bring in new products, while ignoring other parts of the industry that have not made the same changes. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the core of the issue is the impact on obesity. Office for National Statistics figures show that obesity among adults doubled between 1993 and 2013. The proportion of obese children in 2013 was 9.5%, which was higher than in 2012, but lower than in 2006-07. The products being targeted originate from way before the current obesity issue. Irn-Bru, which is often described as the national drink of Scotland, was introduced in 1901. Robinsons Barley Water was introduced in 1935, and Coca-Cola in 1886.

The Government are ignoring the advice of Public Health England which, in its October 2015 report, said that it is not possible to compare the impact of price increases achieved by, for example, the introduction of a tax on sugar sweetened drinks, with other factors, such as the demonstrated effects of marketing on children or the impact of in-store promotions on purchasing habits. Nevertheless, the general tone of the available evidence is that restrictions on marketing and promotions may be more effective than fiscal measures.

[Neil Parish]

Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be better for the Government to work with the companies to reduce the amount of sugar in their drinks, rather than bringing in any form of tax? In the end, all we will do is to make it more expensive for poorer people to buy these drinks. That will not necessarily stop them drinking them, whereas if the amount of sugar in them could be reduced, that might have a greater effect on their diet.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, speaks with enormous sense and knowledge. He is, of course, absolutely right. It is much better to engage the industry than arbitrarily to impose a levy, especially one with such great uncertainty. The OBR states:

“The tax will operate with a specific revenue target of £500 million for the second year of implementation”.

It goes on—here is some real Budget gobbledegook—to say:

“From a pre-behavioural yield of over £900 million, the behavioural responses lower the yield to around £500 million a year. As a new tax likely to prompt a large behavioural response, these estimates are clearly subject to significant uncertainty.”

Well, there we have it—not a clue at all.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

Surely the two-year lead-in for the sugar levy is the right approach because that tells the manufacturers to reformulate. Surely the future and health of our children are more important than anything else.

[Richard Fuller]

The health of our children is, of course, extremely important, but, as I said, the sector is already innovating. There have been remarkable reductions in the sugar content of soft drinks compared with what has happened in other sectors, in which there has been no change in the amount of sugar that people consume. There are question marks over whether the levy will have the impact on health it is supposed to achieve. In Mexico, for example, where a sugar tax was recently introduced, the calorie reduction amounted to six calories a day. This regressive measure goes much against the principles that the Chancellor himself rightly outlined as the overarching ethos of the Budget.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this tax, which has many ambiguities, simply indulges our celebrity chefs and gives them more credence than they deserve?

[Richard Fuller]

I could not be more delighted to have given way to the hon. Lady, because she is quite right. The sugar tax is a passion of TV chef Mr Jamie Oliver, who is just the latest in a line of celebrities—think of people such as Mr Russell Brand and Mr Benedict Cumberbatch—to use their position to influence public policy. To quote The Independent, the

“chief beneficiaries of star-studded attempts to raise the profile of a good cause are the celebrity themselves”.

Can we have a new levy on policy pronouncements by well-heeled celebrities who sprinkle their fame to dazzle Ministers into ill-thought-through changes? The levy could pay for the unintended consequences for the public of their brief, highly jaundiced opinions. Emma Thompson’s pronouncements alone should secure the defence budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Let me first condemn the outrage in Brussels today and those who perpetrated it. My sympathies and prayers go out to all the victims and their loved ones.

While some highly respected colleagues are sitting on the Treasury Bench, may I put in a plug for the armed police in Dorset and around the country, and not least in our capital, to receive more money for training? As a former soldier, I know full well the complications of storming buildings and dealing with civilians who are fleeing from bombs, as they were doing in the departure lounge this morning, as well as about the chaos, the blood, the gore, the mess and the noise. To go into a building that has been attacked, armed police need an incredibly high degree of training, otherwise even more problems could be caused.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend recall the Prime Minister saying after the events in Bataclan that he would support continued funding for the police and particularly for our armed police?

[Richard Drax]

I do, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments. I am simply expanding on the need for highly specialist training. All kinds of things—images that can change during an attack and different lights—are needed in what will be a highly strategic attack. Our armed police would not be able to stay outside and wait for the Special Air Service to come; they would have to get into the building and save lives, as I am sure they would. I do not doubt for one second their courage or dedication. I am requesting that the Treasury and the Prime Minister look carefully at the moneys available to train our armed police to deal with assaults such as what we saw this morning which, sadly and tragically, are becoming more common.

Speaking of the military, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on resorting to military tactics? It is always said that attack is the best form of defence, and my right hon. Friend’s robust performance in the House today was a very good example of that.

I welcome much of what is in the Budget. I welcome the raising of the tax-free personal allowance, the increase of the higher-rate threshold to £45,000, the freezing of fuel, beer and cider duties, and the expanding of the savings culture. The Chancellor also reduced corporation tax and cut taxes for small businesses, and I want to direct my remarks about those measures to Opposition Members. We heard the shadow Chancellor say that they constituted a tax cut for the rich. May I remind the Opposition that such businesses are the engine room of our country? Many people risk their homes to invest in businesses and struggle for years to make a profit. They then pay for all the people whom we are trying to get into work, while also taking vast risks in making all the goods that we need for the economy to run, and generating the money that we need to spend on, for instance, schools and hospitals.

The more money those business people keep, the more they can reinvest in their companies. It is not a matter of people jetting off in their 747s. I have visited many businesses, and I am sure that Opposition Members have done the same in their constituencies. I know that small engineering companies are now having to buy equipment that is worth £600,000, £700,000 or £800,000, and that profits are minimal. We need to help such companies for the sake of the future of our country, and the future of those whom we want to get back into work.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about the sugar tax. I, too, have doubts about it, and I hope that Ministers will think again. I am also concerned about the effects of raising the business rates threshold for small businesses and exempting some businesses altogether. I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that more and more local authorities, particularly rural authorities like mine, will rely increasingly on business rates, because central Government funding will be reduced to zero. If that is the case, and if businesses are to be exempted from business rates—which I absolutely applaud; do not get me wrong—where will the money come from for small rural councils such as mine? I should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question when he sums up the debate.

Let me now say something about the personal independence payment, and all that has happened in that connection. Like others, I have huge praise for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). Having been the leader of our party, a lesser man would have gone off into a cave and stayed there, but not this man; he went out and did all that he could do, and has done, for the poorest in our society. He has dedicated so much of his life to that, and I commend him for it.

I want to draw attention to an aspect of the PIP that greatly concerns me. Many constituents come to my surgeries and say that they have been assessed unfairly or lazily—whatever it may be. It is a tick-box culture, and I have never liked the ticking of boxes. In some instances, support has been withdrawn from my constituents while their cases are assessed, although many of them have had doctors’ certificates explaining why they need the money. May I strongly urge the Government to look closely at the assessing system? We need occupational therapists, family members and doctors to contribute to assessments. It is true that that would probably be more expensive, but at least we would get the assessments right, rather than causing huge distress to those who are least able to deal with it by taking away what support they have, and then giving it back to them X months later when a Member of Parliament has become involved.

Finally, let me point out that virtually every departmental budget is now ring-fenced. Which areas can we stop ring-fencing? There must be savings to be made, not least in overseas aid, which I am sure could be spent and targeted in a far better way.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I give way to a new face and a new voice.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am not that new. Can my hon. Friend knock on the head the point that Conservative Members are making about permission? The issue is not about the fact that permission is given; it is about who will exercise that permission. The permission will be exercised by local authorities, but do individual shop workers who wish to run their own store six or seven days a week have such a right of permission?

[Mr Burrowes]

That is an important point. This is not simply about providing local councils with such powers, because our duty goes much further. We need to look further than simply at whether councils want this or not—whether 100, 200 or more councils want it. We need to look at what businesses and shop workers want.

On the question of imposition, in September, a survey of 10,000 shop workers showed that 91% of them do not want to work more on a Sunday. The current six-hour restriction is important to them because, as they say, Sunday evening is often their only guaranteed “family time”, especially if they have children at school in the week or partners who work weekdays. Not so many staff are required under the current regime—usually, there is a single shift—so most staff are able to work a Sunday rota with some Sundays off. We must look at the imposition on shop workers and businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Research conducted by the Association of Convenience Stores has established that there are more small independent shops per head of population in Scotland than there are in England. So the liberalisation in Scotland has worked—unless the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) is going to tell us, when she makes her speech later, that the SNP is about to go backwards and change the law there.

[Richard Fuller]

It seems to me that, if Conservative Members are being asked to vote for something that was not in our manifesto so shortly after the election, it should be because the situation is urgent, because there is a compelling argument in favour of the move, or because the circumstances have changed. The situation does not appear to me to be urgent. The Minister will finish his remarks, and he may advance a compelling argument. However, he seems to be resting on the assumption that the circumstances have changed, and in that context he has laid emphasis on internet shopping. He may be aware that, only yesterday, the head of the British Retail Consortium appeared before the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and talked about the evolution of business models. He said that, because high street retailers now have their own online retail outlets, they do not necessarily feel compelled to draw a distinction between the two kinds of retail for the purposes of achieving growth.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has, in fact, made it clear why it is important for local authorities to be able to decide locally what is right for them. He should also acknowledge that it is often the larger high-street stores that are the draw for footfall in local areas. As he knows, I think that free car parking also plays a part, and I should like to see more of that.

As we all know, politics is not an exact science, and all but the most saintly of humans can sometimes contradict themselves, or be open to the charge of inconsistency. However, the contradictions that are inherent in the Labour-SNP opposition to our liberalisation proposals are so immense that I must draw attention to them.

As others have pointed out, there are no restrictions on Sunday trading in Scotland. First, SNP Members said—as one would expect—that they would support our proposals, and now they say that will not. Will the SNP Administration in Edinburgh be introducing the restrictions that currently apply in England, in order to be consistent? I should be interested to hear the answer to that question.

Do Labour Members—along with USDAW—plan to send letters to their constituents urging them to give up using the internet on Sundays, lest someone, somewhere, be exploited in a warehouse owned by Amazon or a similar company? I am tempted to ask the Opposition why they did not vote against this proposal in Committee, or even, in some cases, speak against it—neither the SNP nor Labour voted against it—and why they have not tabled an amendment themselves. Perhaps the wording of the amendment could have been something like “It has come to the attention of Labour and SNP that that some people shop on the internet on Sundays.” After all, Sunday is now the biggest internet shopping day of the week. It could have continued: “Labour and the SNP demand a law requiring people to switch off the internet on Sundays, in order to stamp out this disgraceful behaviour.”

Perhaps I should not give Opposition Members any ideas. How can anyone be opposed to the idea of walking into a shop on a Sunday to buy something—a book, for example, whether it is a little red one or not—but not opposed to the idea of buying that very same book, so long as it is done on the internet? Labour and the SNP—parties that are, effectively, in coalition today—are supporting Amazon’s profits at the expense of shops on our high streets. I am afraid that I struggle to understand the logic of that.

The Economy

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I would listen more to the advice of the SNP on the economy if it had not projected that the oil price would remain at over $100 forever and fought last year’s referendum on that basis.

Various hon. Members have mentioned tax credits. The British people want to see a lower welfare, lower tax and higher wage economy, and that is what they voted for in May. In the summer Budget, we set out a package of reforms for working people, which included the introduction of the new national living wage, continued increases in the personal allowance and the doubling of free childcare worth up to £5,000 a year for working parents. Of course, we will listen to the concerns raised about the transition period, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out our response to those concerns next week. But make no mistake, creating a low-welfare, low-tax, high-wage economy is one of the most progressive goals a Government can have, and one that we will continue to work towards.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend analyses the Opposition motion to decide whether she will support it—I think we are fairly clear on that—is she as surprised as I am that it does not mention the new national living wage? That is probably the most significant change in our economy over the next five years—[Interruption.] Well, there are issues with tax credits—I am not making a speech, Mr Speaker—but the fundamental point is that we will ask companies to pay our poorest paid workers what is effectively a 38% increase in their wages over five years, plus 3% on their pensions. Does she agree that that needs more attention from Members on both sides of the House?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that progressive move, and it gives me a chance to emphasise the fact that yesterday’s data on earnings showed that the lowest earning 10% in our society saw a wage increase of 3.4% over the last 12 months, and that is before these changes have even taken place.

The Opposition motion also mentions child poverty. The best route out of child poverty is for a parent or parents to work. On our watch, the number of children growing up in workless families is at a record low, down almost 500,000 from 16.2% of all children to 11.8%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the Conservative manifesto. It is an excellent document, which says we are going to deliver better schools for people, we are going to put more money into the national health service for people, we are going to invest in transport for people and we are going to make £12 billion of welfare savings.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is good to see the Chancellor in listening mode. There is another group that can assist practically but which we are not talking about—companies. Are our companies in listening mode about the measures that they can take in moving their employees to the national living wage much more rapidly? What can the Chancellor say about what they are doing to help on this issue?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The savings we make in welfare are part of a package that includes a national living wage. Although the national living wage starts to come in next year, over 200 major companies—such as Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Costa Coffee and many others—have already, since the Budget, introduced wage increases that match what we are proposing to do by statute, so we are already seeing the benefits of the national living wage coming into effect before it is even introduced.