Lockdown: Economic Support

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out why we are introducing new measures to tackle coronavirus.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

He’s not the Chancellor.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Toby, I do not need this all the way through. Please, I want to get on with this statement. I have granted the UQ, and I do not need Back Benchers chirping.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that unites the House. The huge value of the work done by the hospice movement was recognised as part of the package of measures put in place by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, with £750 million of support for the charity sector and with the hospice movement being specifically identified. I am happy to continue working with my hon. Friend as we work together, and we recognise the importance of that sector.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Many small business owners have been forced to raid their personal savings to keep their businesses afloat over the past eight months, but that is not a bottomless pit. Many small business owners are not wealthy people, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must understand that if they go under, the whole company goes with them. The Treasury has now had eight months to get this scheme working. Why is it still excluding 3 million people? Does he not recognise how perilous the situation is for many of those businesses?

[Steve Barclay]

I drew attention earlier to the fact that more than £13 billion had been allocated to the self-employed income support scheme and through the income support grant. That indicates the support that the Treasury has given. The hon. Gentleman draws out, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee did, the specific issues around company directors. I have set out to the House the difficulty of clarifying precisely what is earned income as opposed to dividend income, but it is worth drawing the House’s attention to the fact that more than £13 billion of support has been allocated.

Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member invites me to be clear and honest, and the one thing that probably most people know is that I tell it how it is and I always have. I can be clear and honest with him: the Prime Minister’s plan, as it currently stands, will not protect the people of Greater Manchester and will plunge us into more poverty. We have seen the evidence that says that. I promise him and other hon. Members across the House that the Labour party will always put the people, and the protection and security of the people, first. I ask the hon. Member to get the Prime Minister to do the same thing, instead of playing party politics with people’s lives and livelihoods.

Today this House can vote for a fair deal for all and to end these political games. No more will the Health Secretary have to tour the country like a pound shop Noel Edmonds, announcing “Deal or no deal?”. The Government can honour their own promises that every worker facing hardship on the job support scheme will get at least 80% of their previous income, because what is good enough for the office worker in the City of London is good enough for the caterer in the city of Manchester, and what was good enough for the whole country in March is good enough for the midlands and the north today. We are trying to hold the Government to their own promises. Businesses need consistency, and they need that promise honoured.

The Prime Minister told the House on 14 October that

“whatever happens, a combination of the job support scheme and universal credit will mean that nobody gets less than 93% of their current income.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 368.]

He then said that those on low incomes will get at least 80% of their income. Perhaps he can tell that to the waitress in my constituency who earned £9 an hour on a 32-hour week, serving in a central Manchester bar that has now closed. The Resolution Foundation has shown that she will end up with less than 70% of that wage under the Government’s current plan. So the Government are telling my constituents to survive on less than the minimum wage for months, because the Government cannot tell us when an area will leave tier 3 and how those restrictions will be lifted.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and thank her for the case that she is making. Is she interested, as I am, that not a single one of the interventions that she has faced from the Conservative side has been relevant to the motion that we are debating? They all seem to be dragging us back on to Labour party policy, rather than standing up for the financial settlement that they are offering to Manchester, and that we know will be going to so many other areas. So can she help me in inviting them to actually speak about the 80% that we are trying to ensure gets into some of the most impoverished people’s—some of the most impoverished workers’—pockets, rather than trying to change the debate into the one they want to have?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will go a little bit further and compliment some of the Tory Members who have stood up as part of Greater Manchester, and I will be incredibly disappointed if what I have seen over the past 24 hours results in this becoming a party political fight. Because in Greater Manchester, despite what the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary were trying to suggest, we were united in trying to support our citizens across the conurbation in doing the right thing, bringing the virus rate down and supporting our economy. I hope we can continue to do that. I hope we do not get distracted by messages that are not in the motion, and I absolutely hope the Prime Minister does the right thing, because this is not just about Greater Manchester—this is coming to a town near you. In so many areas now, the R number is increasing. So many areas are in tier 2; so many areas are going to go into tier 3. This is a marker to ensure that our economy survives through those problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

First, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the importance of today, the anniversary of a national tragedy that unites us all. As I said to him last time, I am keen to work with him constructively, as I know he is, to take that work forward. Later today, I have a call with the Finance Ministers in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations, so I will be able to talk further about that. As a fellow Unionist, he will know that one of the advantages we have had throughout this pandemic is the broad shoulders we have been able to provide as a United Kingdom to the various business support and job support measures. What is announced for England is subject to the usual Barnett process, and I will discuss that. One of the concerns of Members across the House is about decisions taken in Wales that have an economic impact. It is important that these decisions are co-ordinated through the Joint Biosecurity Centre, in order that we have a consistent, scientific approach. That is a key issue that a number of Members have concerns about.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister suggested a moment ago that the Mayor of Manchester had not been constructive; he praised how constructive the Mayors who had come to an agreement with him were. The Mayor of Manchester made a request for £90 million and was willing to be negotiated all the way down to £65 million, which sounds incredibly constructive to me. In the spirit of trying to bring everyone back together, would it not be better for him to recognise that the Mayor of Manchester is doing what he thinks is right—as are other Mayors and council leaders in other areas, whether or not they agree with the position that the Prime Minister and the Government come up with—and to say that everyone in this is attempting to be constructive?

[Steve Barclay]

I was making a factual point that picked up on the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. The Mayor of Manchester, in his discussions with Government, expressly said that Manchester should be treated differently from other areas. The hon. Lady said that the Mayor of Manchester “spoke for Great Britain”. That does a disservice to other local leaders, who have also spoken for their areas and have worked constructively with Government. I do not think it is the case that the Mayor of Manchester, unlike the Mayor of Liverpool, speaks for Great Britain in the way that the hon. Lady suggested.

The Mayor of Manchester’s position is not deliverable operationally, because local authorities do not have access to welfare payments for the dynamic aspect of joint job support—I can come on to that in my remarks—and it was at odds with the tiering approach that we set out. There is a difference, I am sorry to say, between the approach taken by the Mayor of Manchester and the constructive approach taken by other local leaders. I do not accept the premise from the hon. Lady that the Mayor of Manchester alone speaks for Great Britain, and other local leaders in Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire and elsewhere do not, or that businesses in those areas should in some way be treated worse than the businesses in Manchester—that seems a remarkable position for the Opposition to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

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

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I regret that the hon. Member did not answer the question that I asked him, which was whether he knew of any other area of the country that had been treated in the same way as his constituency by being provided with business-related support. He could not answer that question; the reason why is that it appears that no other area has been. A radically different approach is being taken to different parts of the country, so local leaders and local businesses cannot plan because they do not know whether or not support will be there.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will make a little progress, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

We need to find out from the Government why they have not used the £1.3 billion underspend from the grants programme, which was already allocated as business support, for local areas to direct at businesses that need that help. Yesterday, the Chief Secretary said that the money was not available for use now because, in his words, “the need” had been “met”. That beggars belief. The need clearly has not been met. The Government should reallocate that funding on a consistent basis, so that businesses in the hardest-hit areas can get support.

What possible justification can there be for local areas getting control of test, trace and isolate only once they are into tier 3 and thus facing rapidly rising infection rates? As the debate following this one will indicate, the Government have poured vast amounts of public money into private contracts to deliver a system that is simply not working. Labour-run Wales has shown how locally delivered tracing is vastly more effective than a contracted-out system. When will the Chancellor’s Government stop dithering, follow the evidence and get a grip on test, track and trace?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and add:

“welcomes the Government’s package of support worth over £200 billion to help protect jobs and businesses through the coronavirus pandemic, including the eight-month long Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, £1,000 Job Retention Bonus, unprecedented loan schemes, business grants and tax cuts; further welcomes the pledge to protect, create and support jobs through measures in the £30 billion Plan for Jobs such as Eat Out to Help Out, VAT and stamp duty cuts and the £2 billion Kickstart Scheme; acknowledges the further support for jobs with increased cash grants and the expanded Job Support Scheme to support those businesses legally required to close due to national or local lockdowns; and further acknowledges that this is one of the most comprehensive and generous packages of support anywhere in the world.”

I very much welcome the opportunity to update Parliament and the country on the economic challenges we face and our plan to tackle them. My message to hon. Members in all parts of the House is simply this: we must not shy away from the burden of responsibility to take decisions and to lead. We must do this with honesty and co-operation. We cannot allow the virus to take hold. We must prevent the strain on our NHS from becoming unbearable, but we must also acknowledge the stark reality of the economic and social impacts of another national lockdown. The costs of doing that are not abstract—they are real: they can be counted in jobs lost, businesses closed and children’s educations harmed; they can be measured in the permanent damage done to our economy, which will undermine our long-term ability to fund our NHS and our valued public services; and they can be measured in the increase in long-term health conditions that unemployment causes.

This is not about choosing one side or the other. It is not about taking decisions because they are popular. It is not about health versus wealth, or any other simplistic lens we choose to view this moment through. The Prime Minister was absolutely right when he set out our desire for a balanced approach, taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down, while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. The evidence shows that a regional tiered approach is right, because it prevents rushing to another lockdown the entire country would suffer rather than targeting that support and preventing a lockdown in parts of the country where the virus rates are low.

This is an imperfect solution. We have been consistently honest about the difficulties and hard choices that this moment presents. We have heard a lot about the SAGE advice. The SAGE minutes themselves say that Ministers must consider the

“associated costs in terms of health and wellbeing”

and the economic impacts alongside any epidemiological assessment. It seems like the only people not prepared to confront that reality are in the Labour party, which is surprising given that just days ago the shadow Health Secretary said a new national lockdown would be “disastrous” for society and

“would cause unimaginable damage to our economy and…wellbeing.”

[Mr Perkins]

The Chancellor’s response would have more credibility if he was not stood there following month after month of failure by a Government whose testing and tracing regime—whose entire approach—got us to this point in the first place. We all recognise how expensive this is going to be, but it has happened because of the failure that he and his party have facilitated.

[Rishi Sunak]

The debate following this will address test and trace. It is worth bearing in mind that more than £12 billion has been invested in our test and trace capacity. Testing capacity has increased from simply 10,000 a day at the start of this crisis to close to 300,000 today, on its way up to half a million, and ours now ranks as one of the most comprehensive testing regimes anywhere in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I will make some progress.

As the crisis evolves, our economic response will also evolve. What we will see over the winter is a complex picture of some businesses able to open safely and others being ordered to close to control the spread of the virus. Our winter economy plan provides a toolkit to protect jobs and businesses over the difficult weeks and months to come. The plan has three parts.

First, the job support scheme will protect jobs in businesses that are open or closed. If businesses can open safely, but with reduced or uncertain demand, the Government will directly subsidise people’s wages over the winter, giving those employers the option to bring people back to work on shorter hours rather than making them redundant. We are expanding the job support scheme to give more support to businesses that are ordered to close. For people unable to work for one week or more, their employer will still be able to pay them two thirds of their normal salary and the UK Government will cover the cost. This national programme will benefit people the same wherever they live and whatever job they do.

[Mr Perkins]

There seems to be a basic dishonesty at the heart of these tier 2 plans. There is no support for pubs. They are being told that they are allowed to stay open, but the measures being brought in are making them unviable. At least with our approach what we would see is a short-term hit, but then a reduction in the rate and more of a chance for us to return to normality. Will he at least admit that those pubs in tier 2 areas are not going to have viable businesses and say something about what he will do to support them?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am glad that there has finally been some acknowledgment that there will be a hit to businesses and jobs from what the Labour party is suggesting. It is right that there is support provided for hospitality, which is why the Government have provided a VAT reduction, a business rates holiday, direct cash grants, eat out to help out and now the job support scheme that is directly there to support those businesses that are open and operating but not at the same levels that they were previously. To give those businesses and their employees certainty, rather than the weeks that I heard about from the hon. Member for Oxford East, this scheme will run for six months through to the spring. This job support scheme is in line with those in most other European countries and, to support the lowest paid through this crisis, we have made our welfare system more generous and responsive too.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

That was a wonderful addition to try to be a nice Parliamentary Private Secretary, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman clearly has absolutely no idea about the £40 million package put forward by the Scottish Government for the hospitality sector. Perhaps when he is sitting on the south coast of England dreaming up these lovely interventions to please his Whips, he would do well to read the full briefing paper.

The leaders of businesses across the UK agree that ending the furlough and job retention scheme is a very irresponsible and reckless decision, so to avoid mass redundancies, the UK Government must extend the furlough scheme in full. With the huge rise in covid-19 that we have seen so far with the second wave, and with the winter months approaching, now is not the time to be taking chances on job losses.

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Member is absolutely right about the appalling health and economic consequences of this. Do he and his party support the advice from SAGE for a two-week circuit-breaker so that we can get on top of this health crisis and try to give the Government time to get test and trace to work? Does he support what the Labour party has called for?

[David Linden]

One of the things that we are seeing in Scotland is that test and trace is working a lot better, and that is because we have not hived it off to, for example, Serco. We have been very clear that we will follow the scientific advice and we will do our very best to get that balance. That is what we have seen with the restrictions that came into place last week in Scotland. We will see how that goes. We are always keeping things under review, but the reality is that we need to follow the advice and get a balanced approach. That is exactly what we are doing, and I am sure that we will see that bearing fruit.

I turn to the issue of the excluded 3 million. The SNP has consistently and continually raised the 3 million who were excluded from the Chancellor’s initial financial support packages back in the spring. Let us be clear that the Treasury continues, I am afraid, to exclude artists, freelancers and the newly self-employed from these recent economic plans. Three million people were shut out of the vital financial support that they desperately needed during the first wave of the pandemic and they were left to face huge financial insecurity, with their livelihoods and businesses put at risk. Rather than listening to the calls of these 3 million people, the Chancellor has decided to leave behind the self-employed yet again in his economic plans, with a 70% replacement of profits being replaced in November with just 20%.

Another group that has repeatedly been excluded from the Chancellor’s financial packages has been the arts and culture sector. We saw this week the closure of all Cineworld theatres across the UK, including the one in my constituency in Parkhead. I again call on him to provide sector-specific support for the arts and culture sector, which we know will continue to suffer during the second wave of the pandemic. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) chuntering away that the Chancellor has just done that, but many people in our constituencies in the arts and culture sector make it clear to us that that support does not go far enough. If the Chancellor has done that, why is Cineworld in Parkhead closing?

I have described thus far a very tough image of countless jobs being at risk. Many sectors are vulnerable and some businesses are wondering if they will make it to the new year, but the rising cases should emphasise to the House that we are still in the midst of this pandemic, which has already delivered severe blows to people’s incomes and financial security, with the most vulnerable people facing a disproportionate economic hit. That is why the SNP has repeatedly called upon the Government to make the £20 increase to universal credit permanent, especially after the latest findings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, warning that 4 million families could see their support slashed if the Tory Government refuses to make that £20 uplift permanent.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that nearly three quarters of a million more people, including 300,000 children, could be forced into poverty if the uplift is not made permanent. That must serve as a wake-up call for the Government. The Chancellor cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the vast inequality that exists right across the UK. With the winter months approaching, the poorest and most vulnerable people will suffer the most from the Chancellor’s economic plans, and it is quite clear that he has a choice in front of him and that he needs to do much better by them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I was really frustrated by the sense, in some of the interventions on my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, that the Labour party, in making this extremely serious suggestion, was taking lightly the economic consequences of going into a circuit-breaker arrangement. We should not be starting from here. We have all been saying throughout the course of the past seven months that the approach the Government are taking was not working. They failed on PPE. They were slow into lockdown. The testing and tracing regime has been an expensive fiasco.

We have seen the approach that the Government have taken that has got us to this point and has been failing, and they then turn to us and say, “Don’t you realise there are costs to the economy of trying to get on top of this health crisis?” Of course we know that it is costing the economy: we have been saying that throughout the course of the past seven months. But we have now reached a point where the Government have lost control of coronavirus and only the measures proposed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, recommended by SAGE, are likely to get us back on top of the virus. So there is no naivety from our perspective about the costs that are attached to this, but we also see the costs that are attached to constantly, inch by inch, surrendering ground to the virus, as we have done over the course of the past seven months.

Many people are confused. They do not know which area they are in. We look at Sky News and it tells us that Derbyshire is in tier 2. In actual fact, only a very small part of Derbyshire is in tier 2. The majority of it is in tier 1. I have people saying, “Well, am I allowed to travel into tier 2 to get a meal? Can someone from tier 2 come into tier 1?” because they have booked a table and want to meet their friends in an area where they are allowed to do that. There is utter confusion about what is actually happening out there.

As I have said to the Chancellor previously, saying that pubs can stay open in tier 2 areas, but you cannot meet anyone there other than your own household is really disingenuous. All the publicans I speak to say that moving to that approach, on top of the other restrictions, simply makes their businesses unviable. In most cases, they would be better off not paying staff and staying closed than they would be opening under those terms, yet the Government say, “You’re allowed to open, so we do not consider we have anything else to do.”

The Chancellor is fond of saying how much he has spent, but how much has he wasted? My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East alluded to a variety of things that are leaving people out in the cold. We all know 3 million self-employed people have been excluded, but what about all the self-employed people who were given money unconditionally when many of them were carrying on working? There was no conditionality on the self-employed scheme which said, “The money is there for you if you are forced to not work, if you are in a business that is unable to carry on,” yet 3 million people are left out in the cold.

The Government have let people down. The strongest sign of that fact is how few Conservative speakers there have been in this debate. Just six Back-Bench Tories wanted to stand up and speak up for the approach the Government are taking. That speaks louder than any speeches we have heard.

Economic Outlook and Furlough Scheme Changes

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend will know that we have put significant support in place already. I share—as the Government do, and as I suspect the entire Chamber does—her desire for us to emerge from lockdown as swiftly and safely as we can, so I certainly support what she said.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the remarks that others have made about our colleague Jo Cox.

The Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), was right about those people who are missing out on the self-employed scheme. We recognise that the scheme was put together urgently. My hon. Friends and I on the shadow Front Bench were calling for the scheme, so of course we welcomed it. But alongside the 1 million people who are unable to work and are missing out on the scheme, the scheme also means that if people continue to work and are unaffected because of their self-employment, they are benefiting from the scheme, while others who need it are not able to. Would it not be sensible for the Government to accept the comments that have been made and scrutinise the scheme? Let us try to make it better and work together, rather than say that it does not need any improvement at all.

[Jesse Norman]

Actually, we have not said that. We remain interested in positive, detailed suggestions for improvement of the scheme. We have received some that do not appear workable. I will remind the Chamber of what the problem is. Let us not forget that the £50,000 trading profit margin implies average sales of £200,000, so these are not that small businesses compared with many sole proprietorships around the country. With these businesses, it is impossible to tell by any rule-based system the source of any dividends that they are paying, what may be the pay component of them and what may be simply earned from other sources but routed through the company. It has not been possible to devise a system that could operate on this million-person scale or more in the time available, while meeting our central need to act comprehensively and swiftly.

Economic Update

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of speed in Wales and everywhere else. That is why we have taken steps to make Barnett consequentials available in advance as quickly as we can, so that all devolved authorities can plan and execute their plans expeditiously.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Businesses face collapsing revenues and the biggest part of the Chancellor’s response is to invite them to take on substantially more debt. That will not save people’s jobs. For the Chancellor to compare that £330 billion, which is a guarantee he is making that he may never have to spend, with the package President Macron put together in France is absolutely absurd.

[Rishi Sunak]

Far from being absurd, President Macron yesterday announced exactly €300 billion in loan guarantee schemes.

Beer and Pub Taxation

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, there is an even more recent example. The excise revenue from beer is up £250 million compared with Treasury forecasts since 2017-18. That appears largely to be down to boosts to beer and pubs following freezes in duty in the 2017 and 2018 Budgets. Further action on beer duty in the Budget would clearly boost jobs and investment in beer and pubs. It would also likely lead to additional custom, which generates extra revenue.

Beer duty needs to be lower overall. Within that, we need to look at how that beer duty is levied. We need a wider review, first to look at the operation of small breweries relief and whether it acts as a disincentive to growth and expansion, and secondly to look at how beer duty can better support our community pubs, rather than the “stack ’em high, sell ’em cheap” produce in some off-licences and supermarkets.

Now that we have left the European Union, with the implementation period ending at the end of the year, there is an opportunity for a fundamental review of how duties are structured. I urge the Treasury to look at how beer duty could be levied at a lower rate for beer that is likely to be sold in pubs, and particularly when it is levied on draught beer, kegs and casks rather than small-pack cans and bottles. Supporting our community pubs in that way, without giving the dead cost of duty cuts to supermarkets, would make a big difference to many of those pubs.

Members on both sides of the House will not need persuading of the intrinsic value of pubs to not just the economy but society as a whole. As ever, it bears repeating that the pub is in many ways synonymous with the UK.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this incredibly important debate. Alongside what he said about the economic and social value of pubs, does he agree that the pub is also the safest place for drinking to take place, particularly for problem drinkers? Supporting our pubs has a huge benefit in terms of health expenditure too.

[Mike Wood]

Further to that, research from Professor Dunbar of the University of Oxford suggests not only that it is safer to drink in moderation in a well-run pub, but that people who drink regularly and in moderation in a local pub are more likely to be happier and healthier—both their physical and mental health is likely to be better. Although the immediate appeal of the modern temperance movement, calling for large increases in duty to try to reduce consumption, is understandable, high levels of duty tend to move consumption away from well-regulated and licensed premises to people buying cheap alcohol to consume at home, or in public, without the protections that licensed premises provide. The issue is therefore one of safety, health and public health.

I am delighted to see so many Members present to support Great British brewing and the pub industry. I hope the Minister will hear the messages of gratitude for the action that has already been taken, as well as the messages of hope and desire for—and even expectation of—continued support, which is needed to ensure that brewing in pubs remains viable for many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing the debate. There will be a huge level of excitement and enthusiasm across the publicans’ world when they see the number of Members of Parliament who are showing their support for the industry. Many important points have been made about the overall burden of taxation, the inequities of the business tax regime, and the importance of making sure that small breweries relief continues to work and acts as an incentive for those brewers to grow into new areas.

It is also important that we continue to put pressure on the Government regarding beer duty. A lot has been said about the beer duty escalator introduced in 2008, but we should remember that it remained in place for three years under a Conservative Government. They milked that cow very well until 2013, and the level of duty paid on beer is actually more now than it was in 2010. However, whichever side of that argument Members are on, a message is being sent loud and clear right across the political divide that there needs to be a reduction in beer duty.

Finally, we sometimes overlook the role that taxation plays in damping down investment in the production of goods that can be exported around the world. We export huge amounts of whisky, gin and other spirits, and British alcohol producers are also tremendous innovators in many ways, including by creating products such as the ready-to-drink beverages that are manufactured in my constituency by companies such as Global Brands. If the Government listen to what has been said today, that will make a real difference to our industry.

HMRC Impact Analysis: Customs

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

In the event that we had no deal and this £7.5 billion of estimated costs were incurred, that it was not mitigated and that there were no behavioural reactions by businesses, there would be some costs—we do not know what they would be—and it would be up to businesses to decide how those costs should be allocated between consumers, employees and other stakeholders.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

People watching this will be amazed. The Minister appears not to be aware of what is being said out there. He is still speaking as though there is a deal to be done, when the Prime Minister and his advisers are making it absolutely clear that the deal is dead. The impacts that we are discussing will fall on businesses, and they are looking at a Government who appear utterly clueless about what to do. All we are getting now is a blame game. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and say something that might help manufacturing businesses in my constituency?

[Jesse Norman]

I would be delighted to do that. With the good grace of the people of Great Britain, they will have a Conservative Government for many good years to come, supporting their interests, their welfare and the growth and productivity of the British economy. No finer outcome could be hoped for by British business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

Of course small businesses receive that relief. The Chancellor will have heard that representation for the next fiscal event, but it is not a matter that I can comment on specifically at this point.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with the high street banking sector on closures of the last bank in (a) Staveley, Derbyshire and (b) towns throughout the UK.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

While branch closures are commercial decisions for banks, I regularly engage with all key stakeholders on this issue and I recognise that it can be very difficult for some constituents, particularly if a branch is the last one in a community. The major banks have signed up to the access to banking standard, overseen by the Lending Standards Board, and that commits them to work with communities to minimise the impact of branch closures.

[Toby Perkins]

When the Government bailed out the banks, it was partly in recognition of the fact that banks were public services as well as profit-making businesses. I am disturbed—as will be the people of Staveley—by the Minister’s hands-off approach. Do not the Government either need to sit down with the banks and ensure they have a real commitment to having a bank branch in towns such as Staveley or adopt Labour’s proposal for a post bank so that we can have some Government control to make sure we have services where they are desperately needed?

[John Glen]

I have looked into the situation in Staveley and it will be served by a mobile bank following the closure. The post office, where a 24-hour ATM is available, is just a six-minute walk from Lloyds. The number of people visiting the counter at Lloyds bank in Staveley fell by 22% in the last year, so it is understandable why Lloyds has made that decision. The Government’s investment in the Post Office and its banking services facility is our solution.

Animals

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 May, be approved.

It is good to be here in the Chamber taking action on animal welfare again, after the Third Reading of the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill yesterday, and I very much appreciate the support of so many hon. Members for that legislation.

The regulations are important because they put in place Lucy’s law. They establish a ban on commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens under six months of age in England—a ban that has been called for by committed campaigners and that has overwhelming public support. This is a positive step forward in cracking down on unscrupulous breeders and tackling the scourge of puppy smuggling.

Lucy was a Cavalier King Charles spaniel who died in 2016 after suffering terrible conditions on a Welsh puppy farm. Her plight inspired the Lucy’s law campaign, which harnessed widespread support from the public and the animal welfare sector. Dogs such as Lucy are often used by unscrupulous breeders to produce multiple litters of puppies, which are taken from their mothers when just a few weeks old and advertised online or sold in pet shops.

There is not an animal lover in the land who would wish to support this abhorrent profiteering from cruelty, but here is the problem: under current rules, it is difficult for would-be buyers to know whether a seller is a bone fide hobby breeder who raises puppies and kittens in a caring environment, as their advertisement claims, or someone who breeds animals simply as a money-making exercise, without regard for their welfare.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents feel strongly that stronger action needs to be taken against the rogue elements among breeders, and there will be a lot of support for the measures that are being brought forward. The Minister is absolutely right about the appalling scenes that we have seen. To what extent does he believe that the steps being proposed will not just make things a little better but end this evil trade once and for all?

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is good to see that he has been campaigning hard locally on these issues and supports this campaign and that his constituents feel the same. I can assure him that this legislation will be a material step on. It has been welcomed by charities across the board—I will praise them in a minute for the fantastic work they have been doing—which feel assured that the proposals will not only crack down on unscrupulous breeders but be a positive step against puppy smuggling.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point. I will come on to what happens in the devolved Administrations. It is fair to say, however, that the Welsh Government are now considering their response to the three-month consultation. I praise her local campaigners for their hard work. It does take time to get these changes through, but I am pleased to say that in the space of a couple of days we are taking really tough action, on a cross-party basis, to move the agenda forward on animal welfare.

This statutory instrument implements Lucy’s law by making an amendment to the parent regulations—the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. The commercial sale of pets is already a licensable activity. The amendment means that licensed pet sellers, including pet shops and dealers, will no longer be able to sell puppies or kittens under the age of six months unless they themselves have bred the animals. Alongside the public consultation, a draft regulatory triage assessment was published. This legislation does not require a full impact assessment as the net estimated impact falls significantly below the necessary threshold of £5 million.

The ban will enter into force on 6 April 2020. The additional time before the ban coming into force will allow the sector to prepare. If the ban is rushed, it may encourage abandonment of puppies or their breeding mothers, or other unscrupulous activity. This approach is being supported by welfare groups and campaigners. Once it is enforced, the best place to buy or adopt a puppy or kitten will be directly with the responsible breeder or through one of the country’s many animal rehoming centres.

This Government have shown that we take animal welfare very seriously.

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister is absolutely right to publicise and to put on record how many excellent, responsible breeders there are out there. There have been occasions in the past where Governments have legislated for all the right reasons but ended up creating nightmares for some of the smaller organisations, in particular. What representations has he had on this, and how much can he reassure us that the legislation, as well as being robust, is sufficiently well drafted that it will not create unintended consequences for responsible smaller breeders?

[David Rutley]

That is a good point. I think the hon. Gentleman will also recognise that when the regulations to which he is referring were introduced last year, the Department took a step back, listened to the concerns and addressed them. We have learned from that and worked closely with a number of welfare groups to ensure that the regulations before us are in a really good state, and we have time ahead of 6 April 2020 to ensure that they are fully worked through.

This instrument will help to address a number of welfare concerns associated with puppies and kittens bought and sold by third parties. Those concerns include the early separation of animals from their mothers, unnecessary journeys at a young age from breeder to pet shop, the sale of puppies and kittens at inappropriate commercial premises, and unscrupulous breeders who are associated with third-party sales. The ban will help to tackle the blight of puppy smuggling, and it will also help the public to make more informed and responsible choices when sourcing a puppy or kitten. It will build on the new licensing regulations, which came into force in October 2018 and introduced a range of welfare improvements for dog breeding and pet sales.

Comprehensive statutory guidance underpins the 2018 regulations, and it was produced by the sectors concerned under the auspices of the Canine and Feline Sector Group. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is updating the statutory guidance on the activity of selling animals as pets, to take account of this ban on third-party sales. The changes are intended to assist local authority inspectors and licence holders by clarifying that non-commercial rehoming of puppies and kittens does not require a licence and requiring local authorities to notify existing licence holders of the change, so that they can prepare appropriately.

The guidance also outlines how to determine whether a licence holder bred the puppies and kittens they offer for sale, which is very important. A licence holder should be able to provide supporting evidence such as photographs, microchips and veterinary records to show that they housed and cared for the animal and its mother for the first eight weeks of its life, as well as the licence itself. The draft guidance has been shared with the sector, and we intend to finalise it well before the ban comes into force in April 2020, which I hope addresses the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins).

This statutory instrument applies to England only because the parent regulations apply to England only. Animal welfare is a fully devolved issue, and respective parts of the United Kingdom have slightly different approaches to the licensing of pet sellers and other animal activities. I understand that a three-month consultation was recently concluded on banning third-party sales in Wales, and the Welsh Government are now considering those responses, which is good news. In Northern Ireland, Members of the Legislative Assembly have shown support for a similar ban to be introduced, and officials in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs are following developments in England closely. Scotland has committed to reform the licensing of sanctuaries, breeders and pet shops and is considering a ban on third-party sales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As I said in my recent spring statement, the Government remain committed to the northern powerhouse and to Northern Powerhouse Rail, and I am working on the TransPennine rail upgrade with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T10.     I welcome what the Chancellor said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) a few minutes ago about investigations into the promoters of some of the disguised remuneration schemes, but that will not do many of the victims much good. A business in Chesterfield is facing bankruptcy because of the charge. How might his review actually help the people who have wrongly taken advantage of this advice?

[Mel Stride]

It is largely companies that fall due to the loan charge, rather than individuals—of the 6,000 cases currently being settled, 85% by value relate to companies. HMRC has always been clear that appropriate payment arrangements will be in place to ensure that those outstanding amounts of tax, which after all have been avoided, aggressively and in a contrived way, can be settled sensibly.