Financial Services and Markets Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

I think that both that intervention and the muttering from a sedentary position on the Treasury Bench give an indication of just how seriously this Government take money laundering. Perhaps we can all speculate as to the reasons why.

We are not against the idea that any regulation should be applied proportionately, but it is too sweeping a generalisation to say that, because of someone’s job or who they know, they somehow become less of a risk. Let me give just one example. Would Baroness Mone of PPE Medpro have been regarded as being at low risk of anything because she was a Member of the House of Lords and a one-time Government envoy?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Member that we are not allowed to directly criticise Members of the House of Lords by name.

[Peter Grant]

I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker. Unless I said more than I intended to, I think I was asking a question; I was not expressing an opinion.

Let us not forget that over the last 10 to 15 years a huge amount of dirty money from Russia and other former Soviet republics has been laundered into the United Kingdom by people who, at least financially and in terms of their donations, were very closely associated indeed with leading politicians. It has to be said that, had Putin not carried out a second invasion of Ukraine last year—if he had been satisfied with the original illegal activity in Ukraine 2014—that money would probably still be coming in, because the Government only moved in a big way on dirty Russian money after the second invasion of Ukraine. They did not do anything, or anything like enough, in 2014 or afterwards, so we have to ask whether they are really serious about cutting off this dirty Russian money at source and handing it back to the people that it was originally stolen from.

I thought it was quite interesting that the Minister said that it was a bad idea to agree Lords amendment 10, to improve financial inclusion, at such a late stage, when the Government are happy to accept Lords amendment 38, to weaken our defences against money laundering, at the same late stage. That may give an indication of what the priorities might be of people who wield a lot of influence over the Government—maybe not the Minister’s own priorities.

As I have said, we in the SNP continue to support the Bill. Our concerns on almost all counts have been in areas that did not go far enough, such as the accountability of the regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority, for example. My issue is that the regulators have not been held properly to account for the myriad times they have failed to regulate and have simply not protected the public and investors. Other authorities have not protected pensioners. We can look at Blackmore Bond, London Capital and Finance, Premier FX, the British Steel pension scheme, the AEA Technology pension scheme, and hundreds of other financial scandals that were allowed to happen—or certainly allowed to happen as badly as they did—because the regulators did not do the job they were set up to do. They should be held accountable to this place and to the public for their failures to regulate. I am concerned that if we tie them up with too much regulation about how they regulate, and if they are worried about being dragged into Parliament or politically overruled when they do regulate, there is a danger that they will start to lose their independence from political interference, without which no regulator on these islands can ever be effective.

It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to reject some Lords amendments that would have made the Bill better, and to push through at least one that will significantly weaken it. It would be sad indeed if this elected Chamber were not allowed to express its will on whether amendment 38 makes the Bill better or worse. I for one believe that it makes it worse, and I hope we will be able to divide the House on it tonight.

Cost of Living

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups will begin immediately after Mr Hendry sits down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

No, I am going to finish in just a second.

Those are the things that we try to do in Scotland to help to mitigate the harms from this place, but we could do so much more. We could do things very differently, but we need the powers of independence in order to do that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are moving on to the wind-ups. I anticipate Divisions in 20 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Probably not.

There is a common theme this afternoon, especially from colleagues on the SNP Benches, which is borne out by what we are all hearing on the doorsteps. In short, that theme, which comes up time and again, is that Scotland can no longer afford to be tied to an intransigent British Government who are ploughing on with Brexit at any cost. It is clearer than ever that we need independence, so that people in Scotland can stop paying the price for disastrous decisions made here in London by a Government Scotland did not vote for. Indeed, we have not voted for the Tories since 1955.

We should be clear that the cost of living crisis is not necessarily a new thing. Yes, it has got worse, but for many of those I represent in Glasgow’s east end, it has been a permanent fixture in their lives due to Westminster’s inability to truly tackle structural inequality. In short, the cost of living crisis is the culmination of 13 long, brutal, cold years of austerity policies, compounded by Brexit and last year’s kamikaze Budget, which crashed our economy and trashed the Tories’ record on economic credibility.

Let us look at the backdrop against which today’s debate takes place. In this, the sixth richest economy in the world, baby formula is now security tagged. It is now put behind tills to avert mothers stealing milk to feed their children. Now, if that is the image Ministers wish to project when it comes to global Britain, then it is certainly a look—I will give them that—but it would be remiss of me, when we focus on supermarkets and retailers and discuss the cost of living crisis, not to look at the issue mentioned in the motion before the House today. I ask Members to think very carefully about what is in the motion. It deals with price gouging, which was not referred to by either Front Bencher, and the need for tougher action on what has been dubbed “greedflation”.

We believe Ministers should follow the lead of other European countries to bring down the price of food and other necessities, a view supported by many of my constituents who are absolutely baffled as Westminster stands idly by while food prices continue to skyrocket. For example, France introduced a price block on staple products, with supermarkets pledging to keep the prices of certain food and hygiene products as low as possible. It is precisely for that reason that the British Government must intervene and put pressure on major retailers to pass on falling wholesale prices to consumers. More than that, it is vital that the Competition and Markets Authority utilises its full powers and imposes maximum fines where evidence of price gouging is found. Profiteering from selling basic necessities is unjust at any time, but at a time when numbers—record numbers—of people are turning to food banks and skipping meals, it is simply abhorrent.

The Bank of England recently found that falling costs at some companies were

“not automatically being passed through to consumer prices in an attempt to rebuild profit margins”.

Indeed, it was revealed just on Friday that the chief executive of Tesco received a £4.4 million pay packet last year. Ken Murphy was given a base salary of £1.37 million and received £2.73 million in an annual bonus, making around 197 times the amount of the average Tesco worker. That is the level of inequality we have baked into a system that is broken, and broken beyond repair. When I go to Tesco in Shettleston, the very many people I bump into there are shocked at the idea of a boss coining in £4.4 million, when many of them are trying to work out what they can remove from their basket so they have enough to get by.

Of course, stubbornly high inflation extends to so much more than food. Each week on the doorsteps, constituents tell me how they have resorted to rationing baths and showers simply to save on energy costs. That my constituents live in an energy-rich nation but experience eye-watering levels of fuel poverty is a damning indictment of just how ridiculous the situation has become and why change is desperately needed. But we know all that is exacerbated by Brexit, a Brexit Scotland rejected yet has had foisted upon us against our will. Indeed, it is the only nation of these islands to have been so royally screwed over as a result of the 2016 referendum.

We all know from bitter experience that the slogans on the sides of buses were nothing more than empty rhetoric. In 2016, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) slammed the Resolution Foundation’s findings that food prices would increase as a result of Brexit as “ridiculous”, and claimed that the price of food would go down. What is more, last year he suggested that the rules that the British Government followed while part of the EU made life harder for small businesses and increased the costs of operating. That is an entirely false claim. The hard Brexit that Ministers pursued has made life harder for food exporting and importing businesses. Do not take my word for it. Nick Allen, chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told The Independent that the extra burden of new paperwork and fees will see some small specialist importers struggle to survive. We know the price of Brexit, and it is one that Scotland cannot afford to pay.

The OBR predicted in March that the UK’s GDP would fall 4% as a result of Brexit, with trade and exports reducing by 15%. Figures recently released by the ONS show that the UK economy contracted 0.3% in March, making it the worst performing economy of the G7, and the only G7 economy to experience negative economic growth. Last Thursday, the Bank of England raised interest rates to 4.5%, in the 12th consecutive rise. Many of our constituents coming off a fixed rate are watching hundreds of pounds being added to their mortgage bill as a Tory premium, simply for the pleasure of having an incompetent Westminster Government that Scotland did not vote for.

The Conservative party inflicting economic pain is hardly a surprise to my constituents—it is probably why we have not had a Conservative MP in the east end for over 110 years. But what of the Labour party, off to my right? I mean that in more respects than one. In the Labour party, we have nothing more than a pound-shop Tony Blair tribute act, devoid of ideas and lurching ever further to the right in a desperate scramble for the votes of Tory English market towns.

On the biggest issues of the day that have caused economic harm to these islands, the Labour party has nothing to say: on immigration policy, more of the same; on Brexit, more of the same; on social security, more of the same. I therefore say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that simply hoping that the Tories run out of steam and that the keys to No. 10 Downing Street land in the laps of Starmer and Streeting is no vision to enthuse electors.

In my constituency, voters are clear that they want Brexit binned. They want their MP showing solidarity with public sector workers striking for fair pay. They want a social security system that provides a safety net. And yes, unashamedly, they want an immigration system not driven by focus groups and dog-whistle politics but responsive to our small island nation and its economic needs. Those are the challenges that Scotland faces today.

By failing to support today’s motion on the biggest issue of the day, Labour and the Tories are simply showing Scotland that it stands at a fork in the road. The choice could not be clearer: Scotland can veer off to right with the full-fat Tories or the diet Tories and pursue yet more economic self-harm with Brexit and austerity, or it can veer left by voting yes to independence, to rejoining the European Union and to unhooking itself from the economic bin fire that is the United Kingdom. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We had agreed on 10-minute winding-up speeches, but there seems to have been 40% inflation on that. I was not going to stop the hon. Gentleman because it is his debate, but I have to give equal time to the Minister.

Cost of Living Increases

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I was intrigued by the Chief Secretary’s answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about forecasts: I think he said something along the lines of “For every fiscal event there’s a forecast, and on many occasions it turns out to be wrong.” That may be correct. Is it not passing strange, then, that the Government’s own fiscal charter, which they announced only six months ago, is based on precisely such a forward-looking view, with forecasts on a five-year rolling basis? I think the Government and the Chief Secretary might want to sort their lines out on that one.

I agree with what the Chief Secretary said towards the end of his speech about boosting productivity, which is a perennial problem. He is absolutely right about that, of course, but he will recall from the OBR forecast and the Red Book that productivity growth does not exceed 1.5% in any year of the forecast period. Whatever plan the Government thought they had, they will need to do a little better.

The Chief Secretary quite rightly mentioned the requirement to get more people into the workforce; I think he mentioned having an extra 110,000 people by the end of the forecast period. That is welcome, but it would be a fraction of 1% of the workforce of 33 million. Again, I think it is a case of “Five out of 10—must do better.”

There is much to agree with in the Opposition motion: the condemnation of the Tory Government and their mismanagement of the economy; the regret that the UK is the only G7 country whose economy has not returned to pre-pandemic levels; and the ambition, which I am sure is shared across the House, to secure sustained growth and good jobs. However, I will focus not on macroeconomics, but on the impact on real people of inflation and the cost of living crisis that many of them face, not least because energy price hikes, inflation, and mortgage and rent increases are continuing to erode people’s standard of living. We certainly know from the November OBR forecast that inflation was set to peak at a 40-year high, and that wages and living standards were set to be squeezed by 7%, wiping out all the growth of the past eight years. By March, the OBR was telling us that real disposable income would fall by nearly 6%. We now know that telecoms prices will rise as well: BT confirmed that its costs would rise by 15% on 31 March, O2 is increasing prices for SIM-only customers by 17%, and TalkTalk will increase its prices for landline and broadband customers by 14%.

Grocery prices also continue to climb. In February the increase reached a new record high of 17.1%, and more recently the prices of some goods have risen by 19.1%, which represents the best part of £1,000 per year per household for the average weekly shop. The prices of essential food items have also risen in recent months. The price of two pints of semi-skimmed milk is up from 92p to £1.37, a 49% increase; a litre of olive oil now costs £7.28, which is a 65% increase over the past year, and the price of vegetables has risen by 31% over the same period. However, inflation does not hit all households equally. It has a particularly dire impact on lower-income households, which spend a much higher proportion of their incomes on necessities such as food and energy. For some people, it is even worse than that: those with allergies or special dietary requirements are hit even harder. According to analysis carried out by the Allergy Team, people with specific dietary requirements are now paying up to 73% more for food than those who do not need to buy “free from” products at their local stores.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that low-income families simply do not have the resources to go on bearing the cost of soaring inflation. It noted that

“nine in ten families on Universal Credit said they couldn’t afford the essentials in October last year. Since then, inflation has been in double digits”.

Even the Office for National Statistics told us in April that about half the adult population—49%—were worried about the cost of energy or the cost of food. I think that some of the comments we have heard from Tory Members today spoke volumes. It is almost as if they thought that Tory voters would not be affected by these prices, when half the adult population are worried about the cost of energy or food. I think that they should take notice.

We also know that families are beginning to feel the pain of increased mortgage costs, which, while they may have fallen back a little from the high point last October, are still much higher than they were a year ago; and of course, the central bank has increased the base rate for the 11th consecutive time. Let me put that in context. Nationwide has reported that its standard mortgage rate will rise to nearly 8%—7.74%—on 1 May.

It is rather obvious that, when it comes to the cost of living, the Government should have three urgent tasks. The first is continuing to help families with high energy costs, not by simply freezing the cap—although it is not really a cap at all—but by reducing it from £2,500 to £2,000, as well as maintaining the energy bills support scheme. The second is to bear down on inflation; forcing down energy prices would help with that, as it did last year. Thirdly, as this was mentioned earlier, when it comes to the elements that are under the Government’s control—the next round of public sector pay awards, benefits, the minimum wage and pension settlements—they should ensure that no one falls further behind, and should introduce fairness into the system to pay for it. As the motion says, it could be paid for by a meaningful windfall tax, the ending of non-dom status, the taxing of share buy-backs, and the scrapping of costly vanity nuclear projects.

That is not to say that there is no support from the UK Government—the Chief Secretary referred to some of it, which he rightly described as targeted—but it would be helpful for them to look at the efforts made in Scotland and the range of additional measures that have been put in place there. The Scottish child payment has been further expanded to all eligible six to 15-year-olds. It has increased to £25 a week, and 387,000 children are now forecast to be eligible this year. The various family payments, including the Scottish child payment, could be worth around £10,000 by the time an eligible child turns six, compared with around £1,800 for comparable families in England and Wales. There are more free school lunches during term time for all pupils in primaries 1 to 5, which is the most generous free school meals offer in the UK, saving families on average £400 a year per child.

We have doubled the fuel insecurity fund to support people at risk of self-disconnection or self-rationing of energy. The new winter heating payment that replaces the Department for Work and Pensions system will provide a stable, reliable annual payment, helping 400,000 people. We are maintaining investment in the Scottish welfare fund at £41 million this year, and continuing to invest in discretionary housing payments, with £84 million this year. We are also continuing to provide funding to deliver the council tax reduction scheme. So it is obvious that this Government can, and now should, do more.

Of course, the inflationary pressures that have driven the cost of living crisis are not there by chance. They are not all a consequence of external shocks, and they are not all a result of covid or of Ukraine. The inflationary elephant in the room is Brexit. The London School of Economics has said that

“by the end of 2021, Brexit had already cost UK households a total of £5.8 billion in higher food bills”.

Last year, as prices were rising steeply, the former Bank of England policymaker Adam Posen insisted that 80% of the reason why the UK has the highest inflation of any G7 country was the impact of Brexit on immigration and the labour market. Even the Harvard Economics Review has stated that Brexit

“can be seen as the guilty culprit in Britain’s inflationary crisis.”

I agree with this criticism of the Government. I agree that we should seek higher sustainable growth, but until the inflationary impact of Brexit is even recognised, it will be impossible to fully address the cost of living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will, I am afraid, have to start with a four-minute time limit. We will see where we go from there.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I want to speak very briefly to commend the Government for their efforts, not just over the last couple of years, and not just since the appalling aggression of Putin in Ukraine and the post-pandemic crisis, but all the way back to 2010, when a Conservative coalition Government inherited the biggest mess out. When I was doing a bit of research for this afternoon’s debate, I looked back through the years since 1973. Just look at unemployment. Every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came in. When I looked back, I could see that unemployment continued to fall very briefly following the excellent legacy left by a Conservative Government, but then, inexorably, it crept up again. And under Labour, there was no money left when the Conservatives took office in 2010. That is the start of the story. When we look at what really matters to people and at how young people want a role model and want to learn, get out there and get a good job for themselves, we see that unemployment matters so much. In the United Kingdom now, we have the lowest unemployment figures since the early 1970s—in fact, since 1975.

When we look at growth, yes, at the moment we are challenged, as are all economies around the world, but actually, looking at the facts, the UK was growing faster than any economy in the G7 over the last three years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said. Last year, only the UK had growth of 4%; Germany’s was 1.8%. It is easy for the Opposition to talk about the cost of living crisis and what the Conservative Government have done wrong, but they are not looking at the big picture. They should look at our trade policy. The UK has left the EU, and what are we able to do? We can turn to what is predicted to be the fastest-growing area of the world: Asia. We can expand our global trade and be an advocate for global free trade. There is an opportunity for all nations to rise on the back of more global trade. For so many years, the Opposition tried to scupper the will of the people, as expressed in the Brexit referendum, by preventing us from leaving the EU. Instead, we are now free to form our own trade policy and to trade with the rest of the world, which is fantastic.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for whom I have a lot of time, talked about pensions and the difficulties for people in the UK. I wanted to intervene to ask her about the Leader of the Opposition. Bearing in mind that he had legislation to protect his own pension—with no lifetime allowance, can protect his family as much as he likes—will he resile from that? Will he scrap that little statutory instrument, so that he can be in the same boat as the rest of us? Or is it one rule for him and a different rule for the rest of the country? [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Elmore, you have a fantastic baritone voice. Save it for singing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Angela Richardson.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. For complete transparency, I just mentioned a point about intellectual property, but I did not mention that I have recently resumed a position as an adviser to a technology investment company. Actually, it is so new that it has not yet appeared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It would not be affected by global minimum tax, but I thought I should make that clarification.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is on the record. Thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

I always wondered how the Conservative party did its policy development, but I think the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has helped me to come to a conclusion. My sympathies therefore go to the Minister.

This Finance Bill is yet another glaring example of the UK Government trying to shove a square peg into a round hole for the people of Scotland. They are desperately trying to fix economic problems of their own making, but their Bill will do the square root of zero to fix the enormous productivity and labour supply challenges that our nation faces as a result of their mismanagement.

I know that the SNP is often seen as a force for positive general happiness around this Chamber, but there is a great black cloud of gloom and doom overhanging the Bill. It relates to Brexit: the unwelcome guest at the wedding, the elephant in the room, the truth that dare not be spoken by its instigators. Brexit has brought us headlines such as “Economy in decline”, “No-growth Britain”, “Bottom of the class at the G7” and “Export exodus”—hardly what we would call sunlit uplands, and not a unicorn in sight.

Did Scotland vote for this? No, we did not. We did not want Brexit, but it was forced upon us. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister seems to be contradicting his own ideology by remarking on all the special and exciting opportunities for Northern Ireland from access to the EU and UK markets. He does not even realise the irony of his comments or the gross unfairness to Scotland, which has been left in the lurch, with our democratic mandate ignored.

The Scottish people know that this is a Government in denial, with a double whammy of Tory ineptitude on the economy and a damaging Brexit that cannot be fixed by a Finance Bill produced by the same team who were behind that not-so-winning combination. With the economy contracting, according to the International Monetary Fund, and with the Chancellor failing to meet his two main fiscal targets of a falling public debt burden and borrowing below 3% of GDP by 2028, we now know that workers in old Blighty are £1,300 worse off as a result of Brexit. The IFS has stated that our productivity and economic output will fall by 4% as a result of leaving the single market, leaving workers significantly worse off and public services at the thin end of the wedge again, with less money in their budgets. We need less “Better Together for Scotland” and more “I’m Scottish…Get Us Out of Here PDQ!”

I turn to our amendments. I hear from small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency and across Scotland that they are struggling as a result of the economic decline. They are fighting a war on all fronts with energy costs and the costs of doing business, not to mention that they are still trying to get back on their feet after the pandemic and are dealing with the new red tape generated by Brexit.

I am happy to support SNP new clause 8 on extending relief of R&D expenditure for our excellent and important data and cloud computing services. On research and development, the refrain that I hear on repeat from businesses is that they are keen to invest but have their hands tied behind their back. Looking at the clauses before the Committee today, it is easy to see why the Conservatives have lost their “party of business” strapline. So many businesses are reporting that they feel abandoned by this Government and left to float alone, without a life raft to get them out of the swirling morass of the economy and into better times. If the Government want growth and prosperity, they need to listen—really listen—to the people at the coalface who do business every day and who have faced years of knocks and challenges.

On corporation tax, the Government do not seem to know whether they are coming or going. One minute, corporation tax rises seem to be in vogue; the next minute, they are not. The Government swither and dither, but the business community desperately needs stability, security and some long-term plans that will give it the space to breathe and grow.

The ever-present climate crisis is a threat not just to business, but to people’s livelihoods. The UK Government have not shown their best colours when it comes to ensuring that their legislation is in line with the climate challenges. Despite the climate-induced weather events in the UK and abroad, the Prime Minister left out tackling climate change and reaching net zero from his core priorities for his growth strategy. With the number of elephants in the room, No. 10 and No. 11 are getting pretty crowded.

We cannot pretend that Brexit and climate change are not devastatingly bad for business and for people’s finances. Without acknowledging the catastrophic damage that they bring, we cannot move forward with a comprehensive plan. The Chancellor can present as many Finance Bills to Parliament as he wishes, but these are people’s real lives, real livelihoods and real futures, uncushioned by wealth and privilege, and catastrophically unsupported by a tin-eared Government who refuse to look at the reality of the situation that they themselves face. It is time for Scotland to make a swift exit, and I hope that in the coming months we can achieve just that.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to wind up the debate.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am so sorry, but I must make progress; I am sensing your yawn coming on, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Bill will simplify pension tax by increasing the annual allowance and removing the lifetime allowance. It also legislates for a range of administrative changes to deal with technical issues, improving and modernising the tax system and making it easier for businesses to interact.

This Finance Bill takes forward important measures that are needed to support enterprise and growth, including incentives for investment and support for employment in, for instance, the NHS. It seizes freedoms that are available now that we are outside the EU, it deals with threats posed to the sustainability of our public finances by the energy crisis and aggressive tax planning, and it supports our long-standing goals of modernising and simplifying the tax system. It delivers on an important part of the Government’s commitments in the spring Budget to create long-term economic growth, and for all those reasons I commend it to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Minister began by paying a tribute to Betty Boothroyd. She was my first Speaker, 31 years ago. The Minister said that she ruled from this Chair with fun and firmness, and she certainly did that. When my office was over at Millbank, I tried to persuade Seb Coe to write to the Speaker and say that he found it difficult to get here in time when the Division bells rang. He refused, so I wrote to her, and she said to me, “No, I am not increasing the time, lovey.” She was the first and only Speaker to call me “lovey”, I am thankful to say! She said, “I am not doing that, because I went over to Millbank myself and even had time for a puff at a cigarette before I strolled across and did it well in time—so I am not increasing the time limit.” We do remember her with great fondness, particularly on the day of her funeral.

I now call the shadow Minister.

Silicon Valley Bank

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend and the House that commitment. We will learn lessons if there are lessons that need to be learned, but we should not look past the fact that today we have protected customers, protected the taxpayer and protected the security of the financial system. That is so important to our businesses. Many, many people will go home from work today much more confident, with the jeopardy of the weekend having been removed as a result of the decisive action that this Government have taken.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for more than three quarters of an hour.

Digital Pound

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the hon. Member for those points; her point about safeguards against coercive control in particular is well made. This is where something like a digital pound can have utility: unlike existing banking relationships, but like cash, it is not subject to the caprices of a particular commercial entity that may apply its own policies. I commend our payment services industry—the UK is blessed with a strong, healthy and competitive banking sector—but for the safeguards that the hon. Member seeks, the digital pound would be additive to the current situation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to hon. Members’ questions.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Businesses and bodies the Bank invests in—

“(1) The Bank must publish an annual report setting out—

(a) the geographical spread of businesses and bodies it invests in, and

(b) the ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in.

(2) The Bank must prepare and publish a ‘Good Jobs’ plan for all businesses and bodies it invests in, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.”

This new clause would ensure that the Bank considers the location and ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in and only invests in businesses and bodies who create “Good Jobs” plans to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(i) to reduce economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom, and

(ii) to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.

(c) to support supply chain resilience and the United Kingdom’s industrial strategy.”

This amendment would ensure that the Bank’s objective to support regional and local economic growth includes reducing economic inequalities within and between regions and improving productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards. It would also create a third objective for the Bank to support supply chain resilience and the UK’s industrial strategy.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 14, at end insert, “, and

(c) to improve water quality in the UK.”

This amendment would add improving water quality in the UK to the Bank’s objectives.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

“(4A) The Bank may only provide any of the support listed in subsection (4) to water companies if they have produced a costed, time limited plan demonstrating they are committed to preventing discharge.”

This amendment would require water companies to have a costed, time limited plan, demonstrating they are committed to preventing discharges before they can receive investment from the UKIB.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 9, leave out “consult” and insert—

“gain the express consent of”.

This amendment would require the Treasury to gain the express consent of the appropriate national authority before making provision in regulations under subsection (6).

Government amendment 1.

[Richard Foord]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendments 3 and 4.

I welcome the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill. We previously had a Green Investment Bank, founded by the Liberal Democrats in government. It was short-sighted for the Government to sell it off, especially as it made £144 million in profit for its Australian owners last year. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats are glad to see steps finally being taken to put the replacement UK Infrastructure Bank on a statutory footing.

Liberal Democrat new clause 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), seeks to ensure that this new UK Infrastructure Bank will remain in operation until the Government’s net zero and environmental commitments have been met.

I hope to see this new bank change investment in green infrastructure for the better, and this brings me to the two amendments—amendments 3 and 4—tabled in my name and those of Liberal Democrat colleagues. They seek to ensure that water companies set out costed, time-limited plans to deal with discharges before they can get funding through the bank. This is important because communities across the UK are currently being impacted by the actions of some negligent and wayward water companies. For years, we have seen these firms failing to invest in our vital infrastructure, but instead prioritising shareholder payouts and bumper bonuses for chief executive officers. It is shocking that this practice has been allowed to continue, and that the Government have resisted several attempts by the Liberal Democrats to clamp down on these sewage spills.

South West Water, which covers my patch in Devon, was awarded a one-star rating by the Environment Agency after having been found to have discharged sewage into rivers and lakes and on to our beaches over 42,000 times. This represents more than 350,000 hours of dumping, including at our prestigious blue flag beaches. Three of the 10 most affected beaches are in Devon. And what was the reaction at South West Water? It gave the chief executive a bonus of more than £1 million.

Non-domicile Tax Status

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind everybody here that, if you participate in this second Opposition Day debate, you will be expected to turn up for the wind-ups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Opposition spokesman to be talking in such general terms about a wide range of things, without actually addressing the motion on the Order Paper?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If I had heard anything out of order, I would have called the shadow Minister to order. I am quite content with what he is saying at this moment in time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I am going to be quoted, I expect to be quoted correctly. The hon. Gentleman seems to use words I am not sure he quite understands—I do not know. In my speech, I am going to help him to understand some of the words he has used. But I have only ever sought to set out the facts, which we have to take into account on the issue under discussion, which is that they do pay £7.9 billion in tax. That is the context in which I have cited that figure, not in the way that he has alleged.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Shadow Minister, do you want to respond to that? They were your words, not mine.

[James Murray]

I am not sure I want to respond to that. The Minister has made her point. No doubt she will have a further chance in a few moments to set out those points again. She confirmed, in fact, that she is seeking to use as a defence for non-dom tax status the fact that non-doms paid £7.9 billion in UK taxes last year. Of course that argument entirely misses the point. We are talking about the £3.2 billion of tax that non-doms do not pay each year in this country.

Without wanting to forecast what might come in a few minutes, I suspect the Minister might also recycle her line that non-doms have invested £6 billion in investment schemes since 2012. But, of course, that ignores the fact that only 1% of non-doms invest their overseas income in the UK in any given year, and that non-dom status actively discourages people from bringing money into the UK to invest. Finally, the Minister may try to win praise for the Government having stopped non-dom status being permanent, but I suspect she will neglect to mention the fact that the Government have created a brand-new loophole that allows people to use offshore trusts to retain non-dom benefits permanently.

To be fair, while Treasury Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box time and again to defend non-dom tax status, the Chancellor did at least confirm to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on 23 November last year that he had asked the Treasury to look into how much abolishing that loophole would save. When he was questioned at that Committee by the superb interrogator, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the Chancellor claimed:

“I want to make sure that anything you do in terms of the non-dom tax regime does not mean you lose more than you gain.”

We already have clear, well-evidenced work from the London School of Economics and Warwick University—respected academic institutions, using HMRC data—which confirms that non-dom tax status costs the public finances £3.2 billion a year, even after any behavioural effects are taken into account. If the Chancellor is determined to ask his officials to confirm that figure, presumably using the same HMRC data as the LSE and Warwick University, we want to see him doing so as quickly as possible, and we want to see the result. That is why we have tabled today’s Humble Address.

We believe that non-dom tax status should be abolished, but that is not what we will be voting to make happen today. All we are voting for today is to make sure that, by the end of next month, the analysis the Chancellor referred to at the Treasury Committee on 23 November last year is published. Our motion would put that analysis alongside any other document or analysis on non-doms prepared for the Chancellor since he took office into the public domain ahead of the spring Budget.

I would hope that a Government supposedly committed to integrity, professionalism and accountability would feel obliged to accept that request. If not, the question will surely arise, what have they got to hide? What is it they are so keen to keep out of the public domain? What questions or conclusions are they so desperate to avoid? Our motion would simply make sure that any information the Chancellor has been considering in relation to the non-dom tax status would be made public ahead of the spring Budget in March 2023.

We know what happened at the last fiscal event, the autumn statement in November 2022. The decisions taken by the Chancellor at that time hit working people by forcing through a council tax rise and extending freezes in thresholds for income tax and national insurance contributions. Those freezes in tax thresholds will, over time, cost the average household more than £1,000 a year, and yet, at the same time as announcing those tax rises on working people last November, the Chancellor was silent on non-doms. That is what it looks like when working people are forced to pay for this Government’s failure.

Time and again, the Conservatives have chosen to put the burden of tax on to working people, rather than asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay their fair share. If working people are being asked to pay more tax, it is simply wrong to allow well-off people to continue to benefit from an outdated tax break on their overseas income. The truth is that Labour wants lower taxes for people who keep the country moving. The Tories want lower taxes for people who move their tax status overseas. We believe that if a person makes Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here. We believe that abolishing this tax loophole should be common sense and that using that money to invest in the NHS and childcare should make it a no-brainer. We will be voting today to make this Government finally come clean about why they are so reluctant to do the right thing.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he has misunderstood the measures in the Bill, which introduces a premium on second homes of up to 100% and a strengthening of the existing premium on empty homes. I appreciate his point about empty homes, if people are moving or returning to their second homes, but that is not the scenario everywhere—indeed, in my constituency, I can think of examples where that is not the case. We are trying to use practical measures so that local communities can decide how to deal with it through council tax.

I was talking about complexity. We want to ensure that the system is as simple as possible for taxpayers, which is why we have the consistency of rate bands between the standard rate and the rate for additional dwellings.

Amendment (b), which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, seeks to extend the period from 31 March 2025 to 31 March 2028. It is important that the Government maintain a commitment to fiscal responsibility and that requires difficult decisions, as I have set out. The Chancellor was clear about that in the autumn statement, and I hope that the ministerial team have been clear about that when we have spoken at the Dispatch Box. The Government will continue to take difficult decisions to get the public finances on a sound footing and to get debt falling in the medium term.

We therefore announced that the stamp duty cut will end in March 2025 as part of that commitment. It will remain in place until then to support the property market through what we all acknowledge are difficult times. We believe that we have struck the right balance between ensuring support for the jobs and businesses associated with the housing market and the Exchequer cost.

The remaining amendments tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee refer to reports and reviews, if I may summarise them in that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire reiterated, it is a fundamental principle that we are loth to include reporting and reviewing requirements in primary legislation. In any event, we do not believe it to be necessary, because the Government already publish a wealth of data on those matters. For example, HMRC publishes data on property transactions and stamp duty land tax receipts, including data on the use of first-time buyers’ relief. To help hon. Members to understand what that means for our constituents who are first-time buyers, the Bill will mean that they can access up to £8,750 in relief. It is a great shame that Opposition Members propose to vote against that relief.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities also publishes the English housing survey. Data on property prices, including at a local level, is published through the Land Registry. The Government published a summary of the measure’s impacts, including on the Exchequer, in November’s autumn statement. I hope that hon. Members who have asked for that data and those reviews will look at that wealth of information and draw their own conclusions.

I thank hon. Members for this debate, which I very much welcome, but I commend the Bill to the Committee. I particularly commend the Government amendments to enable first-time buyers in our constituencies to get on to the housing ladder, and to help other constituents move up the housing ladder and continue to thrive in our country in the next couple of years.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I put the Question, I should just say that I am anticipating three votes: two in Committee and one on Third Reading. The first vote will last for 10 minutes and the two subsequent ones will last for eight minutes each, so if I were you I really would not go anywhere after voting in the first Division.

Amendment proposed to amendment 1: (a), after “transaction” insert

“(except in relation to additional dwellings)”.—(Abena Oppong-Asare.)

This amendment is intended to remove the relief from stamp duty land tax for second homes (see Amendment 15 to leave out subsection (3)).

Question put, That the amendment be made.