Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Debate between Roger Mullin and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

This is another right boorach. The last Chancellor who had to make a U-turn lasted only a few weeks thereafter, so before this Chancellor leaves office, will he confirm that, since he said that this decision was only made at 8 o’clock in the morning, that means it has not been taken to the full Cabinet?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I shall add the word “boorach” to my vocabulary.

Business of the House

Debate between Roger Mullin and John Bercow

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot take part, as the hon. Gentleman rightly observes from a sedentary position, but if the hon. Member for Stirling wants an Adjournment debate on the matter, I have a hunch that he might secure it.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Flawed neoclassical theoretical assumptions combined with methodological problems are enshrined within the model of the UK economy that is used by both the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. I would call into question how independent that makes the OBR. When can we have a debate on this important matter?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Roger Mullin and John Bercow

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Lastly in this category, I call Mr Roger Mullin.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

7. What steps he is taking to support international trade and investment in Scotland.

Finance Bill

Debate between Roger Mullin and John Bercow

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Does the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) wish to respond, which he is permitted, but not required, to do?

[Roger Mullin]

A few words, Mr Speaker. I merely wish to say that I am incredibly disappointed that the Government have chosen to drag their feet on the issue of Scottish limited partnerships, and that, on the basis of their own arguments, we will press new clause 7 to a vote.

[Mr Speaker]

That was a commendably pithy speech from the hon. Gentleman, for which I think the House is almost audibly grateful, if I may put it that way.

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

Points of Order

Debate between Roger Mullin and John Bercow

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I also appreciate, as doubtless will the House, that he has now, albeit somewhat belatedly, put the record straight. Let me thank him on the principle of “better late than never”.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, the Chancellor indicated two contrary views. One was that we face great turbulence in the immediate days and weeks, and the other was that he would postpone the emergency Budget until after the Tory leadership crisis has been resolved. Much of what we face during this crisis will have an impact on the Government’s finances, including issues covered by the Finance Bill. Should we not have greater clarity before we undertake scrutiny of this Finance Bill?

[Mr Speaker]

If the matters of which the hon. Gentleman wishes to treat are contained in the Bill, he may very well have a perfectly good opportunity to air his concerns and undertake his scrutiny today. I am very grateful to him for giving me notice of this point of order. It is perfectly clear that the Government intend to proceed with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill today, and the proceedings will be taken in accordance, as they must be, with the programme order agreed by the House on 11 April. Although the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, he is a very accomplished and experienced person with much life experience. [Laughter.] I mean that he is a person of the world—a cerebral individual. Although debate must focus on the amendments selected, I have no doubt that he will find ways to weave into his contribution some reference to the general concerns that he has just ventilated. I am sure that he will find his own salvation. I have every confidence in him, and he should have every confidence in himself. We will leave it there for now.

Finance Bill (Ways and Means) (Taxable Benefits (Application of chapters 5, 6 and 7 of part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003))

Resolved,

That—

(1) The provision made by Resolution 4 of the House of 22 March 2016 (taxable benefits (application of Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003)) be varied and supplemented as follows.

(2) In section 97 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (living accommodation to which Chapter 5 applies), for the subsection (1A) inserted by paragraph (2) of that Resolution substitute—

“(1A) Where this Chapter applies to any living accommodation—

(a) the living accommodation is a benefit for the purposes of this Chapter (and accordingly it is immaterial whether the terms on which it is provided to any of those persons constitute a fair bargain), and

(b) sections 102 to 108 provide for the cash equivalent of the benefit of the living accommodation to be treated as earnings.”

(3) In section 114 of that Act (cars, vans and related benefits to which Chapter 6 applies), for the subsection (1A) inserted by paragraph (3) of that Resolution substitute—

“(1A) Where this Chapter applies to a car or van, the car or van is a benefit for the purposes of this Chapter (and accordingly it is immaterial whether the terms on which it is made available to the employee or member constitute a fair bargain).”

(4) In section 120 of that Act (benefit of car treated as earnings)—

(a) in subsection (2) after “case” insert “(including a case where the cash equivalent of the benefit of the car is nil)”, and

(b) after subsection (2) insert—

“(3) Any reference in this Act to a case where the cash equivalent of the benefit of a car is treated as the employee’s earnings for a year by virtue of this section includes a case where the cash equivalent is nil.”

(5) In section 154 of that Act (benefit of van treated as earnings)—

(a) the existing text becomes subsection (1) of that section, and

(b) after that subsection insert—

“(2) In such a case (including a case where the cash equivalent of the benefit of the van is nil) the employee is referred to in this Chapter as being chargeable to tax in respect of the van for that year.

(3) Any reference in this Act to a case where the cash equivalent of the benefit of a van is treated as the employee’s earnings for a year by virtue of this section includes a case where the cash equivalent is nil.”

(6) In section 173 (loans to which Chapter 7 applies) for the subsection (1A) inserted by paragraph (5) of that Resolution substitute—

“(1A) Where this Chapter applies to a loan—

(a) the loan is a benefit for the purposes of this Chapter (and accordingly it is immaterial whether the terms of the loan constitute a fair bargain), and

(b) sections 175 to 183 provide for the cash equivalent of the benefit of the loan (where it is a taxable cheap loan) to be treated as earnings in certain circumstances.”

(7) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—(Mr Gauke.)

Finance Bill (Ways and Means) (Travel expenses of workers providing services through intermediaries)

Resolved,

That—

(1) The provision made by Resolution 8 of the House of 22 March 2016 (travel expenses of workers providing services through intermediaries) is varied as follows.

(2) In section 339A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 inserted by paragraph (1) of that Resolution, in subsection (6), for paragraph (a) substitute—

“(a) in section 51(1)—

(i) disregard ‘either’ in the opening words, and

(ii) disregard paragraph (b) (and the preceding ‘or’), and”.

(3) The amendment made by paragraph (2) has effect in relation to the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—(Mr Gauke.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Roger Mullin and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Roger Mullin.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as a former consultant to a range of educational initiatives across all communities—

[Mr Speaker]

You start with “Question No. 6”, man.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

6. What discussions she has had with Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive on programmes to support the most disadvantaged children in Northern Ireland. [R]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)]

This Government are committed to improving the life chances of disadvantaged children by addressing worklessness and improving educational attainment. These are largely devolved issues in Northern Ireland, where the Executive have the powers to address child poverty in areas such as health, education, housing and childcare.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman does not need to declare his interest in the context of a question. In any case he has already done so, so he can bang on with his question.

[Roger Mullin]

Is the Minister aware of the Shankill children and young people’s zone in Belfast, a programme embedded in the community that aims to address generational disadvantage in the area? Is the Minister willing to meet the zone organisers and share the lessons being learned more widely?

Points of Order

Debate between Roger Mullin and John Bercow

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Before the hon. Gentleman, in a state of uncontrollable excitement, rises to his feet to raise a further point of order, may I politely suggest to colleagues— I think the hon. Lady had in some sense anticipated this—that I say what I was going to say in any case on certification now, appertaining to today? If after that the appetite of hon. Members to raise further points of order remains, doubtless I will be the first to hear it.

I remind the House that I have certified some provisions of the Housing and Planning Bill under Standing Order No. 83J in relation to England, and some in relation to England and Wales. I further remind the House that this does not affect proceedings in the debate on Second Reading, or indeed in Committee or on Report. After Report stage, I will consider the Bill again for certification and, if required, the Legislative Grand Committee will be asked to consent to certified provisions. I hope that is clear.

[Roger Mullin]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hoped that that would have satisfied you, Mr Mullin, but apparently not.

[Roger Mullin]

Your clarification was helpful, Mr Speaker, but not pertinent to my point. Will you clarify the extent to which possible Barnett consequential effects are taken into account in the certification process, such as those in the Bill we are about to consider, which proposes the extension of national infrastructure projects to encompass housing?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to that question is no, because it is incumbent on me to make decisions on certification without explanation. That might seem not readily obvious to new entrants to the House, and I do not mean that discourteously, but it is very much in conformity with the usual practice of what is expected of the Speaker. If I may try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, the analogy is with the decision on an urgent question. The Speaker makes a decision on urgent questions that is not then subject to debate or a requirement to explain it in the Chamber. The decision is made, it is communicated and that, for the Chamber, is the end of it. I hope that is helpful—but, whether it is or not, that is what I have to say.

Finance Bill

Debate between Roger Mullin and John Bercow

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

In a style becoming familiar to this House, let me say that Barbara from Kirkcaldy says:

“This Finance Bill is a disgrace to hard-working people”,

and I always agree with my wife! It is a deliberate slight on the people of Scotland, and it deserves and will get no support from SNP Members. The Government have once again denied the rightful exemption of VAT for our emergency services. Once again, they are harming the environment, and once again they are favouring the rich. We oppose this Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Mullin. There are 12 seconds remaining, but no hon. Member is getting to his or her feet. Time is running out, the moment is arriving—and I do believe that we are going to have the vote.