Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which builds on the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is important not just in this place, but for other elected representatives, that wherever they are representing their constituents they should be able both to continue doing their job and to bring up a family. We need in this place and in other elected forums to be able to represent the whole country. We say that we represent Britain or our local community, yet too often we do not look like the communities we are meant to serve. I hope that with the sorts of changes in the Bill, and with those in devolved Administrations and councils, we will make ourselves more representative.

Although the measures in the Bill amount to positive change, there is understandable alarm about this Government’s track record on workers’ rights more generally. It is important that while we today make changes to help women in this place, we also think about employment rights and women’s rights more generally. Just like this Bill, the Government’s new employment Bill should be an opportunity to extend and safeguard workers’ rights, not water them down. However, after a year of silence on that Bill, the Government have failed to deliver on their promise to enhance the rights of all new mums. Pregnant women have found widespread discrimination throughout this pandemic, with many left without basic maternity pay and instead put unlawfully on to statutory sick pay during the pandemic. Indeed, there is a stark contrast to be drawn between the Government’s urgent passing of this legislation, which we support, and their inaction on behalf of struggling pregnant women across the country. I hope that today the Government will reflect on what more they can do to help women in this country.

The Government should also be doing more to help the parents of babies born prematurely. Under the current rules, maternity leave of up to 52 weeks starts when the baby is born, but because a premature baby can spend weeks in hospital, mothers are effectively cheated of spending some of the leave with their new child. I raised this subject two years ago, as a Back Bencher, based on casework in my constituency and working with Bliss—the charity for babies born prematurely or sick that does such brilliant work. I called on the Government then to change the rules so that new parents of premature babies are not put under further unnecessary pressure; today, I again urge the Government to bring forward plans to ensure that parents of premature babies are given the time and flexibility granted to other parents to care for their baby once their baby is home.

At present, Ministers have no rights when it comes to maternity, paternity or adoption leave. If a Minister wants to take maternity leave, as the Paymaster General set out, the rules do not allow for them to continue to receive a Government salary along with the person providing their maternity cover. It is right that that should be changed to remove that barrier in a woman’s career. The Bill would end that anomaly and mean that Ministers would not have to face being financially penalised or forced to stand down from their ministerial role to care for a newborn. The changes would bring Ministers into line with most civil servants by providing them with a period of six months’ leave on full pay.

Last year, there was cross-party support for the change that now allows MPs who are new parents to use the proxy voting scheme, so they can spend precious time with their new child. The proposals before us today represent another baby step in what should be an ongoing modernisation of working practices to ensure that women do not get a raw deal at work due to failure to move with the times. It is a shame that it has taken the pregnancy of a member of the Cabinet—happy news though that is—for this Government to realise that improving the workplace rights of expectant parents should be a priority. This change will benefit family life, remove a barrier to career progression, and ensure that having a baby does not come with a financial penalty as well as the sleepless nights that none of us can prevent. However, we need to see far more progress by the Government on this issue to ensure that women and all workers are treated fairly in the workplace, including when they have children.

We are behind the times when it comes to adopting modern, family-friendly working practices in Parliament and in Government, and change is long overdue. I ask the Minister to make a firm commitment to review and explore, as a matter of urgency, further potential reforms that can be made with cross-party support to ensure that this “mother of Parliaments” is a Parliament that genuinely welcomes mothers. This should be the start, not the end of a journey by this Government to deliver more employment rights and to give workers in all workplaces and in all jobs the protection and support they need and deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Caroline Nokes, I want to set out the time limits that will apply. As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes will have six minutes. She will be followed by another Front-Bench spokesperson. Then, from Cherilyn Mackrory onwards, a four-minute limit will apply, and that may be reduced later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I also welcome this Bill in principle and as far as it goes, which is not far enough, but perhaps it is a sign that this House and the UK Government recognise that they have some way to go to begin catching up with the world around them.

On issues of equality and of acknowledging and breaking down barriers, this House deservedly has a reputation for making progress very slowly. Today we are discussing something that should surely already be in place, not simply because elected office should not be a barrier to a family, but because attitudes and practices here have a material impact on the lack of proper treatment and the prevalence of issues such as maternity and pregnancy discrimination outside this place.

It was not until 1975 that statutory maternity leave was introduced in the UK through the Employment Protection Act 1975—later than in most countries in Europe. Indeed, with this Bill, welcome though it is, progress continues to be too slow. Here, the perplexing basis for maternity leave is that the Minister must seek permission from the Prime Minister to take such leave, the implication being that the Prime Minister retains the power to say, “No, the maternity leave is not granted.” How very Edwardian in 2021.

The rest of the world has long since moved on to the position that maternity leave should be a right rather than a discretionary benefit. How we can expect people to appreciate that and act in that way if this place is so backward-looking? It should not be necessary for women to seek the potentially grudging consent of a boss to take maternity leave.

I was fortunate when I twice took maternity leave to have a supportive and encouraging boss. It was clear to me that I had the right and, importantly, the support to take the leave that was right for me and my family. I wonder how I would have felt if the ability to grant my leave was in the gift of my boss, given that we cannot always be guaranteed the supportive boss that I had. For me, that happened well before any involvement in politics.

Our representation is clearly not reflective of who we are. We are far less diverse as a political class than those we represent, and the lack of proper provision for maternity feeds into that. We cannot expect that lack of representation to improve unless we improve the structures that we work within. I wonder whether I would have wanted to stand for election to this place as a younger woman starting a family, considering the various challenges, including gaps in provision for MPs and Ministers.

We have heard about heavily pregnant MPs being wheeled through the Lobby recently, against all logic and surely against advice, because the arcane processes of this House were simply not set up to accommodate their needs. This House can and should be better than that. We have a duty to be better. We cannot simply go along with the make-do-and-mend approach that the UK Government have had for so long.

The posts of Ministers on maternity leave have been left vacant, and their responsibilities have been carried out as best as possible by colleagues who are also carrying out their own responsibilities. The one thing that has saved all that from crumbling is that no one fulfilling a Secretary of State role in the UK Government has ever tried to take maternity leave. That fact reveals a great deal about the relative importance of the issue in the minds of those at the very top.

We have rightly heard comments about the contrast between arrangements in the House and those outside it. That is important. The contrast between the speed at which the Bill has been progressed and the shocking delays in dealing with the pressing needs of pregnant women in the pandemic is stark and just not good enough. The fact that maternity allowance is just £151.20 a week, which is about half the national minimum wage for a full-time worker, is deplorable. The fact that it will increase by only 77p a week in April is frankly an insult. Those issues must also be addressed. I realise that they are not before us today, but they all fit together into a lack of care and direction from the Government.

The mechanism that the Bill identifies for repairing the current crumbling edifice of ministerial maternity cover should be uncontroversial. Any organisation needs to provide for such events, which routinely happen, so I hope that no one would seriously suggest that, in a large ministerial team, there should not be contingencies to support maternity leave. However—I repeat myself in case we lose sight of the point—it is incredible that it has taken until 2021 for the UK Government and the House to address the matter.

The explanatory notes describe provision for maternity leave as problematic or “particularly difficult to apply” to a Minister in a very senior office, such as a Secretary of State,

“because the legal exercise of functions of such roles cannot be ‘covered’ by another Minister.”

I am afraid that I do not buy that. That is just a cop-out. It sounds like exactly the kind of excuse that has been used by backsliders on this issue ever since the idea of maternity leave in employment entered our thinking. It is followed by the statement:

“The result is that a Minister in such a role who wished to take extended maternity leave would need to resign their office.”

It is breathtaking to see that kind of language. It makes us check our calendars to make sure that we are in 2021. How can we expect improvements and proper treatment outside this place if that is how we run things here?

The explanatory notes reveal exactly the kind of thinking that we all know still goes on in recruitment to senior jobs, and that results in the glass ceiling for women in so many institutions. They display the unconscious bias that underpins so much systemic discrimination in the UK and around the world.

To signal that that kind of thinking has no place at the centre of political and economic power, the SNP has tabled an amendment to remove the notion that prime ministerial discretion should have effect in relation to maternity leave. Ministers, MPs—all of us—should feel secure in the knowledge that we work for an organisation where no guilt will be piled on us if we take time off for maternity or, in fact, for family reasons. We have to be clear that there is a need to look more broadly than this very narrow issue, that this long-awaited progress does not go far enough, and that the scope of the Bill is not great enough.

These things matter, not only because the arrangements put in place by this House for the UK Government are important for the proper operation of the Government, but because they act as a signpost to other companies and organisations in the UK as to what approach they are expected to take. We do not have to look far to see the issues out there. A survey of 20,000 women by Pregnant Then Screwed last summer found that 61% believed that their maternity leave was a factor in their redundancy decision. Given the example set by this House and the UK Government today, that is perhaps not surprising.

It is also unsurprising that the UK ranks poorly among OECD countries for how it deals with maternity. The UK has the second lowest-paying rate for maternity leave, with less than a third of gross average earnings replaced by maternity payments; despite lengthy maternity leave entitlements, full-rate equivalent paid maternity leave lasts just 12 weeks. That is why, as a statement of principle, we have tabled amendments that would extend Ministers’ maternity leave from six to 12 months.

Let me be clear that that does not mean that we support one rule for Ministers’ maternity leave and another for the general public; the amendments set out what the direction of travel must be for the whole workforce. I hope that as part of the preparation for the wider review that I talked about, including the broader area of parental support provision, the Government will look carefully at that and ensure that equalities impact assessments are carried out before this business returns—quickly—to the House, so that these things can be addressed in the round.

That should include an examination of the challenges facing Members in their constituencies and their legislative roles when they become new parents. It is interesting that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority this morning seemed to recognise that it, too, needs to look at that. When the Minister looks further, I urge her to look at the words of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, which said:

“The lack of formal maternity and parental leave for MPs is entirely out of step with wider society and gives the impression that the work of a Parliamentarian is not appropriate for those with caring responsibilities.”

That is the crux of the issue. It is completely unacceptable that this House and the UK Government have got to 2021 without putting in order their own arrangements for properly supporting maternity leave.

On the basis that we need to make progress on this issue today, the SNP is supportive of what the Minister has brought forward, but if the Bill is to pass largely as drafted, I will be keen to hear from her significant commitments to returning to this issue before the summer to correct some of the glaring omissions and the lack of principle, so that we can fix this issue and send the important messages that we must send beyond this place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With a four-minute limit, I call Cherilyn Mackrory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to be part of the debate and the work that we are doing to bring forward this legislation. Let me congratulate the Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), and wish her well in her forthcoming maternity leave. What is so powerful about this legislation is not just the clarity over her income but the clarity about her actual cover: she will be able to spend time with her child and not receive calls at three o’clock in the morning when the Attorney General is needed.

I welcome the Paymaster General’s comment that we need to do more. It is that which I wish to speak on particularly, because, as she has recognised, the Bill benefits only a very small number of women. To benefit only a very small number of women at this time in this country’s life is to fail to recognise the peril that may come from this legislation, which is not about its drafting but its scope. We are sending a message that maternity leave should be a perk conferred by an employer as a benefit—just as a company car would be—if we only pass this legislation.

The Paymaster General said that the Prime Minister believes it is wrong that a woman might have to leave work to care for a child, but in truth that is happening in workplaces across the country, and it involves thousands of women. During the pandemic, one in four women who are pregnant or a new mum have said that they have faced discrimination, and that they are losing their jobs or being furloughed. In that context, to work only with that small number of women is not just a missed opportunity, but potentially sets up a two-tier system for maternity leave in this country. As the people who make the laws, we send such a message to businesses regarding how they should treat pregnant women at our peril.

The Government are currently being taken to court by Pregnant Then Screwed because, when they calculated the self-employment income support scheme, they forgot about women who are self-employed and who took maternity leave. We have heard from many Members about our concerns for public life. It is not an accident that most women who enter public life, not just in this place but in local government and our Assemblies, tend to be older women who have already had children, or those who have chosen not to have them. Even in this Bill, we have yet to begin talking about fathers.

The Bill tells the lie that I was told two years ago when I was pregnant and asked for a locum to cover work in my constituency, so that my constituents would not feel short-changed by having a woman of childbearing age as their MP. However, as MPs, our employment status was too complicated to enable us to act. If we can pass a Bill in a day in this place to address that issue, we could do so much more to ensure that our public life is open to all women. It is a missed opportunity not just for local government, but for the staff who have worked with us in this building, who have terrible maternity rights.

Two years ago I fought for a locum. No other MP has been able to have that, even though I know colleagues across the House who have had terrible experiences of being pregnant and trying to get support. We cannot say, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” On that basis, let me be clear: the Government have made commitments today but, as the suffragettes said, this must be about deeds not words.

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be looking and me and thinking that during lockdown I have been attacking the pies a bit, and you would probably be right. But I am also pregnant with my second child. I am early on in my pregnancy. I should not have to reveal that, but I am doing so today to be clear to pregnant women around this country that they will find champions in this place, and it is not enough for us to act only for that small group of women at the top of our society. We must act for every woman to be able to take maternity leave.

We must make sure that legislation such as that proposed by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is given time in this House, and we must stop IPSA prevaricating, as it has done for the past two years. We must give every woman in this place the same rights that we are giving the Attorney General. Please, Paymaster General, it is time for deeds not words when it comes to maternity and paternity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The very best wishes of the House to you, Stella, on your great news.

Covid-19: Limited Company Directors

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]]

It is perhaps fitting that tonight’s debate is being held on Burns night, because Robert Burns was a great egalitarian and champion of social justice, and this is an issue that at its heart is about how we treat our fellow citizens. When the Chancellor said that no one would be left behind, it was a comforting show of solidarity to all:

“A Man’s a Man for a’ that”,

as the bard would have said. But it has been over 10 months and the pleas of 3 million people left to struggle have been utterly ignored. It reminds me of another Burns quote:

“Man’s inhumanity to man

Makes countless thousands mourn!”

The reasons for people being excluded have been raised many times in this Chamber, and the case is absolutely clear. How can 10% of the working population simply be dismissed as collateral damage? On what planet does that make sense? We need the excluded, all 3 million of them. They are grafters. They are innovators. They will help to rebuild after the crisis, if we help them now. Instead, they are being ground down by poverty and despair, by a Government who claim to be business friendly.

Tonight the focus is on small limited company directors, but the issue, if not the detail of the solution, applies to all those excluded groups, and I want to emphasise again that no one should be left behind. I note today’s announcement of another proposal by the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in support. The targeted income grant scheme, costed at about £10.5 billion, would provide some support for the newly self-employed, pay-as-you-earn freelancers and taxpayers excluded by the 50:50 rule, as well as limited company directors. I welcome that contribution. After 10 months without any options drafted by the Treasury, it is getting its work done for it by the very people who have been left out, showing just how innovative and determined a group they are. I very much hope that the Treasury will take this proposal seriously and work with the excluded groups to reach solutions, not scramble for excuses to reject them.

About 2 million actively trading limited companies in the UK are micro and small companies. Collectively, they employ 7.5 million people. As the Minister knows, they fall into a separate category from the self-employed and commonly pay themselves a mixture of PAYE and dividends when their company has a profit. Many company directors found themselves unable to furlough because it would prevent them from working, which might mean the demise of the business. Some were actively excluded due to running an annual payroll with an RTI submission date after 19 March. For those who could furlough, the payments were often too low to live on because they are based solely on PAYE earnings. Many firms missed out on grants, particularly if they had no commercial premises, and discretionary grants can be a postcode lottery.

Ministers have been told time and time again of people’s plight by MPs of all political persuasions, by campaigners and by those who have first-hand experience of the difficulties. If I thought it would help, I would read out some of the heartbreaking stories I have heard, not only from my constituents here in Midlothian, but from all corners of the UK, but so far those real-life stories have bounced like water off a duck’s back. Yet despite the Treasury’s intransigence, this issue is not going away any time soon.

A parliamentary petition calling for support for limited company directors gained more than 101,000 signatures before it closed in October. Many could be watching tonight and praying that the Government do not simply trot out more irrelevant excuses for inaction. I am hoping that there will be something more solid, so I can take away more than the usual promises to listen that come to nothing. It is not enough for the Minister to tell us about what the Government have done for the self-employed or others lucky enough not to fall through the gaps. Talking of support for others suggests a continued denial of reality for those excluded and simply rubs salt in their wounds, emphasising the lack of parity and fairness.

While we are at it, let us dispel some of the myths that have been brandished to excuse inaction. Directors of small limited companies are not fat cats or wealthy tax dodgers; they have small and family businesses. Any tax advantage in partly paying through dividends was dampened long ago. Almost 1 million of this group have only a sole director, be they electricians, beauticians, shop owners or IT professionals. I also note the work of We Make Events to highlight the impact that excluding directors has had on the doubly hit events industry.

People are angry, frustrated and in despair, but we are past the time to plead the case. If the Government do not care about the human cost, perhaps warnings of the economic cost will finally cut through. It is the endgame for many businesses, and cleaning up the mess later will be far more costly than providing support now to prevent them from falling off the cliff. There are 7.6 million jobs reliant on those businesses. Many of the directors are surviving only through spiralling mountains of debt. If they go down, there will be no place for staff to go back to when furlough ends. The small-scale entrepreneurs and wealth-makers we need to lift the UK economy will, instead, be left to wither on a shrinking vine, while an unemployment cliff edge approaches.

The Treasury has had plenty of time to find a solution for all 3 million excluded, and it remains its job and its duty to do so. It has been given a head start by the worked-up proposal for a directors income support scheme—as well as the TIGS proposal I mentioned earlier—which was designed by a coalition of small business leaders, tax experts and company directors, including ForgottenLtd, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, the Federation of Small Businesses and Rebecca Seeley Harris of Re:Legal Consulting. It is not a fix for everyone, but it is a viable solution that would help many, and I would very much welcome support of any kind.

The DISS proposal has also received overwhelming cross-party endorsement from the gaps in support all-party group, and I am limiting my own contribution tonight to hear from a couple of colleagues on that point. I understand that the Treasury has had the proposal on its desk for six weeks now, and only just gave a full response on Friday. I know that those who worked on the proposal will want to go through the Treasury’s points fully. Indeed, they would no doubt welcome a meeting to address any concerns expressed.

I understand that there are continued concerns that the scheme is open to fraud, which seem to me misplaced at best, or exaggerated, particularly given the more gung-ho approach of this Government to so many other emergency schemes and contracts. Every scheme has a risk, of course, and it is right to minimise that risk, but it is not a reason to do nothing, as with so many previous schemes. In fact, the DISS’s very design tackles such concerns head-on.

The assumption is that the DISS will run on the same parameters as the self-employment income support scheme. It will rely not on dividends but on a company’s trading profits, which are contained in the corporation tax return, and because directors are under a strict legal obligation to provide accurate information when self-certifying, the scheme has a far higher bar to prevent fraud than many other existing schemes. It has also addressed concerns about administrative burdens, it deliberately mirrors an existing, working scheme, and it uses systems already in place and operated by the Treasury and HMRC. If the Government are still not persuaded of its merits, will the Minister pledge tonight at least to hold discussions with ForgottenLtd and other stakeholders to allow them to raise their concerns and to work together to find solutions? If there are ongoing issues, I would urge the Government not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Should the Government finally decide to act, let me be clear that no one scheme should be seen as a silver bullet, but simply as a first step in the right direction. Campaigning will not stop until all excluded groups receive parity. Above all else, this is fundamentally a moral issue. These people deserve to be supported in the same way that the Government have supported others—nothing more, nothing less. Nothing can justify their lives being shattered by mere technicalities. There has been no wrongdoing, and people are being punished for merely following practices set out in the Government’s own recommendations.

With that in mind, the Government’s sluggish response is almost incomprehensible. At first, the Chancellor had the nerve to paint limited company directors as fat cats not in need of support. Then the Treasury spent months scrambling for technocratic excuses not to take action. Now, thanks to the work of campaign groups and MPs, the Treasury has seen two proposals that would take the first steps towards plugging some of these gaps, while relying on the same infrastructure as other, existing schemes. There are no longer any excuses for the Government not to act. A failure to do so would simply confirm the worst fears of many—that this Government simply do not care and are willing to exclude limited company directors as a deliberate policy choice. That, quite simply, is not something that I or other hon. Members could stand by and watch.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now go to Brighton for a short contribution by video link from a Member who has the consent of the Member initiating the debate, Owen Thompson, the consent of the Minister, Jesse Norman, and the permission of the Chair, myself, to participate in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this debate, on his contribution, and on his tenacity and commitment in persisting with a debate on Burns night, when I am sure he has plenty of other distractions. I also thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for her contribution.

Let me start by assuring colleagues across the House that I absolutely recognise the difficulties faced by their constituents, and constituents across the country of MPs from every political party, who are company directors. However, as colleagues will no doubt be aware, this is not a simple matter to resolve, for reasons that I will outline.

More widely, I think colleagues will be aware of the support that the Government have provided to individuals and businesses throughout the pandemic and the guiding principles behind how that money has been distributed. At every stage of the crisis, we have sought to support as many people and businesses as we can as rapidly as possible. To that end, we have provided a wide-ranging package of financial support worth some £280 billion. Its measures include, notably, the furlough scheme, which has protected the jobs of almost 10 million workers, while the self-employment income support scheme has so far provided grants to almost 3 million people. Let me remind the House that those ineligible for assistance from one scheme may still be able to receive help from one of the many other sources of support that are in place. Businesses may be eligible for loans and cash grants, along with tax cuts and deferrals for firms in sectors that have been hardest hit by the pandemic. We are also providing extra help to the families and individuals worst affected by this crisis with a wide-ranging package of welfare measures worth over £7 billion.

The furlough and self-employment schemes have been designed with two overriding principles in mind: the need to target support at those who need it most, and the need to safeguard taxpayer funds against fraud, error and abuse. As the hon. Member for Midlothian has recognised, it is an obligation—a duty—on the Government to keep fraud, error and abuse to a minimum, and that is what we have sought to do. This approach has meant that the vast majority of those who have requested help have been able to obtain it, while the taxpayer has been protected.

But it is important to say that the Government recognise that some people do not qualify for either support scheme, and this group includes some company directors. Let me turn to the specific situation facing this group. Directors who pay themselves a salary through a PAYE scheme are eligible for the coronavirus job retention scheme—that is, the furlough scheme. However, as Members will be aware, and as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, many directors pay themselves in large part through dividends while taking a small salary. Directors can claim from the furlough scheme on their salary, but dividends are not covered by this scheme, nor by the self-employment income support scheme. This is because income from dividends is a return on investment in the company rather than wages. Under HMRC’s current reporting mechanisms, which it inherited from many years before this pandemic crisis struck us, and which have been designed to meet the needs of a tax system operating in normal times, it is not possible to distinguish between dividends derived from an individual’s own company and dividends from other sources.

According to some external estimates, there are just over 700,000 active company directors, so if HMRC was to provide financial support to the 3.3 million people who typically declare dividend income on their tax returns, more than three quarters of those grants could potentially go to unintended recipients. This would be an irresponsible and unfair use of taxpayer money. By the same token, to seek to identify directors by means of proxies and assumptions would be an extremely onerous, imperfect and almost certainly inequitable method.

The Government continue to work closely with a range of organisations to explore how these schemes can support directors better, as well as others who have found themselves ineligible for the main income support schemes. It is quite wrong to suggest that we have not engaged. Indeed, we welcome any proposal that constructively seeks to address gaps in support that may exist, but as we consider these options it is vital that we always bear in mind the need to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, which can escalate very rapidly once it is allowed to creep into the system.

Throughout the past few months, I and my colleagues in the Treasury have been exploring proposals from some of these organisations to see whether they can provide a viable solution to the gaps in coverage and, in particular, the issue facing directors. As has been mentioned by both hon. Members, these include the directors income support scheme, which has been suggested by the Federation of Small Businesses and others. I am very grateful for the care and support that have gone into drawing up the proposal and ask the House to recognise that we take it extremely seriously. I have met its supporters. I and my officials have had detailed conversations about the scheme and have sought further information and ideas on critical areas and potential concerns. This continuing engagement has taken some weeks. At this time, however, although I and my officials by no means rely on the suggestion that the scheme intrinsically involves dividends—we recognise the construction of the scheme and the structure it represents; dividends are a means by which directors can be paid, but they are not intrinsic to the approach being taken in the scheme—I and my officials do not believe that as framed it overcomes the fundamental issues of protecting taxpayers’ money and safeguarding it against fraud and abuse.

I have raised those concerns with the FSB and the other members of the DISS group, and I and Treasury officials remain ready to engage with them on the issue. In addition, as the hon. Members mentioned, my team is reviewing the targeted income grant support just received, as proposed by the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group. As I have said, we very much remain open to other constructive suggestions.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked what was happening with Northern Ireland and whether the Government regarded the directors of small companies as less trustworthy than others. The answer to the latter question is of course not. We make no judgment about trustworthiness. This is a structural feature of concern about the nature of the support we seek to offer and how this particular scheme addresses that concern. As for her question about Northern Ireland, I cannot comment on that. The scheme has been proposed by Invest Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Executive and, as far as I am aware, it is not in any way connected to the HMRC scheme. We look to see how it will work and how it will address the needs that might exist and the concerns that might arise. We are not in a position to replicate the scheme in England and Wales, for the reasons I have described.

As this crisis has evolved, we have continued to adapt and refine the targeting of our support so that it can reach more people. Let me reiterate that our guiding principle has been to help as many people and businesses as possible through the pandemic. We have protected the livelihoods of many millions of people around the country and provided vital support to those who require it most.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have all had to adapt during the covid pandemic, and tonight may well be a piece of history in that the entirety of a debate has been held in the Chamber of the House of Commons when none of the participants were present. That is quite incredible. I thank the half a dozen people who kept me company for the last half hour, which was amazing. Happy Burns night. I suspect that quite a few drams will be drunk virtually this evening, if not virtually drunk. None the less, happy Burns night everybody.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Services Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I wish to focus on two areas: equivalence with the European Union for our financial services sector and financial crime. I also support the efforts to provide more protection against abuses in the consumer credit market and the mortgage market.

As a result of the Government’s decision to pursue a very hard Brexit and the ending of the transition period, UK financial service companies have now lost their passporting rights to EU countries. The Government’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU in effect sidestepped financial services, putting at risk many jobs in the sector and much tax revenue for the Exchequer. The deal means that there is an agreement for goods, in which the EU has a trade surplus with the UK, but nothing for services, in which the UK has a huge trade surplus with the EU. There is a feeble non-binding declaration to establish a framework for co-operation on financial regulation, but there is no sign of any rush from the EU to grant the UK equivalence so that the loss of passporting rights can be overcome and continued market access to our financial services sector can be achieved. Perhaps the fact that €6 billion of share trading formerly done in London migrated to Paris and Amsterdam on the first day of post-Brexit trading is encouraging Brussels to drag its feet and hope that much more will follow. Over time, I fear that this Government’s lack of interest in protecting equivalence for financial services is more likely to lose us jobs and revenue than inaugurate the big bang 2.0 that the Chancellor was fantasising about in the Commons earlier this week.

Financial and economic crime is a huge problem, and one that the Government have been far too slow to address. Their own estimates suggest that one in five people in the UK falls victim to fraud every year. There is £6 billion of organised fraud against business, and this is getting worse. The extent of economic crime in the UK, including money laundering, fraud and corruption, led the Intelligence and Security Committee in its report on Russia to note that London is now considered a “laundromat” for corrupt money. As the scale of global corrupt wealth enmeshed in the UK property market becomes visible, we need an urgent step change in the Government’s response, especially on transparency of overseas property ownership, and a tightening up of the company formation process in the UK. More needs to be done, and urgently, to crack down on this behaviour.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Apologies to those who failed to get in because of time constraint. I call the Minister.

[John Glen]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; and I thank all Members who have tabled amendments and spoken to them today. The Bill deals with a number of important issues, and this has been reflected in the wide-ranging contributions that we have heard today and over the last couple of months at various stages. I will take this opportunity to add to my earlier remarks and respond to some of the points raised in the contributions this afternoon.

On economic crime, I have already set out a number of actions that the Government have taken. On the specific issue of whether corporate criminal liability law should be reformed, the Law Commission is undertaking an expert review and we should await its outcome, but I note the range of views expressed today. We have discussed amendments that would bring additional activities into FCA regulation, including “buy now, pay later” products. I have heard the points raised on this matter today, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who gave a sensible, thoughtful and constructive analysis, but I believe that it is right to wait for the Woolard review.

On the question of equivalence and divergence, I have said before that there are some areas where the UK will want to take a different approach from the EU to better suit the UK market, and some areas where we will not. I do not accept the characterisation of divergence. Regulatory regimes are not static—they evolve—and it is right that regulators should adapt to them. We have heard about the relationship between the regulators, the Treasury and Parliament. Again, I look forward to continuing these conversations through the future regulatory framework review, which will be ongoing in the coming weeks and months.

We have discussed several amendments that would require the regulators to have regard to different objectives when implementing the prudential regimes provided for in the Bill. It is right that the regulators set the detailed rules implementing these regimes, as they have the right technical expertise. That has long been a principle by which our regulators have worked over the past 20 years. These regimes are vital, but I do not believe that regulators should be required to have regard to broader questions that are not so closely related to prudential standards.

Several of today’s amendments relate to issues not included in the Bill. I emphasise to the House once again that the Bill is just one part of the wider long- term strategy for financial services that will ensure that the UK financial services industry continues to be a global leader.

As is traditional at this stage of the Bill’s passage, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have contributed to its development and scrutiny. In particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on the Opposition Front Bench, as well as the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), for the care and attention that they have brought to scrutinising the Bill and the constructive way in which they have approached it. I thank the Public Bill Committee for its detailed engagement with the legislation, particularly the Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq).



The hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) have provided thorough examination and important contributions on parts of the Bill, as has just been seen, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey on the recognition of her services to Parliament over nearly 29 years in the new year honours list. On this side of the House, my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), and others, have provided characteristically thorough and thoughtful contributions.

I am grateful to the many experts who gave evidence to the Committee, and I thank the Commons staff and Clerks, Kevin and Nick, who have managed the process so smoothly. Not least, I thank the Treasury officials, Alex Patel, Liz Cronin, Fred Newman, Catherine McCloskey and Tim Garbutt. I hope the House has found my—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister; I know he wanted to thank more people, but we will have to take that as read, because under the Order of the House of 9 November 2020 I must now put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a conclusion.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, can you clarify whether Members in the Chamber should be socially distancing by staying on the seats that have ticks on them?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Yes, that is what the ticks are there for. I hope that all Members will abide by them so that we can have safe social distancing. Thank you very much.

[Jesse Norman]

In addition, the Bill amends current legislation for excise duty to be charged when certain goods, such as alcohol and tobacco, are moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The changes are necessary to ensure that there is a fully functioning VAT and excise regime in place in relation to Northern Ireland at the end of the transition period.

In line with the protocol, Northern Ireland will maintain alignment with existing EU excise rules. That means a change to excise duty is required when goods are moved to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, but the Government are adopting an approach using flexibilities and EU rules that minimises changes for excise goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

A small number of other taxation measures also need to be in place before the end of the transition period. The Bill introduces a new system for collecting VAT on cross-border goods. That includes moving VAT collection on certain imported goods away from the border and involving operators of online marketplaces in the collection of VAT at the point of sale.

In addition, measures in the Bill will remove the VAT relief on imported low-value items so that VAT will be due on all consignments, irrespective of their value. The relief has been the subject of long-standing abuse and removing it will build on Government efforts to level the playing field for UK businesses still further by protecting high streets from VAT-free imports. Together, the changes will improve the effectiveness of VAT collection on imported goods, tackle non-compliance and protect the flow of goods at the border.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I will take that under review. We have put in place a set of measures designed to tidy up the position that particularly arises in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, as he will be aware, and the end of the transition period, and that has meant a change to low-value consignment relief and the changes I have described. I am grateful to him for his contribution and suggestion.

The Bill also includes provision for an increase in the rate of duty on aviation gasoline, which will apply across the UK. Otherwise known as avgas, the fuel is a form of leaded petrol predominantly used in leisure flying. The change made by clause 6 of the Bill will increase the avgas rate by half of a penny to 38.2p a litre from 1 January next year. By way of explanation, the Northern Ireland protocol requires that Northern Ireland continues to comply with the EU’s energy taxation directive following the end of the transition period. It sets a minimum level of duty in euros on unleaded petrol used for propulsion. After some careful consideration, the Government have chosen to apply the change to the whole of the UK to ensure consistency between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, avoid burdens on business and reduce compliance risks for HMRC.

The Bill also includes a clause to ensure HMRC has access to the same or similar tools to prevent insurance premium tax evasion as it does at present, regardless of whether an insurer is based in an EU member state. Overseas insurers are liable to pay insurance premium tax when they supply general insurance for UK-located risks. Occasionally, overseas insurers do not pay the insurance premium tax they owe, so it is important that HMRC has access to tools that deter and tackle that form of evasion. Up to now, it has been using EU provisions to prevent evasion by insurers based in EU member states.

Separately, HMRC can issue liability notices in cases involving insurers based in any country outside the EU with which the UK does not have a mutual assistance agreement. Given that the EU provisions expire at the end of the transition period, this clause will enable HMRC to issue liability notices in evasion cases involving insurers based in any country with which the UK does not have a mutual assistance agreement, including EU member states.

Finally, the Bill introduces new powers that will enable HMRC to raise tax charges under the controlled foreign companies legislation for the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018. This is a technical provision that will deal efficiently with the legacy state aid decision relating to the period before the UK left the European Union.

This Bill will give people and businesses throughout the UK certainty about the arrangements that will apply from 1 January next year. It will play a part in further safeguarding the unity and integrity of this country, both in the months ahead and long into the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Anneliese Dodds, let me say that the wind-ups will begin at 5 o’clock at the latest, and that 13 Members wish to speak and are all here. We therefore know that there will definitely be 13 Members speaking, so colleagues should really be thinking about speeches lasting for six minutes. Even if I do not put the clock on, it would be really useful if everybody shows at least some discipline on that, so that everybody can get a fair crack of the whip.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I have almost finished, so I want to make a little progress, but I will try to bring the hon. Lady in later.

I am curious about what assessment the Government have made of the chilling effect of these changes. It is also very interesting that the customs duties will benefit the Irish Exchequer and be to the detriment of our people who wish to export. I note that paragraph 12 of schedule 1 will amend the Isle of Man Act 1979, and that part 6 of new schedule 9ZB to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which is inserted by schedule 2, also relates to the Isle of Man, so I would be grateful if the Government told us what communication they have had with the Manx authorities on the proposals. Obviously those proposals have come out overnight, so I do not know what discussions have been had, but it would be very interesting to find out.

Scotland has not been offered the deal that Northern Ireland has been offered. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke about the benefits of the EU single market that people in Northern Ireland will enjoy. Lucky them. Scotland is the only part of this supposed Union of equals not to get any of what we asked for, and we will see our own industries disadvantaged. To add insult to our very evident injury, Baroness Davidson and the then Scottish Secretary, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), threatened to resign if Northern Ireland was given different treatment. Just a couple of years ago, they said:

“Having fought just four years ago to keep our country together, the integrity of our United Kingdom remains the single most important issue for us in these negotiations.

Any deal that delivers a differentiated settlement for Northern Ireland beyond the differences that already exist on an all Ireland basis (eg agriculture), or can be brought under the provisions of the Belfast Agreement, would undermine the integrity of our UK internal market and this United Kingdom…We could not support any deal that…leads to Northern Ireland having a different relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK, beyond what currently exists.”

Well, that is exactly what we have. It is exactly what the Bill is and what it does, yet those two Members are still about. The Scottish Conservatives really do have more faces than the town clock.

To move on to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he has an absolute brass neck to describe the situation in Northern Ireland as the “best of both worlds”. He said on ITV that Northern Ireland would have

“access to the European single market, because there is no infrastructure on the island of Ireland, and at the same time unfettered access to the rest of the UK market.”

“The best of both worlds”—in Scotland, we have heard that before. The Better Together campaign told us that the only risk of losing our place in the EU was if Scotland voted for independence. Where are we now?

The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill farce undermines yet further the integrity of this crumbling Union, and today’s Bill takes another sledgehammer to the support structures that this Government believe are stronger than they are. The people of Scotland—those who voted no as well as those who voted yes, and those who were unable to vote six years ago—have been watching what has been going on. They do not want a UK Government who drag Scotland out of the EU—they voted very clearly, by 62%, to remain—they do not want a UK Government who threaten to break international law and spoil our standing in the world, and they do not want a UK Government to force Scotland into an insular and poorer future. People want their chance to have their say. The 15 polls in a row that now back independence show clearly to me and everybody else that the people of Scotland believe that things have changed. As Winnie Ewing said:

“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Members should be aiming to speak for not much longer than four minutes, if we are to get everybody in. I call Sir John Redwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). Unusually, I found myself agreeing with much of what he said about the time we have to debate this Bill. The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) in the previous debate were absolutely on the mark.

As someone who voted in the referendum to remain but who represents a seat that voted leave, I have to say that when I hear speeches such as the right hon. Gentleman’s, and many others that we are going to hear, I fear that much of what I have long feared about the whole Brexit process is coming to pass, which is that Brexit will be an orphan child and when we have left the EU and come to our final arrangement, it will be impossible to find anyone, perhaps with the exception of the Prime Minister, who says, “This is the Brexit I was campaigning for.”

Brexit operated in so many different people’s minds as a different entity. Even now, with a Brexit-backing Prime Minister, an overwhelming Tory majority, any Tories who showed a whiff of regard for our future relationship with Europe banished from the party and all rebellion quashed, the fundamental contradictions of Brexit remain unresolved. I have no way of knowing whether there will be a deal, but I can be certain that when that deal is signed many who argued earnestly that we should leave the EU will claim, “This was not the Brexit I was campaigning for.”

Let me turn to the measures in the Bill. I confess that during the referendum our campaign to back remain in Chesterfield hardly touched on the position of Northern Ireland. We did speak a bit about the Union in the context of Scotland, but Northern Ireland was barely mentioned, yet much of the Bill relates to the provisions relating to Northern Ireland that have become central to the issues that remain. The Labour party is, as I am, resolutely behind the Union and entirely committed to the Belfast agreement, and we recognise the many contradictions that persist.

I have to say to colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party and others that they should not think that these Northern Ireland issues concern very many of my constituents in Chesterfield. I know from many conversations that took place during the general elections on doorsteps in Chesterfield in 2019, when I was trying to raise the issues associated with Northern Ireland, that if the cost of getting a Brexit deal that enables our country to trade freely and regain control of immigration happened to be a united Ireland, many of my Brexit-voting constituents would accept that in a heartbeat. The people of Northern Ireland, whom, we should remember, in totality voted to remain, have been badly let down by many of the people they elected to represent them, either by those who sold their support to prop up the disastrous May Government and were then shocked to be sold down the river by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), or by those who, through their absence from this place, allowed the Brexit view to be heard as the dominant opinion of Northern Ireland.

The businesses of Northern Ireland are now starting to understand what that failure means for them. Right now it means that just weeks away from a change that will impact them more than any other on these islands, the promise that they will be able to enjoy frictionless trade has been exposed as wrong. It is irresponsible that when the Government themselves acknowledge that the administrative impacts on businesses affected by these changes will be significant, those businesses have so little time to plan, and no serious economic or fiscal impact assessments are contained within.

The last-minute nature of the Bill once again exposes the fact that the businesses of Great Britain, and particularly Northern Ireland, are left vulnerable by this incompetent Government’s pursuit of a promise that they cannot keep and should never have made. Although I wish the Prime Minister well tonight, the whole country needs him to remove the spectre of no deal from the nightmares we face as we look towards 2021. Once again, the Government are leaving businesses in the dark, jobs at risk and industries on the brink.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The next two speeches will be timed at four minutes, and then everyone else will have three minutes.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am going to break with tradition in this debate and actually talk about the Bill. A Bill that is described, in large sections, as primarily technical, administrative and procedural will not always excite the juices in Parliament, among the public or in the press but, although dry in sections, this Bill contains important measures, and I rise to support them.

Let me ground my comments in the experience of many people in the UK today. As someone who ran her own business prior to the election, I know that it is often the technical, administrative and procedural that can really shift the dial—for example, on the number of sales an individual can make or on market price points for a certain type of product—never mind the administrative and procedural processes that take too much valuable time from often hard-pressed smaller traders. Clarity is essential, welcome and timely. Once passed, the Bill will ensure that whatever happens in the ongoing trade negotiations with the EU, in an important subset of regulations there is clarity and fairness for businesses in the UK.

Measures in the Bill will change and improve our tax system and have been brought forward in separate legislation in advance of the proposed Finance Bill. They will ensure that the UK is prepared, whatever the outcome of the Prime Minister’s trip to Brussels later today. We are, and will continue to be, a proud sovereign trading nation. We are ensuring, and will continue to ensure, a smooth transition and continuity for trading businesses.

What do I mean? Let me be specific and turn to schedule 3, on amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994—essential bedtime reading for all, I am certain. In my previous business, I sold volumes of lower-value goods in online marketplaces and online channels to customers in the UK, the EU and many other locations overseas. For too long prior to the election I saw lower-value goods advertised by overseas sellers—my competitors— that were imported from abroad and undercut UK manufacturers and suppliers.

Currently, overseas sellers can avoid VAT, not charging it at the point of sale and not handing the revenue back to our Exchequer. That means that our country is losing twice: our fabulous businesses are losing sales to cheaper products from overseas sellers who do not have to charge VAT, which is unacceptable, while our Exchequer is also losing the revenue that such measures raise, which I remind the House funds the provision of the public services, such as the NHS and schools, that we rightly value so highly on the Government Benches. The Bill will remove that overseas-seller anomaly.

Specifically, the measures will mean that low-value consignment relief—LVCR—is removed from all non-UK sellers. All imported goods worth under £135, including under those worth under £15, will be subject to VAT at UK rates. Although currently legal, the existing situation amounts to tax avoidance by overseas sellers and has created distortions in UK marketplaces. It is this Conservative Government who are clamping down on it. To level the playing field, online marketplaces must now account for their VAT. This Government support our fabulous businessmen and women who trade from shops or—like me—online and will continue to do so.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned extra exporting barriers. As someone who has sat and put the labels on to goods going to EU, Ireland and international destinations, I know that for lower-value goods, any individual consignment worth under £270 gets a CN23 sticker with all the declarations on it, and then off it pops and there are no additional barriers between the EU and the US. No change that we will make today will put in place extra paperwork: what was done for the EU was always what happened anyway—it automatically comes off the printer. I am sure there are great British jewellers who can sell us wonderful earrings—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sorry Katherine —that is four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to be a Northern Ireland voice in this very important debate. Obviously, this is a different type of speech from the one I was envisaging making earlier this week, and I do welcome that progress—not least that we are, I hope, moving beyond part 5 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the potential notwithstanding clause in this legislation, although of course we do remain vigilant in that regard.

I would welcome confirmation from the Minister, not least given that we have had very little time to scrutinise the detail, that the current version of this Bill is entirely consistent with the Northern Ireland protocol. It is worth recalling why we have to do that and why there is such a protocol. It arises from the decision of the UK not to have a fresh customs union with the EU post Brexit. That prompts the question of where the line is going to be drawn on the map between the UK’s customs union and the EU. The protocol essentially sees a situation whereby Northern Ireland remains part of the single market for goods, but remains part of the UK’s customs territory. Crucially, however, the EU customs code is to be applied down the Irish sea; hence the nature of this Bill.

Just to correct something that was said earlier, the withdrawal agreement and the protocol, which were signed up to by this Prime Minister, had the starting point that all goods moving into Northern Ireland were potentially at risk. That was what was said in the protocol, and I do welcome the progress that has been made in trying to find a way through this and that that is not going to be the case in practice.

Some people may say that it was only the EU that was threatening a border in Ireland. Of course, the EU does have the right to protect the integrity of its single market and customs union, but I think we are being too complacent about the UK’s own obligations in that regard. If, in the event of no deal, the back gate was left open, so to speak, there would be a requirement under WTO rules for the UK to adopt the exact same posture that it has on the island of Ireland with the rest of the world. I am not sure that is a line that it would want to go down, particularly given the whole range of threats that are out there.

There are a range of issues still to be addressed regarding the wider context of the Bill—in particular, the achievement of a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal. Even with that, rules of origin will still be an issue. But if there is no free trade agreement, we are back to the issue of goods at risk. Although we have the prospect of the authorised economic operator model—we await more details of that—it is not going to cover everyone. For example, it is not going to cover small retailers and it may not cover the online issue. There is also the question of what happens if that measure is not renewed in a few years’ time, as well as the issue around necessary resources.

Looking the other way, I have already raised in my intervention on the Minister the issue of qualifying goods and how we can tackle avoidance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Shaun Bailey; please resume your seat no later than 5 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

As I have just said, I am not in a position to be talking about what is happening in the future. We have been negotiating in good faith and we have an agreement in principle. I do not believe that those clauses will be coming back, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the negotiations are still ongoing and we need to wait and see what the outcomes of those negotiations are. It would be quite wrong for me or him to pre-empt anything else that will be taking place, and we must not bind the hands of our negotiators. It is absolutely right that we all speak with one voice in this House.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned GB and NI parcels and asked how consumers would know whether there was a customs charge. The movement of parcels into Northern Ireland is another important part of how the protocol will work in practice for people in Northern Ireland. That is why the UK Government will take forward a pragmatic approach, just as we have elsewhere, that draws on available flexibilities to implement the protocol without causing undue disruption. In terms of schedule 3, she gave the example of the earrings from Slovenia that she had ordered. It is worth stressing that schedule 3 deals with imports to the UK and not exports. It will ensure that UK customers see the amount of VAT that needs to be paid at the point of sale on goods below £135. For goods between Northern Ireland and GB, VAT is already charged on supplies sold by a GB business to an NI customer. When the Northern Ireland protocol comes into effect, Northern Ireland businesses or consumers purchasing goods from VAT-registered businesses will see no significant difference in costs from a VAT perspective.

 

Let me conclude by saying that tonight, this House has the opportunity to give businesses in Northern Ireland and throughout the rest of the UK certainty about the arrangements that will apply from 1 January next year, to strengthen the precious bonds of union that tie this country together, and to prepare this country for an even brighter future as an independent sovereign trading nation. For all those reasons, I urge all Members to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will now suspend the sitting for a brief period in order for both Dispatch Boxes to be sanitised.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

Northern Ireland (Ways and Means)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the first motion.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the Chancellor on how he has handled the financial pressures that the pandemic has thrown at the Government, by thinking outside the box with brilliant, innovative solutions. However, I cannot support the new tiering system, because it is totally illogical and will force too many people to stay holed up at home. Hospitality businesses will fold in their tens of thousands, and I cannot condone that when they have spent tens of thousands becoming covid-safe.

I will also not support the reduction in the aid budget. This country has made an amazing difference to the lives of millions, but with the reduction of GNI and the proposed cut, the aid budget will be decimated. No longer will girls have 12 years of quality education—resulting in more child marriages, more instances of early childbirth, more female genital mutilation and more domestic violence. We will not be vaccinating millions, preventing polio and TB, providing medication for HIV or preventing malaria. We will be reduced to spending on humanitarian crises in emergencies only—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please could we just have a question?

[Mrs Latham]

So many things will be damaged, and our relations with the developing world will lose the soft influence that we have today. I cannot condone this, and therefore I will not be supporting this statement.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend makes a passionate case, and a right case, for our ability to help provide immunisation to the world’s poorest children. It is something that I proudly support, and I am happy to tell the House that we are the largest donor to the Gavi consortium globally, of any country in the world. That is the multilateral body that provides immunisation against infectious diseases for 75 million children, and as I have said, we are proudly the largest donor to that effort.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I just remind Members that we must not have a speech and eventually a question. Can we get quickly to the questions in order that we can get everybody in?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the levelling-up fund. From the outset I have been championing the Eden Project North in Morecambe, which is coming shortly, so will the Chancellor meet me to discuss it, as it is exactly the kind of shovel- ready project that would level up not just Morecambe, but the whole of our region?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Did the Chancellor get that?

[Rishi Sunak]

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it was something about the Eden Project. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ambitions for his area and this project. I know he has put a lot of thought and energy into it, as has his community, and I very much hope we can make progress in the coming years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words in support. He is absolutely right: we want to ensure that this record investment in infrastructure brings tangible benefits to our constituents wherever they live, whether that is in the rural south-west or a town up in the north-east. All the people of this country should see measurable improvement in the quality of their lives and see the opportunities that they can seize ahead of them. That is something that the Government will focus relentlessly on and intend to deliver.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is not often that I get to bring a smile to the Chancellor’s face, but that is it. I thank him for his statement today and answering the questions. He was on his feet from 12.45, which is over two and a half hours. I am extremely grateful, as I am sure is the entire House of Commons.

I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the motion relating to the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020. The Ayes were 354 and the Noes were 261, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

We will now suspend for a brief period for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes and the safe departure and entrance of Members of Parliament.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order 4 June)

Small Breweries Relief

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have said that these reforms will come in in 2022. We will announce the exact changes at the earliest opportunity post the consultation.

To sum up, the craft brewing boom of the last 30 years is a welcome development, and the Treasury would like to do its bit to help it continue, but we also have a duty to ensure that tax reliefs are not unduly distortive and are an effective use of resources. However, hon. Members should rest assured that we will not stop examining the issues raised by brewers and by hon. Members today, and we will continue working to resolve them. The Government are determined to ensure that the British brewing renaissance continues, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I put the Question, all I would say is that covid has had a lot of victims. If it were not for covid, I know exactly where most of us would be heading now. I hope that the good news that came from Pfizer today will give us cause for a lot of celebrations when the pubs reopen throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Economy Update

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

A fitting place to end, I think. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a demonstration of the strength of the Union, and an undeniable truth of this crisis, that we have been able to provide this level of economic support because we are one United Kingdom.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Chancellor for his statement today, and for responding to 38 questions in just over one hour. We are now suspending for three minutes.

Covid-19: Disparate Impact

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I might have misspoken. It might have been that people over 80 are 70 times more likely. I need to make sure I am getting the statistics right. I will confirm that for Hansard. The Government take this extremely seriously. We have made sure that people have the guidance on what to do, depending on their individual risk profile. People who are elderly, especially those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, as my hon. Friend will know, were shielded. We are making sure that information is being provided to local authorities, NHS trusts, GP surgeries and other support within the community to make sure we continue to do so. This might be something that the community champions can reinforce.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That noise may have been a passing motorbike.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]]

It is very clear that, alongside BAME communities, women have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. They make up the large majority of workers in those sectors that are unable to operate and in very many cases they are obviously carrying much larger roles in caring, both informally and formally. Northern Ireland already had the lowest levels of employment for women, and that is in the context of the UK, even before the pandemic, slipping down gender inequality rankings. Will the Minister be advocating for specific targeted economic support for women to address the structural inequalities that are being very much exacerbated by covid-19?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I disagree with the hon. Lady. I think we have answered the question. Saying that something is a factor means it is having an effect—it is part of the reason. She says—[Interruption.] It does mean that. She asks for the causes of covid. What is causing the disease is people catching it; it is a contagious disease. This is not rocket science. What we are explaining is why certain groups are disproportionately impacted. We have explained that it is household size, it is population density, it is geographic factors, it is socioeconomic factors—all those things are having an effect. I know where the hon. Lady is getting to, but we have also explained that for some groups, such as Bangladeshi women and white women, when we take out comorbidities, the disparity is completely gone. I am sorry that the report does not give her the answer that she is looking for, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said, we are basing it on the science, not politics.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for answering 39 questions over an hour. I also thank the technicians, as many of the questions were virtual. Thank you very much.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I speak to a lot of people across the four nations of this great country, and in Derbyshire, too, and their overwhelming view is that this Government are being fair. The Government have outlined a clear and fair national criteria for supporting people under tier 3 restrictions. That comes on top of the huge national support that has historically been offered to local authorities, businesses and individuals over the past few months.

The Government are protecting 80% of the salaries of those on lower incomes through the job retention scheme and universal credit contributions, which I know is more generous than that offered by many countries in the world. In particular, it is better than that offered in France, Germany and Spain.

The long-term battle here is to defeat and manage the virus and to promote economic recovery. It is only with prosperity that we can have freedom and rights for everybody. The virus’s transmission must be thwarted, so I welcome the Government’s focus on track and trace. On money, the Government are fundamentally fair. We are not going back to the times of trade union discussions when people can shout and scream to get what they can out of the Government. This Government are consistent and fair.

I was interested to hear the Prime Minister confirm today that Manchester will be getting £60 million overall in the same fair way as other regions, so all the shouting and screaming of the petulant Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, is frankly ridiculous. The single most important way the Government can support communities is to carry on with track and trace. The delivery of more than 300,000 tests a day facilitates progress in this area to stop transmission rates in the worst-affected areas. For all their rhetoric, this achievement would have proved impossible under the Opposition, because of their refusal to support the Government’s national approach on testing, which is Europe-leading. They have an ideological fear of private enterprise and would not have been able to deliver any of this. Those people I speak to across this great nation of ours are grateful to Boris and to Rishi—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We do not refer to Members of Parliament by their Christian or other names.

[Miss Dines]

I mean the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I was also surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) say that the track and trace system had collapsed—she clearly reads a different dictionary from me. I was thinking back to those times when I was a child and the trade unions thought that they ran the country. Well, similarly, Andy Burnham may run his city, but we need fairer, more moderate tones in discussions as to how to get through this crisis.

In conclusion, this is not too good a crisis to go to waste. We will work together and receive—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will, if I may, take a moment to add my condolences to my good friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and her family at the loss of her aunt.

It has been a tumultuous time for communities in the north and in West Yorkshire. We know the sacrifices that people have made, losing loved ones, jobs, homes and futures. As a proud Yorkshire woman, I know that we have grit, determination and a sense of community, and I know that we will get through this. I make this request of the Minister: if West Yorkshire is placed under the same restrictions as Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, will the Government not abandon my community, my people, with the same disregard for the impact that it will have on the poorest as they have in Greater Manchester? They cannot expect a family living on £300 a week to now be living on £200 a week and not go into poverty. They cannot expect those on the minimum wage now to get two thirds of those wages and not to be living in poverty. We know that hundreds of thousands of people across this community and across the country do not even have £100 of savings.

Added to that is the sheer arrogance of the Government in the way that they have dealt with the leadership of Greater Manchester, excluding MPs from briefings, trying to set one elected Mayor against another, leaving the people of Greater Manchester anxious and concerned about how they will pay their bills. They have pitted one community against another, young against old, vulnerable against healthy, rich against poor, and city against town. I wish to put it on the record that I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Mayor of Greater Manchester and all that he is doing, working with others to get the support of his community so that they have enough to live on.

Let us not forget landlords and utility companies: they will not be interested in the argument that a worker is now getting only two thirds of their current income. This Government are happy to allocate billions for botched schemes, but it is begging bowls for the rest of us. We know that there was £108 million for private companies to make PPE they had never made before, and £12 billion for track and trace that was a complete shambles, yet £5 million was just a step too far to protect the livelihoods of millions of citizens across Greater Manchester—so many people paying an unnecessarily high price for Government chaos.

Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will make a great fanfare of speaking about the northern powerhouse, when for so many of the people I represent it is more like the northern poorhouse. It is not just Labour leaders who are exasperated at the Prime Minister’s disregard for the people of the north, but former Tory Minister Lord O’Neill, writing in the Yorkshire Post today, and he is right. With over 40 leaders across the north standing alongside Greater Manchester leaders, I add my voice to their ask of Parliament to enable us to have a vote on the motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin sharp at one minute to four.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a huge misfortune that, at the moment the entire world is grappling with this pandemic, the United Kingdom should be stuck with this Government—probably the most incompetent Government that there has ever been—at a moment when never more has there been a need for a strong and reliable Government. When the whole country is looking to the Government for leadership, for them to instead be involved in the dreadful spectacle of politicising and trying to split up areas such as Greater Manchester—trying to get people to work against each other, rather than working together—at a moment like this says everything not only about their competence, but about what motivates them.

The Government are now claiming that they had a formula all along, but that has so transparently been done after the event to justify what they offered to Greater Manchester. Surely a sensible business support formula would work on the basis of the number of workers that an area has, not the number of citizens. The deal that the Greater Manchester Mayor asked for would replace 80% of the income of those workers on low wages put out of work by the Government’s incompetence. It is an area, remember, that has been in tier 2 for months. In Chesterfield, we are just going into tier 2 and we see the appalling consequences it has for our hospitality sector, which is getting no support whatever. All the way through, the Government’s eyes have been on the political win rather than on the best interests of the people they are here to serve.

If the Government had a formula all along, why was Manchester getting only £22 million at 3 o’clock and £60 million again by 7 o’clock? Why is Sheffield city region getting £6 million less in business support than the formula says? Why was the initial offer to Manchester, of £55 million, £3 million less than what the Government now say that formula is? If there is actually a formula, it does not add up. They do not even lie well. The Government are so inept that they cannot even get their story straight when they are screwing people over.

The whole charade would not be so bad if the Government had the slightest compunction about wasting billions of pounds of public money. They are the Government who conspired to deny a cash-strapped council £50 million from Richard Desmond, and who pay consultants £7,000 a day to screw up track and trace, but when it comes to laying people off—because all the Government’s measures so far have failed—the people of Manchester are not even worth £20. What a shabby disgrace!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To resume her seat at 3.59, I call Suzanne Webb.

[Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)]

We are having this debate due to the drawn-out actions of others. The Government’s offer to support businesses in Manchester is generous and, importantly, proportionate to the support already given to Liverpool and Lancashire. I am bitterly disappointed that, after long, drawn-out negotiations, the offer of support was rejected. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have a better chance of defeating the virus if we work together. Compare that to what is happening in the west midlands. I am thankful we have Andy Street as the Mayor of the west midlands, who has already said that he will not accept a public and drawn-out negotiation with the Government. He will not put lives at risk.

Our Mayor’s aim is to agree measures alongside other local leaders on a cross-party basis well in advance of any move to a higher tier, so that we can protect businesses and livelihoods without delay. That is real leadership in the face of the biggest public health crisis we have faced in a generation. When the NHS is at risk, that is when we are at the moment of greatest danger. Those who are not willing to act collectively at the time of our country’s greatest need put the NHS and people’s lives at risk.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I apologise to the 38 Members who were not able to be called because of the constraints of time and the large number of Members who wished to participate. I call Anneliese Dodds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Mancunians, we agree that being fair is most important, after being proud of who we are and where we come from. Is it in order for a senior member of the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), to call out repeatedly “scum” when my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) was talking, and then fail to retract it or apologise? Today, she has shamed Manchester and shamed this House. She should apologise.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the point of order. I understand that she informed the office of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that she was making that point of order. That is always important, by the way. The Chairman of Ways and Means dealt with this matter when the exchange to which the hon. Lady refers occurred. I will, therefore, not revisit it, but I remind hon. Members that they should use appropriate language in their contributions in the Chamber and in any sedentary contributions. I also remind the House of the words in “Erskine May”:

“Good temper and moderation are characteristics of parliamentary language.”

I was only in the chair for 45 minutes of the last debate, and I heard terminology and language that made me wince. I did not intervene then, but I will next time.

I am not going to suspend the House now, because the Dispatch Boxes were sanitised during the Division. To save time and so that at least one more Member may speak, we will move straight on to the next debate.