Economy Update

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is enough. Now we will hear from the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mel Stride.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I broadly commend the announcement. My right hon. Friend has made a significant intervention to channel billions of pounds in a targeted series of transfer payments to those who most need it, but, as he will know, similar approaches were taken in the pandemic and there were many who fell through the gaps and missed out on support.

I note the additional £0.5 billion increase in the household support fund, which is welcome. Will my right hon. Friend set out to the House how he arrived at that figure and why he feels it will be adequate for the demand?

On the issue of inflation that my right hon. Friend raised, these transfer payments will stimulate the economy—granted, they will come with some tax increases as well—but will he share with the House his assessment of the inflationary impact of the announcement he has just made?

Finally, will my right hon. Friend appear before the Treasury Select Committee immediately after recess so that we can look at these matters in greater detail?

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I broadly welcome the Budget, which is the first my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has delivered in what we might call the second phase of this crisis, the first phase having been from a sharp contraction in the economy through to the recovery, during which period my right hon. Friend, I think it is fair to say—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. One moment. It is too noisy down here. It is not fair —the right hon. Gentleman has to be heard too.

[Mel Stride]

I was saying that in the first phase of this crisis, between the huge contraction in the economy and the recovery that we are now seeing, it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did a pretty remarkable job to support the jobs market and to support jobs—not without criticism, incidentally, from my Committee, but overall it was a remarkable job.

My right hon. Friend has an even tougher job as he looks to the future, now having to deliver sustainable economic growth and ensure that the public finances are on a sustainable trajectory, as well as meeting all the other objectives the Government rightly have on levelling up, net zero and so on.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]]

I broadly welcome this Budget, although I say that being aware that the devil is always in the detail of Budgets. We very much look forward to welcoming my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the Treasury Committee on Thursday next week to look at that detail in more detail.

I totally applaud the measures that the Chancellor has taken in extending the bridge of support—the bridge between the crisis and the recovery. I think the measures he has taken around furlough, support for the self-employed and the extension of the VAT reduction, business rate relief and so on are all most welcome. I also very much welcome, as I and the Treasury Select Committee have been pressing for them for some time, the targeted elements that he has introduced.

As we come through this recovery, there is no doubt that certain parts of the economy will pick up quicker than others. Some businesses will do better than others, so I welcome the 30% turnover threshold that my right hon. Friend has introduced, so that he can more accurately target the relief where it is needed. That goes also for what I understand of his announcements on grants, and of course the VAT reduction extension that will help particularly hard-pressed sectors. I also welcome the investment that he has announced in areas of the country, many of which will have suffered particularly during the crisis. I think that is also welcome targeting.

        If I could turn briefly to the so-called excluded—those who have fallen through the gaps of support hitherto—I am a little disappointed not to have heard something by way of support for those directors working through their own limited companies, paying themselves by way of dividend, yet not having those dividends counted towards their entitlement for furlough. There have been new ideas explored by the Committee, and I would hope, even at this late stage, that the Chancellor will consider some of those ideas with the Committee next week. I was, however, extremely pleased to see that the new self-assessment tax information that has been taken on board—right up until, I think the Chancellor said, last night—will be taken into account in helping many of those who would otherwise have fallen through the gaps in support, some 600,000 in total.

I want to focus on three important areas for business and jobs, and comment on what the Chancellor had to say in that respect. The first is corporate debt. The situation is that the data shows that larger businesses have a great deal of cash in the bank, and it is perhaps not surprising that they have been cautious, that they have received quite a lot of support from Government and, of course, that a lot of them have not been investing. However, among small and medium-sized enterprises the picture is less clear. I have a concern that many of those businesses will struggle with the level of the debt that they have, that they will not be growing when we want them to be creating the jobs of the future and that they will be focusing on de-leveraging their balance sheets. I would like to see something from the Chancellor as to how that particular problem might be addressed. If it is not, the risk is that many of these SMEs will go out of business and markets will become more concentrated and less competitive as a consequence.

Secondly, on investment, I was hugely encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the super deduction. My own view was that there should be an increase in the annual investment allowance. It seems to me that this goes significantly beyond that. The devil will be in the detail, but certainly, if the kind of projections for investment that he has just outlined by way of the OBR’s figures are correct, as I understood them, this will be a huge shot in the arm for corporate UK and very welcome. I welcome the three-year loss carry-back arrangements—also something the Committee has pressed for.

My third point is around skills. I have been very impressed with all the announcements that have been made around encouraging apprenticeships, and there was more in the Budget statement just now. On the kickstart scheme, it is imperative that we get this right and that we maximise the efficiency of the transfer of parts of the labour force from those parts of the economy and businesses that are contracting to those that are expanding. I think the Treasury needs to play a very proactive role in making sure that those schemes are successful.

One of the big tests I set in my mind for my right hon. Friend’s Budget was to what degree he navigated successfully the requirement not to put up taxes too early and choke off growth, but at the same time making it very clear to the markets that he and the Government are serious about dealing with the deficit and debt in the more medium term. I have to say that, once again, I have been pretty impressed with what I have heard. I want to see the detail. However, it seems to me that the tax increases and the threshold freezes that my right hon. Friend has announced do not kick in straightaway but he has charted a clear road map for how those taxes and thresholds will be dealt with between now and the end of this Parliament.

If I could just say, on the issue of corporation tax, that it is quite a hike from 19% to 25%. However, we still will remain internationally competitive, and I believe that President Biden, during his campaign for the presidency, suggested US rates might rise from 21% to 28%. So I think, on balance, this is a reasonable move, given that none of the possibilities is particularly palatable, and I welcome the carve-out for small businesses through the small profit rate.

It was pleasing to hear from my right hon. Friend that the OBR’s current projections have improved, and that we are hopefully going to get back to pre-pandemic levels of economic output six months earlier than was thought in November. But of course we still, as he has identified, face a huge challenge going forward, not just around covid, but with the issue that we will have a smaller economy and less taxes that will be able to be raised. Of course, we have demographic pressures going way into the future, with an increasingly elderly population and the pressures that will put on our finances. My right hon. Friend knows that it is critical that we deal with these pressures in a timely manner, or interest rates will rise—and, as he has stated, a 1% rise would mean an eye-watering £25 billion increase in the cost of servicing our debt.

That brings me to the principles that my right hon. Friend has set out today: not borrowing to fund day-to-day expenditure at some point in the future; and having an eye to seeing the level of debt as a percentage of GDP decreasing over time. Those are welcome signals from my right hon. Friend.

I want to turn briefly to an issue that I think is an underestimated threat that has not been discussed enough in an economic context: a return of inflation. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, has pointed to this risk recently. We know that if inflation increases and spikes, the Bank of England would need to tighten monetary policy to try to keep inflation under control. We would have bond markets in which the Government and the Bank of England were potentially both sellers, with increased upward pressure on interest rates and all that would follow.

Inflation might come through increased friction in global trade, and we have seen increased friction in trade with the EU27 as a consequence of Brexit. It could come through the exchange rate, although recent movements have been in a positive direction, as the virus is being clamped down on and our prospects have improved relative to other economies. Inflation could also come through increases in energy costs and the price of oil, or indeed the unwinding of some of the tax cuts, for example those relating to VAT.

But inflation could also come through the interplay between the supply and demand sides of the economy as we recover. On the supply side, it remains uncertain how quickly companies will bounce back. We know that many of them have been severely damaged. On the demand side, it is also the case that we will not know at this stage the extent to which consumers will re-engage with the economy in the way they did before the pandemic, even though the virus is diminishing. We also do not know what will happen to the huge amount of effectively enforced savings as people have been unable to engage in the economy in the usual fashion—perhaps up to £200 billion or £300 billion by the summer, the Bank of England has suggested. If a lot of that goes back into the economy quickly, it will have a huge stimulus effect. If very little does, clearly the opposite will be the case.

It is therefore absolutely right that my right hon. Friend is ready and prepared to use the fiscal levers as appropriate over the coming months. If he comes back to the House of Commons many times to do so, I think that should be seen as a position of strength, rather than weakness. I wish him well. The Treasury Committee will continue to be critical of him where appropriate, but also supportive in our common endeavour of putting the economy back on track.

In conclusion, I broadly welcome this Budget. It comes against the backdrop of one of the worst economic crises outside of wartime. Yet there is hope that springs from the past, and the strength that we held going into this crisis, of strong and stable financial institutions, record levels of employment, and hard-won improvements in our public finances. But now hope springs also, it seems to me, from the future: from the thousands of men and women—our scientists, health workers and volunteers—who appear to be on the brink of little short of a miracle, the wholesale turnaround in our country’s fortunes due to vaccination. Therefore, in broad terms I welcome my right hon. Friend’s Budget today, but I conclude by supporting each and every one of them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the leader of the Scottish National party, I should give a slight warning that there will be an initial time limit on Back-Bench speeches of seven minutes, but that will quite soon be reduced to five minutes, and quite soon after that to three minutes, if we are to have a chance of allowing everyone to speak. For the moment, it will be seven minutes.

Covid-19

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by associating myself with the very poignant and moving remarks made by those on both Front Benches about those who have sadly lost their lives to this devastating virus, and with the appreciation that they showed to those who have helped so much and are on the frontline? 

          I will address my remarks specifically to some of the economic issues around covid-19, not least the inevitable withdrawal of some of the Government’s support for businesses as we come out of lockdown. I do not say “inevitable” because the Government were not right to introduce the scheme in the first place—the Chancellor did entirely the right thing, and came in with the scale and pace to support business—but in the longer term, the amount of spend involved in such measures is simply unsustainable.

For example, the furlough scheme is costing as much on an ongoing basis as the funding of the national health service. Before coronavirus, Governments agonised over whether we could spend another 1%, 2% or 3% on the national health service, but here we are spending the equivalent of 100% on furloughing 25% of all workers in the United Kingdom.

I want to focus for a moment on how we might unwind the furlough scheme most productively and effectively. First, we should seek to taper it away, from 80% down to 60% and then to 40% and so on, to smooth our exit. Secondly, it is particularly important that employers should contribute to the cost of furlough beyond the end of June, because many of those with staff currently on furlough are not having to pay them and have no intention, in the medium term at least, of bringing them back in to their business. Thirdly, we need to encourage part-time working within the furlough scheme, where possible.

Finally, the Chancellor should look very closely at targeting support, not just in respect of the furlough but in respect of the other support that the Government are providing. There are at least three categories of businesses in our economy at the moment. There are those that will survive without any additional support through this crisis. Indeed, there is a small minority of businesses whose business model has actually thrived under our current circumstances. They clearly do not warrant support. Secondly, there are companies that, in the medium term, can be bridged out of the current crisis, through the provision of support. That is where a particular focus must lie. Thirdly, there are those businesses whose business model is such that, under the new economy of social distancing and before a vaccine arrives, they are, sadly, going to struggle to survive even if they are given support. I urge the Chancellor to take the courageous and difficult decisions on targeting at business and sector level, to make sure that the Treasury’s finite resources are used productively to support jobs and the economy as we emerge on the other side.

We also need to start talking about the plan beyond coronavirus, even though that may seem some way away. We need to talk about growth and how we are going to support consumer expenditure in particular, given that consumers do not feel like spending and may have increased their savings during this crisis. Temporary tax incentives, such as a time-limited VAT break, may be good in that regard. Finally, as I stick within my four minutes, business indebtedness will have increased. We need the Government to look at how some of that debt can be turned into equity, so that businesses can focus on investing and creating jobs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. I now call, to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party, Dr Philippa Whitford, whom I ask to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Finance Bill

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution
Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]]

The economic backdrop to this Finance Bill is among the most challenging that this country has ever faced. The Office for Budget Responsibility, for example, in the scenario that it put forward, suggested a 35% contraction in the economy followed by a rapid bounce back—the so-called V-shaped recovery. Whether that is realistic or not remains to be seen, but it is the case that the Government have some significant control over two areas of policy that will determine whether we come back with a V-shaped recovery or not: the timing and nature of our exit from the lockdown.

On timing, as the House will be aware, the Government have put forward five tests, one of the most important of which is the fifth test, which is that we should extract ourselves from lockdown but in a manner that does not cause a second flare-up of the virus, which happened with the flu pandemic of 1918. This is critical; if the Government get it wrong and we do have that second surge in the virus, it will be a catastrophe for our economy and we will have not a V-shaped recovery, but at best a double-dip recession of some magnitude. It is therefore very important that the Government be allowed the time and space to take those decisions, and that we are patient with them.

Secondly, on the nature of our withdrawal, it is important that we have transparency. As the Chair of the Treasury Committee, I urge the Government to engage with businesses on the broader elements of the plan, so that they can both input and adjust accordingly. The element of which the Government have control, of course, is the support they are providing to the economy, at considerable scale and pace. The Chancellor is to be congratulated on that, but with scale and pace come hard edges to policy and challenges in delivery. Examples of both that the Government should focus on are, first, making sure that, for the self-employed who work through their own companies, dividends that result from self-employment can count when it comes to assessing the furlough amount that they can qualify for. Secondly, on delivery, we heard from the Chancellor earlier about bounce-back loans. I welcome those a great deal, but we also need to ensure that the banks are on notice that we expect them to deliver on the coronavirus business interruption loans and the other loans concerned. Through the Treasury Committee, I have had conversations with the British Business Bank and also written to the banks on its lending panel to urge them to come forward transparently and provide us with data on how much money is going out the door relative to the number of applications on a daily basis. I call on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Government to row in behind us and ensure that transparency, because what gets measured tends to get done.

Let me turn to two specific points in the Finance Bill. The first is the changes that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just outlined in respect of entrepreneurs relief. He is right to make those changes; it is a relief that is not fit for purpose. However, there are £24 billion-worth of reliefs every year relating to businesses, and at a time when we need economic growth encouraged at every single turn, it is imperative that the Treasury examines all £24 billion-worth of those reliefs and makes sure that they are all fit for purpose.

Secondly, I was particularly pleased to see such a large number of clauses relating to the digital services tax. It is not right that search engines, online marketplaces and social media platforms should not be paying a fair level of tax in our country. It is not a case of evading tax; it is a case of the taxation system not being adequate for the 21st century. We cannot assess national taxation rights on property, on where people are, on where the management are or on where the intellectual property resides; we must do it on where value is created. These measures are a big step in the right direction. I urge the Financial Secretary to stick to his guns. He will face great pressure from the United States in particular, but in the absence of an international approach to this matter, it is vital that we take action.

I think my five minutes are now up, and I am very aware of your exhortation, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude, except to say that I will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Exactly five minutes; I commend the right hon. Gentleman. I call Alison Thewliss, who, as her party spokesperson, is asked to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Business of the House

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Polly and all those at her school on all the work they are doing to try to see an end to single-use plastics. I point to our own record in this respect: the use of single-use plastic carrier bags has fallen by 86% as a consequence of the charges we have levied. As he will know, we are now looking to go further still by ensuring that we rid our country of single-use plastics as quickly as possible. An Adjournment debate might be a useful avenue for him to pursue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Hugh Gaffney.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House will be aware that PCS members who work in the Foreign Office took another round of action this week. These are dedicated, hard-working staff who face financial hardship because of the actions of the contractor, Interserve. Cleaners who work at the Foreign Office have seen their guaranteed overtime removed with no warnings or consultation. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to intervene and support the work of his own Department, and to come back here with a statement?

Business of the House

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

This is clearly a matter of the utmost urgency, and I would be very grateful if the hon. Lady met me immediately after these questions to discuss it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady asked if the Chair could do anything to help. I can merely say that this is clearly a serious and urgent matter, and I am delighted to hear what the Leader of the House has said, which I am sure will move matters forward.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

May we have a debate on UK resilience planning in the face of weather emergencies? I ask this because, last Monday, the people of Stirling experienced an extraordinary weather event, which resulted in widespread flooding and flood damage in the constituency. Will the Leader of the House also join me in expressing appreciation of the professional and highly effective response of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland; the business community and their employees; and especially the employees of Stirling Council—led by the chief executive, Carol Beattie, as well as Brian Roberts, head of infrastructure, David Creighton, head of roads and land services, and Kristine Johnson in relation to emergency planning—and the staff of Castleview Primary School, and Ochil House and Wallace High School, because it was one of their finest hours?

Business of the House

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We all wish the Opposition Chief Whip a very happy birthday.

[Mel Stride]

There is only one person in this House whose birthday is more important than that of the shadow Chief Whip and that is the Chief Whip. I do not know when it is, but whenever it is I wish him a very happy birthday, too. I do not know what the shadow Chief Whip treats himself to on his birthday. Perhaps he polishes the instruments of torture in the Labour Whips’ Office. [Interruption.] He is a softy indeed, as the shadow Leader of the House says, and I wholeheartedly concur with her best wishes to the shadow Chief Whip.

The hon. Lady raised a large number of points, which I will attempt to deal with in turn. She made reference to the blank page that she has received in the forthcoming business. That is indicative of the large amount of business that we will be bringing forward in due course to fill that page and many others. She quite accurately raised the issue of the preponderance of Back-Bench business debates that we are putting forward at the moment. That is for two reasons. One is that we want to hear and engage with Back Benchers, because, as Conservatives, we have a very inclusive style of government. Secondly, the persuasive abilities of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) know no bounds, so if we want to see fewer of those debates, we will have to have a word with him. The hon. Lady also made a request for Opposition day debates. They are handled through the usual channels and will, of course, be considered in a sensible and measured manner.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Bill. That is a very important measure. The fact that we have brought it forward so quickly underlines its importance in making sure that businesses up and down the country are able to have more frequent valuations of their rates and bringing forward the first revaluation by one year to 2021.

The hon. Lady, once again and quite understandably, asked about the recess dates. I do not have an announcement to make this morning, but I will of course come back to the House with one at the earliest opportunity, and it will be for the House to pass the motion in that respect in the normal way.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of proroguing Parliament as, I think—I am paraphrasing her comments —a device, perhaps to ensure a no-deal situation in the absence of Parliament sitting. That is not the Government’s policy on this at all, and it is certainly our feeling that Her Majesty the Queen should be kept out of politics; it would be unfair to draw her into a political situation in that form.

The hon. Lady made several references to no deal and the various positions of the Conservative candidates—the runners and riders in the forthcoming contest. I do not think it would be right for me to comment specifically on any of them other than to say that what does perhaps unite the whole House is that having a deal is better than having no deal, provided that we can come together to secure that outcome.

To my surprise, actually, the hon. Lady raised the issue of employment—specifically in the west midlands—on which this Government, of course, have an outstanding record. We have the highest level of employment in our history. We have the lowest level of unemployment since 1974. We have halved the level of youth unemployment since 2010. We have continued economic growth, and living standards and real wages are rising as we go forward.

Let me finish by saying that the hon. Lady and I have already struck up a good relationship. We are already seeing eye to eye on many important matters such as restoration and renewal and the work that we will jointly be engaged in on the independent complaints and grievance scheme. We both believe that Parliament must have a strong and loud voice, and of course we both believe in debate and scrutiny. So given that we agree on so much, perhaps I could quote the immortal words of the late, great Amy Winehouse:

“Why don’t you come on over Valerie?”

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

rose—

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

Order. It is not for the hon. Lady to ask questions of the Minister at this point. When the Minister is speaking, she might wish to try to intervene at that point, but she cannot require the Minister to answer her question at this point. She can expect him to answer it when he addresses the Committee later. Having said that, if the Minister wishes to jump up at this point, I will not stop him. It is an interesting matter.

[Mel Stride]

I was just going to say that, as the hon. Lady will know, all amendments need to be in scope and that that is ultimately a decision for Mr Speaker. I am sure that he has taken the appropriate decisions in this case—[Interruption.]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I have made a mistake, in that I thought the Minister had already addressed the House on this group. I also beg the Minister’s pardon.

[Mel Stride]

There was a ripple of dissatisfaction when you failed to call me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was almost imperceptible. Thank you for correcting your error.

In this debate we have heard about a range of issues, including the changes the Finance Bill makes to the bank levy, the taxation of private finance initiatives, and tax avoidance and evasion. I will respond to each in turn, starting with the bank levy. Opposition Members have raised a number of objections to the changes to the levy made by the Finance Bill and to the Government’s broader approach to bank taxation. These are unjustified. This Government remain committed to ensuring that banks make an appropriate additional tax contribution, beyond that paid by other businesses, that reflects the unique risks they pose to the UK financial system and to the wider economy.

I shall address some of the arguments put forward by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), which I felt focused far too much on the bank levy. It is indeed declining, but there is good reason for that. In 2015, when we took the relevant decisions on this, we recognised that the risks presented by our banks had eased quite considerably. Indeed, the Bank of England has recently carried out rigorous stress testing on the banks, and that was the first occasion on which not a single bank failed its stress test. That is indicative of the fact that one of the raisons d’être for the bank levy has started to recede. That is to say that the banks are less of a risk than they were before, and the charges on the assets and liabilities that they hold are therefore becoming less relevant. The hon. Gentleman did not focus so much on the surcharge to the banking tax, which came in from 1 January 2016 and which represents an additional 8% on the profitability of banks at the present time. Whereas corporations are paying 19%, we are now looking at a total rate of around 27% for banks.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in schedule 9, page 132, line 32, leave out from “in” to end of line 33 and insert

“accordance with the provisions of section (bank levy: Part 1 of Schedule 9: pre-commencement requirements)”.

This amendment paves the way for NC3.

New clause 1—Review of operation and effectiveness of bank levy—

“(1) Schedule 19 to FA 2011 (bank levy) is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 81, insert—

Part 10

Review

82 (1) Within six months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review of the operation and effectiveness of the bank levy.

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(a) the effectiveness of the levy in reflecting risks to the financial system and the wider UK economy arising from the banking sector,

(b) the effectiveness of the levy in encouraging banks to move away from riskier funding models,

(c) the revenue effects of the changes to the levy made in Schedule 2 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015,

(d) the effectiveness of the anti-avoidance provisions in paragraphs 47 and 48 of this Schedule.

(3) A review shall also compare the effects of the bank levy with those of the bank payroll tax (within the meaning given by Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 2010) in relation to—

(a) revenue, and

(b) the matters specified in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b).

(4) A report of the review under this paragraph shall be laid before the House of Commons within one calendar month of its completion.””

This new clause requires the Government to carry out a review of the bank levy, including its effectiveness in relation to its stated aims, the revenue effects of the changes made in 2015 and the comparable effectiveness of the bank payroll tax.

New clause 2—Public register of entities paying the bank levy and payments made—

“(1) Schedule 19 to FA 2011 (bank levy) is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 81, insert—

Part 11

Public register of payments

83 (1) It shall be the duty of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to maintain a public register of groups paying the bank levy and the amounts paid.

(2) In relation to each group, the register shall state whether it is—

(a) a UK banking group,

(b) a building society group,

(c) a foreign banking group, or

(d) a relevant non-banking group.

(3) In relation to each group, the register shall state the amount paid in respect of each chargeable period.

(4) In relation to chargeable periods ending between 28 February 2011 and 31 December 2017, the Commissioners must public the register no later than 31 October 2018.

(5) In respect of subsequent chargeable periods, the Commissioners must public the updated register no later than ten months after the end of the chargeable period.””

This new clause requires HMRC to prepare a public register of banks paying the bank levy and the amount they have paid.

New clause 3—Bank levy: Part 1 of Schedule 9: pre-commencement requirements—

“(1) Part 1 of Schedule 9 shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) No later than 31 October 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before the House of Commons an account of the effects of the proposed changes in Part 1 of Schedule 9—

(a) on the public revenue,

(b) in reflecting risks to the financial system and the wider UK economy arising from the banking sector, and

(c) in encouraging banks to move away from riskier funding models.

(3) Part 1 of Schedule 9 shall have effect in relation to chargeable periods ending on or after 1 January 2021 if, no earlier than 30 November 2020, the House of Commons comes to a resolution to that effect.”

This new clause requires the Government to provide a separate analysis of the impact of Part 1 of Schedule 9 nearer to the time of proposed implementation in 2021 and to seek the separate agreement of the House of Commons to commencement in the light of that review.

New clause 11—Review of effects of bank levy on inclusive growth and equality—

“(1) Schedule 19 to FA 2011 (bank levy) is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 81, insert—

Part 10

Review on inclusive growth and equality

82 (1) Within six months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review of the bank levy.

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(a) the effects of the levy on inclusive growth,

(b) the impact of the levy on equality.

(3) A report of the review under this paragraph shall be laid before the House of Commons within one calendar month of its completion.””

This new clause requires the Government to carry out a review of the bank levy, including its effects on inclusive growth and inequality.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

The Finance Bill makes changes to the bank levy, in particular restricting its scope to UK activities. These changes support our vision to help keep UK banks globally competitive. They reflect improvements in international banking regulation that reduce the risk of overseas operations to the UK, and they complete a set of changes announced in 2015 and 2016 that significantly increase the tax we raise from our banks.

Let me be clear from the outset that this Government believe that banks should make a significant contribution to the public finances, beyond general business taxation, that reflects the risk they pose to the UK economy. That has been the record of Chancellors since 2010. As part of that, in 2011 the Government introduced the bank levy on the balance sheet equity and liabilities of banks and building societies, but this additional tax contribution made by banks has to support our broader objectives for the sector. It therefore needs to be responsive to international commercial and regulatory changes in banking. Any tax changes should ensure that we can continue to secure the additional contribution from the banks from a sustainable tax base, and they also need to ensure we retain a strong, stable and competitive banking sector that supports the wider economy by lending capital to both businesses and individuals.

Finance Bill

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Even if hon. Members are making a noise in support of the Minister, which I rather think they are, I cannot hear the Minister, and just as others are learning, I am learning from what the Minister is saying, and I would like to hear him.

[Mel Stride]

Thank you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am pleased that you will be able to hear me from now on. I entirely accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies); if there is to be an insurrection, there must at least be some people present with whom to insurrect.

Ways and Means

Debate between Mel Stride and Eleanor Laing

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman must not add more from a sedentary position to his point of order, so I will not take up that point, which in any case I cannot answer. The Minister has barely begun, and I am sure that in his wide-ranging speech he will cover everything he ought to cover and everything the House requires him to cover.

[Mel Stride]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have put that better myself. [Interruption.] And I will get on with it, too. I am not surprised that Labour Members are slightly shy about our discussing their tax plans, because they are not good for our country. Having a plan to raise corporation tax to 26%, with an increase for small companies as well, and to change the tax threshold to bring many, many more people into the higher rate of tax is not a way of incentivising jobs, wealth and economic growth, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Our changes to tackle avoidance of corporation tax by multinationals are part of a number of changes that take further steps in tackling tax avoidance and tax evasion. Others covered by these resolutions will introduce a penalty for those who enable tax avoidance, a penalty for transactions connected with VAT fraud and measures to tackle disguised remuneration tax-avoidance schemes.

The Government’s aim to make the tax system fairer is further supported by the Bill’s provisions on the taxation of those with non-domiciled status. A number of changes will be made, and these are forecast to raise £1.6 billion over the next five years. Most importantly, permanent non-dom status for people resident in the UK will be ended, so that they pay tax in the same way as everybody else. That major reform makes the tax system—