Budget Resolutions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

First, I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome the extra investment in maths. If she had been listening to the Budget, she would have also welcomed the partnership that we are beginning with the TUC and the CBI to invest in the skills of the future, and the additional funding to get more skills into the construction industry.

Our housing White Paper promised action on many fronts, and that is what the Budget delivers, with more than £15 billion of new financial support to help make it happen. Over the next five years we will commit to a total of at least £44 billion of capital funding, loans and guarantees to support our housing market, to boost the supply of skills, resources and land for building, and to create financial incentives to deliver an average of 300,000 net additional homes a year—or to put it another way, almost three times as many as the shadow Housing Minister managed when he was Housing Minister.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks about action. Why are the Government not taking action on developers who sit on land? The Chancellor spoke yesterday about a consultation, but we all know what needs to happen, so why do they not just do it?

[Sajid Javid]

It really bewilders me that although the Opposition Benches were full yesterday for the Budget, it seems like no one was actually listening. If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard some of the measures that the Chancellor announced, including the change to the delivery test and the new inquiry, which I will come on to.

The Budget provided new money for the home building fund, to get small and medium-sized house builders building again. The Chancellor also promised £630 million for small sites to unlock the delivery of 40,000 homes; £400 million for estate regeneration; a £1.1 billion fund to unlock strategic sites, including new settlements and urban regeneration schemes; and £8 billion of new financial guarantees to support private house building and the purpose-built private rented sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). I want to agree with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on one thing. In his great peroration, he said how proud he was to have been born British. I, too, am very proud to have been born British. In fact, I am doubly blessed, of course, because I was born Welsh as well as British.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

North Wales!

[Susan Elan Jones]

Yes, from north Wales—even better. [Laughter.] In all seriousness, one of the reasons why I feel so proud to have been born in this country is that I know the quality of our public servants across this country—the people who teach in our schools, the people who work in our hospitals, our firefighters and our police—who go above and beyond to serve us every day and right through the night. We often speak in statistics in this place, which is fair enough, but that is why we are right to feel aggrieved that there has been no real movement on the public sector pay gap. This is now as much a matter of morality as it is one of economics, and I regret the fact that the Government have not taken this more seriously.

Yesterday, I heard the very sad news of the passing of Mrs Anne Davies. She was a schoolteacher in Ponciau junior school in my constituency; indeed, she was one of my teachers. She served the communities of Ponciau and Rhosllannerchrugog with great distinction. She was a school teacher between the late 1940s and the 1980s, and I reckon she must have taught about 1,200 children. Think of the effect that one of the best teachers in Wales and one of the strongest people in those communities had on so many children. That is why the current public sector pay freeze does a grave disservice to people across the length and breadth of our country.

I agree with the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford, when he points out that the Welsh governmental budget will still be 5% lower in real terms in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11. I feel concerned that, as the Chancellor said yesterday, we are only beginning negotiations on the north Wales growth deal. Those negotiations have been beginning for a long time, and it is time we had some action. Wrexham County Borough Council, which is run not by Labour but by a coalition of Conservatives and independents, makes that point on its website. It has already saved around £18 million in the past three years, and it thinks that it will have to find another £13 million over the next two years. It states:

“We have less and less money to spend every year”.

Yet as we hear about these great concerns, we recognise that we are now giving away £3 billion to pay for the Government’s failure in the Brexit negotiations—they never put that on the Brexit bus did they! UK national debt is now of staggering proportions. According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, debt that was £358.6 billion in May 1998 now stands at £1,726.9 billion—a staggering sum. In a phrase worthy of Jim Hacker, yesterday the Chancellor said that our productivity performance “continues to disappoint”. Had Sir Humphrey been sitting behind him, he would have said, “A brave comment, Chancellor.”

The Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Ben Broadbent, stated:

“Productivity growth has slowed in just about every advanced economy, but it has been more severe in this country than in others.”

The Daily Telegraph, that most Tory of Tory papers, commented that “productivity growth has crashed”. The journalist Tim Wallace spoke of how the 1860s was the last decade of negative real income growth. He wrote:

“That the move to electricity did spark a resurgence in growth would provide reassurance if only we knew that the next technological revolution was sure to bring the same benefits in the 21st century”.

That is the view from Planet Tory, which shows how the Government are failing. Finally, the Government really need to sort out land banking for the sake of Heol Berwyn in Cefn Mawr and other communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have never said that I was not concerned about the exchange rate. I have said that the Government do not take a view on what the appropriate exchange rate should be; that is very much a matter for the markets to determine. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been delighted to note that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement this morning has sent sterling up in the markets, demonstrating the confidence that the markets have in a future for this country under a Tory Government with a new mandate.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

9. What meetings he has had with his (a) EU counterparts and (b) Cabinet colleagues on tackling tax evasion and avoidance.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

As the hon. Lady would expect, given the emphasis that we have placed on tackling avoidance and evasion during this Parliament and indeed since 2010, the subject is regularly discussed among Cabinet colleagues. With regard to Treasury Ministers’ discussions with their European counterparts, I can confirm that this is something that we discuss with them on a regular basis. Most recently, the Chancellor spoke at an informal ECOFIN in Valletta as part of his regular ongoing dialogue with EU colleagues.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am glad that everyone seems to be having a nice time having conversations, but as my 2015 Conservative opponent discovered when he came up from Chelsea to fight the Clwyd South constituency, most people in our part of the world work hard and pay their taxes. Will the Minister try again and give us a proper answer as to what is being done about this on an international level?

[Jane Ellison]

The question was about what meetings had taken place, and I plead guilty to answering it as asked. If the hon. Lady wants details, she can look at the many measures that have been put through since 2010, and, indeed, already in this Parliament. In fact, if she sticks around for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, she will hear about even more things that the Government have planned to crack down on avoidance and evasion across the spectrum.

HMRC Estate

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I have had a number of conversations specifically about the Cumbernauld site, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail, but there are a lot of different factors that go into choosing where to centre, some of which I touched on in my response to the urgent question. Inevitably, I cannot touch on them all, but much of this will come out in our response to the NAO report.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I think that the Minister would be outraged if people living in villages, towns and small cities all suddenly stopped paying tax, yet suddenly our civil service is being centralised in a few cities. Please will she reconsider these points? This is totally outrageous for people in north Wales.

[Jane Ellison]

I am not entirely sure I recognise the point being made. Most of our taxpayers, whether businesses or individuals, now interact with HMRC on the phone or digitally. The number of people who make personal visits, and expect to be able to make a personal visit to a local office, is dramatically lower than a generation or two ago. It is right that we pursue this modernisation programme, but it is also right, as the NAO has reminded us in this timely report, that we review the programme at every stage to make sure we are getting everything right and we learn from each iteration.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

New clause 1 would require Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to publish in each tax year a report detailing the number of penalties imposed under the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and the circumstances giving rise to the imposition of such penalties; HMRC’s assessment of the extent to which charities have been established or have operated for the primary purpose of securing benefits from the small donations scheme; and an assessment of the evidence available on the role of the gift aid matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse. New clause 2 would require the Government to conduct a review of the operation of the gift aid matching rule, which is the rule that the total gift aid donations operation for a charity must be 10% or more of the amount of small donations on which top-up payments are made. The new clause stipulates that the Chancellor should consult charities and other relevant organisations about the role of the matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse, and the appropriateness of exercising the Treasury’s powers to amend or abolish the rule. New clause 4, which was tabled by the Scottish National party, would also require the Chancellor to assess the impact of abolishing the matching requirement.

During the Bill’s passage through the House, we have had extensive debates about the matching requirement—rightly so, because it is the biggest issue affecting the efficacy of the scheme, according to the charities that use it. The sector thinks broadly that the requirement is arbitrary and is a significant barrier to charities being eligible for the scheme. A consultation with members of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations showed that it is the most significant barrier to access for smaller organisations. The survey found that 50% of respondents with an income under £10,000 wanted the removal or reduction of the matching requirement.

Ahead of Second Reading, the NCVO argued that the Government have presented no evidence to demonstrate the extent to which the matching requirement is a necessary mechanism to prevent fraud and error, or that the matching ratio of 1:10 is the minimum necessary to achieve this objective. Despite considerable debate on this matter, we have got all the way to Report and the Government have still failed to provide any evidence that the matching requirement works. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that today.

New clause 2 would force the Government to produce evidence in the form of a review and report on the operation of the gift aid matching rule, and whether it should be changed or removed entirely. New clause 4 would require a similar review, so we will be happy to support that measure. I would rather not have to press our new clauses 1 and 2 to a Division unless we have to. They call for a review of something that the charity sector says is hindering the scheme. I hope for some movement from the Minister on the issue today, but if the SNP’s new clause is pressed to a Division, we will support it wholeheartedly, as it reflects many of the principles that we have outlined in new clauses 1 and 2.

I am sure that the Minister will repeat her argument that the matching requirement is necessary to prevent fraud. I agree that we need measures to safeguard against such abuses. The Charity Commission has provided figures showing the extent of fraud in the charity sector. In 2014-15, 417 serious incidents involving fraud and/or theft or the misapplication of funds were reported by charities to the commission, and 255 operational compliance cases were completed. As Members are aware, just last week the commission announced in a press release that it was investigating the charity Our Local Heroes Foundation. According to the commission, it had received information about a proposed disposal of land owned by the charity, concerns regarding the founder of the charity receiving significant personal benefit through the charity, and a complaint that the charity was receiving only 20% of funds raised through a fundraising company.

This is just one case, but it is a sad example of charities being used as vehicles for tax avoidance and fraud. It is therefore incumbent on us to make it as hard as possible to abuse charitable status. That is why we have tabled new clause 1, which would require a review of the prevention of fraud and abuse in the small donations scheme. As I said, the review would need to address the number of penalties imposed under the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and the circumstances giving rise to the imposition of such penalties. It should include Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ assessment of the extent to which charities have been established or have operated for the primary purpose of securing benefits from the small donations scheme, and HMRC’s assessment of the evidence available on the role of the gift aid matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse.

The Government’s guidance on the scheme explains that if a charity or community amateur sports club

“incurs a penalty in respect of an incorrect Gift Aid claim or GASDS”—

gift aid small donations scheme—

“claim, it won’t be eligible for the scheme both for the tax year in which the incorrect claim was made and in the following tax year.”

I would argue that the link between gift aid and the scheme is stronger than the matching requirement. Charities claiming gift aid can still be, and indeed have been, fraudulent organisations, so simply having a monetary link to the gift aid is not enough. This provision—that if a gift aid claim is wrong, a charity cannot claim through the scheme for that tax year and the following tax year—seems to be a stronger safeguard against fraudulent organisations than the matching requirement. Things might be more complex than that, but a review would clearly be beneficial, because we could assess where the matching requirement actually works effectively. In that way, the Government and the charities sector would be able to see clearly which anti-fraud measures were most effective.

New clause 3 deals with a different matter. Members and the Minister will remember that we made the case in Committee that certain groups—the girl guides, the scouts, and the Army, Navy and Air Force cadet groups—were not able to get the full benefit of the small donations scheme. That was after feedback from the respective charities’ representatives that, because of the structure of the groups, they were able to make only one claim for the entirety of the group, even though individual groups within them fund themselves.

The Minister responded that the measure proposed in Committee was unnecessary because the Bill allowed for what it proposed. She neatly illustrated why she would reject it—because, at the time, it carved out a few selected charities—but we want provisions to benefit a broad range of charities, some of which were not named in the original new clause tabled in Committee.

New clause 3 attempts to address the Minister’s points by allowing the Treasury to make regulations to exempt certain organisations from the connected charities rules. The Government would have to consult the Scout Association, the Guide Association and the Combined Cadet Force Association, in particular, before publishing those regulations. The Minister said she would reflect on the points raised in Committee, so I hope that she will accept the new clause today. It would not carve out a few selected charities, but give the Government the power to consult organisations that are mistakenly affected by the connected charities rules. It would, therefore, make the scheme run more smoothly, which is, after all, the point of the Bill.

I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the rationale behind the new clauses and recognises that we are genuinely trying to achieve the same end: to make the gift aid small donations scheme work as well as possible for as many charities as possible. I hope that the new clauses will be accepted. We will not press new clauses 1 and 2 to a vote, but we will divide the House on new clause 3, and we will support new clause 4 should the SNP choose to press it to a Division.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I speak in support of the points made by our shadow Minister about new clauses 1 and 2, which deal practically with the issue of fraud and put the onus very simply on HMRC to establish the extent of the problem. The difficulty facing the voluntary sector is that even with the £15 million of additional support in the Bill, the gift aid small donations scheme will distribute roughly £40 million, which is only about a third of the £115 million that was, according to Government opinion, projected to be distributed next year. This scheme could and should be growing. It is important because it helps and develops the smallest charities, and that must continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

I accept that the Minister may want to keep the matching rule to some extent, but what is so sacred about 1:10?

[Jane Ellison]

I will say a little about that. As other hon. Members have said, there was movement on this during the passage of the original legislation. The figure is reasonable and strikes a sensible balance. A ratio of 1:10 is an easy one for those administering this to remember. If hon. Members accept that the matching rule is sensible in principle, I am prepared to say that it is something we would anyway keep under review in the normal course of events. The civil society Minister and I were saying to each other on the Front Bench a moment ago that, given hon. Members’ interest in this, we will keep an eye on it in particular and draw it out in the ongoing dialogue that we naturally have with charities. However, I cannot accept that removing it entirely is a good idea. These things are kept under constant review, and both the Treasury and the civil society parts of Government have a very good relationship with the charities sector, so we will have plenty of opportunities to continue to have such a dialogue with charities and to understand where this comes in. In a few moments, I will say a little more to demonstrate that it is not the barrier that some hon. Members have suggested it is.

Let me turn to new clauses 2 and 4. New clause 2 is a request for a review of the matching rule in consultation with the charity sector. As I have said, the Government have already undertaken a full review of all aspects of the gift aid small donations scheme, including the matching rule, and the Bill is a result of that review. However, I will always be happy to keep an eye on this issue. The Government’s review was comprehensive and open, and it was carried out in full consultation with the charities sector and, indeed, with anyone with an interest in the scheme or in charity tax reliefs more generally. Some hon. Members will recall that, as I have said, back in 2012, the Government committed to reviewing the operation of the scheme after three years, so the Government have made good on that promise.

We recognise how important the scheme and the promised review were to charities. We listened to the sector, and that is why we announced in the autumn statement last year that we would bring forward the review of the scheme to December 2015. To inform the review, HMRC published a call for evidence in December, seeking charities’ views about the operation of the scheme, including its eligibility rules and processes. The call for evidence asked five questions about the scheme’s eligibility criteria, including two questions specifically about the gift aid matching requirement. The call for evidence closed on 2 March. HMRC received 197 responses from charities, representative bodies and other interested parties. The Government reviewed all the submissions and published a response on 20 April.

In the responses document, which is available on the Government’s website, we explain that the vast majority of—indeed, almost all—the respondents to the call for evidence did not identify the matching rule as a major barrier to accessing the scheme. The Government recognise that many of the responses reflected the experience of charities already successfully using the scheme and may not therefore be representative of the sector as a whole. We take that point, so HMRC has supplemented the data provided by charities with an analysis of its own data. As I explained in Committee, the data showed that 92% of charities claiming gift aid for the tax year 2014-15 claimed on donations of £500 or more, entitling them to the maximum small donations allowance at that time of £5,000. HMRC’s analysis also showed that 98% of charities claiming gift aid in 2014-15 claimed sufficient amounts to receive a small donations allowance of at least £1,000.

The Government also considered data produced by the charity sector. A survey carried out by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising, the Small Charities Coalition and the Association of Independent Museums found that just 5% of respondents claimed no gift aid at all, and only 10% did not feel that their charity claimed enough gift aid to make the small donations scheme worthwhile.

Following the call for evidence, HMRC published a further consultation on reform options on 20 April, which was yet another opportunity for stakeholders to put forward reform ideas for consideration. That consultation closed on 1 July this year. It received 46 responses. Again, interestingly, the matching rule was not raised as an issue by the vast majority of respondents.

Quite simply, none of the available data, whether produced by the Government or the sector itself, support the assertion that the gift aid matching rule is a significant barrier to accessing the small donations scheme. The Government have already collected data on the matching rule, carried out a full objective review of the whole scheme and consulted the charity sector. That is why we believe that repeating the consultation process again, so soon after the last consultation, would not produce a different outcome, and why, therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles not to press new clause 2 to a Division.

As I have said, given the clear interest in the House, we will continue to take a keen interest in this matter, and will listen to the views of the charity sector. The civil society Minister and I are already talking about how we can do more to publicise some aspects of the scheme, and in particular how to get those that do not take advantage of the small donations scheme at the moment to do so. There is a charities day on 16 November, about which we will say a little more later; that will be an opportunity to say and do more to promote the scheme to that small minority not already using it.

I appreciate that in tabling new clause 4 the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) are seeking to understand the differential impact that abolishing the matching rule would have on charities of different sizes. I have already set out why we do not support the removal of the gift aid matching rule, but I have to tell Opposition Members that it is simply not possible to provide them with the level of analysis that they are seeking. Although HMRC holds data on charitable tax reliefs, it quite rightly collects and retains only those data that are necessary to support its function of administering gift aid and other reliefs. Size and turnover are not relevant for gift aid purposes; HMRC therefore does not routinely collect data on the size or types of charities claiming gift aid or small donations top-ups.

As I explained in Committee, HMRC is transparent with the data it holds, and publishes a national statistics package every year that provides a wealth of information about the take-up and use of charitable tax reliefs, including the gift aid small donations scheme. Hon. Members may also be interested to know that HMRC makes many of its datasets, including those relating to charitable reliefs, available—suitably anonymised, of course—to academics and other individuals who approach it with a suitable research proposal. I can tell the House that a number of organisations have recently made use of HMRC’s charities data for research purposes. That is a good example of open government and open data being put to good use.

I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that where HMRC possesses data, those data are transparent and, where appropriate, open to outside scrutiny. New clause 4 is not appropriate, because it would require, in legislation, the Government to do something that we simply cannot do. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will consider not pressing the new clause to a Division.

Let me turn finally to new clause 3. As I have explained in previous debates, the connected charities rules are intended to protect the gift aid small donations scheme from abuse. They work in conjunction with the community buildings rules to deliver fair and broadly equal outcomes for charities structured in different ways. Without the connected charities rules, larger charities would be faced with a perverse incentive to splinter into artificial groups of smaller charities to increase their entitlement to small donations allowances. New clause 3 would grant the Treasury the power to exempt specific named charities from the connected charities rules. It would also require the Treasury to publish draft regulations, following consultation with the scouts, the guides and others.

The new clause is unnecessary. As we have heard, the Government have just concluded a full and open review of all aspects of the gift aid small donations scheme. That review included the gift aid matching rule and the connected charities rules. In that very open consultation, many representations included the scouts and other uniformed groups. The Government listened to the representations from the uniformed groups. They told us that they welcomed the gift aid small donations scheme, but were unable to benefit fully from the current community buildings rules because most of their fundraising, as Members will know, takes place outside in their local community. The Bill will therefore relax the community buildings rules to allow donations collected outside the building to be counted for community buildings purposes. As discussed on Second Reading and in Committee, this will help bob-a-job work and so on that is done outside the scout hut or other building.

The intention is to allow groups such as the scouts to benefit more fully from the scheme without the need to specifically exclude them from the connected charities provision. We debated a similar amendment in Committee and had a thorough and thoughtful debate on the implications of the Bill for the youth groups in question. The shadow Chief Secretary raised a number of good points and I undertook to reflect on them and look at them more closely. Having done so, I confirm to the House that a scout hut is an eligible community building and there is no requirement for the building to be rented out or for access to be granted to other community groups. That means that the scouts and other similar uniformed groups will benefit from the changes contained in the Bill. Whether it is bag-packing at the local supermarket or bucket collections at the local fete, donations in the local community will count for the small donations scheme. The Bill’s provisions already deliver the outcome Opposition Members seek. I therefore suggest that new clause 3 is unnecessary and I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw it.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley and other colleagues. It was a great joy to be here in 2012 when the first Bill on small charitable donations appeared. It is lovely to see that contactless donations have made it into this Bill. I am speaking in favour of amendments 1, 2 and 3 because it is important that we expand the methods available.

The recent briefing from the main charitable organisations—the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Small Charities Coalition—has made it clear that, although the scheme has been welcome, it is not reaching the number of charities that it could. The briefing said:

“Only one quarter”

—or 21,300—

“of the charities that could have used the scheme”

—it puts that number at 84,000—

“are using it.”

Clearly, we need to do everything we can to support the development of the scheme, particularly with a new generation of donors, and to encourage and to support the new philanthropists who may be giving by text donation or in other forms.

At the Bill Committee last time around, I was intrigued by a great debate initiated by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). It was possible to include euros in the scheme at the time, although it was not possible to include contactless donations. I am glad that the situation regarding contactless payments has been remedied, but I cannot see the sense in saying that, in one of our great abbeys, churches or cultural buildings, the euro, dollar, yen or whatever may be included in the scheme, but not a simple, humble cheque written in sterling. To me, that does not make any sense. I hope that the Minister considers that point.

Another related point is that this scheme works rather well for churches—I presume it also works well for other faith groups—because many small churches are part of larger denominations. Often the denomination, the diocese or whatever is registered in terms of gift aid. My slight fear, and why I think we need to look at how we can enhance and expand the scheme, is about whether we have the same reach for other small charities, because with a small church or perhaps another small faith group, the registering—the formal bit, the gift aid stuff—has already been sorted out at a higher, larger level. I question whether the scheme always has the same reach for some of the smaller charities in other sectors.

I welcome the positive move on contactless donations but hope, in the same spirit, that the Minister can extend the scope of the proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles and other hon. Members have suggested. It would be truly dreadful if we had to wait another four years to come back to the issue and to thank the Government for including these methods in the scheme.

[Jane Ellison]

I thank colleagues for that debate; some points were made by veterans of the previous Bill Committee and I will try to respond to them.

Clause 2 is about amending the meaning of “small charitable donation”. Amendment 1 would extend the gift aid small donations scheme to include donations made by cheque, online or by SMS. Amendments 2 and 3 would extend the scheme to include SMS donations.

The scheme was introduced to address a specific problem. That is at the heart of the debate. It is intended to allow charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style top-up payment when it is not practical or feasible to collect a gift aid declaration, such as with street collections. It is not simply a lighter-touch alternative to gift aid. I think this is probably at the heart of our debate. The scheme exists to provide a similar outcome in situations where charities cannot realistically obtain a gift aid declaration, but the Government are clear that, if a charity can get a gift aid declaration and claim gift aid, it should do so. There are obvious reasons for that, as colleagues will appreciate. For example, there is no cap on gift aid, whereas there is on this scheme. For that reason, the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 restricted the scope of the gift aid small donations scheme to small donations in cash—coins and notes. Although I understand entirely the motivation behind the amendments, they are actually contrary to the stated policy intention of the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

Picking up on the hon. Lady’s last point, the Government have listened. There is always a bit of scepticism in politics—I think we have all felt it—on whether things change as a result of consultations, but the consultation in question was really open. We consulted and asked for ideas and, as a result the responses we received, made further liberalisations in the regime. I think that we have listened and that I have given good reasons why we do not want to go in the proposed direction for this scheme because of the nature of what it was designed to do. We are looking to future proof it for contactless payments.

On gift aid more generally, as I said, changes are already being proposed and there is a lot more we can do to increase charitable take-up. I am unpersuaded that the issues being advanced in this debate are the ones that will aid take-up without having unforeseen consequences. Perhaps we will debate those issues later in our discussions of other clauses.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I have a quick question about texts. The Minister spoke about the issue being people engaging with a chosen charity, but I am not sure that it is. For example, one might give to an appeal for a dog that appeared on the television, but the charity might be a wider animal charity. The donor might be drawn to a very specific appeal, not to wider support for the charity. As donors, consumers and even voters are much more fluid in their loyalties, can the Minister not see a case for the support running with the donation, not necessarily the institution it is going to?

[Jane Ellison]

I understand entirely the point being made, but that takes us into issues relating to the motivation and behaviour of people as they give to charity. I think that relates more to the gift aid scheme itself than to the scheme at hand.

--- Later in debate ---

I have already cited some evidence, and I will give some more. As appalling as the sad determination of some individuals to exploit charitable rules may seem to all members of the Committee, we have sufficient evidence across the range of charitable tax reliefs to believe with reasonable certainty that were any loopholes to be opened up, they would be exploited. It would be a sad situation if I had to come back to the House and say, “Actually, I was right. There has been a lot of fraud, we have lost a lot of public money. A number of small charities have had their reputations damaged as a result.” The evidence we have from the sector more broadly indicates that I am making a good working assumption that is well evidenced.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am a bit concerned, because when we were here a few years ago the example we cited was the Cup Trust, where there was wide-scale evidence of fraud. We asked whether it was registered for gift aid and the answer was yes. I am concerned about linkage.

I appreciate that we are looking at is a review to do with gift aid six months after the Act comes into law, but in view of the changes made last time when we were told initially it had to be same for same—we ended up with something vastly different and vastly better—will the Minister look at those arguments? Even if the Government’s view is that there has to be some sort of matching, it need not necessarily be set at the current level. That is our big concern.

[Jane Ellison]

Two arguments are being advanced. One is that there should be no matching requirement at all. I am afraid I reject that for the reasons I have given, and I will try to provide more evidence. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Clwyd South makes and I understand that there was movement during the passage of the previous Bill with regard to the ratios. With all of these things it is sometimes about trying to strike a reasonable balance, and I think 1:10 is a reasonable number. It is an easy number from an administrative point of view and it keeps matters much more straightforward for the charities in question. I am glad however that she supports the principle that there should be a matching rule to avoid fraud. I will say a bit more about why we think that is important.

The Government’s own assessment found that 92% of charities claiming gift aid for the tax year 2014-15 claimed on donations of £500 or more. That would have allowed them to claim the maximum small donations top-up allowance, which at the time was £5,000.

It is worth adding that while the 8% of charities claiming on less than £500 of donations would not have benefited from the maximum small donations allowance because of how the matching rule operates, the vast majority would have been entitled to a proportion of that allowance. In fact, 98% of charities claiming gift aid in 2014-15 claimed sufficient amounts to receive a small donations allowance of at least £1,000. I submit to the Committee that with 98% of charities claiming enough to get an allowance of at least £1,000, the rules are not proving a barrier; they are being used and people are managing quite well with them. The figures do not support the assertion that the matching rule is a major barrier. Indeed, I think most people would say that it strikes the balance of reasonableness.

As I have said, the Bill is a simplification measure—it removes the two-year registration requirement and the gift aid history requirement—and leaves only the matching rule as the link between the gift aid small donations scheme and the wider gift aid scheme. The Government have always been clear that a link to gift aid is necessary to allow HMRC to carry out effective compliance activity. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support that principle.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). I think it was four years ago that we served on the Committee considering the original Bill, which later put in place the gift aid small donations scheme. I think that the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) were also members of the Committee. At the time, we were all quite enthused about the programme; indeed, we still are. We recognise the importance of giving gift aid-style relief on small donations, especially in a way that will help small charities.

Some real improvements to the Bill have been suggested today. The introduction of contactless payments is good, although I fully agreed with what the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) said about the lack of provision for cheques. I want to dangle a little carrot in front of Government Members by saying that when the original Bill was discussed in Committee, it was discovered that—shock, horror—it was not only £5, £10 and £20 notes that would be eligible for gift aid-style relief, and that even if someone dropped in a few euro notes, they would be eligible as well. If one can have relief for euros and other currencies, there is no reason why it is not possible with cheques. That would be a welcome improvement along with contactless payments and a look at text donations as well. The increase in the upper limit is very welcome, and it shows how this scheme has developed and how it has the potential to help small charities. We need to realise that this Bill is all about helping small charities, because it is those charities and community groups for which this Bill was created.

In the Committee that considered the Charitable Donations Act 2012, we quibbled away at the long-forbearing Ministers about the ratio between gift aid eligibility and donations. At the time, in the original draft of the Bill, we were talking about a ratio of 3:1, 4:1 or 5:1. We asked persistently why it was one ratio and not another. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East just asked why there should be any link at all with gift aid. The survey from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising and the Small Charities Coalition sets out much the same view. Even if it was felt that, for reasons of fraud, we needed that link with gift aid, why is the 10:1 ratio on a tablet of stone?

We discovered in that earlier Bill Committee that ratios of 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1 were pretty expendable. Why, if a charity is registered and has about £10 in gift aid, is that not enough in terms of fraud detection? Furthermore, I am not 100% convinced of the link with fraud. When we had that previous debate, I remember someone raising the issue of the Cup Trust, which was—I will try to put this diplomatically—involved with various fraudulent practices. We innocently asked whether it was registered for gift aid. Well of course it was, which does not suggest that there is much link between fraud and gift aid. If that is something that the Government genuinely believe is a problem, I really cannot see for the life of me why the ratio has to be 10:1; it just does not make sense.

On balance, this is a good Bill. We welcome it, but I urge the Minister, the Government and all members of the Committee to look again at the whole matching requirement, how it is constituted, and why oh why the ratio has to be 10:1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who rightly says that there are practical and positive measures in the Bill that we should welcome. However, I believe that the Bill could have gone forward and been even more practical and positive and offered even more flexibility.

As the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said earlier, she and I served on the Committee that considered the Small Charitable Donations Bill back in 2012. Indeed, the point about euros emerged as a reassurance to me, as I represent a border constituency in Northern Ireland. I pointed out that when a number of charities in my constituency raise money, whether with bucket collections or other ways such as church events, they find euros in their collections, and I asked whether they would have to sift them out or whether they could honestly declare them. In fairness, the then Minister, now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, came forward with the clarification that that money could certainly all be counted.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South is right to say in that context that, when the 2012 Bill was being considered, the refusal to allow donations in the form of cheques or contactless or various other foreseeable electronic payments was odd. I wonder whether even now the Minister will consider allowing, in Committee, an enabling clause giving Ministers the power to permit payment by cheques and so on in future, so that these measures would not have to come back before the House. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, he made that point in the Committee on the 2012 Bill.

In the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012, the Treasury was given significant powers to change things by order; it was given the power to change the connected charities amount, the community buildings amount, the remaining amount, and the capped total. It could amend the gift aid matching rule, abolish it, and reinstate it, if previously abolished, with or without amendment; it could even, by order, amend the meaning of “eligible charity”, and the limit on the value of individual donations. Sensibly, the Treasury was given the power to make significant working changes to the scheme by order. It seems strange that in this further bit of primary legislation there is not similar flexibility around, say, the use of cheques. That flexibility could be introduced in Committee.

I had the unusual experience of arriving in the 2012 Bill Committee to find that the Government had tabled an amendment to take up a point that I made on Second Reading. The penalty provisions stipulated that a charity that had suffered a penalty from HMRC would be barred from the scheme for a period, but there was no provision for an appeal against or possible overturn of the penalty, and where the penalty had been imposed but subsequently reviewed and set aside there was no provision to say that the period of barring would no longer apply. Sensibly, the Government listened. That proved to me that sometimes, when it comes to small Bills, the Government have a flexible ear and will listen to points made on Second Reading; in the case of small Bills, they can handily concede points, and indeed take the initiative and leapfrog Committee Members in making sensible amendments.

The Minister was right to say that some sensible working adjustments are made in the Bill, but they are all ones that were advocated by members of the 2012 Public Bill Committee—not just by members of the Opposition, or by me, but in many cases by Conservative members of the Committee. Members were teasing out the implications with practical ideas. Many of us were concerned that the Small Charitable Donations Bill was in danger of tilting into becoming the petty conditions Bill, given the number of different traditions, trips and traps that people could get into. I still wonder whether the Government could be a bit more generous or expansive in how they take the Bill forward. After all, it is clear that the whole matching requirement issue still causes charities problems. We should listen to charities as we take the Bill forward.

[Susan Elan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend remember that among the examples of charities that the small charitable donations scheme could help were small ones such as talking newspapers? We were very aware that if their admin staff were overburdened, they might not be able to claim what they should rightly claim.

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, the hon. Lady is exactly right. Members in all parts of the Committee raised many pertinent, practical examples of charities that we would want to be ready beneficiaries of the scheme, but that would be prohibited from taking part in it.

At the time, perhaps because this was a first move in this direction, the Minister took a narrow and highly precautionary approach, but smaller charities have not claimed the amount of small donations relief under the 2012 Act that the then Chancellor said they would; when he announced the scheme, he said that it would be £100 million. The indications to date are £25 million a year with an uplift of perhaps £15 million, going by what the Minister has said about the Bill, but we are still talking about something well short of what was promised to the charitable sector when the concept was introduced. Our challenge is how to get closer to the £100 million. We have to look at the things that are standing in the way. I acknowledge that the Government, in the consultation and in the Bill, have moved to address some of the difficulties on community buildings, but there are still some issues on the question of connected charities. The matching requirement, however, is still there, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether or not are examples of fraud in the gift aid small donations scheme in the past three years. Are there any indications of whether matching requirements would have prevented fraud, or simply prevented access to the scheme?

We want to know why the ministerial team are content with arriving at an amount that is only half the amount of support originally intended—in fact, it is less than half. I therefore hope that Ministers are prepared to continue to listen to hon. Members who serve on the Bill Committee and to the charitable sector so that we can improve the scheme and make it much more effective for all the causes and examples that hon. Members have discussed, including that and so on.

As well as amending the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 the Bill amends the Childcare Payments Act 2014. In an intervention I said that the Minister rightly presented the childcare payments scheme under the Bill—with the original Act as the source—as applying to each child. However, the Government are inconsistent, because the childcare element of universal credit is restricted to two children. Working tax credit rules apply to two children, but childcare payments under the 2014 Act are not restricted to two children. What is the reason for the Government’s cognitive dissonance? Why are there different rules on support for different families? The Minister explained how the provisions in the Bill ensure that changes can be met more responsibly by the system, but will Ministers consider the difference in experience and bureaucratic contact for parents accessing childcare payments under the Bill and the original Act and for parents who apply for the childcare element of universal credit? Under the childcare payments scheme, it is a bankable allowance, but it is not a bankable allowance for people on universal credit. They have to spend the money first, then claim it back within a short time. There is an unfair difference in treatment. Some parents are treated more generously and supportively in the way in which the system relates to them and engages with them than others, which is wrong. As legislators, we should try to ensure a more consistent approach to the principle of childcare in all the important and positive forms that it takes.

That is not to say that the childcare payments provided for are not positive and practical; I just wish that the universal credit childcare element could be made more comparable and, similarly, that if the Government see fit not to visit a two-child rule on the childcare payments system, they will abandon the idea of having such a rule for working family tax credit as well.

Bank Branch Closures

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), my next-door-but-one neighbour although 65 or 70 miles away. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and the hon. Members for Wells (James Heappey) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing the debate.

I would like to begin with a totally nonsensical hypothesis, because I feel that after last week’s Brexit vote there is probably no hypothesis that is too nonsensical to contemplate. Let me suggest that a law was passed in this place which decreed that no community with fewer than 15,000 people should be allowed to have a retail outlet—not a single shop. People in communities of 15,000 people or fewer would complain and say that that was ludicrous. The people responsible for the law would then say, “We have thought of a workable compromise. Perhaps there could be a little vending machine with milk, bread, chocolate bars and fruit—let’s call it an ATM, for the sake of convenience. One might have to pay a little more for the privilege, but let us do that and then people in communities of 15,000 or fewer will nod their heads in gratitude and acknowledge that that is what the world is like now.”

Of course, that is absolute nonsense. We are not necessarily talking about a world where shops in small or medium-sized communities are closing, but that is exactly what is happening in the ecology of our banking sector. The survey reported by Reuters showed that HSBC, RBS, Barclays and Lloyds Banking Group are among the banks that have cut 600 branches between April 2015 and April 2016. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wells has said that 333 branches have been cut just this year.

My constituency provides an exact example of the crisis we face. The constituency of Clwyd South, which covers 240 square miles, has lost eight bank branches since 2010. The town of Corwen, Llangollen and north Wales’s largest village, Rhosllannerchrugog, which has almost 10,000 inhabitants, as well as the industrial village of Cefn Mawr and the towns of Chirk and Ruabon, have all lost bank branches—the last two just this April. In fact, my 240-square-mile constituency has precisely one bank left, in the town of Llangollen. The eight banks that have closed were run by either HSBC or NatWest, and it is only Barclays that has a single bank branch left. That is the scale of the crisis, and it is causing many practical difficulties.

Colleagues have raised the issues affecting many elderly people. When I contacted HSBC at the start of the year about the plight of elderly people as a result of bank branch closures in Chirk and Ruabon, I was intrigued by the response I received from Jonathan Byrne, regional director of the HSBC central region:

“I’m disappointed that the closure of these branches will affect elderly customers within your community. We are conscious of the impact a branch closure can have on our customers, in particular the elderly and those with mobility issues.”

Oh dear, is that the best they can do? I posed questions to him in writing about the bank branches that were closing: how many people used them; how much was held on their accounts; and if a bank branch had to close, would it be possible for us to keep one open? But, silly me, I had not realised that all that information was totally “commercially sensitive.” I was not asking for a list of how much everybody in the area had in their bank accounts, although I dare say that some of us might have found that quite interesting to read. I just wanted to know how much was being held in the accounts and how many people used the bank branches. This is a great crisis that affects—in particular but not exclusively—rural areas and small towns. As colleagues have said, its effect on businesses is a massive problem.

It is possible to open individual personal accounts with the Post Office, but, where there are post offices, there are huge variations in the financial services that they provide. We need to remember that. As the hon. Member for Wells and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester have said, business banking services vary hugely from branch to branch as well. I think we need a big sort-out. If we do not have something of the sort—call it a protocol or call it something else—we will be in an even greater crisis.

I turn to the points that several hon. Members and hon. Friends have made about ATMs. The way in which we are pricing people out—often, but not always, in poorer and more remote communities—is nonsense. It is nonsense that anyone should have to pay money to receive money from their bank account. That needs serious looking at.

The beautiful town of Corwen is in my constituency. You are nodding, Mr Deputy Speaker; I think you have been there. I am not sure whether you have been on the steam train—the heritage railway—that runs through tremendous places in the Dee Valley area of outstanding natural beauty. What a shame it would be if you arrived there one Saturday morning and found that the ATM had run out of money. That would reduce your enjoyment of that beautiful area, as it does that of so many other people when it happens. This affects not only tourists, important though they are, but people who live miles and miles away from the next ATM. It is not that we have more snow, ice or bad weather than anywhere else, but in the winter there are problems in that regard.

Many of us are trying to propose solutions to these problems. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester mentioned a good idea about community bank hubs in various areas, and he offered Chester as a pilot area. I suggest that it might be nice to have a pilot across the border as well, and then we could compare notes. I would like to offer a suggestion about how we use mobile banks. The idea that a mobile bank will come into a community for an hour a week is not good enough. We are not talking about an ice cream van; we are talking about basic access to finance. Some banks—I believe HSBC is one—do not even provide mobile banks. When mobile banks operate in my area, they tend to be run by NatWest. They do not provide the full range of banking services that ordinary bank branches have.

The Government should look at whether there should be statutory requirements covering access to finance in our communities. I am not suggesting that every bank that has ever closed its doors should reopen or that banks should all have to provide mobile services, so that we might have three mobile banks standing next to each other on the high street twice a week. I am suggesting that we think about what we consider to be a basic, minimum service for banking. Perhaps we should look at some of the supermarkets and stores that now offer banking and ask how we can bring them into the equation.

One thing I know is that we cannot allow the current situation to continue. In my constituency, eight banks have closed in six years and only one bank is left. The same thing is happening the length and breadth of our country. It is not fair on rural communities and it is not fair on small towns. It is not even fair when it happens in urban, built-up areas. I urge the Minister and the shadow Chancellor to consider these matters as they respond, because they are crucial for all our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan). I hope that Mr Ross McEwan meets him really soon because I can see the hon. Gentleman’s passion on this issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). I know how deeply he feels about this issue and how he has been campaigning for this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I am pleased that his campaigning has come to fruition. It would be remiss of me not to mention the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey).

We found out today that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) is lucky enough to have access to a train, a bus and a car. He represents a beautiful part of Wales and I always like hearing him talk about places in his constituency because that reminds me of my childhood holidays and good memories come flooding back. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who has again shown his passion and devotion to his island constituency. His fantastic speech was one of the best that we have heard in the Chamber for a long time and I thank him for it. It would also be remiss of me not to mention another Welsh colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West—

[Susan Elan Jones]

Clwyd South.

[Chris Evans]

I promised my hon. Friend before I stood up to speak that I would not say “Clwyd West”, but I knew I would get it wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) has been a good friend for a number of years. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, she cares about these issues. I thank her for her passion and for the strength that she has shown, especially this week, given the difficult circumstances.

Sadly, the debate has come at a bad time for me. Only last night I received the terrible news that yet another bank—Lloyds in Newbridge, a town in my constituency—is to close in October. That follows the closure earlier this month of HSBC in Risca, another town in my constituency. Sadly, such closures are not unique to my constituency. They are widespread throughout the whole country, and some sections of society are experiencing a considerable loss. The BBC reported in May that between April 2015 and April 2016, more than 600 bank branches were closed across the UK. More have closed since, including that HSBC branch in Risca, and soon there will be that closure in Newbridge and others across south-east Wales.

Local residents are being given the usual reason by their bank, namely that more customers are turning towards online banking and footfall at branches is falling. It is hard to deny that online and telephone banking are on the rise. Although I use bank branches from time to time, my own daily banking needs are usually met over the phone or through an app. This trend is underlined by Barclays, which says that on average its customers use mobile banking more than 28 times a month, but visit their local branch less than twice in that time. The banks say that it therefore makes commercial sense to close branches that are expensive and not being utilised enough to justify their cost. When I worked in banking in the early part of the 21st century, I noticed that footfall was going down, but the banks were not really very nice places because we would have a customer’s arm up behind their back trying to sell them as much as we could as soon as they walked through the door.

If we look only at statistics and reduce customers to numbers on a graph or spreadsheet, saying that they are only one of a minority who do not use online or telephone banking, we ignore the cost and the burden that closures place on the individuals who are left out. When we dig a little deeper to see who exactly loses out the most from the closure of a bank branch, it is almost always the most vulnerable in the community. I have spoken in the House about the perils of payday lending, legal loan sharks and doorstep lenders. If someone needs a loan, they will trust the person at the door if there is no bank at the end of the road to meet their borrowing needs. That is the danger. When a bank closes a branch, that person, who is usually unbanked, becomes even more vulnerable than they already are.

I have to make an example of HSBC and the branch closure in Risca. When I launched an online petition, which was signed by hundreds of residents, some of the comments truly summed up the problem with branch closures. One constituent said:

“My parents use this bank. If this branch closes they will not have a branch within a 5-mile radius. The nearest branch will be at least 30 minutes away by bus. Both of them are in their 70s and cannot use internet banking as they have no internet connection nor computer. They are hard of hearing, so telephone banking is also out of the question. How are customers like them supposed to deal with any issues if they cannot speak to someone face to face?”

HSBC’s closure of Risca’s branch was bungled, and the same goes for branches all over the country. The first I heard about it was in an email on a Friday night. I was told, “Do not say anything, because we have not told the customers or the businesses. Keep it to yourself.” I wrote to the bank and asked for an exact closure date and when it was going to be announced, but I was met with silence. It was only when I put it in the press and set up the petition that HSBC wanted to talk to me. Even then, it was like pulling teeth.

I asked to speak to the chief executive—like the hon. Member for East Lothian did with RBS—and I was given a regional director who popped by in Risca for the day. Guess what I found when I walked into the HSBC? Did I find a branch on its last legs? Did I find a lack of staff? No, people were queuing out the door to use the services. The average age of the people was 70s or 80s and they were complaining that the branch was going to close, yet the representative was in the office telling me that no one was using the service. Who am I supposed to believe?

Another thing that I have to say about HSBC is that when it did finally put out a press release, it told me that footfall had dropped by 70% in Risca. That was very good, and I accept that, but when branches were closed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in Porth and Tonypandy and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), the bank said exactly the same thing: footfall had fallen 70% as well. I am sorry, but I do not believe that figure.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

I support amendments 4 and 5, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). In Committee, the Minister highlighted the presence of the Royal Mint in Cardiff and its role in the production of our coins. In reflecting on that, it is worth noting that the pound coin reflects each nation, with the royal arms, the three lions and the oak tree for England; the thistle and the lion rampant for Scotland; the flax plant and the Celtic cross for Northern Ireland; and, of course, both the dragon and the leek for Wales. Since 2010, we have had pound coins celebrating the capital cities in the floral emblems of each nation of the United Kingdom. It therefore seems anomalous that Scotland, with its own Parliament, has its own banknotes and that Northern Ireland, with its own Assembly, has its own unique banknotes, yet that Wales, with its own flourishing Assembly, has no national identifier for circulating currency.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

If the amendments pass tonight and Wales is allowed to produce its own banknotes, I very much hope that some north Walians will be featured on them. Does my hon. Friend agree that such notes also represent a fine opportunity to showcase the great figures of Welsh literature and music?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic suggestion, and I shall return in a few seconds to some Welsh figures from music, if not literature. It is important that all aspects of Welsh culture are represented when, as I hope, the Welsh people are able to choose who should feature on their banknotes and coins. A celebration of iconic Welsh scenes and places would also be appropriate. For example, there could be representations of the steel industry of Port Talbot, or the mining communities of the valleys—even perhaps the Tower colliery which, as those who know about the history of mining in Wales are aware, was run as a co-operative when miners used their redundancy payments to turn it into a successful venture. Such imagery would be well supported across the nation. Shirley Bassey and Nye Bevan, the father and founder of our NHS, have been suggested. It would be great to see Nye Bevan on a Welsh banknote. It might be a bit over the top to feature his famous quotes likening Tories to certain members of the animal kingdom, but that would be a matter for the Welsh people to decide.

My own personal suggestion, for what it is worth, is that given that it is now 30 years since the formation of that great Welsh rock band, the Manic Street Preachers, I would love to see them celebrated on a new banknote, although they might have ideological objections to doing so. It is also the 20th anniversary of “Everything Must Go”— I am talking not about the Chancellor’s policy on RBS shares, but the album of that name by the Manic Street Preachers. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made it clear, however, it would be for the people of Wales, not those from Yorkshire or anywhere else, to decide who or what should appear on Welsh banknotes. In that spirit, I hope that the Conservative Government do not commit the cardinal error of snubbing the Welsh people’s desire for their own banknotes.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow other speakers in this Budget debate.

There is not a single Member of the House who has not received scores of letters in the past couple of weeks from people deeply concerned by what the Budget proposed on personal independence payments. Let me give the House just one example from my constituency. A woman living in a rural area, about 15 miles from the nearest railway station, was about to lose her Motability vehicle, which she uses to get to work, and she has a pretty severe disability.

I think it is abhorrent and extraordinary that the changes—we welcome them, whether they be resiled from, U-turned or whatever—have come about because of the internal workings of the Tory party, not because of the requirements of people in the most need and those of disabled people across our country. There is no morality in the way that decision was made, and the Government should hang their head in shame for all that has happened in the past few days.

On infrastructure, others have noticed—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) wrote an article about it—that according to latest figures from the National Infrastructure Pipeline, which monitors public and private sector projects of more than £50 million, only 114 of 565 major projects are under construction. In 2013 The Economist published an article entitled “Let’s try to catch up with Mali”, which noted that OECD figures showed how low Britain ranks for infrastructure investment, including for rail, roads, airports and energy.

The Government now claim, as the Chancellor said, to be opening the door for growth in north Wales, but it is difficult to open a door to anything if people cannot get there. All the rhetoric about a northern powerhouse matters precious little if we do not deal with things such as tackling accident blackspots and single-track highways on both sides of the A483 and A5, or if we do not make it quicker and safer to travel on both sides of the border. We must also start speeding away with HS2 to Crewe, which will transform the economies of north and mid-Wales, and we need more direct trains to London on the Wrexham to Shrewsbury line to take the pressure off the Chester line and give us better connectivity. We should sort out a proper north Wales train infrastructure to Manchester and Liverpool airports, and we should consider what should be happening with 4G. I was intrigued to see astronaut Tim Peake out in space wishing us all a happy St David’s day, because he would not have managed to do that if he had been on a mobile phone in Llandrillo.

The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) spoke about an ethical dimension for corporate taxation, but one issue that the Government did not consider in the Budget—although they needed to—is the insidious closure of banks across our country. In Wales, 130 bank branches have closed or will close over five years. That is simply unacceptable, and those banks that close their branches are not paying anything back to wider society.

My final point is about measures on philanthropy or rather the lack of them in the Budget. Gordon Brown introduced millennium gift aid in a previous Budget, and if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) were here now, he would say how either he or John Major introduced the initial gift aid proposals in 1990. There was no mention of anything to do with philanthropy in this Budget, however, and it is time to consider that issue in greater detail. That might involve the implementation of a gift aid package for text donations, or another look at corporate philanthropy—those are just some of the measures that I am trying to fit into a five-minute speech on a mixed Budget.

Finally, in my last few seconds, I welcome what the Chancellor said about EU membership. There are three MPs in Denbighshire. I might be the only one who welcomes the stay-in vote, but I do.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jackson]

I rise more in sorrow than in anger. I have made my views known to the Minister. I am disappointed that I shall have to support not the Government but the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I shall not support the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) because I think what can be classified as a tourist area is a moot point. People might come to Warwickshire near her own constituency and visit Stratford, yet she has Chelmsley Wood in her constituency, which some might describe as a brutalist horror, yet it could be reclassified as a tourist attraction. It will be difficult for lawyers to prove what is a tourist area and what is not. This makes it difficult for the amendment to stand.

This is not an economic issue or even a faith issue, although I pay tribute to the very good speech by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). It is about what kind of country we want to be. It is a conscience issue. My understanding was that the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was subject to a free vote on what was regarded as an issue of conscience. Why can we not do the same now?

I find it pretty shocking that a manuscript amendment appears on the Twitter feed of Sky News at 2.4 pm before Members have had an opportunity to look at it. I have to tell the Minister that five or six weeks ago, I said to no less important a figure than the Prime Minister that what we needed was a competitive regime in which local authorities could come forward and offer to be pilots, yet that was dismissed. Indeed, Ministers were not talking to Back Benchers about this issue until 48 hours ago—in fact, even less than that. [Interruption.] I mean on the specific issue that we have put forward.

I am not an uber-liberal and I am not a social liberal. I think we have a social contract and a bond with our constituents. We should regulate some behaviours. That is why, for instance, we voted to ban smoking in vehicles with children in them. “Devil take the hindmost” is not the right way in which to pursue this issue, especially given that in 2014 the Prime Minister, no less, said on the BBC news that families should be the prism through which we should decide policy. Indeed, as my hon. Friend pointed out in April 2015, during the general election campaign, the Prime Minister wrote to the Keep Sunday Special campaign saying the same thing.

It is not acceptable that there has been no proper scrutiny and oversight in the House of Lords. It is not acceptable that the Whips packed the Public Bill Committee with people who were likely to be sympathetic. It is not acceptable for the Government to use the relevant section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to stifle debate by hiding the number of consultations that have taken place—and we saw the ridiculous answer that my hon. Friend was given by Ministers.

Why has there been no family assessment? Why has there been no impact assessment? Those are important questions that the Government have not yet answered. The issue is important to me because 32% of the economic activity in my constituency takes place in the retail sector, and there will be a domino effect. Decisions will be taken naturally. If Peterborough were to deregulate and adopt a different retail regime, Fenland would want the same, and so would Huntingdonshire, Corby and other local authorities. I think it foolish and naive to assume that will not happen.

What am I asking Members to vote on today? I am asking them to give the Government some breathing space. We know that this proposal has been driven not by the superb ministerial teams in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—I do not always agree with them, but they are very good at their jobs—but by the dead hand of the Treasury. The Treasury has been taking the media flak for this, and the Treasury is putting out the lines to be taken. An obscure Back-Bench Tory MP who votes the right way today is likely to get a brand-new bypass, or perhaps become a special representative to some warm and exotic place of which he or she has never heard.

The fact is that this is an issue of principle, integrity and conscience. I defer to no one in my admiration for the Government’s work in important areas such as the reform of education and welfare, but they are now engaging in a needless and egregious conflict with their own Back Benchers. They do not need to do that. There is no authority for this proposal, because, as we know, it was not in the Conservative manifesto. I have already said that the legal case is threadbare, and I have cited the legal opinion of John Bowers, QC.

I am very fond of the Minister, but only a week or so ago he said that the Government were proceeding on the basis of what was in the Bill after the Committee stage. Today, he waxed lyrical at the Dispatch Box about the fantastic idea of launching pilot projects to open up retail across the country. That does not stack up; it is close, but no cigar. If it was such a good idea, why was it not taken up by senior Ministers weeks ago, when I raised it personally with the Prime Minister? I think that that is a fair question.

If Members on both sides of the House vote against the Government and in favour of my hon. Friend’s amendment, all they will do is allow the Government to consult properly, present coherent arguments, and propose measures that will protect workers’ rights and the special interests of the Association of Convenience Stores—which has raised concerns—while also taking proper note of what is said by the trade unions. They are not always the friends of our party, but they have a right to be heard, and 91% of members of USDAW have opposed the Government’s proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) suggested that new legislation could be proposed in the Queen’s Speech. I can even offer a name: the Sunday Trading (Pilot Projects) Bill. I will invoice the Minister later for that suggestion. We could then have a proper debate, because we would know what we were voting for. I must say to the Minister that this has not been done properly. There has not been proper scrutiny and oversight. There has not been proper debate and discussion. Running around with manuscript amendments at four minutes past two on the day of a Report stage is not good government.

I want to support the Government, and I want them to succeed, but I am afraid that on this occasion, with a very heavy heart, I cannot support them, and I will be voting for the amendment. I will be doing that so that the Government can come back, carry the House in a consensus, protect jobs, protect a way of life, protect family life, and look after the interests of our constituents, because, if for no other reason, that is why we are here.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and to be part of the unholy alliance that is doing so. Trust me, it is better to be part of an unholy alliance than to be called a Maoist. The reason that most of us are supporting the amendment is that we are united on several key principles. We stand in support of family life, we oppose the exploitation of shop workers, and we believe in real competition and genuine devolution, which gives fair play to our small shops and supports diversity on the high street. There is unity too because in this country we believe that it is right to keep Sunday special.

Of course society has changed, and the law has changed with it. Some people will point to the recent opinion poll which showed that there is now a bare majority who want to change the law on this matter even further. It is not that we on this side of the House are bitter about opinion polls, but actually, they do not always get everything right. But even if that particular YouGov poll is correct on that matter, let us look at some of its other findings, which show that 58% of the population fear that the Government’s proposals will affect small stores and 48% agree that longer opening hours would be detrimental to family life. Only 27% said that that would not be the case.

The family test has been discussed today, as has the little impact assessment that popped up this morning. Wherever we stand on individual policies, I do not think that any of us would seriously fault the Government’s idea that every domestic policy should be measured against its impact on family life. I really hope that that issue above all else will be taken into consideration. We have a Prime minister who speaks the language of prison reform, who deals with issues such as the stigma surrounding mental health and who, once upon a time, hugged huskies and even Eurosceptics. He himself said that he did not want to change the Sunday trading laws, so does he really want this piece of anti-family legislation to be passed on his watch?

I shall close with the words of one mother, a shop worker, who says:

“As a mother, I would not work Sunday evenings or late afternoons, yet it would be forced on us as we would need more than one manager on a Sunday to cover the hours.”

She is right, and we know that she is not just speaking for herself. She is speaking for hundreds of thousands of people across our country. That is why I believe with the deepest conviction that, whatever our party or background, we need to speak up for those people today.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When you do not put something in your manifesto—indeed, when you are the leader of a political party and you give a particular pledge—that is a very serious state of affairs. The reason that there is so much disgust with politics all over the world—we are seeing what is happening in America—is that we are no longer trusted. What has changed since the general election? If there were an overwhelming economic case for this proposal, I would understand it, but what has moved on in nine or 10 months?

When I voted, back in 1994, I think it was a free vote. There was no pressure from No. 10 or No. 11, and people were not being shuffled off for chats with Ministers behind the Speaker’s Chair. We were pretty well allowed to vote as we liked, and I voted against. We were told that that was a compromise, and it is a compromise. Are we receiving masses of emails and letters on this proposal? Are there all sorts of pressure from our people arguing that we should change the law? I have not detected any such pressure. So why are the Government running around viewing this as some kind of macho measure? It is not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has just said, it is a conscience issue. I put that point to the Minister, and it is an important one for all of us. I ask all my hon. Friends to think about this, and not just about their careers, before they vote tonight.

We as MPs value our Sundays. I have often heard MPs saying, “I’m sorry, but the only thing I will do on a Sunday is attend a Remembrance Sunday event. Otherwise, I want to be with my family.” We must understand that we have great jobs here, with all the privileges that go with them, and we have a duty to look after people who are much less well off than ourselves and who work unbelievably hard, often in fairly grim jobs. Do we want to force them to work even longer hours? All the pressure from big businesses will ultimately be on them, so do we want them to sit behind a till on a Sunday or do we say to them, “We believe that Sunday is special”? Sunday is special, and what is good for us is good for others.