Finance (No. 2) Bill

Rosie Winterton 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

Rosie Winterton 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

Rosie Winterton 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

Rosie Winterton 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

Rosie Winterton 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.

Finance Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. The SNP submitted a reasoned amendment to the Finance Bill because we believe that it is a wholly inadequate response to the economic challenges faced by Scotland and the UK. Our reasoned amendment is on the Order Paper, but it has not been taken, and I have noted that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady will, I hope, be aware that the amendment was not selected, so it should not be debated. I am sure she will want to return to the main business of the House.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to briefly mention that we did table the amendment, but I will not debate it. You will be happy to know that it is not part of the substance of my speech.

As the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) mentioned, the House gave a Second Reading to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill last night. That Bill, the Government tell us, is intended to transcribe EU law into UK law so that there will be minimum fuss on the day the UK leaves the EU, but it fails pretty miserably. The UK’s position is that the UK will leave the customs union, the single market and arrangements for freedom of movement. The economy of these islands will suffer as a result, but the UK Government have not taken that seriously in the Finance Bill, or at any other stage so far.

This Finance Bill derives from the most muddled of processes. The business that comes through this House is pretty difficult to understand and chaotic at times, but this Bill has been one of the most impressive examples. We had the Budget back in March, and the original Finance Bill was published on 20 March. I remember that because it was my birthday, and receiving a Finance Bill was a wonderful birthday present—I was delighted. The Second Reading of that Bill was on the day when the Prime Minister, in her wisdom, announced that she was calling a general election, so she upset a fair few of her colleagues that day, as well as making the debate slightly different from how it was supposed to be.

The further stages of that Finance Bill were a complete and total guddle. Then we had the election, and the Government lost their majority. We have ended up with this bodged-together Bill, based on the remains of what was put forward back in March. My concern is that by the time Third Reading of this Finance Bill comes round, we will be about eight months from the Budget that created it. That is an incredible length of time, and I can prove it.

I draw the House’s attention to some of the assumptions made in the March 2017 Budget. First, let us look at the Office for Budget Responsibility predictions for inflation—Members should remember that the Finance Bill is written on the basis of those predictions, as well as other measures. The OBR predicted that the quarter 1 figure for inflation would be 1.9% and that the quarter 2 figure would be 2.4%. Actually, the quarter 1 figure was 0.2% higher, at 2.1%, and the quarter 2 figure was 0.3% higher, at 2.7%. That means that the money people have to spend is going less far than was predicted in March—the things that people buy are getting more expensive.

At the spring Budget, the OBR had predicted that average earnings would grow by 2.9% in quarter 4 of last year and by 3% in quarter 1 of 2017, but they actually grew by only 2.8%—1.1% less—in quarter 4, and by 2.4%—0.6% less—in quarter 1. That means that people have less money to spend on goods, which we have already said are more expensive.

Perhaps most tellingly, though, the OBR predicted that real household disposable income would drop by 0.2% in quarter 1 of this year. In fact, it dropped by 1.4%—by significantly more than the prediction on which basis the measures in this Finance Bill were created. As I said, that shows that people have less money to spend. Folk are feeling the squeeze, and the situation is worse than was predicted by the OBR when these Budget measures were written.

I spoke on behalf of the SNP on Third Reading of the previous Finance Bill. I would add, for Conservative colleagues, that only four people spoke in that debate, and one quarter of them were from the SNP, so it is grand that Conservative Members are taking the moral high ground today, but they did not pitch up for the last debate. When I ended my speech then, I said:

“I hope that in the next Parliament, the new Government will recognise the financial impact of Brexit on household budgets and jobs. I hope we see real changes that take into account the effects of Brexit.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2017; Vol. 624, c. 1056.]

So far, I have been completely disappointed.

In Scotland, our Government have recognised the combined impact of inflation and wage stagnation, and we have committed to removing the public sector pay cap. That is part of the reason why we voted with the Labour party on termination payments. We do not feel that now is the time to be squeezing people’s incomes further and to make such changes, and we will be looking to scrutinise them in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman read the programme for government very well—he might want to go and have another look at it.

This Finance Bill is derived from a Budget that did not have inclusive growth and fairness at its heart. If the Chancellor wishes to increase productivity, he could do more to ensure that people receive fair pay for the hours that they work. He could do more to ensure that any growth in the economy is spread equally and that those at the bottom of the pile get a leg-up, as well as those at the top of the pile. He could properly tackle the precarious economic position that young people find themselves in. He could remove the inequity in VAT for police and fire services in Scotland. Lastly, and most importantly at this time, he could fight against a hard Brexit that drags us out of the single market and the customs union.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Mr Mark Harper.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.

New clause 1—Report on operation of the relief—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay a report before Parliament containing an assessment of the operation of the relief in the 2017-18 financial year.

(2) The report shall include an account of—

(a) the impact upon the level of local authority income raised through non-domestic rating,

(b) the level of investment likely to have been stimulated by the proposed relief, and the scope for extending the relief to other forms of investment,

(c) whether the duration of the relief is appropriate,

(d) the views of those subject to charge of non-domestic rates on the relief, and

(e) the efficacy of the existing mechanism for distribution of relief.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

The Government are committed to supporting full-fibre telecommunication infrastructure and the roll-out of 5G. This will deliver a step change in the speed, service quality and reliability of broadband and mobile services. Independent research suggests that increased broadband speed alone could add £17 billion to UK output by 2024, so this is a vital measure for the whole economy. The Bill will provide the powers we need to implement an important part of that strategy.

At the 2016 autumn statement, the Government announced 100% rate relief for new full-fibre infrastructure in England. The clauses in the Bill will allow us to deliver that relief with retrospective effect to 1 April 2017. We have already published draft regulations that illustrate how we will use these powers to implement the relief. The draft regulations have been prepared in consultation with telecoms experts in the Government, Ofcom and telecoms providers. Business rates and telecoms are technical fields so there is considerable scope for complexity where they meet. However, I am glad to say that through our work with the sector, we believe that we have found a clear approach to allow the valuation officer to identify, capture and quantify new fibre.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, that is two things: it is a major endorsement by a global company and a major vote of confidence in the British economy. It is also a reflection of this Government’s policy that where we place large contracts for military equipment, as we have done with Boeing, we insist on some compensating investment in our economy, so that the investment in our military capability pays for jobs, skills and technology in the UK.

[Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

The Chancellor referred to local enterprise partnerships. Will he undertake to bring the LEPs across Yorkshire together to look at what further powers can be devolved to them to decide priorities on regional infrastructure investment and on the skills agenda? Will he also bring them together to talk about what needs to be done to prioritise their potential for inward investment in terms of Brexit?

[Mr Hammond]

We are very keen on LEPs working together across regions so that these very large pots of devolved funding, including some of the money in the national productivity investment fund that I announced in the autumn statement, can be used to maximum effect across a coherent economic geography. I am not so sure that it is within my power to bring them together, but I would certainly encourage them to work together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I, too, have a good relationship with my local chamber of commerce; we get vital feedback from our chambers of commerce. Of course, we are not introducing quarterly tax returns; my hon. Friend is referring to the “making tax digital” project. Although the Treasury Committee recently said that the long-term future can, and probably should, be digital, we understand that we need to look carefully at the consultation responses and at the concerns of small businesses. Of course, we have already exempted a number of the smallest businesses from the threshold, but we are looking carefully at the consultation responses and at the Select Committee’s report. We do not recognise the figure from the Federation of Small Businesses on the cost, and we have not seen the assumptions that underpin it; if I am to address those concerns, seeing those would be helpful.

[Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

Small businesses in Doncaster face a worrying skills shortage. Will the Minister support those businesses by impressing on her colleagues in the Department for Education the need for a speedy decision on Doncaster’s university technical college, to give the go-ahead for the money? Will she have a word, please?

[Jane Ellison]

I am very happy to raise that issue with colleagues. More broadly, the Government absolutely support the skills agenda, which we have made a real priority. If we are to close the productivity gap in this country, investing in skills and high-quality apprenticeships is clearly key. We have taken a lot of action in that regard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

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

[Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor realise that if he tries to push the funding gap in social care on to local councils, it will be grossly unfair for areas such as Doncaster, where a 1% increase in council tax would raise 21% less than it would for the council in the Prime Minister’s constituency? Will he commit to funding social care fully?

[Mr Hammond]

As I said on Wednesday, with the additional social care precept and the better care fund, we have measures in place that will make £3.5 billion of additional funding per annum available for social care by the end of this Parliament. But we recognise that local authorities have a challenge in the profiling of that money. My right hon. Friends the Health Secretary and the Communities Secretary are very much aware of that and are in discussions about it with health bodies and local authorities.