Stamp Duty Land Tax

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General wishes to make a statement on stamp duty land tax—a subject he has obviously decided is of intense and pressing interest to the House—but I feel sure that, with his usual sensitivity to the concerns of colleagues who wish to speak in the subsequent debate, he has no plans to expatiate at length.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I welcome the Minister’s statement, and express my support for stamp duty relief for first-time buyers. That measure exists to reverse the trend of declining home ownership that began in 2003, and it is the right thing to do. Will the Minister confirm the commitment made in the autumn Budget to increase the amount of housing supply delivered by small and medium-sized developers, as they are a crucial part of solving the housing crisis in the UK?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman should not undersell himself; he is an illustrious estate agent, and I have now drawn wider attention to that important fact.

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is right to mention smaller builders, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that finance is available to them. They play a key role in providing new housing, and I confirm that the £630 million announced in the Budget for the small-site infrastructure fund will be going ahead, as will measures that we have taken to support bank lending specifically to smaller builders.

[Mel Stride]

I have already, at length, gone through the various measures we have taken to support increased housing supply. Given that I have been urged to stray towards brevity rather than to respond at length, I will leave it there, other than to say that we will have our foot firmly to the floor. When it comes to council housing, we have of course built twice as much since 2010 than the Labour Government built during their 13 years in office.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the House that I have not detected much beetling taking place. I exhorted colleagues to beetle across to the Chamber if they wished to take part in the next debate, but by my reckoning, fewer than half the would-be contributors to that debate have landed in the Chamber. I hope there will be some beetling or toddling of a hasty kind pretty soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Mr Speaker, at one point you wanted me to respond rather quickly. If you now wish me to go a little more slowly to allow others to attend the Chamber, I am at your disposal.

[Mr Speaker]

That is extremely accommodating of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would expect no less of him. He can rest assured that the next debate will start no later than 12.30 pm, and preferably earlier, notwithstanding the fact that his own erudition is endlessly intoxicating.

[Mel Stride]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend asked about the north-west, where 6,900 individuals benefited from stamp duty relief between 22 November and 31 March this year.

[Mr Speaker]

Things are hotting up now.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

My area has many thousands of extant planning permissions that have yet to be brought forward. How will the Treasury try to get those planning permissions to a state where we can build houses? Is it about time that we had a sensible debate on land value taxation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. As well as the many advantages and benefits of home ownership for individuals, society and the economy, his point about financial stability is right and another reason why the Government are determined to make progress.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As colleagues will know if they have studied the Annunciator, the second of the two debates scheduled for this afternoon has been withdrawn, so we have simply one debate on customs and borders. Members will recall that when the House debated estimates on 26 and 27 February, the motions were proposed by the Backbench Business Committee under an arrangement recommended by the Procedure Committee. Today, we have a complementary proceeding of a Backbench Business day in which the motion has been proposed by the Liaison Committee.

Customs and Borders

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Neither the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) nor the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) will be subject to what I will call the common external tariff, otherwise known as a time limit. Such time limit as they are subject to will be self-imposed. I am sure that they will want to bear it in mind that, while we wish to enjoy the fruits of their intellect and eloquence, colleagues will wish to do so only if it is not at their personal expense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is no. I have been attending to my duties in the Chair since 9.30 am without interruption. It would have been perfectly possible for somebody to beetle into the Chamber to advise me of a Minister’s intention to make a statement on this matter but, as a matter of fact, that has not happened.

I know the hon. Gentleman is always looking onward and upward—he is an optimistic fellow—and, although there is no great likelihood of a statement on the matter today, as he contemplates the joys of his weekend ahead in Cardiff South and Penarth, he can always look forward to Monday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A five-minute limit on each Back-Bench speech will now apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman]

I give way to my right hon. Friend, who—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the right hon. Lady intervenes, can I make this point? People are perfectly entitled to intervene, but if they keep doing so, particularly those who have already spoken, they do so knowing that they are stopping other colleagues speaking. Let us be clear about that. Does the right hon. Lady still wish to intervene?

[Anna Soubry]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Resisting a customs union and the single market without a mandate from the voters, which we have not, would be an act of grotesque economic irresponsibility. Being in the customs union means that we are part of team Europe when we negotiate with big blocs such as the United States, China and Japan. If we leave, we will be one player against a whole team. The idea that we can negotiate better terms is farcical. The idea that we can get more trade to compensate for the trade lost as a result of turning our backs on the EU in terms of the single market, tariffs, product standards and barriers, is absurd.

People may be aware of the economic model of trade called the gravity model, which says that the closer and bigger a market is, the more there is trade. Empirically, over the past 140 years, it has been found that the relationship is: halve the distance and you double the trade. That basically accounts for the fact that 50% of the UK’s trade is with the EU, while for Wales, the north-east and Yorkshire the figure is 60%.

In Britain, some of the poorer areas that voted for Brexit will suffer much more if we end up out of the single market and the customs union. Some people still believe, because of Government spokespeople, that we can boldly go and trade where others have not been before, when in fact we are already trading there. The former permanent secretary at the Department for International Trade likened leaving the single market and the customs union to swapping a three-course meal for the promise of a pack of crisps. He was right, and why did he say that? Because if we look at the big markets, where the opportunities are, are they there? In the United States, Donald Trump said in his inaugural address that he would stop foreign countries ravaging his economy and taking jobs, and would stop the country importing more than it exports. We have seen with Bombardier, EU steel and tariffs on China that the US will act against anyone who thinks they can gain an advantage, and the US is much bigger than us alone, as opposed to us as part of the EU. What is more, the US will try to export its standards, be they in chemicals, food, the environment or workers’ rights, which will prevent us from exporting to the EU.

We have already heard that the Germans export four times more to China than we do. We can do that on our own. Again, China will be much more powerful. The Chinese have demanded that they build Hinkley Point, even though the cost of energy is sky high, and have already negotiated to build HS2. They will be coming in, taking our jobs—exporting our jobs—and we will be like putty in their hands, without any ability to negotiate on human rights, carbon and so on.

On Japan, the EU is doing a trade deal that will embrace a third of the economy of the world. If that trade deal is secured after March next year, we will not be part of it. Forty per cent of Japanese investment in the EU is in the UK. We will lose that, and it is not just cars. I am talking about financial services, and 80% of our exports are in services. The EU-Japanese deal will include financial services and we will be out of it. Therefore, a centre of gravity for financial services will grow in Europe, with the axis of yen and euro, and that will hurt the City of London.

As for third countries, 14% of our trade is with them. Chile, South Korea and Australia have already said that they want to change the terms of trade, and so will the others. When it comes to the timing, we will end without any trade deals in the transition period. We will basically close the door behind us and it will be a complete nightmare. After March we will have left, and Wallonia can just vote down whatever we agree and we will end up with no deal.

So why are the Government doing this? Why are they like a doctor prescribing cigarettes to someone with anxiety, knowing that ultimately it will kill them? The answer is that the Government know that the only hope for Brexit voters is believing that there will be these trade deals, and the Government know that there will not be. That is why Lord Patten, Lord Heseltine, Lord Lansley and Lord Willetts have all put country before party, and the people out there know this is too complex, and too costly, and too much time—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry—I should have formally announced a four-minute limit. It is in effect but I should have announced it formally. The right hon. Gentleman has four minutes from now.

[Tom Brake]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I agree that we need a dose of Brexit reality. In fact, I agree with everything she said. I am sure she will share my concern about the recent figures on the number of EU nurses who have gone off the register, and indeed the number who have left the country, just at a time when we have significant vacancies.

Just as I agree with everything the hon. Lady said, I disagree with everything said by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is no longer in her place. However, at least she had the courage to be here to present that hard Brexit line. Where are the hard Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches? Where is the Foreign Secretary? Where is the Secretary of State for International Development? Where is the Leader of the House? [Interruption.] Oh, there is one. They should be here to hear what they are inflicting on the country. Perhaps the reason they are not here is that they did not want to hear some very well-judged, measured contributions from Members on their own Benches explaining precisely the damage that they are causing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

In my constituency, 4,000 jobs—16% of the total employment—are in manufacturing. Does my hon. Friend agree that for the Government not to consider a bespoke customs union is both reckless and a huge risk?

[Mr Speaker]

I emphasise that if there are further interventions, which are legitimate in parliamentary terms, the time limit will have to be cut for remaining speakers.

[Stella Creasy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our car industry imports 60% of its components, so a British-made car probably has a German exhaust, Spanish-designed seats and French windows.

We have talked a lot about trade, but I also want to talk about people. It is clear that leaving the customs union will damage the lives of thousands of people in Northern Ireland and Ireland. We know that to be clear because we have no alternative. Ireland has 208 border crossings—more than the EU has with the rest of Europe. There will clearly be change. The consumers who may get cheaper goods are the same workers who will face the race to the bottom that will result from leaving the customs union and entering into the mythical free trade deals that we are being offered. We have heard that £25 billion annually will be lost to GDP.

Please, Minister, on this day of all days, listen to Ma Creasy and eat the frog—admit that the customs union is the best option, not just for our economy and British business, but for all our futures.

[Mr Speaker]

Happy birthday to Mummy Creasy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. After the next speaker the time limit will have to be reduced to three minutes.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate and I support all the excellent points raised by those who, like me, support the motion—I will try hard not to repeat them. I am not alone in being somewhat bemused that the party in government is the party that generally prides itself on being pro-business and anti-bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the Government appear to be ignoring the pleading of businesses large and small, and they are leading this country towards a tsunami of additional paperwork as we move towards leaving the customs union and the EU, given the implications of all that paperwork for trade deals that we will now have to put in place for our trade with the EU. Leaving the customs union means the introduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade in goods with our largest trading partner. That involves 40% of our trade, and it means, as businesses tell us again and again, added delay and costs for manufacturers.

Before the recess I had the pleasure of visiting Honda in Swindon with the Industry and Parliament Trust. It said that

“outside a customs union, there is no such thing as a frictionless border.”

Motor manufacturers will be subject to 10% tariffs on cars, and 4.5% on components and parts, plus additional delay. Currently, if someone takes their car to the dealer because they need a new exhaust pipe, the order goes in today, and tomorrow the dealer will have that part and be able to fit it. I understand that once we are outside the customs union there will be a wait of up to five days for that new exhaust pipe. That is not just inconvenient for the car owner—it has an economic cost for the owner of a van who uses that van for business.

It was also good to see how Honda’s presence in Swindon has transformed that town since I was last there many years ago. There is no doubt that Swindon’s low unemployment rate and well-paid jobs—not just at Honda but at all its suppliers—are directly based on Honda being there, which is probably linked to the message that, as we have heard, Margaret Thatcher gave to the Japanese Government many years ago when she said that Britain would never leave the customs union. Now all that is at risk.

We will not see big-bang announcements by big manufacturers in those key sectors—not just the automotive industry, but pharmaceuticals and many others. Instead, we will see incremental decisions and loss of capacity, and incremental elements of production going to Europe where the biggest market will be. That will be a long-term cost for our economy. We cannot afford that.

Briefly, on borders and Northern Ireland, many of us will have seen in our Twitter feed the map of Switzerland and the hundreds of customs points. I remember County Fermanagh in the old days, before the Good Friday agreement, and we cannot go back to that.

I support the motion, calling on the Government to establish an effective customs union with the EU, and like other Members I believe we should stay in the single market as well, because 80% of our economy is in services.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A three-minute limit now applies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for securing the debate. This is clearly not an abstract debate; it is extremely serious, given the impact that this policy will have on us.

The question of the customs union is important because it strikes at the heart of our trade policy, our business exports and imports, and the strength of the UK economy. The prospect of our not being part of a customs union poses, I believe, an existential threat to the UK car industry, and therefore to the wider UK economy. What businesses in that industry and those more generally are calling for is certainty, clarity and, of course, urgency. Their representatives—the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses—are doing the same.

We know that many businesses have complex supply chains and production processes that are integrated across Europe, with parts and assembly travelling back and forth across the continent. Frictionless trade is essential to those operations, and a customs union helps to facilitate that. We also know that increased customs checks could lead to delays. We have heard about—we saw them for ourselves—the eight-minute delays on the US-Canada border. We have heard about delays of up to 15 minutes at the Norway-Sweden border and the additional costs that are incurred. We know about the infrastructure—the huge X-ray machines that check every few vehicles to confirm their contents—and, of course, we know that Northern Ireland relies on a frictionless border for the continuation of peace. The symbolism of a manned or marked border between Northern Ireland and the Republic puts at risk the peace secured by the Good Friday agreement. For all those reasons, it is vital that we remain in the customs union.

As the Member of Parliament for Warwick and Leamington, which is at the heart of the car industry, I cannot stress enough how critical this issue of the customs union is, and how costly our departure from it will be for the sector. Some 79% of all components used in the UK car industry come from Europe or other countries abroad. If WTO rules are applied, there will be an incremental cost of £1.8 billion for our exports and £2.7 billion for our imports. It is no wonder that the Japanese invested in the UK in the 1980s. That happened because we were part of the customs union, and we very much welcome their investment here.

I believe that we can remain part of the customs union at the same time as increasing our trade with and exports to markets outside Europe. That is what we should plan to do, and that is why I support the motion.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The winding-up speeches of up to eight minutes each will begin now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am not certain that I am in a position to confirm anything today. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, having just heard his point of order, is this. There is a compelling logic in such an arrangement and an equivalence of treatment between this, the first debate under this parliamentary architecture involving the Liaison Committee and co-operation between it and the Backbench Business Committee, and the arrangement that has come to apply in respect of motions passed after Opposition day debates. I repeat: there is a compelling logic in such an arrangement, and it might be thought—I say this with my beady eye on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is an unfailingly courteous individual—that it would also be a courtesy for the Government to oblige the House with such an explanation. I think we will have to leave matters for today, but I use the word “compelling”—one might also use the word “inexorable” or “irresistible”—for the logic of which I speak. I hope that is helpful to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tells me that he agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman but has not heard from him to arrange a meeting. Let me reiterate on my right hon. Friend’s behalf that he would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this case.

[Mr Speaker]

Young Philp was standing a moment ago. The fella has stopped standing. Do you want to get in there, man? Go for it.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I could hardly resist such encouragement.

I wished only to say how much I welcomed the Government’s recent paper, published by the Financial Secretary—[Interruption.] There is a serious point. The paper on corporate tax and the digital economy demonstrated again that this country is showing leadership. I encourage the Treasury to look into working with the European Union on a sales tax, and even to consider a user tax, if we can do that more quickly.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s job application is in the post.

[Mr Hammond]

Thank you for your very carefully tailored piece of demand stimulation, Mr Speaker. It was much appreciated for the economy of the Chamber.

My hon. Friend is right. As I have already said, working with the EU on this interim proposal for a turnover-based tax is, we believe, the right thing to do. We have, of course, also introduced an interim measure of our own, seeking to tax licence fees that are paid to low-tax jurisdictions where we judge that the underlying basis of the licence fee is economic activity taking place in the UK. We have that measure already in place, and we will continue to work with the EU on its proposed measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The independent Infrastructure and Projects Authority has said that by the end of this Parliament, central Government funding for infrastructure will be greater in the north than in the south. The hon. Gentleman is speaking to the wrong Minister if he thinks that we do not care about the north. This son of a Liverpudlian and a Mancunian, born in Wolverhampton and representing North Nottinghamshire, needs no lessons from him.

[Mr Speaker]

I accept that Huddersfield is a most admirable place. My grandma lived there all her life, as I have told the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) before. Splendid place, splendid woman.

[Mr Sheerman]

And a good football team!

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed, that too.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Cities are important, but so too are seaside towns such as Weymouth. We desperately need investment in those places, or they will just go to rack and ruin. Having met a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently, I understand that Government are looking at initiatives for towns and seaside towns. Can the Minister confirm that that is true? If so, what money will be available?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

A moment ago the Financial Secretary was banging on about TIMS. I was not informed about this matter, but the Clerk has consulted his scholarly cranium and he tells me that it stands for Treasury information management systems.

[Mel Stride]

Tax impact notes, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, TINs! Well, I am sure everybody attending to our proceedings was perfectly well aware of what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. I am sure I was in a minority of one in not knowing. And what are those pigs I see flying in front of my very eyes?

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

10. What plans he has to increase productivity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

Not for the first time, I do not recognise the picture of our economy that is painted by Opposition Front Benchers. Figures today tell us that we have new record high numbers of people in employment, and new record low unemployment figures. That should be something that we are celebrating. Real wages are forecast to turn positive from this quarter and to go on growing thereafter. Employment is expected to grow by another 500,000 by 2022. We are working hard to ensure that productivity performance increases across the economy because that is the only sustainable way to achieve higher wages and higher living standards.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that progress has been terribly slow today. I would like to get through some more questions from Back Benchers, but we will need to have single-sentence questions and pithy replies. We do not have time for long pre-prepared speeches.

[Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)]

11. What progress has been made on implementing the Building our Future programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

The important point is that the debt is going down this year. We want to avoid a situation like that in the last three years of the last Labour Government, when public sector net debt doubled.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) can very easily shoehorn in his own inquiry on this question. Question 14 is not dissimilar to 13—have a go on 13, man.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Well done.

[Michael Tomlinson]

14. That is very kind of you, Mr Speaker. Is it not vital that we reduce our national debt, stop wasting taxpayers’ money on debt interest repayment, and spend it on our public services instead?

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The session would not be complete without the voice of Shipley.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

There are a number of challenges that need to be overcome for the poorest. We have increased the national living wage by 4.4%—to £7.83 an hour—and also the allowance that applies before people pay tax. We have made other changes, such as freezing fuel duty, to ensure we are doing all that we can for the hardest-working people in our communities.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I exhort the Minister to face the House; I understand the temptation to look backwards, but one should always look at the House.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

T9. Many NHS trusts have set up subsidiary companies to take advantage of a VAT loophole to save money, often at the cost of the lowest-paid staff. Does the Chancellor have any plans to close this tax loophole and place the NHS on the same VAT footing as local government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I have already answered the question on the Swansea Bay lagoon—we are studying the project. All of these projects have to meet value-for-money tests. We already have a fantastic offshore wind sector, with record low costs to the consumer through offshore wind generation. We have to decarbonise our economy in a way that also keeps electricity prices as low as possible for consumers and businesses.

[Mr Speaker]

Single-sentence inquiries: I call Vicky Ford.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Last night, the pound hit its highest rate against the dollar since the referendum. Will the Chancellor join me in welcoming this sign of international confidence, which is so contrary to the run on the pound predicted by the shadow Chancellor?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

You are a patient fellow, Mr Stone, and you have been waiting for a long time. Let’s hear you.

[Jamie Stone]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. One way to boost the UK’s productivity is to give disabled people employment opportunities. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell me what discussions he has had with the Department for Work and Pensions and possibly the Scottish Government about maximising the potential of our disabled people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

The important thing about the issues with Carillion was that, first, we made sure that public services operated, and that, secondly, we did not give rewards for failure in a company that went bust. I would be very happy to look at the specific situation that the hon. Gentleman has outlined and to meet him.

[Mr Speaker]

A sentence without subordinate clauses from Mr David Linden?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

How many apprentices in the UK are being paid just £3.70 an hour?

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done. Unfortunately, it was so well done that the Chancellor did not hear it. Blurt it out again, man!

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One colleague has been standing for a long time and has not asked a question. I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Very well. If the question is a sentence, I call Stephen Lloyd.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. An elderly couple in my constituency, Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, are about to lose their home. They have an interest-only mortgage with Santander, which does not allow mortgages for people over 75, although the Nationwide allows them for people up to 85. Will the Minister help me to persuade Santander so that Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald do not lose their home in the coming weeks?

Easter Adjournment

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Backbench Business debate on matters to be considered before the forthcoming Adjournment. This debate, appropriately, will be opened by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. On account of the level of interest, I am afraid that it is necessary, with immediate effect, to apply a limit of five minutes each on Back-Bench speeches. We will begin with Sir David Amess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

The House may not be surprised by the subject about which I will be speaking. I will be speaking about it because the Government have just announced that two councils are to be merged, and I will be speaking on behalf of my constituents.

I was very pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) about the festival of the north. I have a slight vested interest in Newcastle, and I think that it is fantastic news. I urge colleagues to go to Newcastle, which is a very beautiful city—partly because we built it.

I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate, although what I have to say will not please everyone. I want to tell the House about a town hall in Somerset that is being spoon-fed huge sums of public money and, I am afraid, wasting every penny. The name of the waster is Taunton Deane Borough Council—unfortunately, because it has just been announced that it will be amalgamated with my local council, West Somerset. It had ambitions to take over the council, and last week the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government gave it the thumbs up.

Most people shook their heads in disbelief and shock, including the locals in Taunton Deane, as they read the latest letters in the local paper. The Taunton Deane councillors plan to change the council’s name, sack more than a third of the workforce, spend millions of pounds that, unfortunately, we do not have on computers that do not seem to work, make themselves comfy in new offices on which they are spending £11 million although they are worth £5 million, and then come begging to Whitehall when it all goes wrong. Even the unions, which have been instrumental in providing information, agree with that.

In these dark corners of local government, incompetence rules, and we often find greed as well, not to mention sharp practice in many cases—not just in my area—and occasionally, I am afraid, corruption. Taunton Deane Borough Council has been making a dodgy name for itself for many years, long before my time, and has been rattling its tin in Whitehall for ages. The Government recently handed it £7 million to pay for a new road, which runs along the edge of my boundary. It never occurred to anyone that you cannot sanction a brand-new housing estate unless you build a brand-new road first.

What Taunton Deane is very good at is dishing out planning permission to builders. It is a tiny council, but, believe it or not, it wants to build 17,000 new houses. The effects of that on the roads and the infrastructure will be devastating for my constituents. A great many of those houses will be erected by people—dare I call them mates?—in the local area. The hon. Member for Gateshead will recall the days of Poulson and others. The council leader, believe it not, is a builder. Mates’ rates matter big time in Taunton, and these mates all work around Taunton.

What gets my goat is that, while laying concrete on its green fields, the council has the bare-faced cheek to pretend that it has an environmentally friendly master plan. The Government have rewarded it with a few hundred thousand pounds, which, admittedly, is not a lot in the scheme of things, but it is pretending that a few more badly planned housing estates will add up to a shiny garden town. The idea of garden towns is to build something new, and to aspire, but that does not apply in this case. Taunton Deane specialises in dreams in my area, which is a bit worrying, especially with Glastonbury down the road. Its latest lunacies include borrowing millions of pounds to tart up its headquarters, and trying to buy a hotel. Why a local council should want to buy a hotel is slightly beyond me.

The council’s leadership is rather like Arthur Daley, in a three-wheeled Reliant, flogging “cut and shut” Cortinas to unsuspecting civil servants. They will probably all end up in the canal. What saddens me is that the Government so often cave in too quickly and pay up. I would say the same about Governments on either side of the House. We must stand up against petty bureaucracies. Underfunding may be a problem, but overfunding is a downright scandal.

The future of West Somerset council, in my constituency, is being dictated by a group of people who have no interest in it whatever. It has 28 councillors, and the number will go down to roughly 15, perhaps 14. Taunton Deane has demanded red lines. It has no code of conduct, and no precept for any of its parishes. There is no town council in a town that contains about 100,000 people. The whole thing is run by someone who has a pointed beard and looks like Arthur Daley.

The point I am making is that this is not the way to conduct local government. My area is the sparsest part of England, because we have Exmoor and the Quantocks, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. We cannot build on the coastline. We have enormous flood plains, which, as many of my colleagues will remember, have been affected rather devastatingly. Our room for manoeuvre is very tight. We have one secondary—we do not need any more, to be fair—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Martin Whitfield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

This afternoon, I should like to talk about a subject that has been much in the news recently—namely, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence. I also want to talk about the Royal Air Force Regiment, which currently has key responsibility for protecting us in the United Kingdom. I gather that the RAF Regiment was hugely instrumental in cleaning up after the Salisbury chemical weapon attack recently. Since the second world war, the RAF has had the service lead for defending us against nuclear, biological and chemical—NBC—attacks. In 2002, the collective term was widened to include radiological attacks and thus became chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear—CBRN—defence. The RAF NBC defence capability has always been vested in 27 Squadron of the RAF Regiment. Coincidentally, that squadron was once commanded by Jock Stewart MC, who happens to be my father. I am proudly wearing an RAF Regiment tie today, because I have the real privilege of being an honorary companion of the RAF Regiment officers’ dinner club.

Apart from EU countries, states in all other continents have often sent delegations to the UK to view our RAF Regiment’s specialist capabilities with a view to replicating them in their own countries. I will not attempt to name them, as there might be security implications. RAF Regiment specialist CBRN personnel provided unique assistance to the Japanese Government and other national embassies and agencies in radiation monitoring during the Fukushima nuclear incident in 2011. As I have mentioned, their expertise was also deployed to Salisbury recently.

Following the strategic defence and security review in 2015, the decision was taken to transfer the specialist CBRN defence capability to the Army. To me, that decision lacks logic, and I hope it can be stopped. The current modernising defence programme—a mini-defence review in any other terms—provides for a timely reassessment of the required specialist CBRN defence capabilities and the opportunity to challenge the SDSR 2015 decision. The RAF Regiment has amassed considerable CBRN defence knowledge, skills and expertise over many decades, and it is the acknowledged leader in CBRN defence operations in the international community.

I will lose many Army friends by saying this, but I think that the transfer of the specialist CBRN capability from the RAF to the Army could introduce significant risks to the UK’s defence and security during a time of extreme uncertainty. I believe that the Ministry of Defence may wish to reconsider the wisdom of the planned transfer from the RAF to the Army and I very much hope that this capability will stay with the Royal Air Force Regiment, which has long-term proven expertise. Also, it is the one organisation that is judged to be a world leader in its class. Mr Speaker, I want to say thank you to you, your Deputy Speakers, the Clerks and all the staff of this great establishment for putting up with me for so long. I will now give you a break by going away and shutting up for two weeks. Thank you.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman represents no burden so far as the Chair is concerned. That was very self-effacing of him, and I wish him a very good break. I thank him for his characteristic courtesy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On the whole, it is helpful if people bob rather than assume the Chair has a psychic quality. Mr Sweeney, get in there, man.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz]

Indeed, the right side. I am pleased that Mayor Burnham is always very keen to get us moving. I gave him a football when he came to my constituency once. His parliamentary assistant said to me, “He’s not going to put it down,” and he did not; he carried on kicking the football. It was great, and his strategy to get us all moving is also great.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has worked tirelessly for homeless people. I am pleased that his Act will be coming into effect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) is an outstanding parliamentarian. We look forward to the debate on the serious violence strategy. I am glad that that has been agreed and that the youth violence commission will report in the summer. Perhaps we can look forward to another debate then.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) has made an outstanding impact in the very short time that he has been here. He has even been on the Front Bench. I was astounded by how confident he was on his first outing, and I thank him for his contribution on behalf of the Opposition. He raised the case of Dr Bawa-Garba. I know that very many people in the medical profession are concerned about the decision in that case. I hope that someone at the General Medical Council will look at that again.

I can see why tourism accounts for 20% of the economy in the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). The Opposition Chief Whip has actually visited the area, although he claims to have driven around it, rather than to have walked. Maybe another attraction to the area would be if you, Mr Speaker and Roger Federer had a tennis match there.

I used to really enjoy doing these debates when I was on the Back Benches. It is a really lovely time. It is a nice debate to have before the recess. I thank all Members for attending and taking part. I get the best bit—to wish everybody a very happy and peaceful Easter.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). [Interruption.] Well, he is the Deputy Leader of the House for today’s purposes. I am sorry if I have conferred upon him an official title that he does not possess but that is the role that he is playing today, and I thank him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Forgive me, but as a former Whip, may I ask whether it is right for the Minister to denigrate the generality of Whips to new Members in the Chamber?

[Mr Speaker]

All I would say is that if the Minister had not done so, I would probably have done it for him.

[Paul Maynard]

I think it is fair to say that, not having been a Whip for very long, I am still learning how to exercise the full panoply of my powers.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East made a number of very worthwhile points, and I am sure he will participate in the debates that he identified after the Easter recess.

Leaving the EU: UK Ports (Customs)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is always a pleasure to listen to the mellifluous tones of the hon. Gentleman, who spoke for only two and a half times as long as he was allotted. I hope that he will be saying to himself tonight, “Isn’t that Speaker a generous fellow?”

European Affairs

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but on account of recent interventions, the time limit for the remaining Back Benchers will have to be reduced to five minutes each, because otherwise the Front Benchers will not have adequate time to wind up. That is the consequence of interventions that some people might think are superfluous, but others will think are essential.

Banking in North Ayrshire

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about that. We all know, as we have all seen in our own constituencies, the jiggery-pokery that has taken place in the presentation of these figures, which do not reveal—[Interruption.] I am hoping that this is the first time “jiggery-pokery” will appear in Hansard.

[Mr Speaker]

I have heard the term used previously by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker. We do know that there has been jiggery-pokery and all sorts of nefarious goings on as to how these figures are presented. [Hon. Members: “Sleekit.”] My colleagues are shouting the word “sleekit” to me, which may well indeed cover the particular practice that is going on. The point is that it is not right for customers to be herded into the pen of online banking, a place where they have up to this point chosen not to go or have been unable to go. We are being forced down this road by banks as they shut up shop. If we insist that we do not want to bank online, the attitude we see from too many banks, including in conversations I have had with banking officials, who shall remain nameless, is that they collectively shrug their shoulders and more or less say, “Suit yourselves, but we are still shutting your bank.”

Spring Statement

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The Tory bully boys can shout all they want. They can make—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There will be a full opportunity for people to contribute, but the right hon. Gentleman must be heard.

[John McDonnell]

The Tories can shout all they want and they can make their snide remarks, but people out there know about the crisis in our communities.

The Chancellor has made great play this week of reaching a turning point in reducing the deficit and debt. That is a bit rich coming from a party that has put £700 billion on the national debt over the past eight years. It is worth remembering that this is a party that promised us that the deficit would be eliminated completely by 2015 and then 2016. Bizarrely, his predecessor, now ensconced in the Evening Standard—or Black Rock, the Washington Speakers Bureau, or whatever number of jobs he now has—has been tweeting about achieving, three years late, a deficit target that he actually abandoned himself.

The reality is that the Chancellor and his predecessor have not tackled the deficit: they have shifted it on to the public services that the Chancellor’s colleagues are responsible for. He has shifted it on to the Secretary of State for Health and the shoulders of NHS managers, doctors and nurses throughout the country. NHS trusts will end this financial year £1 billion in deficit. Doctors and nurses are struggling and being asked to do more and more while 100,000 NHS posts go unfilled. Does the Chancellor really believe that the NHS can wait another eight months for the life-saving funds it needs? How many people have to die waiting in an ambulance before he acts? He has mentioned the pay offer to NHS staff that we are expecting shortly. That was forced upon him by campaigns against the pay cap by the Labour party and the trade unions. Taking away a day’s holiday from those dedicated staff is mean-spirited. I ask him now: will he drop this miserly act?

The Chancellor has also shifted the deficit on to the Secretary of State for Education and head teachers, with the first per capita cut in schools funding since the 1990s. Today the Government are even trying to deprive 1 million children of a decent school dinner. I am asking the Chancellor, and I am asking every Conservative MP —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm down. There will be plenty of opportunity for questioning from Members in all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard.

[John McDonnell]

I am appealing to Tory MPs today, if they are serious about ending austerity, to vote with us this afternoon to give those children the free school meal they are entitled to.

The Chancellor has shifted the deficit on to the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary. Crime is rising, yet he has cut the number of police officers by 21,500 and the number of firefighters by 8,500, and our prisons and probation service are in dangerous crisis.

In shifting the deficit on to the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in reality he has shifted the burden on to local councillors—Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative councillors alike. I raise again the stark reality of what that means for the most vulnerable children in our society. There has been a 40% cut in early intervention to support families. The result is the highest number of children taken into care since the 1980s. Children’s charities—not us but children’s charities—are saying that this crisis could turn into a catastrophe without further funding. Last year, 400 women seeking refuge were turned away because there were no places available for them in refuges. There are now nearly 5,000 of our fellow citizens sleeping rough on our streets—more than double the number in 2010. Tragically, one of our homeless citizens died only feet away from the entrance to Parliament.

The Chancellor mentioned additional housing funding in London. The additional housing funding announced for London today is not a new announcement: this is money already announced. Any new funding is welcome, but it is simply not enough and it represents a cut in London’s budgets compared with the money that Labour allocated in 2010. One million vulnerable older people have no access to the social care they need. Conservative Councils are going bust. Many will be forced to hike up council tax. Councils are running out of reserves, as the National Audit Office explained to us. I ask the Chancellor: will he listen to Conservative council leaders, such as the leader of Surrey, who said:

“We are facing the most difficult financial crisis in our history. The government cannot stand idly by while Rome burns”?

How many more children have to go into care? How many more councils have to go bust? How many more have to run out of reserves before the Chancellor wakes up to this crisis and acts?

Today’s statement could have been a genuine turning point but it is, depressingly, another missed opportunity. People know now that austerity was a political choice, not an economic necessity. The Conservatives chose to cut taxes for the super-rich, the corporations and the bankers, and it was paid for by the rest of us in society. They even cut the levy on the bankers in the Finance Bill. We were never “all in this together” as they claimed—never. They cut investment at the very time when we should have been developing the skills and infrastructure needed to raise productivity and grasp the technological revolution with both hands. And when they had a responsibility to meet the challenge of Brexit, we have a Chancellor who this weekend admitted he has not even modelled the Government’s options.

Today we have the indefensible spectacle of a Chancellor congratulating himself on marginally improved economic forecasts, while he refuses to lift a finger as councils go bust, the NHS and social care are in crisis, school budgets are cut, homelessness has doubled and wages are falling. This is not a Government preparing our country for the future; it is a Government setting us up to fail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I have to say, that was much ado about nothing. The real tragedy is that we are 10 years on from the financial crisis, but austerity is still with us, and there was a lack of hope given to the people of the United Kingdom from the statement today.

At the weekend, we saw the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) at the Glasgow Celtic versus Rangers football match, in his other job as a linesman, waving his flag and enthusiastically calling for a red card. If anybody deserves a red card today, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

We hear the Chancellor proclaiming that we have had consistent economic growth since 2010 and that we can look forward to continued economic growth over the course of the coming years. The reality is that in 2019, when we are supposed to be leaving the European Union, the OBR predicts that growth will be a measly 1.3% and is forecast to remain at around 1.5% over the coming years, significantly below the historical trendline of growth for this country.

When I hear the Chancellor talking about wage growth, he ought to reflect that we have had a lost decade of wage growth in the United Kingdom. Let me prick his balloon on this one, because the OBR book is very clear that real earnings growth will “remain subdued” for the next five years. That is the reality, and perhaps the Chancellor should stop spinning and be honest with people about what is going to happen. The Chancellor talks about light at the end of the tunnel. Let me tell him that the light at the end of the tunnel is a hard Brexit and the impact of lower growth, which is going to cost jobs and prosperity in this country.

Slow earnings growth, higher inflation and cuts to the benefit system are resulting in falling incomes for the poorest households and in rising inequality. Once again, the Chancellor has failed to bring his Government’s disastrous austerity programme to an end. Worse still, he has his head firmly in the sand over Brexit.

This Government are going ahead with a devastating cut to Scotland’s budget. [Interruption.] I hear the Scottish Tories shouting “Rubbish”. Perhaps they could join those of us on the SNP Benches and defend Scotland’s interests. Let me explain the reality: over the decade from 2010-11 to 2019-20, Scotland’s block grant has been cut by £2.6 billion in real terms, which is an 8.1% cut. [Interruption.] The people of Scotland should watch the Scottish Tory MPs who are calling out: once again, they are failing to stand up for Scotland’s interests. [Interruption.] Let me say respectfully that these Tory MPs have been here for quite some months, and they should understand that if they want to speak, they should try to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. It is undignified to call out in the way they are doing. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much excitable gesticulation taking place on both sides of the House. I urge Members to keep their Order Papers to themselves, and not to lash out with their hands, gesticulating in all sorts of directions. They are in danger of becoming rather eccentric denizens of the House.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are, after all, serious matters. The extent of the block grant reduction is highlighted by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which has noted:

“By 2019/20 the resource block grant will be around £500 million lower than in 17/18”.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends on the SNP Benches who fought so hard on behalf of their constituents to have Police Scotland and Scottish Fire and Rescue Service VAT scrapped. That was a fantastic result. However, the reality is that Scotland has suffered under this policy for the past five years. Will the Chancellor be bringing forward plans to return the £175 million that has already been paid? VAT should never have been charged: it was a vindictive measure imposed on Scotland by a Tory Government. Give Scotland back the £175 million to invest in our frontline services. Will Scottish Tory MPs join the SNP in standing up for Scotland, or will they remain silent on the cash grab we have seen from Westminster?

This Tory Government’s austerity policies disproportionately affect the most disadvantaged individuals, while giving tax breaks to the better-off in society. The Resolution Foundation recently estimated that the Government’s austerity programme will leave the poorest third of households an average of £715 a year worse off by 2022-23. In Scotland, we have a new progressive income tax policy. [Interruption.] I can hear Conservatives saying, “Up”, but the reality is that for most people in Scotland tax is lower. The Scottish Government are able to reverse this year’s real-terms budget cut inflicted by this Tory Government, and ensure that the majority—I repeat, the majority—of taxpayers in Scotland pay less than in the rest of the UK.

However, Scotland’s new taxation powers should not exist simply to mitigate UK Government austerity. In Scotland, the SNP Government have gone further to support those on low incomes. In the recent budget at Holyrood, a package was secured that raises the threshold of a guaranteed 3% increase for those earning up to £36,500, benefiting up to three quarters of Scottish public service workers—a Scottish Government on the side of hard-working public sector workers.

As we near the EU summit at the end of this month in Brussels, the progress of this Government in readying for Brexit has been nothing short of shameful. The UK Government’s own analysis tells us that, under all scenarios, Scotland would suffer a relatively greater loss in economic output than the United Kingdom as a whole. A no-deal scenario would be significantly devastating, threatening to reduce growth by a massive 9% over 15 years.

Make no mistake: a hard Brexit is going to hit the pockets of families and lead to a loss in tax revenue expectations, and is therefore going to affect spending on public services, yet the Chancellor is silent on the risks to our economy—risks to our economy when the stresses and strains of a near decade of austerity are hurting. The fact is that Scotland is shackled to a sinking ship.

The Scottish budget passed last month illustrates the real divergence in political choices across the UK. In Scotland, we have chosen to stand by our outstanding public sector staff and give them the pay increase they deserve. We continue to mitigate the worst atrocities of this Government’s ideological austerity agenda. We will continue to press for nothing less than continued UK membership of the single market and customs union to prevent the economic catastrophe of an extreme Tory Brexit. We will never stop fighting to get justice for the 1950s women, whom the SNP are so happy to support.

In conclusion, the choices are clear and the opportunities obvious. The Chancellor must wake up to the economic injustices he has overseen, and he must tell this House as a matter of urgency how the economy will stand a hard Brexit.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind the House that, whatever impression might have been given so far, this is not a debate; it is a question and answer session following a ministerial statement.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chancellor on his balanced approach. He and the Prime Minister have rightly identified housing as an economic and social priority. He will be aware that the Treasury Committee’s report on his autumn 2017 Budget recommended that the housing revenue account borrowing cap could be lifted to allow local authorities to play their part in building the right homes in the right places. Is that something he will consider?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have pointed out, it is right that we rebalance council spending from central Government grants to locally raised taxes, to help to keep councils accountable. We have seen councils up and down the country finding innovative ways of working, such as sharing back-office services and doing things such as installing wi-fi and improving waste collection. We have also seen Labour councils wasting money. For example, Momentum-supported Birmingham City Council bin strikes have cost the taxpayer £40,000 a day, and Reading—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Resume your seat, Minister. That is the end of it. You answer for Government policy. You do not waste the time of the House by launching into rants about the policies of other parties. I have made my point, and if the Chancellor is confused about it, he really is under-informed and I say to him: stick to your abacus, man.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My own council of Brighton and Hove has had to make £52 million-worth of cuts in three years, despite superb Labour leadership in the city. With one of the Minister’s own Tory councils going bust, will the Chancellor finally commit to properly funding local government in tomorrow’s local government finance settlement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

We absolutely value transparency in the public-private partnerships that are delivered. They are an important part of the overall infrastructure. As I just explained to the House, there are currently no PF2 projects in procurement. That indicates that we have set the bar for value for money in public-private partnerships very high, and we will continue to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a rather extraordinary state of affairs. I hope that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) is not indisposed, and if he is I am sorry, but otherwise there is absolutely no basis for his leaving the Chamber during the exchanges on his question. That is a rank discourtesy to the House—and a discourtesy to the Chancellor as well, for that matter. It must not happen.

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

The shadow Chancellor recently wrote to the Chancellor asking when he will produce revised value for money guidance, as highlighted by the National Audit Office; an updated list of PFIs, as existing data is nearly two years old; and details of any assessment the Treasury carried out on Carillion’s readiness to fulfil its PFI contracts. When will we get them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman represents a north-west constituency.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

This Government have done nothing to deliver local rail infrastructure in the north-west, which is vital for jobs and the economy. When are they going to invest in decent local rail services, including those used by my constituents from Southport to Manchester? If the Government will not do it, they should stand aside and let us get on with the job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is a really eager young pup, and at this early point in his parliamentary career, I think we ought to hear the fella.

[Mr Sheerman]

Mr Speaker, you will know that I am not the most radical Member on the Labour Benches, but I want to tell the Minister that if the Government had been successfully reducing their budget, my constituents in Yorkshire could forgive her. The fact of the matter is that we have had the money for the electrification of the trans-Pennine railway stolen from us, and the Chancellor refuses to give it back. When will he make amends?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

Yes, I am delighted to congratulate Anne Jessopp, and I wish her all the best in her new role. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud and congratulate my own constituent, Minette Batters, who was elected as the first woman president of the National Farmers Union. I wish the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs all the best with that.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure he will read that with some anxiety.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am awfully sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues. I allowed some injury time because a wholly disproportionate amount of time was spent discussing the policies of parties other than the Government, but we must now move on.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

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

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

The number of home-owning households increased by 1 million under the Labour Government and has fallen under Conservative Governments. I thought it important to correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

It may be important to correct the record and I know that the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) was led into that by the observations of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—it is quite easy to elide into disorderly conduct—but it is important that we try to focus the exchanges on new clause 9, to which with laser-like intensity I know the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent will now turn.

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made a different point from the one I made. My point stands because it was about the building of houses.

By contrast with the previous Labour Government, the current Government have made progress on the gender pay gap. This is the Government who are requiring companies to publish data on the gender pay gap. As we well know, and as has been said this afternoon, transparency is a huge driver of change. We have seen that in many sectors, including a lot in the health sector, which is where I got most of my experience. This Government introduced and are raising the national living wage, which disproportionately benefits women; this Government have taken the lowest paid out of tax; this Government are making sure that for every £1 that the lowest-income households pay in tax, they benefit from £4-worth of public spending; and this Government have overseen a huge expansion in jobs so that millions more are in work.

On the point that the hon. Member for Brent Central made about children, it is significant that many more children are now in households in which somebody in the family is working; far fewer are in workless households. We know that work is key to getting out of poverty.