Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

Like my hon. Friend, I have heard from care workers and many others in my constituency about the anger that they feel. The average care worker is set to lose more than £1,000 in tax rises and universal credit cuts. Of course, the Government’s much trumpeted so-called plan for social care will do absolutely nothing to help the very care workers my hon. Friend describes.

Let us remember the exact timing of the soaring energy prices: exactly as the cut in universal credit bites. It is about choices. The Government choose not to protect working people. We would choose differently.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The hon. Member is making a number of incredibly important points in an articulate fashion. However, would she not agree that much of what she has covered up to this point is also a consequence of Brexit? Will she therefore condemn the fact that the Government took us out of the European Union during the middle of a pandemic?

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Fysh]

I do not think that the amendment would remove any of the Treasury’s discretion in clause 2; all it would do is specify that moneys raised could be used either in the current year or against future years’ costs. The Treasury would govern how such schemes worked and how to achieve that integration.

Since I was elected, I have been passionate about the integration of health and social care, and I anticipate that, through such an amendment, the Government could help to get money into the system to help it work well. I hope that the Government will reconsider their request for me to withdraw the amendment. I would love them to adopt it. It would be no skin off their nose to do so; the amendment would just give them a bit more flexibility in the Bill. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Minister’s response.

This is a probing amendment, and I cannot be confident that the Labour party will support it, perhaps because of their slight misunderstanding of its purpose, so this might not be the time to force the Government’s hand. However, it could be a useful evolution of the national insurance policy, given the direction in which the Government want to go on that.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a remarkable feat indeed that the Government have managed to unite the left-wing press, the right-wing press, the Unionist press, the nationalist press, pressure groups in favour of ending poverty and pressure groups who want to see businesses excel, all in condemnation of the Bill. Although I do not think anyone in the House doubts that it will once again sail through the voting Lobbies this evening, I would like to put in my two cents for what little it is worth. In that regard, I commend the amendments in my name and those of my learned colleagues.

As colleagues across the Chamber will recognise, new clause 1 seeks to get the Government to provide an equality impact assessment of the effect of this Bill, by age, on people’s wealth or income. The reason they will not accept that, despite the polite remarks of the Minister, as always, is that such an equality impact assessment would put in black and white what all the pressure groups are telling us. Indeed, much of what we have heard from Members across the Chamber throughout today and last week is that the Bill, in its entirety, will hammer the youngest and those who work the hardest in society, but not necessarily those in the south-east of England who have the most to give.

I heard a remark earlier that about 50% of the income that will be generated by this Bill will come from those under the age of 45. It will be coming primarily from younger people, who are the very people whose horizons have been shortened by Brexit, and whose job opportunities, career opportunities and educational opportunities have been hammered by the pandemic. What the Government are seeking to do is impose further challenges to their lives. It is an unforgivable act, but one that they are going to push through with no contrition whatsoever, as far as I can see, and in the knowledge that they also plan to cut universal credit in the coming weeks—a double whammy on those in society who can least afford to face the real challenges in front of them, and an abdication of responsibility of the highest order.

However, it is not just individuals, young people, working people or families who will be hammered by this tax; it is also businesses. That takes me nicely to our new clause 2, which involves trying to get the Government to do an economic impact assessment of these policies. However, they will not do that either, because they know what the outcome would be, as we see in the language being used by business groups. The Federation of Small Businesses has been absolutely clearcut about its expectation that the proposal will force 50,000 into unemployment. It is a disaster for business.

The Tory party was once, when I was growing up anyway, regarded as the party of business. What has happened? Why are we in a situation now in which not only have the Government forced through Brexit in the middle of a pandemic—and businesses are having to deal with the challenges of exporting goods and the shortages of supplies, to pay back bounce back loans before they have even had the opportunity to bounce back, and to deal with the fact that furlough is going to end despite the clear uncertainty facing them—but they are seeking to impose a jobs tax? Where is the justification for that? I encourage any Government Member to rise to their feet and disagree with anything I have said, but they will not because they know that we are right in this regard.

[Dr Poulter]

I declare an interest as a practising NHS doctor. Will the hon. Member reflect on the fact that the single biggest transformation delivered to health and care in the last 20 or 30 years was when Tony Blair increased national insurance to give a huge injection of funding to improve care for patients throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland? In reflecting on that, can he see the benefits that will come from this levy for patients in his constituency and all our constituencies in the years to come, because it will make a difference? Will he reflect on the difference that it will make to real people’s lives—improving cancer care, reducing waiting times—and does he see that there is a benefit in that?

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the tone in which it was made, and I shall reflect on two points in relation to what he said. He said that perhaps the biggest change to health and social care was the action of Tony Blair, but I happily disagree with that. In fact, it was in 2016 in Scotland, when we did something that I heard Members discussing earlier at length: we integrated health and social care in Scotland. That was on top of the fact that we provide free personal care for our elderly and so on, and that is in contrast to the situation in England, which has led to the crisis we see before us.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about finance, which is the crux of this argument, do the ends justify the means? That is the purpose of this discussion. I believe in the ends. I believe our NHS and social care services deserve more money, but I do not believe that this is the right way to do it. That obviously leads to the next question, which is about how we should fund this. I heard Conservative Members—rightly—shouting at the Labour Benches, “What is your plan?”, but what is the cost of Trident? What is the cost of nuclear weapons? Over their lifespan I believe it is between £164 billion and £200 billion. Conservative Members will not say that those weapons should be scrapped, but I will. They should absolutely be scrapped, and we can use that money to fund our vital NHS services. The answer is staring them in the face, but they choose not to look at it because this is about priorities, and their politics and priorities differ massively from mine, and ultimately from those of the people of Scotland.

Finally, amendment 4 goes to the nub of where much of our frustration lies with the Bill, because if we shake it about a bit, this is ultimately another UK Government power grab. They are seeking to tell the Scottish Parliament how it should spend money in devolved areas. Whether they agree or disagree with the national insurance hike, all members of the Committee, certainly Unionist Members, should be concerned about the consequences of the UK Government seeking to impose themselves once again on devolution. I say that not as someone who seeks to defend the Union—by all means continue to do it—but because all the UK Government are doing is driving home the message in the minds of the people of Scotland that they do not respect the devolution settlement and they do not respect the Scottish Parliament.

[Nigel Mills]

I come at this debate from a slightly different angle. When we first heard rumours of a tax rise to fund health and social care I felt that, given that we had just spent £400 billion to get us through a pandemic, and that we wanted to get health care services to 110% of previous capacity to clear the backlog, we could accept that a tax rise had to be found to do that. I thought there was no other way, given that the economy and tax revenues are still smaller than they were, and that that was the responsible and prudent thing to do. I may not have chosen national insurance, but I accept that it is probably one of three taxes that the Government could have chosen.

My interest is in why, in the long term, we have chosen not to raise national insurance but to have a new tax. I remember that when I was first elected we were keen on simplifying the tax regime. We even had a review into whether we could merge income tax and national insurance, so that we could have one tax fewer, and make it cheaper and simpler to collect. For some reason that I will try to work out, we have now moved on to adding a kind of son or daughter of national insurance to the tax code. I think the only slight difference is that the new tax will apply to the earned income of people over retirement age, where national insurance does not. I do not know how much that will collect—the Minister would not give us an estimate—but I think it is a pretty tiny amount, and I am not sure there is huge advantage in that.

Being a bit of a cynical sort of person I thought that perhaps because our manifesto promise ruled out tax rises we could have a levy, and that people would fall for that, but I am glad we did not take that line. Indeed, the Government were clear that we are breaching our manifesto promise, for justifiable reasons in the circumstances.

Perhaps we are trying to create some clarity, thinking that if people can see a hypothecated tax, they can see how much they are paying for health and social care and they will understand and value what is happening, except of course we are raising by this levy £12 billion a year or so—a tiny fraction of what we spend on the NHS, let alone social care—and people will see a social care levy on their council tax bill. In fact, this money is not even the biggest part of national insurance that will go to the NHS; as I said earlier, £26 billion a year—roughly 2% of the national insurance contributions in each class—already goes directly to the NHS and does not go down the usual route of national insurance funding. I am not sure that we are going to get the benefit of clarity for people about what they are paying.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating the new shadow Chancellor on her role. She will be cognisant of the fact that she has replaced an Aberdeen quine, so she has very big boots to fill indeed.

It is important when we look at the wider discussion of the Queen’s Speech to reflect on what it actually means. Of course, it is the Government’s legislative programme—a programme that they believe they have a mandate to put forward, and a mandate that the Conservatives got in the 2019 general election, when they won 365 seats in this place on 43% of the vote. Of course, in the 2019 general election they won just 25% of the vote in Scotland and hold just six Scottish seats in this House, yet over the last year we have seen the UK Government use that mandate to drag us out of the European Union against our express wishes. They introduced the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to ride roughshod over devolution, alongside the levelling-up fund and the shared prosperity fund—all a blatant attack on devolution. It is not just us nationalists saying that; it is the Labour party in Wales as well, because it is cognisant of the fact that the Welsh Assembly is also under attack.

What do we see planned for the year to come? We see a Conservative Government with a mandate in Scotland of 25% from 2019 seeking to introduce new legislation in relation to immigration—even more draconian than it already is—that will only make things worse, despite the express wishes of the people of Scotland to have a tailored immigration system fitting Scotland’s needs. Of course, we will also see legislation aimed solely at suppressing the right of people to vote by making them take photo ID to the ballot box. The Government are seeking to fix a problem that nobody knew existed, and they are doing it for their own nefarious means.

Of course, in Scotland we had an election last week. The Chancellor failed to reflect on that in his remarks; I do wonder why. On the constituency ballot—first past the post, which Members of this House are extremely familiar with—the SNP won an unprecedented 47.7% of the vote, and 62 constituency seats. In comparison, the Scottish Conservatives won 21% of the vote and just five constituency seats—six if we include Dumbarton, but I would not wish to do that—yet we are told we have no mandate to implement our policies.

Of course, in Scotland we do not just have a first-past-the-post system; we have a proportional Parliament. That has allowed the Labour party to gain some seats; I do not think the Liberal Democrats gained anything on the list this time; and of course the Conservatives gained some more seats on the list. That list vote was remarkable, because a majority of voters in Scotland voted for parties that had an express wish for the people of Scotland to have their say—to have a second independence referendum to decide our own future. A majority of voters on that list vote voted for such parties.

What we have ended up with is a Parliament in Scotland where 72 of the 129 seats are taken up by people who support Scotland’s right to choose. And has that right to choose ever been more important than it is at this moment in time? Has it ever been more important, as we seek to overcome a decade or more of Tory austerity, as we seek to overcome being dragged out of the European Union against our will, and as we seek to build back from the pandemic? But of course we have no mandate, because a Conservative party that has not won an election in Scotland since 1955 tells us that we will not get to decide our own future.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which is typically passionate. The trouble is that it is a speech that he could have given in any debate. May I urge him to bring his mind back to the criticism of the Conservatives for their appalling Queen’s Speech, rather than giving us the usual stuff, which we hear most days—day in, day out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

I think that is the first reaction to the Scottish Parliament elections that I have heard from the Member—a Labour Member, I believe.

[Christian Matheson]

indicated assent.

[Stephen Flynn]

He is a Labour Member. That is astonishing, because I have yet to hear what the Labour party’s views are in respect of the Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland voted in favour of having that right to choose. I think he should reflect on the fact that the Labour party won just two constituency seats in Scotland. It is perhaps because of its arrogance when it comes to these serious issues of Scotland’s votes that that is such a thing.

I will turn to the Queen’s Speech now; if the hon. Member had bided his time, I would have got there. The reality is that the people of Scotland face the starkest of choices—a choice between deciding their own future, or the legislative agenda of a party that we did not vote for. What does that mean in real terms? It means that, as it stands, the people of Scotland will not have the power to borrow—we have been denied that throughout the pandemic by the Chancellor—that we will have to have nuclear weapons on the Clyde, despite our express wishes not to have them there, and that we will not be able to have climate change put front and centre. If we look at the Queen’s Speech, we see that there is just a cursory mention of net zero. That is simply not on. It is simply not right.

I appreciate that Government Members will likely point to the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I imagine that they will even point to the delayed energy White Paper. They might even point to the North sea transition deal, but the legislative footing needs to be more ambitious and the money required for change needs to be there. That has never been more important in the north-east of Scotland. Last year, we saw the price of oil and gas plummet—it collapsed—and the Chancellor did not lift a finger to help. What was the consequence of that failure to act? It was that a third of all job losses in Scotland came from the city and the wider region that I am fortunate enough to represent.

We now have the opportunity to go down the path of net zero, to invest in our future, to put carbon capture and storage into fruition and to make sure that the hydrogen economy is built—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) says, “We are doing it.” How much money are you giving to the north-east of Scotland to make that happen? I asked the Secretary of State that very question and he was unable to answer. The point I am making is that, while we remain within the United Kingdom, that investment must be targeted at the north-east of Scotland.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that every time he says “we” in reference to Scotland, he is not respecting the fact that, in the election last week, approximately half of the population did not vote for independence and did not vote for the SNP. It is unfair to stand in this House and not reflect on that.

[Stephen Flynn]

We can, of course, take that wider question to the Scottish public in a second independence referendum. I am sure that the hon Lady, whose party was roundly destroyed in the elections last year, will back up that support for independence.

I was talking about climate change and its importance in the context of the north-east of Scotland. That investment is important when it comes to securing jobs. The Scottish Government have one hand tied behind their back when it comes to energy, because it is this UK Treasury that has coined in in excess of £350 billion of oil and gas revenues over the decade, and it is this UK Treasury that has a responsibility now to act and to ensure that the north-east of Scotland is protected.

It is not just a case of making sure that there are job opportunities for those whose jobs have gone or whose jobs are now at risk because of the transition that will be made; it is also about protecting those who are currently in employment. If someone is in employment and they look at the Queen’s Speech, they will be asking, “Where is it— where is the Employment Bill that was promised? Where is the protection of workers’ rights?” More than that, they will be asking, “Where is the action that this Government are intending to take when it comes to fire and rehire?” We heard warm words once again from the Chancellor, but my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has had a Bill before the House for many months now seeking to outlaw the practice of fire and rehire. Where has the Government’s support for that Bill been? They could end that practice and they could end it now, but, of course, they have chosen not to do so. They are not interested in protecting people’s employment rights.

There is one group who deserve to have their rights protected more than any other moving forward and who deserve to have jobs and opportunities and that is our young people. Although there has not been much agreement on a lot of what I have said so far today—that is an understatement—I think that we can all agree that young people have been perhaps the hardest hit by the pandemic. We should not forget, of course, that it is not just the pandemic that is before them. Many people are still feeling the difficulties of the global financial crash of 2008. They are the same people who have had their ability to live, work and study in the European Union taken away from them. These are the people who deserve our support. In Scotland, we are seeking to support them from the earliest of ages.

We are going to ensure that young people have the freedom to go to university without paying any money. In stark contrast to the Conservatives, we are going to make sure that our young people are fed with free school meals. We are going to make sure that the digital divide is ended for our young people, as they are going to have the opportunity to have a free laptop or iPad, all in contrast to the UK Government, and of course we are introducing a jobs guarantee to ensure that every 16 to 24-year-old in Scotland has the opportunity to go to university or college—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Of course, jobs depend on economic growth under the stewardship of the SNP. Over the past eight years, average UK GDP growth has been 2% a year, and in Scotland it has been 1.2%. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about driving the Scottish economy to grow more quickly?

[Stephen Flynn]

I appreciate we are not allowed to use prompts in the Chamber, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 4 of the SNP’s manifesto, which I am sure he has read. It outlines exactly the next steps as we build back.

Our young people deserve our support, and they have our support in Scotland. More than anything, our young people deserve not just investment but a right to define their own future. We know that in Scotland our young people back independence in their droves. They deserve the right to choose their own future. The people of Scotland deserve the right to choose their own future, and they will have that choice.

Equitable Life

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]]

This is an incredibly emotive and serious topic, and I wish to start in the only way possible, which is to thank EMAG for all the fantastic work it does, and also to commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for once again bringing this most important of issues to the Chamber, of course with the assistance of the Backbench Business Committee.

Almost immediately on my election to this place in 2019, I, like many others, received correspondence from constituents who had been impacted by this appalling scandal. I will be honest and say that I was not fully clued up on all the specifics; after all, I had barely started secondary school in the year 2000, when this issue really took hold. However, having trawled through the record books, it quickly became apparent to me just how much effort Members on all sides of the House have put into trying to gain justice for those impacted—in the Chamber or through the APPG—and it is safe to say that, since 2010, the hon. Member for Harrow East appears to have been in the vanguard of that charge.

To be absolutely clear, I could not be more emphatic in expressing that my colleagues and I on the SNP Benches believe that this UK Government have a moral obligation to provide full restitution to those people who were victims of this appalling scam. I say “scam” because that is clearly what it was—a scam that induced people to put their hard-earned life savings into a scheme that promised huge bonuses and pay-outs, neither of which could ever have been delivered. Teachers, nurses, shop workers, factory workers, engineers, small business owners—the list goes on, and each and every one of them was swindled by this dodgy deal.

Despite the fact that a lot of time has passed, there will of course be the cynics who say that when people invest, they have to face up to the risks, but these were not normal risks. This was not simply a case of the stock market ebbing and flowing; this was a scheme that could never have financed itself. It was a con—a scam—with real victims. The worst part is that the Treasury, the Government and, indeed, the regulator all appeared to know exactly what was going on. They knew, but they never put an immediate halt to it, and that is why there is a moral obligation on Government to provide the funds that people are due.

As Members are aware, and this has been mentioned across the House on numerous occasions today, the coalition did indeed put forward a £1.5 billion pot in 2010, but in reality, it does not even scratch the surface. We all know that about £4.1 billion was needed to fill the gap, and we all know that, as a result, some 895,000 policyholders have only got back about 22% of what they were owed. It is simply not good enough, particularly when we consider what the then Chancellor said in 2010:

“For 10 years the Equitable Life policyholders have fought for justice. For 10 years the last Government dithered, delayed and denied them that justice. It is time to right the wrong done to many thousands of people who did the right thing, saved for their future and tried not to depend on the state, and then were the innocent victims of a terrible failure of regulation.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 960.]

Well, make that 20 years of dithering, delay and denial.

Sadly, the intransigence on this issue from Government shows no sign of changing. Like others, I have written to them on many occasions, and the answer has been a flat no: “There is no money, and we consider the case closed”. In reality, that has meant that good, hard-working people never received the pension money they were due, and it means that many more, including many of my constituents, will never receive that to which they are entitled.

I have been fortunate enough to spend some time in this House opposite the Economic Secretary, and he seems to be one of the few of the Government’s Ministers who fall within the “reasonable” category. While I appreciate that he and his colleagues across the Treasury are under enormous pressure, I would simply say to him that where there is a will, there is a way. The dithering needs to end, the delaying needs to end and the denial needs to end. It is time to deliver what my constituents and so many others deserve.

I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, but, as I do so, my efforts and, indeed, those of all my SNP colleagues do not end here. We are proud to be members of the APPG and, working across this Chamber, we will not stop battling until those who are still without money gain the recompense they are due.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The trouble with new clause 1 is that it says the provisions have effect

“notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law”.

Subsection 2(g) states that that means “any other legislation”. This Parliament’s decision would affect any other legislation, and so this is an overarching amendment. The key thing is that we would all agree that international agreements and free trade are important, and we need to make sure they are fair on all parties subject to those agreements. We must not forget that this is a two-way street. We want the other signatories to these trade agreements—be it Canada, Japan, the EU or whatever—to adhere to these agreements as well. It is not just about the UK heading into these agreements. We partly do that through the agreement itself, of course, but also through the soft power that the UK holds and the respect that people have for the United Kingdom.

There are some special circumstances regarding the withdrawal agreement, because there were two sides to the coin. Yes, there were the commitments that we made under the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but there was also the EU’s commitment to use its best endeavours to deliver an ambitious free trade agreement. As Members on both sides of this Chamber have said, there is no doubt that some of the things that the EU has done over the past few months have indicated that it was not using its best endeavours and that it was acting in bad faith, particularly on things such as requiring exit summary declarations for products manufactured in Northern Ireland and then shipped to the rest of the UK. That is simply unacceptable. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, what on earth would the EU do with these things if we exported them from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK? Describing all goods that went from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as “at risk” would also be simply unacceptable. I was very pleased that those key issues were resolved last week. It largely went by without notice or recognition from many Opposition Members and some parts of the media. New clauses 1 and 2 are interesting. I will not be supporting them, but I will be supporting the Bill.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Deputy Speaker.

When I put my name down to speak in this debate, I guess I did so more out of intrigue than expectation, given the shenanigans and the boorach of last week. We all saw what unfolded over the Ways and Means resolutions, the Bill coming 24 hours later and then off to Committee of the whole House, where nothing changed whatever. A week later, here we are on Report, with, as far as I can see, a very clear likelihood that the Government’s Bill will move forward without a single change, despite the best valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and his desire again to get the Government to break international law.

In that regard, I must pause and reflect; I find it utterly fascinating that, despite getting what they appear to want, Members of this Parliament who have—from what I have heard—seemingly spent their entire lives working towards the political cause of leaving the European Union still seem thoroughly unhappy. I take a little bit of joy in knowing that they are so bitterly disappointed that even their friends in the Government still refuse to do just what they want. Now, I cannot be the only one who has looked at Twitter, and it appears that there may well be a breakthrough in terms of an EU trade deal. I do not know whether the Minister is sighted on the developments on this occasion, because I do not think he was last week, but I do not think that I am overreaching or overstepping in any way, shape or form to suggest that, although that may be the case, the hon. Member for Stone may still be unhappy.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Flynn]

Of course I will let him intervene.

[Sir William Cash]

I am so glad. I can only say that, actually, sovereignty is not just a theoretical concept; it is a practical necessity. It is on the basis of that that we are able to enter into arrangements internationally that are justified by our own terms of reference. The problem with the EU is that it wants to impose its terms of reference, and it never wanted us even to be able to compete with it as a third country after we had left. But it could not deny that it was lawful, so it resorted to all these other obstructions.

[Stephen Flynn]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s repetition, but ultimately, when it comes to sovereignty, there is only one sovereignty that I am interested in: the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. When we look at the European Union in terms of sovereignty and the will of the people of Scotland, our views have been completely ignored. The people in my constituency voted overwhelmingly to remain. Aberdeen city as a whole is projected to be the hardest hit city in the entire UK as a result of Brexit, irrespective of whether we get a deal or not. Although I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman any further, I simply cannot understand the premise of his argument—that he is willing to break international law and is talking about sovereignty, while simultaneously rejecting the sovereign will of the people of Scotland.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman take one last intervention?

[Stephen Flynn]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to intervene and, indeed, speak today, and I think I will be doing everyone a favour if I just continue. I see that the Minister is laughing as well.

On the purpose of the Bill, I would like to reflect on the comments of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), because what he said was incredibly important. I apologise if I am misquoting him but I think he talked about the Bill hovering as a threat. That is an important point to reflect on, particularly as we look at what was being undertaken last week and the entire process that we have gone through.

I want to conclude, because I am aware that I am close to havering, and in Scotland, when someone starts doing that, they should probably sit down. As we look forward to what the Bill will do for online sales and the level playing field that it will create on VAT sales, which is important—I see the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) nodding his head, and it is worth repeating that we agree on this point—we know that that level playing field should go further, because Northern Ireland will, in effect, have a beneficial agreement compared with anywhere else in the United Kingdom, be that Wales, England or Scotland. The level playing field that the Government are putting in place for online sales should also apply to Scotland to help our ability to access EU markets, and I would encourage the Minister to reflect on that point.

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

I rise to speak to new clause 3 and amendments 1 and 2. Three years ago, we were given the advice that this deal was going to be the “easiest in human history”. As we have just heard in the past hour or so, it is not quite as easy as some expected, and here we are with just 16 days to go. I appreciate that the Government are trying to manage expectations by talking about no deal, but in the last 30 minutes or so there has been lots of speculation online about whether a deal may have actually been struck.

Yesterday, I was listening to someone from an independent freight haulage company based in Nuneaton in north Warwickshire, and they were saying how frustrated they were by the lack of clarity coming from the Government. They were talking about the 300% to 400% increase in paperwork that they were expecting, the mixed messages from the Government, the fact that they had had to invest in new software and the fact that the lorry parks were not ready. I guess this is why the amendments and new clause 3 that my honourable colleagues have tabled, which I support, are so important. Being so close to the end of the transition period, we urgently need clarity for our businesses.

We on the Labour Benches just want to get a deal done, contrary to what is being said by some in the Chamber, because at the end of the day this is all about ensuring that our businesses have a prosperous future—have a future, indeed—and that we protect people’s jobs and livelihoods. That is why no deal would be absolutely desperate for so much of our economy, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), I really do not understand why it has taken so long for this Bill to be published. It seems that the Government were holding it back as one of their cards—maybe again threatening to break international law and damaging our reputation—but businesses cannot plan on that basis. They cannot work on a last-minute approach. That might work in negotiations in the political sphere, but it has been damaging for business. Rather than having messages such as a “check, change, go”, they have been demanding the substantive advice from the Government which, sadly, businesses across my constituency have not been receiving.

I spoke earlier to one of those businesses—a retailer and importer—and it said, “This is utter chaos. We desperately need clarity and urgency, so that we can start planning, but at the moment we cannot get hold of the goods that we’re going to be able to sell in the first quarter of next year.” I understand what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said about UK sovereignty, but the quid pro quo is about access to markets and obligations. I liken it to how businesses have to work. If they want to be in the app market and use the Apple platform, they have to pay to be part of that. If they want to be on the Sony PlayStation platform, they have to pay to access that. It is the same with the European market.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be updating the House over time as the different provisions he has negotiated come into force but, from our point of view, the position remains as stated, that is to say that VAT will become chargeable by a slightly different legal means, but in substantially the same way in Northern Ireland as it is at the moment. The mechanisms we have put in place are designed to ensure that, as far as possible, VAT will be accounted for in the same way as it is today.

Existing rules in relation to movements of goods between Northern Ireland in the EU, including the rules relating to acquisitions and distance selling, will continue to apply. Goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland will be subject to VAT as though they were imports under the relevant UK legislation. Similarly, goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain will also be subject to VAT as though they were imports and relevant EU or UK legislation will apply, but let me add that the Government are adopting an approach that minimises any changes for goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, can you clarify whether Members in the Chamber should be socially distancing by staying on the seats that have ticks on them?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Yes, that is what the ticks are there for. I hope that all Members will abide by them so that we can have safe social distancing. Thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), particularly given the fact that he highlighted that just yesterday, we were all wondering what was going to be in this Bill.

What a complete and utter boorach the last 24 hours have been. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly highlighted the shambolic scenes that we have all seen. I heard yesterday from those on the Government Benches that the reason for this is that we are currently in a fast-paced environment. This has been going on for four and a half years, with three Prime Ministers and two general elections. How many resignations? How many U-turns? And the Government leave it until three weeks before the end of the transition before they bring forward something, and they do so with less than 24 hours’ notice of what it will actually entail. What a complete and utter embarrassment. Government Members are the ones who tell us that this is the place where power should lie, yet they are the ones who treat it with more contempt than anyone else. If I was not so disappointed, I would laugh at their sheer hypocrisy.

To turn to the Bill—I am very mindful of time—the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) was right to highlight one of the good elements of the Bill, in relation to online VAT. We should all support that, particularly at this moment in time, given the challenges that we are all seeing on our high street. We need to see a level playing field, and if we can bring that level playing field about, we should be willing to do it. I hope, however, that the Government will continue to go further and revisit the issue of the digital services tax, where they have the powers to make further inroads into levelling that playing field.

You will be unsurprised to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, with just 60 seconds to go, that my agreement with the Government ends there, for four simple reasons that I will cover quickly. The first one is this: England voted to leave and England will leave. Wales voted to leave and Wales will leave. Northern Ireland voted to remain and Northern Ireland is going to get the best of both worlds; it is going to get access to the EU market while simultaneously remaining in the United Kingdom. And what of Scotland? What do we get? Scotland was told that we should stay in the United Kingdom in order to lead the United Kingdom—lead, don’t leave. We wanted the same access as Northern Ireland. We put forward numerous proposals, yet time after time, this UK Government completely ignored our views and desires in that respect. That all adds up, and it adds up in the minds of the very people this UK Government are going to have to rely upon the next time we go to the polls on our independence.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Of course, it was the United Kingdom Government who were threatening to break international law. Does he have any similar examples from the European Union, or is it simply a one-way street as far as he is concerned?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member makes a fair point, but I would point him back to the political declaration, which sat alongside the withdrawal agreement, within which there were clear commitments from the European Union to agree an ambitious free trade agreement. He must accept, as commentators on that side of the fence—on the Opposition Benches—have also said, that it is clear the European Union has been difficult in these negotiations, and more difficult than perhaps many had anticipated. It is clearly in the European Union’s interests and their constituents’ interests to agree a free trade deal without this kind of last-minute drama.

Financial Services Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 27—Legal protections for small businesses against the mis-selling of financial services—

‘(1) Regulation 3 (Private Person) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Rights of Action) Regulations 2001 is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a), leave out “individual” and insert “relevant person”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), leave out “individual” and insert “relevant person”.

(4) After paragraph 1, insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of this regulation, a “relevant person” means—

(a) any individual;

(b) any body corporate which meets the qualifying conditions for a small company under sections 382 and 383 Companies Act 2006 in the financial year in which the cause of action arises;

(c) any partnership which would, if it were a body corporate, meet the qualifying conditions for a small company under section 382 Companies Act 2006 in the financial year in which the cause of action arises.”’

This new clause seeks to give small businesses greater legal protections against the mis-selling of financial services products.

[Stephen Flynn]

New clause 26 seeks to give retail clients greater legal protection against the mis-selling of financial services products, and new clause 27 seeks to give small businesses greater legal protections against the mis-selling of financial services products. I want to make a couple of quick remarks on that matter.

I do not need to tell hon. Members how important small businesses are. They make up three fifths of employment, and half the turnover in the UK private sector goes through small businesses. Those are telling figures. What is more, just 36% of small businesses use external finance; indeed, seven in 10 would rather forgo any growth than take on external finance. That is an important point that the Government must reflect on.

As they deliberate on why that may be the case, I will provide some additional information. There is a history of mis-selling, which causes small businesses a great deal of concern. Although regulation has been tightened, gaps remain. For example, small businesses complained earlier this year about the mis-selling of interest rate swaps. The FCA found that 90% of those businesses did not have a clue what that meant in reality, and it went on to talk about the dialogue between sophisticated and unsophisticated businesses in that regard.

The ultimate issue is that small businesses did not know what they were getting themselves into, and I think that is telling. No one wants that situation to arise, now or in the future. I encourage the Government to take heed of that and, therefore, agree to both new clauses.

[John Glen]

The Government are committed to ensuring that the interests of individuals and businesses that use financial services are protected. With the creation of the conduct-focused Financial Conduct Authority in 2013, we have ensured that those interests continue to be placed at the heart of our regulatory system and given the priority that they deserve.

The Government have given the FCA a strong mandate to stop inappropriate behaviour in financial services, and it has a wide range of enforcement powers—criminal, civil and regulatory—to protect consumers and businesses alike. That means taking action against firms and individuals that do not meet appropriate standards.

These new clauses, which have been tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Aberdeen South, seek to broaden the scope of parties that can seek action for damages related to mis-selling of financial services. The changes are unnecessary, however, because businesses already have robust avenues for pursuing financial services complaints. The Government are committed to ensuring that we do not unnecessarily push up the cost of borrowing for small businesses by creating additional legislative burdens.

In April 2019, the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service was expanded to allow more SMEs to put forward complaints, and that covers 97% of SMEs in the UK. An enterprise that employs fewer than 50 people and has a turnover that does not exceed £6.5 million is entitled to bring a complaint to the FOS. If that complaint is upheld, the FOS can make an award of up to £350,000 in relation to acts or omissions that took place on or after 1 April 2019.

Moreover, SMEs will also have access to the business banking resolution service, an independent non-governmental body, which will provide dispute resolution for businesses. It will serve two purposes. First, it will address historical cases from 2000, which would now be eligible for the FOS but which were not at the time, and which have not been through another independent redress scheme. Secondly, it will address future complaints from businesses with a turnover of between £6.5 million and £10 million.

Given the robust avenues that are available to businesses for pursuing financial services complaints, I hope the Committee will agree that the new clauses are not necessary, and I respectfully ask the hon. Members not to press them.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29

Review of Impact of Scottish National Investment Bank Powers

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the use of the powers in this Act in Scotland and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—

(a) business investment,

(b) employment,

(c) productivity,

(d) inflation,

(e) financial stability, and

(f) financial liquidity.

(3) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes in the event of each of the following—

(a) the Scottish Government is given no new financial powers with respect to carrying over reserves between financial years,

(b) the Scottish Government is able to carry over greater reserves between financial years for use by the Scottish National Investment Bank.

(4) The review must under subsection 3(b) consider the effect of raising the reserve limit by—

(a) £100 million,

(b) £250 million,

(c) £500 million, and

(d) £1,000 million.” —(Alison Thewliss.)

This new clause requires a review of the impact of providing Scottish Government powers to allow the SNIB to carry over reserves between financial years beyond its current £100m limit.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alison Thewliss]

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

New clause 29 would require a review of the impact of providing the Scottish Government with powers to allow the Scottish National Investment Bank to carry over reserves between financial years beyond its current £100 million limit. As Members may know, the Scottish National Investment Bank has been firmly established as a public limited company and has a proposed mission to focus the bank’s activities on addressing key challenges and creating inclusive long-term growth, including

“supporting Scotland’s transition to net zero, extending equality of opportunity through improving places, and harnessing innovation to enable Scotland to flourish.

It will provide patient capital—a form of long-term investment—for businesses and projects in Scotland, and catalyse further private sector investment.”

The bank’s first investment, announced the other week, was £12.5 million to the Glasgow-based laser and quantum technology company, M Squared, to support the company’s further growth in Scotland, which speaks to the bank’s proposed core missions.

The Scottish National Investment Bank will help to tackle some of the biggest challenges we face in the years to come, delivering economic, social and environmental returns, but currently there is a slight barrier, in that the Scottish Government can only roll over £100 million of their annual reserves. We are asking for the UK to look at increasing that to allow the Scottish National Investment Bank to get on with the job that it is set up to do.

As the Committee can see, the new clause asks the Government to introduce an impact assessment—because that is what we can do in this Committee; we can ask for reports and impact assessments—looking at increasing the Scottish Government’s reserves by £100 million, £250 million, £500 million or £1 billion for business investment, employment, productivity, inflation, financial stability and financial liquidity. We need the Government to come on board with that and provide some help to us. It is a huge and important project, so much so that the UK Government seem to be copying it by having an investment bank.

We would like to have an infrastructure bank for Scotland that can meet Scotland’s needs and priorities. It is desperately important that we do that. The bank will learn from banks such as KfW in Germany, which was set up after the war by the UK, and then we learned nothing from it ourselves. We want to be able to get on and do this and invest in Scotland’s future, but unfortunately we need the Government’s co-operation at this point to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Flynn]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 32—Scrutiny of FCA Powers by committees—

“(1) No provision may be made by the Financial Conduct Authority under this Act unless the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied.

(2) The conditions in are that—

(a) a new statutory committee comprising Members of the House of Commons has been established to scrutinise financial regulation, and

(b) a new statutory committee comprising Members of the House of Lords has been established to scrutinise financial regulation.

(3) The Treasury must, by regulations, make provision for and about those committees.

(4) Those regulations must provide that the committees have at least as much power as the relevant committees of the European Union.”

This new clause requires statutory financial regulation scrutiny committees to be established before the FCA can make provisions under this Bill.

[Stephen Flynn]

I will be incredibly brief. Again, both new clauses 31 and 32 are about oversight and scrutiny. I have absolutely no doubt that Conservative Members will want to take back parliamentary sovereignty and ensure that this place has oversight of the Government’s actions.

[John Glen]

I think I have previously detailed my response to new clauses 22 and 26 why it would not be appropriate for Parliament to scrutinise all regulator rules made in relation to those two specific measures. These new clauses go further, and would require all rules made by the Financial Conduct Authority in relation to anything within this Bill to be approved by Parliament before the rules can be made, and would prevent the FCA from exercising its powers effectively. New clause 31 would make the FCA’s rule making subject to parliamentary approval. New clause 32 prevents the FCA from making rules under the Bill until two new parliamentary Committees are established. The same arguments that I made previously are relevant here: new clause 31 would apply a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny—to the FCA only—when making rules in areas covered by the Bill. That would mean that those areas were inconsistent with other areas of financial services regulation not covered by this Bill or within the remit of the Prudential Regulation Authority, which will retain the existing scrutiny requirements.

Parliament would need routinely to scrutinise a large number of detailed new rules on an ongoing basis. That is very different from the model that Parliament has previously put in place for the regulators under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, where it has judged it appropriate for the regulators to take these detailed technical decisions where they hold expertise.

Turning briefly to new clause 32, although I note that Select Committees of both Houses already have the option to scrutinise the regulators as they see fit, it is naturally for Parliament to decide how best it wishes to scrutinise financial services regulation. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to make the introduction of an investment firms prudential regime, or any of the other changes enabled by this Bill, subject to the establishment of new parliamentary Committees. Nor do I believe it is for the Treasury to make regulations related to the establishment or functioning of parliamentary Committees. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East pointed out in an earlier sitting, that is a matter for the House to decide.

I would like to reassure the Committee that I am committed to ensuring appropriate accountability and scrutiny around new rules for our financial sector. That is why I recently published a consultation document on the review of the future regulatory framework for financial services. This review seeks to achieve the right split of responsibilities between Parliament, Government, and the regulators now that we have left the EU. It seeks views, including those of all parliamentarians, on how we can best scrutinise and hold the regulators to account, while respecting and safeguarding their independence. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on that subject but, given what I have said, I suggest that they might consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. I would like press new clause 31 to a vote.

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

Financial Services Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr McFadden]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise to speak to new clause 2, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We discussed equivalence when we were debating clause 24 or 25, so it might relieve the Minister and the Committee to know that I will not repeat everything I said about how we got to this position, but let us look at what the current situation is.

First, we have withdrawn from the EU, and in so doing we have withdrawn from any joint decision-making process about mutual access to financial services. Secondly, a few weeks ago the Chancellor announced a unilateral move on the UK’s part to grant equivalence recognition to EU member states and their firms. Thirdly, there is a legislative mechanism to do that in the Bill. Fourthly, we now await decisions on equivalence from the EU. Finally, in terms of the regulatory picture, we have spent a lot of legislative time in this House—probably no one more than the Minister in the past two years or so—legislating to onshore various EU directives. That is where we are.

The aim of onshoring that vast body of legislation was to have a parallel position, or as near to one as we could reach, on day one of the end of the transition period. At the same time, though, we have given our regulators powers to diverge in various ways from the terms of these directives in future. We have discussed that quite a few times in Committee, and the Minister said that the Government are not interested in diverging for the sake of divergence, but of course there are many in the Government, and in his party, for whom divergence is the whole point of the exercise, because it is all about sovereignty. Although we may be almost totally in line on day one—new year’s day—what about day 100 or day 1,000?

Nothing in new clause 2 alters the power to diverge. If the package of onshoring and granting new powers to the regulators that the Minister is taking through is there, nothing in the new clause alters that, but it asks for a report on where we have reached in that process. We know that a positive outcome of this process could have a very significant bearing on the UK financial services industry. It would mean better access for our firms than without that process. It certainly would not give them what they have at the moment, but that is water under the bridge—we debated that earlier in Committee.

The converse is also true, of course: if we do not get equivalence recognition, it would have implications for jobs, tax revenue and how the UK is viewed as a home for inward investment in the financial services industries. All that the new clause does is to ask for a report on where we have got to in the process or, alternatively, a statement on who has refused to grant equivalence of recognition.

I hope the Economic Secretary does not mind if I point out that I cannot be the only one who is struck by the clamour, particularly on the Government Benches, for economic evidence to justify covid-protective measures. Everybody wants the exact detail of how that will affect their local economies. If that is the case, it is only right that the Government report on the economic consequences of the other major process that we are going through. That is the intention behind the new clause.

The sector is hugely important for the United Kingdom, as has been mentioned many times during our debates over the last couple of weeks. All that the new clause does is to ask for a report on where we are on market access. I very much hope that we have a positive outcome on that. Some of it may be about good will, and it might depend on what is agreed in the next week or two—we do not know. It is certainly in the interests of the sector to have a positive outcome. The least we can ask is that the Government report to the House on that.

Finally, if the outcome is positive, the Government will probably want to report back anyway. If the outcome is not positive, Parliament has a right to hear about that, too.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Just to be clear, Mr Davies, do you wish me to speak to new clause 2 or to new clauses 28 and 36?

[The Chair]

You can speak to new clause 2 as well as to your new clauses 28 and 36.

[Stephen Flynn]

Then I will do that—thank you. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Mr Davies. It is probably accurate and correct that the new clauses are grouped together, because they are quite similar in scope, particularly when considering the wider issue of divergence. I will come back to that.

New clause 28 seeks to provide an impact assessment before disapplying European Union rules or applying rules different from those of the EU. That is incredibly important, because it goes to the core of what the Bill is about in relation to our leaving the European Union. Only a few day ago, the Governor of the Bank of England highlighted that a no-deal Brexit could of course lead to a worse economic situation than covid. We need to be in a position to assess the reality of what the Government seek to do. That should apply in the case of no-deal, a good deal—as far as the Government see it—a bad deal or a “Boris deal”.

We should compare what we could have had with what we get. We should be open and transparent with the public about that. The Government talk about wanting to take back control and parliamentary sovereignty; let us take that back to the people as well and show them that the Government are being open and transparent with everything that is put forward. That is particularly important in a Scottish context because—lest we forget—the people of Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and they do not want it to happen, so it is incumbent on the UK Government to provide that clarity to them, particularly on such important matters.

If the Government are proud of the actions that they are taking and seek to go down a different path, they should be willing to follow up on their actions and be open and transparent, not shy away from that.

That takes me on to new clause 36, which would do something very similar to new clause 28, but rather than looking at the potential impact of future decisions, it would provide for an annual review of the decisions that had been taken. That, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East said, is, in the context of equivalence, incredibly important, particularly if we are to see the UK diverge from the European Union in any way, shape or form. As we have heard, the Chancellor has guaranteed equivalence to the European Union, so it will have access to the UK markets, but of course there is not a similar agreement in place for us. Conservative Members would, understandably, argue that that is the EU’s fault and that the EU should be delivering that for us, but, as I said on Second Reading, who can blame it when this is a Government who simply cannot be trusted, a Government—lest we forget—who are willing to break international law?

Irrespective of that, we should all be concerned about the reality of not having equivalence in place and what that could lead to. We have made and heard suggestions that it could mean, ultimately, divergence in relation to MiFID—the markets in financial instruments directive. It could mean divergence in relation to the wider insurance regulatory framework. I appreciate that there are arguments both in favour and against in that regard, but we need always to be mindful of what we are seeking to diverge from in relation to our wider relationship with the European Union. I appreciate that it will ultimately be in the gift of the Government to do these things, but they should surely have some concerns about the actions that they will be taking.

I go back to the comments that I made about new clause 28. If the Government are proud of the actions that they take and have taken, they will be willing to accept both new clause 28 and new clause 36 and to put their money where their mouth is and be open and transparent with the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom that their decisions have not been ones that have had disastrous consequences for the economy of the UK. I suggest that if they do not accept the new clauses, that is because they know the damage that they are going to do.

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. These new clauses seek to place requirements on the Government to make various reports related to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the subsequent evolution of our financial services regulation.

New clause 2 deals with equivalence, which is an important mechanism for managing cross-border financial services activity. I can well understand hon. Members’ interest in that. However, the obligation that the new clause would impose on the Government—essentially, to report on the status of the EU’s considerations about UK equivalence—is beyond the Government’s power and therefore not something that the Government can agree to do.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East rightly referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s speech on 9 November, in which he made clear that we have made equivalence decisions—17 of the 30 that we have to make. We have co-operated very fully with the EU in terms of a timely response to the 17 questionnaires. Again, we cannot determine how it responds. Equivalence assessments are an autonomous process, managed separately from trade negotiations. That applies in the case of the EU, and where the EU chooses to grant the UK equivalence, that will be done in accordance with its own decision-making process. EU equivalence determinations are unilateral and do not require the UK’s agreement. Those decisions will be published and readily available to all, including UK parliamentarians.

I can reiterate today the Government’s commitment to operating an open and transparent approach to equivalence as the Chancellor explained in his speech on 9 November. Our overall approach is outlined in the recently published guidance document on the UK’s equivalence framework. That document makes it very clear that transparency will be one of the key principles of our equivalence framework.

As part of this, the Treasury will provide Parliament with appropriate information about the operation of the equivalence framework. After the end of the transition period, future equivalence decisions will be made by regulations laid before Parliament, giving Members the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the Treasury’s decisions as part of the UK’s normal legislative process.

As I said, the Chancellor recently announced a package of equivalence decisions following the completion of our assessment of the EU, where we took a thorough but proportionate outcomes-based assessment against the criteria in legislation. As the EU has confirmed publicly, there are many areas where it is not prepared to assess the UK at the current time. In the absence of clarity from the EU, we have made decisions to provide clarity and stability to industry, supporting the openness of the sector and to help to deliver our goal of open, well-regulated markets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish counterpart on the effect of his Department’s fiscal policy on household income in Scotland.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish counterpart on the effect of his Department’s fiscal policy on household income in Scotland.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

This year, the Government have put in place an unprecedented package of support to protect incomes and jobs right across the UK. Analysis published earlier this year shows that our interventions significantly protected people’s incomes, with the least well-off in society supported the most.

[Steve Barclay]

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out a moment ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be meeting that group, but we have also targeted the support, including on those who are majority self-employed. Through that targeting, we have been able to confirm an additional £2.4 billion of support for the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Flynn]

In his spending review statement last week, the Chancellor failed even to mention Brexit, but the Office for Budget Responsibility was not quite so shy; indeed, it painted a particularly bleak picture. So can the Minister clarify this: does he accept the OBR’s findings, and if so, does he therefore agree that the Scotland’s economic future will be detrimentally impacted by any Brexit on the watch of this Tory Government?

[Steve Barclay]

What economic analysis has always shown is that Scotland’s trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is much more important than its trade with Europe. However, Government Members have always been clear that we seek a deal. The asks that the negotiating team have put forward are extremely reasonable, and Lord Frost and the team continue to work to that effect.