06/09/2016 House of Commons

strengthened to disappoint some remaining colleagues, but demand has

exceeded supply as usual. Urgent questions, Jamie Reid. ??F

ORCEDWHITE to ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on

safety at Sellafield? Ensuring high standards of nuclear safety and

security will always ensuring high standards of nuclear safety and

security will always be a priority. There is no safety risk to side

stuff for the public, it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. Sela

file -- Sellafield contains the legacy of the UK's earliest

programmes, where nuclear waste was dumped with no plan to save

disposal. The Government has been turning that around a priority.

There is no safety risk to side Stav for the public, it would be wrong to

suggest otherwise. Sela file -- Sellafield contains the legacy of

the UK's earliest programmes, where nuclear waste was dumped with no

plan to save disposal. The Government has been turning that

clean Sellafield as safely, quickly and cost effectively as possible. It

is enormously complex. We have a strong regulatory system and all

operators are answerable to an independent the nuclear that

Sellafield is safe. We have a team of about 50 inspectors deployed. The

been satisfied that Sellafield is safe. We have a team of about 50

inspectors deployed. The requires the site to continuously improve.

The OLR says that none of raised in the Panorama programme on O N are

concluded that important progress has beenthe O N are concluded that

important progress has been made. The safety and security of

Sellafield are the most important considerations of everybody working

there. As a former third-generation Sellafield worker I know that the

workforce is acutely aware of its responsibilities towards the entire

community and the country as a whole. I welcome the interest of

journalists, politicians, anybody and everybody, in the work

undertaken at Sellafield. Visibility and accountability should be

welcomed. I would like to see more of it and done in a robust and

responsible way, which is why the work of the National Audit Office

and the Public Accounts Committee is so important. Sellafield is unique,

hosting a unique and complex set of engineering challenges that have

arisen over decades, it represents arguably the most challenging

engineering challenges in the world. It is publicly owned and its work is

undertaken in the national interest using public money. Will the

Minister commit today to long-term predictable budgeting so that

greater benefits can be gained and economies of scale achieved? Public

accountability for this work should not only be welcomed but insisted

upon, so it is vital that it has the resources needed to discharge

responsibility to the nation and my community. It is essential that the

industry regulator has the required resources to regulate efficiently.

Will the Minister commit to providing the regulation that it

says it needs? The regulator told Panorama that it was happy with

progress being made at Sellafield, so will he ask for a response to

allegations made on a point by point basis? Does he agree, as I do, that

the NDA was right to change the operating model at Sellafield and

replace an MP? Does he agree that the workforce should be commended

for the work in processing the clean-up mission to date. Will he

commit his department to working with my community and the Sellafield

workforce to acknowledge that Sellafield is a national asset. The

unique engineering challenges, the high skilled workforce, they both

provide opportunities for my community and the UK to become a

global centre of excellence in the nuclear industry. Meeting the

challenges of Sellafield places is in a unique position to meet the

challenges of the nuclear in is to the world. These skills should be

worth billions to the UK economy. My community should be one of the

fastest-growing economies in the UK. Will the Minister and his department

work to make this a reality? I thank him for his reply and agree

100% about the non-negotiable at the of nuclear safety. There will be no

disagreement around that, I am glad he recognises that progress is being

made at Sellafield all the time, I would like to place on record the

appreciation of this Government for the difficult work of many people

working there. We have the most regulated and safest nuclear in as

to in the world, I don't want to encourage any complacency in that,

but that is a fact. Any nuclear power station in UK must comply with

stringent nuclear safety laws. This is an area in which we lead the

world in our skills and expertise. The regulator is clearly a massively

important part of this landscape of protecting the public, as I said in

my opening statement. The regulator has said very clearly that they are

satisfied that Sellafield has repeated that again to officials

today. I am sure the NDA have themselves put out a very detailed

rebuttal of all the points made in the Panorama documentary, which I

have watched and which were, I think, robustly rebutted in the

programme. And as he knows, none of those points are new. Funding, of

course, is incredibly important. And on a very significant scale, as he

knows, it costs ?2 billion a year to safely clean up Sellafield. He asked

me about whether we agreed with the change in the operating model. Yes,

of course, I think it is generally recognised that that is a much

better way of working. As I said, I am assured that the regulators are

doing their job, progress is being made and Sellafield is safe. I

wholly accept his offer to work closely with him to make sure that

is more widely understood and appreciated.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Only last week I was at Hinkley Point be

seeing the very high standards the nuclear industry practices in terms

of safety. Would he agree that if we are to have an open but sensible

discussion about nuclear safety issues, that is one of the key parts

to keeping the industry safe, and that we have one of the most

effective regulation systems in the world? We have had many decades of

safe, clean power generation, which Sellafield plays a key part in?

I thank you for that positive and constructive intervention. This is a

massively important issue on which no Government can show complacency.

I believe we have set up a proper framework and a robust system of

transparency and accountability. And considerable progress continues to

be made. But the safety record continues to be impressive, which is

why countries all around the world come to see how we do it.

The television reported to Sellafield was profoundly

disturbing, and my honourable friend for Copeland was absolutely right, I

think, to request this urgent notice question, and I thank you, Mr

Speaker, for granting it. He has expressed concerns that the

revelations and the importance of this story to the processing

facility for his constituency, and the House must do so on behalf of

the country. I want to focus on a number of questions on which I

believe the Minister should give the House further information or

reassurance. Preferably both. In terms of minimum staffing levels,

can the Minister confirm that as recently as five days ago a formal

notice was sent to the management raising the union's concern about

critical managing the manning levels and the ability to comply with the

appropriate procedures and practices when minimum staffing levels are not

met? The minister also say if he agreed with Doctor Rex Strong, the

head of nuclear safety in the programme last night, when he said

that not meeting the minimum safety standards or staffing levels did not

mean there was a safety risk. If the Minister could tell us if he agrees

with that statement. In 2013 with the managers of the site produced

their ironically entitled excellence plan cataloguing the safety problems

and critical nature of the infrastructure with respect to LA to

water supply on the site, can the Minister said by the Government did

not insist that further resources in terms of staffing and financial

resources were invested in the site to clean it up at that point, he

will know the total expenditure in 2012-13 was 7300 and ?48 million,

3157 from deck itself and the year following that report the figure had

fallen to 5300 and ?45 million, can he explain why after such a damning

report the resources going into the site decreased. Can he come from the

cost estimates for the clean-up of the site have increased at an annual

estimate from 25.2 - ?47.9 million. The programme of cited problems with

alarms and it was said these were turned off repeatedly without

checking, can he confirm that practice is no longer the case and

finally could he come from he has absolute confidence both in Doctor

Rex Strong as head of nuclear safety at Sellafield and John Clark, chief

executive of the nuclear decommissioning authority. I thank

the honourable gentleman again for a constructive response to the

statement that reflects the cross-party concern to get this

absolutely right and with no equivocation, issues were raised in

the programme about minimum safety levels, I think they were responded

to adequately in the programme. We were assured there's always enough

people underachievement to maintain the site safely -- on duty to

maintain. If it cannot be done safety the work will not get done. I

think the programme and response to it has reassured us on that front.

In terms of the cost of cleaning up Sellafield 's, it costs ?2 million a

year safety clean-up so to maintain the annual spend on clean-up TV the

cosmic nuclear site a year reflects the continued importance the

Government places on cleaning up the civil nuclear legacy and Sellafield.

He asks about the reaction to the number of alarms raised, that is

another issue raised in the programme. Not when you live in the

types of materials people are working with and doesn't necessarily

mean there is a safety issue but we are a student staff were briefed

never to be complacent that always react if they are a serious. That

was a point made in rebuttal is within the programme and in terms of

levels of competency we do have competent and great deal of

confidence in the independent regulator who has made it clear as

far as they are concerned the programme does not raise any new

issues and Sellafield is safe. Would the Minister agree with me that it

is essential that the BBC give the same comments to the regulator's

responds as they have the original claims made? Panorama has

historically served an extremely useful function in this country in

throwing a spotlight on some extremely important issues and

throwing up some challenging questions and this programme was no

exception to that ruling, as we've discussed committed really important

we have proper trust currency and accountability of something quite so

fundamental. I have to say, having watched the programme I thought

there was adequate balance in the sense that the issues were raised

and space was given for what I thought was adequate rebuttal in

terms of there bottles published by the regulator and the confirmation

made to us about the view nothing has changed in terms of their

perception of the Sellafield. But as a matter of record and is up to the

BBC if they continued to extend what is shown in the programme and

reflect that reality. I welcome the opportunity to address this and

congratulate the honourable member on being successful in tears of this

question. It's an important issue and prime concerns across this house

and the safety of staff and communities around Sellafield. The

harsh lessons of incidents in nuclear power plants have be sure

cuts. The Minister has said there will be no complacency from the

Government. With that in mind can ask what assurances he has sought of

the issues identified in the panorama programme particularly

those around staffing levels will not be repeated here at this site.

Secondly the issue of a permanent storage facility for the high-level

toxic legacy we have is one that has caused some consternation. What

progress is being made in identifying a safe and secure deep

geological storage facility? What this really shows is that the

economic costs are at a nuclear high and security and safety concerns are

astronomical, it is a price too high to play, will we scrap -- will be

scrap the nuclear accession in Hinckley and what assurances will be

half that there will be no repercussions towards those of? --

will there be that there will be. On the last point whistle-blowers have

a role to play, they are part of the landscape of accountability and

transparency and watching that programme will have reached their

own view of the motivations of those individuals, that isn't an issue.

The Government at all. In terms of his desire for assurance that issues

will not be repeated from the Grivko thingies with Laugher discussed that

this house -- and weave for the discussed that this has both accents

of accountability to the regulator is sufficiently robust, I've not

heard anything in terms of comments made to suggest the house does not

have confidence in that process. He is quite right, what we are dealing

with is an unsatisfactory legacy of the past when things were not

thought through. Properly and poorly designed. Now in terms of when we

look at new nuclear, our process has changed in terms of the

decommissioning process is negotiated upfront in terms of the

process and he is right, the future has got to be one about finding a

permanent long-term solution and when we are clear about that we will

make announcements at the appropriate time. I welcome my

honourable friend to his new post and given his new role in the

department, when will you visit Sellafield the foreign self -- to

see it for himself? I'm delighted he makes that point because it's a

measure of the importance the Government and new administration

attaches to this issue. That knocked last week Sellafield was visited by

two ministers, including the baroness who reads on energy in the

department and I'm delighted to say the chief secretary of the Treasury,

and that is significant. Can I thank my honourable friend and neighbour,

for bringing this important matter before the house. I have many

constituents who work at Sellafield and they've been in touch with me,

as has the local prospect union because they are concerned about

what the panorama programme set about safe staffing levels because

these staff are committed to the highest standards of safety, they

are an enormous asset to our nuclear industry and they feel undermined by

what is said in this programme. Can the Minister reassure my

constituents and others working at Sellafield that they will be

continued investment to fund the programmes and skills training and

show the staff are truly valid for the work they do? -- valued. I'm

grateful to the honourable lady forgiving me that opportunity to

reaffirm again the Government's appreciation for the extreme the

challenging work and important work that gets done by people on the

site. I think it is deeply impressive that given the complexity

of the site and legacy and this is really difficult stuff that

Sellafield safety record of the last three years is the best it has ever

been. I quite understand why residents and people working the

site might have been upset and disturbed by the programme last

night. I hope the house and my statement corroborating statements

from other members have reassured them that as far as the Government

is concerned and the independent regulator is concerned, it attaches

enormous importance in terms of the resources they commit to monitoring

it, they are very proactive, Sellafield is safe. I appreciate the

Minister has a duty to offer reassurance, but I have to warn him

the content and tone of what we've heard does come dangerously close to

complacency. The people who have been responsible for these historic

errors of judgment and underinvestment are still involved

in industry today and these words will be heard with concern in the

North of Scotland, where we are currently seeing nuclear waste

shipped out from the former Dounreay plant. Will we have the risk

assessment for that operation now scrutinised independently from the

people who are already responsible for making the plans? I take his

warnings seriously about tripping over a pound into complacency, I

said at the start I was determined not to do that, what I'm trying to

do is reflected genuine empathy with people who live close to the site

and work on the site who might have been unsettled by the programme last

night that raised nothing new and I'm keen to stress in the eyes of

the regulator does not change anything in terms of their position

English and the safety of Sellafield so gentlemen will forgive me if I

give some priority to this. Both amount of nuclear waste dump with no

plan, language for decades that anyone properly tackling the

problem, the priority for us is to do what we're doing now, which is to

continue working to turn that around and clean-up Sellafield is safely

and cost effectively and quickly as possible. Given what he says about

transparency and accountability and the paramount importance of safety

and given the Prime Minister's click concerns about security and more

widespread concerns about the economics, can he assures the

Government will come back to this house before making a final decision

on Ingley C? I don't have, and stand the gentleman is taking, I have

nothing to add to the public statements about the process around

reviewing Hinckley decision to look at all aspects of the deal and we

will makes a announcements when we are ready. My constituency of

Southdown is directly across the Irish Sea from Sellafield. I visited

Sellafield on two separate occasions at my constituents last night

contacted me and like me they also watched that programme and would

deeply unsettled by it. Given the catalogue of safety hazards that

were highlighted last night and also those that have been documented

since Sellafield and that Windscale was opened and the history of both

recorded and unrecorded discharges of radioactive waste into the Irish

Sea Will the Minister now commit to working directly with the nuclear

decommissioning authority to ensure that an accelerated programme of

decommissioning is put in place which will protect communities on

both sides of the Irish Sea and ensure the safety of the staff? I

understand the point she's making and that reinforces the point I was

trying to make about the importance of this statement to give some

reassurance across all communities that may be affected and I hope I

have done. As I said, we have confidence and at the end of the day

we monitor their work closely but in terms of value for money and in

terms of pace. -- both in terms. The Minister has a number of times and

spoke about cleaning up Sellafield as a cost effectively as possible

but only when a Public Accounts Committee in the last Parliament

looked closely that the Government moved to remove nuclear management

partnership, the American company that was running Sellafield. Will he

undertake not only to visit but to make sure that the conflict

engineering work on this site, three of the top ten engineering

challenges internationally are on Sellafield, that the difficulty does

not overblown the challenge of benchmarking engineering project in

similar fields so we are getting good value for money for the

taxpayer whilst carrying out the important clean-up?

If I can take this opportunity not only to congratulate the honourable

lady on the extremely effective way in which she chaired that committee,

but the point she is making about the role of this process is

extremely important in terms of reinforcing this framework of

transparency and accountability, this incredibly complex process

which carries a huge bill for the taxpayer. So it is absolutely an

imperative for a government of any colour to drive this process forward

in as responsible and cost-effective way, with value for money being a

prime consideration. But I take on board her suggestions very

seriously. The UK Government plans McIntyre

nuclear policy, from Trident Hinkley, is nothing short of

appalling. If any of these allegations by the BBC are found to

be true, it is another in a long list of reasons, surely, to move

away this nuclear obsession. Does the Minister not consider taking a

leaf out of the book of the Scottish Government and banned the creation

of new nuclear power stations in order to minimise the amount of

waste going to Sellafield? No.

Minister, the nuclear industry is normally a highly regulated sector.

In this case, has the Minister considered how his department can

work with Sellafield to ensure there is a faster turnaround of

implementation of, and that it is addressed as quickly and safely as

possible to ensure the smooth running?

In principle, yes. Order, I am grateful to the Minister

and two colleagues. Presentation of Bill, Mr Chancellor of the

Exchequer? Savings Government Contributions

Bill. Second reading, what day? Tomorrow. Order, we come to the ten

minute rule motion. Mr Will Quince. I beg to move that

leave be given to make a bill to make provision for statutory

entitlement for leave of absence from employment for bereaved

parents, and for connected purposes. I seek leave to introduce a bill to

amend the employment rights act 1996, to give parents who have

suffered the loss of a child a statutory right to two weeks' paid

leave. May I pay credit to the former member for Glasgow South, who

campaigned for this change, and the many honourable and Right Honourable

members across the house who support this. I know that any member of this

house will agree that there can be few more distressing life events

than the loss of a child, but with up to 5000 children dying every

year, many thousands of parents go through this personal tragedy. My

wife and I lost son, who was still born full-term, in October 20 I was

entitled to two weeks off work, protected by statute, and paternity

laws. I had a very understanding employer so my legal rights did not

come into question, but it was comforting to know that I was

entitled by law to two weeks off work, that I could take time to come

to terms with the incredible loss. I know how valuable it was to spend

precious time with my wife coming to terms with what had just happened,

registering the death, making funeral arrangements and preparing

to say goodbye. I cannot to understand what it would feel like

to lose a child at seven months, two, five, ten, 15 years old. The

Greeks must be unbearable and my heart goes out to any parent who has

gone through this terrible life events -- the Greeks must be

unbearable. But why should these parents not have the same protection

in law as those who lose a baby by stillbirth or in the first few weeks

and days of months -- days or months of life? In those circumstances, you

are entitled to maternity or paternity leave. If you lose a child

or older baby, nothing. Surely that is not right. There is no current

statutory time off for compassionate or bereavement grounds, but all

employees can take immediate time for dependents. In effect, that is a

legal right to take unpaid time off to deal with necessary action. There

is no set limit on how many days can be taken as lead and a rather vague

definition of a reasonable amount of time. Further, there is no statutory

right to be paid during this reasonable amount of time. The

reference to taking action distinguishes it from bereavement or

compassionate leave. The type of action contemplated by the provision

is arranging and attending a funeral, registering the death etc,

not to provide a right to leave to cope with the emotional reaction to

the child's death. A right to bereavement leave is not protected

by law in this respect, so the duty to show compassion is left entirely

to the better judgment of the employer. To be clear, most

employers are excellent. They act with compassion and kindness,

offering bereaved staff the time they need to come to terms with

their loss. However, some do not. They behave in a manner falling well

short of what we would expect of them. Of course, we expect employers

to act with sensitivity and flexibility like this, but given the

countless examples of organisations acting without sensitivity and with

that in flexibility, surely it is time for the Government to act? I am

certainly allied to the pressures on businesses at the moment, especially

small businesses, and loathe to introduce any additional regulatory

burden. But given the relatively and, thankfully, small number of

bereaved parents annually, the cost to business would be small. I also

believe there is an argument that this is beneficial to treat staff

with compassion and often pay them fully paid leave. This change would

allow them to recover some of the cost of doing so. How much would

this cost? It is difficult to say, it would largely come down to the

eligibility criteria. However, research conducted by the House of

Commons library suggests that costs could be as little as ?2 million per

year. The reality is that every bereaved parent is different. Some

will want to take time off, others will want to get straight back to

work. In the same way that not everyone takes full maternity or

paternity rights. The issue, however, is that they have choice

and protection by law. Some will cover this from a religious

perspective. When a death occurs in Hinduism, relatives are required to

observe a 13 day mourning period after cremation, and in Judaism

family members are required to stay at home for seven days of mourning

after a death. Statutory bereavement is a common

right across Europe and many countries across the world. Whilst

the exact conditions vary it is a total time off and whether said

leave is paid or unpaid, it is remarkable that you can argue that

Albania or Bosnia and Herzegovina have better worker rights in this

area than others. My proposal would give UK workers some of the best

bereavement rights in the world in terms of length of leave possible.

Whilst other countries like Israel of the leave with full salary, I

believe that longer leave at a lower statutory rate is a good starting

point. Mr Speaker, this is a popular idea. The National bereavement

Alliance and the National Council For Palliative Care 2014 report,

Life After Death, quoted Conrad 's research showing 81% of people

agreed that there should be a legal right to receive paid bereavement

leave. A government E petition calling for bereavement leave for

parents organised by campaigner Lucy Hurd has over 25,000 signatures,

another petition has over 165,000 signatures. The campaign has the

support of many organisations, including Child Bereavement Uk, The

Lullaby Trust, Working Families, Cruse Bereavement, Dying Matters.

The list goes on. I fully appreciate concerns which the Government and

other House members might have over such a bill. It will not be perfect,

there will always be sincere disagreements over the length of

time given and the eligibility criteria, but let us not make the

perfect to the enemy of the good. This bill would be an important

first step, giving thousands of bereaved parents up and down this

country the opportunity to come to terms with their grief without

feeling the pressure of having to return to work, and I commend the

bill to the Haas. The question is that the honourable

member have leave to bring in the bill. As many are of that opinion

say aye? Of the country, no? The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who

will prepare and bring in the bill? Johnny Mercer, Frank Field, Doctor

Sarah Woolston, Stuart Mark McDonald, Cilla Fernandez, where

streeting, James Cartledge, Greg Mulholland, Mike Wood, James

cleverly, Stella Creasy and myself. Parental bereavement leave statutory

entitlement bill. Second reading what day? Friday the 20th of

October. Friday the 28th of October. Thank you. Order, the clerk will now

proceed to read the orders of the day.

Finance Bill as amended on the committee and the public Bill

committee to be further considered. Thank you. We begin with new clause

14, with which it will be convenient to consider the amendments listed on

the selection paper. To move, I call Rebecca Long Bailey.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I speak specifically to amendment 174, new

clause 14, and amendments 175 and 176. Amendment 174 would remove

clause 82 from the Finance Bill, thereby preventing the proposed cuts

to the rate of capital gains tax. The cut itself would reduce the

basic rate of capital gains from 18% to 10% and 28% to 20% on most gains

made by individuals, trustees and personal representatives. Games are

in residential property and carried interest will still be charged at

the higher rate. I don't want to go over any old ground but I must

emphasise the Labour Party's opposition to this reduction in the

rate of CGT, and I thank colleagues from other parties in joining us in

this opposition. At a time when public services are stretched to

breaking point, the NHS is on its knees, our education sector is

overstretched, housing is in a state of complete crisis, people across

the UK are being forced to use food banks, mothers are going hungry

because they can't afford to feed both their children and themselves,

in some cases, and the wider economy is in desperate need of direct

investment in skills, infrastructure and industry, it seems, frankly,

absurd to give a tax break of ?2.7 billion to the richest people in our

society. Let's not forget that this CGT giveaway hails from a Budget

that also plans to take away billions of welfare payments from

the most vulnerable people in need of state support. The Government

seemed quite happy at the time of the Budget for 300,000 disabled

people to lose over ?3000 a year in their personal independence

payments. In stark contrast, our research has found that the CGT

cutting measures up the Finance Bill amounts to a tax giveaway of up to

200,000 people of around ?3000 a year on average. I am pleased to say

that through Labour's opposition and support from some other members from

other parties, the worst has not happened in relation to PIP, but

that does not justify this particular policy decision going

ahead. The Labour Party research shows that just 0.3% of the

population benefit from this policy, with the largest taxpayer is likely

to benefit from London and the south-east. Of the Government does

not accept our evidence, perhaps they will listen to The Resolution

Foundation, which said that CGT cutting was focused on those on

higher incomes, unsurprisingly because, generally, better off

households are the ones making capital gains in the first place.

Indeed I will. I am grateful to her for giving way, she makes a

compelling case. One of the major challenges in the UK is geographic

and individual wealth. What she has said about likely benefits will be,

what did she think this policy will do in trying to tackle that great

challenge? I don't think this policy would

address the issue that the honourable friend razors, quite the

opposite, in fact. As we know, the Prime Minister herself made the

following commitment to the British public on the steps of Downing

Street. She said, the Government I lead will be driven not by the

interests of the privileged few, but by yours. Well, going back on this

policy today would be a good place to start, quite frankly. I will.

I'm very grateful. Would she acknowledge that even after this

cut, CGT rate in this country will still be higher than for the

majority of time and the last Labour Government?

I now at the point and I thank him breaking it could if I could steal

some economic benefits to the wider economy or society in these

proposals or indeed times were good for everyone, then maybe I could

understand the Government's rationale for making such cuts

capital gains catch the there tax but currently these are not driven

by the interest of the nation, they are to be enjoyed only by the

privileged few. As such, I would urge all honourable members to vote

with us to remove these cuts from the bill because the provisions

simply has an fairness at its very core. Speaking of policies for the

privileged few, new close 14 would require the Chancellor to publish a

report giving the Treasury's assessment of the value for money

provided by entrepreneurs relief. It was discussed during the committee

of the house earlier in the year and the Minister said officials have for

sometime been developing a research programme designed to identify

taxpayers motivations for using entrepreneurs relief with the result

of a published at some point in 2017. It would seem opportune for

the Minister to accept the amendment today, tying down to a deadline

seeing as the department has already conducted some of there a search

needed. The governments don't have the best track record of publishing

documents when they say they will Soeda deadline will certainly help

if it is enshrined in legislation. That makes all a deadline. In order

to help with this we've listed some reference points and portable

consider the cost of the relief, the number of individuals who have

benefited from the relief, the average tax reduction seen by an

individual and the number of new business start-ups since

introduction of the relief. Analysis by tax research UK has shown that

3000 people benefited from around ?600,000 each from the entrepreneurs

relief in financial year 2013-14. As a total cost of almost ?2 billion to

the Treasury. Unfortunately the most up-to-date figures are for the

financial year 401159 not available but I suspect some analysis will

show the same results. -- 14-15. In was easy to this amounts to a large

sum of money going into the hands of the very few and it certainly seems

like an inefficient use public funds. Of course, on the side of the

house we are in favour of supporting entrepreneurialism wherever we find

it and we want businesses to flourish in the UK but simply

offering a massive tax break years down the line in the business has

solved the best way to achieve this, should the Government not provide

support entrepreneurs in the earlier stages of developing their

businesses? How could an entrepreneur Noel if year she wants

to sell its business further down the line when it is only starting

off so as to factor in the benefits of this tax relief. Let's see some

evidence today and I hope the Minister will commit to taking my

comments on board. The same principle goes for investors relief,

the subject of amendments 175 and 176. These would introduce a sunset

clause whereby the relief will expire in six years to extend it the

Government would have to introduce secondary legislation but to do so a

review of investors relief must be laid before the house. A similar

amendment was debated at committee of the entire house that would have

brought the relief to a close after five years. The Minister stated the

first set of data would not be available until 2020 to 21 so we

amended it suits the Minister's timetable. I hope she will commit to

this sunset provision. I don't want to repeat the remarks I made earlier

in the debate but I don't think such a provision requiring a review of

the steam is efficacy would be good practice. For all release, not just

this specific relief. Too often tax reliefs have divided the Admiral

aims of incentivising assertion that the behaviour that there is no

analysis published on if this is achieving the desired aim and this

means the limited resources the Government tells us about could be

diverted away from our public services or limits could be made to

our capital spending in relation to reliefs that could not even be

working. I will push amendments 175 and 176 to vote another time but I

hope the Minister will address the merits of such provisions for the

introduction of future tax reliefs in her summing up. The touch on

Government amendments 149 - 151, which would have the effect of

ensuring the upper rate of capital gains cats will apply to carry the

interest gains in short carry interest gains refer to the profits

paid to investment fund managers from the front that are classified

as capital gains rather than income for tax purposes. We support the

Government on these amendments and I'm sure all honourable members are

aware of the 38 degrees campaign on the May fair tax loophole filling up

our inboxes over the weekend. I will briefly reiterate the Labour Party's

position, clause 37 of the bill provides a tapered system of income,

tax taxation on carried interest gains received in respect of

investments held by the fund for less than three years. As the

minister explained, as public Bill committee committee average holding

period is less than 36 months the payment will be subject in contracts

-- to income tax. If it is more than 40 months it will have capital gains

tax. The Labour Party is bought this provision however we would like to

see all carried interest subject in problem delete -- to income taxes we

want to remove the deeper completely thereby ensuring all carried

interest is treated at 100%, taxed as if it were income. Unfortunately

the Government did not support us on this but we are still supported

nonetheless of the steps they've made towards closing the so-called

Mayfair tax loophole. To conclude my remarks I will push an amendment

1742 votes afternoon, the Labour part will not support a limited

benefits so few by so much and we want to vent the undercut the

capital gains tax in this bill from Holyhead. Entrepreneurs relief value

for money. The question is that new clause 14 read a second time. I know

when I mentioned the word investor in this house on the opposite

benches they got a little bit excited, pulses quicken and the

minds may be rolling with images of the two cats and rolling dice in

financial speculation but the reality is different, I spend my own

career investing in businesses and in this country private equity that

businesses now can from 1 million people and employment. The latest

research it showed in the run-up to the last crisis those companies

sales grew at a faster rate than the national average and investment in

Orange the group at a faster rate than national average and exports

also grew at a faster rate. Furthermore I'm sure everyone in

this house would welcome more money for charities, more research funds

are available for scientists, more scholarships for students who need

them. And lower insurance premiums. This is indeed what the private

equity industry delivers. The find is that private equity companies

manage either find that benefit all of us, university endowments,

charitable foundations, pension funds, the float of insurance

companies, when the private equity industry does well it is the

pensioner, the scientific researcher, the scholar from a

disadvantaged background who benefit. This is the Finance bill

from a Government that values its investors and will not demonise and

industry. It is also finance bill from a Government that knows that no

contribution however great should be allowed to skew the scales of social

justice. This causes we are discussing that involve changes to

the carried interest will ensure the reward investment managers receive

for their efforts are taxed not only correctly but fairly. These clauses

will introduce a 14 month holding period to insure the capital gains

tax treatment is reserved for genuinely long-term investments as

it should be. I welcome change that I know is supported by all sides of

this has is to remove the base cost you loophole that allows costs to be

advantageously offset against gains. The bill will consolidate Government

action on disguised fee income introduced in the last finance bill

and insure fund managers are paying income tax where appropriate. All in

all they will raise the order of ?200 million in the next financial

year. Not only are these new arrangements they are for British

taxpayers and society they also ensure that we remain competitive

internationally. Our general treatment of carried interest that

has been subject to much discussion and debate in this house and various

committees is actually in line with the treatment carried out in the

USA, Germany, Australia and France. All of these countries agree with

the notion that carried interest is capital in nature and should be

treated as such. Looking across Europe, rate will sit in the middle

of comparable countries, a little bit above Switzerland and Germany

and below that of France. As well as carried interest on these clauses

reflecting changes to capital gains tax will ensure the UK remains a

pro-enterprise progrowth nation. Small and medium-sized businesses of

the kinds are used to invest in account for over half of

private-sector employment in the UK. They are responsible for three

quarters of all jobs created since the Tasman eight. I know first-hand

that small and medium-sized British enterprises still struggle to

attract enough equity capital to grow. I just for GDP, the size of

the UK's capital market is the seventh of that of the USA. And just

3% of British companies expanded from three employees up to ten, half

the rate of America. When I hear about changes to capital gains tax

rates I think about benefiting all those small businesses helping them

get capital they need to grow and increased investment and employment.

Investors relief and other changes to capital gains tax included in

this bill and in these clauses will build on the success of his EIS,

EIS, funding for lending and the British business bank, all of which

are providing British companies with the capital this is very for growth.

These changes will ensure Britain remains a competitive prospect for

investment without compromising Government revenue and we heard from

the honourable lady opposite about the state of our finances and the

need for revenue, I'm sure sure welcome the fact the OBR projects

capital gains receipts topped ?7 million this season and increased to

9 billion the next year. The ?7 billion. Our capital gains tax rate

rather than being some sweet deal for the rich actually sets in the

middle of the league tables of capital gains tax rates per ten

countries have rates of 0% and our rate of 20 will sit to point above

average. As we contemplate leaving the European Union which it will be

vital for the economy to remain dynamic open and competitive to

track the investment we need and maximise the opportunities afforded

to us. The clauses related to capital gains tax in this bill and

carried interests will insure the UK does exactly that and I will insure

I vote for these clauses later today. I would like to speak about

the amendments the Labour Party put forward both around new clause 14

and amendment one 74. But as has been ably pointed out is about

removing new clause 82 from the bill, which is about increasing rate

band for inheritance tax, I will focus on the entrepreneurs relief

and clause 14 put forward. This makes a key point about Government

transparency and the lack of Government transparency that we have

come UK governments of all colours bringing forward a policy as tax

change and then not bringing back the work that shows it has worked.

They bring for this policy and put in place and say it's wonderful

we've done this but they will not bring back their workings and proof.

The honourable lady was asked yesterday about how many companies

benefited from the guarantee fund English and oil and gas and was

unable to provide easier answer. -- a Didot adds a full by Donald if the

Government has at least that talent and work that out or if she does

have an answer at that point. If they're making grand claims about

what they're doing and how good the policies debris in are they must be

able to show their working and bring that back. I think it's important in

and entrepreneurial is, the last thing we want for an economy where

there are quickfire games and has been one of the criticisms of the

tax treatment in the area of private equity and venture capital that it

has been too many incentives for people to sell out to quickly saw

the corollary to that surely must be if you have an entrepreneurs relief

that is designed for openers to hang onto their businesses in the longer

term, it is difficult to being -- bring back figures within a short

period of time to suggest a particular thing has been a

successful stock that look at the general tenor in an economy such as

the UK and to that extent this is a positive change been proposed but it

is not realistic or fair to expect any Treasury to come back in double

quick time and say this has been a great success.

It does not ask them to come back and back at the time, it asks for a

six-month review period, for a length of time. For the Government

to say they are not doing a review, the Government could quite easily

say, we will do a review, but in 18 months. I personally would think

that would be acceptable. I would like to see how these things are

working. I am not saying that any are particularly bad, necessarily,

but the Government needs to come back and us how these things are

working. The UK tax system is massively complicated, there is tax

relief for all sorts of things, taxes for all sorts of things. I am

not convinced that the majority that we have a working as they were first

intended, particularly those put into place 20 or 25 years ago and

still being used today. I think the whole thing needs a look at, and if

we have to starts doing that by looking at individual ones, I think

that is the sensible place to start. But one is particularly about

government transparency and anything we can do to introduce government

transparency around, particularly, tax reliefs, is great. It would be

very good of the Government could consider doing this, maybe not in

exactly the terms suggested here, but at some point in the future.

I would like to talk about inheritance tax. The Conservative

manifesto said they intend to take the family home out of tax for all

but the richest. I mentioned some of this in the committee sessions of

the bill. I have a real issue with homes close to ?1 million being

considered as normal family homes and not the preserve of the very

richest. In Scotland, the detached average sale price in 2015 was

?238,000, that is the average detached sale price. In Edinburgh,

at the higher end of the market in terms of price, the detached average

sale price was 382,738, this is detached homes, not necessarily

family homes, but specifically the higher end of the market homes. At

the most expensive place in Scotland, you are looking at those

family homes costing around ?382,000. I was looking at what you

can get for ?1 million. In Orkney, probably not the best example, fair

enough, that you can get a six bedroomed home with an attached

three-bedroom lodge and a guest wing for less than ?1 million. Nobody

would say that is a normal family home.

You can get a ten bedroom detached category B listed mansion in Ayr for

less than ?1 million. Also in Ayr, you can get a six bedroom home,

which seems relatively modest in these terms, with a swimming pool,

for under ?1 million. None of these can be classed as normal family

homes. In the mean, they are homes which have been inherited... In our

share. Very few of these people will have just picked up these homes. The

other thing that the Conservative Government said in a manifesto was

you have worked hard for your money, we would like you to keep it. The

vast majority of these will not have been first-generation owned, they

will be being sold, second generation. They are not by any

stretch of the imagination normal family homes. Even in the centre of

Edinburgh, you are talking about managing to get an eight bedroom

detached very large house for ?1 million. Again, that is the most

expensive place in Scotland to buy homes. The problem with the huge

amount of the Conservative manifesto is that it thinks about the

south-east of England as being normal for the rest of the UK, and

it is not normal for the rest of the UK. I know that is where the

majority of the population are based, but there needs to be thought

about this. You would expect me to say that as a Scottish National

party politician supporting independence, but if decisions were

made to home, I think they would be more appropriate to those people in

Scotland. Her constituency is hardly typical,

neither is the Minister's on the other side of the river, as far as

these matters are concerned. But the logic of what she says is moving to

regionalise tax system. I guess you like it in a nationalised basis, but

the nation beginning the other side of Hadrian's Wall. That does she not

recognise that the bar that formula operates to give particular

incentives to the nations of the United Kingdom, rather than just

London and the south-east. I can understand the irritation that there

might be Tambe much thinking about London and the south-east, but ?1

million buys nothing in many of the 73 London constituencies, as manners

-- as well as many in the Home Counties. Short of regionalising

tax, isn't this a sensible step forward is to ensure that those who

have brought by family at home are not forced to sell it when a

relative dies? I think he makes a good point, we might need to be

thinking about having differential policies across the UK and,

possibly, further devilish. That would be fantastic. If he wants to

supporters in that cause, he is welcome to join us at any time --

and, possibly, further devolution. The policy highlights a massive

difference between the south-east of England and the rest of the UK. The

problem we have with Government being so far from people outside

London is the fact that policies are made for those people, and for the

benefit of the majority of the population living around here. That

is really unfortunate for those in the North of England, the people in

Wales. The policies made by the national government don't make sense

for us. I have made my point about million pound houses, I will not

take another intervention, sorry. I just want to briefly mention the

Prime Minister's statement that she will take bold action on tax. We

have a big problem, even with the changes produced in the Finance

Bill, even with the tax changes we discussed yesterday. We have a big

problem with the lack of parity and fairness in tax. We have people

working as nurses, as carers, in all sorts of professions that are paying

20% tax. Although I appreciate the personal allowance has been raised,

that is very much appreciated, they are paying a tax that they are due

on the majority of their income. We still have a situation that there

are too many loopholes. I understand the point made about carried

interest and I think we need to see how that works, going forward. I

would love to see governments working on that one, going forward,

and whether or not it has had the changes that the government intends

it to make. We still have the issue were unearned income is taxed at

differential rates to unearned income. I understand the point made

about Private Equity supporting our economy, supporting some of our

community organisations, for example. However, those people are

not paying the levels of tax that they should, they are not paying the

levels of tax into the government that they should, so the government

is not having the funds to disburse that it should. I think we need to

do something more radical than this tinkering around the edges. We need

to look at making changes that bring about parity, ensuring those people

making megabucks in the City of London are at least paying as much

tax and as high a percentage of tax as nurses and carers.

Markfield. Thank you. I will briefly speak in

favour of amendment 151 in relation to carried interest. I have in my

time as a member of parliaments sometimes been critical of elements

of the tax regime that apply in private equity and venture capital

worlds. It seems to me that the generous tax regime, although it has

been justified to support entrepreneurs, has often been

misused, and only inadvertently, I am not suggesting anything untoward.

But I believe that many in the private equity field have in effect

been financiers rather than risk takers and, as such, surely it would

be more equitable for their rewards to be treated more like income

rather than capital gains. This has been at the heart of the carried

interest debate. I think the Government has been aware of this,

giving some credit to the Government we are perhaps trying to play

catch-up, to a certain extent, in regard to this. Inevitably there has

been controversy about the treatment of private interest of private

equity funds, which is known as a capital gain rather by income. In

2010 the difference between those two was rather greater than today.

Again, I think that was to raising capital gains taxes but, to an

extent, the starkness of the problem is less pronounced than perhaps

during the noughties, the time of the last Labour administration. I

think it is clear that the Treasury is doing the right thing in trying

on the one hand to grant a more favourable regime intended to reward

genuine entrepreneurs, and in principle that must mean that where

carried interest looks like income, it should be treated as such for

taxation purposes. I think this is slowly what we are trying to do in

relation to amendment 100 51. I will give way.

I am grateful. Is it not the case that the OECD has recommended that

all carried interest be treated as income?

It has, but I think there is a distinction between elements. I

think what they are trying to get to the bottom of this. To be brutally

honest, in the longer term I would be much happier to have a regime

whereby we treated capital gains and income identically. Abs

inadvertently, the coalition perhaps began to move a last sort of

direction. -- in that sort of direction. I am sorry that I did not

hear the comments of my honourable friend for Richmond earlier, but

private equity has had a bad rap because of certain high-profile

concerns but, actually, and I think part of that was down to the misuse

of tax to allow huge amounts of debt onto balance sheets, but there also

be huge number of businesses in the UK in each and every one of our

constituencies that benefit from having Private equity investors. A

number of jobs are in place because of private equity investment which

has gone into play, particularly in growing businesses. I think the

Government has broadly got this right. I am sure we will have to go

back and look at this. The one slight point I would make in

relation to the honourable lady for Aberdeen North, we have already had

a joust on inheritance tax, but a more fundamental point is this,

where I think she is right, the more complicated a tax code, the more you

open the door to tax avoidance of all description. We need very

urgently to begin to simplify our tax code. We will be adding yet more

pages to it today. Again, lots of it is on last past that we can all

support for individual regions. -- reasons. We need to get back to a

much simpler tax system going forward. I personally believe that

one of the impacts of leaving the European Union is not to have a race

to the bottom with lower tax, but a much simpler tax system. This should

be a wake-up call for us all in this House, particularly the Treasury, to

have a much simpler tax code that is readily understandable, readily

supported by all of our constituents. But also one but they

do a lot of that inward investment that will come from across the globe

to the UK, you know you have a simple tax code, one that will not

be tinkered with at successive Finance Bills, because it is very

straightforward and can work on that basis. I know that might be wishful

thinking, I think most chancellors have talked about having a simpler

tax code, but I think this is something that we have to look at

very urgently, urgent attention must be placed on getting simplicity. If

we don't do that, I think we will all very much pay the cost.

I will give way. Khedira entirely echo his comments about

simplification. I might seek to catch the Speaker back row's eye to

address on that later. But I would caution him on linking to Brexit,

because almost all of the complications of what he has called

the tax code are due to domestic legislation, nothing to do with the

EU. It might be that Brexit will afford an opportunity to start at

the bottom in various sorts of Government policy and endeavour, but

in this case it is not the EU which will do it.

The honourable gentleman obviously doesn't know me enough, we are on

the pro-European wing of our party. This is not making any blame, the

point I was making was that we will have to look at getting a new set of

trade arrangements with dozens of countries across the globe. Rather

than a headline rushed to lower tax being the incentive for companies,

one of the big things will be a sense that you have a simple,

straightforward tax code for the UK, making is open for business in the

way we Treasury have been the last 300 years. But we traditionally.

This is not the place to make this policy but I hope that we have this

firmly in mind, there is an urgent case now for beginning to have a

more straightforward tax system, even if it is only one that says

this is what we aim to try and achieve and obviously unravelling

tax codes for the past, all of those reliefs will be difficult but I

accept that, not least because we have entrepreneurs of the past and

the future who want to rely upon that to make investment decisions. I

thank you honourable member forgiving way. He is making some

very important points about the vocation and the impact that can

have what on measures going to the use they are intended. As he agree

with the subjugation and clarity about the objectives of relief will

go a long way to making sure those who might be small enterprises and

first-time entrepreneurs will understand and feel they have

greater access to the reliefs available in their name that might

be used by others with greater experience? Before I Kimmich this

house it was a straightforward business that I had in the service

industry, there were not huge numbers of relief available, it

might be we've had 20 years of additional tax codes and even more

complicated and it would be the case for those working in setting up

businesses in the 1990s, I agree, again, getting rid of reliefs and

making it more straightforward is the right way forward. Rather than

having a lot of reliefs that should be recommended to would-be

entrepreneurs, let's try and cut that figure and cut it all down.

I've spoken for long enough. We almost veering off. I'm sure you

would have been first stand-up fight had done so. Number 151 amongst

others isn't enabled will be supported from this is a move in the

right direction but we will have to come back to the issue of carried

interest for the future. I'm grateful for the opportunity to

speak in this debate hope opened by my honourable friend force of Ben

Eccles on new classes and amendments relating to capital gains tax. I was

big particularly the new clause 14, entrepreneurs relief and value for

money, amendment 174, removing the capital gains tax and amendments 175

and 176, the investors relief sunset clause. Labour's main issue of

contention with the Government is with the reduction of capital gains

tax, the reasons for which had been a very well outlined in the debate

so far. But the issue as well that I want to highlight is a serious issue

and matter of a value for money in public finances. And continue main

our call for the Government to look at the way in which we also

scrutinise and review tax reliefs. As we have argued from the time of

the budget from this finance bill is inadequate if we are to rise to the

challenges we face and work towards a strong economy where we can all

feel and believe prosperity is being shared by all. We know it is a

difficult time for public finances that the Government has chosen to

prioritise corporate Corporation tax cut as the capital they gains tax

cut and certainly well I've been working on the Finance Bill

including as the shadow chief secretary and since I've had a

number of conversations with business figures who have been open

that they did not necessarily expect a corporation tax cut and while

other issues that are so important for their business success require

greater attention, issues like investment in skills, housing,

infrastructure, superfast broadband and making sure we are seen the

productivity shifts that this country so desperately needs and so

the port or other sometimes sadistic link between a capital gains tax cut

and strong enterprise and investment culture, it is not very honest, I

would say, in acknowledging it is neither not proven it is neither

necessary nor sufficient for that outcome that we so indeed want to

see. Let us not forget that the last budget the OBR of the Chancellor's

measures into account and still downgraded business investment

forecasts, the latest figures from the own desk sure this is --

business investment was shown to have decreased by 0.8% between the

second quarter of 2015 and 2016. It is a great concern and continues to

be that the Government's approach to its economic strategies has not

taken into account the wider needs of businesses beyond tax cuts. The

context of squeezed public services and lack of investment brings me to

this issue of tax relief, particularly those pertaining to

capital gains fax and the way we understand the needs of businesses.

Tax reliefs are an important part of our tax system and have been needed

for a variety of reasons. Many of them extremely valid. Indeed, after

six years of his Government's failures in so many ways on the

economy and many feeling the extent of the brunt of the cuts, public

services are under that considerable strain and every penny of public

spending should be going on much needed investment in our schools and

hospitals and supporting the most vulnerable. Indeed, when I look at

the figures that came out recently and got worse over the summer over

one third of our children leaving school without the equivalent of

five good cheesiness -- GCSEs, schools in my constituency telling

me how they're giving out money every day to help parents by school

uniforms and shoes. We need to justify every penny spent by the

Exchequer with this in mind, for me, this has to apply to every penny not

collected. Tax reliefs are effectively tax foregone and I

firmly believe we need to apply just as much scrutiny to a relief as we

did the expenditure. That isn't to say I'm opposed tax reliefs. To

incentivise good and positive business behaviour come in fact,

prior from it. But providing behavioural incentives to achieve

economic and social goals as a central part of the role of

Government in using effective judgment that is based on the

interests of fairness and prosperity. Indeed, a Government

that needs to work in strategic partnership with business and

industry in the interests of economy and society will be actively

considering these measures. There is a serious paucity of scrutiny over

whether and to what extent various tax reliefs are achieving these

goals and if those tax reliefs remain value for money for the

taxpayer. HMRC's website, this 405 separate tax leaves in the UK. There

are many more tax regime on this, the office of tax and vocational

identified 1140 separate tax reliefs. Of these 405 tax reliefs,

102 cost over 50 million a year Kamiji under 50 million a year and

there are 219 from which HMRC does not provide cost data. Would she

agree with me that the biggest scandal of all those reliefs is tax

refund pension contributions which costs over ?30 billion a year of

foregone revenue, principally goes to the most well off and the DWP for

years has had no evidence that tax relief produces a change in

behaviour for more saving on pension contributions so we are in effect

handing out a lot of money, mostly but not entirely the a lot of rich

people to something with no evidence that it does so. My honourable

friend makes a very good point in this conundrum, about how you fund

financed incentivised savings for pensions, it used to beat taught

more holistically and he'll highlight the important issue of

where incentives don't reach the majority, they reached a minority

and we need to continue to keep that under review. The Public Accounts

Committee took evidence on the issues and the work of the national

and resolve this taken for by the work of the National office as well.

Their report finds that some reliefs are costing more than ?100 billion

per year, they are designed to retrieve policy objectives that

could be met through more rigorous and auditable spending programmes.

The report states HM Treasury and HMRC do not keep track of those

reliefs intended to influence behaviour, they do not adequately

report to Parliament or the public on if tax reliefs are working as

intended and what they cost and represent is continuing to be good

value for money. Nothing really has changed since then the they report

last year and that is why they're continuing to raise this issue in

this finance bill. For tax reliefs such as capital gains tax relief and

entrepreneurs qualifying business disposals or entrepreneurs relief we

must be questioning their efficacy. There are clear reasons for this

relief and it can be argued is incentivise investment but does it

make a great enough difference to be worth the ?3 million a year -- ?3

billion year to the Exchequer? I don't cling to have the answers but

I believe we need the evidence to prove it does so and the Government

needs to be challenged justifies this -- to justify this and other

reliefs. The death rattle section to the Treasury defended this relief

without evidence to why. He said of course as with all tax rates is

entirely appropriate the Government keep and review the -- to ensure as

well targeted and not open to abuse. My challenges when will they do

this? Labour's new clause 14 will make the Government and as all-time

as worm words -- one words and action. This finance bill and I will

shortly conclude, introduces annual relief, the investors relief, which

extends the low rate of capital gains tax to investors in an

unlimited trading company for at least three years. I support in

principle the idea of relief intended to incensed over -- to

incentivise investment and supporting access to capital for

businesses at an early stage in their business lifestyle was and

support we can identify and provide evidence for as necessary and

helpful to turn those initial ideas into successful job created and

innovators of the future is extremely important for how we want

to see us create more and the cup economy of the future with

opportunities and new technology, that initiatives can bring. It

concerns me this could end up being another tax relief introduced for a

good reason and left the mushroom into a relief that is extremely

expensive and potentially difficult to remove. We need a mechanism to

ensure there will be time to review, whether it is achieving the desired

effect of the cost to those forecast, whether it constitutes a

value for money and it is for this reason that I support the sunset

clause for this relief that after being accused by Labour's Amendment

176 so that after a period of a number of years in which we can have

some evidence in which to base its conclusions, that these questions

will not go unanswered, I call on the house and the new Treasury

ministers to take seriously our scrutiny of tax relief and support

to's amendments to ensure there are proper mechanisms for reviews from

those reliefs in place and ensure they remain targeted and supporting

businesses whilst showing evidence for value for money.

going to start by outlining the Government amendment in this

grouping if I can and try to respond to some of the points brought by the

members in what I think is a thoughtful debate and as a new

Treasury minister I found a number of the speech is good through. As I

look forward to a series of meetings into the art. Let me speak the

autumn. Let me speak to govern amendments 149 - 151. The Finance

Bill provides an incentive for people to invest in companies by

budgeting the main rates of capital gains tax from to -- from 18-10%. We

announced in the budget the 18% rates would continue to apply for

carried interest. That is just about to justify by the current

performance relating to award the an award hybrid to distinguish it from

most of the total capital gain, as alluded to in some contributions. We

learned it is possible to create investment funds structure

generating carried it into interest tax of 2010% under clause 82, this

would clearly be and contrary to the policy this amendment therefore

ensures the continuing 28% and rates apply to all forms of carried

interest. I welcome the support of my honourable friend from Richmond,

for the general approach we are taking to a number of measures in

the bill in particular for his comments on this matter and the

knowledge he brings to the house. I also welcome the support of the

opposition front for these amendments which we feel strike a

sensible balance. If I can turn to Labour amendment

174, I will address that. This would withdraw clause 82 in its entirety.

The lower rate of capital gains tax introduced by clause 82 to make it

more attractive for people to invest in companies, helping companies to

access the capital needed to grow and create jobs. These are part of

this Government is backed efforts to make sure the tax system is

competitive, never more important than when we head into a new future

outside the EU, and that they encourage investment to help drive

the economy forward into the new future.

At 28% after this point, a higher rate of capital gains tax was among

the highest in the developed world, we do not want high tax rates to

deter investment. The minister says these measures will drive

investment, what evidence is there of that?

This point has been repeatedly made. One of the things optimist by

contributions from those critical of this is the way that measures into

right. We are trying to create a climate which encourages investment.

There have been a number of International studies indicating

that lower rates of CGT support investment to firms, promote

high-quality investment in start-ups, that is an important

source of innovation and growth. It is part of a package of trying to

create a climate which makes the country attracted to invest in, and

for domestic investors to investing company growth but, at the same

time, as we and other members in this bill have stressed, say that

tax must be fair and must be paid. He took part in a good debate last

night around some of those measures. A number of external bodies have

expressed support, I think this also goes to his point. The CBI and the

Institute of Economic Affairs Hub welcome these codes as a means of

encouraging entrepreneurship and growth. -- have welcomed these cuts.

These lower routes... Rates promote high-quality investment in

start-ups. The international perspective from my honourable

friend the member for Richmond on this subject. The changes made by

clause 82 are about encouraging that investments, when we want businesses

to expand. Very much part of a general pro-business agenda, but we

have been clear that we want a fair and competitive taxes, but taxes

which must be paid. We address that last night, we found a good degree

of cross-party consensus. The honourable lady speaking to the

opposition mentioned geographical distribution over the CGT Carter.

HMRC publishes national statistics on CGT each year, including a

breakdown of its players by geographical distribution. There is

transparency bar. Up to 130,000 individuals a year are estimated to

pay lower tax as a direct result of these changes to CGT, including

52,000 basic rate taxpayers. A thoughtful speech, typically, for

the honourable member for Felton and Heston, not just about CGT but

general thoughts around tax reliefs and how we review them, and tax

simplification. The point that I felt she, again, perhaps did not

entirely address, was the interaction between these various

measures, that they can't be seen in isolation. And whilst the other

measures she mentioned were hugely important, she mentioned investment

in skills, I did not think it was fair in terms of what the Government

has done in that agenda, resulting in, for example, record

apprenticeship bubbles. There are other issues, too, but this is part

of a general package, not the whole picture. If I could now address

amendments 175 and 176, again tabled by the opposition. Budget 2016

announced the introduction of investors' relief, benefiting

long-term investors in unlisted companies. There is an option of an

additional 12 month extension etc if agreed by both houses.

And also as the Chancellor to lay a review into the operation of the

relief. We feel the proposed amendments are unnecessary as the

Government keeps all tax policy under review, in line with normal

tax policy making practice. Responding to at least for a two of

the points made by the member for Aberdeen North, again, I thought,

did not really give credit to the issue of interaction of different

measures. And the wider point that, given that these are things the

Government is bringing forward to stimulate economic growth, there is

no incentive for the Government not to keep a close eye on them and to

review them at regular interviews. We do that all the time, because we

want them to work and stimulate economic activity, and not in any

way to not work. In this Finance Bill there are a number of

corrections to things which have been turn in the past where we felt

that an improvement could be made to make things work better. We felt

there would be limited merit in conducting a review within six years

as the first data on the uptake of the relief would be available until

2021. We think that these amendments are not needed or useful and we

would invite the opposition to withdraw them.

Let me turn to new clause 14, tabled by members opposite. They propose

that the Chancellor should publish within six months of the passing of

the act a report of the Treasury's assessment of the value for money

provided by entrepreneurs' relief. As I have just said, obviously, the

Government keeps all tax policy under review because we want it to

do its intention, to stimulate economic activity and make it

attractive for people to invest in business. This includes

entrepreneurs' relief, as demonstrated by recent action taken

to ensure that it is effective, well targeted and not open to abuse. We

will continue to act where appropriate. My predecessor has

already informed the house, but it is worth reiterating, HMRC officials

have commissioned an in-depth survey of tax payers' reasons for using

entrepreneurs' relief and its effects on behaviour, and we would

expect the results of this survey, to be published at some point in

2017, to inform future changes to the relief. I think that hopefully

gives members comfort that it is being looked at closely.

General points made in a wider debate about the Budget being tilted

towards the south-east of England is, I think there are a number of

points to be made in rebuttal of that, not least the debate last

night touching on support for the oil and gas sector in Scotland. And

more generally, some interesting points about a simpler tax system. I

think there will be an opportunity in the next part of the debate on

this bill to touch on the office of tax simplification, but it is worth

noting as it came up in this part of the debate that we are putting about

onto a statutory footing on this bill. Around half the 400 or so

recommendations made by the OTS to date have been taken on board, but I

take on board the points made by the honourable friend for Cities of

London and Westminster, I am sure we will return to this topic over the

coming months and years. Thank you to all the members who have spoken

in this debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

beg to withdraw new clause 14 and to formally move amendment 170 four.

Thank you. Is it your wish that new clause 14 be withdrawn? Aye. Well, I

have one person in favour. Thank you. By Reeve, withdrawn. Rebecca

Long baby to move amendment 174 formally. -- Rebecca Long Bailey.

The question is that amendment 174 be made. As many of that opinion,

say aye. The contrary, no. Division! The lobby! -- clear the lobby!

Order, the question is that amendment 174 be made. As many of

that opinion say aye, of the country, no. Tellers for the ayes,

Vicky Foxcroft and Alan Campbell. Tellers for the noes, Steve Bryan

and Andrew Griffiths. Hors d'oeuvre. -- order. The ayes to

the right, 226. The noes to the left, 291. The ayes to the right,

236, the noes to the left, 291. The noes have it. Unlock. With the leave

of the House, I will put the questions of amendments 149-151

together. Minister, to move formally. The question is, the

amendments be made? As many that opinions say ayes, of the contrary

noes. The ayes have it. We come to government new clause nine, which we

will consider the other clauses and amendments listed on the selection

paper. Minister to move new clause nine, Jane Ellison. Madam Deputy

Speaker, I beg to move the clause be read a second time. In this final

debate, we have an array of amendments and clauses to consider,

across a wide range of subjects. I'm sure we will cover a great deal

ground. Let me first outlined the amendments the government has made.

The government new clause nine, to ensure fairness in the tax system,

the clause allows for the exemption from income tax for supplementary

payments funded by the Northern Ireland executive. Amendments

132-134, and government amendment 139, changing the date for

withdrawing relief. Amendment 139 changes the effect that the duty

rate comes into the 4th of November. Government amendment 135, and

146-148, and 138, consider venture capital trusts, lifetime dividends,

making changes to ensure these policies work as intended. Let me

now turn to the new clause and amendments tabled put forward by the

opposition. New clause 15, tabled by the honourable lady opposite and her

colleagues seeks to prevent the use of secondary legislation to alter

the rate of VAT to the installation of energy-saving materials. Since

2001, the UK has applied the 5% reduced rate of VAT to the

installation of 11 types of energy-saving materials. That

reduced rate remains in place and is unchanged. The Court of Justice of

the European Union argue that the UK had interpreted VAT law too broadly.

The government published a consultation on this complex issue.

We are considering their responses. While this clause seeks to prevent

the use of secondary will insulation to alter the rate of VAT in regard

energy-saving materials, the tax love achieve the same effect.

Indeed, it goes further. Will she confirmed: now we are leaving the

EU, we would have no intention of raising this VAT rate, and we will

be scrapping it altogether? As for the Secretary of State for exiting

the EU, said during that lengthy statement, those are matters that

will be looked at. He confirmed he is looking at it, as is the

Treasury. We feel that the tax law goes further, by preventing the use

of secondary legislation, to reduce the scope of rates. This clause

would serve no purpose except to duplicate existing legislation. The

new clause three, on the marriage allowance, this would place a legal

requirement of the government to carry out the review on the marriage

allowance. Although I am sympathetic to, and have discussed with my

honourable friend for Enfield South, and others proposing this clause, I

hope I am able to show such a report is unnecessary and address some of

the concerns. Let me reiterate the government remains consider

committed to showing that the marriage allowance is delivered

successfully. Take-up of this policy was initially lower than expected.

The government is taking action to change this. The HMRC ran a

successful marketing campaign to help raise awareness among eligible

families, and the results were dramatic. Daily applications

increased by a factor of seven between November 2015 and March 20

16. Yesterday HMRC will accept its 1,000,000th marriage application.

They will launch a more ambitious campaign to raise awareness next

month to help maintain the momentum. The government has assessed the

impact of the policy, one quarter of those are households with children,

who will benefit. Most of them will go to the bottom half of the income

distribution. I know he will have more points to make. He will have

more points to make in his contribution. I will look to respond

if I can briefly at the end. He also has another new clause tabled. This

proposes a review of the impact of the rate of duty charge on sparkling

cider, of the strength exceeding 5.5%. The Conservancy has raised, I

know he has raised them before, the government will tackle alcohol as a

cause of crime, in the 2012 alcohol strategy. Some ciders can be

associated with alcohol harms, and has taken action. Since 2010 we have

acquired drinks to contain 35% of apple or pear juice to be defined as

cider. To reduce the cost of the cheap white ciders. From my previous

role as the Public Health Minister, I am aware of the concerns around

alcohol harm. Further changes to alcohol policy would need to target

cheap drinks associated with these harms without penalising responsible

drinkers. The Treasury is willing to consider any evidence about how

these should be taxed. I don't think a legislative requirement is

necessary. Turning to the amendments 180-182, tax simplification. Madam

Deputy Speaker, these tabled by the honourable member for Ilford North

would require appointments and dismissals from the office of tax

certification are taken by the Treasury committee. We will consider

this continued work, the government is on a permanent statutory footing

on this bill, increasing powers. I am grateful to the honourable member

for Chichester and Ilford North in his place, and other members of the

Treasury select committee for their commitment to safeguarding

independent bodies, and increasing transparency. The government's view

is that there is a balance between ensuring robust scrutiny and making

sure it is proportional to the function of the OTS. Having

considered those recommendations, the government would ensure the

Treasury select committee is able to hold meetings with fugitive

free-macro candidates before their appointments are formalised, putting

appointments to a vote in the House. These arrangements put in place

should be a permanent method of appointment for future OTS chairs. I

don't feel we think there is justification for going further and

putting in a power of veto. I hope those arrangements as I have

outlined are welcomed by members of the Treasury select committee. I

would invite them not to press their amendment.

Could I just say I am very grateful to the Minister for what she's just

said on those proposals. And I am very pleased that a compromise has

been able to be worked out which I think is very reasonable all round

and builds on the arrangement that is have been put in place for the

appointment of the cham and chief executive of the financial conduct

authority. -- chairman. Earlier in the year with the former Chancellor.

And I see no reason at all why this can't form the basis for a permanent

arrangement for ensuring that we get the best possible candidate in

supported by parliament into the OTS in future years. I thank the

chairman of the Select Committee very much for that intervention and

for his indication of support for these arrangements and I agree with

him, we have set out a way into the future and I have also written to

him and the Chancellor will be writing to confirm that for the

record. But I thank him for that intervention and it's welcome. New

clause eight, tabled by the Scottish National Party, would require the

Government to review how the changes to dividends tax will affect

directors of micro businesses and that review would be impossible to

deliver, we feel, as information from the self assessment process

will not be available until 2018. Secondly, and more fundamentally,

the dividend tax changes cannot be looked at in isolation, this is a

point I touched on in the last debate. Small company directors will

have benefitted from various recent tax changes made by the Government

and that includes cuts to the corporation tax rate and to business

rates with obviously more to come into effect in spring of 2017 and

the introduction of the employment allowance which I know has made a

considerable difference to businesses in my constituency as I

talked about and other honourable members. So we feel that these

matters must be looked at in the round and for that reason don't feel

that we can accept the new clause. New clause 18, proposes another

review on the impact of section 24 of the summer finance act 2015 and

this is on the availability of affordable housing. Again we feel

the report is unnecessary. The changes made by section 24 are being

implemented in a gradual and proportionate way, only one in five

landlords are expected to pay more tax. We do not expect this to have a

large impact on either house prices or rent levels due to the small

overall proportion of the housing market affected and the Office of

Budget Responsibility it is worth noting have endorsed this

assessment. New clause six, VAT on Scottish police and fire service.

New clause six I gather from my predecessors is something that has

come up a number of times in the past. This asks the Treasury to

conduct a review of the VAT treatment of the Scottish Police

Authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service. I am afraid that I

can't add very much to the responses that members on the Scottish

National Party benches have heard before, with this and previous

finance bills, the Treasury made clear to the Scottish Government

that the changes they considered would result in losing he will jiblt

for VAT refunds. It choose, as legitimately as its right to go

ahead, but there can be no expectation we will review as

consequences were clear beforehand. The UK Government, the Treasury will

be able to initiality all sorts of various ideas in terms of VAT and

one of those ideas may well be devolving VAT to the devolved

administrations in the Scotland bill it's assigned responsibility for

half of receipts but following Brexit if it's a non-membership

option that the UK Government decides on it could go further. Is

that something the Treasury are considering? Well, I think as has

been made clear in the House by a number of ministers, there are a

huge range of issues that we need to consider as we go forward but as I

say we are clear on this matter for now and no doubt he will raise his

point again in the context of the debates about our future outside the

EU. Let me turn to Liberal Democrat new clause 16 and that would require

the Government to publish a review, I don't actually think we have any

members present but anyway - I will speak briefly to the new clause in

that case and move swiftly on to those tabled by parties that are

present. The Government does undertake assessments of all new

measures and that includes considering age as a protective

characteristic and additionally it's worth noting and I am sure something

welcomed across the House the Prime Minister's launched unprecedented

audit to reveal racial disparities and to look at the way in which

public services serve people right across our country and the Treasury

will of course play its part in that audit and no doubt some of these

issues can be looked at as part of that important exercise. Looking at

new clause 19, distribution analysis on different levels of income, that

would require the Government to review the impact of measures in

this bill on different levels of income. At each budget an autumn

statement since 2010 the Treasury has published analysis showing the

impact of Government policy on the share of tax paid and spending

received across the household income distribution. Since 2010 the

Government has published far more distribution analysis than its

predecessor and we are determined as the Prime Minister has made clear on

many occasions since coming to office to make Britain a country

that works for everyone and our policy choices and actions stand as

proof of our commitment. The Government has received

representations on this matter, not just from honourable members

opposite, also from the right honourable member for Chichester on

behalf of his committee and we will consider the appropriate format of

documents to be published at future fiscal events closer to the autumn

statement. Just on that point, she mentioned the autumn statement and

the timeline. Could she let us know when she thinks the autumn statement

is going to be? The Chancellor will make that clear in due course.