Covid-19: Household Debt

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

Let me try to zip through this so that we can accommodate everyone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) not just for securing this debate, but for the serious work they have put in throughout on this issue. They work effectively on a cross-party basis:

I apologise for straying slightly from that cross-party approach, but I listened to the Chancellor on the “Today” programme this morning and, to be frank, he exuded complacency about the scale of problems and hardships my constituents and many others face. The Chancellor quoted selectively from today’s IFS report and the recent Resolution Foundation report. What he did not say is that the IFS reports that 700,000 more children have fallen into poverty over the last eight years. In my constituency, 42% of children are now living in poverty. What he did not quote from the Resolution Foundation report is the potential for 4% inflation by the end of the year, which will have an impact on those families.

We have to put this in the political context. A series of regressive Government policies will drive this debt and poverty crisis deeper. The scrapping of universal credit has already been mentioned, but we will have the freezing of the income tax thresholds from next April and the 5% council tax rise this year. For people on the minimum wage or working in the public sector, their pay rise this year will be below inflation, leaving them worse off in real terms. It is no wonder that the lives of many of my constituents are plagued by insecurity and stress. This leads many of them to have mental health crises, so I fear that, alongside the covid pandemic, we will experience the equivalent of a mental health pandemic, but it will be quiet and it will often be secret, because the stigma attached to debt is so heavy in our society. That is why I believe that lifting the worry of debt off people’s shoulders has to be a priority, exactly as hon. Members have said.

I welcome the combined briefing we have received from StepChange, Generation Rent and other bodies, which sets out a financial package to support and help tenants to clear covid-related rent arrears. It is a sensible and practical approach, and I hope the Minister gives it serious consideration and also takes urgent action.

The time has come to look beyond the covid-related debt crisis and to address the systemic debt burden that always weighs down so many families in our society. Tackling personal debt, as others have said, has social, economic and health benefits. One solution is to cap interest rates, and other proposals include capping the total amount that can be paid in overdraft fees on interest payments.

I also want to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said. The UK lending market and secondary debt market requires much stronger regulation from the Financial Conduct Authority if we are to protect consumers and businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said, one wider solution to debt—as proposed by Johnna Montgomerie—could be the creation of a company like UK Asset Resolution, which purchased problem debt from the banks during the banking crisis, to do the same for consumers to clean up their financial situation once and for all.

This has been an important debate and I hope that the Government’s response will be positive. We will need to return to the wider question of systemic debt fairly promptly.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I want to focus my remarks on the parts of the Bill that relate to freeports, as others have done. During the debate on the Finance Bill, I highlighted the corporate tax reliefs available and the lack of any projections of the impact on the Exchequer, or of any impact assessments on the areas where freeports will be located and on their neighbouring areas. I might be a bit old-fashioned, but I still believe in evidence-based policy making. Ministers seem to have come to Parliament asking MPs to sign a blank cheque and—apologies for the mixed metaphor—to take a leap in the dark on a policy that, in my experience, failed to deliver in the 1980s, when I was in local government, and in the 2010s, when I was an MP in Parliament.

I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), what estimate the Government had made of the cost to the Exchequer. The Minister could not answer, but insisted:

“The National Insurance contribution relief will be important in supporting the Government’s objectives for the Freeports programme, which includes regeneration through job creation.”

Given that the Government’s objective, as stated by the Financial Secretary, is job creation, I then asked him how many jobs would be created as a result of the national insurance contributions relief contained in this Bill. I received the answer to my written parliamentary question today, and it is a classic—worth framing. It states:

“The National Insurance contribution relief will be key in supporting the Government’s objectives for the Freeports programme, which includes regeneration through job creation. The Freeports tax sites have not yet been confirmed and so the Government is currently unable to give an accurate estimate of the number of employees that benefit in 2022-23 as this will depend on how many employers use the relief and will vary depending on a number of circumstances, including the location of the Freeport tax site.

The Government will publish an updated Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN), when further information is available following confirmation of the tax sites.”

Can the Minister estimate when that will be published? Can he commit to publishing it during the passage of this Bill? I do believe in evidence-based policy making, and in recent months I have seen not just evidence-light policy making; we are now in a bizarre situation of non-existent-evidence-based policy making.

I just hope that the Government have learnt something from the failure of this policy under George Osborne. I remind the Minister that in May 2014 the Public Accounts Committee described the impact of George Osborne’s enterprise zones as “particularly underwhelming” and criticised the Government for “over optimistic” claims about job creation. The job numbers failed to materialise. The Centre for Cities, the think-tank, found that the jobs created were “overwhelmingly low skilled” and therefore low paid.

Despite their refusal to countenance in the Finance Bill the proposals that I put forward, just to get the information, I hope that the Government have reflected and will commit to publishing data annually on the impact of freeports on local and regional job creation; on tax revenues, locally and nationally; and on neighbouring economies. They failed to countenance that in the Finance Bill, but they could in this Bill.

This Bill is also a missed opportunity. The Government could have made provision for increasing the national insurance contributions paid by the highest earners. Currently, higher earners pay only 2% above the upper earnings limit. Raising that by just a small percentage would raise billions from those with the broadest shoulders. Instead, the Government are imposing a huge stealth tax on millions of low-income workers by freezing tax thresholds. They have imposed a pay cap or pay freeze on millions of public sector workers. In just a few months, shamefully, the Government are proposing to cut the incomes of some of the poorest families in the country by £20 a week. I have heard a lot of the Government’s claims to be levelling up. Instead, they seem to be keeping people down.

Finance Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

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

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I have to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) has eloquently put forward the case for these proposals, both those from the Opposition Front Bench, which I fully support, and her own, but I think she has been too kind to the Government. Like her, I have sat for over two decades listening to the sophistry from Conservative Ministers explaining the various complications of doing anything to tackle tax avoidance, and they have been dragged kicking and screaming to take what little action there has been. I have also sat here year on year while they argued that cuts in corporation tax were the way to increase investment. Now, at least, they have admitted that they were wrong on that.

However, instead of cutting corporations’ taxes by cutting corporation tax, they are now simply doing it through the super deductions. These are super tax deductions to super tax avoiders. We can name them: Amazon, Vodafone, Virgin, Starbucks and many others. I sat in the Chamber when the global crash happened over a decade ago, and we discovered the intricate corporate structures that the banks used to avoid their taxes—the shell companies based in tax havens from the Channel Islands to the Caribbean. Barclays bank had more than 100 subsidiary companies located in the Cayman Islands alone. As these corporations became increasingly financialised, they became increasingly unprincipled about paying their dues to society.

I have tabled a simple amendment saying that super deductions should not go to companies that are failing to fulfil their duty as taxpayers in our country and that are using tax havens. The reason is simple: these corporations benefit from the workers they employ, and the taxes are needed to pay for their education and training. It is ironic that we are also often using our tax system to subsidise the low pay that these corporations pay their employees. They also benefit from the infrastructure. That is why they should be paying their way within our country itself.

In this struggle over the last 20 years or so, it is worth paying tribute to those who have campaigned so hard: my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking and all those activists, academics and journalists. I pay tribute to groups in the UK such as: Tax Justice Network; UK Uncut, which took direct action; Tax Justice UK; and those journalists and researchers who helped to expose the Panama papers and the Paradise papers. One of those journalists was the Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. She was assassinated in 2017 for the work she did to expose tax avoidance and money laundering.

My new clause 22 is very straightforward: no company should be eligible for the tax reliefs in the Bill if they are located, or have subsidiary companies located, in tax haven jurisdictions. The most authoritative list of tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions is the European Union’s blacklist of non-co-operative jurisdictions for tax purposes. That should be the basis of our approach. We are outside the EU now, so we must go further. Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State powers to list additional jurisdictions that do not co-operate in disclosing information to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In this way at least we can ensure that we are not, in effect, acting as subsidisers for tax avoiders or laundering tax reliefs into their coffers. It is a simple amendment.

I support the Labour Front Bench amendments and the other amendments that would have a similar effect, but I have had enough. I am sick to death of sitting here listening to excuses from Ministers about failing to act when so much needs to be paid through a fair taxation system. So many of our constituents are having to endure continuing austerity because of the lack of tax revenues. They are living in poverty, unfortunately, as a result of the failure to have a fair taxation system that redistributes wealth in our country.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I rise with great enthusiasm for the proposals set out by the Government, in particular on the super deduction. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) about the benefits that super deduction will bring to tax receipts eventually and to growth in the immediate term for our national finances.

I want to talk quickly about a benefit that will be felt locally in Devizes. I spoke today to the boss of Wadworth brewers, the brewers behind the legendary 6X and Bishop’s Tipple, with which you will be familiar, Madam Deputy Speaker. They are not tax avoiders, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) just described them; they are local employers who drive growth and employment in my constituency. They will use the super deduction to invest in more buildings, more jobs, more brewing and more beer in Wiltshire, and I am absolutely delighted to welcome the proposal on their behalf.

There is a real problem that the super deduction proposal seeks to address, which is that, sadly, low corporation tax has not driven the sort of private sector investment we need. I therefore support the rise in corporation tax, which will be imposed on profits on the biggest firms. We live in a topsy-turvy world where we see Joe Biden proposing 15% corporation tax, the Labour party proposing 21%, and my Conservative Government proposing 25%. I recognise the value of that, however: we have to pay the bills of the pandemic somehow and I appreciate that this is the right way. We will still have the lowest corporation tax in the G7. That will make us, with the super deduction and the other measures that have been set out, the best country in the world in which to invest and to bring a business.

Let me finish by stating my support for the world-leading efforts the Government are making to ensure that big tech pays its fair share of tax. We have just heard from the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) that she thinks we should back Biden. I think we should back Britain. We should back what this country and this Government are doing to lead the debate on fair taxation. The key challenge for us is to ensure that the tax that is gathered through whatever global agreement we can make is paid in the right places; it would be a bit of a shame if we achieve a global minimum tax that was all paid in California. I welcome what the Government are doing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response and to the announcements that I hope will be forthcoming ahead of the Cornwall summit. I absolutely back everything the Government are doing through this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell [V]]

I am glad you are sitting down, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not want to shock you. I want to see if we can try something different tonight. Let us try and undertake some rational policy making. Let us try and base policy on evidence, shall we?

I have tabled a number of amendments—Nos. 24, 25 and 26—as a humble seeker after truth, basically, because I do not think the Government have made the case for freeports. I also think that the risks of this policy are huge. It could accelerate tax avoidance in this country on a massive scale and cause economic damage to the neighbouring areas of freeports. We are shovelling huge tax giveaways to corporations and developers for, as far as I can see, literally no return to society.

In its analysis of the Chancellor’s Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility said of freeports:

“Further details have been announced in the Budget but came too late to be incorporated into our forecast.”

The OBR have therefore not made a comment—we await it. Freeports were not assessed by the OBR. However, it is not just the OBR that does not know the answer about the effects of freeports; neither do the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) asked the Treasury on 16 March what estimates it had made of the total annual cost of tax reliefs granted to the freeports. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied on 22 March to say—rarely have I seen this from a ministerial response—that

“it is not appropriate to comment on estimates at this stage.”

This is in the middle of policy making! He continued:

“they will therefore be scored at a future fiscal event.”

Therefore, what we are being asked to do tonight is sign off a blank cheque that will be filled in at a later date.

This is just irrational. Shoddy policy making on this scale is becoming all too familiar with this Government, but this is a bit of a shocker. It is just not good enough, so it would be really useful if tonight the Minister took us through the answers to a few simple questions. What are the annual costs of the proposed tax reliefs when the freeports are set up? What is the estimate of increased economic growth that will come from them? What is the estimate of increased job creation stimulated by the freeports? What is the estimate of increased tax revenues to the Exchequer as a result of this policy? And, to reinforce that, where is the evidence? If there are answers to those questions, where have they come from? Have they been independently assessed?

We are asking questions about the future, but we should look back, because this is not a new policy. Those of us who have been in the House a while—and that does not take long—can recognise this as a rebranding of the enterprise zones policy that the Conservative party wheeled out in the 1980s under Michael Heseltine and also in the last decade, when George Osborne fronted it up. Let me remind the House what the Public Accounts Committee said in May 2014. Its report was pretty damning about George Osborne’s enterprise zones, describing them as “particularly underwhelming”. The Committee criticised the Government for over-optimistic claims about job creation. The job numbers did not materialise—it is as simple as that. The Centre for Cities think-tank found that the jobs that were created were “overwhelmingly low skilled” and therefore low paid.

Enterprise zones were not just a disaster; they raised people’s hopes and shattered them in many areas around the country, and in many ways led to some of the disillusionment with politics and Government overall. Tax breaks for corporations in underinvested areas just does not make an industrial strategy. My view is that the Government should be investing, but in a planned upgrading of the infrastructure of this country, not making areas fight for scraps in this form of pork barrel politics.

The Conservatives’ strategy of tax breaks for developers and big business as a way of stimulating growth failed in the 1980s and again in the 2010s, and it risks failing again in the 2020s. The Government are asking us all to take a leap in the dark, and having twice before witnessed that leap in the dark, I think the result will be the same—it will be failure. I know that a number of Members, including some Ministers, have said it will be different because of Brexit and claim that being outside the EU gives greater freedoms than were available to enterprise zones, but if that is the case, why can they not quantify them and put that evidence in front of the House, in some form of rational policy making? The UK Trade Policy Observatory, based at the University of Sussex, has pointed out that as UK import tariffs are already low, any further tariff reduction would

“have next to no benefits”.

I am pleased that Labour’s Front-Bench team is behind new clause 25, which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) moved eloquently, as it is welcome. If passed, it would at least have the effect of creating a robust framework for the House to assess the success or failure of freeports policy, but surely no Members of this House who consider themselves to be serious, rational policy makers can vote for something like this proposal, which is so lacking in any evidential base.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), although he will forgive me for not taking any economic advice from him. He talks about economic assessment with no sense of self-awareness that he was the man responsible for the 2019 Labour party manifesto. I believe I am the first Member to speak who shall represent a freeport area, so, on behalf of the people of Teesside, may I say thank you to the Government for designating us a freeport zone?

I wish to speak against new clause 25, which would only delay the implementation of our new freeport policy. I direct Members to my recently updated entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a member of the new—currently shadow—Teesside freeport board. If we consider the intentions behind new clause 25, we will see that they are ones that Teessiders know all too well. Labour never wanted our new freeports, despite them being in places such as Redcar and Cleveland, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, places that Labour used to say it cared about. True to form, new clause 25 is the Labour party in desperation to see our freeport policy fail, so that it can simply say, “I told you so.”

The same attitudes were shown in Labour’s position on the EU referendum, and the people of Teesside have already shown them how they feel about that. Our new freeport in Teesside will create 18,000 jobs over the next five years, and since the freeport designation in the Chancellor’s Budget, we have already seen the announcement of more than 2,000 jobs coming to Teesside, with GE picking Teesside as the destination for its new wind turbine blade manufacturing, supporting the Government’s plan for a green industrial revolution. Adding more bureaucracy, form filling and complications through new clause 25 would only delay those new jobs and prevent us from getting on with the task at hand, which is the transformation of Teesside.

In Redcar and Cleveland we are proud of our area’s industrial heritage and the vital role the steelworks and foundries have played in the past, providing those raw materials to build the railways, ships and bridges that were once the envy of the world, and in many cases still are. The fires in our furnaces were the beating heart of the industrial revolution, and now with hydrogen, wind power and carbon capture all promised and planned within our freeport zone, it will be Teesside’s innovation and technology that leads our green industrial revolution.

When Labour lost Hartlepool, the front page of The Northern Echo held a column from a former Labour MP saying that Labour needs to listen. Well, now would be a good time to start, but instead, here we are again, with the public supporting our freeport policy and Labour voting against it. Labour Members may not want any election advice from me, but I have some for them anyway: stop dwelling on problems and start looking to the potential and to solutions. Stop standing in the way of our freeport policy and work with us to make it a success. Stop talking Teesside down and start helping us to turn it around, and vote against new clause 25 tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I rise to speak briefly in support of Labour’s new clause 24. We are often told, are we not, that the boldest measures are the safest. Unfortunately, the Government seem to have done a bit of a U-turn, or failed to be bold, going from a promised 3% to 2% on their non-residence surcharge. That is a hugely missed opportunity. It could really have helped the London property market, holding to account the wealthy as opposed to so many of those who struggle to get on to the property ladder.

I also want to talk about the register of overseas entities. First, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who talked so movingly about those in housing need in her constituency. That is something that many of us in London see, day in, day out, in our surgeries. In my case, I think of particular companies that, after properties are built, purchase a number of different apartments, selling them, for example, to the far east. Even people who have saved and saved cannot afford to purchase an apartment in that block, as opposed to those who buy an apartment to hold as an investment, even keeping it empty at a time when we have such desperate housing need. The Treasury should consider clamping down on this practice.

On the wider point that this measure could address if it were not so shy, consideration should be made of the cost of assets and the fact that the huge inflation of assets does not help savers or the young. There are so many young people in desperately insecure employment who will never get on to the housing ladder unless we start to address this terrible situation. We also know that with low interest rates it is almost impossible to save the amount of deposit that is needed. The Help to Buy scheme, which in some parts of the country has worked quite well, has not worked particularly well in many of our neighbourhoods. It simply has not been able to touch the sides of what is needed.

The second point I want to make on the amendment on the register of overseas entities is, once again, how disappointing it has been that we have failed to hold to account those abroad who seek, for various reasons, to hide their financial interests in the UK. We look at this in the context of the Sunday Times rich list from last Sunday, where we see 24 new billionaires in the UK while 4.3 million children in the UK are living in poverty. That desperately needs to be addressed, yet it is five years since David Cameron first promised, when he appointed his anti-corruption tsar, to actually do something about corruption and overseas finance. Instead we have this go-slow, whether on having proper credentials for registering businesses at Companies House, on some of the measures in the Bill or on going from 3% to 2%. Who stands to benefit from that? It is not our constituents; it is people abroad who clearly have some kind ear of the Government. That desperately needs to be addressed.

Having read Catherine Belton’s book “Putin’s People”, I hope the Minister is able dispel my fear regarding its allegation that £1 million has gone to the Tory party from Mr Temerko, who is a very wealthy Ukrainian businessman. That money is tied to a corrupt regime where the courts will do the bidding of the Government in Russia. That money is tied up. We should not be beholden to these people; we should be standing up to them.

I also want, while I am talking about the register of overseas entities, to comment briefly on the terrible situation with Belarus in the last 24 hours. The Treasury needs to be much more campaigning. I know that working for the Treasury is all dry facts and figures, but look at how important its work has been in saving our economy and saving our workers. Well, let us now look at how revolutionary it could be in holding to account some of the corrupt regimes that have their money tied up in London’s economy. Will the Minister look at whether he can work with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to bring forward sanctions against state-owned enterprises—some of which continue to have UK subsidiaries, such as BNK UK, which is the UK arm of the Belarusian state oil company—and outline how the Government can plan to stop the Belarusian Government from using the London stock exchange to raise money and sustain Mr Lukashenko’s grip on power? Furthermore, how can the Treasury, working together with the Foreign Office, examine the evidence for further sanctions against individuals who support and help to sustain the regime, such as Mr Mikhail Gutseriyev, who was mentioned today in the urgent question? I hope that the Treasury will work together with the FCDO to right this wrong.

Finally, a statistic to finish these few words. Despite the sanctions imposed last year by the Foreign Secretary, with which I agree, there are fewer Belarusian entities sanctioned now than in 2012. Only seven entities are currently designated, compared with 32 under EU sanctions in 2012. In the space of 12 months, this dangerous regime has stolen an election, employed brutal repression against its own people and hijacked a civilian airliner. I feel as though our economy is facilitating that, and we simply cannot let that pass. I beg that with the mention of the overseas register, the Treasury will work hand in glove with the FCDO to bring these people to book, and to establish a genuine and committed economy that, at its heart, cares about human rights.

[John McDonnell [V]]

We are at a stage in the Bill’s progress that is almost like a wash-up. We are trying to make last-minute appeals to the Government for action on a number of key issues, and all the appeals to the Government so far by the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and others are on worthy causes that should be addressed, as are the amendments from the Labour Front Benchers.

We must remember the context of the Government’s surcharge policy. It was to spike the approach that the Labour party was making about a levy on overseas ownership, on exactly the grounds laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about the desperate need for housing and to prevent housing from being used continuously as an investment asset for profit, rather than to put roofs over the heads of our families. I wholeheartedly support and welcome all those appeals, but even if with my Catholic upbringing I believe in the powers of conversion, I somehow doubt we have been able to convert the Minister to a sufficient level for him to accept the amendments. I hope to be surprised, but I doubt it.

I tabled amendment 23 not in the hope of converting the Conservative Government, but to enable me to express justifiable anger about the Government’s approach. The Government are attempting to legislate for a real-terms pay cut that will affect millions of low-paid workers through the freeze in the tax threshold. Those include many of my constituents who have had to make ends meet on 80% of their wages for much of last year. Yesterday—this has already been referred to—it was galling to see the other side of the coin. The Sunday Times rich list showed that during the pandemic more billionaires have been created in the UK than at any time in the past 33 years. The levelling-up policy that appeared last year was the levelling up of millionaires into billionaires.

The Chancellor should have used the occasion of the Budget and this Bill to level up capital gains tax to income tax rates, for example. It cannot be right that we tax work more than we tax income from wealth. Ahead of the Budget it was rumoured that the Chancellor was considering equalising capital gains tax and income tax. That would have been a much fairer way of raising revenue than increasing taxes for people on low and average wages, which the Government’s proposals on tax thresholds will do.

Child poverty has been mentioned, and in my constituency 42% of children are growing up in poverty—a figure that has sadly increased each year since 2015. Child poverty is often a consequence of low pay. The majority of children living in poverty in my constituency live in working households. We should be doing everything we can not just to protect but to boost the incomes of the low paid, not drag them into taxation or increase the taxes on them. The Bill will cut the income of someone working full time on the minimum wage. We know that 2 million workers rely on universal credit to top up their low pay, yet in a few months, the Government are going to cut universal credit by £20 a week.

Poverty has been rising in this country, and whether it is the £20 cut to universal credit, the stealth tax in the Bill, or this year’s paltry increase in the minimum wage, the Government’s actions will increase poverty still further, and increase suffering as a result. My amendment would ensure that the tax thresholds for the personal allowance and the higher rate were kept in line with inflation, as per the Income Tax Act 2007. I tabled it because I wanted to draw attention not to Labour party policy but to Conservative party policy, because in the last general election the Conservative manifesto pledged:

“We promise not to raise the rates of income tax”.

The manifesto continued:

“This is a tax guarantee that will protect the incomes of hard-working families across the next Parliament.”

I just hope that Conservative Members will have the good grace at least to acknowledge that clause 5 of the Bill breaches that pledge, and that incomes are not protected. More of people’s incomes will be hit by income tax, and that is especially harsh on the millions of public sector workers who now face from this Government a pay freeze, a 5% rise in council tax and now this stealth tax rise on their income tax.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 1)
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

I support the Government’s measures. I hope that, given time, they work and we can get back to where we were in past years. I hope also that those who have tabled amendments that perhaps owe more to politics than to a desire to manage the economy properly will reflect and withdraw them.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

With the greatest respect for the previous speaker, I think there is a view across the House and in all parties that we need to manage the economy effectively in the interests of everybody. That means addressing the debt to GDP ratio—of course it does—but the question always arises, “Who bears the burden? Who carries the heaviest burden?” I believe that the Bill shifts too much of the burden on to those who are the least able to bear it. That is where we disagree, and it is an honest disagreement.

I will speak to oppose clause 5 standing part and to support amendment 2, and consequential amendments 3 and 4, which stand in my name and those of a number of my colleagues. Some of this is about confidence in politics, which at the moment is receiving a bit of a drubbing.

In the last general election, the Conservative manifesto pledged:

“We promise not to raise the rates of income tax…This is a tax guarantee that will protect the incomes of hard-working families across the next Parliament.”

Clause 5 breaches that pledge; incomes are not protected. More of people’s incomes will be hit by income tax. It is especially harsh on the millions of public sector workers who have faced from this Government: first, a pay freeze; a 5% rise in council tax; and now a stealth rise in their income tax. These people are low earners who struggle to make ends meet as it is. Low earners are heavily indebted. Some have been furloughed, losing 20% of their income for a year. Now they are being hit by a stealth rise in income tax that was not pledged at the last election and that any fair reading of the Conservative manifesto would have thought was completely ruled out.

The Labour party also stood on a manifesto that said there would be no rise in income tax for 90% of earners, and has recently said that now is not the time for tax rises. I hope that Members across the whole House will stand by their commitments at the last general election and oppose clause 5. This would allow the threshold to rise with inflation, as legislated for way back under the last Labour Government in the Income Tax Act 2007.

Low pay is endemic in our society. In 2015, the then Chancellor, George Osborne, promised a £9 minimum wage by 2020. It is 2021 and the minimum wage is still below that level. Let us look at an example. We know that half of all care workers earn less than the real living wage and the majority of children are living in working households. What does that say about low wages? The last thing any Government should be doing is raising taxes on low-paid workers, especially when that Government have broken their promises on raising wages and have failed to reach the target they set for the minimum wage.

Some Members may recall the Rooker-Wise amendment; it was a long time ago—44 years ago. That amendment overturned a similar proposal from the Callaghan Government. With many low-paid workers not getting a pay rise and facing mounting household debts, we should not be taking more of their income in tax. With high street retail needing an urgent stimulus, there cannot be a worse policy than removing demand from the economy at this time. That demand is really created by the people—these are the people who will spend, not hoard.

If the House is not minded to leave out clause 5, perhaps the Government can compromise and accept amendments 2, 3 and 4 in my name and those of other hon. and right hon. Members. These amendments would ensure that the stealth tax on working people was delayed until 2023-24—the same year that the corporation tax rise kicks in. Low-paid workers should not be hit with an extra year of tax that the corporations are not hit with.

Another point that I hope the Government will consider incorporating into the Bill before Report stage is the case for equalising capital gains tax rates with income tax rates. Ahead of the Budget, I was heavily briefed that this was being considered by the Chancellor. It is manifestly unfair that income derived from wealth is taxed at a lower level than income derived from work. I hope that the Government will look at this issue ahead of Report stage. I urge the Government to consider accepting amendments 2, 3 and 4 at a bare minimum—better still, leave out clause 5 altogether. Do not force the lowest paid in our economy to shoulder what could be the heaviest burden.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

I wish to speak to clause 5 relating to the changes in personal income tax allowances and to clause 28 relating to the freezing of the lifetime allowance on pension pots.

There is no doubt that the last year has made unprecedented demands on the public purse, and it is right that the Government should be prepared to take difficult decisions on taxation as we move forward, as we all very much hope, out of the pandemic and into the changed world beyond. However, the Government made clear commitments in their 2019 manifesto that they would not raise income tax on working families and they have broken that commitment in this Bill. The freezing of the personal allowance and the higher tax bands means that more working people will pay tax and at higher rates than they would otherwise have expected.

Clearly the Government are banking on a consumer-led recovery and this tax burden on working families will reduce the amount of discretionary spend available to households, limiting their ability to spend on consumer goods. As housing costs increase to their highest ever levels, household budgets will continue to be squeezed, and piling additional tax charges on top will create an enormous burden for those who are already struggling to make ends meet. It is a particular insult to those in our NHS, who have sacrificed so much to keep us all safe this year and have been told to expect only a 1% pay increase for their trouble. Our nurses will have to give back more of that 1% in tax than previously despite all that they have already given. This is particularly galling when compared with the Government’s decision to delay a corporation tax increase. The Government have chosen to tax hard-pressed frontline workers first and large, profitable corporations later. Only those companies that have remained profitable throughout the pandemic would be paying corporation tax next year, which is why an immediate increase in corporation tax could have captured the windfalls or excess profits of those who found their revenues increased as a result of the unusual trading conditions of the last year. This would have been a far more equitable route to raising income than putting the burden on hard-working families.

On clause 28, I urge the Chancellor to carefully consider the impact on NHS pensions of freezing the lifetime pension allowance. I have heard a few stories from constituents about how this measure interacts with their final salary scheme. While a figure of a little over £1 million would rightly strike most as more than sufficient as a tax-free pension pot, senior doctors in the NHS are finding it extremely difficult to assess whether or not their overtime will result in their yearly calculation of their lifetime allowance being tipped over the threshold and result in a current tax bill. The British Medical Association estimates that the number of GPs taking early retirement has tripled over the past decade and puts this down partly to the uncertainty about their tax bills.

It is worth noting that when the lifetime allowance was first introduced in 2006, it was set at £1.5 million, rising to £1.8 million in the financial year 2010-11. Since the Conservatives came to power, it has reduced every year to the current level of only just above £1 million. Like the freezing of the personal allowance, this has the impact of catching more ordinary people in the taxation net, and again we see that the Chancellor wants to raise money off the back of hard-working NHS frontline workers while protecting profitable corporations.

This issue has been a problem for doctors for the last few years, so the Government have no excuse for not knowing that the freezing of the pension lifetime allowance would make the situation worse. Have the Government carried out an impact assessment of the measure on NHS retention of senior staff? I am extremely concerned, at this time when our senior NHS staff are exhausted and facing a huge backlog of elective surgery, that skilled staff should not feel compelled to take early retirement because of an unintended and avoidable tax consequence.

The Finance Bill seeks to tax hard-working families and penalise those who have been working so hard to keep us all safe this year, and the Liberal Democrats cannot support these measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]]

With the support of a wide range of Members from across the House, I tabled amendment 78. Although we will not put it to a vote tonight, we intend to return to the subject on Report. Sadly, I cannot look the Minister in the eye, but I strongly and sincerely urge him to give the matter proper and serious consideration. A knee-jerk rejection to a practical idea simply because it is proposed by Back Benchers from across Parliament would confirm yet again that the Government listens only to the few—the powerful corporations and influential tax advisers—and ignores the views of most taxpayers in Britain today.

Boosting investment to stimulate growth is a vital and shared objective, especially as we emerge from the shadows of the pandemic, but the super deduction is both hugely expensive and poorly targeted. With a cost of £25 billion over two years—nearly half the total annual defence budget—the Government must ensure proper value for hard-working taxpayers. Our amendment seeks to target taxpayers’ money more effectively. Every new tax relief, as the Minister well knows, provides a new opportunity for the unscrupulous to identify loopholes and then to shirk their responsibilities and avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Capital allowances have long been fertile ground for tax avoidance. Anybody looking online will find an army of people advertising expertise in classifying expenditure to help companies to exploit the eligibility criteria and so avoid tax.

With a super deduction, the opportunities for exploitation are obvious. The tax relief will last for only two years, so it is unlikely to fund the aviation industry or genuinely new capital investment, which takes time to plan and to implement. It will mainly be used to cut taxes for companies that were investing anyway, and those that will benefit most are those that have prospered the most during the pandemic. They are the companies with oven-ready capital investment plans, benefiting from the increased demand that they have enjoyed over the last torrid year—companies such as BT, whose share price rose by 7% on the day the super deduction was announced, or, as others have mentioned, the notorious tax avoider Amazon.

In 2019, Amazon’s UK turnover was £13.7 billion, but by claiming that its UK sales took place in Luxembourg it exported its profits and avoided corporation tax. It declared only a bit of profit in the UK, as the shadow Minister said, on its warehousing and logistics activities. Its corporation tax contribution was less than 0.1% of its turnover. Analysis by TaxWatch shows that even that miserly contribution would be wiped out with super deductions. It would write off its investment in IT equipment and machinery against its deliberately understated profits. 8.30 pm

Does the Minister really intend to fritter taxpayers’ money away on bungs for global companies that do not pay fairly into the system? Jeff Bezos, whose personal fortune rose to $200 billion during the pandemic, and his $1 trillion company are pocketing money from the British taxpayer and flagrantly refusing to pay back into the system. Does the Minister really think that taxpayers support this sort of daylight robbery? Our amendment would provide a straightforward way for the Government to ensure that this did not happen. It would require proper transparency, with multinational corporations showing where they undertake their economic activity and where they make their profits as a condition of eligibility for super deductions.

The House voted in favour of country-by-country reporting in 2016, as the Minister said, but that power has never been enacted. Our amendment urges the Government to use that power to ensure that this egregious behaviour by companies is visible for all to see, and to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted on those who greedily grasp the nation’s money and assiduously avoid contributing to the public purse. Accepting our amendment would achieve two important objectives. First, it would stop taxpayers’ money being squandered. Secondly, with President Biden pioneering a new global settlement for corporation tax and the EU reaching agreement on country-by-country reporting, it would ensure that Britain played a leading role in developing a fair and responsible global system of taxation.

[John McDonnell]

Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), I find it almost incredible that we are having this debate at all, given what we know about the track record of abuse of this type of tax deduction, as she so eloquently pointed out. The Minister is right to suggest that amendment 11, tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Friends, would have the effect of removing the provision of capital allowance super deductions.

There has been considerable evidence, and concern, from economic think-tanks and Committees of this House that tax reliefs have failed to deliver their stated objectives and, worse, that they have often had unintended consequences through the creation of perverse incentives. Members have raised example after example in recent years, including the entrepreneurs allowance, the patent box and the tonnage tax, all of which have not only failed in their objectives but lined the pockets of company directors and shareholders, exactly as my right hon. Friend said. Accountants, lawyers and others have been using them effectively for tax avoidance. The scope for perverse incentives and unintended consequences is even greater with these super deductions. If the Chancellor wants a sweetener to go alongside his corporation tax rises, surely at a time of rising unemployment it is more urgent to incentivise job retention through a temporary cut to employers’ national insurance contributions rather than introduce what has been described as this dog’s dinner of untargeted super deductions in clauses 9 to 14.



Unlike Ministers, in dealing with business, I do not believe in a something-for-nothing culture. If the Government are giving tax breaks to businesses, the Government, as guardians of the public purse and the public interest, should demand something in return. New clause 1, in my name and those of other hon. and right hon. Members, asks simply that, in return for companies being eligible for these super deductions, they should pay their workers the real living wage and should recognise trade unions for collective bargaining purposes—two simple things that reflect that they are responsible employers.

I regret very much the Minister’s reference to these as “burdensome” requirements. Paying a decent wage and recognising trade unions are not a burden, but actually things that enhance the role of an individual company. As has been said in debate after debate, even by Government Ministers, in many instances the greater involvement of the workers in a company increases productivity. These are just low barriers for companies to pass. It does not take long to recognise a trade union or to be accredited as paying the living wage. Companies that do not currently meet these extra criteria could easily do so during the passage of this Bill and its enactment.

I also back the Front-Bench amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray). He is right that companies such as Amazon that dodge their taxes and evade their responsibilities to their workers should not be given tax breaks on top. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of his compact with unions and business groups over the furlough scheme. This modest new clause 1 puts in legislation the approach I am putting forward. I believe that it is within the spirit of that relationship between Government, trade unions and employers, and I just urge the Government to think again about accepting it.

New clause 2, in my name and those of other hon. and right hon. Members, combines a request for an evidence base for super-deductions in respect of capital allowances and to explore what economic benefits could be derived from attaching social and environmental conditions to the receipt of super deductions. I heard one hon. Member in this debate say that the Treasury monitors these policies and does indeed review them; unfortunately, it does not.

Historically, tax reliefs have been introduced, and over the years an accumulation of tax reliefs have never been reviewed and never really been tested for their effectiveness in the way they should be. The Office for Budget Responsibility stated in its March “Economic and fiscal outlook” that the super deductions, as others have said, are expected to cost at least £25 billion in total between 2021-22 and 2023-24. This is a huge commitment, and it is surely in the public interest that we have an assessment of policies’ effectiveness and also ensure they deliver on social and environmental goals.

In new clause 6, I seek to create an evidence base on which this House can assess the merits and drawbacks of the super deduction policy. The Public Accounts Committee has previously looked into the operation of UK tax reliefs, and its findings painted a worrying picture. These reliefs already cost more than £100 billion a year in forgone tax, and HMRC does not even know how many reliefs exist or monitor their cost, let alone their effectiveness. Let me quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, who is the former Chair of the Committee. She said:

“HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs…do not keep track of those tax reliefs intended to influence behaviour. They do not adequately report to Parliament or the public on whether reliefs are working as intended and what they cost and whether they represent good value for money.”

She went on:

“HMRC does not effectively monitor changes in the cost of tax reliefs so is slow in identifying instances where a relief is being exploited for a purpose”

beyond what Parliament intended. I think that is an accurate but damning indictment and one that should concern the whole House, but especially Treasury Ministers.

New clause 6 specifically recommends that the Public Accounts Committee is tasked with reviewing the effectiveness of existing capital allowances and that this House then votes on the clauses that provide for super deductions in the light of that evidence. I urge the Government to get a grip on the whole process of tax reliefs. We have seen how they can be abused. We have seen how ineffective they can be. We have also seen an industry develop, with accountants and lawyers who have profiteered from tax reliefs that the Government have introduced over decades. To add now to that abuse of taxpayers’ money in this way, I deeply regret. I urge the Government to think again. I give the Government this warning: in a few years’ time, if the Bill goes through as it is now, I bet we will be returning to this debate with example after example of how this system has been abused, to all our cost.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]]

I wish to speak to the numerous amendments and new clauses relating to corporation tax changes and the new super deduction.

As the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), will no doubt keenly remember, raising corporation tax was one of the pillars of Labour’s 2019 manifesto. We frequently hear Labour Members expressing the view that big businesses should pay their fair share of tax. I completely agree, and that is why I fully support the Government’s proposals to increase corporation tax with a new maximum rate of 25% for those businesses with profits of over a quarter of million pounds from April 2023. Unlike a rise in income tax or national insurance, which affects taxpayers in a blanket way regardless of personal financial circumstances, corporation tax is only paid when profits are made—no profit, no tax due. And where profits are made, it is of course absolutely right that a proportion of those profits is returned to the taxpayer, because without the infrastructure, education, security and health services that the state provides, those businesses would clearly be much less profitable.

Members across the House like to champion small and local businesses, and rightly so. These businesses will, in the vast majority of cases, continue to pay the lower rate of corporation tax. In my constituency, we have 2,890 registered businesses, with 88% having fewer than 10 employees. These are not the kind of companies that generally make profits exceeding a quarter of a million pounds a year. The corporation tax rise will only affect the very largest and most profitable businesses. In fact, only 10% of businesses will pay the new higher rate. The Government are right to delay the increase until 2023, as it gives companies time to plan as we emerge from a period of uncertainty, but it is wrong to say that the impact of the pandemic means that the change should not take place at all. Yes, many businesses have struggled during the pandemic, but some businesses have prospered hugely, often due to circumstances for which they can take no credit. Online traders and the big supermarkets have seen their revenues increase substantially purely because other retailers have been legally forced to close. It is therefore right for the Exchequer to recoup some of those additional revenues through taxation. These measures must therefore pass without the proposed amendments, some of which could allow large businesses to restructure to avoid the high rates of tax.

We all want UK businesses to be profitable, but we also want those profits to result in higher wages, better training and reinvestment in our economy so that profits can be shared fairly across society and not just concentrated among shareholders or the most highly paid executives. In other words, we need businesses to be more productive. Low productivity has been a thorn in the flesh of the UK economy for some time. The proposed super deduction is therefore exactly the measure we need to encourage the reinvestment of profits through large-scale investment, turning crisis into opportunity and setting UK businesses on a new path to innovation, productivity and growth. The OBR has predicted that this will increase business investment by 9% and lift us from 30th in the OECD’s world rankings for business investment to first. This is the right moment for this incentive, when many businesses have been forced to pivot or have seized opportunities presented by the pandemic, and now is the time to invest. That is why I oppose the amendments to the super deduction clauses, which would ultimately delay and reduce its effectiveness.

Our economy is an ecosystem, with the private sector, the public sector, our communities, individual employees and employers existing interdependently in a multitude of symbiotic relationships. Each element of this ecosystem has obligations and responsibilities to the other parts. For businesses, these responsibilities include paying fair levels of tax and making investment decisions in the best interests of our whole society. It is the Government’s role to encourage businesses to act for the common good. The unamended measures in this Bill will be successful in doing just that.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, freeports are a hugely important tool for rebalancing our economy across the regions and restructuring it in the face of the huge changes it faces in the coming years. They are not a silver bullet, but they are a key part of a strategic set of policies that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out in this Budget, an alternative set of which we are still waiting for from the Labour party. What are its ideas for rebalancing our economy? How will it increase prosperity and opportunity for communities across our country? Who knows? The plans remain shrouded in mystery, or maybe they just do not exist.

[John McDonnell [V]]

New clause 4 stands in my name and those of several right hon. and hon. Members. As I said in the debate on the provisions for super deductions, if the Government are giving tax breaks to businesses, then the Government, as guardians of the public interest, should demand something in return. The provisions in new clause 4, listed as (a) to (d), are modest demands that many Members, especially those on the Opposition Benches, think should be required of all businesses anyway. It is important that public money supports public goods and good public outcomes, like a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, like tackling climate change, in which we all—individuals, Government and businesses—must play a role, and like eradicating the gender pay gap, a process this House began over 50 years ago with Barbara Castle’s groundbreaking Equal Pay Act 1970.

The Minister referred to those as “complications”. I do not believe that paying decent wages, tackling climate change or overcoming the gender pay gap are complications. I believe they are essential criteria for any policy for the future. If we are to tackle rising poverty—if the Government want to do that—there is an opportunity here to end in-work poverty by guaranteeing the real living wage in companies locating to freeports. We have 4.3 million children in poverty, and most are living in households where at least one parent is in work. Government policy must act to tackle low pay.

Low pay holds people back and is often linked to insecure work, which is why the Government should also act to end zero-hours contracts. Insecure and low-paid work means insecure housing and instability for children. The Government should put down a marker in this policy for the society we want to be. As things stand, from what we have heard in the debate so far, it is a society for a few to profit and the rest to struggle. This new clause is about hardwiring fairness and justice into our economic system, and about levelling up. It should not be in conflict with any stated aim of the Government, and I hope that they accept the new clause or at least consider the issues about how we tackle this range of policies and use the state to enable that to happen.

New clause 5 also stands in my name. In its analysis of the Chancellor’s Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility said of freeports:

“Further details have been announced in the Budget but came too late to be incorporated into our forecast. We will return to this in our next”

economic and fiscal outlook. So this is policymaking as a leap in the dark. It is not evidence-based, but done on the basis of supposition and, largely, ideology, given what we have heard so far. What I seek to do in new clause 5 is create an evidence base for policy, on which this House can assess the merits and drawbacks of such a policy. There are reasons to be concerned. Many Members of this House will recall the debates about enterprise zones in the 1980s. Those zones did little to benefit local workers and simply transferred jobs and investment, rather than stimulating it. In an assessment of the enterprise zone policies of the 1980s, the Centre for Cities think tank found:

“The first two rounds…created 58,000 additional jobs (directly and indirectly), but over 40 per cent of those jobs were created by businesses that had relocated to enjoy the tax cuts”.

It also found that each job

“cost the public purse £26,000 (in 2010-11 prices), which was significantly more expensive than other policies”

for job creation that we were being pursued at that time. The same policy was brought back under the Government of David Cameron, championed by the then Chancellor George Osborne. Analysis of those zones by the Centre for Cities showed the jobs supposedly “created” in these zones were often just relocated from elsewhere. Unfortunately, the evidence showed that they were also overwhelmingly low-skilled and low-paid. Tax breaks in underinvested areas are not an industrial strategy. New clause 5 is a simple plea for evidence-based policy making, and one I hope the Government will accommodate in their future discussions.

I hope the Government will also accept new clause 25 in the name of the Opposition Front-Bench team, because it too demonstrates that evidence-based policy requires policies to be reviewed, and that the evidence base has to be assessed throughout implementation of any particular policy. The case for freeports has not been made and the risks are significant. There are risks of accelerating tax avoidance, and actually doing economic damage to areas neighbouring freeports is a real concern. To leap into a policy with such a lack of evidence and of account taking of past practice is worrying, to say the least.

This is the last time I will speak at this stage of the passage of the Bill, so I would like to place on record that, after listening to the debates on Second Reading and today, even I am shocked at the undeniable evidence of the scale of corporate capture of this Government, going well beyond anything we have seen under the last two Tory Prime Ministers. The central purpose of this Government, on the basis of these policies—both the super deduction and holding back the corporation tax increase, as well as the freeports—appears to be simply to line the pockets of corporations with taxpayers’ money and to render them free of any effective regulation that would make them accountable to a wider community. I therefore honestly and fervently fear for the future of this country in the hands of this Government.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

Budgets and their associated Finance Bills give practical meaning to the political aims of Governments. Manifestos and the rhetoric of party-leading Members and eventually the Queen’s Speech are the mechanisms used to describe the society that the governing party aims to construct, but it is its Budgets and its Finance Bills that are the tools by which the foundations of that society are laid. What we can discern from this Finance Bill is that, despite all the rhetoric from the Prime Minister, and all the personalised, personally signed social media promotions by the Chancellor, the society they want to build back to and to return us to is, in essence, the same pre-covid society of insecurity and inequality that left us so vulnerable to the pandemic.

I have heard the Prime Minister and the Chancellor claim that we have only been able to meet the demands of a pandemic because of the so-called strength of the pre-covid economy, so it is worth reminding ourselves what the pre-covid economy was like. Some 4.2 million of our children were living in poverty—30% of children in this country. Rough sleeping had more than doubled. Food banks were handing out 1.5 million food parcels a year. Nearly a million people were working on zero-hours contracts. Going into this pandemic, the NHS had suffered the longest funding squeeze in its history and there were 100,000 vacancies, including 40,000 nurse vacancies. Social care was even worse, with £8 billion taken out of social care budgets since 2010 and, according to Age UK, 1.5 million of our older people not getting the care they needed. The existential threat of climate change was effectively ignored, with the Government hopelessly off target to secure even the modest goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

We cannot stand by and let this Government return us to all that. If this Finance Bill is to have any relevance whatsoever, it must address those issues, but also the impacts and challenges presented by the pandemic, which has exacerbated many of those issues of the pre-covid economy.

Unemployment is forecast to hit 6.5% this year. Introducing the furlough scheme without conditions enabled fire-and-rehire employers to cut wages and conditions of employment. Low wages and inadequate sick pay have resulted in around 750,000 households being behind on their rent or their mortgage, and millions more are behind on basic household bills. With the eviction ban ending on 31 May and, realistically, no action on debt from the Government, we risk a surge in evictions leading to more homelessness.

Public services remain stretched, in many areas to near breaking point, getting through only by the commitment and dedication of often underpaid and still undervalued staff. Half of all care workers earn less than the living wage—the real living wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said from the Front Bench, the Government clapped for our key workers, yet now they are rewarding millions of them with a pay freeze or an insulting 1% rise. Inequality was rising before the pandemic, and the pandemic has only widened it.

The Government’s response, contained in this Finance Bill, has nothing to do with building back better. Some have suggested that, because the Government have been forced by the pandemic into large-scale spending and borrowing and corporation tax rises are now mooted, the Chancellor is implementing the policies advocated by Labour in its 2019 manifesto. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not the rhetoric that is important; it is the substance. Without structural change in our economy that fundamentally shifts the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people, our society will simply replicate the inequality and injustices of the past.

This Finance Bill demonstrates that it is largely the same old Tories and the same old Tory policies taking us back—building back, but not better for the many. If we look at the evidence from the Budget and in this Bill, far from addressing the mounting poverty in our society, the Government are not only cutting universal credit but freezing the tax thresholds of the low paid and doing nothing for those who do not even earn enough to reach the threshold.

On low pay, the Government have already failed to meet George Osborne’s much-heralded target of a minimum wage of £9 an hour by 2020, and they are imposing a pay freeze on many of the very people who have helped to see us through the pandemic. To compound that disregard for people struggling to get by on poverty pay, there is also nothing in the Bill that discourages employers from using brutal fire-and-rehire tactics to force through permanent wage cuts.

The timings of the Bill’s tax proposals betray the reality of the Government’s attitude to inequality. The Bill pushes through a tax threshold freeze for low and middle earners but delays corporation tax increases, which there is already speculation could be dropped in a pre-election giveaway to business at some stage in the future. Plus, the Bill contains no action to fulfil the much-publicised proposals to equalise the rate of capital gains tax with income tax. The Government have talked about levelling up, but Tax Justice UK’s analysis demonstrates that 1,600 of the wealthiest Londoners made more in capital gains than the entire north of England. Instead, the Bill proposes super deductions tax reliefs—a huge giveaway of £25 billion to large corporations.

As we have debated in this Chamber, tax reliefs have a long history of corporate abuse and failure to meet their stated objectives. I remind Members of the cross-party debates we have had on the issues around the entrepreneurs allowance, the patent box and the tonnage tax, to name just a few of the allowances that have failed to deliver and been open to abuse. Unless legislative protections are put in place, there will be huge opportunities for tax abuse and waste, and a level of corporate looting that could make the billions at stake in the crony contracts and the Greensill scandal look like chicken feed in comparison.

Similarly, previous track records demonstrate that the Bill’s proposals for freeports will, unless strictly regulated, open up a vista of tax abuse, wage undercutting and the drainage of investment from surrounding regions. It cannot be right that the Government’s freeports will be in place before the Office for Budget Responsibility has done any assessment of their merits. As Tax Justice UK has pointed out, the Treasury does not even have confirmed costs for this policy, despite the Government already announcing the eight freeport sites.

Also, nothing exposes the vacuity of the Bill more than its real failure to address the existential threat of climate change with firm action. There is nothing in the Bill that dictates this priority and the scale of investment and action needed to address the crisis of climate catastrophe that we now face. If there is one thing that people have maybe begun to learn in recent months, it is that the promises of the Prime Minister and the policies of the Chancellor do not generally coincide either with reality or, as some have alleged, with the truth.

This Finance Bill evidences starkly the level of corporate capture of this Government. This is a Finance Bill for the corporations, not the people. Before the much-heralded corporation tax rises ever happen, corporations will be compensated with huge tax reliefs, including the massive £25 billion tax giveaway to corporations paid for by tax rises on working people. At the same time, £15 billion of cuts each year in departmental budgets will continue the austerity that has undermined our public services over the last decade. So, far from building back better, this Finance Bill lays the foundations for widening inequality and continuing a low-pay, insecure work economy, complemented by huge potential for tax abuse and with crony capitalism virtually embedded in our economy.



The test of the Government’s purpose in the Bill will be their attitude to the amendments that will be inevitably be tabled to protect the lowest paid from the stealth tax increases of threshold freezes; to ensure that tax reliefs are not used as methods of tax abuse; to make unearned wealth taxed at the same rate as income from work, as was proposed by the Government; and to prevent ministerial interference, tackle low pay and exploitation and ensure that responsibilities to tackle climate change are upheld. From their attitude to those amendments, we will see whether this Government are a Government for the people or, as I suspect, a Government for the corporations.

Financial Services Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Let me just say that after our next speaker, John McDonnell, the time limit will be cut to four minutes.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

From the speeches of the previous two speakers, we can see that there is a thread running through the bulk of the amendments. It is that no matter how significant the contribution of our financial services to our economy, the widespread concerns about the probity of their operations should not be ignored.

New clause 1 standing in my name and the names of other hon. Friends would require the Government to publish a report; to come clean about the standard, conduct and ethics of businesses in the financial services; and to assess publicly the prevalence of unlawful practices such as tax evasion and money laundering and the prevalence of charging excess fees, tax avoidance and providing inadequate advice to consumers. New clause 1 would require the Government to consider and report on the case for a public inquiry and any plans for further reform of regulation.

The FCA plays a core role in the regulatory structure, and in this Bill it is gaining even greater powers. The appointment of the FCA chief is critically important therefore in determining the effectiveness of our whole regulatory system. For that reason, amendment 3 in my name would ensure that before the appointment of a new chief executive, the Treasury would publish a report on the FCA’s effectiveness under the outgoing chief executive. That would allow lessons to be learned. Amendment 4 would give some teeth to parliamentary scrutiny of the FCA by making the appointment of the chief executive subject to approval by the Treasury Committee.

Financial Reward for Government Workers and Key Workers

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who eloquently introduced the debate, and covered most of the ground that most of us want to emphasise.

I want the Minister to realise that getting petitions on this scale reflects a depth of anger among those most affected—civil servants, of course—as well as their families and the whole community. That depth of anger is felt because these are the people who kept this country going for the last nine months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, the Department for Work and Pensions, which is round the corner from me, administered a million more universal credit claims. The Ealing HMRC office, just down the way from my constituency, which the Government are closing, administered all the claims to keep businesses going—the furloughs—so that companies were not bankrupted. Also, there is Heathrow. This morning, I was on the picket lines. Two immigration and border control staff died as a result of covid. Those are the sacrifices that these people have made, so no wonder there is that depth of anger.

That depth of anger is being felt because this comes after 10 years of pay freezes and pay cuts—six years of a 1% pay increase, then pay freezes on top of that. We have an epidemic of in-work poverty, affecting 4 million people. Some 70% of kids in poverty are in families where someone is in work. We are now talking about destitution in our country.

I give this warning to the Government: there is another pandemic coming—a pandemic of debt. Some 18 million people have incurred debts as a result of the pandemic in the last nine months. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that we have never seen this scale of debt before. StepChange has said that nearly 600,000 renters are borrowing to keep a roof over their heads. I was startled to learn that 100,000 people attempt suicide associated with debt every year. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that 60% of those on universal credit have gone for a loan in the last few months. Why? To keep a roof over their head, and to put food on their children’s plates.

I am fearful of what will hit us next. I, too, do not want to hear claptrap from Ministers about comparisons with private pay. The Library demolished that argument. I find it ironic that the Government privatised public services, and are now complaining about low pay in the private sector. There is a bizarre irony in the argument that Ministers use.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who was the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is here with me. The economic illiteracy of this has not escaped us. It is almost as though John Maynard Keynes was never born. What we should not do in a situation like this is cut wages; that would cut demand in the economy. The argument will be that the Government are borrowing a lot. Of course we should borrow in this situation, to ensure that we pay wages to people on low pay, who spend their wages, which increases demand and ensures that we get out of the downturn as rapidly as possible.

My advice to the Minister is straightforward: the Government need to get back round the table with the unions and start negotiating a decent pay rise. Take a lesson from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who admitted before a Select Committee that having 200 bargaining units in the civil service was wasteful. Get back to one table, and one negotiation on fair pay for those who have given so much in the last nine months, just to keep this country’s head above water.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

As I said, we are looking at this in immense detail and at pace. As has been acknowledged by many stakeholders in the industry, there are genuine questions about practicality, fairness and delivery of any such support scheme, which is why it requires careful thought.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We have an urgent question on the self-employed after this, but to add to the comments that have been made so far, there is a sense of urgency about this now. There is no Member of this House who has not been contacted by a constituent who is in quite a distressed state about that. One of the most effective ways of supporting businesses is to make sure that the whole workforce is supported. There is another group—2 million workers are on zero-hours and there are part-time workers. They are still not eligible for statutory sick pay and they appear to be excluded as well from the job retention scheme, which is focused on the definition of “employees” while, in law, these are referred to and defined as “workers”. I have written to the Chancellor about this, so will he make a statement urgently that sets out how these workers will be protected in the same way as other workers were in the announcement on Friday?

[Rishi Sunak]

It is not the case that those who are on zero hours are not eligible for the existing scheme. Depending on their status, they would absolutely be eligible for the job retention scheme. It could be based on an average of previous earnings over a period in order to get smoothing, but there is no reason why they should not be eligible. In fact, any worker who was on a PAYE scheme is eligible for the job retention scheme.

[John McDonnell]

That is really helpful. I have welcomed the statements from the Chancellor to date, and I welcome that as well. I am grateful for the work that he is doing. There was confusion, and many of us had representations on that. I would like him to clarify one other point: he might have done so earlier and I missed it. Some people are being asked to work reduced hours in the interests of the company rather than being furloughed overall, and it appears that those people may also be excluded from the scheme. There is a lack of clarity on that: again, could the Chancellor confirm whether those workers will be included in the scheme? If not, can he bring forward a fairly urgent reform to the scheme to enable that to happen?

One other category we have had questions on is those people who have work available but cannot do it because of the shutdown of their childcare arrangements and as a result have childcare responsibilities. Are they are eligible for the furlough support scheme as well?

[Rishi Sunak]

In common with schemes all around the world, the schemes are for furloughed workers. The check is that the company decides to put an employee into a furlough scheme rather than retain them as employed. That is exactly the same as every other scheme. It is not possible to design a scheme that deals with flexible hours, with the result that the state would essentially be subsidising the wages of almost the entire workforce. It is something that we looked at in detail and, given the time we have available, we went with a scheme that could be delivered and is in common with almost every scheme around the world that does exactly the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is a champion for entrepreneurship in her constituency, and rightly so. The start-up loan programme is an excellent programme, providing grants of £25,000 for budding entrepreneurs. It has been operational for some years now and has provided almost 70,000 loans, putting to work more than half a billion pounds. It is absolutely right that, as we think about our future coming through the coronavirus, it will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow who will help to create new jobs and drive the prosperity that we will all want to see.[Official Report, 21 April 2020, Vol. 675, c. 1MC.]

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I again welcome much of what the Chancellor is doing, and say that we wish to work with him as positively as we possibly can in this very difficult period? I just wish to return to the issue of zero-hours workers. The Chancellor said very clearly that this applies to all those who are on PAYE, and I welcome that, but the point that we have been making is that many of these zero-hours contract workers—in fact, most of them—are not on PAYE. They are called limb (b) workers, so the scheme does not apply to them. I understand that he is doing his best and I understand the complications, but he has also said that for zero-hours workers, employers may compensate on the basis of average hours worked. The unions in this field representing those workers have urged that this should be mandatory and applied to all zero-hours and variable-hours workers based on average earnings over the previous weeks. That is exactly how those workers’ holiday pay is calculated at the moment, and it is an accurate reflection of what they earn. We need some urgent action for this sizeable group of workers. There are at least nearly a million zero-hours workers, perhaps a million more.

[Rishi Sunak]

As we are putting in place the detailed guidance for the scheme, we are actively considering the question of how best to average the earnings of people in this situation. I very much take on board the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that my team are engaging with those unions as we speak to try to get the details right.

Contingencies Fund Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Committee stage & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I start by assuring the Treasury Bench that the official Opposition will support this Bill? I support the Government throughout, obviously, but as the Minister might expect, we will be constructively critical as well throughout the process.

This Bill, as the Minister says, will enable the Government to access the resources to tackle the crisis. I have to say, there is a sense of irony here, because only three months ago I hoped to be bringing forward a Bill for about £250 billion as well, for long-term investment in our infrastructure—but that is another story. It probably would have been supported as well, because it was infrastructure spend. Anyway, we will support this Bill, but we have the opportunity to raise some issues on the way in which the resources will be applied—forgive me if I do that.

We recognise that this is the gravest crisis facing our country that any of us in this House has known. We are debating matters of life and death, and the proposals that we make now and the decisions that we need to take in the coming months obviously deserve scrutiny, and that scrutiny should be welcomed on all sides. Last night, the Prime Minister was right to call for people to stay at home to protect our NHS and to save lives. We called for enforcement measures yesterday morning, and the Mayor of London and many others have been making private representations for greater clarity and greater action.

Clear and detailed guidance to employers and workers is needed on which workplaces should close. As we saw in the earlier response to the statement, a lack of clarity remains about certain operations, particularly within the construction sector. We have received reports from unions, particularly those representing construction workers, that there is utter confusion on the ground at the moment about what operations should be maintained and which workers should be on site. For anyone who has been anywhere near the construction industry or worked on site at any time in their lives, things have not changed that much in recent years. These workers also work in some of the most insanitary conditions, so we have to ensure that they are properly protected.

The Chancellor and the Government must act immediately so that every single worker has a protected income. We discussed that earlier today. We want to ensure that every single household is secure in their home, whether they rent or mortgage, so that no one who makes the right choice to stay at home faces hardship. Last week, the Chancellor set out an unprecedented scheme to underwrite 80% of the wages of all workers “furloughed”—as he put it—promising that no redundancies or lay-offs were needed and that the Government would do, “Whatever it takes”. Today is the time to deliver, with clarity and security for everybody, including our most vulnerable, whatever it takes to keep them protected and safe. That is why we are supporting this Bill to enable the resources to be available.

Last night, the Prime Minister effectively shut down every non-essential business. I want the Chancellor and Treasury Front Bench to make it clear now that every single worker, in every single one of those businesses, will be covered by the 80% income protection scheme, and that if, as a result of that 20% cut in incomes, they fall below the thresholds for universal credit or housing benefit, they will be eligible for top-ups. I ask the question, will the Government consider setting a national minimum wage floor for the income protection schemes? That would protect the lowest paid, because 80% of low pay might result in some people being paid below the national minimum wage.

Will we now get more clarity on exactly when the income protection scheme will be operational? Will the Government also condemn employers such as Wetherspoon that have now stopped wage payments and told employees that those will not resume until the end of April? Some senior members of the Government have an influence over that particular employer, so we would welcome the Government making it clear to that employer that that he should pay his staff and that he should close so that that company can play its part in protecting the health of our community.

The Government cannot act only for workers who are furloughed. They must also step up for the many who will be having their hours reduced but not stopped altogether, by topping them up to at least 80% of their regular wage, or through some other scheme. When the Minister responds, will he clarify what will be the protection for workers who have been put on short time?

Sadly, many workers have already been laid off as a result of this terrible virus. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was extremely candid and honest last week when he said that he could not live on the £94.25 per week statutory sick pay. I do not think any of us can. How can the Government expect entire families to afford a week’s shop on that sort of income? Will the Government therefore increase the appallingly low level of statutory sick pay and ensure that all workers are eligible for it? So many are not at the moment. Will they also increase the £73 rate of jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance for disabled people? Will they also look at the even lower rate of carer’s allowance? Carers are expected to live on £66 a week.

As we discussed earlier today, there are 5 million self-employed workers in this country, many of whom cannot work from home. We desperately need a scheme that will be ready for them soon. It needs to guarantee them the 80% of income that others have been guaranteed. Whether it is a cabbie, a childminder, an actor or a plumber, there are battalions of self-employed out there who need their security. We need confirmation that a scheme will be brought forward not within days but within hours, to give them that assurance.

We also urge the Government to work with the construction industry and the trade unions to find a solution that covers the particularities of that sector—we have pointed them out before—with workers employed through payroll companies and umbrella companies. Most of them are forced into self-employment, and often exploitative self-employment of the worst sort.

I turn to housing. We welcome the moves to protect mortgage holders, with payment holidays now put in place for mortgagees, but we need the same security for renters and for the Government to understand the difference. For a renter, a rent holiday is not the same as a mortgage holiday. Rent is paid continuously during a tenancy, while mortgages have a fixed term, meaning that repayment terms can be simply extend. It is therefore important that the Government act to ensure that rents are paid, not merely that payments are suspended for this period.

We are extremely disappointed by the legislation published yesterday. Frankly, many believe that the Prime Minister has broken his promise to the country’s 20 million renters in 8.5 million households. It was not an evictions ban, as the Prime Minister promised. That legislation will not stop people losing their homes as a result of the virus; as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said, it just gives them some extra time to pack their bags. To be frank, it is just not good enough. The Government must look again; we urge them to look again.

There are also wider problems. Over recent years, austerity cuts have lessened the value of support available via housing benefit. The Government must immediately suspend the benefit cap and rid us of the bedroom tax that has affected so many families. We welcome the moves announced last week on local housing allowance, but the Government must go further and restore the local housing allowance from the 30th percentile back to the 50th percentile of market rates, as it was before 2010.

People will have made rental decisions based on their incomes, and they should not be penalised by the unforeseeable impact of the coronavirus, when we are asking people to lock themselves away. Now is not the time for families to be downsizing or sofa surfing with parents, grandparents or friends in cramped conditions. Many of us represent constituencies where overcrowding has become the plague of modern existence.

May I briefly pay tribute to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan? His team has worked tirelessly and creatively in securing hotel accommodation to get London’s rough sleepers off the streets, though we would like to know more about the duration and the cost of the deal that the Government have procured with hotels. It is important that the Government act to keep households in their homes so that that attachment to work, school and study can continue seamlessly at the conclusion of this extraordinary period. We cannot have a situation in which, at the end of this, tenants have either depleted all their savings or, worse, have amassed large and unpayable bills. If this is the case, the Government will be deferring evictions only a few months down the road, so the suspension of evictions for private and social tenants should be extended, we believe, from three months to six months. Shelter has estimated that as many as 20,000 eviction proceedings are already in progress and will go ahead over the next three months unless the Government take action to stop them, and they must be stopped. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury rises to his feet, he must be clear that there will be no evictions of any kind during this period.

In addition, we also believe it necessary to suspend all bailiff proceedings for the same period. Practically speaking, there are clear health and safety issues about bailiffs entering the homes of families who may be self-isolating. Furthermore, what measures is the Chancellor proposing for suspending payments of household utility bills? That was raised in the discussions this morning and we will support measures that are brought forward. During this period, we cannot have bailiffs and we cannot have disconnections of water, energy or internet.

What are the Government doing about those without internet access? Many people in our communities rely on libraries to access the internet, but now those libraries are closing. What measures will the Government bring in to ensure that people can get online, whether for benefit services or to maintain some form of social contact? These are huge demands being placed on the civil service, and I pay tribute to all those public servants throughout our public administration who are working day and night to establish these schemes. They are not often praised, but they are in this situation.

The civil service has been depleted by a decade of austerity. As extra demands are placed on, for example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, other civil servants are being redeployed. Are those recently retired or made redundant from the service being asked to come back to assist, just as we have invited other professionals to come back into the NHS?

Will the Minister also confirm that the current round of HMRC office closures and redundancies will at least be paused, if not reversed, at this stage? What adaptations have been made for those working in the mass call centres of HMRC and the DWP? Is the telephony technology there for them to work at home? Is there greater social distancing within the call centres themselves? We all know that universal credit cannot cope now, but its roll-out was again delayed in the Budget. Millions more households are becoming eligible for universal credit, housing benefit and other payments, so are the Government confident that the system can cope with this increased demand, because the feedback that we are getting from our constituents on the frontline is that they find it impossible because of the long waits to get through and have their case dealt with successfully. No one is blaming the civil servants; it is about resources and investment.

What are the Government doing to encourage businesses to take up business interruption loans, when some businesses see loans as less effective than grants for keeping them afloat? Is there potential for increasing the level of grants and extending their range? Have the Government considered our proposal that such loan agreements should include job retention clauses, which would mean that when businesses receive a loan, they can give workers the security they need in the knowledge that they will not lose their jobs? It is not much to ask of a business receiving financial support from the Government in this way that they work towards our overall objectives.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The difficulty with what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is that most businesses do not know the extent of this crisis and the impact it will have on them. It is impossible at this point to determine exactly how long this will last or how deep a recession might be. Is he not asking the impossible of businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

In the real world, that is exactly why trade unions have asked that when loans are given or support is provided through the jobs retention scheme, there is a requirement for businesses to sit down with their trade unions and work through a plan for the future. In that way, security could be given to workers, because they would be involved in determining that, and judgments can then be made at different stages of the business development process. We are looking for some form of assurances that will give wider security than there is at the moment. If a company is being supported by a loan or the job retention scheme, it is not much for them to sit down with their workers to work honestly and fairly on a plan for the future to see how they can work together to secure those jobs.

Consideration has been given to extending grants to many small businesses that cannot afford to take on additional debt. We would welcome information on how the Government will extend coverage by extending the range of eligibility criteria, to make the grants more flexible.

We also need clarity for workers beyond the retail sector—those on construction sites in particular, but also in factories, call centres, warehouses, distribution and other settings. What are essential workplaces? What is the clear definition? I think that many of these issues can be dealt with fairly readily in the discussions that the Government are having with the trade unions, but they need to be more detailed and on a more permanent, structured basis.

The NHS was promised budget increases over the next five years. We suggest that the Chancellor brings forward the funding for years two, three and four into year one. Can the Minister assure us that we will not have another weekend when doctors and nurses working in intensive care have to go on the media to beg for personal protective equipment and clothing? There were instances over the weekend, and we have heard assurances from the Government, but action is needed rapidly. Can he also assure NHS workers that they will get not only the equipment they need but the tests they need? The World Health Organisation has made it clear from the start that its advice is test, test, test. The scale and the speed of testing need to be addressed.

Can the Minister assure the House and the public that everything is being done to procure more critical care beds? I welcome the news that 7,500 recently retired staff have returned to the NHS, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them. The Government have begged retired NHS staff to return. We believe that the same must happen with social care staff. Chronic low pay in the care sector, with many paid just the minimum wage, means that staff have left for less stressful jobs in retail and other sectors. Those workers need to be brought back. They need the appropriate personal protective equipment and clothing, and they need proper recompense.

Many will have seen the devastating news from the Oaklands nursing home in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), where 16 of the 20 residents and seven staff have coronavirus symptoms. I was most concerned about the reports that, despite pleading for it, the home has been unable to source the proper protective equipment. Just yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for social care, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), demanded an urgent action plan for social care—a system that looks after those most at risk from the virus. As the Chancellor said, our social care system needs whatever it takes. Whether that is residential care, domiciliary care or family carers caring for loved ones in their own home, the resources have to be there now. Can the Minister tell us how much has been allocated immediately to councils and care providers?

Let me turn to local government. I welcome the sectoral consultation that is taking place and the dialogue with trade unions across all departments. Councils have a key role to play as the guarantor of social care provision, but they too have been devastated by cuts and now have the responsibility of the hardship funds to administer. Will the Minister be clear what extra resources are being made available to local councils, especially as many are likely to start seeing drops in council tax and business rates revenue? What extra funding is being made available so that councils can extend council tax support schemes in this period as well?

Although we fully back the measures outlined yesterday, there are unfortunately some households where these measures could mean more abuse and even risk to life. This is where domestic abuse takes place. For victims of domestic abuse and for others, this home isolation will be terrifying. We need the police, refuges, mental health services and other social services to have all the resources and capacity they need. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, who has raised these issues repeatedly. We need a positive Government response that is backed by sufficient resources and full consultation.

Others, like me, have raised the issue of the charity and voluntary sector. Many charities whose work is essential in filling the gaping holes in our public services and our safety net are desperately worried about their finances. Charities dealing with the immediate response to the coronavirus and its effect on the most vulnerable need access to enough grants to allow them to scale up their operations. Others need to be assured that they can access the same level of support that small businesses are rightly getting so that they can suspend some of their operations without having to lay off their hard-working staff and can restart once the crisis passes. Can the Minister tell us what reassurances have been provided by the Government to the charity and voluntary sector? Will the Government work with the sector to find suitable reliefs in these unprecedented times and can the Government outline what schemes are available now to charities struggling with the loss of revenue?

On schools and education, I understand that schools remain open to the children of key workers and to vulnerable children, but only if no safe alternative is available. As for the universities sector, may I ask the Minister about the fees that will have been paid by students in further and higher education and what refunds and deferments will be available? Many students—in fact most students these days, because of tuition fees—work in term-time and during holidays, and that work will no longer be available to them. May I ask the Government immediately to reduce the interest rates on student debt to zero for the duration of this crisis to assist those students?

On transport, what provision has been made by Her Majesty’s Treasury to refund lost revenue for transport authorities, whether that is Transport for London or those that run bus services across the country? On railways, I echo what my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Transport has said: we back the measures that will keep key workers and freight moving on our railways during this crisis, which has exposed, as he says, the fundamental weaknesses of the franchise model. May I also thank all the railway staff and bus workers who are keeping the essential parts of our country moving? Will the Minister assure us that all public facing railway staff will also have the appropriate personal protection equipment and clothing that they need? Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to making public transport free for key workers who are risking their lives every day? NHS staff are receiving free rail travel in Wales and a similar move is being rolled out in other countries, such as New Zealand. We would welcome that in this country.

Prisons were understaffed and overpopulated before this crisis. This is not just a question of resources but of safety. I welcome moves to escalate prisoner release schemes for those who do not pose a threat to our society, but the probation service was in crisis before this virus hit us and the lockdown announced yesterday complicates matters even further. Can the House be assured that the police and the probation service will have every resource possible to keep people safe and to monitor those who need supervision? I welcome the moves last week to release detainees from detention centres due to health and safety concerns. Can the Minister be clear about what extra resources are going in to protect people’s health overall?

I was brought up a Catholic. Our local parish priest optimistically calls me a lapsed Catholic, so I welcome any sinner who repents. I therefore reach across the divide and pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who yesterday said that

“many people who we considered to be low-skilled are actually pretty crucial to the smooth running of our country”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 17.]

I also echo his call to the Home Secretary. The point has been made repeatedly by the shadow Home Secretary and many of our Members on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman asked for the new points-based immigration system to be reviewed, in his words,

“to reflect the things that we have learnt during this time”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 17.]

Have the Government given any consideration to temporarily suspending no recourse to public funds, which is blighting so many people’s lives, or to allowing temporary access to benefits for non-UK nationals so that they can survive this period? That is important at a time when more and more people are out of work and unable to travel.

As a public service to all Conservative MPs, I say that the market does not distribute wages fairly or efficiently in a capitalist society, and there is no correlation between pay rates and the social value of many jobs. If there is one lesson that we learn from this crisis, maybe that will be the one that lasts the longest.

Just three weeks ago, I asked the Government to take a lead internationally in tackling this virus. It is vital that we are engaged in all global health and political forums and that we learn from best practice and share solutions, because this virus respects no borders. By helping others globally, we help ourselves. By neglecting others, we neglect ourselves. Will the Minister assure the House today that extra resources are being made through the international development budget to aid the poorest countries in combating this virus?

I think we will look back at this period as an unprecedented moment in our lifetimes. I know that this is already a tragic time for so many, and all of us will be hurt by this, but I want us all to be able to look back with pride about what we did in this period—to be able to say, “We widened who was covered by our safety net when we had to. We protected people and their jobs and wages. We cared for people around us. We provided all the support that was needed and, as a result of that, we came through this all the stronger.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, and indeed for all the work he does on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and for the many speeches he has made on the matter. I absolutely agree. The two best things that I have heard the Treasury say over the past two weeks—and there have been many—are, “We will do whatever it takes” and, “We are all in this together.” The banks should take that approach as well. I and many other Members of the House will be watching to make sure that this time the banks do the right thing and restore their reputation.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman has done some sterling work on this, so would he like to comment on the figures that are coming out on 6 April and the interest rates for overdrafts from HSBC, First Direct, M&S Bank and TSB? Nationwide have already gone there, with an increase from 9.99% to 39.9%. What does he think about that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think it is an absolute disgrace. I do not think that the FCA saw it coming, which is one of the flaws of the regulator. The FCA has been criticised many times in this place, including by the right hon. Gentleman. It told the banks, “Right, you’re not going to charge anybody any more than anyone else is.” But that let them all put their rates up to the highest level. It is exploitative and absolutely outrageous.

The banks need to look at this as a sector and start to treat their customers fairly, which of course is a basic requirement of the principles of banking, so the FCA should step in and look at this. In fact, I think it should be the subject of an inquiry by the Competition and Markets Authority. The fact that the rates are not just high, but all the same, smacks of directors getting together in a room and agreeing a figure. It cannot be a coincidence that all the rates are exactly the same in this supposedly competitive market.

On commercial loans, it is right that the Government have negotiated with the banks to give mortgage holidays, which of course have to be paid back but nevertheless give borrowers vital breathing space. I think the same is true of some commercial loans, but the banks are saying, “We’ll give you a holiday only on the payment of the principal, not the interest.” Those paying for a commercial loan are paying much more on the interest than they are on the principal, which again seems grossly unfair if we are all in this together.

We are going to work together to try to get through this, so I call on the banks to look at this again, to be fair and to rebuild their reputation. The final way they could do that is by suspending legal action, certainly in relation to residential repossessions but also for repossessions against businesses. They should show forbearance and use the business banking resolution service—I am one of the people who have been working on that in recent months—which will be like a super ombudsman for banking disputes. They should defer any issues they have with their customers until that service is properly established, so that those complaints can be resolved fairly—fair to the bank and fair to the customer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Absolutely. It is important, and I certainly welcome it. None the less, there are some challenges with it. The fact that it is not available for the March payroll is a big problem for many businesses. We have already seen a significant number of businesses close and many workers laid off who will not now be eligible to be part of that scheme. The Government, totally understandably, have used examples of furlough schemes elsewhere in the world, but it will be difficult for the scheme to deal with the nature and the scale of this crisis.

[John McDonnell]

What we were trying to establish in our discussions with the Government last week was equality of sacrifice. Yes, workers and the Treasury have realised that there will have to be some sacrifice, but we were expecting some contribution from employers themselves. An hour ago, 400 workers at Tristar in my constituency were laid off. Those 400 drivers were told that they will get paid 80% of their wages by the Government and they have been laid off for three months. We expected the employers to contribute to that 20%, but, in this case, that will not be paid. The crisis is falling on the shoulders of workers, rather than on businesses. There is no equality of sacrifice in a number of these companies, some of which are being ruthless.

[Bill Esterson]

My right hon. Friend highlights the fact that some employers do not behave in a way that we should be able to expect them to behave given the nature of the crisis. We have heard other examples of large companies behaving in a way that is irresponsible and, frankly, downright wrong.

In addition to what my right hon. Friend says about employers not paying the 20% element of the wage replacement scheme and taking advantage of it, it is also the case that, for employers who wish staff to go on to short-time or part-time working, or reduced hours of some sort, the scheme does not apply. There is a real challenge for businesses in those categories, too.

That brings me on to the self-employed and this point about desperation. People are desperate now. We have debated that a number of times today and over the past few days as well. I just do not get the sense of urgency in this place. We are in here, and away from the real world. The same applies with Whitehall. I just think that, sometimes, people here do not have a sense of just how desperate things are when two members of the same household are both self-employed and have no money. They cannot put food on the table. When the Chancellor says, as he did this morning, that he is worried about the scheme for self-employed going to wealthy people, I say, as indeed did the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton in his urgent question, let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let us get a scheme in place and let us make it comparable with what the Government have offered to employees.

I want to say just a word or two about food supply and how the fund might apply there. There will be challenges around security of food supply; obviously, given the closing down of international transport links, that will be a challenge. We heard about the pressures on supermarkets. Some of the behaviour in supermarkets has been completely unacceptable, and the same applies to pharmacies. I hope that some of this money will go to ensuring security of deliveries, to protecting retail workers, to making sure that food and medicine get to those who most need it, and to helping pay for deliveries. The same applies to the supply of PPE, which hon. Friends have spoken about.

The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is right to raise the issue of helicopter money; at some point, that is something that the Treasury should consider. Any scheme, whether on PPE, food or access to funds, is only as good as the information out there, the awareness of the scheme, and the immediacy of access to it. The Government need to do much more to ensure that people know what is available in all those areas. The gov.uk website will carry that information, but lots of people and businesses do not know that it is there.

There is a real imperative on the Government to work much harder on the information that is getting out there, and on access to what is being offered. Television and radio will lose their commercial advertising; there is a great opportunity to replace it. I can give an example of the power of really good advertising: the video put together by the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust respiratory department. It was one of the most powerful pieces of advertising about the need for people to stay at home that I have ever seen. The BBC showed it; I think Sky might have, too; and it had viral attention on social media. The Government need to produce advertising of that quality to demonstrate what is available in a range of areas across society. Some of this money can be used to deliver on that agenda. Information and proper access will ensure the most effective use of this enormous necessary injection of funding.

The debate has been an opportunity to bring together the issues. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take them to all his colleagues across Government, as appropriate. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said that 1919 was the last time there was this sort of scrutiny; that was the year of the Spanish flu pandemic. We will not vote against the measure this time, but let us hope that, this time, it is effective, and that the money gets through as quickly as possible.

Self-employed Persons: Financial Support

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

For some within this population—not all—there will be some solution already through the £5 million loan that is available as of yesterday. That will not cover the entirety of this population, but, in accordance with the business needs of some who are self-employed, there is support. For some of the population—again, by no means all—there will be some relief through some of the measures the Chancellor set out on property and business rate relief, but part of the complexity of the target population is that different measures work for different groups. That is part of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is working through, but I recognise the point my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and others have raised. We do recognise the importance of timing on this issue.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman and other Members that no one is looking for a row over this? We are looking for a solution. The reason some Members became irritated earlier was the emphasis, in one of the Chancellor’s responses, on the rich self-employed. They are not the people who are contacting us. The ones who are contacting me at the moment are the plumbers and the hairdressers. Yes, some freelance artists and others are in desperate straits, but I do not think there is a Member who has not received representations. We are just looking for something we can go back with today to give them some assurance. We know how complicated it is, but we have to find a solution quickly. I urge the Government to at least set a deadline, so we can go back to our members and say, “By the end of this week, there will be a proposal brought forward.”

The other assurance that people want was raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). If we can go back and say, “You will get the equivalent of the 80% or whatever that was offered to other workers,” it would lift people’s spirits that something was on the way.

Many self-employed workers, just like other workers, are having to sign themselves off sick. They do not have access to statutory sick pay—still. I have to say that asking people to survive on £94.25 a week is just an impossible ask. When the Secretary of State for Health was asked on television last week whether he could live on it, he said no. I agree with him. We need the level of sick pay raised for everybody if we are expecting them to choose not to work, and not have to choose between health and hardship.

Finally, in Treasury questions my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised a point about different categories of workers. I know that it is complicated, but we do have to consider agency workers. I have had many emails and telephone calls from people working in the construction sector who do not know whether they should be at work today, or whether they would be safe if they were. Let us use this opportunity to look at the exploitation by payroll companies and umbrella companies of people who in many instances are forcibly designated as self-employed.

We do not want a row over this; we want to work with the Government. In fact, Anneliese and I are happy to come and work a shift in the Treasury, if that is what Ministers want. [Interruption.] We might come up with slightly different solutions. We need this quickly and we need it to be effective as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]