Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of the Bill. The Bill was only published at the beginning of the debate, and it has just two clauses. I will direct my remarks primarily to our new clause 1. We are asking the Government at least to accept the principle behind the new clause. I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was able to put our minds at rest on the question of which people and groups will benefit from the cut set out in the Bill. He said that it was quite untrue that it would benefit the owners of second homes or multiple homes, but I think we need a review to give us the facts. We need to find out whether first-time buyers, existing owner-occupiers moving home, buy-to-let investors, those buying second homes and overseas buyers are among groups that will benefit from the policy.

The Financial Secretary did not give us a clear response to the fact that £1.3 billion of the cost of this scheme looks likely to benefit those who are already home owners. We want the Government to commit to reviewing the Bill’s impact in an open and transparent way. We want to know whether such a large sum will deliver value for money and what the broader impact of this will be on the housing sector. The Government should want to consider how this, their flagship policy, will contribute to solving the housing crisis and how it will impact on the economy overall. Our new clause will help to achieve that, and the Government should accept it.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Covid-19 has highlighted the deep inequalities that existed long before this pandemic. Many people have been left desperate for support. Hundreds of thousands of people already have less money coming in, and hundreds of thousands have lost, or will lose, their jobs. The Government have thrown an eye-watering amount of money at our economy, but we do not yet know how this increasing mountain of debt will be paid back, or by whom. In the meantime, paying bills, rents and mortgages has become hard for millions of households. We must therefore question whether this tax cut should be a priority for the Government. It is expected to cost £3.8 billion, yet it will mainly benefit the wealthiest. The average earner, including the young generation who are struggling to pay ever-increasing rents, let alone be able to put down enough money to buy a house, will see nothing of it. The discount might provide a tax holiday for the privileged few, but it completely ignores the fact that the majority of people are unable to buy a home of their own now, and are never likely to do so in the future.

In my constituency of Bath, the availability of housing for first-time buyers is limited and house prices are expensive. The average house price in Bath is currently more than £430,000. A first-time buyer would qualify for £10,000 under the new rates, but even that would provide little benefit to a first-time buyer in my constituency who cannot secure a deposit or who faces an unaffordable mortgage. The cut to stamp duty will not solve the real problems at the heart of the housing crisis. Housing is one of the most important sectors for job creation—I agree with the Minister on that—but where is the focus on building social homes for rent? Social homes are the only way to provide secure and affordable housing for everyone, but, most importantly, for those on lower incomes. The private sector has completely failed to build social homes, and only a huge Government infrastructure programme to build social housing, as we saw in the ’50s and ’60s, will bring our social housing stock back to where it needs to be. That would create the jobs we need as well as the homes we need. Surely at this time, genuinely affordable homes are more important than ever, and more important than a stamp duty cut.

Lastly, the climate emergency has not gone away during covid, and we know that emissions from homes account for 30% of UK emissions. Decarbonising homes is therefore crucial to getting to net zero. Improving the energy efficiency of social housing is something that the Government could do straight away. They could also require landlords to achieve minimum levels of energy efficiency in order to be able to rent their homes. We need a Government with a vision to get the economy going, not a tax cut for only the few.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for their comments. There may be some slight misapprehension from the hon. Gentleman—I did not actually say what he said I said. I said it is not true that this measure will disproportionately benefit second home owners, and that is because it has a proportionate effect across the whole population of home ownership. However, he should also be reassured that we in the Treasury keep a very careful watch over these taxes. They are monitored and assessed and their impacts are regularly reported on.

As I said, the Bill will help to deliver a Government aim to ensure that people feel confident to move, buy, sell, renovate and improve their homes, and it is a policy that the Labour party has indicated that it supports. On that basis, I commend clauses 1 and 2 to the House and respectfully ask that it does not support new clause 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

The Economy

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

There are two issues within that. First, there are the revised numbers from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has set a timescale for when it will set those out. Then there is the more substantive issue, as the Chancellor set out in his statement, of seeing the plan for jobs in the context of three phases. The medium-term recovery that we need will be set out in the autumn with the Budget and the comprehensive spending review. Again, that will be an important milestone in this three-phase approach.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I will make a little progress, and then I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.

These interventions have come at a considerable cost to the public finances, but I have no doubt that they were the right thing to do. The Bank of England, the OBR and other external forecasters have all highlighted that the cost to the economy would have been significantly higher were it not for the swift and decisive action that the Government have taken. Nevertheless, the pandemic has caused a profound shock to both the national and the global economy, the consequences of which will be felt by businesses and individuals for some time to come. Even as we step out of lockdown, a great deal of disruption and uncertainty remains. Many businesses have yet to reopen their doors. Up and down the country, people are worried about whether their jobs will be secure when they return to work.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Bath is an international spa city, and the wellbeing and beauty industry is very much part of our local economy. Some industries have been worse hit than others and unfairly treated, particularly the beauty industry. When will there be an announcement that the beauty and wellbeing industry is open for business again?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady highlights an extremely important sector, not least in terms of its profile. Many women work in that sector, and often those incomes are extremely important to their households as well. At Treasury oral questions yesterday the Chancellor expressed our desire to get those sectors up and running as quickly as possible. The hon. Lady will know that we have already taken significant steps to support them, not least through the £10,000 and £25,000 grants that were offered, which included many within the sectors that she highlights.

Today the Government made it clear that we are ready to take further action as necessary, just as we have done throughout this crisis. That is why the self-employed income support scheme will open for a second and final round of grants between 17 August and 19 October. Likewise, the job-retention scheme has been extended until the end of October, with new, more flexible terms to support people back to work. But with the best will in the world, no Government can reasonably save every single job in these circumstances; nor can the furlough scheme, successful as it has been, last indefinitely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I fear that that is almost the same question that the hon. Lady put to the Chancellor earlier. I know that she and I will disagree on the commitment we have to the road-building programme, because on the Government side of the House, we see that as key to driving productivity and helping jobs, and it is an issue on which many of my colleagues campaigned at the election and their electorates sought to see improvements. However, we have a commitment to the green agenda. That is what the Chancellor set out in his statement, and that is the record that we are building on through measures that include the £1 billion decarbonisation of public sector buildings, which I am sure is a scheme that she would welcome.

Our quest for net zero has the potential to build on proven regional economic strengths and create many more high-skilled, high-quality jobs. It will spur innovation and exports and, most importantly, it can deliver clean and resilient long-term growth. As part of the £8.6 billion of capital investment, the Government will invest £3 billion to decarbonise the United Kingdom and, in doing so, protect or create thousands of green jobs.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady has already had one go, but she can have one more and then I will come to my conclusion.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Minister is extremely generous, and I am very grateful. On the issue of cross-party support, I know that hydrogen is very much in the Government’s heart as a way for the economy to recover and to get to net zero. Why is there no hydrogen strategy, and why has not there been an announcement today about anything to do with the hydrogen industry?

[Steve Barclay]

One of the advantages of coming after the Chancellor has spoken for two and a half hours is that many of the same issues come up a second time. He was asked about this, and he said that we have a commitment and he was not going to pre-empt any future announcement from the Prime Minister. Given that that was the Chancellor’s response, I can say that I am certainly not going to pre-empt anything from the Prime Minister, but we recognise the issue. That is an area on which, as the Chancellor covered earlier, the Prime Minister will make any subsequent announcements.

We have announced today £2 billion of green homes grants, which will save energy and, just as importantly, save households money on their bills. Finally, our £40 million green jobs challenge fund will invest in shovel-ready natural capital projects, such as creating new parks and open spaces, cleaning rivers, restoring peatland and helping to plant many more trees during this Parliament. Taken together, these measures will help to ensure that the future is not only more prosperous but happier, healthier and greener too.

Covid-19 has tested our economy to the extreme. The challenges we face in rebuilding are great, but the opportunities are greater still. We can build back better than before, with stronger public services, a new generation of infrastructure that brings our country together and new jobs and opportunities in every region. It will not be easy—it will take all our ingenuity and commitment—but as the Chancellor said earlier today, it is not this crisis that will define us, but our response. The resilience, compassion and determination shown by the British people has carried us through the hardest months, and now, this same sense of collective purpose will drive our recovery too.

VAT (Listed Properties)

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) on securing this debate, which is very relevant to my constituency. I have already had many discussions with relevant bodies, in particular the UNESCO world heritage site body, on the need to get to net zero. I am especially worried about listed buildings in the context of the climate emergency.

That is an important issue, particularly for my constituency. With about 5,000 listed buildings, Bath has the highest concentration in the UK other than here in Westminster. The Bath and North East Somerset—or BANES—Council has the highest number of listed building consent applications, at 700 last year. In Bath, the wish to continue and maintain our built heritage is very much alive, but there is a burden on those who own the buildings. I am very much aware of that.

That situation is not a coincidence. I am proud that Bath has been a pioneer in protecting buildings of interest since the 1880s. Listed buildings and how to maintain our built heritage is very much a Bath issue. As the buildings age, the challenges of preserving them have grown. In addition, we now face the challenge of the climate emergency, so the urgency of upgrading listed buildings has only grown.

The housing stock in this country is our largest producer of carbon emissions and millions of homes will need to be made much more energy-efficient over the coming decades if we are to have any chance of achieving net zero. That poses a significant enough task for most homeowners but, for those who own the 2% of total housing stock that is listed, the challenge is greater and more expensive, as we have heard. This debate has to be about not the swimming pool, which might add value to a property, but the maintenance of heritage and tackling the climate emergency.

Listed buildings are likely to be older and therefore less insulated, and to have less efficient heating systems than other properties. Coincidentally, though, older properties keep cooler, so if we look at the climate emergency and overheating, sometimes the listed building might provide an answer. Previous generations knew well how to keep cool. I have the privilege of sometimes being invited into beautiful properties in Bath, and have talked about the shutters that still exist in some of the older buildings. Previous generations knew how to use shutters effectively. It is important to work with people who own listed buildings and are interested in the history of how we used to live, and for people to put their mind to understanding the history and often the benefits of what previous generations knew about healthy living.

If the Government are to take their net zero obligations seriously, financial support and incentives are vital to reduce carbon emissions from listed buildings. The simplest way, and a necessary first step, for the Government to ease this financial burden is for VAT relief to be extended from simply covering alterations to applying to all renovations and improvements in listed properties, especially where aimed at reducing carbon emissions and getting to net zero.

Extending VAT relief would help the thousands of private owners of listed buildings in Bath and beyond to preserve important historical properties and to tackle the climate emergency. I do not want to argue with the hon. Member for South Thanet about whether it was worth leaving the European Union so that the 2%, the listed building owners, can get VAT relief, but it would be somewhat perverse—or hypocritical—of the Government not to use their freedom to look at VAT relief on listed properties in this country. Britain attracts thousands—millions—of tourists every year because of its wonderful built heritage. We need to ensure that we preserve it and, at the same time, to take our climate change and net zero obligations seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for securing today’s debate, and for his work in the all-party parliamentary group on listed properties to highlight the issues faced by people who own such homes. This interesting and well-informed debate has made it clear that the treatment of construction work is one of the most complicated areas of VAT law, where there is a lot of confusion that produces, no question, a lot of transaction cost and issues for people interested in trying to repair their homes.

It has cropped up a little in the debate that there are still certain circumstances in which the 5% VAT rate applies to construction work on listed properties. VAT relief may be possible for VAT-registered contractors on a conversion of a non-residential property into a dwelling; where a domestic property has been empty for two years prior to the work; for conversions where the number of residential units changes and becomes more intensive; where there are changes to introduce mobility aids for the over-60s; and for changes linked to a social purpose, for example if social housing is put in listed properties. Zero per cent. VAT also applies to certain kinds of work for disabled people. All those reliefs are targeted; they ensure that properties do not go unused and can be properly adapted for elderly and disabled people.

The debate has been about whether we need a targeted change in relation to repairs to listed properties. On a bit of a tangent, there was a little discussion about VAT on the installation of energy-saving technologies. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) in that regard—she was spot on. The comments by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about the listing system in Bath and what it has achieved were very interesting, but I question whether a high cost for introducing energy efficiency and renewable energy is unique to the listed sector.

Others mentioned their personal circumstances; I live in an ex-council property that cannot have cavity wall insulation because it does not have cavity walls. The only thing that could be done would be to clad it in brick, which would be pretty expensive. I will not say that that is of the same complexity as many of the changes that might be needed in listed properties, but we need to look at energy saving overall.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am not implying at all that the hon. Lady would be against broader changes for other housing, if that is why she wants to intervene. I know that she is a champion of those schemes in Parliament.

When it comes to this specific relief, I share the concerns of the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Glasgow Central about the impact of the changes on low-income areas—also picked up on by the hon. Member for South Thanet—and the lack of a level playing field between new build and existing listed buildings. Again, because of the existing relief system, if they have been lying unused for a couple of years, or if they are conversions from industrial use, they would already be covered by reductions.

I have a question for the Minister about another aspect of the current regime: I understand that there is a zero VAT rate for substantial reconstructions of listed properties if they proceed from a shell. I would like him to tell me whether HMRC has done any work to consider whether that might have led to the kinds of activities that, sadly, are too well known to us as MPs, whereby a listed property ends up having a strange fire at some point and its insides are gutted. It would be interesting to find out whether HMRC has done any work on that.

There have been a lot of changes to VAT over recent years. Any further changes need to be extremely well evidenced and justified. VAT is the third biggest revenue raiser of the different kinds of tax. We need to consider the dead-weight from proposals of this sort and whether they are appropriately targeted. I accept that reducing VAT probably would be an incentive for additional repair work, but we need to consider whether that is the right mechanism. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for South Thanet compare this proposal with the system for churches, which does seem to be appropriately targeted. We would need to look at that in relation to questions about, for example, repairs in low-income areas or among people who do not have the means to make such changes.

On the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the reduction in the number of firms that can carry out specialised repairs to listed properties, we have seen a reduction in the number of small building firms generally. It could be that that is correlated with what has happened more broadly in the economy. That is a worrying development whatever part of the building trade it occurs in, but we may need to parse the reasons for that reduction, which may be tied to the general state of the property market and the recovery from the financial crisis.

Finally, I am sure the Minister is sick of me saying this, but we need a better evidence base generally for whether tax reliefs perform what they were set out to do. We have figures for about only 111 of the around 326 tax expenditures that are set out by the Government; it is likely there are more that are not covered. Bodies such as the International Monetary Fund state that we should have as much scrutiny of tax reliefs as we have of spending proposals. I think that is sensible. Although I accept that applying for a grant scheme requires bureaucracy, claiming many of those tax reliefs requires an accountant, which is an additional cost for people. We must consider carefully whether the proposed relief would be appropriately targeted.

Again, I congratulate not just the hon. Member for South Thanet but all Members who participated in the debate. I found it illuminating, and I hope that the Minister provides answers to some of the questions that were posed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Would not it therefore make sense just to define a little more what the VAT relief is for, rather than scrapping it for everybody?

[Jesse Norman]

Of course those are two entirely separate things. To remove a relief is to remove a very blunt and general instrument that is, by its bluntness and generality, open to abuse. In this case, it had the contradictory effect of potentially disincentivising repairs, because people focused on extensions, which was directly contrary to the purpose of the legislation. However, as has been recognised with the listed places of worship fund, there can be scope for a more targeted intervention through funds rather than tax reliefs. That is the other option we were given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet.

As my hon. Friend knows better than probably any other Member, VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption, and the standard rate of 20% applies to the vast majority of goods and services. There are exceptions to the standard rate, but they are strictly limited by domestic law as well as by fiscal considerations. Hon. Members will appreciate that we are not short of requests for VAT relief in the Treasury. We have VAT reliefs for repairs and improvements, but of course that includes repairs to damage caused by floods or by the desperate events that have necessitated re-cladding of buildings for health and safety reasons. In total, we are presently dealing with about £40 billion of requests for relief, many of them triggered by the recognition that we are leaving the EU and seeking to exploit that fact for other purposes. We must place this proposal in that category.

It is estimated that introducing a relief for the repair and maintenance of all buildings would cost the Exchequer something like £4 billion a year. We do not have an estimate for listed buildings, but, as was pointed out, there are more than 450,000 of them in the UK, so such a relief would undoubtedly be very substantial in quantum. Of course, that is a constraint on what we can do.

Let me address the remarks by the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who was commendably direct and straight about what exists: the 5% rate for the recovery of properties that have been empty for two years. She is absolutely right to point out the target issue versus the dead-weight cost, which I also highlighted. She is also right about our concerns, reflecting wider considerations on the state of the economy, and the need for a better understanding of the factual base for reliefs. Perhaps I can give her some comfort.

As the hon. Lady pointed out in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who is no longer in his place, there is a relief available for the installation of energy-saving materials on residential properties, whether listed or unlisted. As she mentioned, we have measures to incentivise the use of listed buildings for residential purposes, as well as to increase the overall number of dwellings. Those measures cover listed buildings, so there is scope to support them in some circumstances.

I turn to some of the specific points made. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet pointed out that the relief is not directly comparable to its predecessor. The question of targeting is therefore central to what we have discussed. There is fairness, because listed and unlisted buildings are treated in the same way. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said that the task for us all is to protect the homes that people live in, and of course an enormously larger number of people live in unlisted homes than in listed homes. The tax system tries to respect and acknowledge that intuition. It would be difficult to narrow the scope of a relief. Therefore, if one was to go down the path of a fund—my hon. Friend could raise that for a future fiscal event—such an approach could be a much closer fit and be accommodated within existing planning frameworks.

A point was made about anomalies. Of course, the tax system is full of anomalies and the question in many ways is which anomalies one seeks to eliminate—my hon. Friend wryly chuckles. Many of those anomalies exist in the nature of reliefs, and it would be an odd Financial Secretary indeed who wished to resolve an anomaly by creating another relief.

As a Government, we are committed to supporting the preservation of historic buildings and homes and the social and cultural contribution they make to our shared history. It is boilerplate but important to say that the Treasury keeps all taxes under review and is always willing to hear the case for what can be improved and refined. Even though we do not, at this time and for the reasons given, plan to change the VAT treatment of renovations or repairs, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns and he is right to raise this. He will be pleased that Highways England is conducting a supplementary consultation on the lower Thames crossing to make sure that any benefits are maximised. The consultation will close on 25 March, and I will then look at it carefully. I would encourage him to have his say.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

As a former teacher, I know that a good education is a key driver to economic opportunities for young people, but sixth forms have been heavily damaged by years of under-investment. Will the Chancellor commit to implementing the recent recommendation from the Education Committee and Ofsted to raise the rate of funding per pupil to at least £4,760 in next month’s Budget?

[Rishi Sunak]

Post-16 education and skills are a priority for the Chancellor and the Government. I am pleased to say that the recent spending round delivers a £400 million increase in funding for post-16 education, which makes it the fastest rise in a decade and means that the per pupil base rate that the hon. Lady mentions will go up faster than the schools total.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Funding

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this excellent debate. As a former secondary school teacher, I know that not providing properly for children with special educational needs impacts on the whole school environment. All our children deserve a good education, and at the core of that is how we deal with and provide for those who need support. It impacts on all children if we do not support those with special educational needs.

I want to draw attention quickly to the situation in Bath and North East Somerset. Like the rest of the country, we deal with a growing number of children who require SEND provision, with less funding to do so. More than 1,350 children now need support via an EHCP, compared with just over 800 in 2013. That is partly due to the widening age range of zero to 25—previously it was five to 18. However, it is also because of the expectations that SEND reforms have created, and rising levels of need in BANES. It is most likely linked to autism, and to social, emotional and mental health difficulties.

My main concern is the lack of general direction around SEND. The performance regime that schools must follow means that there is now a low incentive for inclusion in mainstream schools for children with SEND. For BANES Council, there are three things that the Government can do to improve the situation. First, they must provide the local authority with the finance it needs in the high needs budget and provide appropriate funding for the delivery of local authority services. Secondly, they can be clearer and more specific about the role of schools in supporting children with SEND, and link that to school performance and inspection regimes.

Finally, the Government should seek to reward schools that are successful in being inclusive of children needing SEND provision. There are, as has been said, perverse disincentives for doing so—particularly, for example, when children move from junior to senior school. Because it takes so long to secure the funding, often children do not get that at the end of their time in junior school, because the school itself will not benefit from the extra funding. I therefore urge the Government also to look at children’s transition from one school to the next.

Economy and Jobs

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The good news for our citizens, whether in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales, is that our infrastructure revolution and the funds we intend to use to build new infrastructure will benefit every part of the United Kingdom. When we set out our plans and provide more detail in the forthcoming Budget, there will no doubt be a lot more investment in Scotland.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The climate emergency is real, and we need to transfer quickly to energy resources that are not fossil fuels. That means we need a much bigger electricity grid. Is part of the Chancellor’s proposals for new infrastructure about how we actually get to a fourfold increase in electricity and the infrastructure that needs to go with that?

[Sajid Javid]

The infrastructure revolution will include significant new investment in our ambition—the statutory requirement to get to net zero by 2050, and also our ambition to make great strides towards that. If she will allow me, I will get in a few moments to the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), which touches on the all-important issue of climate change.

We will invest in infrastructure in every corner and nation of the United Kingdom. We will invest in roads, in railways and in broadband so that our country can boast the most formidable connectivity on the planet.

We will put significant investment into one of the most critical challenges we face, and that is climate change. Our strategy will take huge strides towards achieving our world-leading commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We will invest in new technologies and markets as we look ahead to the critical COP26 talks later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I assure the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that no Government Member wants to degrade the rights or the dignity of working people—quite the opposite. We are not interested in turning us into some bargain-basement economy by lowering standards.

This Parliament seems to have a much calmer atmosphere. We seem to have passed through a hurricane, and we now have a solid majority. However, some would claim that we are simply in the eye of the storm and that another hurricane will hit us over a so-called hard Brexit and a failure to achieve a free trade deal. I doubt whether the free trade deal will be so difficult to achieve. After all, we start with exactly the same rules, regulations, tariffs and everything. If there is good will on both sides, as there certainly is on ours, I see no difficulty in achieving the free trade deal.

Much has been made of what the Food and Drink Federation said this week, but I see no difficulty there. Are we going to downgrade the Lincolnshire sausage compared with the Bavarian sausage? Are we going to produce low-grade orange juice? Of course not—we will keep our standards. I look at the Chancellor when I say this: there is use in the Government making it absolutely clear, when it comes to environmental standards, working rights and ensuring that we have good-quality products, that we are absolutely top-notch in the world and that we will not downgrade any of our standards. What would be absolutely intolerable is to sign up to a deal that says that for ever more, we have to follow rules made by another jurisdiction. That would be absurd, which is why I am opposed to remaining permanently in some kind of single market or customs union. I know that the Chancellor will be absolutely robust in resisting that, but the free trade deal can and will be achieved, because we are a party of free trade. We are open to the world—that is what we believe in. I am not a believer in a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit; I believe in a Brexit that is good for business—a business Brexit—and I am sure that the Chancellor does, too.

How will we increase our competitiveness in Europe and the world as Brexit takes place, if we are to maintain these excellent standards? I suggest, by way of a Budget submission to the Chancellor, who is sitting on the Front Bench, that we could learn lessons from the past. I think I have now sat through over 40 Budgets in this Chamber, and most have been frankly unimpressive. They have looked to the next day’s headlines in spending a bit more money here and there. The one Budget that really impressed me was Nigel Lawson’s Budget in 1988, because he had a vision. It was a vision of a lower-tax economy from a Chancellor who was determined to strip away the mass of allowances and ensure that we no longer had the longest tax code in the world after India. I remember when the Chancellor arrived as a fresh-faced young Back Bencher in 2010, a man who had been a success in the City of London, and I saw him as a Thatcherite. I want him to remember those early days and at the next Budget to take a leaf out of Nigel Lawson’s Budget.

Nigel Lawson said, “If you reward enterprise, you get more of it”. We are a Conservative Government with a solid majority. Have we got the courage of our convictions? Nigel Lawson reduced the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40%. Throughout the period of the Labour Government, they kept that top rate at 40%, except in the dying days when Gordon Brown increased it to 45%, and it is still at 45%. There is no economic justification for it, nor was there for George Osborne’s attack on young entrepreneurs through national insurance. Has the Chancellor got the courage in this Budget to do what Nigel Lawson did, to be a visionary and to start simplifying our tax system and rewarding enterprise? I would be very happy to give way to him, if he wants to make that clear. As I said to the shadow Chancellor, given that 30% of all income tax receipts come from the top 1% of income tax payers, I accept that it will be impossible, probably, to ever achieve the dream of a truly flat-rate tax system, but we can simplify it and gradually flatten taxes. Businesses are employing thousands of accountants to help them avoid taxation. Why can we not simplify our taxation system? I hope we can make progress on that.

I hope we can be a radical Government in other respects. I hope we do not feel we have to ape the Opposition in promising more and more public money. Of course, we have to spend more on the NHS—we have an ageing population with more and more treatments coming on stream—but we have to be a radical Government in trying to deliver outcomes. What is important is not what we spend on the NHS or social care, but the outcome, so we must not be afraid of promoting within the NHS private sector solutions that deliver more efficiency. What do the public care about? They care about their operation and treatment being on time. How that is delivered is not really a priority for them. I feel in his heart of hearts that the Chancellor agrees and is committed to achieving free-enterprise solutions.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I remember that the Liberal party in its heyday was a party of free trade and liberalism, so I hope this intervention will be part of that.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the many vulnerable people who need help who come to my surgery, and whom I see on a daily basis, need good public services?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course they need good public services, and we are a party of good public services, but we do not believe that the only way of improving public services is by increasing spending in real terms year in, year out. The best way to downgrade productivity and efficiency in the public services is by rapidly increasing spending without tight cost controls on outcomes. I am sure I can rely on the Treasury in that regard.

Where the Opposition have a point, and where we do have an argument, is that some of the big companies, particularly the American digital companies and tech giants, are not paying their fair share of tax. There is also an increasing feeling in this country—this is the one nation point—that the employment rights of some of the people at the bottom of the heap are being downgraded. The Conservative party has an historic opportunity to build on its alliance with working people to improve standards, workers’ rights and the ability of those big companies to pay taxes, and we can do that while also being an enterprise Government and rewarding hard work. By doing that, we can achieve a great deal.

The last part of the jigsaw—this alliance with working people—is the question: why do they vote Conservative? Why did they vote for Brexit? It is because they are fed up with cheap labour being imported into this country and fed up with their rights and employment opportunities being downgraded. If the Chancellor is now looking to the world in terms of immigration, let him ensure that we will no longer downgrade the rights of workers in this country by importing cheap labour. Let us have good-quality labour—people who have something real to contribute.

I believe that there is a real, historic opportunity for the Conservative party to build on this alliance with the working people in the north of England who have felt forgotten for so long. That opportunity is here, and I am confident that this Chancellor will deliver it.

Breathing Space Scheme

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it is merely a question of remaining seated. After that Socratic dialogue, we will leave it for now. The hon. Gentleman can bank his PMQ. Very well done.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Financial difficulties are considered an adverse childhood experience. Facing problem debt in the family as a child can perpetuate cycles of poor mental health, low achievement, poor employment opportunities, prison, drug addiction and so on. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) earlier drew attention to ACEs. Will the Minister assure me that the breathing space scheme will include advisers being trained in adverse childhood experiences and trauma, so that the problems of financial hardships are not perpetuated into the next generation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting question, and I will look carefully at the taxation of the national lottery and any future lotteries.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Anti-idling rules are a good start in reducing air pollution, but local authorities need the legal powers and resources to enforce them. Would the Treasury consider making new money available to local authorities to stop cars idling?

[Robert Jenrick]

The Government have committed £3.5 billion to improving air quality for the entire population, and I understand that that involves Bath and North East Somerset Council receiving nearly £6.5 million. I understand that the council is also expected to bid for part of the £220 million clean air fund, and I wish it luck with its application.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend will know that the loan charge was brought into effect in 2016. It allowed three years for individuals to clean up the loans—if they were loans, they could be refinanced on a proper, commercial basis—or to come to an arrangement with HMRC. The most important message that I can give from the Dispatch Box today to those involved in these schemes is to get out of avoidance, to get in touch with HMRC and to settle their affairs. They will have a sympathetic and proportionate hearing.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on the adequacy of funding for adult education.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

We fully fund adults to take English and Maths to level 2. From 2020, we will also be funding them for basic digital skills. Those are the vital skills that people need to get a job and get on in life.

[Wera Hobhouse]

In the last 10 years, total enrolment of adults in further education colleges has dropped by 62%, including at Bath College in my constituency. Enrolment in health and social care is down by 68%; in engineering, it is down by 68%; and in construction, it is down by 37%. Does the Minister agree that this situation is of huge concern and that the Treasury must look at serious reinvestment in adult skills as part of the upcoming spending review?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We do fund the core courses that are going to help people get work and get on in life, but we also provide adult learner loans so that people can help shape their own future. In 2017-18, we spent £220 million on those loans.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In this House and across our families and communities, we would love this country to come together and unify. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the vagueness of the declaration on the future relationship is making that entirely impossible? Rather than healing the divisions, it will keep them rumbling on for years and years.

[John McDonnell]

I watched the hon. Lady’s contribution to the previous debate; it was interesting how her words coincided with those of Government Members. The use of the words “best endeavours”, “ambitions” and “sought for” gave such uncertainty that it was impossible for the general public and others to understand the direction in which the Government are going in the long term. I concur with the hon. Lady’s view.

I must press on. It is not just Labour Members who are pointing out issues with the finance sector; Members from all parties are doing so, including some on the Government Benches. That view is backed up by economists of many viewpoints in their assessment of the Prime Minister’s deal—including, it seems, the Government’s own. The official analysis produced last week was far short of what was promised, as we said at the time. It took as its starting point the Chequers proposals, which have long been discarded. In doing so, it failed to live up to the standards of transparency that we should expect when engaging in critical decisions such as this.

Even in what they did publish, the Government admitted last week—as the Chancellor has again today, I believe—that their deal would make Britain worse off. In the closest scenario to the possible deal, we could see GDP nearly 4% lower as a result of the Government’s approach to Brexit. To put that in context, this year that would be around £83 billion. In the long term, the damage is likely to be even greater. Worryingly, the Chancellor described £83 billion being wiped off our economy as a “very small economic impact”. Maybe there will be many “little extras” to follow in future.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his speech, on his prudent and sensible stewardship of our economy at this difficult time and on the extraordinarily clear way in which he expressed his intent?

I should remind the House that I was a staunch remainer. I campaigned vigorously to remain, and I would certainly do so again. I am proud that my constituency voted to remain by 53%. I am personally deeply saddened by the result of the referendum, and I believe that our wonderful country made an historically bad decision that we will long regret. However, the country voted to leave the European Union in the referendum of 2016—the biggest democratic exercise in our history. I am first and foremost a democrat, and I believe strongly that that vote must be honoured.

At the time of the referendum, the then Prime Minister, my friend David Cameron, assured the country that the result would be respected. I echoed that assurance at the last election and confirmed that, however much I regretted it, I must support the democratically expressed wish of my country. I wish to make it clear that, while there are serious disagreements on both sides of the House, I believe we all have the best interests as we see them of our country at heart, and that we fight the good fight with confidence but also proper respect for those who hold long-standing views that are very different.

I was very taken with the speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the beginning of the debate, and I wish to pay the warmest tribute to her for her tremendous courage, doggedness, diligence and determination to arrive at a deal in the national interest. I believe that she has achieved in this withdrawal agreement an essentially pragmatic compromise, which she rightly justifies as being a realistic conclusion of that which is possible. I hope the House realises that there will not be a better deal on offer and that, if this arrangement is voted down, no different deal will miraculously appear and there will be a profound period of uncertainty and risk that we might crash out with no deal, which would, by common consent, be a disaster for our country.

At the end of the day, this withdrawal agreement will leave almost nobody satisfied, but it gives all sides of the argument something. It is not a perfect deal, and it was never going to be, for that is the nature of a complex negotiation. It is indeed a compromise, and it would be a fatal mistake, as the Prime Minister said, to let the search for the perfect Brexit prevent a good Brexit.

It is also important for the House to acknowledge that the Prime Minister, by ignoring the strident noises off, under immense pressure from all sides of our own party and the House, has managed to temper these negotiations in such a way as to ensure that we will be able, in time, to retain the closest partnership with our European friends and allies. However, I remain deeply anxious that a no-deal Brexit or a second referendum, which would likely be inconclusive after a vicious and harsh campaign, might push Britain into the kind of loathsome and hateful partisan bitterness that now so disfigures American public life and is so damaging to its democratic settlement and political discourse. We do not want that in this country.

What will be achieved by support for the withdrawal agreement is one thing, but as the House knows, there are years of hard and difficult negotiations ahead. After the most careful thought, I have concluded that what is proposed in the withdrawal agreement substantially delivers on the referendum result and must thus be honoured. It is clear that, under these arrangements, the United Kingdom will be leaving the political union, ending free movement, leaving the customs union, leaving the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy, ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and regaining the chimera of our sovereignty. The agreement is thus entirely deserving of the House’s support.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech that he believes the country made a mistake in the referendum that it will regret. How can he, in his conscience, not continue with that argument and persuade people that the best place for us is within the European Union?

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

I tried at length in my own inept way to explain why that was the case. I believe that the Government must honour the result of the referendum, democratically expressed in the biggest electoral exercise that this country has ever had, and not to do so would be a disgrace. In my view, this plan has very carefully and very cleverly managed to separate Britain from the European Union—46 years of combined earnest endeavour and legislation—with, frankly, miraculously minimum damage to each side. We need to keep it that way for this is a golden prize, given the circumstances. It would be extremely ill-judged to throw it away, which, above all, would be contrary to our national interest.

I am confident that we can then move on to building a stable future framework, as clearly set out by the Chancellor, which will formalise the great importance of our future relationship with our European friends, allies and partners. There is only one agreed proposal on the table. We owe it to our country to lay aside our differences, to accept that our great national traditions of pragmatism, common sense and compromise have never been more vital than now and then to come together, as the Prime Minister said, as “one Union of four nations”, to reassert the confidence that we should most definitely have in the opportunities that lie ahead for our nation’s future, if only we can grasp this nettle and move on. It will be the experience of many right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House of Commons that most of our fellow citizens devoutly wish us to get this done and to focus on the things that they really care and worry about daily—schools, policing, the national health service, transport, the environment and just getting from A to B—and all the other issues that, inevitably, have not had the attention they should have had as the Government have had to focus so much of their necessary effort on coming to this moment.

I am approaching the end of my parliamentary life. I am truly sad beyond words that our wonderful country has reached this pass, but I feel very strongly that we really must not reject this agreement and thus go back to square one, which would mean perhaps another deeply divisive and very unhappy referendum. In turn, that would mean the most damaging uncertainty economically and continuing division that will inevitably threaten the jobs and lives of our constituents and investment in our economy. I am afraid above all that the House would earn the undying contempt of the British people if it does not have the courage and vision to grasp this deal, however we may feel about it, in the interests of the greater good.

I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House remember Lewis Carroll’s wonderful poem, “The Hunting of the Snark”. It includes these lines, which I believe are appropriate:

“But the principal failing occurred in the sailing,

And the Bellman, perplexed and distressed,

Said he had hoped, at least, when the wind blew due East,

That the ship would not travel due West!”

To coin a phrase from a greater, kinder and more resolute period in our national life, “Come, let us go forward together and settle this now”.