West Coast Main Line Franchise

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his flurry of questions, and I shall address what he said. He asked for the release of the criteria of the contract awarded; that is a commercial matter and we are not going to discuss that, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister of State my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle has met very regularly with the entire industry and has been working on a weekly basis with officials and with Avanti, and therefore has had the matter very much in hand.

On the performance the hon. Gentleman describes, I am astounded that he is not agreeing with the Secretary of State and celebrating the improvement over the last nine months, and six months in particular: cancellations were as low as 1.1% in July; 90% of trains arrive within 15 minutes; over 100 additional drivers have been trained and brought on since April 2022. Each of those is a significant achievement.

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about engagement, but the hon. Gentleman has not exactly been shy in writing to the Department, so I asked my officials to scan the letters we have received and I do not think there was a single one from him in the last year mentioning Avanti. If that is an indication of how content he is with the service, I am delighted to hear it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Select Committee Chair.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

As a regular user of Avanti services, I agree that the performance has improved markedly and I pay tribute to the new managing director, Andy Mellors, and his team for turning around what was an abysmal service. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to talk in detail about the contract, but will he say a bit about the extent to which this new contract moves away from the micromanaged national rail contracts that have been in place since covid? They were right at the time, but are now stifling innovation in the sector and I hope that this is just the first of the revisions of these national rail contracts.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; he brings not just personal experience of this service as an MP for Milton Keynes but also his considerable expertise as Chairman of the Transport Committee. He is right to pick up on the point of micromanagement, and that is one reason why, having been in a period of relatively short contracts—a number of two-month and three-month contracts—in order to monitor progress, the Government have now seen fit to move to a much longer framework: a three-year contract but with the potential capacity to terminate thereafter if performance is not sustained. That strikes the right balance between giving the certainty Avanti needs to continue to invest in improving the service and the accountability that the Government rightly demand.

I would add that there is some awareness that in relation to services to Milton Keynes, west midlands and north Wales there is progress to be made, and I think I am right in saying that the new chief executive is very much focused on that issue as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

What I recall from that hearing is that Mr Mellors said 1% of the tickets at Glasgow were sold through the ticket office, that there would be a full staff in front of the ticket office, that those staff would work from the first train in the morning until the last train at the end of the day and that they would continue to accept cash. That sounds like quite a good service offer to me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question.

Automotive Industry

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

If that is the best the hon. Lady can do, she would have been better to wait for my response to her speech. No, the truth of the matter is that this country is engaged in discussions and negotiations with European partners about the circumstances—we export an enormous number of cars, which is an important fact from their point of view as it is from ours—and it would be futile to discuss those matters in public. We all know that none of these negotiations is ever done in public, and that includes commercial negotiations, which Labour appears to wish to be done in public as well.

Let me proceed a little more. The hon. Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) touched on new gigafactories. I invite Opposition Front- Bench Members to comment further if they wish, because this is a much-heralded part of the Labour strategy, and if the Labour party seeks to subsidise eight new gigafactories, perhaps they would like to put on record how much public money—taxpayer’s money—they propose to spend on that and how it would be funded. We very much look forward to seeing their plans. I will be interested to see whether they bear any resemblance to market conditions or show any signs of doing anything other than immiserating and impoverishing the British taxpayer.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises that the automotive industry is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing and believes it can have a bright future creating good jobs for people across the UK; regrets that after 13 years of Conservative neglect the UK risks losing this world-class industry, putting thousands of jobs under threat; condemns the Government for its lack of an industrial strategy and the negative impact this has had on investment in the UK’s automotive sector; calls on the Government to urgently resolve the rules of origin changes which are due to take effect in 2024, working with partners across Europe to negotiate a deal that works for manufacturers; and further calls on the Government to adopt an active industrial strategy to build the battery factory capacity needed to secure the automotive sector for decades to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Adjournment, summer, conference and Christmas recess motion. The Ayes were 395 and the Noes were 5, so the Ayes have it.

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

Channel 4 Privatisation

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I cannot, as I do not have much time, but I may take my hon. Friend’s intervention later.

It is not a Conservative proposal to sell Channel 4, and even if it was sold now does anyone really think the value generated would not itself be a reflection of the proposed doom scenario in advertising revenues because of the way in which future cash flow works? The key issue here is that we should support an enterprise that itself supports independent production companies, many of them in our nations and regions, that proactively supports disabled people, that supports the Union, and that supports levelling up. That is what Channel 4 does.

I have no doubt that Channel 4 can be further improved and enhanced, and I see its next episode as a down payment on the next generation of its own thinking about how its module could be further leveraged and enhanced, but at the moment it is doing a superb job. We should not sell it; we should proceed and support it in any way we can in the future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Ben Bradley, who will be followed by the Front-Bench winding-up speeches, so those who have participated in this debate by making a speech should now make their way to the Chamber.

Higher Education Reform

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I must say that I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s opening statement about Ukraine. If this country has one institution that speaks for liberality, openness of vision, and conversation across cultures and across parts of our nation, it is the university. His statement at the beginning was absolutely right, and I welcome it.

I hugely welcome the measures that the Secretary of State set out. I congratulate him and the Minister for Higher and Further Education on their work, particularly its focus on quality and inclusiveness together. I can tell them both from a Herefordshire perspective that if someone is coming out of a career serving Her Majesty in the Army or the special forces, the chance to go back and learn as a mature student and pick up a lifelong learning entitlement is of inestimable value. We should massively welcome it across the Chamber.

I also hugely welcome the combination of HE and FE. Skills-based higher education is absolutely vital. As for this conception among the Opposition that there is some lack of ambition, nothing could be further—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please could we have the question?

[Jesse Norman]

Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker—in my exuberance, I was enjoying that. Could I ask the Secretary of State to talk just a little more about how the package will work and how it will meet the twin goals of quality and inclusiveness, which are so central to our future development as a nation?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support for the package. He is absolutely right to cite those who come out of their time serving their country with the opportunity to feel that their Government will stand behind them for the equivalent of a four-year degree course. Crucially, they can pull it down in modules, which speaks to the dynamic high-skills, high-productivity economy. That will make a difference. On his point about inclusion, I know that he has been a great champion of the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in his constituency. That innovation in our HE sector is equally important. I see it as a priority in our levelling-up agenda.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. Just before Dr Murrison makes a further intervention, can I ask the Minister please to face the microphone? Otherwise, Members will not be able to hear his responses; I have found it difficult to hear him.

[Jesse Norman]

I do apologise, Mr Evans.

Covid-19: Limited Company Directors

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

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

[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.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[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—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, Minister—

[Jesse Norman]

And with that, let me sit down.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[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.

Finance Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Jesse Norman

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is now 8.39 pm. I call the Minister.

[Jesse Norman]

I take my hat off to the astonishing hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who brought so much content into such a short presentation, and I thank her for that. We have an enormous body of material to get through quickly, so I shall deal initially with the question relating to new clause 26 on job creation and related measures. The new clause would require the Government to conduct an assessment of the effect of the Act on job creation. As the House will know, the Government have announced unprecedented support through the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed scheme and the like. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that those actions will directly help to support the incomes of individuals. The Treasury does not produce economic forecasts and the OBR does, publishing them twice a year. For that reason, I ask Members to reject the new clause.

New clause 12 relates to a matter previously considered in the Public Bill Committee, the impact on regions and nations. The new clause would require the Chancellor, within one month, to review the impact of the Act. As I emphasised in Committee, the provisions in this Bill have already been developed with careful consideration. Analysis of Government decisions on GDP is also carried out by the independent OBR. Again, we will continue to monitor the impact of the crisis, but I ask Members to reject the new clause. SNP new clause 18 would require a review of the impact of the Act on investment, productivity and employment. Again, it would require the Government to look at hypothetical scenarios, whereas the OBR is required by law to produce its forecasts based on stated Government policy, so I ask Members to reject the measure.

I come now to IR35 and the off-payroll working rules. I have been pressed vigorously on this issue by my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell). Amendments 16 and 17 seek to remove the reform of these rules from the Bill, which would be a serious mistake, costing the country many hundreds of millions of pounds. The level of non-compliance at the moment with the rules is scheduled to cost the country £1.3 billion in 2023-24 if not addressed. As I do not believe the SNP really wants that, I encourage Members to vote against it.

I come now to the cross-party amendments framed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), as it is important to engage with several of the things he said. He said that contractors could be pushed into a state of no benefits employment. It is important to note the contractors already receive a number of benefits funded by the Government when they are employees of their own personal service companies. Such benefits include statutory maternity, paternity, adoption, parental bereavement and shared parental pay, and they are provided by PSCs, which are then able to claim 100% of those payments plus 3% compensation from the Government. My right hon. Friend said that at least seven people have taken their own lives as a result of the loan charge. It is important to put on the public record that of course every single death of an individual is a tragedy. The circumstances surrounding those deaths have been considered by the coroner, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and HMRC’s own internal independent investigations. None of them has suggested, in these four reports, that HMRC is to blame for these deaths; no conduct issues have identified either by the independent office or internal investigations that would warrant disciplinary actions.