Summer Adjournment

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been informed via a written ministerial statement that the Government have today published the revised national planning policy framework. It has not yet been laid before the House, and copies are therefore not available for Members in the Vote Office. This seems extraordinary, given the importance of the document to Members on both sides of the House. Is there anything that you can do to ensure that the document is available to Members before the House rises today?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As she says, there is a written ministerial statement today announcing the publication of the national planning policy framework. There is no legal requirement to lay this paper. As she says, it has been published online, although it is not available in the Vote Office. She has put on record her point about the inconvenience that this has caused to her and, I suspect, to other Members, and I think it would be good practice if such documents were available in the Vote Office. I am sure that her comments will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench and that perhaps arrangements could be made for this document to be in the Vote Office before we rise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. After the next speaker, I am going to have to take the limit down to six minutes.

May Adjournment

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, one of the joys of travelling from Bristol each week is that I meet so many of my former colleagues on the train. [Interruption.] Other Members have perhaps had the same experience. Indeed, I met one of my former colleagues who now works for Public Health England, and we discussed the way that it had to respond to that incident. People had just come out of a severe weather crisis in the south-west, and Public Health England is not currently well-resourced. It then had to respond quickly to an unprecedented international attack and deal with the interplay between local and national when managing that serious incident. I think that we will consider that issue in future. Public Health England now has a huge area to cover on the ground, and I know that my hon. Friend takes a particular interest in that. We could be here until 5 o’clock this evening if I were to talk about the NHS more generally, but we have elections to fight, so I will move on.

I have been working on the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill with colleagues in the Lords and the Minister, including work on trailer registration for light trailers following the tragic death of a young boy, Freddie Hussey, in my constituency in 2014. I look forward to the debates on that important Bill.

We are all looking forward to a couple of days off once we have knocked on those doors. Let me tell anyone who is coming to the west country that there are a number of festivals going on in Bristol, and I understand that a big festival is on in Exeter. I will be trudging down the M5 from Bristol with my family to enjoy a lovely weekend in Cornwall. I wish all hon. Members and staff of the House a happy May Day bank holiday weekend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Deputy Leader of the House, Paul Maynard.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

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:

Government new clause 9—Unsolicited direct marketing: pensions (No. 2)—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations prohibiting unsolicited direct marketing relating to pensions.

(2) The regulations may—

(a) make provision about when a communication is to be, or is not to be, treated as unsolicited;

(b) make provision for exceptions to the prohibition;

(c) confer functions on the Information Commissioner and on OFCOM (including conferring a discretion);

(d) apply (with or without modifications) provisions of the data protection legislation or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2426) (including, in particular, provisions relating to enforcement).

(3) The regulations may—

(a) make different provision for different purposes;

(b) make different provision for different areas;

(c) make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or saving provision.

(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) If before the end of June in any year the Secretary of State has not made regulations under this section (whether or not in that year), the Secretary of State must—

(a) publish a statement, by the end of July in that year, explaining why regulations have not been made and setting a timetable for making the regulations, and

(b) lay the statement before each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section, “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications established by section 1 of the Office of Communications Act 2002.”

This new clause inserts a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations (subject to the affirmative procedure) banning unsolicited direct marketing relating to pensions. If the power is not exercised by June, the Secretary of State must explain to Parliament why not. This new clause would be inserted after Clause 24.

Amendment (a) to new clause 9, in subsection (1), leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Amendment (b) to new clause 9, in subsection (1), after “pensions” insert

“and prohibiting the use for commercial purposes of information obtained by means of such direct marketing”.

Amendment (c) to new clause 9, in subsection (2)(c), leave out “and on OFCOM” and insert

“, on Ofcom and on the Financial Conduct Authority”.

Amendment (d) to new clause 9, in subsection (2)(d), after “(S.I. 2003/2426)” insert

“or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000”.

New clause 1—High-cost credit: advice to the Financial Conduct Authority—

“(1) In exercising its functions the single financial guidance body must have regard to the effect of high-cost credit card lending on consumer protection and must produce and publish an annual assessment of any consumer detriment.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) shall in particular consider—

(a) what level of interest and fees constitute a high-cost credit card;

(b) information provided by high-cost credit card providers to customers, and whether such information allows customers to make informed financial decisions;

(c) the impact of high-cost credit lending on levels of personal debt,

as well as any other factors that the single financial guidance body considers relevant.

(3) If the single financial guidance body considers it to be necessary for consumer protection it must advise the Financial Conduct Authority to impose a limit on the cost of specified types of credit.”

This new clause would require the single financial guidance body to consider the effect of high-cost lending using credit cards on consumer protection and produce an annual assessment of any consumer detriment from such high-cost lending.

New clause 2—Specific requirements as to the pensions guidance function: mid life reviews—

“(1) As part of its pensions guidance and money guidance functions, the single financial guidance body must provide targeted information and guidance for members of the public from the age of 50 to help them make decisions on their financial affairs.

(2) In particular, the information and guidance in subsection (1) shall include information and guidance on—

(a) increasing pension contributions in preparation for retirement,

(b) saving money in preparation for retirement, and

(c) career development and the impact of career development on financial matters including preparation for retirement.”

This new clause provides for the single financial guidance body to provide guidance to members of the public over the age of 50, to prepare them for retirement. These “mid life reviews” would provide guidance on pensions, savings, and career development.

New clause 6—Regulatory principles to be applied in respect of claims management services—

“(1) The FCA may make recommendations to the Secretary of State on regulatory principles to be applied to claims management services.

(2) The matters on which the FCA may make recommendations include, in relation to claims management services—

(a) the duties of authorised persons to act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of consumers;

(b) the duties of authorised persons to manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between themselves and their clients, and between clients;

(c) other duties of authorised persons related to a duty of care towards their clients.

(3) If the FCA recommends that regulatory principles be applied to claims management services, the Secretary of State may by regulations impose such principles.

(4) The power to make regulations under subsection (3) is exercisable by statutory instrument; and an instrument containing such regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) In this section, ‘authorised person’ has the same meaning as in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and ‘authorised persons’ shall be construed accordingly.”

This new clause would allow the FCA to recommend that the Secretary of State introduces a duty of care which would require claims management services to act with the best interests of the customers in mind.

New clause 7—Assessment of public preparedness for income shocks—

“(1) As part of its strategic function, the single financial guidance body must from time to time publish an assessment of the ability of members of the public to plan for and address sudden reductions in income.

(2) An assessment under this section must consider the impact of the work of the single financial guidance body on the ability of members of the public to plan for and address sudden reductions in income.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons any assessment conducted under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”

New clause 8—Ban on unsolicited real-time direct approaches by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of companies carrying out claims management services and a ban on the use by claims management companies of data obtained by such methods—

“(1) The FCA must, as soon as they take responsibility for claim management companies, introduce bans on—

(a) unsolicited real-time direct approaches to members of the public carried out by whatever means, digital or otherwise, by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of companies carrying out claims management services or their agents or representatives, and

(a) the use for any purpose of any data by companies carrying out claims management services, their agents or representatives where they cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FCA that this data does not arise from any unsolicited real-time direct approach to members of the public carried out by whatever means, digital or otherwise.

(2) The FCA must fix the appropriate penalties for breaches of subsection (1)(a) and (b) above.”

Amendment 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“including information about the services offered by credit unions,”

This amendment adds to the objectives of the single financial guidance body the requirement to provide information about credit unions.

Amendment 39, page 2, line 23, leave out from “accordingly” to the end of line 24 and insert—

“(da) to ensure the needs of people in vulnerable circumstances, including but not exclusively—

(i) those who suffer long-term sickness or disability,

(ii) carers,

(iii) those on low incomes, and

(iv) recipients of benefits,

are met and that resources are allocated in such a way as to allow specially trained advisers and guidance to be made available to them,”

This amendment would require that specially trained advisers and guidance are made available to people in vulnerable circumstances and would provide an indicative list of what vulnerable circumstances should include.

Amendment 40, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“(4) The single financial guidance body must ensure it communicates to consumers using its services the difference between—

(a) provision of information,

(b) provision of guidance,

(c) provision of advice.”

This amendment would require the new body to ensure that consumers are made aware of the differences between ‘information’, ‘guidance’ and ‘advice’ so that they can specify what type of services they require from the new body.

Amendment 4, page 3, line 5, in clause 3, at end insert—

“(c) advice to the Financial Conduct Authority on matters relating to high-cost credit”.

Amendment 41, page 3, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) As part of its money guidance function, the single financial guidance body must make available financial guidance on the use of alternative sources of retirement income, including housing wealth, to enable members of the public to make fully informed decisions about pensions and retirement income.”

This amendment would place a duty on the single financial guidance body to make available guidance on alternative sources of retirement income, such as equity release. This will provide a pathway for members of the public to consider their wider assets, particularly their housing wealth, to make effective decisions about their retirement income.

Government amendment 10, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

‘(7) The consumer protection function is—

(a) to notify the FCA where, in the exercise of its other functions, the single financial guidance body becomes aware of practices carried out by FCA- regulated persons (within the meaning of section 139A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) which it considers to be detrimental to consumers, and

(b) to consider the effect of unsolicited direct marketing on consumers of financial products and services, and, in particular—

(i) from time to time publish an assessment of whether unsolicited direct marketing is, or may be, having a detrimental effect on consumers, and

(ii) advise the Secretary of State whether to make regulations under section (Unsolicited direct marketing: other consumer financial products etc) (unsolicited direct marketing: other consumer financial products etc).”

This amendment makes changes to the consumer protection function to make it clearer exactly what it entails.

Amendment (a) to amendment 10, in paragraph (b)(i), leave out “from time to time” and insert

“at least once every two years”.

Amendment 34, page 3, line 34, at end insert—

“(aa) the capability of members of the public to plan for and address sudden reductions in income,”.

Amendment 1, page 3, line 39, at end insert—

“(11) In carrying out its strategic and other functions the single financial guidance body must make and publish an annual assessment of the level of different types of lending across the United Kingdom by district.

(12) The types of lending covered by the assessment in subsection (11) should include—

(a) high cost short term credit,

(b) hire purchase agreements,

(c) conditional sale agreements,

(d) open ended credit,

(e) other secured lending, and

(f) other unsecured lending.”

This amendment requires the single financial guidance body to carry out an annual assessment of the level of different types of lending in different geographical areas across the United Kingdom.

Government amendment 11.

Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(2A) The single financial guidance body must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, advise the Secretary of State on how to most effectively implement bans on—

(a) cold-calling on behalf of, or for the benefit of companies carrying out claims management services or their agents or representatives, and

(b) the commercial use of any data by companies carrying out claims management services, their agents or representatives where they cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that this data was not obtained by cold-calling.

(2B) In this section ‘claims management services’ has the same meaning as in section 419A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”

This amendment will require the Secretary of State to specifically ban cold-calling and the commercial use of data from cold-calling by claims management companies, in addition to any bans recommended by the single financial guidance body.

Amendment 9, page 4, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment will place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to institute bans on cold-calling on receipt of advice to do so from the single financial guidance body.

Amendment 42, in clause 10, page 7, line 22, at end insert

“and to whether the standards are proportionate”.

Probing amendment. The SFGB’s standards setting powers also need to be matched with principles of good regulation, ensuring that conditions are proportionate to the benefits they are expected to bring. This would bring the Bill (impacting charities) into line standards setting and enforcement powers granted to other bodies (impacting firms) such as those granted to the FCA.

Government amendments 12, 43, 25, 44, 26 45 and 46.

Amendment 2, in schedule 3, page 45, line 8, at end insert—

17A (1) Section 165 (regulators’ power to require information: authorised persons etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4) after paragraph (b) insert—

(c) in relation to the exercise by the FCA of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (3), information and documents reasonably required by the single financial guidance body in connection with the exercise by the body of its functions as set out in section 3 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018.”

This amendment extends the FCA’s power to require information from authorised persons to include information required by the single financial guidance body for carrying out its functions.

Government amendments 47, 48, 28 and 29.

[John Glen]

It is a great pleasure finally—for the third time of asking, I believe—to have the opportunity to start the Bill’s Report stage. I want to make a positive start to proceedings by covering new clauses 4 and 9, which will allow us to protect consumers from harmful cold calls by enabling us to lay before the House regulations to ban pensions cold calling and introduce bans for other forms of cold calling, if we consider it appropriate to do so.

As I have said previously, I want to ban pensions cold calling as soon as possible, given the profoundly damaging impact that pension scams can have on people’s lives. I have listened to the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Committee, which published a report before the turn of the year on preventing pension scams, as well as to the passionate calls that have been made across the House and in the other place to ban pensions cold calling. I am pleased to present new clause 9, which builds on and improves the clause proposed by the Committee. The Government’s new clause has a wide scope, which means that we can ban all pensions-related calls. Crucially, we do not need to wait for advice from the guidance body before we implement a ban, so we can make good on our commitment to ban pensions cold calling quickly. I hope that the fact that I will have to lay a statement before both Houses if we have not laid regulations before Parliament by June will reassure hon. Members on that point.

I turn to new clause 4. It is clear to me that, too often, significant consumer detriment arises because of cold calling. If we find evidence that people are experiencing detriment as a result of cold calling regarding consumer financial products, we will not hesitate to use this power to protect consumers.

I am pleased to be able to confirm the final part of our approach to protect consumers from cold calling by means of amendment 10. The amendment expands and improves on the consumer protection function. It gives the body powers to publish regular assessments of consumer detriment resulting from cold calling, and to advise the Secretary of State on where further bans should be implemented. The change clarifies the consumer protection function and gives the body a clear mandate to support the Government in preventing harm that results from cold calling. In fact, the Bill has been agenda-setting in relation to cold calling. The amendments that we are discussing will give the Government new powers to ban cold calling in some of the areas that are the most pressing when it comes to protecting consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

I beg to move amendment 5, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

“(ia) how it will specifically provide protections and help to individuals in receipt of mental health crisis services, including NHS mental health crisis services;

(ib) which other mental health treatment services should be considered mental health crisis services for the purposes of this Act.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 5, line 39, at end insert—

(iiia) the application of the scheme for duration of a person’s stay in hospital or under the care of a crisis team in their local community”

This amendment will ensure that people who are staying in hospital or under the care of a crisis team in their local community will be protected by the Debt Respite Scheme once it is established.

Amendment 30, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, at end insert

“and must do so before 1 January 2020.”

This amendment commits the Secretary of State to implement a debt respite scheme by the end of next year.

Amendment 6, page 6, line 16, at end insert—

“(3A) A debt respite scheme established by regulations under this section must, specifically, provide protection and help to individuals in receipt of mental health crisis services as well as any other types of individual provided for by regulations under this section.

(3B) The regulations must define which services should be considered “mental health crisis services” for the purpose of this Act in addition to the definition in section 25 of this Act.

(3C) A debt respite scheme established by regulations under this section shall be accessible to individuals in receipt of mental health crisis services irrespective of whether those individuals have accessed debt advice.”

Government amendment 13, in clause 19, page 14, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 15 and insert—

“(1B) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the member or survivor is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the member or survivor is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(1C) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the member or survivor has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment will enable FCA rules to require trustees of a personal pension scheme who receive an application from a member to access or transfer their pension to refer them to SFGB guidance and explain its nature and purpose (or ensure that another person, such as the SFGB, does so) and will prevent them from proceeding unless the member confirms that they have received guidance or do not want it.

Amendment (a) to amendment 13, after “is referred to appropriate” insert “independent and impartial”.

Amendment (b) to amendment 13, after “has either received appropriate” insert “independent and impartial”.

Amendment (c) to amendment 13, in subsection (1C), leave out from “appropriate pensions guidance or” to end and insert

“has indicated to the provider of appropriate independent and impartial pensions guidance the desire to opt out of receiving such guidance.”

Amendments (a), (b) and (c) to amendment 13 specify on the face of the Bill that the provider of the appropriate pensions guidance should be independent and impartial, and that any desire to opt-out of guidance must be indicated to this independent and impartial guidance provider.

Government amendment 14.

Government amendment 15, page 15, line 14, at end insert—

“( ) make further provision about how, and to whom, a member or survivor may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (1C);”.

This amendment expressly envisages the rules making provision about how the opt-out (or confirmation of receipt of guidance) mentioned in the new subsection (1C) inserted by Amendment 13 must be expressed in order to be effective.

Amendment (a) to amendment 15, leave out from “received” to end and insert

“appropriate independent and impartial pensions guidance, or have indicated to the provider of this guidance that they wish to opt out, for the purposes of subsection (1C);”.

Government amendment 16.

Government amendment 17, in clause 20, page 16, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert—

“(2) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the beneficiary is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the beneficiary is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(3) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the beneficiary has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment makes equivalent changes to Clause 20(2), which relates to occupational pension schemes in Great Britain, to the changes made by Amendment 13 for personal pension schemes.

Amendment (a) to amendment 17, after “is referred to appropriate” insert “independent and impartial”.

Amendment (b) to amendment 17, after “has either received appropriate” insert “independent and impartial”.

Amendment (c) to amendment 17, in subsection (3), leave out from “appropriate pensions guidance or” to end and insert

“has indicated to the provider of appropriate independent and impartial pensions guidance the desire to opt out of receiving such guidance.”

Amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Amendment 17 specify on the face of the Bill that the provider of the appropriate pensions guidance should be independent and impartial, and that any desire to opt-out of guidance must be indicated to this independent and impartial guidance provider.

Government amendment 18.

Government amendment 19, page 16, line 29, at end insert—

“( ) make further provision about how, and to whom, a beneficiary may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (3);”.

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendment 15 for occupational pension schemes in Great Britain.

Amendment (a) to amendment 19, leave out from “received” to end and insert

“appropriate independent and impartial pensions guidance, or have indicated to the provider of this guidance that they wish to opt out, for the purposes of subsection (3);”.

Government amendment 20.

Government amendment 21, page 17, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—

“(2) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the beneficiary is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the beneficiary is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(3) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the beneficiary has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment makes equivalent changes to Amendments 13 and 17 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Amendment (a) to amendment 21, after “is referred to appropriate” insert “independent and impartial”.

Amendment (b) to amendment 21, after “has either received appropriate” insert “independent and impartial”.

Amendment (c) to amendment 21, in subsection (3), leave out from “appropriate pensions guidance or” to “or has opted out” and insert

“has indicated to the provider of appropriate independent and impartial pensions guidance the desire to opt out”.

Government amendment 22.

Government amendment 23, page 17, line 46, at end insert—

“( ) make further provision about how, and to whom, a beneficiary may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (3);”.

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendments 15 and 19 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Amendment (a) to amendment 23, leave out from “received” to end and insert

“appropriate independent and impartial pensions guidance, or have indicated to the provider of this guidance that they wish to opt out, for the purposes of subsection (3);”.

Government amendment 24.

Government motion to transfer clause 22.

Amendment 7, in clause 25, page 21, line 9, at end insert—

“‘NHS Mental health crisis services’ means services provided by NHS England, NHS Wales, or Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland in order to treat acute crises in mental health, whether arising from either acute or chronic mental health conditions.”

Amendment 37, in schedule 1, page 38, line 4, at end insert—

“3A (1) The term of office of a person appointed as chair under paragraph 2(1)(a) must not begin before—

(a) the person has, in connection with the appointment, appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons, or

(b) (if earlier) the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which the appointment is made.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the person is appointed as chair on an acting basis, pending a further appointment being made.

(3) The reference to the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons—

(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is a reference to that Committee by its new name, and

(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.

(4) Any question arising under sub-paragraph (3) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would require the chair of the single financial guidance body to attend a pre-appointment hearing with the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons before starting their appointment. If no such hearing is held within three months, the appointment can also begin.

Amendment 38, page 38, line 41, at end insert:

“6A (1) The term of office of a person appointed as chief executive under paragraph 6(1)(a) must not begin before—

(a) the person has, in connection with the appointment, appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons, or

(b) (if earlier) the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which the appointment is made.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the person is appointed as chief executive on an acting basis, pending a further appointment being made.

(3) The reference to the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons—

(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is a reference to that Committee by its new name, and

(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.

(4) Any question arising under sub-paragraph (3) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would require the chief executive of the single financial guidance body to attend a pre-appointment hearing with the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons before starting their appointment. If no such hearing is held within three months, the appointment can also begin.

[Luciana Berger]

I shall speak to amendments 5, 6 and 7. I am incredibly grateful to colleagues on both sides of the House for the constructive negotiations and discussions that have taken place to enable this group of amendments be discussed on the Floor of the House this evening. Their purpose is to extend the debt respite scheme set out in clauses 7 and 8 to people in receipt of NHS mental health crisis services. I am incredibly grateful to the large number of MPs—81, in fact—on both sides of the House who are supporting the amendments. It has also been a real privilege to work with the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, together with colleagues from all parties, to put the amendments together.

Last year’s Conservative party manifesto contained a commitment to introduce a breathing space. The Government have since brought forward this Bill and launched a consultation into how a breathing space initiative would work in practice. This included proposals for a possible trigger point for accessing support, with the initial suggestion that a breathing space should be available only to a person seeking regulated debt advice. I very much welcome the spirit of the Government’s breathing space initiative, but I am concerned that it does little to protect the thousands of people in mental health crisis who are too unwell to physically go and seek such debt advice or to pick up the phone to make that call.

According to research by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, up to 23,000 people in England alone struggled with problem debt while they were hospitalised as a result of their mental health last year. Those people are likely to be receiving calls, texts and letters from their banks, local authorities and other creditors at a time of acute distress, and they are at risk of falling into further financial difficulty as a result of increased fees and charges—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Some hon. Members are leaving the Chamber, and there is quite a lot of chatter. It would be good to be able to listen to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger).

[Luciana Berger]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am concerned about the charges that those people will face, and about the drop in their income from the loss of wages and benefits that people could experience as a result of being in in-patient care or crisis care in the community. Thousands more in the devolved nations, and those who are receiving mental health crisis support in the community, will be in a similar position. The additional anxiety and stress that those people experience as a result of those financial pressures not only threaten to undermine their recovery but make it much less likely that they will be able to repay their debts. The requirement for people in that situation to seek advice before they can benefit from a breathing space creates a barrier, and that barrier must be removed if the new scheme is to fulfil its purpose of protecting the most vulnerable customers.

Amendment 5 represents the first step towards rectifying this issue. It ensures that when the Secretary of State seeks advice from the new single financial guidance body on the establishment of a debt respite scheme, it will include advice on specifically how the scheme will protect recipients of mental health crisis services, and information on which services should be considered to be mental health crisis services. We propose that this should include psychiatric in-patient facilities and community crisis teams. Amendment 6 takes this further by ensuring that the regulations to establish the debt respite scheme specifically provide protection and help to individuals in receipt of mental health crisis services, irrespective of whether those individuals have formally accessed debt advice. Amendment 7 would provide the baseline definition of an NHS mental health crisis service.

Targeting these interventions towards people with mental health problems will have far-reaching positive consequences. People experiencing mental health problems are significantly more likely to be in financial difficulty than the rest of the population, and half the people in problem debt are also experiencing mental ill health. The number of people receiving NHS crisis care services is also likely to be relatively small, and a high proportion—at least a quarter—are likely to be in financial difficulty. Furthermore, people experiencing a mental health crisis are likely to experience problems with their cognitive and psychological functioning as a direct consequence of their illness and are therefore highly unlikely to be able to seek debt advice and access breathing space through regulated debt advice.

How will the system work in practice? We suggest that a person entering the care of a psychiatric in-patient facility or crisis team in the community would be supported to access breathing space if appropriate. That could take the form of a certificate or a stamped-and-dated letter confirming that the service user is in receipt of mental health support during a crisis and should have breathing space applied. Many clinical mental health professionals are currently fighting fires before they can help their patients with their mental health. They are writing to creditors, calling bailiffs and completing reams of financial paperwork, and the changes that I am proposing would simplify things for those professionals, allowing them to focus on their day job. It would also reduce demand on mental health services, as research shows that people who are not in problem debt are much more likely to recovery more quickly and less likely to experience mental health problems in the future.

It is important to acknowledge that the proposed changes would not apply in Scotland, which already has a debt arrangement scheme that would require separate legislation to amend. However, we hope that the successful implementation of our proposals could provide the case for similar reforms in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I will now suspend the House briefly in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. Clauses 29 and 31 of, and schedule 4 to, the Bill, as amended, relate exclusively to England and Wales and are within legislative competence. Copies of the final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.

Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are now available. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

indicated assent.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate. I call the Minister to move the consent motion.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Programme Order, 22 January, and Standing Order No. 83M(5)),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of, and schedules to, the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]—

Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence

Clauses 29 and 31 of the Bill as amended in Public Bill Committee (Bill 160), and Schedule 4 to the Bill as amended on Consideration—(Guy Opperman.)

Question agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

Third Reading

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for all the onerous contributions that you had to make to provide certification, but what can be done to ensure that the huge numbers of English Members who wish to speak in the English Legislative Grand Committee get their opportunity to do so? This is Dave’s legacy, for goodness’ sake. English votes for English laws was supposed to be the most important issue possible. It seems that, once again, English Members have been totally denied their opportunity. Is not this just the greatest waste of time that this House has to endure?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak on Third Reading, he is able to do so.

The Economy

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened to representations following my business statement. For the benefit of the House, I can say that Monday’s general debate will now be on national security and Russia.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her courtesy in letting us know as quickly as possible that the debate has changed.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw attention to the statutory instrument that I mentioned this morning at business questions in relation to nursing bursaries that are changed into loans for postgraduate students. Have you heard whether a debate will be scheduled before 28 March, which is the last day for praying against the statutory instrument? If a debate is scheduled after the recess—from 16 April—I ask your advice on whether I could seek an undertaking that if the House agrees to vote against that statutory instrument, it will be revoked.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I have not received any information from the Government on the matter she raises, but the Leader of the House is here, and I suggest that the hon. Lady discusses the specific point she raises through the usual channels.

European Affairs

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Because there have been quite a lot of interventions, I now have to reduce the time limit to six minutes. I am sorry. Hon. Members should bear it in mind, however, that even that will be tight.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland]

In Hertfordshire, £3.50 an hour would not be acceptable. In Hertfordshire, employers have to pay far more than that to attract a young person, otherwise they just will not get them. That is the reality. I think I have the highest unemployment rate in Hertfordshire, at 1.6%.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I think it is quite important that the hon. Gentleman returns to the substance of the debate—new clause 9. Just mentioning it every now and then does not do the trick.

[Stephen McPartland]

You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker. I obviously had no intention of misleading you in trying to mention it now and again. New clause 9 and the Treasury publishing a distributional analysis of the cumulative impact of Government’s tax, welfare and public service spending is quite a wide-ranging topic. I was trying to make the point that I do not support new clause 9 because it seems academic, as opposed to helping people from different backgrounds to achieve their life chances. On that note, I shall conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

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 4—Public register of entities paying the bank levy and payments made—

“(1) Schedule 19 to FA 2011 (bank levy) is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 81, insert—

“Part 11

Public register of payments

83 (1) It shall be the duty of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to maintain a public register of groups paying the bank levy and the amounts paid.

(2) In relation to each group, the register shall state whether it is—

(a) a UK banking group,

(b) a building society group,

(c) a foreign banking group, or

(d) a relevant non-banking group.

(3) In relation to each group, the register shall state the amount paid in respect of each chargeable period.

(4) In relation to chargeable periods ending between 28 February 2011 and 31 December 2017, the Commissioners must make public the register no later than 31 October 2018.

(5) In respect of subsequent chargeable periods, the Commissioners must make public the updated register no later than ten months after the end of the chargeable period.””

This new clause requires HMRC to prepare a public register of banks paying the bank levy and the amount they have paid.

New clause 5—Bank levy: Part 1 of Schedule 9: pre-commencement requirements—

“(1) Part 1 of Schedule 9 shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) No later than 31 October 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before the House of Commons an account of the effects of the proposed changes in Part 1 of Schedule 9—

(a) on the public revenue,

(b) in reflecting risks to the financial system and the wider UK economy arising from the banking sector, and

(c) in encouraging banks to move away from riskier funding models.

(3) Part 1 of Schedule 9 shall have effect in relation to chargeable periods ending on or after 1 January 2021 if, no earlier than 30 November 2020, the House of Commons comes to a resolution to that effect.”

This new clause requires the Government to provide a separate analysis of the impact of Part 1 of Schedule 9 nearer to the time of proposed implementation in 2021 and to seek the separate agreement of the House of Commons to commencement in the light of that review.

Amendment 1, in schedule 9, page 134, line 2, at end insert—

“34A After paragraph 81 insert—

“Part 10

Review of entities on which the bank levy is charged

82 (1) Within six months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review of the provisions in this Schedule defining which groups are covered by the bank levy.

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(i) the adequacy of those provisions in applying the bank levy to groups that are—

(a) not a group in paragraph 4(2) and

(b) derive their income from investments in the manner of a group in paragraph 4(2),

(ii) the adequacy of the groups in paragraph 4(2) in charging the bank levy to lending and investment entities,

(iii) the degree to which the groups in paragraph 4(2) reflect lending and investment entities that have entered into contracts with public sector bodies,

(iv) the adequacy of the definition of “investment group” in paragraph 12(9) in reflecting lending and investment entities that have entered into contracts with public sector bodies, and

(v) the revenue effects of changes to include lending and investment entities that have entered into contracts with public sector bodies within groups covered by the levy.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this paragraph before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.””

This amendment requires a review about the appropriate extent of the bank levy in terms of the lending and investment entities which it covers, considering the extent to which it covers PFI finance groups and assessing the revenue effects of such an extension.

Amendment 5, page 134, line 6, leave out from “in” to end of line 7 and insert

“accordance with the provisions of section (bank levy: Part 1 of Schedule 9: pre-commencement requirements)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC5.

Amendment 2, page 134, line 10, at end insert—

“37 The amendments made by paragraph 34A have effect from the day on this Act is passed.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

New clause 6—Analysis of effectiveness of provisions of this Act on tax avoidance and evasion—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions in reducing levels of artificial tax avoidance,

(b) the effects of the provisions in combating tax evasion, and

(c) estimates of the role of the provisions of this Act in reducing the tax gap in each tax year from 2018 to 2022.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill in tackling artificial tax avoidance and tax evasion, and in reducing the tax gap.

Amendment 3, in schedule 8,  page 103, line 41, at end insert—

“21A After section 461 (counter-acting effect of avoidance arrangements) insert—

“Chapter 11

Review

461A Review

(1) Within six months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review of the effects of amending the operation of this Part in relation to the excess profits of PFI companies.

(2) For the purposes of the review under this section, it shall be assumed that the operation of this Part would be amended so as to—

(a) deduct the uncompensated excess profit amount of PFI companies from the aggregate of the interest allowances of the group for periods before the current period so far as they are available in the current period for the purposes of calculating the interest capacity of a worldwide group under section 392 (the interest capacity of a worldwide group for a period of account),

(b) provide that, for groups that contain a PFI company, the uncompensated excess profit amount for a period is equal to the group excess profit amount less the aggregate amount by which the group’s taxable profit has been reduced in prior periods as a result of such provisions,

(c) provide that the group excess profit amount for any period will be the aggregate PFI excess profit amount for each PFI company in the group, and

(d) provide that the PFI excess profit amount for a PFI company for a period will be the amount by which the internal rate of return on shares and related party debt in that company (from inception to the end of the previous accounting period) exceeds the internal rate of return set in the relevant PFI contract or, if no such return was specified, 10%.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “a PFI company” means a company which has entered into a contract with a public sector body under the Private Finance Initiative or the PF2 initiative.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This amendment requires a review about the effects of making provision to discount the excess profits of a PFI company for the purpose of calculating the aggregate of the interest allowance of worldwide groups in the provisions of Part 10 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010.

Amendment 4, page 105, line 17, at end insert—

“26A The amendments made by paragraph 21A have effect from the day on this Act is passed.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.

[Peter Dowd]

Let me start by reiterating the sentiments that I expressed in Committee when we were debating the bank levy. I said then that it served no one to

“homogenise the people who work in the banking sector as either saints or demons.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 814.]

Such a simplification ignores the complexity of our financial services, the individuals who work in them, and the institutional culture that informs the practices within them. About 2,000 people work in the banking sector in my constituency, particularly in Santander, and many of them are my committed constituents.

Similarly, we cannot ignore the important role that banks play in the smooth functioning of our economy. We should avoid a “one size fits all” approach that lumps all banks together for the purpose of a bank-bashing session. The House should have a grown-up, mature discussion about issues such as the bank levy, the indisputable reasons for its introduction, its effectiveness, and why the Government are now desperate to cut it further. First, however—if I can be indulged slightly—I will say a few words about the political context of today’s debate.

Since we last debated the Government’s proposed changes in the bank levy, there have been several developments. This has continued the long saga of what is now recognised as a divided and directionless Government, and it goes to the heart of the whole question of the Government’s finances. We have seen the resignation of the Prime Minister’s deputy, and a botched Cabinet reshuffle in which the Secretary of State for Health refused to budge, another Secretary of State returned to the Back Benches rather than moving to the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Conservative party headquarters wrongly announced that the Secretary of State for Transport would become the party’s chairman. That goes to the heart of the question of the Government’s competence, which also relates to the bank levy.

During the recent Black and White fundraising dinner, at which the bank levy and our review of it were no doubt discussed, and which was held at the Natural History Museum—evidently live dinosaurs were visiting dead dinosaurs—the Prime Minister, addressing the Jurassic attendees, said:

“we are on a renewed mission to fight and win the battle of ideas and to defeat socialism today”.

How did the Government plan to defeat socialism in our modern age—the age of the fourth industrial revolution and the internet of things? The answer was that they held a raffle. While no doubt discussing the bank levy and issues relating to it, they raffled, at £100 a ticket, an eight-gun, 500-pheasant and partridge shoot donated by a millionaire hedge fund supporter who must know a great deal about the bank levy. That is how the Government will defeat socialism: by slaughtering 500 partridges and pheasants.

To keep Tory MPs’ spirits up, the Chief Whip recently sent them all a letter telling them that their performance in Parliament had been “excellent”, and that

“Remaining united in Parliament is a vital part of ensuring that Jeremy Corbyn remains in opposition”—

I am not sure whether he was trying to convince his colleagues or himself. And so it goes on. It is little wonder that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has suggested that Ministers would have to be locked in a room for any agreement to be reached—that is, if they could all find the same room. I would agree with that suggestion, on the condition that we could throw away the key. Meanwhile, the Treasury has been briefing the press that the spring statement will be scaled back to include no Red Box, no official document, no spending increases and no tax changes—and perhaps no embarrassing U-turns either—as well as, no doubt, an inability, yet again, to talk about the bank levy, what we could do with it, and how we could make progress with it.

Rather than the Government outlining a long-term economic plan, we have yet another Finance Bill engineered for the benefit of the few. There is little in the Bill to tackle our dreadful productivity performance, stuttering growth, high inflation and lack of investment in our infrastructure and people, but if we raised more from the banking levy, we could do something about that. In that context, the Government have come up with the bright idea of offering another tax break to the banks by further limiting the scope of the bank levy. That would ensure that, from 2020, banks will pay the levy only on their UK balance sheets, not their overseas activities.

Our position on the bank levy has been clear: we have consistently argued for a more proportionate levy and pointed out that the levy, which would introduced in 2011, would raise substantially less than Labour’s bankers’ bonus tax. In short, we have always stood against the Government’s divisive austerity fetish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I must defend the Leader of the Opposition. The comments that he made to the EEF national manufacturing conference were simply that finance must serve industry and that this country has to find ways to increase lending to businesses, to have more productive outcomes for the economy and to lower regional inequality—all things that were previously said by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who now finds work as the editor of the Evening Standard. I do not think that that is unreasonable in any sense. The feedback I have had from that conference is that the reception in the room was very favourable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Chris Philp—on new clause 3.

[Chris Philp]

Well, I am not sure whether I can respond to the hon. Gentleman’s comments while adhering to Madam Deputy Speaker’s gentle guidance, other than to say that I think that the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks went rather further than the hon. Gentleman just suggested.

Perhaps it is time to move on to the measures relating to tax avoidance and evasion, particularly new clause 6. The shadow Chief Secretary made a series of quite serious allegations about the Government’s effectiveness over the past seven years in combating tax avoidance and evasion. I disagree quite strongly with the premise of his points. He suggested that the current Government had been slow to act—indeed, had not acted—in these areas. I gently draw his attention to the fact that in the past eight years since 2010 the Government have taken 75 different measures designed to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance that have raised, cumulatively, £160 billion.

Community Bank Closures

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady has said she is not giving way. She has a short amount of time in which to speak.

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is disappointing that the UK Government have not lifted a single finger on behalf of the taxpayer to do anything to protect the communities affected by the bank closures. I am disturbed that the UK Government, as the major shareholder, were not consulted about the closures either. That is deeply unfortunate and raises a lot of questions.

I am pleased—other Members may not be—for the communities whose banks have been reprieved, but it does nothing for my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, who still face the prospect of losing three banks in Saltcoats, Kilbirnie and Kilwinning. Vowing not to close the last bank in town is something that RBS has now sought to disassociate itself from. That sounded good at the time to the PR companies, but it has not bothered to continue—

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 17 January, in moving my ten-minute rule Bill on tightening the regulations on private landlords, I should have declared that my wife owns two houses that she lets out. I regret that oversight, and I take this opportunity to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting his point on the record.

Budget Resolutions

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Many people want to speak, and I ask colleagues to be considerate of others; otherwise we will not get everybody in. I am going to have to impose a five-minute time limit, and I remind colleagues that interventions will make it more difficult for others to get in to speak.

Finance Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) responds, he will ensure that his words are directly relevant to new clause 1. This is an important issue and I am sure that Members would not want people to think that we were treating it light-heartedly. We should be taking it very seriously.

[Alex Burghart]

You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that my comment was directly relevant to the Bill, but my peroration was cruelly interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). He has now set the record straight but, in the process, destroyed one of the great anecdotes about the Beatles. I was going on to say that new clause 1 is not even the best amendment that the Opposition have put up.

The Minister made it clear in Committee that with

“regard to a review of the legislation, as stated in the tax information and impact note published in December 2016, HMRC will monitor the effects of the provisions through information collected in tax returns. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press new clause 3.” ––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2017; c. 97.]

A form of review is therefore already under way. This Bill is fair and will get a good deal for all our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 14, line 15, leave out “different” and insert “higher”.

This amendment removes the power for the Treasury to reduce the £30,000 threshold in connection with the taxation of termination payments by regulations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 14, leave out lines 20 to 23.

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, page 14, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—

“(2) “Injury” in subsection (1) includes—

(a) psychiatric injury, and

(b) injured feelings.”

This amendment explicitly includes (rather than excludes) injured feelings within the definition of “injury” for the purposes of payments which are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 3 of Part 6 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (payments and benefits on termination of employment).

[Anneliese Dodds]

Labour’s amendments on redundancy payments focus, first, on ensuring that there is proper democratic scrutiny of any attempt to reduce the £30,000 threshold for the taxation of termination payments, rather than the power to do so residing merely in regulations and, secondly, on ensuring that injured feelings are included in, rather than removed from, the definition of injury for the purpose of tax-excluded payments.

It is frustrating to be back in the Chamber to debate these issues again, with, again, no indication from the Government of any change in their position. The discussions in the Bill’s previous stages, including in Committee, detailed many ways in which provisions against aggressive tax avoidance and evasion could be tightened. Yet, rather than heed those reasonable suggestions for the removal of loopholes, the Government seem keen to target those made redundant as a potential source of revenue.

The changes in clause 5 are occurring in the context of the Government being determined to rush headlong into reducing corporation tax rates, despite the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others being clear that there is no automatic link between lowering rates and increasing revenue. In fact, I would hazard to suggest that in this case the opposite might be true. The Government’s previous cuts to corporation tax have manifestly not increased business investment.

The changes in the clause are also occurring when, as we have discussed, many loopholes have been retained for non-doms and, furthermore, while new measures for corporations exempt some of those firms that appear to have the most labyrinthine business arrangements, designed for tax purposes—not least some public infrastructure companies.

One might, then, wonder exactly why the Government have decided to stick to their guns and focus tax increases on those who are made redundant, which is effectively the idea that the provisions in the clause promote. We have been told by the Minister repeatedly that there are no immediate plans to reduce the threshold beyond which termination payments are taxable. If that is the case, why create the power to reduce it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Spoken like a true former local authority leader who has had to deal with the consequences of Government cuts!

This is about the question of fairness that was put forward by the former Chancellor. None of this is illegal. We might consider it immoral, but it is certainly not illegal, and none of it is captured by UK anti-avoidance rules. The Minister is not being open about companies that might include UK residents who have their properties held offshore. This is unfair to UK businesses. I understand that at present there is concern about economic policies and a dangerous air of radicalism in British politics. Let me reassure Conservative Members who might feel frightened about supporting this measure to close the loophole, and fear that it could be a radical socialist policy—I happen to think that it could be—that this is simply a question of fairness.

This is also something that most other countries do. Canada, Australia and the rest of Europe do it, so the new clause would bring us into line with them. Indeed, the OECD model double tax treaty explicitly preserves the right of countries to tax non-residents on their capital gains from the disposal of local real estate.

The Bill itself brings in anti-avoidance measures relating to inheritance tax and to holding property through non-UK companies. That is why it is difficult, having listened to the Minister in Committee, to understand why this particular proposal has been put into the “too complex” category. In Committee, he voted against a similar provision because he argued that it was just too complex, while admitting that the rules introduced in 2015 were designed to catch individuals holding a title over a dwelling in a trust or a closely held company. He argued against the proposal because he said that it would require what he considered to be a whole tax code. My problem with the Minister’s saying that this is too complicated is that it places him and the British Government in a special category. If most other countries can get their heads around how to tax non-resident companies’ capital gains on commercial properties, I simply fail to understand why it is beyond the wit and wisdom of the UK Treasury to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) has mentioned the human impact of this situation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that the Chancellor has black hole in his budget of £20 billion and rising, and that is before we even consider the cost and impact of Brexit. If my estimate is right that closing the loophole would raise £6 billion every year, that money would pay for the entire public health budget helping people with diabetes and heart disease. It would cover restoring nursing bursaries and keeping open our police stations that are currently destined for closure. It would entirely cover the cost of a public sector pay rise in line with inflation—that is according to the IFS’s figures, not mine. When reports tell us that the Government are so short of money at a time when a Budget is coming up, “Is it fair?” and “Can we afford not to do this?” are two important questions for British taxpayers.

I disagree with the Minister, but if he is worried about the drafting of new clause 2, I would support his tabling an amendment to address the use of the term “domicile”. Even if Government Members are worried about the detail, new clause 2 simply looks at the numbers, so it would give us some information. HMRC does not know the amount that we are missing out on as a result of this loophole. The Minister mumbled something about OBR figures, but I have done my own calculations and we are not talking about small change. This money could have a tangible impact on our public finances now.

I am sad that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is not in the Chamber because he chided my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) in September about a lack of action on loopholes. This proposal has cross-party support, so I would love Members from both sides of the House to recognise that when we see something that is unfair and costs us billions of pounds, we can act quickly. I am sure that the Minister will be given an opportunity to respond to the debate, so if other countries can do this, if British businesses are suffering unfairness, and if our public services desperately need the cash, will he think again? He says that he keeps the tax situation under review, so if he will pledge to publish a specific review of capital gains tax on commercial properties, I will happily not press the new clause to a Division.

British taxpayers have a right to know how much money is leaking out of our system as a result of the loophole. I would wager that many MPs will be lobbied by their constituents about closures in their community, public service cuts and struggling businesses, and by people who cannot afford their own home due to the overheated property market. Those people will want answers, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say. When we were young, we were all told that money does not grow on trees, but in this instance the roots are overseas, and it is up to the Minister to pull them up.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Minister.

[Mel Stride]

It is pleasure to appear before you for my second appearance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To pick up quickly on a point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), digital exclusion is covered in clause 62, which provides that the digital exclusion condition is met if

“for any reason (including age, disability or location) it is not reasonably practicable for the person or partner to use electronic communications or to keep electronic records.”

That is the test, and the Bill contains powers to allow HMRC’s commissioners to bring in further grounds for exclusion as the measure is rolled out and we see how it operates.

I see that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has been on her phone and has already tweeted that I have rejected her advances in this debate, but I am now at the Dispatch Box trying to make my points. She makes her points powerfully and raises an important issue, as I signalled earlier, but she has to accept that new clause 2 would not actually do what she would intend it to do. It confuses non-doms with residents, which is the critical distinction, and would classify companies as being non-domiciled, which they cannot technically be. This is a complicated area about which we had an extended debate in Committee, but I have made it clear that we will continue to consider it. We take on board the general thrust of what the hon. Lady wants to achieve.

Finance Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 12, leave out lines 8 to 12.

This amendment removes the power for the Treasury to amend the meaning of “basic pay” for the purposes of calculating “post-employment notice pay” by regulations.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, page 13, line 27, at end insert—

“402F  Review of impact of termination payments on low income workers

(1) Within two months of Royal Assent being given to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall commission a review of the impact of the provisions of sections 402A to 402E on low income workers.

(2) A report of this review must be laid before the House of Commons before the start of the tax year 2018–19.”

This amendment requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out a review of how the changes to termination payments will affect low income workers before these provisions come into effect.

Amendment 2, page 14, line 15, leave out “different” and insert “higher”.

This amendment removes the power for the Treasury to reduce the £30,000 threshold in connection with the taxation of termination payments by regulations.

Amendment 3, page 14, leave out lines 20 to 23.

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 2.

Amendment 4, page 14, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—

‘(2) “Injury” in subsection (1) includes—

(a) psychiatric injury, and

(b) injured feelings.””

This amendment explicitly includes (rather than excludes) injured feelings within the definition of “injury” for the purposes of payments which are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 3 of Part 6 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (payments and benefits on termination of employment).

Clause stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

To be fired from a job is perhaps one of the most difficult experiences for an employee. There are very few people in this Chamber, let alone in the country, who have never had to go through the awkward, bitterly disappointing and scary experience of losing, or potentially losing, a job. This is the daily reality for thousands of people, and it goes to the heart of clause 5.

I ask the Committee to imagine how thousands of people across the country at BAE are feeling at this moment after yesterday’s announcement of job losses. How are those workers feeling in Warton, Samlesbury, Portsmouth, Guildford and RAF Leeming, and in the Chief Secretary’s own county of Norfolk at RAF Marham? Added to the worry, concern, anxiety and hopelessness of redundancy now comes a potential tax bill to pay for the Government’s hapless management of the economy. Will the writ of clause 5 stretch across the Irish sea? What about the threat to the jobs of those at Bombardier in Northern Ireland, and the thousands of other associated jobs over there?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

Yes, but at the moment it is £30,000, and that is what it says here—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. There are too many sedentary interventions, and it makes it rather difficult for the Hansard writers, as well as everyone else.

[James Cleverly]

I am happy to take interventions, but I have never been a particularly good lip reader, so the Opposition will have to help me out on that one.

The Opposition suggested that somehow there would be some terrible Government sleight of hand to try to diddle people out of their money at a point at which they have lost their job, but it has been made absolutely clear by the Minister and in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that there will be transparency in any changes. None are proposed, but if they were, they would follow the affirmative procedure, which would mean a Minister at the Dispatch Box, in front of the House, being quizzed and questioned by the House. They would have to be voted on by the House. So the idea that there would be some sort of back-office sleight of hand in this is inaccurate.

At a time when we have, unfortunately, heard news of proposed job losses in one of our key businesses, the Opposition’s approach is unwise. I understand why their Front Benchers have done this—they want to attack the Bill—and I am sure that if I were in their shoes, I would find whatever means I could to try to criticise the Bill. The simple truth is that there are no such proposals and nothing in the Bill to imply that there would be, but it is right that the Government maintain the opportunity to be flexible in the future.