Loan Charge: Bankruptcy
(Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
1. What recent estimate he has made of the number of people
subject to the loan charge who have been declared bankrupt.
Mr Speaker
I call the Minister.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury ()
Good morning to you, Mr Speaker. It is great to be in a Chamber
that is 100% full strength after so many months. If I may make a
personal note without undue deference, Mr Speaker, I will say
that I thoroughly appreciated your remarks about standards within
the Chamber.
To date, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has not initiated
insolvency proceedings against any taxpayer for a loan charge
debt. No estimate can be provided for the number of people who
have fallen into debt or who have been declared bankrupt and are
subject to the loan charge because, where debts arise, HMRC is
not always the only creditor. Some individuals are declared
bankrupt as a result of a non-HMRC debt and some may choose to
enter insolvency themselves based on their overall financial
position.
We know that there are many, many thousands of nurses, social
workers and other public sector workers who have been caught up
in the loan charge. They took work via agencies that basically
told them, “Sign here or you don’t get the work.” Checking to see
whether they would be liable for the loan charge was not an
option. Last week, the Yorkshire Post reported that a number of
former services personnel had been affected and that one is
feeling suicidal as a direct result. What does the Minister say
to this veteran and the thousands of other public servants whose
lives have been turned upside down by this retrospective
taxation?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Taxation is often a
difficult matter for the relatively small number of individuals
who may be affected by particular pressures. Of course the
Government recognise and understand that, but it is nevertheless
the case—it is indeed a foundational principle of the tax
system—that people should be responsible for their own tax
returns. If I may, I would like to refer the hon. Lady to the
very wise words of the former shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member
for Oxford East (), who said
in 2018 that
“we would obviously welcome tightening in the area of disguised
remuneration schemes…We are concerned that the measures in the
Bill do not go far enough…There should be no excuse”—
these are her words—
“for people not to be aware of the situation”.––[Official Report,
Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 9 January 2018; c. 30.]
I am afraid that she was right about that.
(Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Conservative Government’s approach to the loan charge means
that ordinary people who are victims of mis-selling are suffering
financial ruin and personal harm. Ministers will have heard some
harrowing accounts of people pushed to the very brink and worse,
some even tragically taking their own lives. This cannot be what
the Government envisaged and a new approach is urgently needed.
Will the Treasury now review the loan charge scheme and the
approach of HMRC to prevent further devastating consequences?
As I have said, both the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs take these cases extremely seriously, which is why HMRC
has put in place extra care and support for people who may be
affected by tax issues of this and other kinds. The fact remains
that we have had a review. I might refer the hon. Gentleman to
the words of his colleague, the hon. Member for Ilford North
(), who said of who did the
review that it was
“a thorough piece of work…we thank him…He has done a great
service to Parliament and to the wider public debate.––[Official
Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2020; c. 33.]
He was right about that and the Labour party has been right not
to have opposed this policy at any point during its passage
through Parliament.
(Wellingborough)
(Con)
The problem that Members have on both sides of this House is that
ordinary people were duped into something and it has effectively
become a retrospective piece of legislation. I thought the way
that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North
(), approached this was very reasonable. HMRC is not
taking the right approach. Perhaps the Government could look at
that again.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have mentioned the
extra care and support that HMRC has put in place. I have
mentioned the extremely careful approach that it has taken with
people who may be facing the loan charge. As he will be aware, it
has not initiated insolvency proceedings against any taxpayer for
a loan charge debt and that in itself is emblematic of the care
and attention that it is taking with this subject.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
It is not enough for the Minister to say that people had to take
responsibility for their own tax affairs when the information
that they were given by HMRC was that there was nothing wrong
with these schemes initially, when HMRC passed and signed off tax
years for people, and when the head of HMRC has admitted that, in
recent months, he had repeatedly tried—this was the outcome of a
freedom of information request—to obtain legal analysis to
understand the strength of a claim with “very little success”.
There is not even a legal standing for this. How then can the
Minister say that it is right to pursue people for things that
they were led into, and, indeed, for payments that HMRC was
regularising by allowing contractors to use as a means of paying
their employees?
The right hon. Gentleman raises a whole bunch of questions. Let
me address them. There were some contractors working through
agencies for HMRC. Where it was discovered that they had used
disguised remuneration, those relationships were ended and strong
measures have been put in place to prevent recurrence. That is an
unfortunate feature of the extended way in which these contract
arrangements sometimes work. I do not think that there is any
evidence that HMRC has signed off or positively approved the use
of any disguised remuneration scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman
has an example, he is welcome to send it to me. The right hon.
Gentleman will be aware that the chief executive of HMRC has
specifically written to the loan charge and taxpayer fairness
all-party parliamentary group to make it perfectly clear that it
has taken those remarks out of context and that what he was
doing—as every chief executive of a public agency should do—was
putting his own officials under some pressure to provide the
justification needed, and rightly so.
Living Standards
(Midlothian) (SNP)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his
policies on living standards.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his
policies on living standards.
(North
Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of his
policies on living standards.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury ()
Her Majesty’s Treasury analysis published alongside Budget ’21
has shown that policy interventions in response to covid-19 have,
on average, supported the poorest working households most as a
proportion of pre-pandemic income.
The Government’s plan to increase national insurance will clearly
unfairly impact the living standards of young people and the low
paid. That is in stark contrast to the Scottish Government’s free
education, bus travel for under-25s and the Scottish child
payment. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm how many Ministers
spoke against this move at Cabinet today and whether this
included the Scottish Secretary?
I would have thought that, having sought additional powers, the
hon. Gentleman would be more interested in reminding the House
how his own Government are using the powers that they have. The
key issue is that in many areas they are choosing not to use
their tax powers—for example, to top up universal credit. He
should focus on the alliance that his party has formed with the
Greens, which is bad for business, bad for the economy, bad for
the oil and gas industry, and counterproductive to growth.
In 2016, the Tories promised that fuel bills would be lower for
everyone on leaving the EU. The reality is that fuel bills are
increasing while they make the heartless cut to universal credit.
In order to tackle fuel poverty, will the Minister use the net
zero review to cut VAT on energy efficiency products, keep new
nuclear off electricity bills, provide direct funding for heat
decarbonisation and sort out the unfair grid charges on Scottish
renewables?
Well, I think we should look at what my right hon. Friend the
Chancellor has done. I touched a moment ago on how the covid
measures have protected the poorest working households the most.
Alongside that, the Budget measures on tax, welfare and spending
decisions made since 2019 have, on average, benefited all
households this year, with the poorest gaining the most as a
percentage of net income. That is the approach that my right hon.
Friend the Chancellor has taken and it is one that the Scottish
Government should follow.
According to Save the Children, more than 3 million children
living in low-income households across the United Kingdom are
likely to be affected by the £20 universal credit cut, with half
of claimants saying that they will face significant financial
impacts as a result and one in seven worrying about affording
food. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the cut will push
500,000 people below the poverty line. Will the Minister explain
how this squares with the Government’s so-called levelling-up
agenda?
A key way to tackle poverty is to get people into work and then
skill them up in their jobs. That is what we have set out through
the plan for jobs, and that plan is working. Ultimately, if that
is the priority of the Scottish Government, why are they not
using the powers they have to prioritise it?
(Central Devon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to justify
raising national insurance to fund social care for the
predominantly elderly, when the impact of that tax rise would
fall mainly on young people and those who are earning little in
the workforce? Does he also recognise that those two groups are
the very groups that have been most impacted by the economic
consequences of the pandemic?
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister will make a
statement on this matter shortly, but what he and I would agree
on is that the best way is to grow the economy, drive
productivity, get people into work and skill them up through
work. That is what the plan for jobs is doing, alongside the £600
billion investment in infrastructure over the course of this
Parliament as part of levelling up and our commitment to net
zero. We need to grow the economy, skill up the workforce and get
those who have been impacted by the pandemic back into work as
quickly as possible.
(West
Worcestershire) (Con)
I wonder if the Chief Secretary has had the opportunity to read a
recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that says:
“Material living standards held up surprisingly well through the
pandemic…This is an astonishing outcome given the scale of
economic disruption”.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The package of measures that
my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took improved on the economic
scoring that was forecast for the pandemic, including the figure
for unemployment, which will now be 2 million lower at its peak
than was estimated. That package of measures has helped to
prevent many of the worst outcomes that were forecast by the
Office for Budget Responsibility as we went into the pandemic.
(Blackpool
North and Cleveleys) (Con)
One group whose living standards have been impacted during the
pandemic has been low-income individuals who have used buy now,
pay later credit products to buy online. I very much welcome the
Government’s announcement in the spring of regulation of this
sector. Will the Minister update me on the progress being made in
regulating the sector given that it is become of increasing
importance, as Citizens Advice reported just last week?
I understand that by the end of October there will be reassurance
on that, and I am happy to take that up with my hon. Friend
following this session.
(Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
When the Chancellor increased universal credit eighteen months
ago, he said that he wanted
“to look back…and remember how we thought first of others and
acted with decency.”
Does the Minister consider that taking £20 a week from millions
of families across our country is really an act of decency?
I think that £400 billion of support in response to the covid
pandemic across our public services and individual businesses
shows the scale of measures that the Chancellor has put in place.
On the specific issue of universal credit, we were always clear
that the uplift was going to be temporary. As it was, my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor extended it for a further six months.
But ultimately what divides the two sides of the House is that we
believe the best approach is to have a plan for jobs, to get
people into work, and to upskill them in those jobs. The
Opposition simply do not have a plan at all.
Let us think about what £20 a week really means. Twenty pounds a
week means being able to afford to buy a coat for your children
this winter. It means not having to worry about turning on the
heating when the weather turns cold. Can the Minister offer any
advice to families who work hard and play by the rules about how
they should manage with £100 less each and every month?
As the hon. Lady knows, alongside the universal credit uplift
other measures of support were given. Those are not only my
words; I quote the Resolution Foundation, which has said:
“Since the crisis hit, the support schemes introduced by the
Government have prevented an unprecedented collapse in GDP from
turning into a living standards disaster.”
That is the package of measures put forward by the Government.
That is how we have protected people’s living standards. The key
is to have a plan and to get that plan working; it is, and that
is helping people back into work.
(Christchurch) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend comment on the living standards of those
thousands of public sector employees to whom the Government have
given exit payments in excess of £100,000 a year and continue so
to do?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue, which he and I
have discussed on many occasions. In July I chaired a roundtable
on it across Government, and it is prioritised across
Departments. We have a manifesto commitment that the Chancellor
and I are committed to delivering on. As my hon. Friend knows, we
have a £200 million cost to this that we need to tackle. But at
the same time we also need to be true to the manifesto, which was
not about tackling those on low incomes who had high pay-offs
because of the way their pension benefits were structured and
those proprietary claims. We need to differentiate between that
and the real ill that he is concerned about, which is those on
six-figure salaries who are receiving pay-offs. That is something
we are prioritising.
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure if that related to the original question, so
we are going to have to watch out for that in future.
(Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Scottish hospitality and generosity is world-renowned, but could
the Minister explain to us why he thinks that Scottish taxpayers
should pay for England’s social care crisis?
It is a slightly odd question, because through the broad
shoulders of the United Kingdom, it is Scottish jobs that have
been protected through the furlough, it is Scottish businesses
that have been supported through the self-employment income
support scheme and it is the block grant that has provided
additional funding to the Scottish Government. The oddity is that
they are choosing not to use those uplifts in the Scottish grant
to prioritise the things that they come down to Westminster and
say they care about.
Mr Speaker
Can I just suggest to the Minister that it might be easier if he
speaks through the Chair?
It would be good if the Minister answered the question, as well.
The Prime Minister’s hike in national insurance has been roundly
panned, not least by his own Back Benchers and the Chair of the
Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon
(). People in Scotland are already feeling the pain of a
decade of Tory austerity cuts and the harms caused by Brexit,
with the devastation of the £20 a week cut to universal credit
still to come, none of which they voted for. Why should my
constituents pay for the Prime Minister to break his manifesto
pledge with a new poll tax on the poorest who can least afford
it?
It may be helpful for me to remind the House of the uplift in
funding that the Scottish Government have received as a result of
the ability of the UK Government to act across the UK. Baseline
funding of £28 billion last year with an additional £8.6 billion
of funding—that is £36.6 billion in total—has increased to £40.9
billion this year, so the Scottish Government are getting
additional funding. As a result of covid, they have received an
additional £14.5 billion, but they are choosing not to prioritise
that extra money or to use the additional powers they have on tax
or welfare to target the issues they say they care about.
(South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
At the beginning of this pandemic, like most people I was really
worried that unemployment would rise by millions, and I am
delighted that it has peaked 2 million below what most people
forecast. Unemployment, at 4.7%, is now at historic lows. Does my
right hon. Friend agree that the best way to raise living
standards is to get those without jobs into jobs and, for those
who already have jobs, to give them the training and skills they
need so that they can get higher-paid jobs? That is exactly what
the Government are doing.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is as a result of those
measures that unemployment has now fallen for six months in a row
and that the OBR is forecasting a peak of 5% to 6%, compared with
the previous forecast of 12%. As he rightly says, the peak will
be 2 million fewer. It is not just about those who are being
helped back into work, however; it is also about the programme of
apprenticeships, traineeships, jobs support and the doubling of
work coaches that will then help people in work to get into the
better jobs that they deserve.
Net Zero Emissions and Green Investment
(Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
3. What fiscal steps he is taking to help achieve the
Government’s net zero emissions target.
(Hornsey and
Wood Green) (Lab)
6. What fiscal steps he is taking to help achieve the
Government’s net zero emissions target.
(Ynys Môn)
(Con)
8. What fiscal steps his Department is taking to encourage
investment in green (a) industries, (b) growth and (c) jobs.
(Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
9. What fiscal steps he is taking to help achieve the
Government’s net zero emissions target.
(Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
13. What fiscal steps his Department is taking to encourage
investment in green (a) industries, (b) growth and (c) jobs.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury ()
The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan demonstrates our commitment to
net zero. It sets out £12 billion of new Government investment in
green industries. This will create and support up to 250,000
highly skilled green jobs in the UK. In addition to this £12
billion, our plan will attract up to three times as much private
investment by providing regulatory certainty and robust green
finance frameworks.
The recent Climate Change Committee progress report showed that
the Treasury had not fully met a single one of its
recommendations in the past year. Does the Minister think this is
good enough, and what steps should be taken to rectify that?
I am afraid I do not think that is what the report has said. What
I will say is that we will be releasing many publications this
autumn around net zero, not least the net zero review. This final
report will be published in advance of COP26. The report will
inform sectoral decarbonisation strategies and the net zero
strategy, and work on those will continue to develop at pace
across Whitehall.
The recent cuts to the international aid budget have undermined
the UK’s leadership in advance of COP26, so what urgent steps
will the Treasury take to develop a carbon neutral programme of
international aid going forward?
I will ask my counterparts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Office to answer the hon. Lady’s question
directly—they are responsible for aid. What I will tell her is
that there is a lot of stuff we are doing within our remit on
international climate finance action, not least on the taskforce
on nature-related financial disclosures.
Time and again, I speak with companies that want a freeport on
Anglesey. I want a freeport on Anglesey, and local people want
the jobs and local investment that will come with a freeport, but
the Welsh Government say and do nothing. Will the Minister please
urge the Welsh Government to work with me to deliver this game
changer in my constituency of Ynys Môn?
I thank my hon. Friend for her letters and her continued
campaigning for her constituency. We are working closely with the
Welsh Government and remain committed to establishing at least
one freeport in Wales as soon as possible. I encourage them to
work closely with constituency MPs on that. As in England,
specific locations will be chosen in a fair, open and transparent
allocation process.
The Minister must recognise that climate inaction is not just a
disaster for the planet but has a huge financial cost and
economic consequences. We cannot dodge the critical decisions
that we need to decarbonise the economy any more. How exactly
will the Government hardwire our net zero targets into every
decision in the upcoming spending review?
The Government have used the Green Book to mandate that policies
must be developed and assessed against how well they deliver on
our long-term policy aims, including net zero. We did that at
spending review 2020, where guidance required Departments to
include the greenhouse emissions of bids and their impact on
meeting carbon budgets and net zero, and allocations to
Departments were informed by that information. That is how we
will continue to carry out consideration of climate impacts in
fiscal policy.
I thank the Minister for her response. With more than £10
trillion of assets under management in the UK, there is scope for
more green innovation investment via the venture capital sector.
I therefore welcome the measures she explained and the regulatory
changes being driven by the Treasury, but will she meet me to
discuss a potential office for venture, similar to the new Office
for Investment, which could provide a centre for expertise and
growth in this area?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government
recognise the important role of financial markets in supporting
the UK’s transition to a net zero economy. The British Business
Bank is a Government-owned economic development bank that makes
finance markets for smaller businesses work more effectively, and
its remit includes venture capital. I note her point about a
meeting and believe that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is
happy to meet her on this issue.
(Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is only 55 days until COP26 in Glasgow and households,
consumers and businesses urgently need clarity and certainty
about how the costs and benefits of our transition to net zero
will be shared. Labour’s approach to tackling the climate crisis
would have fairness at its heart, because we know that while some
are planning to build personal heated swimming pools in their
homes, millions of others are struggling with energy bills. The
net zero review is supposed to consider fairness. At the last
Treasury questions, the Chancellor told my hon. Friend the Member
for Leeds West () that the final report would
“of course be published imminently”—[Official Report, 22 June
2021; Vol. 697, c. 750.]
That was 11 weeks ago. Where is it?
As I said, the report will be published in advance of COP26, but
we have published other things that the hon. Member does not seem
to have heard of or read. We have set out ambitious plans about
the net zero target and published the energy White Paper, the
industrial decarbonisation strategy, the transport
decarbonisation plan, which has not happened anywhere else in the
world—we are the first country to do a transport decarbonisation
plan—and a hydrogen strategy. We will publish the heat and
building strategy in due course. The Government have been busy
setting out plans on net zero, and we would appreciate it if
Opposition parties took some time to read them.
(Wycombe) (Con)
The Government’s measures will have important consequences for
taxpayers and energy bills. Will my hon. Friend therefore set out
in detail the cost of net zero and the calculations behind that
cost?
We will put affordability and fairness at the heart of our
reforms to reach net zero. Our latest estimates put the costs of
net zero at under 2% of GDP—broadly similar to when we legislated
for it two years ago—with scope for costs of low-carbon
technologies to fall faster than expected. Most of those
represent increased investment in growth markets of the future.
However, I take my hon. Friend’s point. All I would say is that
he should wait until the net zero review is published.
Dame (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and I may not have the
same views on net zero, but we share a concern about how the
Government will fund it. We will see, for example, a reduction in
petrol vehicles, so what will happen to the tax on them? We have
also seen yet another failure recently with the green homes
grant. What is the fiscal plan for making sure that net zero
achieves its targets while we maintain the Exchequer balances?
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We recognise that this
is an issue under intense speculation. We will publish a strategy
that will set out many of the answers to the questions she is
posing. What we have said is that we will put affordability and
fairness at the heart of our reforms to reach net zero. The fact
is that everyone in this House agreed with us when we set that
target. For example, we have put in place plans to bring in
electric vehicles by 2030. These will require changes not just in
how we spend, but in our tax and regulatory system. The answers
will come in due course.
(Redcar) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, may I
take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s world-leading
comprehensive hydrogen strategy, backed up by £105 million of
public funding to unlock £4 billion of private investment by
2030? Does the Minister agree with me that this is how we will
build back better and create more jobs in places such as
Teesside?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I do agree with him:
building back better and building back greener are at the heart
of this Government’s strategy. I thank him for raising those
points, which will benefit Teesside and the north-east in
general.
(Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
At the weekend, a young activist called Fatima challenged the
Chancellor, asking why the Treasury is blocking action on the
climate crisis. He replied that the Treasury has committed £12
billion of new money to the 10-point plan, but even that is not
true, as he knows, and the President of COP26 has said that
actually only a paltry £4 billion is new money. When will the
Treasury start committing serious money to the green transition,
in the region of the £85 billion that the TUC has said is
necessary to put into green investment so that we go into COP26
as climate leaders, not climate laggards?
I will tell the hon. Lady what the Treasury is doing. We are
issuing £15 billion of green bonds over the next year, and
launching a world-first green savings bond ahead of COP26 to help
finance the Government’s green projects. We set up the UK
Infrastructure Bank to invest in net zero, backed by £12 billion
of capital, which will also help to unlock more than £40 billion
of overall investment in infrastructure. We are committing £11.6
billion in international climate finance over the next five years
to help developing countries tackle climate change. The Budget
also announced three UK-wide competitions that are part of the £1
billion net zero innovation portfolio. We have the towns deal,
which is helping people create new green spaces, build back
greener, create sustainable transport routes and repurpose empty
shops. The fact is that the Treasury is doing everything it can
to support the transition to net zero.
Helping Young People into Work: Covid-19
(Bury North) (Con)
4. What fiscal steps he is taking to help young people into work
as part of the economic recovery from the covid-19 outbreak.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
19. What fiscal steps he is taking to help young people into work
as part of the economic recovery from the covid-19 outbreak.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ()
It is absolutely right that we remain relentlessly focused on
helping young people into work, and our plan for jobs does
exactly that with a range of initiatives. I would just draw
colleagues’ attention to the fantastic youth offer that our
jobcentres are rolling out, providing 13 weeks of intensive
tailored support for those young people who enter universal
credit and creating 140 dedicated youth hubs across the country.
In Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington, the Government’s plan for
jobs is working, saving jobs and getting people back into
employment. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on
youth employment, may I ask my right hon. Friend to update the
House specifically on how schemes such as kickstart are helping
young people with employment and training opportunities
throughout the country?
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does as chair of the
APPG on youth employment, and I thank him and his colleagues for
their advice as we have developed these initiatives. He is right
to highlight kickstart. This is a signature initiative of this
Government, providing Government-funded, high-quality jobs for
young people at risk of long-term unemployment. It has got off to
a fantastic start, with 50,000 kickstarters already having
started and thousands more to come.
Karl MᶜCartney
That initial response is helpful, and of course I commend the
Chancellor and his Treasury colleagues for their financial
support to some businesses over the last 18 months, and I realise
important announcements from the Treasury and the Prime Minister
are imminent. However, in a city such as Lincoln with such a
vibrant hospitality sector, the cumulative impact of successive
lockdowns has hit my constituents hard, especially young people,
and my right hon. Friend knows that they are disproportionately
employed in those businesses that are forced to close. Does the
Chancellor agree that we must do everything possible to keep the
economy open so that instead of paying young people not to work,
we focus on creating well-paid jobs for them?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of
hospitality in employing young people, which is why, together
with our VAT cut for that sector and indeed £16 billion of
business rates reductions, we have helped support all those jobs.
He should also know that employers do not pay employers national
insurance on those young people under the age of 21, nor on most
apprentices up to the age of 25, demonstrating our support to
those employers to keep young people in work.
(Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
When I was a very young MP, a Conservative Prime Minister
introduced a windfall profit tax on the banks. When will this
Administration and this Chancellor of the Exchequer have the
imagination and leadership to introduce a windfall profit tax on
those who have done very well over the last few years, and put it
into green apprenticeships, green training and green skills, and
do it now?
Talking about young people and financial services, I was recently
in Glasgow talking about young people starting exactly what the
hon. Gentleman described: new apprenticeships in the financial
services industry, growing in Glasgow, supported by this
Government who have put more money behind apprenticeships than
any previous Government.
(Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I am hearing from colleges that fewer level 1 and level 2
students are going to college as they are going straight into
work and that is to be commended, but we know that having a level
3 increases people’s earnings potential in the long term and
therefore opportunities to obtain that level 3 must be available
to those young people as they get older. How can they achieve
that, however, when the Chancellor has cut the adult skills
budget by half since 2010?
I point the hon. Lady to the Prime Minister’s speech on skills
last year when he unveiled this Government’s lifetime skills
guarantee, which delivers exactly what she is asking for. Those
10 million adults without a level 3 qualification, who she is
absolutely right to highlight, will, for the first time, be able
to get one, fully funded by this Government. That is a
Conservative Government delivering for people, giving them the
skills and opportunities they need.
(West Suffolk) (Con)
The combination of the furlough scheme, the kickstart scheme and
the youth offer the Chancellor has just discussed shows that his
efforts are leading to the UK having one of the fastest economic
recoveries in the world. Will he commit to working globally to
ensure that the confidence and opportunities this brings are
available globally as they increasingly are in the UK?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I want to thank him
for two things. First, when he was a Minister he created
traineeships, and he will be pleased to know that this Government
are tripling the number of them to give young people the best
possible start in life, finding new skills and opportunities.
Most importantly, this year, because of his success in making
sure this country had the fastest roll-out of a vaccine anywhere
in the world, we are enjoying the fastest opening up and the
fastest economic recovery, and I pay tribute to him for that.
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Government announced the kickstart scheme to much fanfare.
However, at the moment they publish the kickstarter statistics
breakdown by gender and perhaps by race, but why do they not do
so by disability? Will the Chancellor rectify that?
I am always happy to look at what more we can do to improve the
transparency of our statistics. However, with regard to kickstart
in aggregate, I would just say that there have been 50,000 starts
and, when compared with previous versions of similar schemes such
as the future jobs fund under the last Labour Government,
kickstart is delivering more young people into more jobs at a
much faster pace and, importantly, many more of those jobs are in
the private sector, not just the public sector.
New Infrastructure Investment
(Aylesbury) (Con)
7. What fiscal steps he is taking to invest in new
infrastructure.
(Grantham and
Stamford) (Con)
11. What fiscal steps he is taking to incentivise businesses to
invest in new infrastructure and equipment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ()
The Prime Minister is rightly ushering in an infrastructure
revolution because infrastructure drives growth and productivity
and creates jobs. We are doing that with over £100 billion of
investment this year and, thanks to the efforts of the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury, a world-leading UK Infrastructure Bank
created and set up in Leeds.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that all parts of the country can
benefit from investment in infrastructure, and that an excellent
way of achieving that in my constituency, in support of the
substantial housing development there, would be to approve
funding for the Aylesbury link of East West Rail, which would
also help to achieve our target of net zero?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on making sure that
our investment reaches every part of the country, including his
constituency. I am pleased to tell him that £760 million has been
allocated by the Chief Secretary and the Transport Secretary to
deliver East West Rail, and I understand that the Department for
Transport is currently working with the East West Rail Company to
figure out the best possible way to serve Aylesbury. I hope that
my hon. Friend will engage with that process.
The Infrastructure Forum recently published a report that showed
clearly that the super deduction is already having an impact,
accelerating investment by businesses. Will my right hon. Friend
join me in encouraging businesses across Grantham and Stamford to
take up the relief, and does he agree that this is exactly the
kind of investment that will boost jobs and level up our country?
From the Office for Budget Responsibility to the Bank of England,
many people have described the super deduction as doing exactly
what my hon. Friend has said, and that is why we know it is
working. I recently visited BT, for example, which, because of
the super deduction, is now increasing the speed of its roll-out
to millions more houses and creating thousands of new jobs in the
process. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I encourage his
businesses to take up the super deduction, and, indeed, we see
that; a Deloitte survey recently showed that business intentions
to invest in this country are the highest they have been in
years.
(Wirral South) (Lab)
I am afraid that I must tell the Chancellor that his
infrastructure revolution is not very noticeable in cities in the
north of England, which grind to a halt at rush hour. They
desperately need infrastructure investment, particularly in
public transport. Can he tell the House when he last met our city
region Mayors in the north of England, and what his plans are for
fiscal reform that will help them invest in public transport
infrastructure?
My entire team meet the regional Mayors all the time, and of
course we will do so in the run-up to the spending review and the
Budget. I agree with the hon. Lady that intra-city transportation
is important. Unlocking the economic potential of our cities is
important to driving our economic recovery. That is why last
year, in my first Budget, we announced £4.2 billion for
intra-city transport settlements for our largest several cities
outside London so that they enjoy the same long-term funding as
London and can invest in exactly the types of schemes that she
describes.
(Ogmore)
(Lab)
That investment in infrastructure does not get to the south Wales
railway service. DFT Ministers keep announcing increased services
along the main line in south Wales, which includes Pencoed in my
Ogmore constituency, but no increased investment in stations,
level crossings or, indeed, the track. When will the Chancellor
get a grip and start investing in much-needed railway
infrastructure in south Wales?
I am not sure that I entirely recognise the aggregate picture
that the hon. Gentleman presents. Rail investment over the course
of this Parliament is at record levels, under CP5—control period
5—and then CP6, to give the technical terms. I am very happy to
take away the specific schemes. He will understand that those are
a matter for the Welsh Government, but I am happy to facilitate
with the Department for Transport as required.
(Wimbledon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his commitment to
infrastructure, and I particularly welcome the UK Infrastructure
Bank. Will he consider introducing an infrastructure bond so that
long-term pension funds can invest in the future of this country
too?
My hon. Friend is right. He has previously highlighted the
importance of unlocking pension fund capital to invest in
long-term assets such as infrastructure in the UK. He will know
that the Prime Minister and I wrote to pension funds just
recently discussing that, and my hon. Friend the Economic
Secretary is actively working on creating a long-term asset fund,
a new vehicle to unlock exactly the investment that my hon.
Friend the Member for Wimbledon () wants
in exactly the type of infrastructure that this country needs.
End of Universal Credit Uplift
(Ceredigion)
(PC)
12. What recent discussions his Department has had with the (a)
Department for Work and Pensions and (b) Welsh Government on the
impact of the end of the £20 uplift to universal credit on
recipients of that benefit.
(Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
16. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions on the impact on the Exchequer of
ending the £20 uplift to universal credit.
(East Ham) (Lab)
18. What discussions he plans to have with the Secretary of State
for Work and Pensions on the impact on the Exchequer of ending
the £20 uplift to universal credit.
(Pontypridd) (Lab)
21. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions on the impact on the Exchequer of
ending the £20 uplift to universal credit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ()
The Government have always been clear that the £20 increase to
universal credit was a temporary measure, much like furlough and
our other interventions to support this country through the acute
phases of this crisis, but we are not done supporting those who
need our help. This Government will always be on their side, and
that is why we have created our plan for jobs. On the Government
side of the House, we know that the best way to help people is to
give them the skills and the opportunities they need to find
high-quality work, and that is what the plan for jobs is
delivering.
Ending the uplift will mean £286 million less for families in
Wales, and risks plunging 275,000 families into poverty. Figures
from the Bevan Foundation suggest that families in Ceredigion
stand to lose £5.7 million in support. What assessment has the
Chancellor made of the economic impact of ending the £20 a week
uplift for communities in Wales?
The hon. Gentleman talks about those in poverty. The statistics
most recently published show that 200,000 fewer people are living
in absolute poverty in the United Kingdom than when this
Government came into office. With regard to the economic impacts,
I think all colleagues in the House can see the strength in our
labour market: the need for businesses to find people and the
fact that this Government are giving them the skills they need to
get those jobs. That is the right strategy to help people and
that is the economic strategy this Government are pursuing.
While the Chancellor was pondering the colour of the tiles for
his new swimming pool and the site of his new tennis court for
his country mansion this summer, back in the real world 20% of my
constituency of Liverpool West Derby are facing a £20 a week cut
to universal credit and sleepless nights about how they will
survive. Can the Chancellor tell me what assessment the
Government have made of the impact of the cut, and how many of
the 12,530 people in Liverpool West Derby they estimate will be
forced into poverty?
I do not accept that people will be forced into poverty, because
we know, and all the evidence and history tells us, that the best
way to take people out of poverty is to find them high quality
work. We are creating jobs at a rapid rate, with eight months of
continuous growth in employment supported by this Government:
traineeships, sector-based work academies, apprenticeships,
kickstart. You name it, we are delivering it to help those people
in Liverpool to get the skills and the jobs they need to help
support their families.
Forty per cent. of the people who claim universal credit are
already in work. Does the Chancellor understand that they will be
very hard hit by this cut, which is the biggest overnight benefit
cut in our history?
Of course there are people already in work who are on universal
credit, but our plan for jobs helps them too. We increased the
national living wage this year by an inflation-busting
amount—£350 a year to help those families. We talked earlier
about the lifetime skills guarantee, about apprenticeships, about
skills boot camps. Those are all ways the Government are
supporting people; each one of those initiatives, by the way, is
worth thousands of pounds of support. Those people will benefit
from those increased skills and benefit from guaranteed new job
interviews or higher wages at the end of it. That is the right
strategy to help those people in work.
This week, the charity Action for Children highlighted that a
street cleaner with two children in private rented accommodation
is already on average £729 worse off as a result of Conservative
cuts since 2010, but that will soar to over £1,700 as a result of
the Chancellor’s planned cut to universal credit. So I ask the
Chancellor: how exactly are families meant to manage?
Again, what we know is that children growing up in workless
households are five times more likely to be in poverty than those
whose parents work. That is why we are supporting their parents
to get into work and why almost 800,000 fewer children are living
in workless households than when this Government first came into
office. That is the right way to support those families. Of
course, there are other bits of our welfare system that we have
maintained the generosity of, but when it comes to universal
credit or employment, we on this side of the House we will
support their parents into work and, crucially, with their
childcare costs. Mr Speaker, we forget that 85% of childcare
costs for people on universal credit are covered to support
parents into work, which we know will make a difference to those
children.
Topical Questions
(East Ham) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental
responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ()
Over a year ago, the Government launched their plan for jobs, a
comprehensive and ambitious plan to help people back into work to
earn more and to gain the skills they need to succeed in the jobs
of tomorrow. The latest data shows that our GDP and our economy
is recovering quickly, unemployment is falling, jobs are being
created, and, indeed, household incomes have been protected. All
of that tells me that this Government’s plan for jobs is working.
Cutting universal credit by £20 a week will hit working families
very hard. It will leave support for unemployed families at the
lowest real terms level for over 30 years. It will undermine the
recovery and scupper the prospects for levelling up. Does the
Chancellor of the Exchequer understand why every single former
Work and Pensions Secretary since 2010 has opposed his cut?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about economic recovery. We are
forecast to grow faster this year than any other country in the
G7. The recovery is under way. Jobs are being created, people are
getting into work, wages are rising. That is the right strategy
for us to pursue. Our plan is working and we will stick to it.
(Chipping
Barnet) (Con)
T3. Will the Chancellor provide an update on the follow-up to the
discussions we have had on maintained nursery schools, and will
he urgently bring forward a long-term funding settlement for
these brilliant schools?
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue, which I
know is of particular importance to her and her constituency. I
assure her that I have spoken to my team about it and, as part of
the spending review, we will further those discussions with the
Department for Education. I look forward to the Chief Secretary
and she and I talking about this issue again.
(Leeds West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s plans to increase
national insurance will hit workers and businesses hard at the
worst possible time. The British Chambers of Commerce described
it as a “drag anchor” on jobs growth. The Federation of Small
Businesses stated:
“If this hike happens, fewer jobs will be created”.
The TUC said that it is wrong to hit young and low-paid workers
while “leaving the wealthy untouched”. We agree. Will the
Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore explain why he is choosing
a tax on jobs rather than on other forms of income?
I am very pleased to see the Labour party finally focus on the
importance of jobs in this House. We also agree that it is
important to support companies to hire people, which is why there
is no national insurance payable on those employing people under
the age of 21, on most apprentices up to the age of 25 or on
people who are going to be employed in new freeports. And,
because of the steps that Conservative Governments have made to
the employment allowance, 40% of all small businesses pay no
employer’s national insurance at all.
You cannot have it both ways. Cutting national insurance either
benefits jobs or it does not. The Chancellor told voters at the
election:
“Our plans are to cut taxes for the lowest paid through cutting
national insurance”.
That promise is now in flames. The Chancellor is not cutting
national insurance; he is putting it up. It cannot be right that
nurses and builders are set to pay hundreds of pounds more each
year in national insurance, yet those getting their incomes from
a large portfolio of shares, stocks and property will pay not a
penny more. Labour cannot and will not support this Tory
Government’s manifesto-breaking, economically damaging and unfair
tax on jobs. So let me ask the Chancellor again: why will this
Government not fund health and social care in a way that is fair
for families and for businesses?
I will be brief, Mr Speaker. When the hon. Lady was appointed
shadow Chancellor, she went out of her way to say that any
policies that the Labour party put forward on her watch would be
“fully costed and we will explain how they are paid for”. We have
heard about uplifts to welfare. We have heard about more money
for public sector pay. We have heard about opposing every
difficult and responsible decision that this Government have
made. We have not heard once how the Labour party will pay for
anything and we know what happened last time around when it did
that.
(Bosworth) (Con)
T5. The levelling-up fund is about improving a region. In
Bosworth, we are putting forward the Twycross zoo for its
national centre of conservation and education. It will be a
world-leading scientific, education and conservation centre,
driving tourism and the local economy. It is backed by the
borough council, the county council, the local enterprise
partnership and the midlands engine. Would the Chancellor like to
come and visit it and, failing that, would he like to meet me to
discuss how we can make this a symbol of the levelling up of the
nation?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury ()
I do not know about the Chancellor, but I am sure my children
would love to come and visit the zoo. I thank my hon. Friend for
putting forward a bid for the levelling-up fund. As he will know,
bids are currently subject to competitive assessment against
objective criteria, but more generally, I think the whole House
will welcome the fact that zoos are once again fully open to the
public this summer. They provide a wide range of valuable
benefits.
(East
Lothian) (Alba)
T2. Scottish communities, other than those in Shetland, failed to
benefit from the North sea oil and gas bounty landing on their
shores. Now that the North sea’s offshore wind is casting ashore
on East Lothian, will the Treasury ensure that East Lothian will
actually benefit, as opposed to it all simply being
transmission-stationed down south? Or will it go the same way as
Scotland’s oil and gas: down to the Treasury?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury ()
We support the UK oil and gas sector, especially as gas is a
transition fuel to net zero. The sector supports 147,000 jobs
directly in its supply chains. I take the point that the hon.
Gentleman raises; if he would like to write to me with more
detail, I think I will be able to give him more comprehensive
answers.
(Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for all his
determination to create new jobs and new investment and to
upskill the workforce; I believe it is paying dividends, as we
are seeing in the economy. Does he agree that further education
colleges have a vital role in upskilling our workforce, both
young and not so young, to get the best jobs for the future?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the important role
of FE colleges, which is why I was pleased in the last Budget to
invest billions over this Parliament to improve the
infrastructure and the quality of our FE estate. With the Prime
Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, FE colleges will be
instrumental in delivering to all adults the extra qualification
that they need to get better-paid jobs. My right hon. Friend is
absolutely right to focus on that.
(Slough) (Lab)
T4. The Government should lead by example with their spending
power and with the design of public contracts to buy more from
Great Britain, as Labour would, but the UK strategic steel sector
has been neglected by this Conservative Government. Highly
skilled jobs have been lost because a huge proportion of our
steel, including for HS2, is purchased from other nations. Will
the Chancellor explain why his Government do not even have a
non-binding target for the use of our own steel in our national
public infrastructure projects?
The hon. Gentleman raises a very valid point. It is right that we
maximise the opportunities from domestic suppliers; my right hon.
Friend the Business Secretary is focusing on that through the
industrial strategy. It is also linked to targeting the seven
innovation sectors funded through the significant uplift in our
research and development budget.
(Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
We are working hard in Shropshire on a £500 million investment in
modernising A&E services in our local hospital. There is a
funding shortage; I have written to the Chancellor on the issue
and would be very grateful for a response. There is nothing more
important than modernising A&E services for the safety of our
patients and constituents.
I know that that is a very important constituency issue, and my
hon. Friend has championed it frequently. He will know that,
through the long-term plan, there is a £33.9 billion uplift in
core funding, in addition to the other funding through covid and
other measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
I am very happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend; I know
that it is a key constituency issue, and he is right to focus on
it.
(Jarrow) (Lab)
T6. Research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership has revealed
that nearly three quarters of disabled children have regressed in
managing their conditions during the pandemic as vital services
have been delayed. Ahead of the forthcoming spending review, will
the Chancellor consider offering a lifeline to families and
funding dedicated recovery to help disabled children and their
families to catch up on missed services?
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. I would
be very happy to make sure that it is considered as part of the
spending review.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Chancellor referred earlier to the record amounts being
invested in the rail network. May I urge him to ensure that one
of the projects that he supports is an east-west freight corridor
linking the Humber ports to the west coast? That would greatly
maximise the benefits of freeport status; it would also aid the
levelling-up agenda.
I am in no doubt about the importance and the merits of my hon.
Friend’s approach to freeports, not least after an early morning
meeting that he and I had—last week, I think—on that very topic.
As part of the integrated rail plan, we are looking at how we
link that to levelling up across the UK. He is quite right to
highlight the growth and productivity opportunity that freeports
offer.
(Hove)
(Lab)
T7. At the last Budget, the Chancellor gave a £25 billion tax
break to the top 1% of businesses in the form of the super
deduction, but when the school catch-up tsar came to him asking
for £15 billion over a three-year period, he said that he could
not fund“everybody who comes knocking on my door.”Why is it that
when an Amazon-style business comes knocking, the door is wide
open, but when students come knocking, asking for money to get
over the challenges of the past few years, the door is slammed in
their face?
That is absolutely not right. When it comes to the super
deduction, what the Labour party will never understand is that we
want to support businesses to create jobs. That is what the super
deduction does. I just gave the hon. Gentleman the example of BT
creating thousands of new jobs because of the super deduction.
When it comes to education, this Govt have invested £3
billion—£800 per pupil—in helping children to catch up with lost
education, on top of a record increase in schools funding, which
means that per-pupil funding in real terms at the end of this
Parliament will be the highest it has been in over a decade.
(South
Ribble) (Con)
Jobs are the most important way of helping communities to move
forward. Those who have been out of work for 12 months or more
can access the restart scheme, worth nearly £3 billion. Will my
right hon. Friend ensure that part of his plan is helping
everyone to have proper, decent work and decent training to
enable them to get the right job?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight not only the
importance of restart to the long-term unemployed, but how it
sits alongside the kickstart scheme, the tripling of traineeships
and the boot camps for skills. That is part of a plan for jobs
that is working.
(Pontypridd) (Lab)
T9. Will the Chancellor clarify which Department is paying the
£200 million for the Prime Minister’s vanity yacht? What does it
say about this Conservative Government’s warped priorities when
the Chancellor approves that while planning to cut universal
credit for those who need it the most?
This Government are proud of the record investment that we have
made in our armed forces—a record settlement for the next few
years to support our forces and the work that they do around the
world to ensure that we can play our responsible role.
We will end on this note, I think. We have had a good debate
today, but one thing is clear: the difference between us and the
Labour party. We believe in supporting people into work, we
believe in supporting their skills, and, crucially, we believe in
our plan for jobs, because it is working.
(South West Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for his willingness to make extremely
difficult decisions to fix the crisis in waiting lists in the NHS
and the problems in the social care system. The Health and Social
Care Committee heard this morning that we need 4,000 more doctors
to tackle the backlog. Does he agree that this is about reform as
well as money, particularly in respect of the way we plan our
workforce?
My right hon. Friend speaks on these matters with extreme
authority and experience, and I thank him for all his engagement
on them with me and others. He is right to want to make sure that
we have a long-term plan for people in the NHS. He will know that
we are committed to delivering 50,000 more nurses and 50 million
more primary care appointments, but as part of that plan we must
ensure that we get the number of GPs right as well, and I look
forward to working with my right hon. Friend on that.
Dame (Wallasey) (Lab)
Given that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have already
decided to break their manifesto commitment on overseas aid and
are now gearing up to break their solemn manifesto promises on
the tax lock and the pensions triple lock, why should any voter
believe ever again that a Tory manifesto promise is worth the
paper it is written on?
What people know they get from this Conservative Government is a
Government who are on their side, a Government who are delivering
their priorities, whether their priority is 50,000 more nurses,
20,000 more police officers, record investment in every part of
our country, or having a Government who are creating jobs and
prosperity wherever people live. It says in that document that
this is a people’s Government, and that is what we are
delivering.
(Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I know that this Government are listening to the levelling-up
agenda, especially in the north of England, and on that note I
should like to suggest that the best way of getting people back
into work is putting forward new initiatives. Will the Chancellor
meet me shortly to talk about Eden Project North?
I should be very happy to.
