Treasury ministers were answering questions in the Commons.
Subjects covered included...
Poverty: Social Security
(Oldham East and Saddleworth)
(Lab)
1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions on the adequacy of social security spending in
tackling poverty throughout the UK. [911674]
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
Thanks to our welfare reforms, we have been able to get more
people into work, we have the lowest unemployment rate since 1974
and more than 667,000 fewer children are living in workless
households than in 2010.
Some £30 billion of support to working-age people has been cut
from the social security budget, and there is more still to come.
Eight out of nine disabled people will not benefit from the
measures introduced in last autumn’s Budget and over 4 million
are living in poverty. In the Chancellor’s last few weeks in
post, what will he do to right this wrong?
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis. The fact is that
income inequality is lower now than it was in 2010 and absolute
poverty after housing costs is at a historic low for children.
Mr (Kettering) (Con)
Can the Chief Secretary confirm that the number of children
living in workless households is now the lowest ever record
achieved in our country?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because of our welfare
reforms and economic policy that more people are now in work and
are benefiting from our cuts to basic rate tax, giving working
families £1,200 a year extra in their pay packets.
(Wirral South) (Lab)
The Chancellor has been brave recently, speaking out on how no
deal will impact our economy. Poverty will only get worse if we
face no deal, so will the Chief Secretary be as brave as the
Chancellor and tell this House the truth about poverty and no
deal?
I can tell the hon. Lady what would lead to greater poverty in
this country: a Government who wanted to overthrow capitalism,
declare business the enemy and ruin the private sector businesses
that are employing people and giving them extra wages.
(Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Chancellor has been at the forefront of arguing that a decade
of austerity was necessary. This has led to 24% of Scottish
children and 30% of English children being in poverty. If the
Chancellor believes that this pain was not ideological and
unnecessary, will he vote against a Tory tax cuts for the rich
Budget, as proposed by the Prime Minister’s most likely
successor?
With respect to the hon. Lady, she clearly did not hear my
earlier answer, when I said that absolute poverty after housing
costs is at a historic low for children. That is true right
across our country. Of course, the Scottish National party
Government in Scotland could take steps to help children by
improving educational standards; that is what they should be
focusing on.
The Minister might not want to tackle inequality, but the
Scottish Government do. The polls show that a majority of
Scottish people support the tax changes that mean the Scottish
Government can fund a £10 a week payment to families with the
most vulnerable children, mitigating the ideological austerity
obsession of this Conservative Government. If the right hon.
Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) becomes
Prime Minister, 53% of Scots will support independence. And who
can blame them, given the Scottish Government’s plans to support
and help young people and this Government’s ideological austerity
obsession?
The reality is that the Scottish Government are now forecast to
bring in lower rates of income tax than expected, because they
have not followed through on our raising of the threshold to
£50,000, so people in Scotland on £50,000 are now paying £1,500
more tax. The fact is that raising tax reduces incentives for
people to get up the earnings ladder, reduces economic growth and
means that we do not have the opportunities and funding for
public services.
Mr (Nottingham East) (Change
UK)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)
said, the poorest, most vulnerable people in society, even those
who are in work but struggling to make ends meet, will be hit
particularly hard by a catastrophic no-deal Brexit. The Minister
cannot get away with simply deflecting this into an attack, which
I would share, on the economic policies of the Labour party. This
is the clearest, most present danger facing our country, and
surely she will not happily move towards a no-deal Brexit.
What the hon. Gentleman is missing is the fact that if we
continue to delay Brexit, first, we would not be delivering on
what British people voted for over three years ago; and secondly,
there will be continued delay in our economy—a continued lack of
investment—due to a lack of certainty.
(West Ham) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Chancellor slapped down both Tory leadership
candidates for making irresponsible spending promises. Has the
Minister noticed, as we have, that not one of those promises was
aimed at lifting the 4 million children out of poverty? She is
responsible for the management of Government finances—heaven help
us! What does she think this says about the Tory party and the
next Prime Minister?
I am incredibly proud of our record, as a Government, of reducing
inequality. Income inequality is now lower than it was in 2010.
We have also cut taxes for basic rate taxpayers by £1,200 a year
and put an extra £630 into universal credit for working families.
Leaving the EU: Scotland
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
2. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for
Scotland on the economic effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the
EU. [911675]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
I regularly discuss EU exit with the Secretary of State for
Scotland and other members of the Cabinet. The Government remain
committed to securing a deal that works for the entire United
Kingdom.
There might be two people competing to be Prime Minister, but I
think there are at least five who think they will be the next
Chancellor, so perhaps right hon. Gentleman should just get to
stay in post and then they will all be equally disappointed. He
seems to be concerned that they are somehow going to ruin his
deal dividend, but is it not the truth that there is no real
dividend from any Brexit, that the best possible deal for
Scotland and the rest of the UK is the one we already have, which
is membership, and that that is the case that he and other
sensible Government Members should have the courage to be making?
Mr Hammond
I have consistently made the case and explained to this House
that there is fiscal headroom within the current fiscal rules. If
we have a smooth exit from the European Union through a
transition that will remove the economic uncertainty that is
hanging over our economy, it will then be safe to release that
headroom and make it available for additional public spending or,
at the choice of the next Government, to reduce taxation. Either
way, we have the headroom available once we have removed the
Brexit uncertainty.
(Loughborough) (Con)
Is it not the case that Scotland, like everybody else, will know
the plans for future public spending, for fiscal headroom and for
the economic effects overall if the comprehensive spending review
were to be started sooner rather than later? Is the Chancellor
able to tell the people of Scotland, the people in this House and
the people beyond when the comprehensive spending review will be
starting?
Mr Hammond
I announced at the spring statement that it is the Government’s
intention to conduct a three-year spending review concluding this
autumn, subject to a deal with the EU being completed.
Departments are already commissioned to carry out the work
necessary for such a spending review, but it will be for the new
Government to decide whether the circumstances make it
appropriate to conduct a full three-year spending review or a
single-year exercise.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
22. Mark Carney has warned that Brexit has already cost
households up to £900, with the Fraser of Allander Institute
suggesting that it could cost Scotland 100,000 jobs by 2030.
Given that the Chancellor was a remainer himself, will he, as a
Back Bencher—I wish him well in that, incidentally—vote against
any deal removing us from the single market and customs union?
[911696]
Mr Hammond
As I have consistently said in this House, I do not believe that
a no-deal exit would be in the interests of this country, and I
will do everything I can to ensure that we avoid it, but an exit
based on a negotiated deal that allows us to continue a close
trading relationship with the European Union can work for
Britain, and that is what I will be arguing for.
(Croydon South) (Con)
Is the Chancellor aware that only 18% of Scottish exports go to
the rest of the European Union but 61% go to the rest of the
United Kingdom? Is not the Union that really matters to Scotland
the Union of the United Kingdom?
Mr Hammond
Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. The Scottish economy would
be far more adversely affected by a breach of trading
relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom than it will by
a breach in trading relationships with the European Union.
Shared Prosperity Fund
(Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab/Co-op)
3. What progress the Government have made on establishing a
shared prosperity fund. [911676]
(Newcastle upon Tyne
North) (Lab)
5. What progress the Government have made on establishing a
shared prosperity fund. [911678]
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government will establish a UK shared prosperity fund to
spread prosperity and opportunity across all four nations once we
have left the European Union and the EU structural funds. The
fund will seek to raise productivity, focusing on levelling up
parts of our country whose economies are further behind. More
details will be announced following the spending review, and the
Government will consult widely on the funds.
Analysis of local enterprise partnerships by the charity
think-tank NPC found that only 26% of board members were women
and that only 5% were black, Asian and minority ethnic. When will
the Government finally come forward with their consultation on
the shared prosperity fund? Does the Minister agree that
funnelling the UK fund through the LEPs would be a mistake unless
they are made more representative?
We intend to consult later this year, following the spending
review. Officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and
Local Government have already held 26 engagement events and have
met more than 500 representatives from across the United Kingdom.
With respect to the hon. Lady’s very important point about
representation on LEP boards, I should say that the LEP review
conducted by MHCLG jointly with the Treasury last year did
conclude that they needed to have broader representation from the
groups that she mentioned—and from private sector businesses,
large and small. Those rules and guidelines are now in force.
Shortly after the referendum on Europe, I asked the then Prime
Minister what would happen to the £726
million of European funding that we were due to receive in the
north-east. He could not answer. We are now three years on and
none the wiser about the supposed replacement—the shared
prosperity fund. How can anyone have confidence in this
Government and their handling of Brexit if they cannot give even
that basic information to the region that is set to be the worst
hit by any form of Brexit?
The people of the north-east of England voted to leave the
European Union; I know that the hon. Lady takes a different view,
but we are trying to deliver on the outcome of the referendum.
Had she voted for the withdrawal Bill, these matters would, of
course, be progressing. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor
has already said, we are guaranteeing funding to the
beneficiaries of all EU structural funds to 2023, so there is a
degree of certainty as we move forwards. But the sooner that this
House can coalesce on a good deal and that we can leave the
European Union in an orderly fashion, the sooner this matter can
be cleared up.
(St Ives) (Con)
My constituency and the rest of Cornwall continues to be one of
the less developed areas, even though there is much going for
where we are and where we live. What would the Minister say to my
county, the Duchy of Cornwall, about how soon it can expect to
really contribute to the process of the shared prosperity fund?
As I have already said, we intend to consult later this year. I
strongly encourage my hon. Friend’s constituents to take part in
that consultation; he and I have already spoken about this. I
have met representatives from Cornwall Council, for example, to
talk about the issue and some of the projects that they care
strongly about—including, of course, the stadium in Cornwall, of
which my hon. Friend has been a strong proponent.
(Dudley South) (Con)
Rebalancing the economy is not just about north and south or the
different nations of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister ensure
that the shared prosperity fund is distributed using a range of
indicators, such as gross value added, the regional human poverty
index and disposable income, so that areas in the west midlands
in need receive their fair share?
Absolutely—those are exactly the kinds of questions that we dealt
with in the consultation.
Mr (East Londonderry)
(DUP)
Some of the problems in our United Kingdom can be traced to the
disparity between the regions and nations of the UK. Will the
Minister ensure that the shared prosperity fund is not the end,
but just the beginning, of ensuring that there is prosperity
across the entirety of our nation?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there are disparities of
income and productivity across the United Kingdom, and what he
mentions will be one of the key objectives. But the shared
prosperity fund is not our only intervention in this area: we are
taking a range of measures, including significantly increasing
the amount of public investment in infrastructure—to the highest
levels in this country since the 1970s.
(Oxford East)
(Lab/Co-op)
Despite pledges that the Government would provide details on the
shared prosperity fund by the end of last year, the Chancellor
has been silent on how much communities could lose from the £17
billion-worth of structural funds. The Chancellor has only now
woken up to the danger, splurging nearly £10 billion, almost half
that amount, on tax cuts for the well off—as advocated, of
course, by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip
(Boris Johnson). Surely the only shared prosperity under the
Conservatives is for those who are already well off.
Clearly, it is not possible to progress this matter until we have
greater certainty about our exit from the European Union. Those
Members of this House who want to see this matter progressed
should be voting to leave at every opportunity, as we on the
Government side have done. The important thing to point out on
regional disparities is that this Government are investing far
more than the previous Labour Government. In fact, £430 million a
week more in real terms is being invested by this Government than
under the previous Labour Government on infrastructure in all
parts of the UK.
Northern Powerhouse
(Leeds West) (Lab)
4. What fiscal steps the Government are taking to support the
northern powerhouse. [911677]
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government are supporting the northern powerhouse through
devolution deals for, among others, Manchester, Liverpool, the
West Midlands and, most recently, North of Tyne, as well as
through over £13 billion of investment in better transport across
the north. In addition, we have invested over £3 billion from the
local growth fund in the region since 2015, and we committed at
the Budget to announce a renewed northern powerhouse strategy
later this year.
It is quite an achievement for the Minister to get up and say
that without any sense of irony whatsoever. The truth is that we
have had the incredibly disappointing news this week that Pacer
trains in the north of England will not be removed by the end of
this year, as previously promised. Despite the warm words about
the northern powerhouse, the truth is that since 2014 spending on
transport in the south of England has risen twice as fast as in
the north of England. Will the Minister use the spending review
as an opportunity to rectify these imbalances and finally give
meaning to those words, “the northern powerhouse”?
With respect to the hon. Lady, she is not correct on the numbers.
This Government are investing more in the north than the previous
Labour Government. Over the course of this Parliament, central
Government investment in transport infrastructure will be higher
in the north of England than it will be in London and the
south-east on a per capita basis. We have seen a 40% increase in
central Government funding per person in the north under this
Government.
(Copeland) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government have invested
more than £500 million in the northern powerhouse, attracting
more businesses and creating more jobs?
Over the course of this Parliament and the last, this Government
will have invested £13 billion in transport for the north. With
respect to Northern Powerhouse Rail, which was mentioned earlier,
over the last two years we have given £97 million to Transport
for the North to build the business case and prepare the ground
for that project. In the course of the spending review—our
zero-based review—we will be considering how to take forward that
project.
(Barnsley Central) (Lab)
My constituents in Barnsley Central and people right across the
north of England will judge this or any Government on deeds, not
words. Does the Minister agree with me that if the northern
powerhouse agenda is to be taken seriously, we need to see
schemes such as Transport for the North’s strategic transport
plan, which includes Northern Powerhouse Rail, properly resourced
by the national Government?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why we have given
funding to Transport for the North to prepare a properly
thought-through business case. We of course have decisions to
make in the spending review about which of those projects should
be taken forward and which provide good value for money. In the
hon. Gentleman’s own city and city region of Sheffield, we have
of course given money through the transforming cities fund to
improve inter-city connectivity for his constituents.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
My constituency and the wider Humber region would greatly benefit
if there were improved rail-freight connections east-west. What
plans does the Minister have to fund those?
We have received representations from the midlands engine, and
from Midlands Connect in relation to transport, about both road
and rail east-west connectivity. We are considering them
carefully, and they will form part of the spending review.
(Bootle) (Lab)
I spot the Leader of the House on the Treasury Bench, but I do
not know whether he wants his old job back.
The Exchequer Secretary talks a good talk on fiscal steps to
support the northern powerhouse, but the broader facts speak for
themselves. Since 2015, for the first time in 50 years, the UK
Government no longer provide regional investment aid in England,
according to the Industrial Communities Alliance’s evidence to
the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee inquiry. What is
his explanation for that?
We give many other funding streams to northern communities,
including £3.3 billion through the local growth fund and £13
billion for wider transport schemes.
So that’s an unambiguous no. The north is home to 15 million
people in five major city regions, 265 towns and 1,000 villages
and smaller communities. It has 29 universities, the UK’s largest
airport outside the south-east and eight major ports, one in my
constituency. Does the Exchequer Secretary agree that changing
those eight ports, as suggested by the Foreign Secretary and the
former Foreign Secretary, into not economic hubs of excellence
but potential revenue-draining, tax-avoiding, money-laundering
free ports—more like free-for-all ports—is no substitute for a
focused, well-resourced and sustainable economic strategy for the
north?
Perhaps unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am interested in any
proposal that can drive economic growth in the north of England.
Free ports are an interesting proposal, which we have discussed
with a number of communities. We have urged them to come forward
with well-thought-through business cases. We have yet to receive
them from many places, but we have received one from Teesside and
we will consider them carefully in future.
Loan Charge
Sir (North East Hertfordshire)
(Con)
6. What estimate the Government have made of the number of
promoters of loan schemes subject to the 2019 loan charge who
have been convicted; and if he will make a statement. [911679]
(Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross) (LD)
10. What assessment he has made of the effect of the 2019 loan
charge on people working in the (a) public and (b) private
sector. [911684]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The loan charge tackles so-called disguised remuneration
arrangements, which use loans to avoid tax. It applies in the
same way to people in the public and the private sectors. A tax
information and impact note published in 2016 and a report on
disguised remuneration published in March 2019 both considered
the impacts.
Sir
What more can be done to tackle the promoters of loan schemes who
gave workers and businesses assurances, even though the Treasury
had made it clear that the schemes were unacceptable? Should not
they be brought to book? Have any of them been convicted yet?
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right and HMRC
will continue to take firm action against those who promote tax
avoidance schemes. As he will know, and I think has been made
public, it currently has more than 100 promoters under civil
inquiry. It is important to be clear that although there are no
criminal offences of promoting or marketing tax avoidance schemes
specifically, HMRC may conduct criminal investigations and make
referrals to prosecuting authorities where, for example, there is
evidence that promoters have deliberately misrepresented the
facts to it.
Perfectly innocent working people are caught in a terrible trap
here and there have already been several suicides. HMRC said that
“teams are trained to identify customers who are anxious, worried
or need extra support to ensure they get the help they need.”
Will the Minister confirm whether those people have had that
training? Will a dedicated helpline be set up to help people who
are under huge stress?
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is stress, but he should
also be clear that a large number of people have been
systematically using those means to avoid paying tax, and the
potential amount payable is more than £3 billion. He should be
protective of the tax base more widely when he reflects on those
matters. He is right that HMRC is taking careful steps to ensure
that it protects and supports those who may be in genuine
difficulty, and those who have other personal concerns can of
course be referred to outside agencies.
(Putney) (Con)
The reality is that many people caught up in the loan charge
scandal were effectively mis-sold schemes that they were told had
been QC vetted and were perfectly legal. That is underlined by
the fact that no criminal charges are being pursued against any
of the individuals who sold the schemes. Is not it time for this
fresh Minister to take a fresh look at the Treasury’s approach to
all this?
I think that my right hon. Friend misstates the case. A
disclosure of tax avoidance number was associated with a large
number of those cases. The people knew that they were in schemes
that were potentially suspect. Every person is responsible for
signing off their own tax return. I trust that my right hon.
Friend will be reassured by the fact that recently six
individuals were arrested on suspicion of promoting fraudulent
loan charge arrangements. That speaks to a wider picture.
(Nottingham North)
(Lab/Co-op)
20. Economic crime defrauds the Exchequer of countless billions
in revenue. Two and a half years ago, the Ministry of Justice
launched a call for evidence on corporate liability for that.
Incredibly, as of this morning, it says it is still analysing the
evidence that it received. Clearly, cracking the problem is
critical to the Treasury’s funding public services. What are
Treasury Ministers doing to wake their colleagues up? [911694]
I can only admire the ingenuity of a man who can crowbar in a
question about the Ministry of Justice, unrelated to the loan
charge, into this issue. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman
that regardless of what may be the case on that, HMRC is taking
tens of billions of pounds, relating to avoidance and evasion
matters, that are due. He should be very grateful and delighted
about that.
Mr (Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
The loan charge all-party group claims evidence for four suicides
relating to the loan charge and HMRC has referred itself with
respect to one. When I asked a parliamentary written question on
the assessment the Treasury had made of the impact of the loan
charge on the mental health of the people subject to pursuit, the
answer was, to put it mildly, less than satisfactory. Will the
Minister now tell us what effect the Treasury believes its policy
has had on the mental health of all the people subject to pursuit
in both the public and private sectors?
May I put on record my surprise that a former chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee, with its concern for the public
finances, should take that view? Some people may have been very
adversely affected in mental health terms and we must protect
them at all times using all proper measures. HMRC is attempting
to do that. However, there is a much larger number of people who
are simply seeking to avoid paying tax due.
(Scunthorpe) (Lab)
People were told that they could work particular jobs if they
took on this way of remuneration. Will that be considered? Will
the Minister take on board what the right hon. Member for Putney
(Justine Greening) said and just take a fresh look at this issue?
I remind the hon. Gentleman that there were other signs that
indicated to people that they were in tax avoidance schemes—for
example, a very low or relatively low effective rate of tax. The
signs were there and people would have been right to pick up on
them. Even if they were mis-sold, that does not have a bearing on
the question of whether tax is now due.
Off-payroll Working Rules
Mr (Basildon and Billericay)
(Con)
7. What steps his Department is taking to tackle stakeholders’
concerns on the roll-out of the off-payroll working rules to the
private sector. [911680]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
In response to stakeholder representations at Budget 2018, the
Government announced that the extension of the off-payroll
working rules reform would not take effect until April 2020. That
was designed to allow organisations more time to prepare. The
reform will also not apply to the smallest 1.5 million
organisations. The Government have now consulted on the detailed
design of the reform. Responses to that consultation will be
taken into account when drafting the legislation.
Mr Baron
Nevertheless, there are concerns within the private sector about
the forthcoming adoption of IR35. What lessons are there from its
application to the public sector?
That is a very important question. I hope my hon. Friend will be
reassured. Independent research shows that the public sector
reform has been meeting its objective of improving compliance
with existing off-payroll working rules without disrupting public
services or reducing labour market flexibility. The Government
recognise that the private sector is much more diverse, but HMRC
will continue to work with stakeholders to improve employment
status checks and associated guidance. It will also provide a
significant package of education and support to businesses to
help with implementation.
(Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
(SNP)
It is only correct that contractors pay their fair share of tax,
but the IR35 rule fails to equalise tax equally between them and
employees, and is overly bureaucratic. Will the Minister join me
in urging the Chancellor to ensure that the 2019 Budget and
Finance Bill improve the rule or scraps it altogether?
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is only
about a 10% compliance rate with proper tax payable in this
sector. He should therefore be applauding, as I am, the means to
raise the level of compliance. In many ways, this is a
simplification of the rules, which is being carefully and
deliberately handled.
Early Years Education
(Bristol East) (Lab)
8. What recent representations he has received from the Secretary
of State for Education on the level of Government funding for
early years education. [911681]
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Education to talk
about education funding. This issue will be settled as part of
the spending review.
I hope the Chief Secretary has learned from those conversations
and will go out to talk to early years providers. The shortfall
in funding is having a huge impact. I visited a nursery in my
constituency recently and it is clear that it is the staff who
are bearing the brunt of it. They are on only just above minimum
wage. I cannot help thinking that if the people working there
were not women then perhaps their work would be valued more. Will
she ensure that she makes representations, when the spending
review comes, on lifting the freeze?
I point out to the hon. Lady that we are spending a record amount
on childcare and early years support—£6 billion a year, which is
£700 million more than in 2015—but of course we will look at
representations as we go forward into the spending review and
make sure we treat all parts of education fairly.
(St Austell and Newquay)
(Con)
Will the Minister look particularly at funding for two-year-olds?
Providers of early years education in my constituency tell me
they lose money on providing that service for two-year-olds
because there are significant additional costs in looking after
two-year-olds but only a small uplift in the rate paid.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We will look at
that. It is important to acknowledge the progress this Government
have made by introducing 30 hours of childcare for three and
four-year-olds with working parents and 15 hours of childcare for
children with parents on low incomes. Those are important steps.
Of course, we will look in the spending review at the rates and
ensure they are fair right across the country.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
Children with higher educational needs are losing out even more.
My local authority overspent by £760,000 last year and will
overspend by £1.3 million this year and £1.9 million next year.
Those children need this vital support in order to grow. Will the
Minister look at the funding of the higher needs budget to ensure
that local authorities can support those families?
The hon. Lady is certainly right that we have seen demand for
special educational needs funding rise. We need to look at that
as part of the spending review, from both a local government
point of view and a Department for Education point of view.
Access to Cash
(Angus) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to maintain access to cash. [911683]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I welcome the benefits that electronic payments are bringing to
people and businesses across the UK. However, the Government
recognise the importance of cash to many, particularly the most
vulnerable members of society. That is why we have committed to
safeguarding access to cash for those who need it. In the light
of changing payment trends, the Government have created the Joint
Authorities Cash Strategy Group. That Treasury-led group will
seek to bring together the regulators and the Bank of England to
inform and co-ordinate members’ activities related to cash and
safeguard access for those who need it.
I recently sent a survey about access to cash to thousands of my
constituents. There was an overwhelming response, because they
are terrified that we are going far too fast into a cashless
society. The next time the Minister meets banks, will he raise
with them the impact that rural banking hubs could have on our
local communities, just as the pilot business hub has had in
Birmingham?
I recognise my hon. Friend’s excellent campaigning on this
matter, which we have had meetings to discuss. The Government
have no direct role in the matter, but we recognise the role that
banking hubs have played for businesses across six trial sites.
We are looking at that carefully, and I will be very happy to
raise it with the banks when I meet them next.
(Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Will the Government commit to working with cash machine suppliers
to ensure that cash withdrawals remain free across the board?
Charges disproportionately affect those on lower incomes, who
make lower cash withdrawals.
Absolutely. We are looking into that. The Payment Systems
Regulator, which was set up four years ago, is responsible for
overseeing LINK. It has two schemes in place to safeguard access
to cash in the most impoverished communities and to ensure that,
when an ATM is vulnerable to closure, there is a responsibility
to keep it open if constituents would have to go more than 1 km
to access cash.
(Waveney) (Con)
21. The town of Bungay has been without a bank branch and a
free-to-use 24/7 town centre ATM since last May. That is causing
serious challenges for traders, the elderly and those managing on
a tight budget. Will the Minister put in place a regulatory
framework to reverse this regressive trend? [911695]
I acknowledge the difficult situation that my hon. Friend has in
Bungay. The Government-established Payment Systems Regulator is
closely monitoring developments in ATM provision and, as I said,
there are mechanisms in place to intervene. I am very happy to
meet him to discuss the application of those to the situation in
Bungay.
(Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that post offices and credit unions provide easy access to
cash, is it not now time to offer business rates relief to both
to enhance the provision of cash and other affordable financial
services?
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.
High Street Bank Closures
(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. [911685]
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.
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?
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 reduced 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.
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
The Minister should make no mistake: communities up and down
Britain are being deliberately starved of cash and banking
services as the banks, with the support of Government, are trying
to create a near cashless society. Can he say a bit more about
what he is doing to help the more than 1 million poorer people
who do not have access to a bank account?
Mr Speaker
A bit more, but not too much more.
I recognise the difficulty and I am happy to meet my right hon.
Friend to discuss the issues in his constituency. We have
invested considerably in the post office network and I am meeting
the Lending Standards Board to look at the mechanism for transfer
to the Post Office and to consider solutions on a case-by-case
basis.
Spending Review
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
12. Whether he plans to launch a three-year spending review
before the summer recess; and if he will make a statement.
[911686]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
As the right hon. Gentleman would have heard me say if he had
been in his place earlier, I announced in the spring statement
that it is the Government’s intention to conduct a three-year
spending review, concluding this autumn, subject to a deal with
the EU being completed. He asks whether I plan to launch the
spending review before the summer recess: I can tell him that
Departments have already been commissioned to carry out the work
necessary for such a review. It must be for the new Government to
decide, in the circumstances, whether it is appropriate to
conduct a full three-year spending review or a one-year exercise.
I can assure the Chancellor that I saw him give that response on
television earlier. What would be the impact on the comprehensive
spending review of either the proposal of the Secretary of State
for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for
South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) for a £13 billion cut in corporation
tax and a £12 billion increase in defence spending, or the
proposal of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip
(Boris Johnson) for a £9 billion higher rate income tax threshold
cut, £11 billion national insurance contributions cut and showing
the public sector “some love”? Would those unfunded bribes be
paid for by tax increases, cuts in services or both?
Mr Hammond
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is manifestly asking the
wrong person that question. I literally cannot answer it. The
purpose of a spending review is that such matters can be looked
at in the round, and the responsible way to do a spending review
is first to set the envelope of what is affordable, and then to
look at the different bids, which will—I can confidently
predict—greatly exceed the available spending power, and
prioritise. That is the difficult business of government, and
that is why I am not in favour of ad hoc spending commitments or
tax cut commitments being made.
Mr Speaker
The Chancellor is a clever chap, but his capacities do not
include the capacity to penetrate the minds of colleagues,
especially those in competitive vote-seeking mode.
(Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Homes England indicates a current pipeline of some 15,000
community-led homes in England. That shows the significant
positive impact of the community housing fund. Will my right hon.
Friend confirm the continuance of the fund so that those
much-needed homes can be built?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend knows, we have signed off the Truro funding
decision, and I am sure she is happy about that. The Prime
Minister has made very clear that dealing with the challenges in
the housing market is a priority for the Government, and in the
spending review we will continue to prioritise funds to support
both the housing market and the provision of social and
affordable housing.
(Streatham) (LD)
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal and the Chancellor is
still in his post, does he envisage there being enough fiscal
headroom following the spending review to give the top 10% of
earners a tax cut worth more than £9 billion? Surely that is
wholly unjustified.
Mr Hammond
I think the hon. Gentleman has sketched a highly unlikely
scenario, but I can answer his question. We have built up about
£26 billion or £27 billion of fiscal headroom, and the purpose of
that headroom is precisely to protect the UK economy from the
immediate effects of a possible no-deal exit. I have no doubt
whatsoever that in the event of a no-deal exit we will need all
that money and more to respond to the immediate impacts of the
consequent disruption, which will mean that no money will be
available for longer-term tax cuts or spending increases.
Let me go further: the Government’s analysis suggests that in the
event of a disruptive no-deal exit there would be a hit to the
Exchequer of about £90 billion, and that will also have to be
factored into future spending and tax decisions.
(Thirsk and Malton)
(Con)
I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to be
careful with our spending pledges, but I think that investment
spending is different, particularly when the investment is in the
north. Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider our letter
of 29 April—signed by 80 parliamentarians—which calls for £120
billion of investment spending over 30 years and a bringing
forward of the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme?
Mr Hammond
We are committed to investment in infrastructure. One of the
things that I have done in my three years as Chancellor is move
the balance of spending towards investment in economic
infrastructure, and we now have the highest level of public
capital investment for 40 years. We have a National
Infrastructure Commission to set long-term guidance for the
Government on how to invest in infrastructure investment, and
that will be considered in the zero-based capital spending review
that sits alongside the main spending review. However, I assure
my hon. Friend that this Government are committed to investing in
the productive capacity of the UK economy, because it is the only
way to raise real wages and living standards, and that is what
government is all about.
Living Standards
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
13. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his
fiscal policy on living standards. [911687]
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government’s decisions on tax, welfare and spending on public
services have benefited households across income distribution,
with the poorest gaining the most as a percentage of net income.
That is supported by the distribution analysis published by the
Treasury at the time of the most recent Budget.
That is nonsense. The UK is already the most unequal society in
Europe, and the gap is becoming wider. In order to mitigate the
worst welfare cuts and reforms, the Scottish Government are
having to pay out £125 million this year alone. The Special
Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has said that the
situation is “unsustainable”. Does the Minister agree that
instead of arguing about tax cuts for the rich, Westminster needs
to reverse those welfare cuts?
The United Kingdom is not the most unequal society in Europe; it
is not anything like that. The Government’s policies, such as our
policies of investing in infrastructure and in boosting
productivity, have been designed to level up the parts of the UK
that need it the most. When it comes to poverty and living
standards, things are improving. Real wages have been rising for
10 consecutive months, and more people are in work. In the hon.
Gentleman’s constituency, unemployment has fallen by 60% since
2010.
(Stoke-on-Trent Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
23. One way in which the Minister could easily help to raise
living standards would be to pay those under 25 the same national
living wage rates as those over 25. I know he will not announce
that at the Dispatch Box, but will he tell us what concessions
under-25s are given in their housing costs, insurance costs and
living costs that warrant their being paid less than those over
25? [911697]
Our priority has been getting young people into work. In 2010 we
inherited a youth unemployment rate of 20%; we have almost halved
that. The priority for this Government will be ensuring young
people get a great education; more young people are in good or
outstanding schools than when we came into power in 2010, and we
want them to get apprenticeships and get into work and get on in
life.
Charities: VAT Refunds
Mrs (Washington and Sunderland
West) (Lab)
14. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that
charities are able to claim timely VAT refunds. [911688]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Having run a capital project myself, I am keenly aware of the
importance of good cash flow; I am grateful to the hon. Lady for
her question. HMRC receives more than 2 million VAT repayment
forms a year, and in 2017, the latest year for which figures are
available, over 90% of them were paid within five days of
receipt. A supplement is paid if it takes more than 30 days
before payment is made, and HMRC also has a free dedicated
charities help desk designed to help organisations with their tax
inquiries.
Mrs Hodgson
4Louis is a charity set up in Sunderland in the memory of Louis,
who was stillborn in 2009. It fundraised and built the Louis
bereavement suite at Sunderland Royal hospital at a cost of
£75,000, some £12,500 of which was paid in VAT. Another suite is
planned at Durham at a cost of £100,000 and £20,000 of that is
VAT. These huge amounts of VAT could be used by the charity to
build another bereavement suite. What advice can the Minister
give to it specifically on how it can attempt to get this VAT
back?
The hon. Lady will understand that a range of schemes is
available for some parts of the charitable sector. We recognise
the concern that the hon. Lady is expressing; I cannot deal with
individual cases, but obviously if she wants to write to me on
the wider issue I will be happy to take it up with HMRC.
(Wyre Forest) (Con)
A much loved local provider of employment for my constituents
with learning disabilities has been forced to consider closure
after a change in interpretation of the VAT rules regarding the
provision of services under the personal payments arrangements;
the retrospective VAT bill of around £150,000 means that Spokes,
the trading arm of the charity the Emily Jordan Foundation, faces
closure with the subsequent loss of a very important local
resource. Will my hon. Friend consider meeting with Chris Jordan
on behalf of the charity in order to discuss a way forward that
can save this incredibly important local business?
Again, I absolutely recognise the concern, although of course I
am not familiar with the details. I cannot get involved in a
specific case, but my hon. Friend is welcome to write to me and I
will refer the matter to HMRC.
Topical Questions
(North Tyneside) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental
responsibilities. [911699]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
My principal focus is to ensure the continued resilience of the
UK economy and public finances at this time of uncertainty.
Thanks to the hard work of the British people, our national debt
is now falling sustainably for the first time in a generation,
but it is still too high and it is vital that the Government
continue to get debt down to ensure that the economy is resilient
against future shocks, to prevent the wasting of billions of
pounds more on debt interest payments, and to avoid burdening the
next generation.
Since 2013 this Government have given tax handouts worth £4.1
billion to the big alcohol corporations at a time when the NHS is
short of 40,000 nurses. Would it not be a sensible choice to
invest in the nurses, doctors and police officers who have to
deal with the problems caused by cheap alcohol?
Mr Hammond
We have done so: by 2023-24 we will be spending an extra £34
billion a year on the national health service. That is a record
cash injection to our national health service, which represents
this Government’s commitment to it.
(South Suffolk) (Con)
T5. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that he is
absolutely committed to maintaining the independence of the Bank
of England? [911703]
Mr
Yes, it is a vital cornerstone of our institutional structure
that the Bank of England remains independent, and those who have
suggested that they would seek to politicise appointments to the
Bank of England would be doing a great disservice to this country
and our economy.
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
The Chancellor, like most of us, has been watching the
accumulation of spending promises by the Tory leadership
candidates. They amount now—[Interruption.] They amount now to
nearly £100 billion, and one of the Chancellor’s colleagues
commented yesterday that they make me look like a fiscal
moderate. May I ask the Chancellor what impact this level of
unfunded commitments would have on his economic strategy, or can
he tell us how they could possibly be funded?
Mr Hammond
There are many people who could comment on spending commitments
that have been made by candidates in the Tory leadership
competition, but the right hon. Gentleman is not one of them.
Let me try this one. Both Tory leadership candidates are
threatening no deal. This morning, the Chancellor has eloquently
set out the consequences of no deal. Bearing in mind what he
said, may I ask him very straightforwardly whether he will join
us and commit himself to doing everything he possibly can to
oppose the prorogation of Parliament to try to sneak no deal
through, and also to voting against no deal?
With your permission, Mr Speaker, if I may: this might be the
Chancellor’s last Treasury questions and I just want to thank him
for the civility with which he has always maintained our
relationship. I also admit that there have been times when we
have enjoyed his dry sense of humour. I gave his predecessor a
little red book as a present. We have another red book today, but
this is a guide to London’s rebel walks and we hope that he will
enjoy it in his leisure periods.
Mr Hammond
That is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman; I much prefer this
little red book to the one he gave my predecessor, although I
have to say that I have not read this one and I have read the
other one.
On the broader question, I have been consistently clear that I
believe that a no-deal exit would be bad for the UK, bad for the
British economy and bad for the British people. We cannot rule
out that happening, because it is not entirely in our hands, but
I agree with him that it would be wrong for a British Government
to seek to pursue no deal as a policy. I believe that it will be
for the House of Commons, of which I will continue proudly to be
a Member, to ensure that that does not happen.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker
Thank you.
(York Outer) (Con)
T6. My constituent Karen Harrison-Taylor’s parents are among the
tens of thousands of pensioners who are stranded in their homes
due to shared appreciation mortgages saddling them with debts of
up to nine times their original loan. What steps are being taken
to assist those who are unfairly tied up in these schemes?
[911704]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Borrowers who believe that they have been mis-sold a shared
appreciation mortgage are able to take their complaint to the
Financial Ombudsman Service. The Government are unable to comment
on group action cases relating to this issue as we have no role
in deciding whether cases may be heard in court. I note that the
annual review of the Financial Ombudsman Service in 2003-04 said
that in most cases it had not upheld complaints of shared
appreciation mortgage mis-selling due to the information being
satisfactory. That is the situation at the moment.
Mr (Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
T2. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has much good advice given to
him, but is he picking up the nightmare scenarios that I am
getting from senior business people in the north of England who
fear that we are heading for a new global economic meltdown? They
believe that that, combined with our crashing out of the European
Union, would be a disaster for their businesses and for the
country. [911700]
Mr
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to storm clouds over the
global economy. We tend to focus on Brexit-related issues and the
domestic agenda, but I have just come back from the G20 in Osaka,
and looking more widely, we can see that global growth is slowing
and that global trade growth is slowing even more dramatically. A
great deal hinges on finding a solution to the disputes between
China and the United States. It is hugely in our interests that
that dispute is resolved and that normal trading relations are
resumed between the world’s two economic superpowers. As a
middle-sized open economy, we are bound to be adversely affected
if global trade slows down.
(Gordon) (Con)
T7. Dean’s shortbread, based in Gordon, has been encouraged by
the annual investment allowance to invest in new facilities. Does
my right hon. Friend agree that this policy is stimulating
business to release pent-up investment and that it demonstrates
the confidence of UK companies? [911705]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I am delighted to hear the news of new investment in my hon.
Friend’s constituency, and I take my hat off to Dean’s
shortbread. As he knows, the two-year increase in the annual
investment allowance, which the Chancellor announced in the
Budget, is helping firms right across the country to invest in
new plant and machinery. It gives 100% first-year tax relief on
the first £1 million of eligible investments and helps small and
medium-sized firms such as Dean’s shortbread to continue to grow.
(Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab/Co-op)
T3. The west midlands has seen knife crime rise by 106% in the
past five years, the average time for the Crown Prosecution
Service to reach a decision has increased by 64% since 2013, and
more than 2,000 police officers have been lost since austerity
began in 2010. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury make
money available to reverse 10 years of Government cuts to police
services to ensure that my constituents can feel safe? [911701]
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
I reassure the hon. Lady that we have already put additional
funding into the police grant, and we have raised spending power
such that it increases in real terms. Additional surge funding
has been put into the west midlands to acknowledge the specific
issues in that area.
Mrs (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
T8. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and this Government on
the net zero emissions climate change commitment. What are his
plans to achieve that goal? [911706]
Mr
We made an announcement this morning about our plans for green
finance. Over the coming months and years, it will be essential
to demonstrate how we are able to mobilise our capital markets
and the instruments of a market economy to deliver on this huge
enterprise. If we do not demonstrate how the market economy can
provide solutions to decarbonising our economy, there are others
with alternative solutions to present.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
T4. During the Department for International Development estimates
debate yesterday, there was a clear consensus across the House
that the 0.7% of GDP aid commitment should remain and, for that
matter, that DFID should remain an independent Department. Will
the Chancellor restate that that remains the whole of Government
policy, and does he believe that it should continue to be
Government policy after 24 or 25 July? [911702]
Mr
As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that position is enshrined
in statute, and only this House of Commons could change it.
(Southampton, Itchen)
(Con)
More of my Southampton constituents are in work than ever before,
but many of their jobs are low-paid, with few career prospects,
if any. What are the Government doing to improve employment
opportunities for my constituents?
Mr Hammond
We have worked hard to build a stronger, fairer economy, dealing
with the deficit that we inherited, helping people into work and
cutting taxes for people, families and businesses, and the result
is that the economy has grown continuously for the past nine
years. Employment is currently at record high levels,
unemployment is currently at the joint lowest rate since 1975,
and real wages are rising again. We have created 3.5 million new
jobs, but the next stage must be about increasing real wages by
raising productivity, because that is the only sustainable way to
raise the living standards of working people in this country.
(Battersea) (Lab)
T10. Last month, the Wandsworth food bank published its yearly
report. It showed that 5,770 emergency food parcels were handed
out in a year—a 76% increase over five years; that nearly half of
referrals were due to problems with social security, specifically
the five-week wait for universal credit; and that nearly two
thirds of those supported by a food bank adviser were disabled or
had a long-term health condition. The consequence of Tory
austerity is that record numbers of people are relying on charity
to eat. Since this is probably the Chancellor’s final oral
questions in post, may I ask whether he is proud of that legacy?
[911708]
The reality is that that we have got a record number of people
into work. Universal credit has been shown to help more families
get into work, and it has made work pay. We have also made
adjustments to universal credit to shorten the wait time, and we
have put in an extra £630 a week for families.
(Walsall North) (Con)
It has been a while since I asked the Chancellor about the
blockchain and distributed ledger technology, so I was hoping
that he could present an update on how the Treasury is embracing
this new technology.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The UK’s digital economy
is thriving and is growing 10 times as fast as the wider economy.
We are pursuing a range of measures to reinforce that leading
position, and that involves implementing a 10-year action plan to
unlock over £20 billion in finance growth in innovative firms and
a further £7 billion for research and development since 2016,
with internationally competitive research and development tax
reliefs to support investment.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has just pointed
out, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris
Johnson) has made £30 billion-worth of spending pledges and the
right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) has made £13
billion-worth of pledges. The Chancellor has said it will not
happen on his watch, but that seems to suggest that a magic money
tree has been found in the barren soil of the no deal for which
we seem to be heading.
I want to ask the Chancellor about the pledges announced by the
current Prime Minister in the past few weeks, which unfortunately
have not included any compensation for the infected blood
community. How have the Chancellor and the Treasury prioritised
and costed those announcements?
The Prime Minister has made a number of announcements since 23
May, including on modern slavery and mental health. All these
announcements have been costed and are affordable within existing
budgets for 2019-20.
(Morley and Outwood)
(Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that dementia
care is adequately funded in the next spending review?
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about dementia care, which
is one of the issues that will be looked at as part of the
long-term plan for health. Due to the fiscal responsibility
exercised by this Government, we are able to put extra money into
health services to deal with issues such as dementia.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s remarks about a no-deal Brexit and the
disaster it would be for our country, costing jobs and
livelihoods. Does he agree that both Conservative leadership
candidates, who support a no-deal Brexit, should stop selling out
the country to serve their own political ambitions? Will he
commit to joining us in voting against a no deal when and if he
returns to the Back Benches, and to voting with us on a
no-confidence motion, if it comes to that, to stop a no deal?
Mr
At this stage of my career, I will not speculate on my future
actions. What I will say is that the Government’s analysis shows
that a no-deal exit would mean that all the regions, nations and
sectors of the UK economy have lower economic output compared
with today’s arrangements and compared with the White Paper
scenario that the Government set out. It is important we all
understand that preparing for a no deal, which is a perfectly
sensible thing to do because it might happen to us without our
volition, is not the same as avoiding the effects of a no deal.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
Net zero emissions by 2050 is a desirable but very costly policy.
Does the Chancellor agree that we must do everything to protect
low-income families in my Cleethorpes constituency and elsewhere
from bearing an unfair burden?
Mr Hammond
Yes. This is a huge commitment, but it is the right commitment to
make. The Committee on Climate Change recommended that the
Treasury should undertake a review of the funding and financing
mechanisms to ensure that this huge undertaking can be funded,
and that it will be funded in a way that is fair to families,
households and businesses across the UK, which is exactly what we
will do.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
The “All Kids Count” report, on the impact of the two-child limit
after two years, was published last week by the Church of
England, the Child Poverty Action Group, Women’s Aid, Turn2us and
the Refugee Council. The report illustrates the devastating
impact of the two-child policy, particularly on working families
who are unable to compensate for the £2,780 a year cut by working
longer hours. Before the Chancellor leaves office, will he scrap
the two-child policy and its devastating impact on families?
The universal credit policy has been designed to make sure that
people who are being supported by the Government are in a similar
position to families who have to make their own financial
decisions based on the wages they earn every week.
(Stafford) (Con)
The decision by the European Union to suspend the equivalence
agreement with Switzerland seems to be very damaging. My right
hon. Friend the Chancellor has done a fantastic job over the past
few years. Will he confirm whether the United Kingdom was
consulted on whether the decision should go ahead?
Mr Hammond
We have been closely involved in this issue, discussing it both
in the EU and with the Swiss. I can tell the House that although
on the face of it the withdrawal of equivalence had a very
significant effect on the ability of UK shareholders to trade
Swiss shares on the Swiss stock exchange, the measures that the
European Securities and Markets Authority announced on Friday
significantly mitigate the impact. So we very much hope that the
European Union and Switzerland will be able to reach agreement,
and of course there is a very direct relevance to the UK’s own
negotiations with the European Union.
(High Peak) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor commit to enabling the 120,000 families on
very low incomes who find out about a tax credit overpayment when
they claim universal credit to have a fair chance to appeal
against those deductions averaging £1,500 being made and to
giving them a chance to raise themselves out of poverty?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the question, and I am happy
to refer her to the welfare Secretary on the matter.
(Croydon South) (Con)
Does the Chancellor share my concern about the way some local
councils are misusing Public Works Loan Board loans to speculate
on commercial property, including many in Surrey?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend knows that I do share his concerns on this matter.
The Public Works Loan Board is there to support local
authorities’ capital spending. Some of the development activities
of local authorities are perfectly legitimate: for example, the
regeneration of urban areas. What is not legitimate is local
authorities arbitraging the low interest rates of the PWLB to buy
commercial property for yield, in order to develop
income-yielding property portfolios. The Treasury is looking at
how we can manage that situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have now had 20 topical questions. Whether this is the
Chancellor’s last appearance at the Dispatch Box as Chancellor
remains to be seen, but whether it is or not, he will always be
able to tell his children that demand for him exceeded supply of
him. He can say to them proudly, “I always left them wanting more
of me.”
