Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Eleanor Laing

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Certainly not: my hon. Friend and I have disagreed about many aspects of this matter, but he was absolutely right to say that however we voted in the referendum, that is in the past. He was also right to say that this assembly could have a useful place in securing a sensible relationship between ourselves and the European Union. He and I know that we have not always agreed on this matter, but I would absolutely agree with him—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman finish, but he should do so briefly.

[Stephen Hammond]

I will finish on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Sir William Cash.

Speaker's Statement

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

It is a particular privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have the last word in these tributes to our friend and colleague. Like the last three of my colleagues who spoke, he and I were members of that very exclusive club, the 3-05 club—we were elected on 05/05/05. It was very clear to all of us in that intake that our friend James Brokenshire was going to rise to high ministerial office. On that, I do not need to say any more—my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and many others have paid tribute to his effectiveness as a Minister.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) rightly said that James was so much more than a nice man; he used a whole load of adjectives to describe him. The three I will remember, like most of the 3-05, is that he was collegiate, compassionate and charming. He congratulated all of us on our way up and put his arm round us and gave us sympathy on the way down—and I needed that more than most. I send my sincere condolences to the family.

Next week, on Tuesday evening, that exclusive club, a year late, celebrates 15 years in this House. The most fitting tribute we can pay to our friend and colleague is that there will be an empty chair and a toast raised. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you all for the moving tributes to our friend James.

Finance Bill

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Eleanor Laing

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The House has become familiar with having a time limit for every item of business, but I hope that we can manage to consider this stage of the Bill without a time limit. I appeal to Members who are taking part to have consideration for other Members, and not to speak for too long. How long is too long? More than five minutes is too long, but if somebody takes five and a half minutes because they are making some important points, that would be fine. If the occasional person take interventions and it comes to six and a half minutes, that would be fine. But if people take longer than is necessary, I will have to impose a time limit, which makes for a less good debate. Let us try to behave like parliamentarians and not take too long. That puts a tremendous amount of pressure on Stephen Hammond.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure the House will benefit from your strictures towards my speech, and I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on the amendments. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) rightly says, the OECD-Biden proposals are an attempt to ensure a multinational, legal framework to ensure that multinational countries pay tax in the countries from which they derive that revenue. Unlike him, I think any sensible look at history will show that this Government have led the way on this since 2010. There can be no suggestion that they have not led the way on ensuring that multinationals should not be able to shift profits to avoid taxation. They have tried to lead the arguments on securing, over many years, a multinational, multilateral agreement on where revenues and profits are derived and how those are taxed. Across the House, we ought to recognise that the Government have been trying to achieve that and that they support it. It has been true since 2010. One of the former Chancellors, George Osborne, led the way on the matter.

The OECD proposals, as the hon. Gentleman put it, are in two pillars, as we all recognise. Pillar one rightly seeks to address the matter of base erosion, as the UK Government have done historically and continue to do. Pillar two, however—I think he failed to recognise this point—would go well beyond what is normally considered to be within the ability of national states, in terms of using the flexibility of fiscal policy to ensure that investment and incentives are properly rewarded within their economies, and may well have some perverse effects on a number of multinational industries, such as the insurance industry. Given your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall not give my long peroration on that matter.

However, the key point is that there is a difference between what the Government have been trying to achieve—a multilateral, multinational agreement on the need for a combined approach, which I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will wish to speak about at the G7—and a legal, minimum international tax rate. It is right that Governments still retain the ability to set fiscal measures according to their economic circumstances. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support—as the Government do—the international agreed approach to ensure that we tax multinational companies on where they derive their revenues and profits.

The problem with new clause 23 is that it talks about a review of the impact of the global minimum tax, but in reality, it is superfluous, because many of the consequences of setting a tax rate of 21% can easily and readily be calculated. The OECD discussions on the precise nature of the agreement are still under review. Therefore, speculating about how that might assess and impact on different economies could hinder the global efforts to achieve that aim.

Finally, as I am sure the Financial Secretary will wish to assure the House, the Government have already agreed that as, when and if there is a global agreement on minimum taxation, they will—when they are a party to that—ensure that the Office for Budget Responsibility assesses the impact for the UK economy and globally. So while this new clause is an interesting amusement for the House tonight, it is superfluous and I wholeheartedly encourage the Government not to accept it.

The hon. Gentleman spoke a bit about the need for investment and for addressing the historical UK underperformance in that area. We all agree with that. As we seek economic recovery post-pandemic and, in the longer term, as we build a cleaner, greener and stronger economy, clearly, the problem of underinvestment has to be addressed on a long-term, sustainable basis. However, it is clear that what the Chancellor has done, with what is popularly known as a super deduction, is likely to bring forward investment in the economy at just the time it is needed. There is an element of saying that, of course, we want to concentrate that on any number of small businesses that may not benefit from investment relief and this may or may not be at the margin, but it may or may not be at the margin that it has the greatest impact. I think the super deduction, which the Opposition seek to criticise, will do exactly that. They want the OBR to assess the impact in other areas of the Finance Bill, but the OBR has already made an assessment of this particular measure in the Bill, which is that it will derive at least 10% extra investment in the UK economy. At this stage of our economic recovery, that seems to me to be fundamentally important, so I hope that the Government will push ahead with the super deduction, as they are doing in this Finance Bill, and even consider it on a longer-term basis as well, because it is hugely important that we address the under-investment in both physical and human capital. Therefore, Government amendment 2 to clause 9, which will allow leased buildings to qualify for that super deduction, seems to be eminently sensible.

Given your stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I could share with the House another 15 minutes of brilliance, I shall now sit down.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Eleanor Laing

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). Before I begin my short remarks on the Finance Bill, I would like to put on record—because I was not able to be here yesterday—my condolences and those of my constituents to Her Majesty the Queen on the death of the Duke of Edinburgh.

This Finance Bill follows a year of unprecedented economic disruption unknown in the modern era, as well as a year of unprecedented support from the Government to business and individuals, ensuring not only their jobs but their lives and livelihoods. That has been true for millions of citizens, including those in my constituency of Wimbledon. This Finance Bill therefore needs to enact measures that ensure not only that our economy is in a place from which to recover and bounce back, but in one from which we can also see sustainable future growth—growth that is clean and green.

We all know the OBR forecasts that were set out in March; I will not reiterate them now. What is clear to me from reading economic commentators since then is that people are now expecting the economy to grow more quickly and more strongly, and for that recovery to be more sustained. That must be in large part due to measures in the Finance Bill that build the necessary confidence and give people necessary security for the future, including the extension of the universal credit uplift; the one-off £500 to those on working tax credit; the job retention scheme; and the self-employment income support scheme. All those measures are combined with the restart grants of up to £6,000 for non-essential retail and £18,000 for hospitality businesses. Those provisions are now extended to my constituency; initially the £51,000 threshold was not in place. I have to say to the Treasury Bench that I am extremely grateful on behalf of the hospitality industry in Wimbledon.

My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury will not be surprised that I wish to make two very quick points about the people who have been left out. First, I make the plea yet again on behalf of the English language teaching sector. Those schools received no support and are hugely important to constituencies across the country. Secondly, I know that my hon. Friend will have read clause 117 and schedule 29 on the prevention of tax avoidance and promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The explanatory notes state:

“This clause and Schedule have also been introduced in order to see the responsibility for the obligations within POTAS, and for any failure to comply with them to be placed on the people and entities behind the schemes.”

I have to say to my hon. Friend that a number of us have stood up for what we believe to be hard-working small businesspeople who have been in those schemes and recommended those schemes, and we feel that if that clause had already been in place, many of those people may not be suffering from the problems of the loan charge now. Even at this late stage, if she has the chance to talk to colleagues about this issue, we would be very grateful.

It is clear that we need a Finance Bill that looks at investment and improving infrastructure, so that we see improvement in productivity. I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who set out the clear economic rationale for the super deduction. It is a vital measure to encourage business to invest now. Historically, the UK has underperformed; we have failed to invest at similar levels to our economic peers. It is investment that drives some of the factors that I mentioned a moment go when it comes to improving productivity. Therefore, supercharging investment through a super deduction means that we are likely not only to strengthen, but to lengthen the economic recovery. That seems an entirely sensible, welcome and rational economic measure.

It is also likely that we want to see measures that improve not only physical infrastructure and capital formation, but human formation. I particularly welcome the support for new apprentice hires in the Bill. I encourage the Government to think a bit more about this, as it is the way of the future. Could we not link the new apprentice scheme to, for instance, the length of the super deduction? The super deduction is in place for two years, while the new apprentice scheme is in place for six months; I encourage the Government to think about linking the two. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that human capital formation and investment in skills are as important as physical formation.

Like many colleagues, I was fascinated to hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who spoke at length about driving growth through innovation and the adoption of new technologies. Of course he is right. When one talks to a number of the people at whom the super deduction is aimed, one learns that it will be commonplace—it almost is now—that they will be investing in things such as AI, 3D printing and big data. Alongside that, we will need a workforce that has in-demand skills, so I particularly welcome the investment in digital skills and the lifetime skills allowance that the Bill will introduce.

Many Members have referred to the freeports policy, which clearly brings the opportunity to boost jobs in regions and to boost economies through the use of differing tariff regimes for different sectors. My hon. Friend the Minister will know the principal criticisms of freeports—that they merely redirect economic activity and investment.

May I talk about next year’s Finance Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, just for a very brief moment?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

This is a debate on this year’s Finance Bill.

[Stephen Hammond]

I urge the Government to think about learning the lessons of economic history in respect of the power of putting wider economic development zones and the encouragement that they bring alongside freeports. We all recognise that such zones need seedcorn grants from the Government; that could give the Government the opportunity to consider local recovery bonds. We have already seen the prospect of the green infrastructure bond; why do we not see some local recovery bonds to sit alongside that work and boost economic development zones? That would seem to me to be a perfectly sensible development.

The Chancellor is absolutely right to focus on infrastructure spending and investment. Infrastructure is not an end in itself—it is the driver of growth and productivity—so the policies coming through and the measures in the Bill to allow the increase in transport spending and in departmental spending limits are welcome. I also welcome the establishment of the UK infrastructure bank. It is the private sector that will drive the investment that is necessary.

As I said a moment ago, the green gilt is welcome, but just as I urge the Government to think about local recovery bonds, I urge them to think about an infrastructure bond. As many will know, there is a consultation on the capital cap for pension funds; if that change is combined with an infrastructure bond, we could see a wealth of pension funds looking to invest in the UK’s economic recovery.

Finally, the jewel in our crown is undoubtedly financial services. A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked about the need for mutual banking and to encourage small banks. I urge the Government to think about a review of the regulation of financial services and banking to ensure that the regulation with regard to conduct and capital is competitive and appropriate. That will drive not only those sectors but the investment that will sustain the economic recovery that everyone in this House seeks.

Inter-City Rail Investment

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

As for what was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), let us have some honesty in this debate. When Labour was in office it crashed the economy, and gas and council tax bills doubled. Had her party been in office today, the average fare would have risen by 11% rather than 3.1%. Moreover, in 13 years, we saw just 9 miles of electrification. Just as we are dealing with the economic mess that was left behind by the last Government, we are determined to deal with the massive infrastructure deficit that we inherited. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) must not shout from the Dispatch Box. She was listened to in silence for a considerable time, and she must let the Minister finish his speech.

[Stephen Hammond]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

According to the World Economic Forum, in 1998—just after the last Conservative Government left office— the United Kingdom ranked seventh in the world for infrastructure spending. By 2009-10, we had fallen to 33rd. I am pleased to note that we are rising again, but there is much more work to be done. The failure of the last Government is epitomised by the fact that, according to the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, between 2000 and 2007, the UK’s infrastructure investment was lower than that in any other OECD state.

Rail is just one part of an unprecedented programme of transport investment that this Government are introducing to drive growth and job creation. As a result of the tough decisions that we made in order to get the public finance mess that we inherited under control, we have been able to achieve the longest period and the largest amount of rail modernisation since the Victorian era. That will mean faster journeys, more seats, improved access to stations, better freight links, and a rail network of which the country can be proud. The Government are delivering their vision of a railway that will be more financially and environmentally sustainable, support growth and deliver benefits for both passengers and freight customers. It has been agreed on both sides of the House that since privatisation the railways have been successfully carrying more passengers, more safely, on many more and newer trains, many of which arrive more punctually, and that levels of passenger satisfaction have been higher than ever before.

At the heart of the growth to which I have referred, and at the heart of today’s debate, are the historic inter-city routes, which provide a vital link between the towns and cities of the country. The impact of those routes is clearly significant: they provide links for communities, businesses and freight, and drive the country’s economy. They are important because they do exactly what a railway should do. They serve local communities, they serve people, and they serve markets. They move people to jobs, connect industry with its markets and suppliers, and connect regions with one another. The high capacity and reliability of inter-city networks is crucial.

As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Redcar, it is easy to think of inter-city services as merely connecting one end of a route to the other, but it is important to recognise the importance of intermediate stops and the rail networks that spread out from them. They provide the inter-regional and intra-regional connectivity that allows us to keep the country moving. Good inter-city rail services make it possible to live in one place and work in another, or to live in one place and socialise in another. They open up opportunities for employment throughout the country. We must therefore continue to invest in increasing, extending and enhancing services that are already improving rapidly during the current period of investment.

As many Members said, the inter-city network is all too often seen only in terms of connections to London. It must not be so. It is a driver of change in the economic geography of the country, decreasing journey times and improving links between all our nation’s major cities and regions, providing agglomeration benefits for business, increasing productivity and, importantly, providing access to new markets. The major cities of the north—Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield—will soon benefit from the huge investment in the northern hub, a transformative package of rail enhancements radiating from Manchester.

Investment needs to flow not only from the Government and Network Rail. We must continue to find ways to adapt our contracts and contacts with the private sector to ensure that we work in partnership with them, allowing them to bring real innovation through their own investments in projects that will genuinely benefit their passengers. The west coast main line is a great example of successful inter-city investment. Working in partnership with Network Rail, over £9 billion has been spent to modernise the route and improve journey times from 2008. That investment has been so successful that in order to meet the increased demands and expectations of passengers, further investment on the franchise has been necessary. Some 28,000 more seats per day were provided on the line by 106 new Pendolino carriages procured when the direct award was negotiated with Virgin at the end of 2012. To those who say no benefits come from direct awards, I say I suspect that the passengers who fill those 28,000 extra seats may well feel there is some benefit.

This Government are also investing a huge amount in electrification. Our rail investment strategy included our plans for the “electric spine.” This major investment links the core centres of population and economic activity in the west, east midlands and Yorkshire with the south of England. It will complete the full electrification of the midland main line out of London St Pancras and provide electrification of the lines from Nuneaton and Bedford to Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke and Southampton. All this will provide faster, more reliable services on many important strategic routes, and not just routes into London. This is massive investment from this Government on a scale not previously seen. By 2020, three quarters of the passenger miles travelled in England and Wales will be on electric trains, compared with 58% today and under 40% previously.

The Department has big plans for the inter-city East Coast and Great Western franchises. At the heart of revitalising those railways is the £5.8 billion intercity express programme, which will deliver 122 new state-of-the-art trains across those vital routes. The majority of the construction for those new trains will be carried out at Hitachi’s new factory in the north-east. This investment is great news for British manufacturing, creating more jobs for the area and strengthening the supply chain in the UK. This programme, together with the major investment in Thameslink in the south-east, will open up the opportunity for a cascade of rolling stock to other parts of the network, where, as we recognise, it is needed. This is all aimed at upgrading rolling stock and improving inter-city services.

As we have seen in recent weeks, regardless of the levels and types of investment, some situations will always prove challenging. The rail network’s performance and resilience has, with some exceptions, been sorely tested by the severe weather this autumn and winter and done reasonably well. There is no room for complacency, however, and I hear the points made by Members from the south-west about the spend on resilience and I am sure that will be borne out in Oxfordshire and a number of other places. The Government are determined to ensure we have the best resilience in place.

The Government’s commitment to investment in inter-city rail services cannot be in question. We must work with the industry to ensure investment is used to its maximum potential across the country and delivers real benefits for passengers and taxpayers. This significant investment in our inter-city routes will transform travel across the nation, and future capacity challenges must also be met. Only by committing to this new route and this investment—we are making the hard decisions and putting the economy right—can the Government continue to promise a programme of investment in inter-city routes unparalleled and unseen before.