Black History Month
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Black History Month.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue today, and I thank Members on both sides of the House for their support in securing the debate. Specifically, I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I also thank the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for her commitment to addressing this issue. I am pleased that there was cross-party support for this debate to take place during Black History Month.
My sincere thanks go to Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, a co-ordinator of special projects for the Greater London Council in 1987, who organised the first recognition of this month. It must have taken extraordinary courage to speak out against racism and discrimination in order to pave the way for me and others.
Black History Month is about celebrating and highlighting black heroes, such as Petronella Breinburg, one of the first black female authors in Britain to write a children’s book with a black protagonist; Dr Harold Moody, a Jamaican-born physician who emigrated to the United Kingdom, where he campaigned against racial prejudice and established the League of Coloured Peoples in 1931; Mary Prince, a British abolitionist, who was the first black woman to write an autobiography and present an anti-slavery petition; Asquith Camile Xavier, a West Indian-born Briton who ended the colour bar at British Rail in London by fighting to become the first non-white train guard at Euston station in 1966; David Pitt, the second peer of African descent to sit in the House of Lords; Dr Erinma Bell, a community peace activist, and Yomi Mambu, the first black person to hold the title of Lord Mayor in England.
But I must also mention the trailblazers who came before us in this place: Lord Boateng, Bernie Grant, Baroness Amos and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Their legacy in the House can be seen throughout the Chamber today.
We celebrate all those trailblazers not just because they are black individuals, but because they are great Britons, and not just because they are great black Britons but because they are great Britons in Black History Month. We truly celebrate them, because everyone benefits from recognising the important contributions they make in laying pathways for others who look like them and follow in their footsteps. This is what this debate is about, and this is why I came into this place: to speak for those who barely get a voice in this society.
When we look at many aspects of society, including the jewel in our national crown, the NHS, we see that we are overly represented in the workforce, although, sadly, not at the top. Black, Asian and minority ethnic people are far more likely to work in key worker roles, and those workers are more likely to be pressured to work in dangerous circumstances. In the NHS, 63% of BAME doctors reported that they had been pressured to work in wards with covid patients, compared with 32% of their white counterparts.
These examples of institutional discrimination have destroyed the lives of black people across the UK. I know of one nurse in my constituency who unfortunately lost her life to covid-19, leaving behind a heartbroken family. After hearing claims of racial discrimination in the workplace and seeing research pointing to long-term structural racism as a factor in the disproportionate covid deaths, I have to question how many lives might have been needlessly lost due to the lack of action on tackling racism over the past decade. Today, when we talk about Black History Month as a celebration, we should also reflect on the persistent racial inequalities that this Government must address as a matter of immediate concern. This is an opportunity to speak on behalf of all those voices in society that we celebrate this month.
Black people have faced discrimination in the UK for as long as history can remember, but racism is not a thing of the past. I am sad to have to stand here and describe how discrimination has continued into the present. Its impact is still felt on so many lives: black women are five times more likely to die in pregnancy; black Caribbean children are three times more likely to be excluded from school; black workers with degrees earn almost a quarter less than their counterparts; black people make up just 3% of the UK population but 12% of those in prison. Why is it that year on year these statistics are read out in a debate or in news and no action is taken? That it is still necessary in 2020 for young people to take to the streets to remind us that black lives matter should bring shame on us all. Black lives matter; we are in this House and we must recognise that.
I have two asks of the Government and I want them to give me a direct answer today. The first is to implement a race equality strategy and action plan that will cover areas such as education, health and employment, something that Operation Black Vote has called for. The second is to set up a taskforce that will look to diversify the curriculum—to really diversify the curriculum. We want all our kids—all our children, black and white, in every single corner of this country—to better understand our history, so that our children have a true sense of belonging within British culture and British history, because at the moment it does not reflect that.
Teach First reported that the biggest exam board does not include a single book by a black author in English literature specifications, and 75% of English teachers have concerns about the lack of ethnic diversity in the curriculum. Let me break that down: that means pupils can complete their GCSEs and leave secondary school without having studied a single literary work by a non-white author. If we have a better understanding of our history, everyone is better off. It also means that we will not make the same mistakes as we did with the Windrush scandal. It will help us better to know ourselves and how this country got to this place, and what work still needs to be done.
That is why I am saying to the Government now that we need a race equality strategy because, as furlough ends, the redundancies will be coming hard and fast. If we do nothing again, once again, black communities will suffer. In education, we cannot leave a generation behind with this digital divide, and in health, as the pandemic wreaks havoc, we are dying in great numbers. An educational taskforce will look at our curriculum honestly, ensuring that the books our children read, learn from and develop from have a clearer analysis of our history—the good, the bad and the ugly—and the values they can take to become future leaders. It is this grounding that will ensure that all our children, black and white, will have the opportunity to fulfil their full potential. We need to get the curriculum right, so that we have more black teachers and so that more people from diverse backgrounds will get to the top, which will mean a fairer playing field—not one that locks the privileged in and the disadvantaged out.
The past year has been deeply traumatic for black people, who have failed to be supported by the Government. I have called on the House today to do more to tackle racism, but we can all do more to be active in the future, so I say to my fellow black brothers and sisters: if you are watching today, if you do one thing, make sure you register to vote so that in the local elections, mayoral elections and the general election, you can have your say and make your voice heard.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As hon. Members can see, the call list is quite extensive but I do not intend to put a time limit on initially. However, if Members go on way beyond five or six minutes, they will either be knocking people off at the other end or reducing the time that they have, so please be mindful of other Members who will want to make contributions later.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
A few people have come in since I gave the advice as to why there is no time limit. The call list is quite extensive, so please exercise a little bit of self-discipline—everybody has been very good during this debate—to ensure that you do not go on too long, otherwise you will reduce the time that is available for other people later on.
Tulip Siddiq
I will say this gently, because I like the hon. Member. I have a lot of time for him, and he has been making a gentle argument. Is there not a difference between young Asian girls and young black boys who have our backgrounds and our parental role models—I say “our” because I had a middle-class, privileged background as well—and the young black men and young Asian women growing up in the council estate in Kilburn in my constituency, who are constantly stopped and searched? Is racism not about intersectionality? We came from different backgrounds and had different advantages, and it is just not the same for everyone.
I am very open about the privilege and opportunities that I had growing up, which is why I want to make life better for those who have not had those opportunities. There is a big difference between being a middle-class Asian woman and being working-class, growing up in poverty and facing double discrimination. Intersectionality is what I am trying to bring to the argument, because I feel like the hon. Member is completely missing the point. My point about Eton is—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Interventions should be short. I did remind the House about the length of speeches, and we are in danger of a time limit being imposed if we are not careful.
Bim Afolami
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I like the hon. Lady as well. What she says has a huge amount of truth. Of course there is a difference between people of different backgrounds, and it is in that diversity that we find strength as a country. I accept that I have had advantages that certain white working-class boys or girls may not have had, and I have had advantages that certain black people from working-class backgrounds may also not have had. Of course that is true, but at the same time—and I think this view is shared on both sides of the House; it is not partisan—we need to make sure that everybody can aspire to everything and there are no no-go areas, whatever someone’s race or background. That message of aspiration is one of the key reasons why I became a Conservative.
We have made progress. I do not want to repeat what others have said about where we have fallen short and need to make progress. I look at what my friend the noble Lady Morrissey, has done over the last few years with the 30% Club to get more women into senior positions in big public companies. We should look at that sort of approach and think about how we can increase the number of black people and other minorities in leadership positions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To protect those further down the call list I am introducing a time limit of six minutes, although I suspect it may be further reduced to ensure that more people get in.
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He is absolutely correct. For the sake of a little extra support until our economy is in better condition, while we are still in the midst of the pandemic—it has not gone away—we need to save as many jobs as possible and support businesses in their quest to hold on to staff, rather than losing jobs that might never return.
In addition, the CBI has warned of a cliff edge and urged replacement support for jobs if furlough support ends next month. The UK manufacturing sector has warned of a “jobs bloodbath”. So much of this could be avoided. The goal of the job retention scheme, as the Chancellor told us, was to save jobs and build a bridge through the pandemic, but if furlough support is withdrawn next month, his bridge will self-evidently have not reached the other side. The investment to support and save jobs was laudable, but the task is not finished and the UK Government should not—must not—walk away from an economic disaster that is avoidable. They must not allow events simply to take their course.
Today, we on the SNP Benches urge the Government to go further and do more to save potentially millions of jobs. I echo the calls made last night in the Scottish Parliament and urge an extension to the job retention scheme. Despite the leader of the Labour party in Scotland having said that it makes no sense for the UK Government to pull away support now in one fell swoop, bewilderingly—almost inexplicably—Labour MSPs last night voted with the Tories in the Scottish Parliament against a motion urging the continuation of that support. That is an act of betrayal and a dereliction of duty towards those in Scotland who are currently, and desperately, worried about their jobs and their families.
Voters in Scotland will not easily forgive or readily forget this act of political posturing from a so-called party of workers—a party that was happy to bail out the banks but voted against support for viable jobs in Scotland for the longer term. It is utterly bewildering, and if any Labour Member wants to intervene and explain why the Labour party in Scotland has done that, I will we more than happy to hear it, but I see that nobody is willing to do so.
There are no mixed messages or equivocation from the SNP Benches. We urge the UK Government to do the right thing: to look at the kind of forward planning and support done in countries such as Germany, and to protect our economy and jobs through these difficult times. If these calls go unheeded, we in Scotland will simply be further persuaded that we need those powers for ourselves to make our own decisions.
There is a tsunami of job losses heading our way. It is not inevitable. We can stem the tide. We urge the Government to use every tool at their disposal to do so, to extend support for jobs and to ensure that those who have been unjustly excluded are given the support they need during these difficult times.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are behind where we thought we would be, so therefore we are introducing a four-minute limit from the very beginning.
Stephen Hammond
I am not aware of those numbers, but I thank the hon. Lady for making them available to me. I am sure that the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard her words. I want to make sure that the scheme has not been operated fraudulently, because we need all the money to go to people and to some of the great retraining schemes that the Government are introducing now. As I have said, the investment in future prosperity and the commitment to look at new and innovative ways of protecting and creating jobs is the key, and it is the right approach for the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Just to give a bit more information, particularly to those who are going to take part in the next debate, the wind-ups will begin at 2.45 and this debate will conclude at 3.15 when we move on to the next debate. We are giving equal time, therefore, to both of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I know that some Members have applied to speak in both Back-Bench debates and I do not think it would be fair if they lost out on both debates, but the only way that we can adjust for that is by lowering the time limit to three minutes. I apologise; I do not like three-minute debates. I made the point last week that we have two debates of a similar nature and it would have been rather better, and more Members would have been able to speak, if we had had just one debate on this issue. I call Anthony Browne for three minutes.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate. Last week’s Opposition day debate on the furlough scheme demonstrated that there is huge demand in all parts of the House for raising constituents’ cases, so we have a welcome further opportunity to do that today. Since March, we have all been receiving a huge amount of correspondence from constituents whose livelihoods have been affected by the pandemic. I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to my casework team, who were newly hired just as the pandemic hit and have done a fantastic job in getting up to speed and directing so many constituents to the different, varied and sometimes complex support schemes run by local authorities, the Scottish Government and the UK Government.
Across the whole of Fife nearly 30% of all employees were furloughed. That is a huge number and I give credit to the Treasury for its implementation of the scheme. It is an example of how pooling and sharing resources has allowed the prevention of huge job losses. We have already heard today that all this is put in jeopardy if the scheme ends next month unilaterally, and I re-echo the calls that have been made. I cannot stress enough how vital the scheme is to so many businesses in my constituency. But for all the good the furlough has done, the painful reality for a not insignificant minority of people is that they have missed out on the scheme, for reasons that are, in essence, arbitrary. I welcome the recognition of that in the motion.
For some, that reason is just a date. One of my constituents had not been in work, he started a new job on 29 February and the cut-off date meant he was ineligible for the scheme. He was let go from his job and there was no recent employer to rehire him. Another constituent was placed in a similar situation. She was switching employment just as covid-19 hit, and her new employer could not open the business because of the lockdown and so simply could not take her on. The rules of the job retention scheme were adjusted so that old employers could rehire those people caught in limbo, but that was a workaround, not a solution that is an any way meaningful. She was eligible for furlough but was not furloughed because her old employer refused to rehire her so that she could be furloughed, although that would have come at no cost to them. So she has missed out and instead has had to apply for jobseeker’s allowance.
Even for those who were furloughed the scheme has not always been perfect. One constituent, a childcare agency worker on a zero-hours contract, contacted me because the way furlough is calculated has meant that her regular full-time hours are not considered, and she has experienced an incredibly severe drop in earnings. That has meant an incredibly tough few months trying to survive on very little.
Those are three cases, but there are many more. For thousands of people in my constituency, this has been a difficult year. A lot of people who never thought they would be relying on our welfare system are now doing so because they did not meet arbitrary eligibility criteria and slipped through the gaps. It will now be clear to so many people that what is deemed as our “safety net” does not work. As we look to rebuild, I hope we will reflect on our welfare system and on whether it provides the right support for those who need it. I am increasingly convinced that a more substantial, universal safety net has to be the way forward.
Jesse Norman
I have very little time—if the hon. Member does not mind, I will proceed. That bonus is an important aspect because it provides a marginal benefit to a very large group of relatively low-paid employees. Of course, we have also launched the kickstart scheme.
Let me pick up a couple of points that have been raised. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that it is very important for Scotland to have powers of its own in this context. I echo again—I am becoming like a broken record—the hon. Member for Ilford North who said that the Scottish Government are good at passing the buck and bad at taking responsibility. The Scottish Government House has tax-raising powers devolved through the Silk commission. Let it use those. At the moment, the vast majority of money spent in Scotland and in Wales is spent by and raised through local government—regional government—but raised through UK Government, and that is crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) rightly pointed out that the Chancellor has included many flexibilities in the design of the furlough scheme, and it is important to recognise that it has evolved over time. It has not been a fixed thing. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) rightly pointed out that the unemployment drop had been much less in the UK than elsewhere and that there had been a rapid fall in furloughing. He pointed to the tapering out that that implied and he is right about that.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) was right to raise the point about the need for green jobs. The Government absolutely share that view, and that is one of the things that successive policies have focused on. I have no doubt that it will be an important part of the consideration in the net-zero review and all the other measures that are presently in place.
Quickly, on the issue of fraud—if I may for a second before winding up, Mr Deputy Speaker—it is much misunderstood; the planning assumptions that were outlined in the evidence from the CEO of HMRC are just planning assumptions, and we wait to see what the final numbers will be after enforcement. He has said in terms that he does not rule out penalties and potentially criminal procedures to bring that back under control—
Patricia Gibson
I will not detain the House any longer, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that there is another important debate on the horizon. I just thank everyone who has participated, and I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has not listened to the calls and continues to tell us how lucky we are with the support that we already have. That is cold comfort to those who are worried about their homes, their jobs and their future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and calls on the Government to examine, improve and extend that scheme’s operation and application to ensure that people who started work after the furlough scheme started are included and that this support continues until the UK’s economy is more robust, so that the goal of retaining as many jobs as possible is secured.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Like last week, I will not suspend the House; I will just pause while the Dispatch Boxes are sanitised and the main players take their positions, please, as others leave the Chamber. Remember “hands, face and space” and please leave socially distanced.
To let those who are taking part in the next debate know, the wind-ups will begin at 4.30 pm. Those participating in the wind-ups will have half an hour between them; it will be eight minutes, 10 minutes and 10 minutes, and then, if time allows, Caroline Lucas, who will open the debate, will have two minutes at the very end. This debate, like the last, is well over-subscribed, and we are much later going into the debate because of previous activities, so, following Caroline Lucas’s opening speech, there will be a four-minute limit. That is likely to be reduced later by Madam Deputy Speaker.
Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
If they do not have any money, they cannot save their business, can they? That seems an odd intervention to make.
The Petitions Committee urged the Government to amend the scheme to take into account periods of maternity and paternal leave to ensure fairness and equality, yet, once again, Ministers have deliberately looked the other way. That phrase “whatever it takes” apparently does not stretch to ending discrimination against self-employed women. Nor do they care very much about freelancers, especially those on short-term PAYE contracts, as is now common practice because of HMRC requirements. They are caught between a rock and a hard place: denied access to the job retention scheme and the chance to be furloughed, yet often not earning enough from self-employment to qualify for the self-employed scheme.
In some sectors of our economy, freelance working is especially common. In my own Brighton constituency, for example, a number of people work in the arts. Three in four jobs in the arts across the country are freelance. They are the people who make the plays, the musicals and live experiences that are a part of the fabric of British life. We do not always see what they do, but they are invaluable, yet one in three of the skills base in theatre, for example, have missed out on any Government support since March, with disabled people, people of colour and early career workers disproportionately affected. Young people are also over-represented compared with other sectors of the economy. Therefore, rather than recovery, we see a sector that is facing total collapse.
Failure adequately to support the cultural, creative and events industries has put at risk 16,000 jobs across Brighton and Hove and £1.5 billion in turnover. My inbox, like, I am sure, the inboxes of many other hon. Members, is full of emails from constituents forced to abandon long-standing careers in the arts because there is no income support for them as freelancers.
Many working in media and journalism are similarly struggling, as the National Union of Journalists has evidenced, with its members routinely treated as employees for tax purposes, yet not eligible for furlough and not afforded the same protections and rights as staff when it comes to employment law.
Another group of people hard hit is those who choose to combine self-employment with PAYE income. I have a number of constituents in that situation, often as a result of being midway through making the transition to running their own company and being wholly self-employed.
None of this is inevitable. All of it is the result of a conscious choice by the Government to abandon anywhere between 3 million and 6 million self-employed people and freelancers. As the current self-employed scheme winds down, now is the time to change tack and do the right thing by these people. The details of a more inclusive scheme have been set out by the campaign groups and by the Treasury Committee. The ForgottenLtd group published a rescue package. Backed by the Federation of Small Businesses and other business groups, it sent it to the Treasury over a month ago, and it is still waiting for a response.
I appreciate how much other people need and want to speak, so let me quickly, in my last few minutes, outline three things that can be done. First, we can retrospectively expand the self-employed scheme. Bring those people who have been excluded from it into its ambit and make it fair by retrospectively starting it from 1 March to give it parity with the furlough scheme.
Secondly, as well as looking back, we need to look forward, so the Government should immediately extend the duration to the many sectors where the self-employed are a significant part of the workforce and which will not be back to anything like normal for some time to come. Thirdly, the Government should be looking at ways of keeping pace with the changing shape of the economy, balancing public health and economic priorities with the likelihood of more local lockdowns, for example. Part of the answer to that is a basic income scheme. The self-employed and job retention schemes do not work in tandem with the welfare system and therefore do not approach anything like a proper safety net. Many people have not been able to claim universal credit. Some have received no support whatever and the consequences are devastating, so much so that ExcludedUK has been working with the Samaritans on creating a dedicated helpline called Mind the Gap for those experiencing mental health problems. There is a simple and effective way to start to put things right and a universal basic income delivered via a welfare system that lifts everybody up would be a key cornerstone of that.
In conclusion, on Tuesday the Chancellor said he had
“not hesitated to act in creative and effective ways to support jobs and employment,”—[Official Report, 15 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 160]—
and promised he would continue to do so. The self-employed and freelancers rightly want that creativity to apply to them as well. The Treasury has demonstrated time and again that it does not understand self-employment, so at the very least those of us standing up for the excluded are asking this again today: please will the Minister go back to the Treasury team and ask them to meet us so that at the very least they can understand what is at stake here? The stakes could not be higher: people’s businesses are being destroyed and their lives are being destroyed. That is not right and that is why so many Members want to speak in this debate.
Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsFriday 11th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill 2019-21 View all Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to make a short contribution to this debate. In the midst of the coronavirus crisis that we are going through, there is an active debate about how we should come out of it and recover from it economically. On that note, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) on bringing forward a Bill that creates a platform for an important contribution to that debate.
Many people would argue—I include myself among them—that it is not enough just to try to recreate the economy as it was in February; we should aim to come out of this crisis with a more sustainable economy and a better funded public space. If we have learned anything during this crisis, it is that good public services can help protect us and guarantee the safety and security of our whole society in such situations. Any society is only as strong as its weakest parts when fighting a pandemic. Co-operatives have a big part to play in that.
Scarcely a conversation with investors or financial institutions can go by these days without hearing the letters ESG. Environmental, social and governance considerations are being put forward as greater priorities in investment decisions, and it is in that context that the Bill put forward by my hon. Friend is highly relevant to the debates about what investment should seek to achieve.
As we have heard in the debate, co-operatives have been part of our society and economy since 1844, when the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers was established. The principle that a business can be run and owned by its members for the benefit of the community it serves has become a much cherished and valuable part of British life. The co-operative movement was part of the foundation of the Labour party, and we have always had a close relationship with it. As we have heard, there are some 7,000 co-operatives operating in the UK, with a combined turnover of around £38 billion. Perhaps I should declare my interest, in that I am a member of the Co-operative party and a member of the Revolver World co-operative in my constituency, which sells excellent Fairtrade tea and coffee—so, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you want a good cup of tea or coffee after this debate, you know who to ask.
Let me turn to the Bill, which seeks to deal with an essential and important question of financing. It tries to deal with the question of how co-operatives can raise equity finance without compromising the mutual nature of their ownership and governance model. At the moment, co-ops can raise finance either from their members’ resources or they can borrow to invest, but they cannot issue conventional shares, as other enterprises can, without threatening the mutual status of the organisation. The reason for that, of course, is that anyone who invests in an enterprise by buying shares gets the rights—those ownership and voting rights—that share ownership brings. The Bill tries to deal with that essential problem for co-operatives, which does not affect other enterprises that can issue shares freely.
The other distinguishing feature of the Bill is that clause 1(3) envisages that these shares are for environmentally sustainable investment—that they are green shares. As we have heard throughout the debate, the desirability of restricting this new class of shares for green purposes has been the subject of some disagreement and discussion. It is fair to say that some in the co-operative movement regard the scope as too narrow and point to the much broader range of social and economic benefits of co-operatives. They would rather see a more generic share-issuing power with the emphasis on the form of investment and the protection of the mutual model, rather than trying to be too focused on the purpose of the investment. However, even those in the co-operative movement who have doubts about the purely green criteria set out in the Bill still want to see it receive a Second Reading and to deal with the issues about the scope of the shares in Committee.
I think that a couple of straw people have been set up in the debate. One is that if we issue such green shares, it will somehow stop the Government doing green investment. There is no reason why the Government should not invest in retrofitting housing, for example, just because we make a change in how co-operatives can raise financing, so that need not detain us.
There has also been the issue of green bonds. Of course they can play a role, but again, why should one crowd out the other? We already operate in a world of capital markets where there are bonds and equities, and no one has ever suggested that because we have equities, we cannot have bonds, so why should that be the case here? I accept that there is some debate about the scope of these green shares, but I do not accept that somehow, as a consequence, they will run against the issue of green bonds or inhibit the Government from doing what they want to on such investments.
There are not too many opportunities to legislate on co-operatives, and this one is still a potentially valuable way to facilitate equity investment in the co-operative sector. The co-operative movement has wanted to do that for some time and the Bill seeks to address that long-standing problem by creating this new class of share, which would not only facilitate equity investment, but safeguard co-ops from the risk of demutualisation as a result. Similar provisions are already in place for building societies in the UK through core capital deferred shares, and legislation like this has, as we have heard, recently been passed in Australia—a country that I believe our Prime Minister is increasingly looking to for inspiration, so I am somewhat surprised to hear Government Members not wanting to follow the Australian model when it seems to have such influence in other parts of our public life at the moment.
The Bill allows the issuance of these shares, but restricts the voting rights of investors holding them to one vote, and creates other safeguards to stop that investment resulting in a move to turn the Co-op into a conventional private company. As many Members have said in the debate, there is no point in creating this new financial instrument if the result of it is to destroy the co-operative essence of the enterprise, so the Bill seeks to safeguard against that danger. It also envisages that the shares are permanent capital—not withdrawn by the holder but tradeable to other holders if the original holder so wishes.
We believe that legislating for this new type of share could open up a new and important channel for investment in co-operatives in the future. Acting on that basis is in keeping with the new emphasis on ESG goals in financial services and markets. If investors really are becoming more interested in things other than quarterly returns and if the quality of supply chains, the sustainability of investment, the broader contribution to the good society really are going up the agenda for investment decisions, then this Bill is one way to make more of that kind of investing a reality. We want to see it done in a way that does not threaten the mutual model or the essential membership ownership that gives co-operatives their distinctive character.
I make no predictions about the fate of the Bill today, but we do believe that there is merit in the kind of financial instrument that it envisages and, for that reason, the creation of this financial instrument deserves the support of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Let me just explain what is happening, because it has been a while since we have had a Friday sitting. When I call the Minister, the debate will continue as long as people who are on the call list are trying to catch my eye. At the end of that, I will then call Anna McMorrin to end that debate. If anybody wishes to withdraw from the call list, please come and see me in the Chair.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I am privileged to be able to take part, even by making a short contribution, in this excellent debate, which has informed us all about all the aspects of the Bill. I commend the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) on her strong advocacy for the environment and climate change, which we share across the House. I also note her determination to support British farmers. We all celebrated Back British Farming Day on Wednesday. Stoke-on-Trent Central does not have a large farming community, but food security is a major issue that has come to the forefront in the pandemic.
We have heard a range of arguments about why the Bill needs more work, but I want to put on record how important co-operatives and community benefit societies are to the UK economy. Generally speaking, the hon. Member has the House’s backing; the question is whether the Bill is the best way to achieve those aims. I believe, as has been outlined, the Bill’s unintended consequences mean that it needs more work.
We need to be cutting red tape for co-operatives, not piling on yet more regulations. As a champion of small business, I have argued for many years for the removal of unnecessary red tape, which stifles entrepreneurial spirit and costs the economy significantly in unproductive time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) that when we look to support the environmental agenda and community activity, co-operatives are but one of a range of different legal structures.
I have personal experience of this area: the hon. Member for Cardiff North may know Myddfai in the Brecon Beacons, where I helped set up the new community hall using sustainable geothermal heating, photovoltaic tiles and those sustainable things. That was done with a limited company that was a social business with the help of the Welsh Government. I think we need to broaden the discussion on delivery because, as was said, we do not want only certain sections of society or the community or certain types of businesses to be mainly responsible for delivering sustainability on the climate change and environmental agenda. It is such an important agenda for all of us that we need to work together on it.
As other hon. Members have said, I support the spirit of the Bill and hope that the hon. Member can bring it back in some form. Co-operatives are a huge part of our economy, and we welcome them. I would like to see more credit unions, which would be great for areas such as mine. However, the Bill in its current form does not work for me.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I see no further Members trying to catch my eye, so I call Anna McMorrin.
Protection of Jobs and Businesses
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West
Indeed. No one on this side of the Chamber is saying that any of that money was not very much called for. There was a tiny bit of wastage, according to the Select Committee findings that I read yesterday, but I hope that, over time, the Treasury will get rid of the £3.5 billion wastage.
I have some asks for my constituency and I have my figures here. I am a London MP, and many Members who know London will be aware that Muswell Hill ward is not considered to be a low-income place. Unfortunately, however, it has seen an increase of 300% in jobseeker’s allowance and universal credit claimants. The neighbouring Fortis Green ward, which is also considered quite an expensive and well-to-do part of my constituency, is facing a 234% increase in the number of people signing on. Alexandra ward is home to the famous and beautiful Alexandra Palace exhibition hall, the former home of the BBC, and it is a lovely part of my constituency. It has seen a 220% increase in the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance and universal credit. The difference between this recession and the 2008 global financial crash is the impact that this one has had across the economy.
Lots of people are very well paid when they are in work, but because they are self-employed, they are suffering exponentially. What are my asks? First. I am asking for sector-specific schemes for workers, so that we can look at the self-employed and particularly those in the creative sector. Secondly, I am asking for specific help for people who, for example, have a small business and are helping several of their employees to manage but have not had anything back for themselves. In conclusion—
John Glen
I am sorry; I will not be taking interventions, given the shortness of the time.
The second theme that I want to draw out is that, in response to the unfolding tragedy of people losing their jobs, the Government have announced a specific plan for jobs. We are one of the first countries in the world to do so. The plan for jobs protects, creates and supports jobs. We introduced the Eat Out to Help Out scheme—another scheme that Treasury officials had to issue a ministerial direction for—and temporarily reduced the rate of VAT on tourism and hospitality. Doing so supported millions of jobs in some of our most jobs-rich industries.
To create jobs, we are driving growth in the housing sector by increasing the stamp duty threshold temporarily to £500,000, creating green jobs with the green homes grant, and providing billions of pounds of capital investment. To support jobs, just last week we launched the kickstart scheme to subsidise the most vulnerable category of 16 to 24-year-olds. In addition, we have been providing employment support schemes, training and apprenticeships, and providing the extra support of job coaches in jobcentres.
The third theme I want to draw out from the contributions today is the furlough scheme. The furlough scheme will have run for eight months by the time it closes, and it has supported millions of people and their families. It is right to say that it is one of the most generous schemes in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) mentioned, ending the scheme is the right thing to do. On Monday, the chief economist of the Bank of England agreed, saying that to maintain it in its current form would not help either individuals or businesses.
Although I have heard the arguments at a high level for a targeted or sector-specific furlough scheme, I have heard no clear, satisfactory answer to the questions the Chief Secretary posed earlier about which sectors would not be provided with furlough, how we would treat and define supply chains, and when such a scheme would end. Of course, we are not ending our support for furloughed employees; the job retention bonus scheme provides an incentive for businesses that bring employees back from furlough to do meaningful work and ensures that they are supported as the economy gets going. As my right hon. Friend set out, the bonus represents a significant sum that will be vital particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up 95% of the employers that have claimed for furlough grants and 60% of furloughed workers.
The final thing that I want to emphasise is that our comprehensive and generous economic response has required us to significantly increase our levels of borrowing. In the short run, that has been absolutely the right strategy so that we can protect jobs and incomes, support businesses and drive the recovery, but over the medium term it is clearly not sustainable to continue borrowing at these levels. We will need to return to strong public finances where our debt is in a more sustainable position.
With Government debt now exceeding the size of the UK economy for the first time in more than 50 years, even small changes could be hugely damaging. Thankfully, we were in a strong fiscal position coming into this crisis, which allowed us to act quickly and decisively without hesitation to support jobs and businesses. The difficulties we now face remind us once again that sound public finances are not an optional extra; they are the foundation of a good economic policy.
The Government certainly are not saying “job done”. We know that there is more we need to do to protect jobs and businesses, and today’s debate has helped us to focus on some of the future ideas and solutions.
The economic challenges that we face are extraordinary and unique in our history, but the Government have been proceeding since March with a clear plan to address those challenges. We are providing one of the most comprehensive economic responses to the coronavirus of any country in the world, and we are determined to do everything we can, not just to get through and recover the economy, but to rebuild a better, fairer and prosperous economy, as we deliver on our governing mission to level up and unite the country. That is why we are supporting the Government amendment this afternoon.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Apologies to the 56 Members who did not get in on this debate today. We will now put the original question to the House.
Question put, (Standing Order No. 31(2), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 329.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am going to suspend the House for three minutes, so that we can sanitise both Dispatch Boxes. Please do not move around during this period.
Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I want to start by talking about the catalogue of demonstrated Brexit costs, which grows almost unceasingly. I continue to be told by constituents of how it will cause massive damage to their businesses, and I am going to highlight just one of the most recent examples.
Leith and Edinburgh have a long association with the European wine trade—back as far as the 13th century—and it continues today. Raeburn Fine Wines, with premises in Leith, Edinburgh and London, has been telling me about the effects of the Brexit proposal on the wine trade. Perhaps surprisingly, the UK accounts for a large share of the world trade in fine wines, but that is under threat. Import certificates for EU wines will add business costs and near impossible bureaucracy to the uphill challenge of surviving the covid recession.
Wine is not the only high-quality sector facing an uncertain future. The recent announcement of the membership of the Trade and Agriculture Commission showed that the Government intend to break their promise to farmers to protect food standards post Brexit. The financial services sector also features heavily in my constituency, and it faces being locked out of EU markets or migrating to EU nations to protect its access. Universities face losing research cash. The health service faces losing access to essential supplies, including any new vaccine for the virus causing the current pandemic. Our fishing industry is about to be sold out by this Government, who will be handing out quotas with abandon. The list goes on and on.
Brexit was already a damaging prospect. Add the global pandemic, the trade negotiations going worse than anyone predicted and the OBR forecast of one in eight soon being out of work, and it is not clear to me and many others why anyone other than the blindest zealot would plough on unthinkingly. Now those zealots want to tie an unwilling Scotland to the handcart on the road to hell, with an internal market that once again renders the wellbeing of the people of Scotland secondary to the financial considerations of the south-east of England. No room for nuance or subtlety in the brave, new Brexit; no room for devolution in the sunny uplands of broken Britain.
The Government are so frightened of debate that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in hiding and they have sent expendable cannon fodder instead. That points to the fact that Government Ministers do not seem to understand the four nations. Some of them famously think that there is no border. They think that wisdom rests in Whitehall and all must comply. They have lost even the limited vision that once embraced England’s northern powerhouse—that, too, will be ground down in the new Tory version of Mao’s long march. No dissent will be tolerated, no differentiation accepted. At a time when the best economic solutions for Scotland, Wales and for huge parts of England diverge hugely from the solutions offered in Parliament, uniformity will be enforced. Four legs shall be good and two legs shall be bad.
The proposed UK internal market is an infernal insult to nations that need different frameworks and support; to the people who will suffer the aftermath of the pandemic; and to those who aspire to something better than the fag end of British imperialism and exceptionalism. What has become breathtakingly clear during the coronavirus pandemic is that the UK Government are dysfunctional and incompetent. I shall give a few examples. Ministers and Spads who went roaming around England in flagrant abuse of the rules remain in post; confusing and inconsistent messages are sent out; financial help for those affected was provided at first, then withdrawn; figures on testing capacity have been massaged until they are meaningless.
It is a shambolic mess, much like the Government’s Brexit negotiations and trade talks. Failure mounts upon failure’s shoulders until the combined weight is too much to bear. The bluster and bravado is no substitute for clear thinking and proper action. The confusion and dither, the stumbling up cul-de-sacs and falling over kerbstones are not statesmanship—they are just bluster and bombast. It is a sad and embarrassing caricature of a Government who talk populism and serve elitism.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think we have to move on—sorry. I call Lee Anderson.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). He speaks passionately for Aberdeen, and I commend him for that. I am grateful to the Scottish National party for tabling this motion to extend the transition period, as it allows me to remind my constituents why they voted for me last year. On 31 January, the UK left the EU nearly three years after article 50 was triggered, and the people of Redcar and Cleveland celebrated with a great party at the Citz Club in Redcar. They celebrated this passage into the new Europe with a deep sense of relief because, time and again during those three years, their choice had been questioned, their will ignored and their views belittled. They were told that they did not know what they were voting for, that the people should not have had a say, or that a decision that big should not have been left to the public. So they were asked again, and in December last year, the public backed the Conservatives and gave them their biggest majority since 1987 on a promise that we would deliver on the mandate from the 2016 referendum.
Until now, Redcar has never had a Tory MP, and neither have West Bromwich West, Heywood and Middleton, Dudley North and Rother Valley. I and many of my colleagues on the Government Benches are here because people trusted us to make their voice heard. They put their faith in the Prime Minister and a Conservative Government for the first time ever in our constituencies, because they felt let down by a Labour party that had ignored them for so long. I draw the attention of the House to the empty Labour Benches. Tonight, the Labour party looks set to ignore them once again. Here we are, nearly six months since we left, debating yet another motion aimed at extending the transition period, put forward again by those who refuse to accept the result simply because they did not want it.
It is no surprise to anyone on the Government Benches, or to the public at large, that those who still reject the result of the EU referendum are the very same ones who still refuse to acknowledge that the people of Scotland rejected independence in the 2014 referendum. It seems that the Scottish separatists simply cannot accept the result of any referendum. Well, we on the Conservative Benches trust the people of the United Kingdom, wherever they may be, to make the right choices for them. They put their trust in us to deliver on those choices.
As we count down the days towards the end of the transition period, all the motion would do is add yet more delay and betray that unprecedented trust. What we still do not know, however, is how Sir Keir will vote tonight. We know that he was the architect of Labour’s failed Brexit policy, a rigged second referendum between staying in the EU or staying in the EU without calling it that, but what is his position now? Will he jump on this delaying Brexit bandwagon, or will he respect the result of the referendum? Will he return to blocking, delaying, preventing and doing all he can to stop Brexit, or will he show true leadership and listen to the voice of the people who used to vote for his party?
There is no doubt that the Scottish independence party, the illiberal un-democrats and whatever is left of the Labour party are still hoping for Brexit to be reversed. They are still hoping that it will never properly happen. They do not trust the people of this country, just like the SNP still refuse to trust the people in Scotland in the 2014 referendum. The Opposition parties tonight are revealing their true colours and we must do everything in our power to stand strong while they turn their backs.
I am under no illusion that the principal reason I was elected in December was to get Brexit done for the people of Redcar and Cleveland, which is why I was so proud, as one of my first votes in Parliament, to vote Brexit through. It is why I will proudly walk through the Lobby tonight against any extension to the transition period. We want to reach an agreement with the EU by the end of December, based on a Canada-style free trade agreement. We can achieve that in the time ahead. We are not asking for anything that the EU has not already given to other countries, but if they do not want to extend that to us, we must do what is best for Britain and leave without.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just a gentle reminder—I did not want to interrupt the full flow—but please do not refer to current sitting Members by their names. Thank you very much.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Let me be clear that it is because of our United Kingdom that, by the end of June, nearly 900,000 jobs across Scotland had been protected by the UK Government’s unprecedented support, and the Scottish Government have been allocated an extra £4.6 billion for coronavirus funding.
However, today’s debate is really about revisiting two questions that have been answered: Scotland leaving the UK, which was rejected in 2014, to join, if allowed, the European Union, which the UK collectively voted to leave in 2016. Both referendums were once-in-a-generation votes, and it is our duty to respect the people’s voices. The nationalist obsession with separating themselves from our United Kingdom risks at least half a million jobs, throwing Scottish business into chaos with dither and delay while they wait to see whether they are allowed into the protectionist racket, and the opportunity to export the best of Scotland around the world could be lost. The SNP is desperate to rejoin the European Union and would do so at the cost of its own workers and industries, and fishermen and women are a prime example. Remaining in the common fisheries policy would be detrimental to the health and success of the Scottish fishing industry, and we know that the European Union’s oppressive one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work.
The SNP could have talked about topics that are more pressing to the people of Scotland. In January this year, Scotland had the joint biggest fall in the social and economic wellbeing index. Why the decline? Education is one major part of the fall. Since 2006, PISA—the programme for international student assessment—shows that Scotland has dropped from 11th to 23rd in reading, 11th to 24th in maths, and 10th to 19th in science. Teacher numbers are lower today than when the SNP took power.
However, it is not just PISA that points out the failure of the nationalists in Holyrood. A survey on literacy and numeracy, which the SNP set up, came out with damning figures about what is happening, so what was the First Minister’s response? It was to close it down, dismiss it, and tell the professional statisticians they were wrong. Instead of a data-driven approach, they asked teachers what they thought about every pupil relative to a test that may have been taken at any point in the year. That does not allow proper moderation and applies unfair pressure on teachers, causing impartiality to be thrown into doubt. The SNP choose to play party politics over helping to improve the educational outcomes and destinations of the youth in Scotland.
However, before the SNP tells me that positive destinations have increased, let me point out that it happened because the Scottish Government chose to include zero-hour contracts in their figures—a system that SNP Members regularly lambast. The Scottish Government will also praise their flagship curriculum for excellence, but it is to be investigated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—failure after failure after failure. Let us talk about these issues instead, rather than revisiting the same old arguments that the public of the United Kingdom wish to move on from.
On top of educational failure, let us not forget the new children’s hospital in Edinburgh that was meant to be delivered in 2012 and is now mothballed for the remainder of 2020, costing the taxpayer £1.4 million a month. Let us not forget the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, which tragically saw two children die due to water contamination in 2017, and which saw NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde placed into special measures. Scotland is also now the worst place in Europe for drug deaths, after the highest ever rise in fatalities following an 80% reduction in rehabilitation beds since the SNP came to power.
Let me offer something that Members from the Scottish National party and we on the Government Benches can agree on: where is the Labour party? Rather than showing that it has learned the lessons of December 2019, its Members are hiding. Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge—they try to avoid discussing Brexit, because in private they want to stop it. It is one of the many reasons that people of Stoke-on-Trent North, of Kidsgrove and of Talke rejected them at the ballot box. My constituents overwhelmingly asked to leave the EU in 2016, but they were ignored time and again by the Labour party.
Let us not forget that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the architect of Labour’s disastrous Brexit policy, said to Labour members in Dudley in March that he wants to campaign to go back in. Then he told the media in May that he wants to stay out of the EU, yet he cannot walk through the Division Lobbies with us this evening to reject an extension. Time and again, Labour is failing the people of Stoke-on-Trent and the United Kingdom. [Interruption.]
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsMonday 13th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2020 View all Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 July 2020 - (13 Jul 2020)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for what has been a very interesting debate, across the Chamber. I also thank the Labour Members for their support on this measure, because it is wise on their part but also indicates that they share at least this aspect of the Government’s vision for the economy.
This pandemic represents, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, not merely a public health crisis but a profound shock to our economy. That is why, last Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor unveiled the Government’s plan for jobs. The purpose of that plan, as he articulated, was to protect, to support and to create jobs across this country.
As we have heard in this debate, the property market has been particularly hard hit, with almost 90% fewer mortgage approvals in May than in February, before the lockdown at began. Not only is this a source of terrible frustration and uncertainty for buyers and sellers who must put their lives on hold in that respect as in so many others, but the reverberations have been felt across the economy. More than 24,000 people are directly employed by house builders, with hundreds of thousands more in the supply chain, and there is a knock-on effect for removal companies, furniture stores, painters and decorators, and many other businesses large or small that benefit when people move—a point nicely made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) when he talked about his role as chair of the APPG on the furniture industry, and rightly so.
There are, however, signs that the market is beginning to recover, with some 16% more transactions in May than in April. It is in the interests of both homebuyers and the wider economy that that trend should gather momentum and speed over the coming months. That is why the plan for jobs included a commitment to increase temporarily the nil rate band of residential stamp duty tax from £125,000 to £500,000. Alongside the green homes grant, the aim was to inject momentum back into the housing market so that the economy can start to move forward once again. The Bill today puts that commitment into action and will ensure that the new band can take effect from 8 July—last Wednesday—until 30 March 2021.
Turning to the points raised in the debate, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East asked whether this policy was designed in some way to benefit second home owners. I can reassure him that it is quite untrue to suggest that the measure will disproportionately benefit second home owners. Although those buying second homes or buy-to-let properties will benefit, and make a very important economic contribution in so doing, they will continue to pay an additional 3% on top of the standard stamp duty land tax rates. Let us not forget that it was this Government who introduced the phasing out of finance costs relief, as well as the higher rates of stamp duty land tax for the purchase of additional property—all steps towards a more balanced tax treatment between homeowners and landlords.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), in his opening speech, talked about the limited scale of this package of measures. All I can say to him is that his memory is a lot shorter than many others, as £30 billion used to be considered a rather large amount of money. Certainly, it was no slouch of a budget statement to announce that much. It is a measure of how much our times have changed that that should be seen to be the case.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East raised the question of whether the Government were reacting in some sense to a leak which, nevertheless, would have itself encouraged forestalling. I can tell him that I have dozens of officials across the Treasury thinking about tax strategy who have the concept of avoiding forestalling ingrained, tattooed on their eyebrows and embedded in their heart like the word “Calais” on the heart of Queen Mary in the 16th century. The idea that they would ever have contemplated that is risible. They did not.
Let me turn to some of the other comments that were made in the debate. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) shared with us his concerns about growing wealth inequalities. I understand that. Would he, or maybe the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, like to clarify his position on a wealth tax? Would he be in favour of that? What is the Labour party’s position? He is welcome to intervene on me if he has a view on that, as is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, who perhaps could do so in Committee. It is causing us a certain amount of uncertainty and it must be causing voters even more.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), in a very thoughtful speech, invited the Government to build more. I can direct her, if I may, to an article in The Guardian on 14 November last year, which points out that house building in England is at a 30-year high. As colleagues have mentioned, we have a £12.2 billion affordable homes programme in place at the moment, so she can take it as read, I hope, that both sides of the housing market are very well attended to at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) raised whether we should scrap stamp duty all together. I was perhaps slightly harsh, but I always take it as an additional measure of credibility when colleagues can come forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) did—and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne)—with a specific suggestion for how the gap could be filled. What was charming about my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire was that although he believes the abolition of this tax will fire up the market, temporarily at least, he did not seem to think that doubling the additional tax would have any effect on the market. I thought that was an interesting economic contribution and I invite him to raise that possibility with his friends at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, since he is a board member or senior advisor there.
Let me wind up by saying that this is an important measure, which comes at a time when the pandemic has tested our economy to the limit. Through our collective effort, we will bring this virus under control. We have done so and we will continue to do so, and we will support our economy as it reopens in a way that is safe. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.
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)
Order. Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s Chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I shall remain in the Speaker’s Chair carrying out the role of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee rather than as Deputy Speakers.
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsMonday 13th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2020 View all Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 July 2020 - (13 Jul 2020)
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Review of impact of Act—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons within three months of Royal Assent a review of the impact of this Act. (2) Such a review must include an assessment of the impact of the Act on— (a) first-time buyers, (b) existing owner-occupiers moving home, (c) buy-to-let investors, (d) those buying second homes, and (e) overseas buyers.”
Member’s explanatory statement This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to Parliament on the impact of the Act, and in particular its impact on different groups of property owner.
The Economy
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I will keep this short and sweet, Mr Deputy Speaker, as time is precious and you do not need me to reiterate what we know is a bold and decisive plan—a plan for jobs; a plan with people and their livelihoods at its heart.
The Chancellor has yet again acted with a keen eye to preserving employment and our fiscal and economic capacity. As we recover from covid-19, the No. 1 priority of the Government has always been to protect jobs. Just as the virus scythed through society and did not articulate who it was going for, any economic impact will cut deep swathes. It will not discriminate; it will cut across us all. What we must remember is that this time it is not an endogenous shock triggered by huge imbalances; it is not man-made, as it has been in the past by Labour Governments. This is a slowdown necessitated by covid-19 and we have seen decisive action by this Government, who for the last few months have given us stabilisers to protect our livelihoods and who now recognise that we need to get the economy back into a higher gear.
My No. 1 priority as the MP for Stourbridge has always been to protect jobs. As a youth in the early ’80s, I saw the impact of unemployment on young people. That, combined with my strong belief in the nobility of work, means that I am over the moon about the Chancellor’s kick-start scheme, which will give 16 to 24-year-old youths the best possible chance.
I make an unabashed plug to get nail bars and beauty salons open. They are often run by people who have been on traineeships themselves and who now run their own businesses, proving that traineeships work—they are capitalists at their finest and of the future. Please, let us get them open.
This Government are giving us the tools to enable, facilitate and empower us all. The virus is not of our making, but we must make the best of it. We must be transformational and dig deep in the spirit of entrepreneurism. If you cannot sell it, online is your new high street and your new export opportunity. This is about being entrepreneurial, about foraging for opportunities and of course about jobs, jobs, jobs. This has been at the heart of my recovery plan for Stourbridge. I also welcome the joint announcement today from Andy Street and the Department for Work and Pensions that youth hubs will be set up, helping to join up local employment and training services and to ensure that they are targeting young people. This builds on the already great work being done by our jobcentres across the west midlands.
The Government’s support throughout the crisis has been decisive, and it will be a major factor in how we will come out of this period It is clear from the actions that the Government have taken that they are not a Government who leave people behind. They are a Government who put people and their livelihoods at their very heart. However, this will depend on our shared responsibility to contain the virus and, of course, on whether a vaccine—
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
We are here to talk about the economy and the economy means numbers. In Aylesbury, 14,500 jobs have been protected by the Government’s furlough scheme and almost 5,000 local people have benefited from the self-employed income support scheme. That is good news. However, there are worrying numbers, too. Not everyone has been able to access Government help and jobs have already been lost. The unadjusted claimant count in Aylesbury in May was two and a half times higher than in March, and in the 18 to 24-year-old age group the rate of increase in unemployment was even greater. That is why the kick-start scheme announced today by the Chancellor will be extremely welcome in my constituency, as will his entire plan for jobs, jobs, jobs.
Behind the numbers are the names: the people who have continued to work throughout the coronavirus crisis to help to keep the local economy on its feet and prepare it for the future. People like Diana Fawcett, the town centre manager, who has inspired and assisted the market stall holders and independent traders, many of whom have benefited from the bounce back loan scheme. The people who have continued to invest, ready for the return of a more normal life. People like Karman and Greig at the Harrow pub, who served takeaways so they could afford to redecorate and draw in new customers, and who will now benefit from the VAT cut on hospitality and “eat out to help out”. Or Ben Moult, who has seen a gap in the night-time economy and converted a clothes shop into a restaurant with Buckinghamshire’s first roof terrace bar. Or councillors Bill Chapple and Steve Bowles and the teams they lead at Aylesbury Garden Town, which promises to be smart, sustainable, accessible and inclusive. Or students at Aylesbury’s university technical college, who will be the next generation of apprentices bringing much needed vocational skills to construction and computing.
There is a theme underlying those numbers and names: a theme of resilience and readiness for the economic challenges ahead. Thousands of houses are planned locally which will contribute to the Prime Minister’s ambition to build back greener, with an eco-friendly approach to help answer the concerns of the passionate campaigners from last week’s “The Time Is Now” mass lobby. The local plan already embraces the change heralded by the new planning regulations announced last week, which will transform our town centres into community hubs where people want to live, work, visit and invest.
To make all that a reality requires, yes, infrastructure funding from central Government to get our traffic flowing and ensure we have the schools and the health centres we need for our fast growing population, but our economy is not just about money. For our future success we need a spirit of entrepreneurship where risk-takers are rewarded. We need bold thinkers with imagination about what our towns are for. In Aylesbury, we have them. In Aylesbury, we stand read to be at the forefront of initiatives to build a new economy.
Coronavirus: Job-Support Schemes
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As was announced at the beginning of the estimates debate, the time limit on Back-Bench contributions is four minutes.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
In this debate on the HMRC estimates, I will focus on the potential economic effect of local lockdowns and the need for a flexible local furlough scheme and wider economic support for affected areas. As has been widely reported, Bradford has had a higher than average rate of infection in recent weeks, but I am pleased to say—the whole House will be pleased to hear this—that it has been coming down. However, the risk of things worsening again is very real.
As a city, Bradford has a higher proportion of people who work in high-risk jobs: as key workers in health and social care, in retail and in the gig economy. Out of 198,000 employees in the district, 75% have never worked from home. These people are sadly at higher risk of catching the virus, but they also need more economic support in the event of a local lockdown. Many of my constituents do not have the luxury of vast savings to fall back on. We are not talking here about decisions on whether to take a holiday, but real dilemmas about how people will feed their families.
The furlough scheme and the self-employed income support scheme need the flexibility to deal with local lockdowns. If people in a certain area are told by Government to stay at home, it is only right that they can be furloughed during that period. That must include people who work in an area under lockdown, as well as those who live there. I urge Ministers to bring forward proposals on that now, before it is too late. We urgently need more information from the Government on how local lockdowns will work and what support and information will be provided.
The local data has been too slow to come to local authorities, and the criteria used to determine whether somewhere should go into or come out of lockdown are unclear. Clearer information from Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care on local infection rates would also allow areas to plan their responses. The Government should publish local figures on test and trace, so that we can see where the system is not working as well as it should and take steps to improve it.
Importantly, the Government should take proactive measures to prevent places such as Bradford needing to go into a second lockdown. This might include more funding for the council for public health outreach as well as financial incentives for people to do the right thing. The economic impact of a second lockdown on a local area will be huge. The Government must be clear about what financial support they will provide in these circumstances to protect jobs and livelihoods, and to help with local economic recoveries. A failure to act will cause economic devastation for many and, ultimately, by undermining the public health advice, cost lives.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you for taking only three minutes, because that is where we are now going in order to get as many in as possible. I call Patricia Gibson, with a three-minute limit.