Health and Social Care Levy

Richard Thomson Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a standard trope from Conservative Members that public services in general, or the performance of the Scottish Government in particular, in some way fall short of what happens at Westminster. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who seemed to spend more time complaining about the Scottish National party than he did talking about the NHS and social care.

Despite some of the Damascene conversions that have clearly taken place among Conservative Members overnight, a number of truths and realities in this debate should make for deeply uncomfortable feelings among Conservative Members. By levying this tax, they are not only breaking a manifesto pledge not to increase NI and increasing the tax burden disproportionately on the youngest and least well-off, but doing so in order to play catch-up with the health and social care landscape in Scotland.

I listened carefully to yesterday’s statement and intently to Conservative Members talking earnestly about the need for health and social care integration. I even listened carefully to that call when it came from Members who had, in ministerial office, been in a position to do something to drive that integration agenda forwards. What was startling for me was the gradual revelation throughout the course of the statement that there was no plan. There was no planned assessment of impact or plan for how the moneys raised would make their way through the NHS and ultimately to social care. Leaving aside the unfairness of the means by which these moneys are to be raised and the Prime Minister’s utterly bogus rhetoric about “Union dividends”, we are being asked to applaud the scale of the inputs without any thought having been given to the nature of the outputs. Clearly, in their desperation to do something about this, the Government have decided that a tax is the best form of defence.

It is also clear that in England at least this debate is not even in the foothills of where it needs to be about its health and social care integration. In Scotland, we embarked on that journey several years ago. There is some irony in the fact that on the day the UK Government finally announced their plan to lace up their running shoes on this, the Scottish Government in Edinburgh were announcing in their “Programme for Government” plans to go beyond health and social care integration and forge ahead with a national care service.

What this measure reveals most of all is the mismatch between policy and resources, and the shortcomings of the fiscal settlement for devolution. We saw that through the pandemic. We still do not know whether this is to be Barnettised or hypothecated. We do not know how much is to come to health and social care, and by what means. The answers to those questions matter, because if the devolved settlement is to be respected, the spending decisions should be taken by the Government who are directly elected and directly accountable to Scottish voters. The suspicion has to be, given the lack of detail on that, that this is yet another power grab, with the UK borrowing and claiming that borrowing as the so-called “Union dividend”.

In the time I have left, let me say that the most iniquitous aspect of all is the impact that this move has on the lowest earners in society, the youngest in society and those who have least in the way of assets of their own. They are being asked to forgo their earnings, for an objective with which few can quibble, in order to protect the assets of those who already have the most. This Government have removed the freedom of movement for young people across Europe, are seeking to disenfranchise them at the ballot box and now expect them to pay for a social settlement that few have the means to do and few can expect to benefit from. This is no country for young people at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

One of the features of the Dilnot proposals—Dilnot has been very frank about this—is that his costs ramp up over time. That is why the initial funding is £5.4 billion, but obviously, the social care element will increase. I will come to the case put forward by SNP Members, who seem bizarrely not to want the Union dividend that is offered and to not be seeking that additional funding. Let me finish on the Opposition amendment—

[Richard Thomson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I will come to the points on devolution and happily give way at that stage, but let me just deal with the Opposition amendment, which requests a distributional impact assessment. As we have covered, that has been set out today. The Government have already published a document on the impact of our health and social care plan on households, looking at the impact of the new spending and the levy, with a full distributional analysis being published at the Budget and spending review.

As for the impact on businesses, businesses will play their part in funding this plan. However, existing national insurance contribution reliefs and allowances will also apply to the levy. This means that 40% of all businesses will not be affected due to the employment allowance, and it allows eligible employees to reduce their national insurance liability by up to £4,000. Again, that point was brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who highlighted the impact on business and the fact that businesses, with 1% of the highest turnover, will cover 70% of the cost.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Richard Thomson Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before we begin debating the new clauses and amendments to the Bill that have been selected, I want to remind the House that the scope of this debate is limited to whether or not the Bill should be altered or added to by any or all of those amendments and new clauses. This is not an opportunity to debate the Bill as a whole or the national insurance fund in general, and still less to discuss how to fund the NHS or adult social care. I expect that the House will have the chance later in the week to hear from Ministers, if and when they have any new policies to announce with regard to what I have talked about.

New Clause 1

Zero-rate contributions for employees of green manufacturing companies

‘(1) This section applies where—

(a) a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) of the 1992 Act in respect of earnings paid in a tax week in respect of an employment,

(b) the green manufacturing condition is met (see section [Green manufacturing condition]), and

(c) the employer (or, if different, the secondary contributor) elects that this section is to apply in relation to the contribution for the purposes of section 9(1) of the 1992 Act instead of section 9(1A) of that Act or section 1 of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of section 9(1) of whichever of the 1992 Acts would otherwise apply—

(a) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week up to or at the upper secondary threshold is 0%, and

(b) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week above that threshold is the secondary percentage.

(3) The upper secondary threshold (or the prescribed equivalent in relation to earners paid otherwise than weekly) is the amount specified in regulations under section 8.

(4) For the purposes of the 1992 Acts a person is still to be regarded as being liable to pay a secondary Class 1 contribution even if the amount of the contribution is £0 as a result of this section.

(5) The Treasury may by regulations make provision about cases in which subsection (2) is to be treated as applying in relation to contributions payable in respect of a tax week in a given tax year only when—

(a) that tax year has ended, and

(b) all contributions payable in respect of a tax week in that tax year have been paid.’—(Richard Thomson.)

This new clause provides National Insurance contributions relief for businesses engaged in green manufacturing

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Green manufacturing condition—

‘(1) The green manufacturing condition is that the employer is engaged in the manufacture of products within the categories designated under subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must by regulations designate categories of products that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are manufactured with the aim of increasing environmental standards.

(3) The categories of products designated must include—

(a) wind turbines, and

(b) electric vehicles.’

This new clause is linked to NC1.

New clause 3—Scottish Government Covid payments: exemption from primary Class 1 contributions—

‘(1) A primary Class 1 contribution is not to be payable in respect of any Scottish Government Covid payment.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a “Scottish Government Covid payment” means a payment of £500 pro rata to any NHS Scotland or social care worker in accordance with the announcement made by the Scottish Government on 30 November 2020.’

This new clause provides exemptions for Scottish Government Covid payments to NHS Scotland and social care workers.

New clause 4—Employment allowance for national insurance contributions—

‘(1) In section 1(2)(a)(1) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 (employment allowance for national insurance contributions), for “£4,000” substitute “£16,000”.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) will remain in force until 30 September 2023 and will then expire unless continued in force by an order under subsection (3).

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order made by statutory instrument provide that the provisions which are in force will continue in force for a period not exceeding two years from the coming into operation of the order.

(4) No order will be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament a review of the effects of the provisions in subsection (1) on employment, the performance of small businesses and GDP growth no later than 30 September 2023.’

This new clause would quadruple the employment allowance from £4,000 to £16,000 for two years. At the end of the period, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be required to assess its effects and would be able to seek parliamentary approval for the policy to continue for up to a further two years.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) the employer pays, as a minimum, a living wage to all staff it employs, and

(f) the businesses operating in the freeport in which the employer has business premises have collectively—

(i) put in place a strategy setting out how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 as amended by the Climate Change Act (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019,

(ii) put in place a strategy setting out how the businesses will ensure that no goods passing through the freeport are the products of slave labour, and

(iii) carried out an environmental impact assessment of the operation of the freeport.”

This amendment provides conditions to businesses in freeports. These include a strategy on how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK greenhouse gases emissions, a strategy ensuring no goods passing through the freeport are products of slave labour, and an environmental impact assessment of the freeport.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 11, at end insert—

‘(4A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e), the living wage per hour—

(a) for the financial year 2021-22 is—

(i) £9.50 outside of London, and

(ii) £10.85 inside London; and

(b) for each year after the financial year 2021-22 is to be determined by the Living Wage Foundation.’

This amendment defines the living wage, payment of which is one of the conditions businesses would have to meet under Amendment 1.

Government amendment 3.

[Richard Thomson]

I rise to support amendments 1 and 2 and new clauses 1 to 3 in my name.

I went over the reasoning for these amendments in some detail on Second Reading and in Committee, so I am sure the House will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go into quite that level of detail again. The arguments I made then still stand, that the Government should not forgo tax revenues or give advantages to some businesses that are not available to others in terms of national insurance exemptions without securing meaningful commitments in return and in advance.

For that reason, we believe reciprocal benefits should be baked in from the start, both in the strategic economic objectives that we presume are being sought and in ensuring the very best employer behaviour, so that we are incentivising the kind of corporate behaviour that we want to see and encouraging future manufacturing to develop in that way.

We particularly wish to see greenports evolve—greenports are the Scottish Government’s model for freeports—to help tackle the climate crisis and to ensure the protection of workers’ rights. SNP amendments 1 and 2 would help to ensure that freeports and greenports do not end up contributing to a race to the bottom on workers’ rights and broader standards.

New clauses 1 and 2 get to the heart of the matter, by ensuring that employers within the designated freeports pay, as a minimum, a living wage to all staff they employ; by setting out how businesses can ensure that no goods passing through freeports are in any way the product of, or have benefited from the contribution of, slave labour; by setting out how freeports can contribute towards achieving legally binding climate change commitments; and by ensuring that the environmental impact of freeports is properly considered in each case, so that they can be seen as an exemplar, rather than simply being compliant with existing legislation.

We believe firmly that if national insurance exemptions are to be made available, they should be for enterprises that are helping us to transition towards a low-carbon economy. In those new clauses, we have specified two categories of manufacture—wind turbines and electric vehicles—that we consider should be covered. The opportunity is inherent within new clause 2 for the Secretary of State to designate a much wider range of products that also can contribute towards that objective.

We have a choice here: we can grant these incentives and hope—this depends on one’s political taste—that we let 1,000 flowers bloom or that the invisible hand of the market will somehow deliver the economic and social objectives being sought; or, with some judicious framing of the Bill, we can help to increase the likelihood of achieving a set of positive outcomes from those objectives.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I understand the purpose behind the new clause, but new clause 1 refers to “green manufacturing companies”, whereas new clause 2 talks about manufacturing products that “include” wind turbines and electric vehicles. So could those companies not undertake all kinds of very polluting activities within their business but still qualify for the exemption for all their employees if they make some wind turbines and electric vehicles? That is how this seems to be drafted.

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I do not believe that is the outcome. If we are looking to incentivise, these are a substantial set of incentives, and they have to be for the promotion of what I have described. A phrase that may be familiar in his Thirsk and Malton constituency is, “You shouldn’t get owt for nowt”. That is simply the intention here: to make sure we are getting these objectives that are being sought.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The intention may be something different, but the way the new clauses are drafted and the fact that new clause 2 says “include” means that so long as a company does some of those things, it could burn coal to produce electricity and still qualify under the new clause. That is the position as far as I can ascertain, but the hon. Gentleman may be able to explain the difference.

[Richard Thomson]

As I say, the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on that. If the Minister or the Government do not believe the new clause can meet the objectives in the way I have set out, it is open to them to try to achieve those objectives in some other way. I have no huge expectation of this new clause making it into the Bill, but the intention is clear, the new clause is clear and the Government should be using this incentive to drive exactly the sort of outcome I have set out.

On new clause 3, the Scottish Government are to be commended for the way in which they have sought to recognise the contribution of our health and social care heroes and how they have responded magnificently throughout the pandemic. It remains a source of great disappointment that the UK Government have not followed suit or supported that by allowing one-off payments to be made free of tax and national insurance, instead treating them as a top-up to wages rather than as a bonus. Rather than having the Scottish Government gross up those payments, as the Minister has previously argued should happen, surely it would be better if the UK Government were simply to exempt the payments from NI. I am certain that if that power was devolved to the Scottish Government to exercise, that is exactly what the Scottish Government would do. This shows the limitations of the current devolved fiscal settlement and the requirement to operate within what are, in essence, fixed budgets, which would make it impossible for the Scottish Government to make those payments net without impacting on other spending lines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Employment allowance for national insurance contributions

‘(1) In section 1(2)(a)(1) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 (employment allowance for national insurance contributions), for “£4,000” substitute “£16,000”.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) will remain in force until 30 September 2023 and will then expire unless continued in force by an order under subsection (3).

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order made by statutory instrument provide that the provisions which are in force will continue in force for a period not exceeding two years from the coming into operation of the order.

(4) No order will be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament a review of the effects of the provisions in subsection (1) on employment, the performance of small businesses and GDP growth no later than 30 September 2023.”—(Sarah Olney.)

This new clause would quadruple the employment allowance from £4,000 to £16,000 for two years. At the end of the period, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be required to assess its effects and would be able to seek parliamentary approval for the policy to continue for up to a further two years.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

On Third Reading, allow me to place on record, as I believe is customary, my grateful thanks to the Clerks for their support throughout and my thanks to my party’s researchers, Scott Taylor and, in particular, Salma Saade, for the assistance they have given me throughout the passage and scrutiny of this Bill.

This Bill could have done a great deal more, and we regret very much that it does not. There is some irony, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said from the Opposition Front Bench, that while there is a discussion raging outside this House about national insurance, that is not what we have been touching on in the debate this evening. We should recognise that national insurance is a tax that affects the young and the lowest paid disproportionately. Exemptions that are targeted effectively, as I have tried to draw out through the passage of the Bill, can achieve much, but blanket increases simply increase and exacerbate existing inequalities in our society. It is not a burden for the Minister to carry solely by himself, but I hope very much that in the coming hours and days the Government will reflect carefully on that.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I thank the Minister for his engagement throughout. I hope that that engagement continues with the Scottish Government as we proceed to deliver the outcomes that this Bill on its own perhaps now will not.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure indeed to speak in this debate. I begin, as other speakers have done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing it, although I am bound to point out that it is no surprise that we are here debating the subject—in many ways it was an inevitability. The hon. Member said that he wants us to look forward rather than back; I can certainly understand that sentiment, but I hope he will forgive me if I take an inevitable look backwards as well, to get the waypoints and to get some bearing on how we go forward.

We are here because of the way Brexit was won in the referendum and then negotiated—if that is the word—in the years that followed. Perhaps through necessity, it had to be all things to all people; that was the only way that it could secure the narrow margin it secured. Since then, whether they are in favour or, like myself, very strongly against it, people have had to watch as one by one the promises made to secure it turned to dust—promises to the fishing industry, promises to the farming sector, promises to maintain freedom of movement and even a promise that we would maintain our membership of the single market once we were out of the European Union, as I believe the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster once claimed.

We are here today to discuss the impact of Brexit in Northern Ireland. All of it was predicted and predictable, foreseen and foreseeable. What makes it so disappointing that we have reached this juncture is that those in the UK Government who have taken us to this point have twisted, obfuscated and misrepresented at every stage to persuade the population to believe that the consequences that we now face would simply not arise.



Throughout that period a profound British exceptionalism has been on display, with the UK Government and their supporters noisily asserting their own sovereignty and expressing a wounded surprise that any other EU state that also still had sovereignty should not only have that sovereignty but have a willingness to use it to defend their own interests, including the integrity of the single market. Part of the problem was that the UK Government spent considerably more time negotiating among themselves than they did with European partners, and that allowed a fundamental set of questions to go unanswered for political convenience for too long. Those questions were: what kind of Brexit exactly, specifically, is it that we want? How are we going to get it? What implications will arise from that once we get it?

It was quite possible to leave the European Union and remain in the single market and the customs union. We would have become a coastal state with control over our fisheries, and we could have withdrawn from the political project of ever closer union that seems to cause such existential angst on the Conservative Benches. We could have left in a way that would have not created the present issues in Northern Ireland. Any form of Brexit that went beyond that made the risk of creating trade and regulatory borders a very live one indeed, with any such border having to fall either in the Irish sea or across the island of Ireland itself. After the unceremonious defenestration of the backstop and its political architect, the cry of the current Prime Minister to “get Brexit done” and the ensuing undignified stagger towards an agreement have left us with the protocol in its current form.

Part of the problem we have with that results from the philosophy that the Prime Minister and his advisers at the time had, which was to move fast and break things. There can be no doubt that the protocol was agreed simply to get the Government out of a big political hole at the time, and to allow them to say in Great Britain that they had got Brexit done and worry about the consequences for Northern Ireland after the event. This demonstrated cynicism and short-sightedness in equal measure. Nevertheless, it is an agreement that resulted from the negotiating objectives that Her Majesty’s Government held at the time. It was entered into freely, and if it is not to be implemented fully in its current form, it has to be renegotiated in good faith and in the proper way. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex observed in his contribution that the world was watching. I agree: the world was watching during the G7 conference and the world will still be watching to see how the protocol is implemented, whether in its present form or in an amended and agreed form.

The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) pointed out that Northern Ireland did not vote for Brexit, and it would be remiss of me not to point out that Scotland also did not vote for Brexit. Allow me to be the one to point out—I hope other Members will appreciate this—the great irony in the fact that if Scotland were to become independent and join the European Union, it would once again enjoy free unfettered trade with Northern Ireland. Our businesses would enjoy that in a way that they simply no longer have under the terms of the protocol.

[Sammy Wilson]

Scotland might have free unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, but does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be a far bigger problem that it would not have free unfettered trade with its biggest market, England?

[Richard Thomson]

I think there is a shared interest in making sure that there is as close to seamless trade as can possibly exist across these islands, within these islands and with the European Union. In that sense, the right hon. Gentleman and I are on the same page.

An agreement on animal welfare, sanitary and phytosanitary standards would eliminate the need for very many of the checks and reopen that trade. It is that sort of pragmatic renegotiation of the protocol, in the light of experience and of everything that has come from the nature of Brexit, that would be desirable in order to remove not just the barriers but the symbolism that the frictions that are being felt so keenly in Northern Ireland represent.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

May I just point out that if there was an independent Scotland inside the European Union, it would not be that independent, because it would be bound by all the rules of the European Union and the European Union customs code? Scotland would be obliged to have a hard border with the rest of England—not being independent from the European Union, it would have no choice in that matter whatsoever. It was a spokesman for the Scottish nationalist party who said that that would be good for Scotland because a border would create jobs. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that was actually said?

[Richard Thomson]

I knew that mentioning Scottish independence in this context would wake up hon. Members on the Government Benches. Nobody in the Scottish National party wants to set up hard borders with anywhere. It is simply because we are having to live with the consequences of this English nationalist dream and misguided venture that the question arises.

While it is fine and necessary to set an objective of restoring that frictionless trade, it must be done in the correct way. [Interruption.] Being mindful of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a close. We need to identify practical ways in which that can happen. Above all, the UK Government must stop the empty sabre-rattling. They must stop blaming their predecessors for the misfortunes that they have created for themselves. They must stop blaming everybody else for the misfortunes that they have landed themselves in and for the outcomes of their own choices—[Interruption.] A little bit of self-reflection and self-awareness on the Government Benches would not go amiss at this juncture.

More to the point, the Government need to work to rebuild trust and to secure a durable solution that works in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland and across these islands.

National Insurance Contributions Bill (First sitting)

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I saw that he raised the issue on Second Reading and, if I may say so, it potentially reflects a slight misunderstanding.

As the Exchequer Secretary said, the decision has been taken to set the rate at £25,000, roughly the national average earnings. That is different from median earnings. I do not think it is right to suggest that the threshold has been set at a level that is approximate, because it is designed to be comprehensible and readily understandable. To make it more precise might affect that.

The overall generosity of the package of support that is being given to freeports, and the range of potential employees to which this applies, is very creditable to the Government, because it shows the intensity and strength of the intent to make the freeports policy work. This is an important part of that policy, but only one part of a set of policies that are designed to increase the attractiveness of freeports for growth and for employment as well.

The way in which this measure has been structured is focused towards longer-term employment, as the relief runs for three years, and therefore it allows the employment rights associated with longer-term employment to be vested in those employees. From that point of view, it reflects a commitment by the Government to create high-quality and stable longer-term employment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Freeport conditions

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) the employer pays, as a minimum, a living wage, to all staff it employs, and

(f) the businesses operating in the freeport in which the employer has business premises have collectively—

(i) put in place a strategy setting out how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 as amended by the Climate Change Act (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019,

(ii) put in place a strategy setting out how the businesses will ensure that no goods passing through the freeport are the products of slave labour, and

(iii) carried out an environmental impact assessment of the operation of the freeport.”

This amendment provides conditions to businesses in freeports. These include a strategy on how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK greenhouse gases emissions, a strategy ensuring no goods passing through the freeport are products of slave labour, and an environmental impact assessment of the freeport.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 11, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e), the living wage per hour—

(a) for the financial year 2020-21 is—

(i) £9.30 outside of London, and

(ii) £10.85 inside London; and

(b) for each year after the financial year 2020-21 is to be determined by the Living Wage Foundation.”

This amendment defines the living wage, payment of which is one of the conditions business would have to meet under Amendment 1.

Clause stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

New clause 1—NIC relief for employers at freeports: review of commencement date—

(1) The Government must conduct a review of job creation in the 2021-22 financial year at each of the eight freeport tax sites.

(2) The review must assess the impact on decisions around job creation of the relief becoming available from April 2022 rather than April 2021.

(3) The review must be commenced by 30 April 2022.

(4) The review must be published and laid before Parliament by 31 July 2022.

This new clause will require the Government to assess the impact on job creation in freeports in 2021-22 as a result of NIC relief being available from April 2022 rather than April 2021.

New clause 2—NIC relief for employers at freeports: review of the conditions of eligibility—

(1) The Government must conduct a review of the conditions of eligibility for the National Insurance contributions relief introduced by section 1 of this Act.

(2) The review must take into account the number of freeport employees in 2022-23 who work at more than one freeport site and who earn less than the relevant upper secondary threshold set under the powers created by section 8.

(3) The review must consider the impact of the matter in subsection (4) on decisions by employers about job creation.

(4) The matter is the relief introduced by section 1 of this Act being available for employees who spend 60% or more of their working time in one freeport, and not for employees who spend 60% or more of their working time across more than one freeport but less than 60% in any one freeport.

(5) The review must be commenced by 30 September 2023.

(6) The review must be published and laid before Parliament by 31 December 2023.

This new clause will require the Government to evaluate the impact on job creation of the employers’ NIC relief not being available for employees who spend 60% or more of their time across more than one freeport, but less than 60% in any one freeport.

[Richard Thomson]

There is a pretty basic principle that lies behind this: that you shouldn’t get owt for nowt. In exchange for the substantial package of reliefs that are on offer through this Bill, we believe that businesses must offer something in return, beyond their presence and their baseline economic activity within the bounds of a freeport.

In this case that would include, through amendments 1 and 2, meeting local environmental obligations. Many freeports are built on sites that have environmental sensitivities. We believe there need to be some enhanced obligations around that. Activities in a freeport should contribute to wider environmental objectives, such as the commitments to net zero and climate targets. It is very important to protect workers’ rights, not only within the perimeter of a freeport but anywhere else that has any kind of economic relationship with the freeport. That means taking steps to actively ensure that we are preventing the exploitation of slave labour at any stage in the value chain and ensuring that a living wage, as defined, is paid to the workers in the freeport.

Those are all important objectives in policy terms and are a fair exchange for the public goods being consumed through the creation of the freeport. They are modest asks in the context of the relief being offered and are worthy of support.

[James Murray]

Clause 2 sets out the conditions that employers must meet to qualify for the relief created by clause 1. Those conditions require that the freeport employment must begin between 6 April 2022 and 5 April 2026; the relief will apply for three years from the first day of each eligible employee’s employment; and the employee must spend 60% or more of their employed time in a single freeport tax site at which the employer has business premises.

We have a number of points to raise with the Minister on the details of the clause. First, as I mentioned on Second Reading, it is hard to understand why the relief is conditional on employment not commencing until 6 April 2022. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation pointed out, with freeports expected to start operating in 2021, that would surely hamper freeport employers this year, and perhaps even create perverse incentives to delay the start of an employee’s work. In her response to my raising this point on Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary said:

“The Government have been clear that this relief is only available on new hires from April 2022, and set this out in the ‘Freeports Bidding Prospectus’ published in autumn 2020. The reason why is that having a clear start date is a simple approach that will support the freeport businesses.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 70.]

I found it hard to understand that the Minister’s point. Having a clear start date may well be a simple approach, but my question was not about whether the relief should have a clear start date, but why the Government had chosen a start date in 2022, rather than in 2021 when freeports are expected to start operating. To press Ministers on that, we suggest a simple review, as set out in new clause 1, which would require the Government to conduct a review of job creation in 2021-22 at each of the eight freeport tax sites. The review must assess the impact on job creation decisions of the relief becoming available from April 2022 rather than April 2021. I would be grateful if the Minister committed to carrying out such a review. If he is not willing to, perhaps he could explain why the Chartered Institute of Taxation is wrong to say that this choice of date could hamper freeport employers this year and perhaps create perverse incentives to delay the start of an employee’s work.

Alongside the start date for the relief, we want to raise questions about clause 2(1)(d), which states that at the time the qualifying period begins, a freeport employer must reasonably expect that the earner will spend 60% or more of their employed time in a single freeport tax site in which the freeport employer must also have business premises. That means that the relief introduced by clause 1 is available for employees who spend 60% or more of their working time in one freeport, but not for employees who spend 60% or more of their working time across more than one freeport, but less than 60% in any one freeport. If an employee splits their working time between two freeport sites, the employee may not qualify as a freeport employee, which might not be what is intended.

We have therefore proposed, in new clause 2, a review of the impact of that feature of the policy design on employers’ decisions about job creation. Again, I would again be grateful if the Minister committed to carrying out such a review. If he is not willing to, perhaps he could explain why he does not think that issue is likely to arise.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister about clause 2(1)(a), which provides that the employed earner’s employment is a new employment commencing between 6 April 2022 and 5 April 2026. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out, it is unclear whether an employee who is TUPE transferred from an existing employer to a new freeport business on or after 6 April 2022 qualifies for this relief.

Although clause 2(2) would prevent an employee from qualifying if the two businesses were connected, that would not always be the case—for instance, when a freeport business buys the trade of an unconnected business and commences that newly acquired trade at a freeport site. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether, in such a case, we can assume that the freeport business would be a “new” employer for the purposes of this relief, while recognising, of course, that its “new” employees would have continuity of employment for employment rights purposes.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Gordon and for Ealing North for their contributions. We have discussed already how clause 1 introduces a new rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions. If I may, I would like now to explain the freeport conditions that enable a freeport employer to qualify for the relief. That is set out in clause 2, and I will then discuss clause 3 and the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled.

Clause 2 has the following effect. It sets the conditions that an employment must meet to qualify for the freeport employer’s NICs relief. A freeport employer is an employer that has a business premises in the freeport tax site—business premises being defined as building or structure out of which the business is carried out. A freeport employee is an employee of a freeport employer who spends 60% of their working time in a freeport tax site and has not been employed by that employer in the previous 24 months. A freeport employer can apply the zero rate for 36 months on new hires from April 2022. The earnings of freeport employees hired before April 2026 will qualify for the zero rate for the full 36 months.

Clause 3 provides the Treasury with the power to legislate for the finer detail of the measure in secondary legislation. It provides a power to add, to amend and to remove certain conditions. The practical effect of that is to allow the Government to react to the economic realities of today, and also to give a degree of future-proofing to the measure against unintended policy outcomes.

The hon. Member for Ealing North raised the question of the starting date in 2022, and I understand that he is repeating the concern that he raised on Second Reading. It is adequately and properly met by the response that the Exchequer Secretary gave. It is a hypothetical matter as to when these freeports will begin to operate. We expect that to be soon, and we are pressing forward, but there are number of further steps to be undertaken before a freeport tax site can be designated and a freeport can go into operation. It is useful therefore to have a date certain for the operation of the policy.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the 60% rule discriminates against people who work flexibly. It is important to understand that this is a place-based policy—that is to say, it is a policy designed to focus and operate from a very specific location. To meet the objective of encouraging new investment and economic activity, and to maintain the focus and the targeting of the policy overall, it is important to restrict reliefs to those whose jobs are based in a freeport tax site. The Government will do that by making it a requirement that eligible employees spend at least 60% of their working time in a tax site.

Opening up that relief to employees who did not meet that requirement would undermine the policy aim of supporting employment in the freeport area, because it would mean that employers could effectively claim relief on employees carrying out work outside a freeport area—indeed, in an area that may not be related to the freeport at all.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question about TUPE-ed employments. These are not regarded as new employments, and the employment is transferred but is not regarded as new, and therefore the employee would not be eligible for the reliefs offered in the Bill.

I turn now to the questions raised by the Scottish National party in the speech made by the hon. Member for Gordon. It is important to note that the SNP’s amendment would place additional eligibility criteria—with respect to employment rights, equalities and the environment —in the Bill. Of course, those would add complexity to what is a well-established and rapidly moving process, and they would create potential delay. For that reason, it is not an attractive amendment.

The Government are committed to reducing carbon emissions, which is why this country was the first major economy to implement a legally binding net zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050. Of course, it remains open to the Scottish Government to impose higher standards if they wish, either on freeports or on other ports that exist in Scotland, since environmental policy is a devolved area. The hon. Gentleman may want to take up his concern with the Scottish Government if he wishes to see higher standards in ports in Scotland. From the Government’s standpoint, we are also committed to supporting those in employment, which is why we introduced the national living wage in 2016. This month, workers have seen a pay increase to £8.91 an hour, which is a 2.2% pay rise.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about ensuring that goods passing through freeports should in no way be the products of slave labour. This is a global problem, and employers and freeports will need to meet the same high regulatory standards on slave labour that other businesses in the UK meet. That is to say that they must abide by the landmark transparency and supply chain provision in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, by which the UK became the first country in the world to require businesses to report on the steps they have taken to tackle modern slavery in their operations and global supply chains. With that said, I hope hon. Members will withdraw their new clauses and amendments.

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the Minister for his response. One of the things that we hear most often is that any amendment that may be desirable may add complexity, which seems to be a standard phrase that gets thrown in whenever the Government do not wish to proceed with something and cannot think of a better argument.

On the basis of what I have heard, I am unpersuaded that the suite of benefits and reliefs that are offered should make it easier to help achieve those objectives. I take what the Minister said about the obligations that already exist under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but I still think that more can be done to embed the expectations that we have, and not just in Scotland. I take the Minister’s point that the Scottish Government have a certain latitude in this area, but the point is to ensure that the provision applies all over and that there is some kind of equality. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

If I may say so in a similar spirit, as I may not have the chance to do so after the conclusion of deliberations on the final provisions, let me also offer my thanks to you, Ms Nokes, to the Clerks, to my colleagues and also to the officials at the Treasury and HMRC for the work that they have done to prepare the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 6

Zero-rate contributions for employees of green manufacturing companies

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) of the 1992 Act in respect of earnings paid in a tax week in respect of an employment,

(b) the green manufacturing condition is met, and

(c) the employer (or, if different, the secondary contributor) elects that this section is to apply in relation to the contribution for the purposes of section 9(1) of the 1992 Act instead of section 9(1A) of that Act or section 1 of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of section 9(1) of whichever of the 1992 Acts would otherwise apply—

(a) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week up to or at the upper secondary threshold is 0%, and

(b) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week above that threshold is the secondary percentage.

(3) The upper secondary threshold (or the prescribed equivalent in relation to earners paid otherwise than weekly) is the amount specified in regulations under section 8.

(4) For the purposes of the 1992 Acts a person is still to be regarded as being liable to pay a secondary Class 1 contribution even if the amount of the contribution is £0 as a result of this section.

(5) The Treasury may by regulations make provision about cases in which subsection (2) is to be treated as applying in relation to contributions payable in respect of a tax week in a given tax year only when—

(a) that tax year has ended, and

(b) all contributions payable in respect of a tax week in that tax year have been paid.

—(Richard Thomson)

This new clause provides NIC relief for businesses in freeports dealing with green manufacturing products.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Richard Thomson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Green manufacturing condition—

(1) The green manufacturing condition is that the employer is engaged in the manufacture of products within the categories designated under subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must by regulations designate categories of products that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are manufactured with the aim increasing environmental standards. The categories of products designated must include—

(a) wind turbines, and

(b) electric vehicles.

This new clause is linked to NC6.

[Richard Thomson]

With your permission, Ms Nokes, I would like to speak to new clauses 6, 7 and 8, if that is possible. I will just wrap everything into one debate. I would like to add my own thanks to the Clerk and you, Ms Nokes.

[The Chair]

New clause 8 will be debated separately.

[Richard Thomson]

Okay. In that case, on new clauses 6 and 7, I simply seek to make the point that there is a strong appetite to find new ways to support the economy, especially in those sectors that can contribute to green recovery, beyond the covid recovery and into the future.

A key element in progressing that, along with the cost curve for new technologies, is driving competition and, through that, improvement. Providing exemptions on NICs and ensuring that they are targeted on businesses engaged solely in green manufacturing could do much to drive that innovation and improvement. That requires that incentives are targeted at enterprises that are engaged in green manufacturing and in driving that new green industrial revolution.

New clause 7 provides examples of two categories of products that clearly fall within that bracket, although there is certainly scope to expand beyond that, but I think that the principle stands. If that strategy is not to be achieved in that manner, it certainly should be achieved in other ways. I would welcome the Minister’s remarks on that. It is not my intention to push the new clause to a vote.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech and his attention to the Bill. The new clauses tabled by the Scottish National party would create a new zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for employers that are classed as “green manufacturing companies”, including those that produce wind turbines and electric vehicles. In considering such a measure, it is important for the Government to balance the different potential benefits and costs in a context that respects the requirement to manage public money and support public services.

A change to the tax system of this kind needs careful consideration and assessment of costs and benefits and goes far beyond what should be done via amendment in such a Bill. Designing a sector-focused relief is not straightforward and it adds complexity to the tax system. Having said that, the Government take supporting green manufacturing companies extremely seriously, and we have a raft of policies in place to do that. For example, since 2013, the Government have provided £150 million a year for the Aerospace Technology Institute, match-funded by industry to support the development of incremental improvements to existing aerospace technology, alongside zero-emission technology to protect and secure the sector. That includes £84.6 million of investment to develop zero-emission flights, and further support for other potential zero-emission aircraft concepts. There are many other areas, including support for the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the Faraday battery challenge, let alone all the work that has been done to subsidise the development of offshore wind, which attest to the importance the Government place on green manufacturing and green manufacturing jobs. 

I encourage the Committee to reject the new clause, but I acknowledge that the Government fully share the policy intent.

[Richard Thomson]

On the basis of the Minister’s remarks, the principle stands, but on this occasion, I will not seek to progress by moving to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Scottish Government Covid payments: exemption from primary Class 1 contributions

(1) A primary Class 1 contribution is not to be payable in respect of any Scottish Government Covid payment.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a ‘Scottish Government Covid payment’ means a payment of £500 pro rata to any NHS Scotland or social care worker in accordance with the announcement made by the Scottish Government on 30 November 2020.”—(Richard Thomson.)

This new clause provides exemptions for Scottish Government Covid payments to social care workers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Richard Thomson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As this will be my penultimate contribution, I would like to offer my thanks to the Clerks and everyone who has helped the proceedings to move so smoothly, through your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, which has helped considerably with that objective.

On Second Reading, I remarked on the unfairness that was caused by the Treasury’s refusing to exempt income tax on the thank-you payment that the Scottish Government made to health and social care workers. It was in the form of a £500 thank-you bonus to reflect how health and social care workers were valued for their contribution during the incredibly challenging period that we have been through. The full benefits of that payment have been put at risk by the UK Government’s ability to tax us. Contrary to a number of assertions, the Scottish Government do not have the ability to get round that, other than by paying far more than the £500. It would therefore be far better to have the exemption in place.

Although an exemption for the bonus would be welcome, we recognise that the majority of welfare employment powers reside with the UK Government. We therefore want to press the new clause to ensure that clarity is provided and that any future payments for health and social care workers can be exempt from national insurance contributions.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and, again, his attention to the Bill. The Government recognise, as he does, that covid-19 is the biggest threat the UK has faced socially, economically and in many other respects for many decades. Key workers, including social care workers and workers in the NHS, have demonstrated an astonishing commitment to keeping the public safe in the fight against the disease. The Government massively value and appreciate those contributions. However, in this case, although I understand where the hon. Member is coming from, the Government do not believe that the new clause is appropriate or necessary. We fully recognise the hon. Member’s concern, but we do not believe the new clause is the appropriate way to proceed.

Under long-standing rules, any payments made in connection with an employment are chargeable to income tax and national insurance contributions. They also count as income for the purposes of calculating entitlement to certain benefits. The £500 payments made by the Scottish Government to health and social care workers function as a top-up to wages. We therefore consider that those payments are taxable as earnings under normal rules, as I think has been recognised by the Welsh Government.

The UK Government have provided more than £5.9 billion of additional funding for the Scottish Government this year through the Barnett formula. If the intention of the Government in Scotland is for health and social care workers to benefit by at least £500, it remains open to them to gross up the payment to take into account the tax and NICs liabilities, as the Welsh Government have done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

I think everything that needs to be said has been said. On that basis, I would like to move to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Richard Thomson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]]

The Bill makes provision for NI exemptions in what we believe are a number of important and necessary areas. We are generally supportive on such matters, but there are issues in each area—both within and outwith the scope of the Bill—that require some attention and that we will likely seek to address or draw attention to as the Bill proceeds. For the moment, however, I shall confine my remarks to the general principles and the remedies offered in the Bill.

First, I made clear the SNP’s support for freeports during the debates on the Finance Bill. We feel strongly that, given the scale of financial support on offer in the Bill, in terms of the customs exemptions and NICs, it is important to make sure that other wider policy objectives —such as environmental obligations, the commitment to net zero and fair pay for those employed in freeports—are met. That is what the Scottish Government’s greenports aim to do, by marrying up all the incentives of a freeport with wider obligations to ensure the payment of the real living wage, the implementation of the Scottish business pledge and the making of contributions towards net zero emissions. All those objectives must be met before companies are able to benefit from the substantial tax status benefits that freeports offer. The fair and sustainable greenport model can be an exemplar of those values while adding value to goods, services and the country’s brand.

If the UK Government wish to take a more laissez-faire approach to the securing of such outcomes, that is a matter of choice as much as it is a matter of regret. However, it should not be allowed to become a matter that contributes to any further delay in allowing the Scottish Government to take their approach or in allowing those who wish to invest in Scotland under the conditions I have set out to do so. I urge the Minister to ensure that the UK Government move quickly to allow the model to proceed so that the bidding process can begin.

Let me turn to veterans. Those with experience of serving in our armed forces bring valuable life skills and experience to the workplace. The NICs exemptions are therefore a positive step, making it even more attractive to employers to hire ex-service personnel and bring their skills and experience into the workforce. We very much welcome that step on its own terms. It is important to provide every support possible to former service personnel as they transition to civilian life.

Anyone who is in contact with the veterans community will be all too aware of the gaps in the support available. The Scottish Government have sought to fill those gaps by funding the translation of military qualifications so that they can be fully recognised by civilian employers—another key step that can help to incentivise the employment of ex-service personnel; setting up the national veterans care network to ensure parity of access to specialist services; actively supporting attempts to improve access to employment for the spouses and partners of those serving in the military, through Can Do hubs and the Forces Families Jobs website; and setting up, in conjunction with the Welsh Government, the Capitalising on Military Family Talent initiative. All those things are key elements in making sure that we deliver the best for our service personnel, and they sit well beside the NICs exemptions.

However important the NICs step will be, it cannot and must not be seen as any kind of substitute or sticking plaster for what we believe is a planned 40% reduction in the budget of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. That cut stands in stark contrast to the support that we should be offering and my party will continue to oppose it.

Let me turn to the treatment of self-isolation payments—another measure that we are happy to support fully. The purpose of the payments was clearly to incentivise people on low incomes who needed to self-isolate to do so, to help to prevent the spread of the virus without their having to suffer any adverse financial consequences. The intention was only ever to help people to make the right choices for the benefit of themselves and others, with the NICs consequences quite understandably something of an afterthought. The move to exempt the payments from NICs, thereby removing the administrative and cost burdens on local authorities and employers, is therefore a positive step. If the payments can be made exempt from NICs, it makes it harder to justify the continuation—apparently at UK ministerial insistence—of the situation whereby any past or future thank you payments made to NHS and care workers in Scotland remain liable to income tax.

Finally, we welcome the move to allow changes to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime as it applies to NICs avoidance schemes. That may be a small step towards closing another area of potential abuse in the tax code, but it is necessary. However, what is really needed is a workable set of general anti-avoidance rules that tackle tax avoidance in all its forms; do not exempt existing and established abuse from action; include in their scope international tax abuse; give a tax authority the right to take action against tax avoidance, which it defines, in an objective fashion capable of being numerically assessed, without the consent of any unelected authority; and place the burden of proof on this issue on the taxpayer.

We are happy to see the Bill progress, and to address it in greater detail and attempt to improve it as it continues its passage through the House.

Finance Bill

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I remember when the pandemic first hit and the Chancellor said that we would all be in it together. Well, the reality has not turned out that way. It has been the story of the many and the few. For the many, it has meant food bank use rocketing—it is up 33% on a year ago. Universal credit claimants have doubled in my constituency and child poverty now affects more than one in three children in Coventry South—nearly 7,000 kids in my constituency alone—and nearly 4.5 million across the country.

While the majority have struggled with falling wages, unemployment and rents that they cannot afford, for a wealthy few it has been a bonanza. Last week The Sunday Times rich list revealed a record growth in UK billionaires, of whom there are now 171 in total. Their wealth stands at £600 billion—up nearly 25%. Amazon, which this year has raked in record revenues of £38 billion across Europe, paid nothing in corporation tax. This is not just a broken economic model—it is not just unfair and unequal—it is rigged. It is redistribution, but not in the way that we might traditionally understand: it is taking from the many and giving it to the few. That is what is happening when we see that food bank use is up 35% and billionaire wealth is up 25%. This Conservative Government not only refuse to tackle that but aid and abet it.

There is nothing in the Bill to tackle the tax loophole that means that income earned through wealth, owned overwhelmingly by the rich, is taxed at a lower rate than income earned through work. There is nothing in the Bill to fairly tax the obscene profit that companies such as Amazon have made during the pandemic, with the Government refusing to embrace a windfall tax. There is nothing in the Bill to provide the necessary investment in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tackle tax avoidance and evasion by the super-rich and big businesses. Instead, the Government are standing by as the tax gap stands in excess of £35 billion.

What is in the Bill is £15 billion more in annual cuts to Government Departments and a super deduction tax cut in capital spending that the rich are already reported to be using to purchase jacuzzis. To top it all off, there is the Tory Government’s refusal to embrace plans to tackle global tax avoidance. The plans put forward by the US could prevent the likes of Amazon, Google and Facebook from dodging tax and refusing to pay their fair share, and end the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates. Even at a moderate rate of 21%, such a measure could raise £13.5 billion for the UK Treasury, according to Tax Justice UK.

We should not really be surprised by the Government as they are on the side of big business and the super-rich. For a decade they have been cutting taxes while cutting the budgets of schools and hospitals throughout the country. They are also funded by a third of UK billionaires and, of course, they are led by the super-rich, too—not just an old Etonian Prime Minister who complains that his £150,000 salary is not enough, but a Chancellor who went from an elite private school to Oxford to investment banking, before becoming the wealthiest Member of Parliament in this House and using his power to cut the services of the working class.

Instead of this rigged and rotten system, we could make the super-rich pay their fair share to fund our public services and end poverty for all. That is the least the Government should be doing, so they should back the plan for a global minimum corporation tax. They should also back my proposed new clause, which would shine a light on the scandal of tax dodging. Instead of entrenching inequality, the Government could be building an economy for all.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 12, which was tabled in my name and those of my Scottish National party colleagues.

We have previously welcomed the planned future increase to the corporation tax rate and we also very much welcome, as have other speakers in the debate, the news reported today in the Financial Times that the G7 nations, or at least some of them, seem to be close to an agreement on minimum rates of corporate taxation. Like other speakers, I take this opportunity to praise and put on the record my admiration for the Biden Administration for having brought the situation about. It is imperative that the UK Government rise to the moment and seize the opportunity to embrace the emerging consensus on global taxation and ending the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates. For a global minimum tax rate for companies will reduce the opportunities for companies to minimise their tax liabilities by funnelling revenues through other jurisdictions. That will help to ensure that more tax gets paid in the jurisdictions where those revenues have been earned. In the process, that helps to uphold living standards and ensure that a fair contribution is paid to the common good by our corporate citizens for the public goods they consume.

New clause 12 follows our efforts at previous stages of the Bill’s progress in trying to oblige the Government to review the impact of the proposed corporation tax changes on all parts of the UK in respect of investment, employment, productivity, GDP growth and poverty, and to compare the difference between actual and forecast outcomes in the event of a deal with other OECD countries on a minimum level of corporation tax, such as I have mentioned, and in the event that such a deal cannot be reached. I also find much to support in new clause 22, as well as amendments 30 and 31.

Frankly, it should be taken as a given that any company qualifying for tax reliefs should be domiciled in the tax jurisdiction offering those reliefs. It should have an exemplary history when it comes to paying taxes that are due on its activities in that jurisdiction and an exemplary record of behaviour towards its employees, in terms of recognising the right to organise their labour and paying a living wage for that labour.

To conclude, in difficult times or in better times, there is nothing that sticks in the collective craw more than large corporate entities that seek to take almost as much from society as they give in return, and which pay much less than they are able and often end up paying proportionately far less than many of their smaller competitors. I am very happy to support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We were having a little difficulty getting hold of the speaker at No. 2 on the list, so I will call Richard Thomson and then come back to David Simmonds.

[Richard Thomson]

I rise to support new clause 25. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and I would like to echo much of what she said.

We have had freeports before in the UK, as recently as 2012, and our EU partners still have them, with 72 free zones across the EU territory. Some contributors in these debates have taken an excessively, I think, dim view of freeports. I would like to take a more balanced view, but I still think we are absolutely right to proceed cautiously, and that is why I am happy to support new clause 25. Given the incentives on business rates that are on offer, the potential national insurance exemptions and the exemptions on customs duties, it is absolutely vital to make sure that the economic activity attracted to freeports is not simply being displaced from elsewhere, and that the activity is new, adding value and resulting in economic output that is greater than would otherwise have been the case.

Therefore, when we are measuring that impact, it is important to make sure that the Government do not get to mark their own exam paper by choosing their measures of success after the fact. That is why it is important to be able to report back on job creation, skills and productivity, the impact on tax revenues, the levels of financial criminal activity that have resulted around a development and the details of the resourcing needed to ensure compliance with the law, and also to understand the extent to which the mix of industries that will have grown up around a freeport development match those sought in the original bids.

The Scottish Government have sought to build on the freeport model with a green port version of it that embraces all the potential benefits of freeports, while ensuring that the principles of fair work are enshrined at their heart—the principles of fair work and fair pay through a real living wage—and putting environmental concerns to the fore, through placing carbon reduction at the heart of these developments. These proposals for green ports from the Scottish Government already have widespread buy-in from business, industry and investors in Scotland. The Scottish Government stand ready, armed with the fresh mandate they received from the Scottish people earlier this month, to press ahead as soon as the UK Government are willing to do so.

At the conclusion of the Committee stage, the Minister gave—I hope he will not mind me describing it in this way—a somewhat editorialised account of the development of freeports and green ports in Scotland. We could back and forth roundabout that, but I would much rather move forward, just as the Scottish Government would. I hope the Minister would like to do that, too, and will commit to working as quickly as possible with the Scottish Government to bring green ports to fruition in Scotland.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

My constituency is not one of those that has the prospect of playing host to a freeport, or indeed being very close to one, but it is a subject of interest to my constituents for a number of reasons. I want to set out briefly what those are and why it is so important that the Government are pressing ahead in this direction.

My constituents are part of outer London, a part of the country which for many years and many generations has had an enormous economic pull factor, including for people like me. I grew up in the south Wales valleys. Following the disappearance of a lot of the heavy industry that was there, and despite a huge amount of effort by the Westminster Government and significant investment by what was then the European Economic Community to develop things such as roads, it is a place that has taken a very long time to see a significant financial and economic regeneration. While I remain sceptical, as many in the House are, about the tax situation of freeports in general, it seems very clear that they are a fantastic opportunity to play a big part in the economic regeneration and levelling up of parts of our country that have really struggled.

As a Conservative politician, it seems to me clear that a policy that is about ensuring people have access to work, a policy that is part of a wider agenda of raising people’s earnings and addressing things from child poverty to health inequalities, which still blight some parts of our country, and a policy that is very much about setting the principles of what we want to see as our economy develops, rather than taking a laissez-faire approach—we want to see the wealth not simply created, but spread and shared—is absolutely the right way forward. Freeports can be a significant part of achieving that.

It is absolutely right, as we have heard from a number of Members, that we have a balanced approach to the use of freeports. I think the port of Tilbury was the last of the UK freeports, but they are in common use around the world, The feedback is clearly very mixed about their economic impact. However, it is very consistent that they act as a draw, as a focus for a local economy, that helps to contribute to creating jobs and opportunities. As a country, we need to do that in places that have simply not had the opportunity for that in the recent past.

My constituents, who have significant concerns, for example, about the pressure on land to be released for housing to provide homes for the people who are currently being drawn in large numbers into our capital—contributing to significant housing waiting lists and significantly rising house prices, sometimes meaning that the children of people who have grown up and live locally are simply not able to settle in that area—see a direct benefit, too, to the whole country having the opportunity of economic levelling up. I therefore see this as a direct benefit to my constituents. It is important to the medium to long-term future of our country, and it is absolutely an inherent and appropriate part of the regeneration and levelling up strategy that we have for the whole of the United Kingdom. I absolutely 100% support this direction of travel and I commend it to the House.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

We all know the challenges that we face following covid, particularly those facing our young people due to the loss of economic opportunity and the loss of opportunities through our withdrawal from the EU, including the right to live, work and study freely across the continent. They, above all others, needed something particularly special in this Queen’s Speech, and this simply was not it.

Throughout the debate, we have heard tales of electoral success and triumph, and I am sure that by this stage in the afternoon, Government Members’ appetite for hearing tales of how the SNP secured twice as many MSPs in the Scottish elections as the Conservatives is quite sated. Nevertheless, the contrast between the sparse content of the programme before us and the ambitious prospectus on which the Scottish National party secured 48% of the votes and 49% of the seats could scarcely be starker.

In the time I have, I would like to focus as best I can on three areas: 5G, broadband and the delivery of infrastructure spending. The Government say that they aim to ensure that 95% of the UK’s geographic land mass has 4G coverage from at least one operator by 2025 and that the majority of the UK population has 5G coverage by 2027. In other words, that is an ambition to have 4G coverage by 2025 that is no better than the 3G coverage we have at present, which still misses out large areas of the land mass, and to take another six years to have 5G coverage that barely extends out of the main urban centres.

If that leaves my constituents in Gordon distinctly underwhelmed, imagine how they will feel hearing that the Government only plan to ensure 85% coverage of gigabit broadband by 2025. As ever, the challenge is not about claiming credit for what the commercial build was going to do anyway. It is about building from the outside in and ensuring that people have the economic capability—the financial wherewithal—to pay for the services they need and to have the access. There is absolutely no indication that that is what the Government intend to do.

On infrastructure spending, instead of trying to grab powers and agency away from our Government in Edinburgh, who have a proven track record for delivering major road and rail projects, the UK Government need to be working with the Scottish Government on these things.

Once this crisis is over, there will be a referendum to put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands rather than in the hands of the Prime Minister. This Conservative Government might be determined through their actions and inactions to hold back Scotland’s recovery, but they cannot and will not stand in the way of our democracy.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 2)
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I am happy to speak in support of clauses 80 to 91 and also new clauses 26 and 27.

Some of the measures in this cluster of schedules and clauses do not apply to Scotland, where the land buildings transaction tax applies instead following the devolution of the stamp duty land tax. That said, I am sure that the extension of the temporary increase to the stamp duty land tax holiday with no rate band for residential property in England and Northern Ireland that will be given effect by clause 87 will be very much welcomed by those who stand to benefit from it. The increased rates for non-resident purchasers given effect by clause 88 and schedule 16 is something that is long overdue. I am also happy to support the relief from annual tax on enveloped dwellings for certain kinds of properties given effect by clauses 89 to 90 alongside schedule 17, as well as the provisions being made under clause 91 for repayment to co-operatives that are also eligible.

I encourage Ministers to look positively on the reforms of property taxation that have taken place in Scotland since stamp duty was devolved. LBTT replaced stamp duty on 1 April 2015. It is very much a progressive tax in that the rates increase more than proportionately in line with the price of the property to which it has been applied. That has a very valuable role in the housing market with regard to easing house price inflation and, at the same time, exempting nearly 80% of first-time buyers from paying any kind of property tax on their first purchase of a home. My party is committed to maintaining current rates and bands within that tax regime while undertaking a review of the effectiveness of the additional allowance supplement that has also been put in place. It is in that spirit of constant review that we find much to welcome in new clauses 26 and 27, which we consider will merit the support of the Committee.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

As the Committee is aware, this year’s Finance Bill is presented at an unprecedented time in British peacetime history. The pandemic has hit the economy very hard, and the Government have not stood idly by over the past year. Extensive levels of economic interventions have been introduced to protect jobs, businesses and our people in order to help them through this pandemic. The impact of this on the state of the public finances has been drastic, with the budget deficit rising to £355 million in 2020-21 and our national debt rising to £2 trillion.

That is of course not a sustainable position, but, as we know, the tide is turning. The Government’s excellent vaccine planning, procurement and roll-out means that we can now see the end in sight. The economy and society have begun to open up, but we are not there yet. The Budget introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in March therefore had to achieve a very delicate balance in maintaining high levels of economic support during the continuing global health crisis while also laying the groundwork to repair the public finances and support our economic recovery.

The part of our economy that is the housing market comes in both property sales and construction. I will address my remarks primarily to the decision to extend the temporary stamp duty land tax holiday. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, when the pandemic struck and the first lockdown began in March last year, the housing market experienced a sharp decline in sales, falling by 43% in the second quarter of the financial year compared with the same period of the previous year. Historically, a sharp drop in transactions, if left unchecked, has led to a fall in the level of house building. The Government’s action in introducing revised thresholds at the lower end of the market, abolishing stamp duty on the first £500,000 of the purchase price and setting the level at 5% for the next £425,000, has greatly alleviated the problem. In my constituency of Orpington, the average house price is currently £528,000, and the Government’s intervention has reduced the level of stamp duty on an average transaction by 91%, leading directly to a strong recovery in the local housing market.

That recovery is also reflected in the picture nationally. According to HMRC figures, in the third quarter of the most recent financial year, housing sales increased exponentially on the previous quarter, and in the fourth quarter transactions were at their highest level since 2007. In the short term, that is extremely welcome because the Government have achieved their objective of stabilising the housing market and maintaining confidence in the construction market. By introducing an extension of the initial stamp duty holiday, followed by a tapering of relief, the Government have taken steps both to remove the danger of a cliff edge that could have reversed all the good work done in the latter half of last year and to prevent an unsustainable long-term boom in house prices. I believe that is the right approach at this juncture.

In the longer term, though, I urge the Government to take a long, hard look at the structure of stamp duty. Stamp duty thresholds have not kept pace with the rise in house prices, meaning that stamp duty has become a significant barrier to purchasing. That is particularly true in places such as Orpington, and even more so in other areas of south-east England in particular, where housing shortages are most acute. In the light of the strong link between house construction and housing transactions, coupled with the Government’s desire to ramp up house building and level up the country, a review of the wider stamp duty regime would bear consideration. However, that is an argument for another day, once the battle with the pandemic is finally won.

For the moment, I believe that the extension of the stamp duty until the end of June is the right move, and its tapering from the end of June until October is both proportionate and unwelcome. I will support the Government on the issue this evening.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Richard Thomson Excerpts

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

[Felicity Buchan]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that all the forecasts show a very substantial increase in the tax take by virtue of this move in corporation tax.

I believe that we have the right balance. We are increasing corporation tax, but only for 10% of our businesses and only in two years’ time. Importantly, we are also accelerating and incentivising investment in businesses, which will be critical to our economic recovery.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I want to speak to the amendments and, in particular, the new clauses that have been tabled in my name and those of my colleagues.

First, I will start with the positives. We very much welcome the planned increase in corporation tax rates. For a number of years, there has been an orthodoxy that lower corporation tax rates are one way to economic growth. There was a period in the 1980s through to about the 2000s when it was possible to make the argument, as many did, that lower taxes could be a route to securing an increased level of foreign and direct investment, and that the resulting increase in economic activity could result in higher tax revenues than might otherwise have been the case. I would like to think that we are all just a bit wiser and more savvy now, given that, in the growth of that period, it is impossible to properly separate out the increase in corporation tax take and the general growth in activity that took place independently.

Given that we did not see conspicuously high levels of investment or wage growth over that period, except perhaps in boardrooms, and given the condition of our public finances and the importance of public goods as a driver of wellbeing and sustainable growth and prosperity, we consider that this increase, which will apply a new 25% rate on the top 10% of firms, is fully justified. We are relieved that firms will have until 2023 to plan for this move. We believe it was misguided for the Chancellor to try to increase it from 19% to 20% in September, ahead of any recovery starting, beyond the anticipated return-to-trend growth that we are seeing anyway.

The SNP firmly believes that it is important that our corporate citizens pay their share towards the maintenance and good functioning of the market and the public goods that allow them to flourish. However, domestic corporation tax is only part of that story. If re-elected—obviously, we have elections coming up in Scotland, which I am sure hon. Members are focused on avidly—the SNP Government will be looking to explore the possibility of levying a higher poundage on properties where the owner is registered in a tax haven. That is part and parcel of the package of measures that is needed to ensure that everyone who benefits from participation in the market is making a suitable contribution towards it.

Further, we believe that the UK must seize the opportunity that this moment presents to work closely with the Biden Administration in the USA. We must heed the call of that Administration’s Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, to set a global minimum tax take for companies to ensure the global economy can thrive, based on a more level playing field and the taxation of multinational corporations, and help spur innovation, growth and prosperity.

New clause 13 would oblige the Government to review the impact of the changes made by clauses 6 to 14 in all parts of the UK, particularly in respect of business investment, employment, productivity, GDP growth and poverty, and to compare the difference in actual and forecast outcomes between having a deal in place with other OECD countries on a minimum level of corporation tax and not.

Similarly, new clause 19 asks the Government to review these changes but in a way that looks both forwards and backwards. As I said earlier, orthodoxies may change in economics, and the Chancellor’s commitment to increasing the headline rate seems to mark the end of a protracted period of a race to the bottom on corporation tax rates. The Chancellor himself said on 3 March that cuts

“might not be the most effective way to drive capital investment up”.

On that basis, it is very important that the Government should compare the estimated impact of corporation tax changes in the Bill with the impact of the changes in corporation tax rates that we have seen in each of the past 12 years.

New clause 20 seeks a review of corporation tax provisions on the link between corporate profit rates and ownership, and the cost of reintroducing a small profits rate. We believe that the lower small profits rate introduces an unnecessary degree of complexity into the tax system. We were unable to find specific costings for the reintroduction of the small profits rate in the OBR policy costings. Instead, they appear to have been rolled into the costings for the overall rate increase. The Treasury should publish details of the revenue forgone through this measure for the purposes of proper scrutiny.

New clause 21 seeks a report on the impact of the super deduction on progress towards the Government’s climate emissions targets and capital investment in each of the next five years. It is important that we understand properly not just the impact that the super deduction is expected to have but the impact it actually has, because it is one of the most significant spending measures in the Budget and a very significant giveaway to big business.

The super deduction is poorly targeted, since it applies to physical assets rather than investments in software, for example, and seems to mostly benefit larger companies. Smaller investments are already tax-deductible under the annual investment allowance. OBR analysis suggests that some £5 billion of the super deduction will, in any event, be spent on previously planned investments. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this measure will benefit larger companies in a way that does not necessarily drive growth in the way that the Chancellor would hope and certainly does not target the small and medium-sized enterprises that benefited from those deductions anyway and are the engine of growth in most parts of these islands.

When setting policy, it is always a good idea to know what we are doing and why and to have the most solid evidential base for doing so. The fact that we will not put these measures to a vote does not diminish the significance and importance of what we propose. I can assure the Minister that we will return to these matters and will look to the Government to act, even if these matters are not addressed in the final version of the Bill.

[Andrew Jones]

One of the biggest challenges that the UK economy has faced for many years is its productivity. The UK has some of the highest-calibre companies in the world, among the smartest and most productive on the planet, but outside the south-east, there are areas of the UK where productivity matches parts of southern Europe. For many years there has been a long tail of companies whose productivity is very poor. There are many causal factors in that, including skills—particularly digital—and infrastructure challenges, which I have focused a fair amount of my time on. One of the key issues is a lack of business investment, and one element of the Bill, which I shall focus upon in my few words, goes right to the heart of tackling that: the super deduction.

Until March 2023, companies can claim 130% capital allowances, which basically means that for every £1 a company invests, its taxes are cut by up to 25p. I have no doubt that this will prompt investment. Investment is a driver of economic growth. While the UK has performed well on growth over the last decade, it has lagged on investment, so if investment rates can be improved, the UK will do even better.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the UK will rise from 30th to first in the OECD world rankings for business investment. That is a very positive thing. Being a beacon for investment is a positive, not a negative; we should not listen to Opposition Members on this. However, such a rise in the world rankings will not be achieved unless there is real scale to this measure. For the two years that it is in place, it is estimated to amount to £25 billion. It would therefore be the largest business tax cut in modern British history, so there is indeed real scale to it.

When we talk about productivity in this place, there is a danger of speaking in jargon. What people could take away is the message that they will have to work harder, do 40 hours per week instead of 38, or work in a team of six rather than eight but still do the same work. What I know we mean, and what I am talking about, is working smarter, so that there is more economic output for the same input. Investment in new machinery and the latest technology is one way to increase productivity, and the super deduction will increase investment.

There are amendments ahead of us this evening about measuring the impact of those policies. Those amendments are not necessary as the Treasury always reviews the impact of its policies, but as the Treasury does its work it will be interesting to see the impact of the super deduction on different parts of the country. It will simply reflect the different economic mix that we have in different areas, and some will benefit more significantly than others. I think the policy will be very helpful in the levelling-up agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I thank the Minister. I will approach that later in my speech, so I thank him for already guessing what I was going to say.

We really need some honesty and transparency from the Government on this. The estimates of the job creation benefits of freeports made by their advocates so far have been flimsy to say the least. We also need a proper assessment of the risk of job displacement. If freeports simply move existing economic activity around, they risk doing harm to the economic fortunes of neighbouring areas, with no net benefit to the country as a whole. Indeed, a 2019 report by the UK Trade Policy Observatory found that the main effect of freeports was to divert businesses into a port from a surrounding area, rather than creating new jobs, so it is not just Labour saying this; it is the experts saying it too. That may be especially problematic in areas where freeports are situated near a local authority, or regional or even national borders.

Our new clause would require the Government to report on tax avoidance and evasion and criminal activity in freeports and to set out the level of additional staffing and resources required by HMRC and other Government bodies. There are long-standing concerns that freeports allow or encourage tax avoidance and evasion, and there is international evidence that freeports have been used for criminal activity. For example, the OECD has stated that there is

“clear evidence that free trade zones are being used by criminals to traffic fake goods”.

The Financial Action Task Force has said that the lack of scrutiny can facilitate trade-based money laundering through relaxed oversight and a lack of transparency. The TUC and others have warned of the dangers to workers’ rights from deregulation in freeports. We need to take these concerns seriously. As a minimum, the Government should commit to trade union representation in the governance of freeports at local and national levels.

I will now make a few points about the clauses we are considering. First, on the cost of the tax reliefs being introduced, the Government have provided some information on the expected operational costs of HMRC but, as recently as last month, they were unable to estimate the reduced revenue that the Exchequer will receive as a result of these reliefs. I hope the Minister can address that. Clause 110 includes the enhanced capital allowance for plant and machinery spending at 100%, but that is less generous than the 130% super deduction. Presumably, for the period that they overlap, companies will need to consider whether they can claim the super deduction rather than this allowance.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised a number of concerns about the operation of the stamp duty relief in clause 111. One issue is how exactly freeport tax sites will be designated and whether particular buildings can be identified as either in or out the boundary of the tax site. Can the Minister provide some clarity on joint ventures where there is both commercial and residential development? The Chartered Institute of Taxation points out that the clause, as currently drafted, excludes a common commercial arrangement from that relief. Finally, there is the issue of withdrawal of relief for subsequent non-qualifying activity. A small amount of non-qualifying use can potentially lead to withdrawal of all the relief. Is the Minister concerned that the risk of loss of the full relief in such circumstances could discourage investment?

To conclude, the Opposition have real concerns about the Government’s freeports policy. If it is going to succeed and bring the sorts of benefit that those on the Government Benches claim, we need to see more detail on the operation of freeports and how the Government plan to mitigate the risks. We need regular monitoring of the effectiveness and the impact on the country as a whole over the years to come, which is exactly what new clause 25 would require the Government to do. If the Government are confident in their policy, they should be confident in allowing scrutiny of how it works in practice. I call on them to support our new clause.

[Richard Thomson]

I would like to add my support for the Opposition amendments and to seek a commitment from the Government, while the Minister is here, to allow the Scottish Government after the Scottish elections to move ahead with their greenports adaptation of the freeports concept. Freeports do not require Brexit in order to be brought about, and legitimate questions remain about how much additional economic activity they will actually generate, rather than simply displace from other areas of the economy.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Thomson]

It is very early but yes, of course.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. There was a freeport in Shannon in the Republic of Ireland before the Republic of Ireland joined the European Economic Community. The tax freedoms that it was granting at the Shannon freeport were significantly curtailed as a result of joining the EEC, because the EEC prevented it from providing those freedoms. That is why we are discussing the question as to whether or not we are using the new freedoms we have, but the fact is we have much more tax freedom outside the EU for freeports than we had when we were in the EU, and hopefully Scotland will benefit from that.

[Richard Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I think my point still stands. No matter what the spirit of truth might be in his remarks about how constraints were placed on the Shannon free zone, there are freeports in the European Union. Freeports are not something that intrinsically require Brexit of itself in order to be able to be pursued. But certainly I hope there are benefits for Scotland from this. I think those benefits can be manifested best perhaps through the greenports approach, which I would like to expand upon.

As I say, the Scottish Government have developed their own version, the greenports, which seeks to embrace all the potential benefits that could come through freeports, while aligning that with ensuring the principles of fair work are enshrined, ensuring that workers within the greenports are paid a real living wage and that the reduction of carbon emissions is embedded at the heart of those developments. A re-elected Scottish National party Government will seek to implement those greenports, making public sector support contingent on businesses complying with that fair work first agenda, paying that real living wage and implementing the Scottish business pledge: our values-led partnership between Government and business based on boosting productivity competitiveness through fairness, equality and sustainable employment, and on delivering on concrete plans to reduce carbon emissions in line with supporting the Scottish Government’s ambition to reach net zero by 2045.

The Scottish Government proposals for these economic development zones already have widespread buy-in from stakeholders, who are desperate to start bidding to run the greenports. It was heartening to hear from the Minister his commitment to seeing freeports in all parts of the UK. Nevertheless, if the people of Scotland choose to re-elect a Scottish National party Government, the Government need to accept the mandate that comes from that and, if there has been an element of heel dragging, to hasten the process of coming to an agreement on the rules around these proposed greenports so that the bidding can begin immediately.

Having taken positive steps to end the race to the bottom on corporate taxation, as we heard in an earlier debate, I think it is important that the UK Government do not allow those who take advantage of freeport status to neglect or otherwise elude their obligations to the workforce, to the environment and to the building of long-term, sustainable value in the regions where they are located and the wider economy.

In the year that the world is coming to Scotland to plan our future at the COP summit, I think it is absolutely fitting that we should be able to develop greenports to demonstrate our ambitions on sustainable, inclusive economic growth as we transition to a net zero economy. A fair, sustainable greenport model can be an exemplar of those values, while adding value to Scottish goods, services and the country’s brand. The UK Government, once the Scottish elections are over, need to get on board with this and back the innovative approach of the Scottish Government model so that we can get the bidding process under way.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]]

The east midlands is one of the regions that was fortunate to benefit from a new freeport in this Budget. Spread across three sites in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and my own constituency of Rushcliffe, we hope to establish a green technology park on the site of one of the UK’s last coal-fired power stations, at Ratcliffe-on-Soar.

Hearing contributions from the Labour party in recent weeks, and from the shadow Minister just now, we would be forgiven for thinking that, with the arrival of a freeport, Rushcliffe will become some sort of wild west, with disputes over stolen art, organised crime activity and tax avoidance settled with a shoot-out in the drinking establishments of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Quite a picture, but one that ignores the extensive steps the Government have taken to prevent illicit activity, such as background checks for businesses that want to locate in a freeport, including their beneficial owners, and a register of businesses operating in each freeport site, to which HMRC, the National Crime Agency and Border Force will all have access. Successful freeport bids also had to demonstrate their approach to inventory systems, physical security, personnel security, cyber-threats and international regulations.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Richard Thomson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of my colleagues in our opposition to the Finance Bill on Second Reading. This might be the Finance Bill that we have, but it is certainly not the Finance Bill that we need right now. Despite warnings and despite the damage to employment that was caused by previous hard deadlines that the Chancellor set himself on furlough—which turned out not to be such hard deadlines after all—we once again face just such a set of cliff edges with these measures come September. We face a cliff edge with the ending of the support for the self-employed, the ending of furlough and the non-continuation of the equivalent of the £20 universal credit uplift—a policy that has done so much to get families on low incomes through the pandemic, making sure that food was on the table, bills could be paid and the wolf was kept from the door. We will also face a cliff edge in key elements of the Scottish economy thanks to the removal of the 5% VAT rate for hospitality. As things stand, all these cliff edges will be encountered irrespective of the condition of the economy come September or, indeed, the progress that we continue to make in suppressing the virus.

This Bill fails to get to grips with the big issues of ensuring a green recovery and fails when it comes to dealing with the much-vaunted levelling-up agenda. In the time I have left, I wish to highlight two points of particular interest to my constituents and to wider society across the north-east of Scotland: the recently announced sector deal for the North sea and the levelling-up agenda.

First, lest there be any doubt, the sector deal is absolutely welcome. It has been called for for a long time and I know that the Government and industry have been working together closely to deliver the package. Although it might be a sector deal, whatever else it might be it is emphatically not a fiscal deal. There are big numbers in respect of the amounts of investment money that might potentially come in, but the Government are not putting a huge amount of money on the table to achieve that. It may help—I hope it does—to drive the objectives of a just transition and to boost the skills and retain human capital in the north-east of Scotland, but we need to be prepared for the possibility that further incentivisation might be needed.

Secondly, on levelling up, people who listened to my good friends and colleagues from neighbouring constituencies who represent the Conservative and Unionist party would believe that the levelling-up fund was going to leave not a single pothole unfilled, not a bridge unrepaired and not a single social project unfunded in the north-east of Scotland. Instead, when the prospectus was unveiled, the city of Aberdeen was in level 2 and Aberdeenshire was languishing in the lowest level, level 3, despite the urgent need to address the hit that the oil and gas sector has taken and tackle the impact of Brexit on our exporters. It seems that the post-Brexit power grab on Scotland’s devolved Government has morphed into a cash grab on the north-east of Scotland.

In conclusion, this is the Bill that we have but it is not the Bill that we need. Along with my colleagues, I look forward to exposing more of its shortcomings as we see them, as the Bill progresses.