Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend is nothing if not persistent, but we are not able to vary air passenger duty under EU state aid rules for different regions of the United Kingdom, including the south-west. That will change, or may, depending on the final state of things once we have left the European Union, but we have taken action in government: we have frozen short-haul rates for eight years in a row and exempted children going on family holidays, including to the south-west.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response. He is well aware of the issue for Northern Ireland—the disadvantage that we have and the advantage that the Republic of Ireland has. Dublin airport has grown tremendously over the last period of time, so has he had any opportunity to speak to those in charge of Belfast International airport or Belfast City airport to gauge their opinion on how we can grow the economy?

Private Parking: Ports and Trading Estates

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I shall give the House one more example on exactly that point. The issue for the Government to consider is that the actions of Proserve and companies like it are not isolated to Felixstowe. This is occurring throughout the United Kingdom. Specifically in Felixstowe, however, we know that jobs are reliant not only on the port and that many other jobs in Suffolk are linked through the haulage industry. As we look towards Brexit, the position of Felixstowe as the UK’s premier container port and the importance of Britain’s trade and its exporting and importing capacity is something that the Government should take into account. The behaviour of Proserve is undermining the competitiveness of Felixstowe, and it is potentially putting jobs at risk in Suffolk and elsewhere in the UK that are linked to the port. This is something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He is right to say that these things are happening not only in Felixstowe; they are happening elsewhere as well, and clearly no one is safe. Does he agree that excessive private parking enforcement carried out with no sensitivity can cause great distress in what can already be distressing circumstances? One of my constituents was hounded by a private parking company for a fine that was incurred when she was parked at a commercial harbour in Northern Ireland. She had had a heart attack and was taken away by ambulance, so she could not move her car. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that example and others like it show why people and companies get annoyed and angry? These private parking enforcement companies should not be a law unto themselves. They need to be brought under the control of legislation and the rule of law.

[Dr Poulter]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We know from the behaviour of Proserve and from the example that he has just raised that these companies are often operating without any legal framework, and that there is no proper appeals process available to the victims of those companies. I have been talking about the commercial environment, but I believe that he was talking more from a private citizen’s perspective. However, the examples are certainly comparable. This is borne out even further by my next example.

Bartrums is a large haulage company in Eye, in the north of Suffolk. Andrew Watton, its chief executive officer, has told me:

“For a number of years, Bartrums haulage have been dogged by over-zealous parking enforcement to the point of almost extortion”—

by Proserve in Felixstowe.

“This enforcement company is not part of any parking enforcement association and therefore has no appeals process to the fines for which they impose. The fines and charges are excessive and when you complain or challenge the penalty via Bidwell’s”—

the managing agents—

“you are then charged an additional management fee. Hauliers who fail to make payment of the fine imposed are then banned from site (an area which makes up a substantial proportion of Felixstowe Port). The fines are imposed for stopping anywhere on the carriageway across the controlled area. The fines are in the region of £250…This is under the offence of trespass. Many hauliers across the UK are victim to this sharp practice and growing in number. We have now got to the point of taking group action against Trinity College directly, as previous legal actions against Proserve have failed. This is a restrictive practice, and some select local hauliers in the local area are exempt from these fines, which is anti-competitive.”

As I mentioned earlier, companies may be exempted from these fines because they pay Proserve a fee in order to be given better treatment. That does not sound like a fair or ethical way of running a parking enforcement company in a port the size of Felixstowe. It sounds like extortion, because if the hauliers do not pay, they get fined. I hope that the Minister will be able to look into this.

Andrew Watton continued:

“Trinity are obliged to look at mitigating these charges, which they have failed to do.”

Trinity College’s failure to engage with the process throughout has been woeful.

I want to give one last example. FTS Hatswell Ltd tells me:

“Proserve is a company who work on behalf of the landowners at Trinity Distribution Park…They are issuing trespass notices and heavy fines even if you stop to ask for directions. Last week I got a call from another Haulier whose driver stopped as he had hit something lying in the road”.

Yet he still got a fine and a trespass notice. The company continued:

“FTS Hatswell Limited are currently banned from both sites”

that Proserve runs,

“and even the BP garage by the estate. They are not able to obtain owner details from the DVLA as they don’t belong to a parking enforcement body.”

The challenge for the Minister is to meet the three tests that I have set out. Clearly, a parking enforcement company is behaving unethically and affecting hauliers all over the UK. It affects the productivity and functioning of Felixstowe port, which is the biggest container port in the country. I know that the Government will want to address that, given the looming decisions on Brexit and the importance of overseas trade.

Setting aside the inertia and disappointing behaviour of Trinity College and its agents, Bidwells, there are many concerns that need to be addressed. First, the Government need to ensure that all commercial car parking companies are properly regulated and signed up to a trade body and an appeals regulator, who can consider their actions fairly and ensure fairness and transparency in the appeals process. Secondly, we need to ensure that Suffolk Trading Standards is supported to take appropriate action against Proserve, and Bidwells and Trinity College. Thirdly, we should investigate setting up a proper regulatory system for commercial parking enforcement to support the haulage industry and prevent the unethical and anti-competitive behaviour of companies such as Proserve.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and thank her for taking the time to listen to the points I have raised on behalf of the haulage industry in Suffolk and elsewhere.

Cat Welfare

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Rehman Chishti]

I am so glad that I gave way, because the hon. Lady talked about Cats Protection, which I have met with and which has written to other Members and me. I was delighted to attend its Christmas parliamentary reception, along with other colleagues here. It does amazing work, and it is important that we work with it to ensure that we get the right kind of framework.

I was making the point that we could look at several cat welfare issues, but I will focus on two: the compulsory microchipping of all cats and reporting after an accident.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. When I got married some 32 years ago, my wife loved cats but I perhaps did not. However, as I continued to love my wife, I continued to love her cats as well. That is how life is. She is a volunteer and worker at the Assisi Animal Sanctuary, which does excellent work for cats and dogs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that charities such as Assisi do a phenomenal job in caring for stray cats and in providing sterilisation and other deterrents that he referred to? No matter how good a job it does, we in the House must do ours, and to an equally high standard. Unfortunately, I believe that thus far we are not achieving that.

[Rehman Chishti]

I completely agree. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done some brilliant work, but we have an immense amount more to do. I also agree on the first point. The hon. Gentleman has an amazing wife, who made him become a cat lover and animal lover. I am not married yet, but if I get married, I will need somebody who likes cats, so that we can get a cat. Coming in and out of London, I do not have time to have a cat; we are talking about animal welfare, and cats must be given time. That is key. His point about supporting and doing the right thing as parliamentarians—not simply talking about something but pushing for the right framework to be put in place—is absolutely right.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

That is hardly surprising, given that we have the biggest aviation hub in Europe and one of the biggest in the world.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It was said earlier that all the regions in the United Kingdom would support the backstop. Members of the Democratic Unionist party in the House do not support the withdrawal agreement. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise—I suspect that he does—that Unionists feel alienated by proposals that will weaken our position in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because the EU will have the final say on what happens in relation to the single market and the customs union over Northern Ireland?

[Mr Davis]

Let me reinforce the point that I made to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman): I told the Prime Minister that last December, as everyone now knows.

I do not take a utopian or a dystopian view of the WTO option. There are Conservative Members who think that it will be the best option in the long run, because it is the freest in terms of outcomes, and there are those who fear it as a complete disaster. I think that it is neither. There has been an enormous amount of black propaganda about the outcome of the WTO proposal. A month or two ago, we heard that the supplies of insulin would dry up. No, they will not. We talked to pharmaceutical companies and to the NHS, and they did their checks. No drugs will dry up, full stop. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) mentioned aviation. We were told that planes would be grounded, but a European Commission briefing document showed in January 2018 that there would be EU-wide contingency measures ensuring no stoppage of aviation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).

Members will have noted during this week’s business a most sincere and clear lack of pleasure from the Democratic Unionist party in what is happening. I was not pleased to learn that the legal opinion of the Attorney General was not to be made public; I was not pleased to learn that the Attorney General shares my concerns about the undesirable features of the backstop; and I had no pleasure in the vindication of our demand for the legal opinion, as it backed up my biggest fears.

The legal opinion is clear that the protocol is

“binding on the United Kingdom and the European Union in international law… NI remains in the EU’s Customs Union, and will apply the whole of the EU’s customs acquis… Northern Ireland will remain in the EU’s Single Market for Goods and the EU’s customs regime, and will be required to apply and to comply with the relevant rules and standards.”

It is little wonder that constituents in my fishing village of Portavogie have always been clear that they want fewer restrictions and they want to be less encumbered and less prevented from fishing in their own waters. In Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel we have been on the frontline of EU aggression and bureaucracy.

About the insurance policy, Ministers have told us, “We don’t want it and they don’t want it.” Well, if none of us really wants it, why is it there? That is the question I ask myself.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

No, I will not give way.

Why is the insurance policy almost the only thing that has been agreed? If it will not be necessary, why have we spent 18 months discussing this and little else? I am not a fisherman by nature, but I know codswallop when I see it, and that is what this is. And for good measure there is the £40 billion. My goodness, who in their right mind would do that? It is unbelievable.

What rational person would think that Europe, which has fought so hard for this and which has pinned all its bargaining and all its red lines on this one insurance policy to ensure there is no legal form of leaving this international treaty unilaterally without consent, will ever decide to allow us to walk away when there is no mechanism legally to compel it to come to an agreement? Not me and, let us be honest, not anyone in this House. Please forgive me for expressing some disgust in a promise made by some in this House that has then been denied us—those Members, and the Government, know exactly who I am referring to.

We are small but we are part of this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I sincerely believe that we can and will survive the Brexit process, but only if we stand together. The Belfast agreement clearly says that Northern Ireland remains in the UK until a majority vote to leave is plain. It states:

“Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority”.

Yet the Attorney General clearly states that we are now a third country. So can that be legally acceptable? I say no.

The red line that my party has—I have heard Members referring to this—is not in red pen; it is in the blood of family members, people such as my cousin Kenneth Smith, of neighbours, of colleagues and of constituents—of your constituents and mine. They have shed blood to defend the right to democracy and to determine that nothing can enforce a united Ireland other than the will of the people. The Government have created the potential for an all-Ireland. Members must be very clear about what I am saying here, as I mean this. They must see the mistrust I have for the Government at this moment in time. They have drawn a dust sheet over the lines drawn in the precious blood of so many I loved. This Government are proposing to allow my beloved Northern Ireland to become a violated, voiceless, vetoless victim of Europe’s desperate grasp for control over our UK.

So next Tuesday, I am going to stand up for my people, and I urge others to do the same. I will stand up for our own nation and for our own good. I urge the Government to go back to Europe with the courage of their conviction that this UK will be no one’s vassal state and that Northern Ireland’s blood-bought birthright is not for sale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

It is certainly true that there has been some movement on this issue. Originally it was envisaged that the backstop had to be permanent. Now the agreement is clear that it is designed to be a temporary measure. We should understand that, if we do not like the whole concept of the backstop here, it is also not liked in continental Europe. That should be the biggest incentive we have to never get there and to reach a trade agreement on a future partnership.

I was struck by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who made a point that is worth reflecting upon. Had David Cameron brought this country back a deal that said, “You can be outside the single market, the customs union, the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy, make no contribution and end free movement,” I wonder what the reaction would have been at that point in history. That is the agreement we are talking about today. I know that I, for one, would have been biting his right hand off for an agreement like that.

[Jim Shannon]

In December 2017, I sought assurance from the Prime Minister and her reply to me was:

“I am very clear that we will not be a member of the single market or the customs union, and we were not proposing that any part of the United Kingdom will be a member of the single market or the customs union separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. The whole of the United Kingdom”—

that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—

“will be out of the internal market and the customs union.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 48.]

It is understandable why, when I see the legal agreement, which says something completely different, I greatly mistrust what I am told by those in government at this moment in time.

[Dr Fox]

The Government have the best interests of the whole Union at heart, which is why, for example, when we negotiate trade agreements, they are for the whole United Kingdom and not partial. The question was raised yesterday at the International Trade Committee whether the Government would implement during the backstop any trade agreement with the rest of the United Kingdom but not Northern Ireland. That would be very difficult to justify, exactly on the terms that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

One of the most interesting speeches of the day was that of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). In reply to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), he said that the backstop would not be needed under Labour’s plans because there would be a customs union. That is patently untrue. The regulatory gradient that would exist would not remove the need for a border and would address neither the anxieties of the Irish Government nor those of us in the United Kingdom who believe in the integrity of the Union.

The right hon. Gentleman said that Labour would negotiate a “comprehensive customs union”, with a say in future trade agreements. Let me tell him what nonsense that is. Under EU law, the EU has exclusive competence over its common commercial policy, which includes trade agreements under article 207. The EU treaties set out clear provisions for concluding EU FTAs that provide a role for EU member states and the European Parliament. Those treaty provisions do not permit a non-EU member state—even one in a customs union with the EU—to play a decision-making role in concluding EU trade agreements. That was nonsense. It was another piece of ill-conceived Labour fantasy.

What we have heard today from those on the Labour Front Bench is an ill-researched, ill-understood, unrealistic and incredible policy. As we all know, Labour—to the great irritation of their socialist allies across Europe—are simply playing politics with this issue, at a time of great national decision making. They are out of their depth and not up to task.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is entirely correct in recalling what I said at the outset of the debate. That was a repeat of what I had said yesterday, which could brook no misunderstanding. Off the top of my head, and I do not think it is proper to air it here on the Floor of the House anyway, I am not sure to whom he is referring. Suffice it to say, unless there is a peculiarly compelling reason why somebody has to absent him or herself, and can therefore not be present for the wind-up speeches, Members who choose to speak in a debate should then be present for the wind-up speeches. The hon. Gentleman has registered his point with some force and obvious sincerity, and I respect what he has said.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How do we put on record our thanks to you for your perseverance in chairing three days of these debates and, I have to say, for your incredible bladder? Mine would never be as good as yours.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. As far as I am concerned, it is a great honour and privilege to occupy this Chair. The matter that we have been discussing is perhaps the most important and momentous subject that we have debated in decades, and it may well prove to be the single most important issue that we will discuss here in the course of our careers, so for me as Speaker to seek to ensure that the maximum number of colleagues can participate and to have the opportunity to listen to all the points of view is, as I say, an honour and a privilege. I do not look for any thanks, but the hon. Gentleman is characteristically gracious, and I accept his warm remarks in the spirit in which they are intended. Thank you. We come now to the Adjournment—

Affordable Credit for People on Low Incomes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Frank Field]

Indeed; we will try to draw the Minister on that. Part of the leaflet concerns short-term loans, saying that the APR is 535.3%; I hope Members of Parliament know what APR—annual percentage rate—is. I will not press the question, but the Minister has one degree from Oxford and one from Cambridge, so I wonder, if we were looking at a £300 loan and had to pay it back within three months, what the loan would cost and what the rate of interest would be. I am not going to pause; I will give the answers. It is one of those very easy quiz games, but a horror quiz game, because if the repayment is over three months, Provident wants £429 back at an annual interest rate equivalent to 1,557.7%. That is just one example. Constituents borrowing £350 and paying it back over 12 months have to pay back £655.20.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for all the hard work he does and the high regard in which he is held in this House when it comes to poverty issues for people across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just in Birkenhead. I thank him for that. Does he agree that there must be a viable alternative to the payday loans he is referring to? Could the credit union, which is growing in my constituency and has been extremely helpful to people on low incomes, be the safe and regulated alternative, bearing in mind that it encourages responsible lending and responsible saving hand in hand?

[Frank Field]

I totally agree with that. I suggest that there is no silver bullet. Clearly, credit unions have a part to play, but they are not as thriving in Birkenhead as they are in others parts of the country. Therefore, we need a whole strategy of policies, so that the geographical chance of life neither protects people nor leaves them vulnerable and unprotected. If someone has a really good, strong credit union and they are a member of it, that is good news, but if there is no credit union, or if their pattern of behaviour does not easily fit into what the credit union requires, it is difficult for them. I want to draw the Minister on that later in the debate.

The leaflets that are now going out in our constituencies claim that there are no late payment fees. I am pleased to be able to say that, unlike other companies that lend people money when they are extremely vulnerable, there is no evidence at all that the people coming for repayment come with baseball bats to enforce that repayment. But of course, Provident has another strategy, so it does not have to do that. To use another example, one of the volunteers in the Feeding Britain network tells us that one of her friends who got close to paying off her debt with Provident was immediately offered another loan. If someone has problems repaying, they are offered other loans, so the loans mount up and become very substantial, and if they are towards the end, Provident tries to make it part of their working-class economy that they should have loans, by suggesting that they should take another loan.

I thought that, before I come to what I would like to see as part of the Government’s strategy, I would talk about the hard sell. One mother went on to the website to see what the loans prospects were. Having merely gone on to the website, she said that she was being called up eight times a day until she took out a loan. There is quite a hard sell here. As well as picking on areas that are vulnerable because universal credit is being rolled out and picking on the vulnerable areas across the country in periods such as Christmas and the summer holidays, there is a real danger that merely inquiring about a loan means that people then get the hard sell.

What about the strivers? For example, we had two people in work and two children who borrowed £100 from Birkenhead, and they were anxious about paying bills and feeding those children. They ended up having to pay back a few pennies less than £500. We have also seen the Scarlet Pimpernel effect in Birkenhead. If someone googles loans, Google throws up, in the first instance, those loan companies that are likely to cost them the most to borrow from. Will the Minister look at whether there is a case for saying that Google should display what we could all agree are the best companies to deal with, not those with the highest charges?

ATM Closures

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on bringing forward an issue that is important for every one of us here. It is a particularly important issue for me, as I have fought for ATM retention in many places across my constituency, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, mostly due to bank closures. I will use the time available today to do that.

For those who hail from a rural constituency, the availability of free-to-use ATMs is essential. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) have both outlined the importance of that. In recent times, bank closures have severely affected rural communities, particularly those in my constituency, where I think we have had seven bank closures. I live on the Ards peninsula, and the effect of the closures on the rural community is intense. When the banks close, often no ATMs are retained because the building is sold and there is nowhere to put it, which is very frustrating. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) made a salient point: whenever the banks move out of the villages and toward the town centres, the business moves with them, meaning that villages and small places come under intense pressure.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just bank closures but post office closures that have that effect? Although the closure programme for small post offices has been completed, two post offices in my constituency have closed because the sub-postmasters have resigned and they cannot get anyone else to do it. The Payment Systems Regulator, which told me that cash is available at post offices, has not taken that into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We have not had so many post office closures in my constituency—we have been able to defray those by moving post offices into shops and so on—but I know that the effect on rural communities is immense. On the Ards peninsula we recently lost the Ulster Bank branch in Kircubbin, with a mobile bank in place at present.

The British Bankers Association investigated lending data and found that bank closures dampen lending growth to small and medium-sized enterprises by a massive 63%. I am sure that other hon. Members can reflect that. The figure rose to 104% in areas that had lost their last bank. We must consider the impact on SMEs, because it is a significant and damaging drop in funding for areas already under commercial and economic pressure.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that between 150 and 250 ATMs are closing per month in Northern Ireland, as the Belfast Telegraph recently reported, is causing major difficulties, especially for pensioners and those not able to get out?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend makes a salient evidential point, which contributes greatly to the debate. The removal of any ATM services will have a further, extreme impact on rural communities and convenience shops. It must be remembered that currently there remain more cash transactions than any other method. We need to ensure that cash is available to people as they need it and that we do not return to people hiding money in the house because they cannot easily access their cash.

I live in a community where it is not unusual for people to keep their money at home. Those of an elderly disposition more often than not even keep their savings there. A few years ago my wife’s aunt was burgled and lost her life savings as a result of two people taking advantage of a vulnerable lady with poor eyesight. More than one constituent has told me that since the latest banking crash they lift their money after pay day and keep it at home. That is not safe and it is not what we advocate. It must also be remembered that many ATMs provide other services such as pin number changes and balance inquiries. For those who do not have reliable broadband at home, these machines are essential for the correct control of finances. These problems make the ATM debate so important.

Polling research by Which? found that cash remains popular and important. The research showed that almost three quarters of people, or 73%, use cash at least two or three times a week, including 60% of 18 to 24-year-olds, which is quite interesting. Only 5% of people use cash once every three months or less, and the majority of consumers still rely on cash in some circumstances. Which? magazine research further found that 57% of consumers say that they have experienced a situation in the last three months in which they could only pay by cash. Two thirds, or 67%, of people say that cash is important for making small purchases, and six in 10 say that it is important for paying for occasional professional services, such as babysitting and cleaning.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the other statistic we should bear in mind is that the number of contactless payments is going up exponentially every single month? The greater likelihood is that there will be many millions more of that type of payment, leading to greater numbers of breakdowns of contactless payments, which will leave people without cash or the ability to pay otherwise?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend illustrates clearly where the focus is moving as more people use contactless payment methods. Cash is still a widely used payment method. It is relied upon not just by consumers, but by those receiving payments, with 52% saying it is an important way of being paid. It is imperative that rural communities have access to these services, which I believe we must secure. That is why I support Which? magazine’s suggestion to deal with the ATM concern, which has been taken up by the magazine and other consumer bodies. It responded to the LINK review by pointing out that ATMs are only one part of the cash nexus that needs to be protected. It believes that without a wider strategy for cash, the closure of bank branches, post offices—the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) referred to that—and ATMs could mean that the UK reaches a point where maintaining the current system of free-to-access cash is no longer viable. We have to look at the end result of what we are heading towards.

There are also potential risks to all UK consumers and businesses if we no longer have a sustainable cash network. Recent IT failures have underlined for many people who do all their transactions by card and are almost in a cash-free environment that, whenever their card or bank fails, they are in big trouble. For example, IT failures at RBS highlighted that the distribution of cash can be critical to national infrastructure and is often the only viable alternative if a consumer or business cannot make an electronic payment.

That is why Which? has called on the Government to take urgent action to protect cash by placing a duty on the Payment Systems Regulator to protect access to cash and to ensure the sustainability of the UK’s cash infrastructure. Will the Minister address that and assure the House, Members here and people watching from elsewhere that that will be the case? It would support consumer choice, prevent financial exclusion, ensure that there remains access to a secure, non-digital form of payment and promote effective competition across all payments.

With all that in mind, I put that suggestion to the Minister for his consideration. I look forward to hearing from him and the Government on how we can ensure that services are available UK-wide, particularly in rural areas. I again thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West for securing the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for raising the matter and for the thoughtful way he set out several issues that I will respond to. I also thank the other five Back-Bench Members who made contributions.

First, I assure hon. Members present, and across the House, that the Government recognise that widespread free access to cash remains extremely important for the day-to-day lives of many consumers and businesses in the UK, particularly the most vulnerable members of our society. Ultimately, the Government’s approach to payments is one of facilitating maximum choice; consumers should be free to choose the method of payment that best suits them. I acknowledge that several scenarios have been set out, particularly for rural and less affluent areas, and I will come on to address some actions that can be taken at different levels to deal with those challenges.

The fundamental context for the problem is the rise of digital payments and the decline in cash use. The UK has one of the most extensive free ATM networks in the world; some 82% of the ATM network is free. I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who resists the option to pay a fee. I share his antipathy to that situation, but 98% of all ATM transactions are conducted on free ATMs. Moreover, the free ATM network has increased by 40% in the past 10 years and the number of pay-to-use ATMs has fallen by a similar percentage.

However, we must all acknowledge that people are increasingly moving away from cash and towards digital payments. To be specific, in the UK, cash use has fallen from 61% of all payments in 2007 to a remarkable 34% last year. That fall is expected to continue at pace. Correspondingly, the declining number of withdrawals at ATMs is forecast to continue as cash usage by consumers for payments declines. We can all, therefore, recognise the challenge of maintaining efficient, free access to cash.

In response to that challenge, LINK—the UK’s ATM network—announced a series of reforms at the beginning of the year, which have provided the main focus of the debate. Its work to maintain widespread free access to cash involves acknowledging that 80% of free ATMs are within 300 metres of one another. There is evidence that too many ATMs are clustered in busy, urban areas, which unnecessarily duplicates the supply of that service. Therefore, LINK’s measures aim to reduce the amount of ATM duplication in urban areas and avoid unnecessary growth in ATM numbers, despite the observed decline in consumer demand for cash.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister says that there has certainly been a downturn in the use of cash, but I remind him that we have to acknowledge that almost three quarters of people use cash two to three times per week. An interesting trend, which we cannot ignore, is that 60% of 18 to 24-year-olds also use cash at that level, so it is still vital.

[John Glen]

I acknowledge that we are not seeing the end of cash. The challenge is how we adapt to the different mode and frequency of its use. There is no simple single solution. Clearly, creating a complete network in sparsely populated areas will not always be the right answer.

Although the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) is not in her place, for general edification I will respond to her point about the lack of notice when ATM operators move. They have a duty to inform LINK that a protected ATM will close. LINK can offer premiums to all its members to incentivise the replacement of the machine. It has set up a publicly available monitoring tool on its website that shows ATM availability. It has the power to mandate and directly commission an ATM deployer where one is necessary.

LINK’s measures aim to reduce the duplication that I mentioned earlier and to intervene where necessary. It aims to incentivise broad, national coverage of free ATMs and to protect every community across the UK from losing free ATM access. Specifically, LINK has ensured that free ATMs that are 1 km or more from the nearest free ATM are exempt from any reductions in the interchange fees that fund free ATMs. It has put in place specific arrangements to protect free ATMs more than 1 km away from the nearest free ATM, including boosting the interchange fee available in those areas. It has also enhanced its financial inclusion programme by tripling the interchange fee available to the lowest-income areas of the UK, to ensure that they all have at least one free ATM. Some 93%—an all-time high—of the most deprived areas in the UK have a free ATM.

That fact has to be seen in the context of the £2 billion of investment in the Post Office since 2010. The £370 million that is earmarked for 2018-21 is designed to maintain the last post office in the village and ensure that consumers can use the over-the-counter option to secure cash.

Animal Rescue Centres

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend has been assiduous on this issue. I will move on to the ADCH later on and will recognise the work of the RSPCA and others.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward a good issue for us to debate in Westminster Hall, as he always does. I told him earlier that my wife is a volunteer at Assisi Animal Sanctuary. There are many organisations across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that do exceptional work and are regularly monitored. Assisi is one of those, as is the RSPCA, PAWS and Dogs Trust—there are some good examples. Does he think that the Government should perhaps look at the good examples when bringing together the legislation?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s wife on her work. I mentioned four of the main organisations, but there are many across the country working in this field and I pay tribute to them all; they do fantastic work and we appreciate it.

The 2018 regulations refresh the licensing regime for: selling animals as pets; dog breeding; boarding kennels; boarding for cats; home boarding for dogs; day care for dogs—regulated for the first time—hiring horses; and keeping animals for exhibition.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for raising that issue. I heard what he said in his remarks earlier. The records of people convicted of animal welfare offences are recorded on the police national computer. I will gladly pick that issue up with him separately to explore this further, if he would like to do so.

Improving and ensuring the welfare of animals is at the heart of our recent welfare reforms. We have introduced regulations which came into force in October, including a requirement that licensed breeders should show puppies with their mothers. Local authorities also have more powers to inspect and enforce regulations. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who is no longer in his seat, talked about the need to keep focused on welfare standards with breeders. Our actions do not stop there. The Government will also increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences. It was announced last year that the custodial maximum penalty for animal cruelty will increase from six months’ imprisonment to five years. That remains the Government’s commitment and we will introduce it as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[Jim Shannon]

Has the Department had any opportunity to look at the legislation in Northern Ireland? It is very strong and was perfected by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Has that opportunity been afforded to civil service staff?

[David Rutley]

It is clearly an issue that I need to take more time to look at. As a relatively new animal welfare Minister, I will follow up with officials about this, based on the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

We are absolutely committed to taking this legislation through, when parliamentary time allows. We have also been looking to raise our welfare standards even higher; in February, we published a consultation on a potential ban on third-party sales. Third-party sales of puppies are those that are not sold directly by breeders. Sales are often linked to so-called puppy farms, which many of us have real concerns about. We know that there are concerns that third-party sales of puppies and kittens can lead to poorer standards of welfare than when puppies and cats are purchased directly from a breeder. We have heard other reports about that during the debate. A ban would mean that puppies and kittens, younger than six months old, could only be sold by the breeder directly or adopted through rescue and rehoming centres.

Our recently published regulatory triage assessment—a mini impact assessment—on the impact of a proposed ban on third-party sales estimates that 5% of puppy sales are by third-party sellers, which amounts to 40,000 puppies per annum. The RSPCA estimates that some dealers were individually earning over £2 million annually from the trade, and in many cases those revenues were not declared to HMRC. Our view is that the demand for puppies can and should be met by changes to the practices of existing breeders in order to breed more puppies, and by selling directly to the consumer. That will further improve the welfare of puppies.

Some stakeholders raised concerns that any proposed ban could be circumvented by unscrupulous centres presenting themselves as a legitimate rescue or rehoming centre. That is why we have been looking at licensing rehoming centres, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned, as well as the hon. Member for Leigh (Jo Platt), who has worked hard on the freedom of information requests she is taking forward. I will look at that more forensically in slower time, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that.

Sadly, there are some rescue homes that, for whatever reason, fall short of the acceptable standard of welfare. As with any keeper of animals, an animal rescue home must provide for the welfare needs of animals, as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but they are not licensed in the same way as dog breeders or pet shops. In response to a call for evidence on a proposal to ban the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens in February, many stakeholders pointed out that we should also consider closer regulation of rescue homes. Their argument was that we need to address concerns about animal welfare standards in some unscrupulous rescue homes.

Tourism Industry: VAT Reduction

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am delighted to have obtained this Adjournment debate, albeit slightly postponed. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have remained in their place this evening to take part and to demonstrate that the question of a reduced rate of value added tax for the tourism sector is one that commands cross-party interest and support.

Tourism is the fourth largest sector of the UK economy today and, unlike most sectors, it has a reach across our economy and geography that is hard to equal. Certainly, it is a massively important, and increasingly important, industry in my constituency in the northern isles.

We have previously heard talk of voodoo economics, and tourism is a sector that allows us to apply a little judo economics—that is to say we can use the force of those things that would normally work against us to our favour. In Orkney and Shetland, we have a number of disadvantages due to our geography and the size and sparsity of our population, which are all things that, when it comes to tourism, make us an attractive destination. They are the things that make people want to come to see us in the northern isles. For us, tourism is an enormously important industry, and it is one that has grown massively in recent years.

Tourism also complements many indigenous traditional local industries. For years we have told our fishermen, our farmers and our crofters that they have to diversify or die, and they have taken that message to heart. This does not quite come within what I have to declare as an interest, but my parents’ family farm on Islay, off the west coast, is now in the region of 800 or 900 acres, and it not only supports cattle and sheep, as it has always done. Now, between my sister and my parents, the farm supports four individual self-catering units, which is a good example of how a traditional farming unit has been diversified to take significant income from tourism.

Obviously, tourism fits well with the profile of many communities such as ours, because it allows seasonal and part-time employment, which are both important in communities where people perhaps do not have just one job working 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. People are looking for a range of different income sources—as evidenced by the recent growth in the number of people working as tour guides in both Orkney and Shetland—and such employment offers that sort of opportunity.

In establishing the importance of tourism as an industry, in communities like mine right the way through to where I stand in one of the best-known tourism destinations in the country, the question arises of how we can best seek to allow the industry to grow itself.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. He has mentioned the attractiveness of his constituency to tourists. A VAT reduction would definitely benefit tourism in Northern Ireland. In 2017, some 2.6 million out-of-state visitors and more than 2 million Northern Ireland residents took an overnight trip in Northern Ireland, and during 2017 visitors from all markets combined to spend £926 million in Northern Ireland, up £76 million on the previous year. Does he agree that lowering VAT can only encourage more people to make the trip to Northern Ireland or to his constituency, luring people away from the Republic of Ireland by providing unrivalled beauty and attractions with unrivalled pricing? Indeed, the same could be said of the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point well. I am aware that Northern Ireland has a particular issue as it shares a land border, a fact that is fairly well discussed at the moment, with the Republic of Ireland. The Republic is one of those countries that in 2011—I will doubtless be corrected if I am wrong—cut their rate of VAT on tourism services to 9%. There is a particular sensitivity about the cross-border issues there, which may assist the hon. Gentleman in making the case, because there is a good working example on his own doorstop of the opportunities that are presented.

I know it is counter-intuitive in the Treasury to suggest that cutting taxes will bring an increased return in revenue, but there is good objective evidence to support that very proposition. I was a member of the Cabinet in 2015 when the Budget cut the rate of spirits duty by 2%. We did that expecting it would result in a reduced return of about £600 million, but we felt it was an important thing to do. In fact, the revenue return as a whole was significantly increased. So having taken the expected hit, we got a better return at the end of the day. This is the same thinking that underpins the Government’s reductions in corporation tax in recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I recognise the sterling work that he does in promoting tourism in his own constituency. He is a constituency neighbour of mine and I am well aware of the good work that he does. He is right: we must do a lot of important things in terms of specifically supporting tourism.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response so far. It is always a pleasure to intervene on him. Will he acknowledge that one of the great disadvantages that we have in Northern Ireland is the border, to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred? There is an inflow of tourists going into the Republic of Ireland who take advantage of the 9% VAT rate as against what we have in Northern Ireland. It is about making sure that those tourists and visitors go across the border. Does he see the disadvantage of having the two different VAT rates, and does he also see the advantage of having a reconciled VAT rate, which would mean that we in Northern Ireland could then take bigger advantage of the US visitors who go to the Republic of Ireland?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of VAT specifically in Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, we undertook a call for evidence, which we announced at the Budget before last. We have now reported on that and will continue to look at the issue of VAT, although we are currently constrained by virtue of our membership of the European Union, as I will argue later. Northern Ireland actually has some advantages over the Republic of Ireland when it comes to VAT. For example, we have the highest VAT threshold for businesses that have to charge VAT in the European Union and the OECD, including the Irish Republic.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the specific support we provide for tourism. We provide some £60 million per year for our GREAT Britain campaign, £20 million per year of which goes to VisitBritain. Our tourism action plan looks at regulation, transport, skills and all the other things that underpin tourist activity as well as money and taxation. Some £40 million goes to the Discover England fund for promoting tourism outside London.

At the heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s ask is clearly a reduction in VAT, particularly with regard to food and beverages, attractions and accommodation— the areas that he cited when he mentioned the VAT directive and the derogations in items (7), (12) and (12a). The Government recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. We have met campaigners over many years, and I have engaged extensively with Members right across the House. We will keep VAT and VAT on tourism under review, but unfortunately there are some issues from which we cannot hide away. One of those issues is the fact that, if we are to make a change, under the current arrangements with the European Union that change would have to be UK-wide. It would therefore come with quite a hefty price tag.

The Treasury estimates that, in the first year at least—although one recognises there are dynamic effects of reducing taxes, increasing activity and therefore perhaps getting more tax revenue further down the line—we would be looking at a cost of about £10 billion for reducing VAT from 20% down to 5% in the categories that I mentioned. That would be about £7 billion on food and beverages, £2 billion on accommodation and £1 billion on attractions. Some of that loss, or some of the relief that we would be providing, would be dead weight in the sense that it would not necessarily solely apply to supporting tourism.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I was going to come on to indirectly, but I will now make it directly. These fixed odds betting terminals were not allowed in betting shops in the Republic of Ireland, so how could the Association of British Bookmakers go around thinking that it was normal? That leaves open the question that he has raised: how can we make sure that people in Northern Ireland get the change they need? If it is a devolved matter and we need a Northern Ireland Government to solve the problem, I do not have an instant solution.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Yes, it is a devolved matter and it would take the Assembly to make those decisions. We do not have a working Assembly, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In the meantime, therefore, nothing happens in relation to legislation that is passing here. It is my intention, after discussions with the Minister involved and with the support of the House, of course, to try to ensure that this legislation is Northern Ireland-bound, as it should be.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Committee will recognise the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am very grateful for it.

Some of the tactics used by the betting shop owners have been disgraceful. I hope that some investigative journalist will write it up, page by page, date by date, and explain how it has been counterproductive for these companies’ own shareholders. GVC, which in March this year confirmed the takeover of Ladbrokes Coral, will pay £800 million less because of the date of the change to £2. Three years ago, William Hill’s share price was about 400p a share. At the time of the discussion about whether the fixed odds betting terminal limit would come down to £2 either in October next year or in April the year after, its share price fluctuated between 300p and 220p per share. It is now less than 180p. For every month it went on with its campaign, it destroyed the value of its shareholders’ stake in the companies that were taking profits—as was the Treasury, in tax—from these unbelievably unjustified machines.

When Paddy Power said that these machines were not needed for betting shops, other gambling companies should have paid attention. When people write up this failure of lobbying and the counterproductive tactics used, I hope that they will take it as a role model. We need a word to describe Parliament asserting itself to Government, but another two words to respond to the way in which Government have reacted to that, and those words should be, “Thank you.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I am glad that the Minister has given us that clarification. As he says, I would be more comfortable with a broadbrush approach encompassing lots and lots of factors, such as I those I set out in my speech. However, I have listened to what the Minister has said, and I will certainly give it some thought.

[Jim Shannon]

I thought the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) was going to go before me, but he has not bobbed, so he is obviously not going to. I always follow in his footsteps—I am always glad to do so, by the way, as he knows—but on this occasion I miss his comments, which I am sure would be more than helpful to us.

We are all very aware of the reason for these amendments. It is tremendous to be in the Chamber among many Members from across the House who are of the same opinion, including—he will forgive me if I say this, but I have to say it—perhaps a wee bit belatedly, the Minister, who is also committed to where we are on this.

If she does not mind my saying so, I would like to commend the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her principled stand, her courage and what she has done to make this happen. The commitment she has shown does my heart good and does the heart of everybody else good. By the way, I am not surprised that she said 3,000 people had contacted her afterwards. I did not have 3,000 people contact me afterwards, but I had a large number and, for the record, every one of them commended the hon. Lady for her obvious commitment. The reason for the amendment is simple: the need for a massive lowering of stakes is clear.

I also thank my good friend, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for all her endeavours through the all-party group on FOBTs, which has done tremendous work. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) have also endeavoured, through the APPG, to ensure all that hard work came to fruition.

The one thing that sits in my mind is this: why was it important to have those six months slip back from October to April? It is very simple: as has been said, 300 lives—maybe more—were saved. That is a fact.

I am mindful that last week we had the Gambling with Lives event, which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) referred to. I thank him for initiating that event. I was very glad to be there with other Members and to support him. There were two people there who I knew long before the start of this FOBT campaign, which began about 18 months or two years ago. They are Mr and Mrs Peter Keogh from Enniskillen, who lost their son, Lewis, to a gambling addiction and who even today feel the heartache of that event.

It is for those people that we do these things. It is for our constituents whose lives will be saved because of it, and for those who have lost loved ones and feel the great pain of the loss of someone close to them, that today we can collectively make this legislative change in this House. That is why we make the effort.

The Government accept that they need to lower the stakes; they accept that damage has been done to individuals and families; they accept the fact that the ability to bet as much as £100 every 20 seconds on electronic casino games such as roulette is shocking; and they accept the campaign by anti-gambling campaigners that highlights the fact that machines let people lose money too quickly, leading to addiction and social, mental and financial problems.

The Minister responded to the previous speaker, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), about things we must address, including online gambling and how it is promoted on TV. At this early stage, I would also like to put down a marker about scratchcards. I was just telling a story to my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). One day, I saw a lady with two children in a shop. She probably did not have £5 to spare. She was ahead of me in the queue and she put down £5. I was not being nosy, but her wallet probably only had two fivers in it, yet she spent £5 on scratchcards. She went outside to rub the numbers off them and by the time I went outside I saw that not one of the cards was successful.

I thought to myself, “How very sad.” That lady was probably looking at her financial needs for that week being provided by the turn of a scratchcard, which did not deliver. Other things need to be done, but I look forward to the things that the Minister referred to in his intervention on the hon. Lady.

Those arguments had all been accepted, but rather than looking at the human cost it appears that the Government wished to shore up the finances and allow thousands more people to gamble everything away. The situation is like cancer research finding a cure to cancer and the NHS saying, “Well, we have all the chemotherapy, which needs to be used, so we won’t pay for the life-saving drugs until stocks are down. We can’t afford to do this.” That is horrific. I say to the Minister, with respect, that the more I see of this Government's ability to put blinkers on and look only at one aspect—the pounds and the pence—rather than at the entire argument about the need to lower stakes, the more disheartened I become.

The Salvation Army, which deals with the problems that gambling brings to the community, has said:

“It is well acknowledged that FOBTs have caused concern across the political and social spectrum. FOBTs have been labelled the ‘crack cocaine’ of gambling. One gambler told us that he spent £2,000 a day on FOBTs at bookies without being challenged.”

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s reference to the Salvation Army. One of the other issues that I have major concerns about—I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees—is the accounts of people being given a line of credit of £1,500 without any credit checks on their ability to pay it back. People have been given a £1,500 line of credit and unfortunately it ends up being a potential noose—and I mean that—around their neck. That problem is arising and it is caused by those who do not do checks. Any other financial industry would do checks to ensure the person had the ability to pay the money back.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his wise intervention.

The Salvation Army also says:

“Another man who became homeless as a result of his addiction and who was helped by the Salvation Army lost over £30,000 on gambling machines.”

I do not think that there is one Member in this Chamber who would not be able to recollect a story of this kind from their constituencies. It is the story of the man who plays on a FOBT machine on a Friday night and puts all his wages on it, before going home to his wife, who is looking for the money to buy the groceries, and their children. Those are the stories of real life; those are the stories of addiction; and those are the stories that we want to stop in this Chamber today.

That is why we are keen for the Government to implement as soon as practicable the proposed maximum stake limit of £2 for FOBTs. It is of some concern that in the Budget the timeframe for implementation was to have been delayed to October 2019. We note that some campaigners said it would be possible to implement it in April 2019 and that the Government have acceded to that. That apparent delay was deeply disappointing. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred to the amendment with over 100 Members’ names on it. What changed the Government’s opinion was those 100 names from across the Chamber. I am very pleased that we have achieved that change.

I agree with the change and I ask the Government simply to do the right thing. They seem to have been held to ransom by the gaming industry. Therefore, it should not have surprised me to see how the EU—I use this comparison; I am sure many Members will understand it—has held this proud nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ransom, and how our Government have capitulated at the cost not of £400 million, the estimated lost tax revenue, but £39 billion, and, most importantly, the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and the sanctity of the Union.

You may not believe that the two are linked, Dame Eleanor, but they are. You may not believe that that should be mentioned in this debate, but it has been. The Government’s decision making is as flawed here as it is in selling Northern Ireland and the backstop. Do the right thing, stop allowing gambling addictions to destroy families and protect people from themselves, in the same way that people must wear a seatbelt whether they want to or not. Step in and step up. I support the amendment and I look forward to working with hon. Members to do even more in this Chamber to address gambling addiction in the years to come.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Clause 61

Remote Gaming Duty: Rate

Amendment made: 17, page 44, line 25, leave out “1 October 2019” and insert “1 April 2019”.—(Gareth Johnson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.

Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

New Clause 12

Review of public health effects of gaming provisions

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health effects of the provisions of section 61 of and Schedule 18 to this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of those provisions in reducing the negative public health effects of gambling, and

(b) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of—

(i) those provisions,

(ii) the operation of the law relating to remote gaming duty and gaming duty if those provisions were not given effect.”—(Ronnie Cowan.)

This new clause would require a review of the public health effects of gaming provisions.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 15

Offshore Receipts in Respect of Intangible Property

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Clause 16 stand part.

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 19 stand part.

Amendment 19, in clause 20, page 12, line 26, at end insert—

“(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than six months after the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a review of the effects of the changes to the controlled foreign companies regime made by this section.

(9) In circumstances in which the United Kingdom has left the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement, the review in subsection (8) must consider the impact of this on those changes.”

Clause 20 stand part.

Clauses 21 and 22 stand part.

Amendment 3, in schedule 7, page 223, line 27, in schedule 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Treasury shall by regulations require that a CGT exit charge payment plan be published on a public register.”

This amendment would require the beneficiary of a trust entering a CGT exit charge payment plan to provide information about the source of its income on a public register.

Amendment 4, page 227, line 13, at end insert—

“(2B) The Treasury shall by regulations prescribe a CGT exit charge payment plan be published on a public register.”

This amendment would require the beneficiary of a trust entering a CGT exit charge payment plan to provide information about the source of its income on a public register.

That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

Clause 23 stand part.

That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 46 and 47 stand part.

Amendment 23, in clause 83, page 60, line 8, at end insert—

“(8) No regulations made be made under this section unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report on how the powers in this section are to be exercised in each of the scenarios in subsection (9).

(9) The scenarios to be considered in the report under subsection (8) are—

(a) if either of a—

(i) negotiated withdrawal agreement, or

(ii) framework for the future relationship with the European Union have not been ratified under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act at the time of the United Kingdom ceasing to the a member of the European Union, and

(b) if both of a—

(i) negotiated withdrawal agreement, or

(ii) framework for the future relationship with the European Union have been ratified under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act at the time of the United Kingdom ceasing to the a member of the European Union.”

Clause 83 stand part.

New clause 5—Impact analyses of the anti-avoidance provisions of this Act—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of—

(a) section 15 and Schedule 3,

(b) section 16 and Schedule 4,

(c) sections 19 and 20,

(d) section 22 and Schedule 7,

(e) section 23 and Schedule 8,

(f) sections 46 and 47, and

(g) section 83

of this Act in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the impact of those provisions on child poverty,

(b) households at different levels of income,

(c) the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010), and

(d) the impact of those provisions on different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.

(3) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland.

“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effects of the tax avoidance provisions of the Bill on households with different levels of income, on child poverty, people with protected characteristics and on a regional basis.

New clause 6—Analysis of effectiveness of provisions on tax avoidance and evasion—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of—

(a) section 15 and Schedule 3,

(b) section 16 and Schedule 4,

(c) sections 19 and 20,

(d) section 22 and Schedule 7,

(e) section 23 and Schedule 8,

(f) sections 46 and 47, and

(g) section 83

of this Act in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions in reducing levels of artificial tax avoidance,

(b) the effects of the provisions in combating tax evasion, and

(c) estimates of the role of the provisions of this Act in reducing the tax gap in each tax year from 2019 to 2022.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill in tackling artificial tax avoidance and tax evasion, and in reducing the tax gap.

New clause 14—Review of effectiveness of provisions on tax avoidance—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the provisions of this Act relating to tax avoidance and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) In this section, “the provisions of this Act relating to tax avoidance” means—

(a) section 15 and Schedule 3,

(b) section 16 and Schedule 4,

(c) sections 19 and 20,

(d) section 22 and Schedule 7,

(e) section 23 and Schedule 8,

(f) sections 46 and 47,

(g) section 83.

(3) A review under this section must consider in particular—

(a) the effects of those provisions in reducing tax avoidance and evasion,

(b) the effect of those provisions in inducing new tax avoidance measures unanticipated by the Act, and

(c) estimates of the efficacy of the provisions in reducing the tax gap in each tax year from 2018-19 to 2028-29.”

This new clause would require a review of the effectiveness of provisions on tax avoidance.

New clause 15—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 4)—

“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).

(2) Those provisions are—

(a) section 15 and Schedule 3,

(b) section 16 and Schedule 4,

(c) sections 19 and 20,

(d) section 22 and Schedule 7,

(e) section 23 and Schedule 8,

(f) sections 46 and 47,

(g) section 83.

(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—

(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,

(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft,

(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”

This amendment would require a report on consultation undertaken on certain provisions of this Act – alongside new clauses 9, 11 and 13.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend has been campaigning on this far longer than I have, and he has a strong track record of pursuing the issue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I reinforce what the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) said. Many Members on both sides of the House, including DUP Members, want to see the change made in April 2019 because, during the six-month period proposed by the Government, as many as 300 people could commit suicide due to their addiction. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned health and, from that point of view, the change needs to come sooner. The industry has had plenty of time to sort it out; it does not need more time.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention comes before 10 o’clock, which is quite unusual. In all seriousness, he is absolutely spot on. We all know the considerable influence of the DUP when it comes to marching through the Lobby with the Government. What he has said tonight should be heard on the Treasury Bench. The Government cannot count on the support of the DUP when it comes to delaying the reduction in the maximum stake from £100 to £2, which should send a very strong message.

I believe that in the coming days and weeks we will see a groundswell of support not just among Opposition Members but among Conservative Members, too, because this is not, and should not be, a party political issue. This is an issue of public health, and hopefully the Government will see sense in the coming weeks and not try to have a fight on the Floor of the House, but do the right thing by our communities.

On the so-called national living wage, the under-25s were, yet again, mugged by this Government. They are still excluded from the national living wage, which in itself is simply a con trick. The national living wage is not a real living wage, and it falls far short of the true living wage set by the independent Living Wage Foundation.

Over the course of the debate so far, and I suspect over the course of the evening to come, we have heard Scottish Tories say how wonderful this Budget is, but I challenge those Members: whether it is in Banff and Buchan, Bannockburn or Prestwick, can they seriously go to their local high school and say to the children who will be going on to do an apprenticeship that they think they are worth only £3.90 an hour? The reality is that, by marching through the Lobby to support this Finance Bill, they are saying that is right. The fact that none of them has sprung to their feet to say that they think £3.90 an hour is an adequate rate of pay for a fair day’s work sends a message.

In clause 5, somewhat predictably, the Government seek to give a handout to high earners. The Chancellor’s Budget gave basic rate taxpayers an extra £21 a year, compared with £156 a year for those on the higher rate. In contrast, the SNP Government have introduced progressive taxation in Scotland, where we have the powers to do so. Seven in 10 taxpayers in Scotland will pay less tax this year than they paid in 2017-18 on a given income, but it is right that those on higher incomes—that includes us as Members of Parliament—should pay a modest amount more in tax. I am perfectly comfortable with that as a concept because I know that investment in housing and in decent public services cannot be done on the cheap. It is right that those of us who earn higher salaries should pay a little more to support better public services for the good of everyone in society and our communities. But what is before us today gives tax cuts to high earners and that is just not right.

In essence, this Bill was about choices for the British Government. They have chosen to give tax cuts to high earners and to do nothing for the WASPI women; they have chosen not to give under-25s equality and a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; they have chosen to plough ahead with universal credit, despite it being fundamentally flawed and leading to reductions in household incomes; and they have chosen to perpetuate austerity right across these islands. But the Chancellor is not the only person with choices to make because, with each passing day, the people of Scotland are realising that they, too, will soon have a choice to make. They can choose to stay in an inherently unequal, unfair United Kingdom which is riddled with austerity and heading over the cliff edge of a hard Brexit, or they can choose an independent Scotland free from the obsession with austerity economics that so epitomises this Finance Bill. It is for that reason that I cannot support the Bill this evening.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who treats the House to the usual rendition from the Scottish nationalists of why they stand for independence—in truth, that is all they stand for.

I rise to make a short contribution in this debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and I will restrict my comments to clause 61. I am mindful that I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on the issue of safe standing at football matches, but I have nothing but admiration for the principled stand she has taken on the matter of resetting the maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals to £2, with that measure to be effective by next April at the latest. I completely agree with her position, which is why I have been willing to attach my name to future amendments to this Bill brought forward by friends. Apparently its implementation will take so long, but I really do not believe that that stands up to scrutiny. The Government currently say that it needs to be put in place for next autumn, but I really believe it does not need to take that long.

The simple fact of the matter is that the longer we wait to implement this measure, the more damage is being inflicted on the most vulnerable people in our society. Some 43% of the people using fixed odds betting terminals are either problem or at-risk gamblers, and when we consider that 230,000 sessions on these machines in a single year resulted in losses of more than £1,000 each session, we see that any further delay in reducing the maximum stake to £2 is not justifiable in societal terms. It is also not justifiable in terms of the time that is really needed to make this adjustment happen. It is not justifiable in terms of the ongoing social costs, with the misery that occurs when individuals lose control of their decision-making faculty to a gambling addiction. And I simply cannot accept, on the grounds of any sort of morality that I would wish to be associated with, that the special pleading of the betting firms should take any sort of a priority over the damage inflicted on society, on families and on children by those who are suffering from gambling addiction and for whom these machines are an outlet.

The startling statistic is that for every second of every day these machines cost their players £57 in losses. There are 33,000 of these fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops across the UK. A helpful live ready-reckoner on the website of the all-party group on fixed odds betting terminals calculates to the second how much has been lost on these machines since the Government first called for evidence on what the maximum stake for these terminals should be. That happened way back in October 2016, and the last time I checked, which was earlier today—so after 749 days—this figure is in excess of £3.7 billion. I am not prepared to stand by—I could not do so as a matter of conscience—and do nothing when action is required. The Government have already accepted that that action is necessary and described these machines in the most disparaging terms, so I ask simply that the measure be implemented in April, at the soonest point.

Perhaps a justification will be put forward that somehow it will cost the Treasury lost revenue, but at what price? Are we really saying that there is not a more productive use for these billions of pounds of economic activity in our country? I think that there is. We should not underestimate the devastating effects of the vice-like grip of an addiction such as gambling. The Government should act now to do what they have already resolved to do—not in 12 months’ time, but by April next year at the very latest.

[Jim Shannon]

Is it not a fact that the sector and industry have had 18 months to get themselves ready for this? They knew it was coming and should have got their house in order. They do not need any more time.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Reference has already been made to the KPMG report, which was provided at the instigation of the Association of British Bookmakers. KPMG itself advised that that report

“should not therefore be regarded as suitable to be used or relied on by any other person or for any other purpose”

because its terms and scope were determined by KPMG’s client, the Association of British Bookmakers. Paddy Power Betfair wrote to the Prime Minister because it was so shocked that the report could be used as a credible source for decision making, saying that some of the assumptions in it were unrealistic.

Overcoming addiction is not simply a matter of exercising willpower. Addiction robs people of the power to decide for themselves. We in this House have the power to take the necessary measures that will protect the most vulnerable people, the most vulnerable families and the children of those families. I very much hope that the Government will take the decision to do that earlier.