06/09/2016

:00:12. > :00:14.strengthened to disappoint some remaining colleagues, but demand has

:00:15. > :00:16.exceeded supply as usual. Urgent questions, Jamie Reid. ??F

:00:17. > :00:29.ORCEDWHITE to ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on

:00:30. > :00:33.safety at Sellafield? Ensuring high standards of nuclear safety and

:00:34. > :00:38.security will always ensuring high standards of nuclear safety and

:00:39. > :00:43.security will always be a priority. There is no safety risk to side

:00:44. > :00:47.stuff for the public, it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. Sela

:00:48. > :00:52.file -- Sellafield contains the legacy of the UK's earliest

:00:53. > :00:55.programmes, where nuclear waste was dumped with no plan to save

:00:56. > :00:59.disposal. The Government has been turning that around a priority.

:01:00. > :01:01.There is no safety risk to side Stav for the public, it would be wrong to

:01:02. > :01:03.suggest otherwise. Sela file -- Sellafield contains the legacy of

:01:04. > :01:05.the UK's earliest programmes, where nuclear waste was dumped with no

:01:06. > :01:13.plan to save disposal. The Government has been turning that

:01:14. > :01:15.clean Sellafield as safely, quickly and cost effectively as possible. It

:01:16. > :01:17.is enormously complex. We have a strong regulatory system and all

:01:18. > :01:20.operators are answerable to an independent the nuclear that

:01:21. > :01:23.Sellafield is safe. We have a team of about 50 inspectors deployed. The

:01:24. > :01:29.been satisfied that Sellafield is safe. We have a team of about 50

:01:30. > :01:33.inspectors deployed. The requires the site to continuously improve.

:01:34. > :01:40.The OLR says that none of raised in the Panorama programme on O N are

:01:41. > :01:44.concluded that important progress has beenthe O N are concluded that

:01:45. > :01:48.important progress has been made. The safety and security of

:01:49. > :01:53.Sellafield are the most important considerations of everybody working

:01:54. > :01:57.there. As a former third-generation Sellafield worker I know that the

:01:58. > :02:00.workforce is acutely aware of its responsibilities towards the entire

:02:01. > :02:05.community and the country as a whole. I welcome the interest of

:02:06. > :02:09.journalists, politicians, anybody and everybody, in the work

:02:10. > :02:12.undertaken at Sellafield. Visibility and accountability should be

:02:13. > :02:17.welcomed. I would like to see more of it and done in a robust and

:02:18. > :02:20.responsible way, which is why the work of the National Audit Office

:02:21. > :02:26.and the Public Accounts Committee is so important. Sellafield is unique,

:02:27. > :02:30.hosting a unique and complex set of engineering challenges that have

:02:31. > :02:33.arisen over decades, it represents arguably the most challenging

:02:34. > :02:40.engineering challenges in the world. It is publicly owned and its work is

:02:41. > :02:43.undertaken in the national interest using public money. Will the

:02:44. > :02:48.Minister commit today to long-term predictable budgeting so that

:02:49. > :02:52.greater benefits can be gained and economies of scale achieved? Public

:02:53. > :02:59.accountability for this work should not only be welcomed but insisted

:03:00. > :03:02.upon, so it is vital that it has the resources needed to discharge

:03:03. > :03:08.responsibility to the nation and my community. It is essential that the

:03:09. > :03:11.industry regulator has the required resources to regulate efficiently.

:03:12. > :03:16.Will the Minister commit to providing the regulation that it

:03:17. > :03:20.says it needs? The regulator told Panorama that it was happy with

:03:21. > :03:24.progress being made at Sellafield, so will he ask for a response to

:03:25. > :03:37.allegations made on a point by point basis? Does he agree, as I do, that

:03:38. > :03:39.the NDA was right to change the operating model at Sellafield and

:03:40. > :03:41.replace an MP? Does he agree that the workforce should be commended

:03:42. > :03:46.for the work in processing the clean-up mission to date. Will he

:03:47. > :03:51.commit his department to working with my community and the Sellafield

:03:52. > :03:54.workforce to acknowledge that Sellafield is a national asset. The

:03:55. > :03:59.unique engineering challenges, the high skilled workforce, they both

:04:00. > :04:03.provide opportunities for my community and the UK to become a

:04:04. > :04:07.global centre of excellence in the nuclear industry. Meeting the

:04:08. > :04:11.challenges of Sellafield places is in a unique position to meet the

:04:12. > :04:17.challenges of the nuclear in is to the world. These skills should be

:04:18. > :04:20.worth billions to the UK economy. My community should be one of the

:04:21. > :04:26.fastest-growing economies in the UK. Will the Minister and his department

:04:27. > :04:33.work to make this a reality? I thank him for his reply and agree

:04:34. > :04:42.100% about the non-negotiable at the of nuclear safety. There will be no

:04:43. > :04:45.disagreement around that, I am glad he recognises that progress is being

:04:46. > :04:50.made at Sellafield all the time, I would like to place on record the

:04:51. > :04:54.appreciation of this Government for the difficult work of many people

:04:55. > :04:59.working there. We have the most regulated and safest nuclear in as

:05:00. > :05:02.to in the world, I don't want to encourage any complacency in that,

:05:03. > :05:10.but that is a fact. Any nuclear power station in UK must comply with

:05:11. > :05:15.stringent nuclear safety laws. This is an area in which we lead the

:05:16. > :05:20.world in our skills and expertise. The regulator is clearly a massively

:05:21. > :05:27.important part of this landscape of protecting the public, as I said in

:05:28. > :05:29.my opening statement. The regulator has said very clearly that they are

:05:30. > :05:37.satisfied that Sellafield has repeated that again to officials

:05:38. > :05:41.today. I am sure the NDA have themselves put out a very detailed

:05:42. > :05:45.rebuttal of all the points made in the Panorama documentary, which I

:05:46. > :05:49.have watched and which were, I think, robustly rebutted in the

:05:50. > :05:56.programme. And as he knows, none of those points are new. Funding, of

:05:57. > :06:00.course, is incredibly important. And on a very significant scale, as he

:06:01. > :06:10.knows, it costs ?2 billion a year to safely clean up Sellafield. He asked

:06:11. > :06:14.me about whether we agreed with the change in the operating model. Yes,

:06:15. > :06:20.of course, I think it is generally recognised that that is a much

:06:21. > :06:25.better way of working. As I said, I am assured that the regulators are

:06:26. > :06:29.doing their job, progress is being made and Sellafield is safe. I

:06:30. > :06:33.wholly accept his offer to work closely with him to make sure that

:06:34. > :06:38.is more widely understood and appreciated.

:06:39. > :06:42.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Only last week I was at Hinkley Point be

:06:43. > :06:48.seeing the very high standards the nuclear industry practices in terms

:06:49. > :06:51.of safety. Would he agree that if we are to have an open but sensible

:06:52. > :06:55.discussion about nuclear safety issues, that is one of the key parts

:06:56. > :06:58.to keeping the industry safe, and that we have one of the most

:06:59. > :07:04.effective regulation systems in the world? We have had many decades of

:07:05. > :07:10.safe, clean power generation, which Sellafield plays a key part in?

:07:11. > :07:13.I thank you for that positive and constructive intervention. This is a

:07:14. > :07:21.massively important issue on which no Government can show complacency.

:07:22. > :07:30.I believe we have set up a proper framework and a robust system of

:07:31. > :07:36.transparency and accountability. And considerable progress continues to

:07:37. > :07:39.be made. But the safety record continues to be impressive, which is

:07:40. > :07:49.why countries all around the world come to see how we do it.

:07:50. > :07:51.The television reported to Sellafield was profoundly

:07:52. > :07:57.disturbing, and my honourable friend for Copeland was absolutely right, I

:07:58. > :08:01.think, to request this urgent notice question, and I thank you, Mr

:08:02. > :08:04.Speaker, for granting it. He has expressed concerns that the

:08:05. > :08:08.revelations and the importance of this story to the processing

:08:09. > :08:12.facility for his constituency, and the House must do so on behalf of

:08:13. > :08:15.the country. I want to focus on a number of questions on which I

:08:16. > :08:17.believe the Minister should give the House further information or

:08:18. > :08:26.reassurance. Preferably both. In terms of minimum staffing levels,

:08:27. > :08:32.can the Minister confirm that as recently as five days ago a formal

:08:33. > :08:37.notice was sent to the management raising the union's concern about

:08:38. > :08:42.critical managing the manning levels and the ability to comply with the

:08:43. > :08:49.appropriate procedures and practices when minimum staffing levels are not

:08:50. > :08:52.met? The minister also say if he agreed with Doctor Rex Strong, the

:08:53. > :08:58.head of nuclear safety in the programme last night, when he said

:08:59. > :09:04.that not meeting the minimum safety standards or staffing levels did not

:09:05. > :09:09.mean there was a safety risk. If the Minister could tell us if he agrees

:09:10. > :09:15.with that statement. In 2013 with the managers of the site produced

:09:16. > :09:20.their ironically entitled excellence plan cataloguing the safety problems

:09:21. > :09:24.and critical nature of the infrastructure with respect to LA to

:09:25. > :09:28.water supply on the site, can the Minister said by the Government did

:09:29. > :09:34.not insist that further resources in terms of staffing and financial

:09:35. > :09:40.resources were invested in the site to clean it up at that point, he

:09:41. > :09:50.will know the total expenditure in 2012-13 was 7300 and ?48 million,

:09:51. > :09:56.3157 from deck itself and the year following that report the figure had

:09:57. > :09:59.fallen to 5300 and ?45 million, can he explain why after such a damning

:10:00. > :10:05.report the resources going into the site decreased. Can he come from the

:10:06. > :10:15.cost estimates for the clean-up of the site have increased at an annual

:10:16. > :10:22.estimate from 25.2 - ?47.9 million. The programme of cited problems with

:10:23. > :10:24.alarms and it was said these were turned off repeatedly without

:10:25. > :10:30.checking, can he confirm that practice is no longer the case and

:10:31. > :10:34.finally could he come from he has absolute confidence both in Doctor

:10:35. > :10:38.Rex Strong as head of nuclear safety at Sellafield and John Clark, chief

:10:39. > :10:44.executive of the nuclear decommissioning authority. I thank

:10:45. > :10:49.the honourable gentleman again for a constructive response to the

:10:50. > :10:56.statement that reflects the cross-party concern to get this

:10:57. > :11:03.absolutely right and with no equivocation, issues were raised in

:11:04. > :11:10.the programme about minimum safety levels, I think they were responded

:11:11. > :11:13.to adequately in the programme. We were assured there's always enough

:11:14. > :11:19.people underachievement to maintain the site safely -- on duty to

:11:20. > :11:25.maintain. If it cannot be done safety the work will not get done. I

:11:26. > :11:38.think the programme and response to it has reassured us on that front.

:11:39. > :11:46.In terms of the cost of cleaning up Sellafield 's, it costs ?2 million a

:11:47. > :11:50.year safety clean-up so to maintain the annual spend on clean-up TV the

:11:51. > :11:54.cosmic nuclear site a year reflects the continued importance the

:11:55. > :12:04.Government places on cleaning up the civil nuclear legacy and Sellafield.

:12:05. > :12:10.He asks about the reaction to the number of alarms raised, that is

:12:11. > :12:15.another issue raised in the programme. Not when you live in the

:12:16. > :12:20.types of materials people are working with and doesn't necessarily

:12:21. > :12:23.mean there is a safety issue but we are a student staff were briefed

:12:24. > :12:30.never to be complacent that always react if they are a serious. That

:12:31. > :12:35.was a point made in rebuttal is within the programme and in terms of

:12:36. > :12:39.levels of competency we do have competent and great deal of

:12:40. > :12:42.confidence in the independent regulator who has made it clear as

:12:43. > :12:52.far as they are concerned the programme does not raise any new

:12:53. > :12:57.issues and Sellafield is safe. Would the Minister agree with me that it

:12:58. > :13:01.is essential that the BBC give the same comments to the regulator's

:13:02. > :13:09.responds as they have the original claims made? Panorama has

:13:10. > :13:12.historically served an extremely useful function in this country in

:13:13. > :13:14.throwing a spotlight on some extremely important issues and

:13:15. > :13:19.throwing up some challenging questions and this programme was no

:13:20. > :13:22.exception to that ruling, as we've discussed committed really important

:13:23. > :13:29.we have proper trust currency and accountability of something quite so

:13:30. > :13:31.fundamental. I have to say, having watched the programme I thought

:13:32. > :13:37.there was adequate balance in the sense that the issues were raised

:13:38. > :13:43.and space was given for what I thought was adequate rebuttal in

:13:44. > :13:47.terms of there bottles published by the regulator and the confirmation

:13:48. > :13:50.made to us about the view nothing has changed in terms of their

:13:51. > :13:55.perception of the Sellafield. But as a matter of record and is up to the

:13:56. > :14:00.BBC if they continued to extend what is shown in the programme and

:14:01. > :14:05.reflect that reality. I welcome the opportunity to address this and

:14:06. > :14:09.congratulate the honourable member on being successful in tears of this

:14:10. > :14:13.question. It's an important issue and prime concerns across this house

:14:14. > :14:17.and the safety of staff and communities around Sellafield. The

:14:18. > :14:26.harsh lessons of incidents in nuclear power plants have be sure

:14:27. > :14:29.cuts. The Minister has said there will be no complacency from the

:14:30. > :14:33.Government. With that in mind can ask what assurances he has sought of

:14:34. > :14:37.the issues identified in the panorama programme particularly

:14:38. > :14:42.those around staffing levels will not be repeated here at this site.

:14:43. > :14:49.Secondly the issue of a permanent storage facility for the high-level

:14:50. > :14:51.toxic legacy we have is one that has caused some consternation. What

:14:52. > :14:56.progress is being made in identifying a safe and secure deep

:14:57. > :15:06.geological storage facility? What this really shows is that the

:15:07. > :15:08.economic costs are at a nuclear high and security and safety concerns are

:15:09. > :15:14.astronomical, it is a price too high to play, will we scrap -- will be

:15:15. > :15:17.scrap the nuclear accession in Hinckley and what assurances will be

:15:18. > :15:23.half that there will be no repercussions towards those of? --

:15:24. > :15:30.will there be that there will be. On the last point whistle-blowers have

:15:31. > :15:33.a role to play, they are part of the landscape of accountability and

:15:34. > :15:37.transparency and watching that programme will have reached their

:15:38. > :15:42.own view of the motivations of those individuals, that isn't an issue.

:15:43. > :15:48.The Government at all. In terms of his desire for assurance that issues

:15:49. > :15:56.will not be repeated from the Grivko thingies with Laugher discussed that

:15:57. > :16:03.this house -- and weave for the discussed that this has both accents

:16:04. > :16:06.of accountability to the regulator is sufficiently robust, I've not

:16:07. > :16:12.heard anything in terms of comments made to suggest the house does not

:16:13. > :16:15.have confidence in that process. He is quite right, what we are dealing

:16:16. > :16:22.with is an unsatisfactory legacy of the past when things were not

:16:23. > :16:27.thought through. Properly and poorly designed. Now in terms of when we

:16:28. > :16:32.look at new nuclear, our process has changed in terms of the

:16:33. > :16:37.decommissioning process is negotiated upfront in terms of the

:16:38. > :16:42.process and he is right, the future has got to be one about finding a

:16:43. > :16:47.permanent long-term solution and when we are clear about that we will

:16:48. > :16:53.make announcements at the appropriate time. I welcome my

:16:54. > :16:58.honourable friend to his new post and given his new role in the

:16:59. > :17:04.department, when will you visit Sellafield the foreign self -- to

:17:05. > :17:08.see it for himself? I'm delighted he makes that point because it's a

:17:09. > :17:14.measure of the importance the Government and new administration

:17:15. > :17:21.attaches to this issue. That knocked last week Sellafield was visited by

:17:22. > :17:25.two ministers, including the baroness who reads on energy in the

:17:26. > :17:31.department and I'm delighted to say the chief secretary of the Treasury,

:17:32. > :17:38.and that is significant. Can I thank my honourable friend and neighbour,

:17:39. > :17:41.for bringing this important matter before the house. I have many

:17:42. > :17:45.constituents who work at Sellafield and they've been in touch with me,

:17:46. > :17:48.as has the local prospect union because they are concerned about

:17:49. > :17:51.what the panorama programme set about safe staffing levels because

:17:52. > :17:56.these staff are committed to the highest standards of safety, they

:17:57. > :18:01.are an enormous asset to our nuclear industry and they feel undermined by

:18:02. > :18:04.what is said in this programme. Can the Minister reassure my

:18:05. > :18:07.constituents and others working at Sellafield that they will be

:18:08. > :18:12.continued investment to fund the programmes and skills training and

:18:13. > :18:18.show the staff are truly valid for the work they do? -- valued. I'm

:18:19. > :18:23.grateful to the honourable lady forgiving me that opportunity to

:18:24. > :18:25.reaffirm again the Government's appreciation for the extreme the

:18:26. > :18:32.challenging work and important work that gets done by people on the

:18:33. > :18:35.site. I think it is deeply impressive that given the complexity

:18:36. > :18:40.of the site and legacy and this is really difficult stuff that

:18:41. > :18:48.Sellafield safety record of the last three years is the best it has ever

:18:49. > :18:50.been. I quite understand why residents and people working the

:18:51. > :18:57.site might have been upset and disturbed by the programme last

:18:58. > :19:00.night. I hope the house and my statement corroborating statements

:19:01. > :19:06.from other members have reassured them that as far as the Government

:19:07. > :19:10.is concerned and the independent regulator is concerned, it attaches

:19:11. > :19:14.enormous importance in terms of the resources they commit to monitoring

:19:15. > :19:22.it, they are very proactive, Sellafield is safe. I appreciate the

:19:23. > :19:27.Minister has a duty to offer reassurance, but I have to warn him

:19:28. > :19:31.the content and tone of what we've heard does come dangerously close to

:19:32. > :19:38.complacency. The people who have been responsible for these historic

:19:39. > :19:40.errors of judgment and underinvestment are still involved

:19:41. > :19:44.in industry today and these words will be heard with concern in the

:19:45. > :19:47.North of Scotland, where we are currently seeing nuclear waste

:19:48. > :19:53.shipped out from the former Dounreay plant. Will we have the risk

:19:54. > :19:58.assessment for that operation now scrutinised independently from the

:19:59. > :20:05.people who are already responsible for making the plans? I take his

:20:06. > :20:08.warnings seriously about tripping over a pound into complacency, I

:20:09. > :20:14.said at the start I was determined not to do that, what I'm trying to

:20:15. > :20:18.do is reflected genuine empathy with people who live close to the site

:20:19. > :20:22.and work on the site who might have been unsettled by the programme last

:20:23. > :20:24.night that raised nothing new and I'm keen to stress in the eyes of

:20:25. > :20:30.the regulator does not change anything in terms of their position

:20:31. > :20:37.English and the safety of Sellafield so gentlemen will forgive me if I

:20:38. > :20:41.give some priority to this. Both amount of nuclear waste dump with no

:20:42. > :20:48.plan, language for decades that anyone properly tackling the

:20:49. > :20:53.problem, the priority for us is to do what we're doing now, which is to

:20:54. > :20:55.continue working to turn that around and clean-up Sellafield is safely

:20:56. > :21:00.and cost effectively and quickly as possible. Given what he says about

:21:01. > :21:05.transparency and accountability and the paramount importance of safety

:21:06. > :21:09.and given the Prime Minister's click concerns about security and more

:21:10. > :21:12.widespread concerns about the economics, can he assures the

:21:13. > :21:21.Government will come back to this house before making a final decision

:21:22. > :21:28.on Ingley C? I don't have, and stand the gentleman is taking, I have

:21:29. > :21:33.nothing to add to the public statements about the process around

:21:34. > :21:36.reviewing Hinckley decision to look at all aspects of the deal and we

:21:37. > :21:43.will makes a announcements when we are ready. My constituency of

:21:44. > :21:49.Southdown is directly across the Irish Sea from Sellafield. I visited

:21:50. > :21:53.Sellafield on two separate occasions at my constituents last night

:21:54. > :21:58.contacted me and like me they also watched that programme and would

:21:59. > :22:03.deeply unsettled by it. Given the catalogue of safety hazards that

:22:04. > :22:07.were highlighted last night and also those that have been documented

:22:08. > :22:12.since Sellafield and that Windscale was opened and the history of both

:22:13. > :22:18.recorded and unrecorded discharges of radioactive waste into the Irish

:22:19. > :22:25.Sea Will the Minister now commit to working directly with the nuclear

:22:26. > :22:28.decommissioning authority to ensure that an accelerated programme of

:22:29. > :22:33.decommissioning is put in place which will protect communities on

:22:34. > :22:39.both sides of the Irish Sea and ensure the safety of the staff? I

:22:40. > :22:42.understand the point she's making and that reinforces the point I was

:22:43. > :22:48.trying to make about the importance of this statement to give some

:22:49. > :22:55.reassurance across all communities that may be affected and I hope I

:22:56. > :22:58.have done. As I said, we have confidence and at the end of the day

:22:59. > :23:06.we monitor their work closely but in terms of value for money and in

:23:07. > :23:09.terms of pace. -- both in terms. The Minister has a number of times and

:23:10. > :23:15.spoke about cleaning up Sellafield as a cost effectively as possible

:23:16. > :23:18.but only when a Public Accounts Committee in the last Parliament

:23:19. > :23:20.looked closely that the Government moved to remove nuclear management

:23:21. > :23:26.partnership, the American company that was running Sellafield. Will he

:23:27. > :23:33.undertake not only to visit but to make sure that the conflict

:23:34. > :23:35.engineering work on this site, three of the top ten engineering

:23:36. > :23:41.challenges internationally are on Sellafield, that the difficulty does

:23:42. > :23:44.not overblown the challenge of benchmarking engineering project in

:23:45. > :23:47.similar fields so we are getting good value for money for the

:23:48. > :23:53.taxpayer whilst carrying out the important clean-up?

:23:54. > :24:00.If I can take this opportunity not only to congratulate the honourable

:24:01. > :24:04.lady on the extremely effective way in which she chaired that committee,

:24:05. > :24:09.but the point she is making about the role of this process is

:24:10. > :24:14.extremely important in terms of reinforcing this framework of

:24:15. > :24:16.transparency and accountability, this incredibly complex process

:24:17. > :24:22.which carries a huge bill for the taxpayer. So it is absolutely an

:24:23. > :24:28.imperative for a government of any colour to drive this process forward

:24:29. > :24:32.in as responsible and cost-effective way, with value for money being a

:24:33. > :24:38.prime consideration. But I take on board her suggestions very

:24:39. > :24:43.seriously. The UK Government plans McIntyre

:24:44. > :24:47.nuclear policy, from Trident Hinkley, is nothing short of

:24:48. > :24:52.appalling. If any of these allegations by the BBC are found to

:24:53. > :24:57.be true, it is another in a long list of reasons, surely, to move

:24:58. > :25:01.away this nuclear obsession. Does the Minister not consider taking a

:25:02. > :25:04.leaf out of the book of the Scottish Government and banned the creation

:25:05. > :25:08.of new nuclear power stations in order to minimise the amount of

:25:09. > :25:15.waste going to Sellafield? No.

:25:16. > :25:21.Minister, the nuclear industry is normally a highly regulated sector.

:25:22. > :25:24.In this case, has the Minister considered how his department can

:25:25. > :25:33.work with Sellafield to ensure there is a faster turnaround of

:25:34. > :25:36.implementation of, and that it is addressed as quickly and safely as

:25:37. > :25:45.possible to ensure the smooth running?

:25:46. > :25:50.In principle, yes. Order, I am grateful to the Minister

:25:51. > :25:56.and two colleagues. Presentation of Bill, Mr Chancellor of the

:25:57. > :26:01.Exchequer? Savings Government Contributions

:26:02. > :26:06.Bill. Second reading, what day? Tomorrow. Order, we come to the ten

:26:07. > :26:11.minute rule motion. Mr Will Quince. I beg to move that

:26:12. > :26:15.leave be given to make a bill to make provision for statutory

:26:16. > :26:18.entitlement for leave of absence from employment for bereaved

:26:19. > :26:23.parents, and for connected purposes. I seek leave to introduce a bill to

:26:24. > :26:28.amend the employment rights act 1996, to give parents who have

:26:29. > :26:38.suffered the loss of a child a statutory right to two weeks' paid

:26:39. > :26:40.leave. May I pay credit to the former member for Glasgow South, who

:26:41. > :26:43.campaigned for this change, and the many honourable and Right Honourable

:26:44. > :26:47.members across the house who support this. I know that any member of this

:26:48. > :26:51.house will agree that there can be few more distressing life events

:26:52. > :26:55.than the loss of a child, but with up to 5000 children dying every

:26:56. > :27:01.year, many thousands of parents go through this personal tragedy. My

:27:02. > :27:09.wife and I lost son, who was still born full-term, in October 20 I was

:27:10. > :27:13.entitled to two weeks off work, protected by statute, and paternity

:27:14. > :27:16.laws. I had a very understanding employer so my legal rights did not

:27:17. > :27:20.come into question, but it was comforting to know that I was

:27:21. > :27:24.entitled by law to two weeks off work, that I could take time to come

:27:25. > :27:28.to terms with the incredible loss. I know how valuable it was to spend

:27:29. > :27:32.precious time with my wife coming to terms with what had just happened,

:27:33. > :27:45.registering the death, making funeral arrangements and preparing

:27:46. > :27:47.to say goodbye. I cannot to understand what it would feel like

:27:48. > :27:50.to lose a child at seven months, two, five, ten, 15 years old. The

:27:51. > :27:52.Greeks must be unbearable and my heart goes out to any parent who has

:27:53. > :27:55.gone through this terrible life events -- the Greeks must be

:27:56. > :28:01.unbearable. But why should these parents not have the same protection

:28:02. > :28:07.in law as those who lose a baby by stillbirth or in the first few weeks

:28:08. > :28:12.and days of months -- days or months of life? In those circumstances, you

:28:13. > :28:17.are entitled to maternity or paternity leave. If you lose a child

:28:18. > :28:22.or older baby, nothing. Surely that is not right. There is no current

:28:23. > :28:26.statutory time off for compassionate or bereavement grounds, but all

:28:27. > :28:31.employees can take immediate time for dependents. In effect, that is a

:28:32. > :28:35.legal right to take unpaid time off to deal with necessary action. There

:28:36. > :28:39.is no set limit on how many days can be taken as lead and a rather vague

:28:40. > :28:45.definition of a reasonable amount of time. Further, there is no statutory

:28:46. > :28:49.right to be paid during this reasonable amount of time. The

:28:50. > :28:53.reference to taking action distinguishes it from bereavement or

:28:54. > :28:57.compassionate leave. The type of action contemplated by the provision

:28:58. > :29:02.is arranging and attending a funeral, registering the death etc,

:29:03. > :29:07.not to provide a right to leave to cope with the emotional reaction to

:29:08. > :29:10.the child's death. A right to bereavement leave is not protected

:29:11. > :29:13.by law in this respect, so the duty to show compassion is left entirely

:29:14. > :29:18.to the better judgment of the employer. To be clear, most

:29:19. > :29:21.employers are excellent. They act with compassion and kindness,

:29:22. > :29:30.offering bereaved staff the time they need to come to terms with

:29:31. > :29:33.their loss. However, some do not. They behave in a manner falling well

:29:34. > :29:35.short of what we would expect of them. Of course, we expect employers

:29:36. > :29:40.to act with sensitivity and flexibility like this, but given the

:29:41. > :29:45.countless examples of organisations acting without sensitivity and with

:29:46. > :29:51.that in flexibility, surely it is time for the Government to act? I am

:29:52. > :29:55.certainly allied to the pressures on businesses at the moment, especially

:29:56. > :29:59.small businesses, and loathe to introduce any additional regulatory

:30:00. > :30:03.burden. But given the relatively and, thankfully, small number of

:30:04. > :30:07.bereaved parents annually, the cost to business would be small. I also

:30:08. > :30:15.believe there is an argument that this is beneficial to treat staff

:30:16. > :30:19.with compassion and often pay them fully paid leave. This change would

:30:20. > :30:24.allow them to recover some of the cost of doing so. How much would

:30:25. > :30:29.this cost? It is difficult to say, it would largely come down to the

:30:30. > :30:33.eligibility criteria. However, research conducted by the House of

:30:34. > :30:37.Commons library suggests that costs could be as little as ?2 million per

:30:38. > :30:41.year. The reality is that every bereaved parent is different. Some

:30:42. > :30:51.will want to take time off, others will want to get straight back to

:30:52. > :30:53.work. In the same way that not everyone takes full maternity or

:30:54. > :30:55.paternity rights. The issue, however, is that they have choice

:30:56. > :31:00.and protection by law. Some will cover this from a religious

:31:01. > :31:04.perspective. When a death occurs in Hinduism, relatives are required to

:31:05. > :31:08.observe a 13 day mourning period after cremation, and in Judaism

:31:09. > :31:11.family members are required to stay at home for seven days of mourning

:31:12. > :31:17.after a death. Statutory bereavement is a common

:31:18. > :31:20.right across Europe and many countries across the world. Whilst

:31:21. > :31:26.the exact conditions vary it is a total time off and whether said

:31:27. > :31:29.leave is paid or unpaid, it is remarkable that you can argue that

:31:30. > :31:34.Albania or Bosnia and Herzegovina have better worker rights in this

:31:35. > :31:38.area than others. My proposal would give UK workers some of the best

:31:39. > :31:41.bereavement rights in the world in terms of length of leave possible.

:31:42. > :31:46.Whilst other countries like Israel of the leave with full salary, I

:31:47. > :31:51.believe that longer leave at a lower statutory rate is a good starting

:31:52. > :31:56.point. Mr Speaker, this is a popular idea. The National bereavement

:31:57. > :32:03.Alliance and the National Council For Palliative Care 2014 report,

:32:04. > :32:14.Life After Death, quoted Conrad 's research showing 81% of people

:32:15. > :32:16.agreed that there should be a legal right to receive paid bereavement

:32:17. > :32:18.leave. A government E petition calling for bereavement leave for

:32:19. > :32:22.parents organised by campaigner Lucy Hurd has over 25,000 signatures,

:32:23. > :32:28.another petition has over 165,000 signatures. The campaign has the

:32:29. > :32:33.support of many organisations, including Child Bereavement Uk, The

:32:34. > :32:37.Lullaby Trust, Working Families, Cruse Bereavement, Dying Matters.

:32:38. > :32:41.The list goes on. I fully appreciate concerns which the Government and

:32:42. > :32:47.other House members might have over such a bill. It will not be perfect,

:32:48. > :32:50.there will always be sincere disagreements over the length of

:32:51. > :33:00.time given and the eligibility criteria, but let us not make the

:33:01. > :33:02.perfect to the enemy of the good. This bill would be an important

:33:03. > :33:05.first step, giving thousands of bereaved parents up and down this

:33:06. > :33:07.country the opportunity to come to terms with their grief without

:33:08. > :33:10.feeling the pressure of having to return to work, and I commend the

:33:11. > :33:13.bill to the Haas. The question is that the honourable

:33:14. > :33:20.member have leave to bring in the bill. As many are of that opinion

:33:21. > :33:26.say aye? Of the country, no? The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who

:33:27. > :33:31.will prepare and bring in the bill? Johnny Mercer, Frank Field, Doctor

:33:32. > :33:38.Sarah Woolston, Stuart Mark McDonald, Cilla Fernandez, where

:33:39. > :33:39.streeting, James Cartledge, Greg Mulholland, Mike Wood, James

:33:40. > :34:07.cleverly, Stella Creasy and myself. Parental bereavement leave statutory

:34:08. > :34:14.entitlement bill. Second reading what day? Friday the 20th of

:34:15. > :34:17.October. Friday the 28th of October. Thank you. Order, the clerk will now

:34:18. > :34:21.proceed to read the orders of the day.

:34:22. > :34:25.Finance Bill as amended on the committee and the public Bill

:34:26. > :34:32.committee to be further considered. Thank you. We begin with new clause

:34:33. > :34:37.14, with which it will be convenient to consider the amendments listed on

:34:38. > :34:42.the selection paper. To move, I call Rebecca Long Bailey.

:34:43. > :34:50.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I speak specifically to amendment 174, new

:34:51. > :34:58.clause 14, and amendments 175 and 176. Amendment 174 would remove

:34:59. > :35:01.clause 82 from the Finance Bill, thereby preventing the proposed cuts

:35:02. > :35:06.to the rate of capital gains tax. The cut itself would reduce the

:35:07. > :35:13.basic rate of capital gains from 18% to 10% and 28% to 20% on most gains

:35:14. > :35:16.made by individuals, trustees and personal representatives. Games are

:35:17. > :35:20.in residential property and carried interest will still be charged at

:35:21. > :35:24.the higher rate. I don't want to go over any old ground but I must

:35:25. > :35:28.emphasise the Labour Party's opposition to this reduction in the

:35:29. > :35:33.rate of CGT, and I thank colleagues from other parties in joining us in

:35:34. > :35:40.this opposition. At a time when public services are stretched to

:35:41. > :35:44.breaking point, the NHS is on its knees, our education sector is

:35:45. > :35:50.overstretched, housing is in a state of complete crisis, people across

:35:51. > :35:53.the UK are being forced to use food banks, mothers are going hungry

:35:54. > :35:59.because they can't afford to feed both their children and themselves,

:36:00. > :36:03.in some cases, and the wider economy is in desperate need of direct

:36:04. > :36:10.investment in skills, infrastructure and industry, it seems, frankly,

:36:11. > :36:15.absurd to give a tax break of ?2.7 billion to the richest people in our

:36:16. > :36:19.society. Let's not forget that this CGT giveaway hails from a Budget

:36:20. > :36:24.that also plans to take away billions of welfare payments from

:36:25. > :36:27.the most vulnerable people in need of state support. The Government

:36:28. > :36:33.seemed quite happy at the time of the Budget for 300,000 disabled

:36:34. > :36:37.people to lose over ?3000 a year in their personal independence

:36:38. > :36:42.payments. In stark contrast, our research has found that the CGT

:36:43. > :36:49.cutting measures up the Finance Bill amounts to a tax giveaway of up to

:36:50. > :36:54.200,000 people of around ?3000 a year on average. I am pleased to say

:36:55. > :37:00.that through Labour's opposition and support from some other members from

:37:01. > :37:05.other parties, the worst has not happened in relation to PIP, but

:37:06. > :37:07.that does not justify this particular policy decision going

:37:08. > :37:14.ahead. The Labour Party research shows that just 0.3% of the

:37:15. > :37:17.population benefit from this policy, with the largest taxpayer is likely

:37:18. > :37:21.to benefit from London and the south-east. Of the Government does

:37:22. > :37:26.not accept our evidence, perhaps they will listen to The Resolution

:37:27. > :37:31.Foundation, which said that CGT cutting was focused on those on

:37:32. > :37:37.higher incomes, unsurprisingly because, generally, better off

:37:38. > :37:40.households are the ones making capital gains in the first place.

:37:41. > :37:45.Indeed I will. I am grateful to her for giving way, she makes a

:37:46. > :37:48.compelling case. One of the major challenges in the UK is geographic

:37:49. > :37:53.and individual wealth. What she has said about likely benefits will be,

:37:54. > :37:59.what did she think this policy will do in trying to tackle that great

:38:00. > :38:03.challenge? I don't think this policy would

:38:04. > :38:08.address the issue that the honourable friend razors, quite the

:38:09. > :38:11.opposite, in fact. As we know, the Prime Minister herself made the

:38:12. > :38:15.following commitment to the British public on the steps of Downing

:38:16. > :38:20.Street. She said, the Government I lead will be driven not by the

:38:21. > :38:24.interests of the privileged few, but by yours. Well, going back on this

:38:25. > :38:32.policy today would be a good place to start, quite frankly. I will.

:38:33. > :38:36.I'm very grateful. Would she acknowledge that even after this

:38:37. > :38:39.cut, CGT rate in this country will still be higher than for the

:38:40. > :38:44.majority of time and the last Labour Government?

:38:45. > :38:50.I now at the point and I thank him breaking it could if I could steal

:38:51. > :38:55.some economic benefits to the wider economy or society in these

:38:56. > :38:58.proposals or indeed times were good for everyone, then maybe I could

:38:59. > :39:04.understand the Government's rationale for making such cuts

:39:05. > :39:07.capital gains catch the there tax but currently these are not driven

:39:08. > :39:12.by the interest of the nation, they are to be enjoyed only by the

:39:13. > :39:16.privileged few. As such, I would urge all honourable members to vote

:39:17. > :39:23.with us to remove these cuts from the bill because the provisions

:39:24. > :39:27.simply has an fairness at its very core. Speaking of policies for the

:39:28. > :39:30.privileged few, new close 14 would require the Chancellor to publish a

:39:31. > :39:34.report giving the Treasury's assessment of the value for money

:39:35. > :39:40.provided by entrepreneurs relief. It was discussed during the committee

:39:41. > :39:43.of the house earlier in the year and the Minister said officials have for

:39:44. > :39:48.sometime been developing a research programme designed to identify

:39:49. > :39:52.taxpayers motivations for using entrepreneurs relief with the result

:39:53. > :39:59.of a published at some point in 2017. It would seem opportune for

:40:00. > :40:03.the Minister to accept the amendment today, tying down to a deadline

:40:04. > :40:07.seeing as the department has already conducted some of there a search

:40:08. > :40:10.needed. The governments don't have the best track record of publishing

:40:11. > :40:14.documents when they say they will Soeda deadline will certainly help

:40:15. > :40:18.if it is enshrined in legislation. That makes all a deadline. In order

:40:19. > :40:23.to help with this we've listed some reference points and portable

:40:24. > :40:27.consider the cost of the relief, the number of individuals who have

:40:28. > :40:30.benefited from the relief, the average tax reduction seen by an

:40:31. > :40:35.individual and the number of new business start-ups since

:40:36. > :40:42.introduction of the relief. Analysis by tax research UK has shown that

:40:43. > :40:49.3000 people benefited from around ?600,000 each from the entrepreneurs

:40:50. > :40:53.relief in financial year 2013-14. As a total cost of almost ?2 billion to

:40:54. > :41:00.the Treasury. Unfortunately the most up-to-date figures are for the

:41:01. > :41:05.financial year 401159 not available but I suspect some analysis will

:41:06. > :41:10.show the same results. -- 14-15. In was easy to this amounts to a large

:41:11. > :41:15.sum of money going into the hands of the very few and it certainly seems

:41:16. > :41:20.like an inefficient use public funds. Of course, on the side of the

:41:21. > :41:23.house we are in favour of supporting entrepreneurialism wherever we find

:41:24. > :41:28.it and we want businesses to flourish in the UK but simply

:41:29. > :41:32.offering a massive tax break years down the line in the business has

:41:33. > :41:36.solved the best way to achieve this, should the Government not provide

:41:37. > :41:39.support entrepreneurs in the earlier stages of developing their

:41:40. > :41:43.businesses? How could an entrepreneur Noel if year she wants

:41:44. > :41:47.to sell its business further down the line when it is only starting

:41:48. > :41:52.off so as to factor in the benefits of this tax relief. Let's see some

:41:53. > :41:57.evidence today and I hope the Minister will commit to taking my

:41:58. > :42:01.comments on board. The same principle goes for investors relief,

:42:02. > :42:07.the subject of amendments 175 and 176. These would introduce a sunset

:42:08. > :42:13.clause whereby the relief will expire in six years to extend it the

:42:14. > :42:17.Government would have to introduce secondary legislation but to do so a

:42:18. > :42:21.review of investors relief must be laid before the house. A similar

:42:22. > :42:26.amendment was debated at committee of the entire house that would have

:42:27. > :42:30.brought the relief to a close after five years. The Minister stated the

:42:31. > :42:36.first set of data would not be available until 2020 to 21 so we

:42:37. > :42:41.amended it suits the Minister's timetable. I hope she will commit to

:42:42. > :42:45.this sunset provision. I don't want to repeat the remarks I made earlier

:42:46. > :42:49.in the debate but I don't think such a provision requiring a review of

:42:50. > :42:57.the steam is efficacy would be good practice. For all release, not just

:42:58. > :42:59.this specific relief. Too often tax reliefs have divided the Admiral

:43:00. > :43:04.aims of incentivising assertion that the behaviour that there is no

:43:05. > :43:09.analysis published on if this is achieving the desired aim and this

:43:10. > :43:14.means the limited resources the Government tells us about could be

:43:15. > :43:18.diverted away from our public services or limits could be made to

:43:19. > :43:26.our capital spending in relation to reliefs that could not even be

:43:27. > :43:29.working. I will push amendments 175 and 176 to vote another time but I

:43:30. > :43:33.hope the Minister will address the merits of such provisions for the

:43:34. > :43:38.introduction of future tax reliefs in her summing up. The touch on

:43:39. > :43:42.Government amendments 149 - 151, which would have the effect of

:43:43. > :43:48.ensuring the upper rate of capital gains cats will apply to carry the

:43:49. > :43:52.interest gains in short carry interest gains refer to the profits

:43:53. > :43:56.paid to investment fund managers from the front that are classified

:43:57. > :44:00.as capital gains rather than income for tax purposes. We support the

:44:01. > :44:05.Government on these amendments and I'm sure all honourable members are

:44:06. > :44:10.aware of the 38 degrees campaign on the May fair tax loophole filling up

:44:11. > :44:14.our inboxes over the weekend. I will briefly reiterate the Labour Party's

:44:15. > :44:19.position, clause 37 of the bill provides a tapered system of income,

:44:20. > :44:23.tax taxation on carried interest gains received in respect of

:44:24. > :44:28.investments held by the fund for less than three years. As the

:44:29. > :44:32.minister explained, as public Bill committee committee average holding

:44:33. > :44:38.period is less than 36 months the payment will be subject in contracts

:44:39. > :44:42.-- to income tax. If it is more than 40 months it will have capital gains

:44:43. > :44:49.tax. The Labour Party is bought this provision however we would like to

:44:50. > :44:54.see all carried interest subject in problem delete -- to income taxes we

:44:55. > :44:57.want to remove the deeper completely thereby ensuring all carried

:44:58. > :45:03.interest is treated at 100%, taxed as if it were income. Unfortunately

:45:04. > :45:07.the Government did not support us on this but we are still supported

:45:08. > :45:14.nonetheless of the steps they've made towards closing the so-called

:45:15. > :45:22.Mayfair tax loophole. To conclude my remarks I will push an amendment

:45:23. > :45:29.1742 votes afternoon, the Labour part will not support a limited

:45:30. > :45:32.benefits so few by so much and we want to vent the undercut the

:45:33. > :45:41.capital gains tax in this bill from Holyhead. Entrepreneurs relief value

:45:42. > :45:46.for money. The question is that new clause 14 read a second time. I know

:45:47. > :45:53.when I mentioned the word investor in this house on the opposite

:45:54. > :45:56.benches they got a little bit excited, pulses quicken and the

:45:57. > :46:01.minds may be rolling with images of the two cats and rolling dice in

:46:02. > :46:04.financial speculation but the reality is different, I spend my own

:46:05. > :46:10.career investing in businesses and in this country private equity that

:46:11. > :46:13.businesses now can from 1 million people and employment. The latest

:46:14. > :46:17.research it showed in the run-up to the last crisis those companies

:46:18. > :46:21.sales grew at a faster rate than the national average and investment in

:46:22. > :46:26.Orange the group at a faster rate than national average and exports

:46:27. > :46:30.also grew at a faster rate. Furthermore I'm sure everyone in

:46:31. > :46:36.this house would welcome more money for charities, more research funds

:46:37. > :46:41.are available for scientists, more scholarships for students who need

:46:42. > :46:45.them. And lower insurance premiums. This is indeed what the private

:46:46. > :46:50.equity industry delivers. The find is that private equity companies

:46:51. > :46:53.manage either find that benefit all of us, university endowments,

:46:54. > :46:57.charitable foundations, pension funds, the float of insurance

:46:58. > :47:02.companies, when the private equity industry does well it is the

:47:03. > :47:03.pensioner, the scientific researcher, the scholar from a

:47:04. > :47:10.disadvantaged background who benefit. This is the Finance bill

:47:11. > :47:15.from a Government that values its investors and will not demonise and

:47:16. > :47:19.industry. It is also finance bill from a Government that knows that no

:47:20. > :47:24.contribution however great should be allowed to skew the scales of social

:47:25. > :47:28.justice. This causes we are discussing that involve changes to

:47:29. > :47:32.the carried interest will ensure the reward investment managers receive

:47:33. > :47:37.for their efforts are taxed not only correctly but fairly. These clauses

:47:38. > :47:40.will introduce a 14 month holding period to insure the capital gains

:47:41. > :47:45.tax treatment is reserved for genuinely long-term investments as

:47:46. > :47:50.it should be. I welcome change that I know is supported by all sides of

:47:51. > :47:55.this has is to remove the base cost you loophole that allows costs to be

:47:56. > :47:59.advantageously offset against gains. The bill will consolidate Government

:48:00. > :48:04.action on disguised fee income introduced in the last finance bill

:48:05. > :48:09.and insure fund managers are paying income tax where appropriate. All in

:48:10. > :48:13.all they will raise the order of ?200 million in the next financial

:48:14. > :48:17.year. Not only are these new arrangements they are for British

:48:18. > :48:22.taxpayers and society they also ensure that we remain competitive

:48:23. > :48:24.internationally. Our general treatment of carried interest that

:48:25. > :48:29.has been subject to much discussion and debate in this house and various

:48:30. > :48:34.committees is actually in line with the treatment carried out in the

:48:35. > :48:41.USA, Germany, Australia and France. All of these countries agree with

:48:42. > :48:44.the notion that carried interest is capital in nature and should be

:48:45. > :48:51.treated as such. Looking across Europe, rate will sit in the middle

:48:52. > :48:57.of comparable countries, a little bit above Switzerland and Germany

:48:58. > :49:00.and below that of France. As well as carried interest on these clauses

:49:01. > :49:08.reflecting changes to capital gains tax will ensure the UK remains a

:49:09. > :49:11.pro-enterprise progrowth nation. Small and medium-sized businesses of

:49:12. > :49:15.the kinds are used to invest in account for over half of

:49:16. > :49:18.private-sector employment in the UK. They are responsible for three

:49:19. > :49:24.quarters of all jobs created since the Tasman eight. I know first-hand

:49:25. > :49:26.that small and medium-sized British enterprises still struggle to

:49:27. > :49:33.attract enough equity capital to grow. I just for GDP, the size of

:49:34. > :49:38.the UK's capital market is the seventh of that of the USA. And just

:49:39. > :49:44.3% of British companies expanded from three employees up to ten, half

:49:45. > :49:49.the rate of America. When I hear about changes to capital gains tax

:49:50. > :49:52.rates I think about benefiting all those small businesses helping them

:49:53. > :49:58.get capital they need to grow and increased investment and employment.

:49:59. > :50:01.Investors relief and other changes to capital gains tax included in

:50:02. > :50:06.this bill and in these clauses will build on the success of his EIS,

:50:07. > :50:11.EIS, funding for lending and the British business bank, all of which

:50:12. > :50:15.are providing British companies with the capital this is very for growth.

:50:16. > :50:20.These changes will ensure Britain remains a competitive prospect for

:50:21. > :50:25.investment without compromising Government revenue and we heard from

:50:26. > :50:28.the honourable lady opposite about the state of our finances and the

:50:29. > :50:32.need for revenue, I'm sure sure welcome the fact the OBR projects

:50:33. > :50:36.capital gains receipts topped ?7 million this season and increased to

:50:37. > :50:43.9 billion the next year. The ?7 billion. Our capital gains tax rate

:50:44. > :50:49.rather than being some sweet deal for the rich actually sets in the

:50:50. > :50:55.middle of the league tables of capital gains tax rates per ten

:50:56. > :51:02.countries have rates of 0% and our rate of 20 will sit to point above

:51:03. > :51:05.average. As we contemplate leaving the European Union which it will be

:51:06. > :51:10.vital for the economy to remain dynamic open and competitive to

:51:11. > :51:14.track the investment we need and maximise the opportunities afforded

:51:15. > :51:18.to us. The clauses related to capital gains tax in this bill and

:51:19. > :51:23.carried interests will insure the UK does exactly that and I will insure

:51:24. > :51:33.I vote for these clauses later today. I would like to speak about

:51:34. > :51:40.the amendments the Labour Party put forward both around new clause 14

:51:41. > :51:49.and amendment one 74. But as has been ably pointed out is about

:51:50. > :51:54.removing new clause 82 from the bill, which is about increasing rate

:51:55. > :51:59.band for inheritance tax, I will focus on the entrepreneurs relief

:52:00. > :52:02.and clause 14 put forward. This makes a key point about Government

:52:03. > :52:08.transparency and the lack of Government transparency that we have

:52:09. > :52:14.come UK governments of all colours bringing forward a policy as tax

:52:15. > :52:19.change and then not bringing back the work that shows it has worked.

:52:20. > :52:22.They bring for this policy and put in place and say it's wonderful

:52:23. > :52:26.we've done this but they will not bring back their workings and proof.

:52:27. > :52:32.The honourable lady was asked yesterday about how many companies

:52:33. > :52:38.benefited from the guarantee fund English and oil and gas and was

:52:39. > :52:42.unable to provide easier answer. -- a Didot adds a full by Donald if the

:52:43. > :52:45.Government has at least that talent and work that out or if she does

:52:46. > :52:48.have an answer at that point. If they're making grand claims about

:52:49. > :52:51.what they're doing and how good the policies debris in are they must be

:52:52. > :52:58.able to show their working and bring that back. I think it's important in

:52:59. > :53:04.and entrepreneurial is, the last thing we want for an economy where

:53:05. > :53:08.there are quickfire games and has been one of the criticisms of the

:53:09. > :53:13.tax treatment in the area of private equity and venture capital that it

:53:14. > :53:17.has been too many incentives for people to sell out to quickly saw

:53:18. > :53:21.the corollary to that surely must be if you have an entrepreneurs relief

:53:22. > :53:26.that is designed for openers to hang onto their businesses in the longer

:53:27. > :53:30.term, it is difficult to being -- bring back figures within a short

:53:31. > :53:32.period of time to suggest a particular thing has been a

:53:33. > :53:40.successful stock that look at the general tenor in an economy such as

:53:41. > :53:47.the UK and to that extent this is a positive change been proposed but it

:53:48. > :53:50.is not realistic or fair to expect any Treasury to come back in double

:53:51. > :53:54.quick time and say this has been a great success.

:53:55. > :54:01.It does not ask them to come back and back at the time, it asks for a

:54:02. > :54:05.six-month review period, for a length of time. For the Government

:54:06. > :54:10.to say they are not doing a review, the Government could quite easily

:54:11. > :54:14.say, we will do a review, but in 18 months. I personally would think

:54:15. > :54:19.that would be acceptable. I would like to see how these things are

:54:20. > :54:25.working. I am not saying that any are particularly bad, necessarily,

:54:26. > :54:29.but the Government needs to come back and us how these things are

:54:30. > :54:33.working. The UK tax system is massively complicated, there is tax

:54:34. > :54:37.relief for all sorts of things, taxes for all sorts of things. I am

:54:38. > :54:42.not convinced that the majority that we have a working as they were first

:54:43. > :54:46.intended, particularly those put into place 20 or 25 years ago and

:54:47. > :54:50.still being used today. I think the whole thing needs a look at, and if

:54:51. > :54:57.we have to starts doing that by looking at individual ones, I think

:54:58. > :55:00.that is the sensible place to start. But one is particularly about

:55:01. > :55:05.government transparency and anything we can do to introduce government

:55:06. > :55:10.transparency around, particularly, tax reliefs, is great. It would be

:55:11. > :55:13.very good of the Government could consider doing this, maybe not in

:55:14. > :55:19.exactly the terms suggested here, but at some point in the future.

:55:20. > :55:21.I would like to talk about inheritance tax. The Conservative

:55:22. > :55:28.manifesto said they intend to take the family home out of tax for all

:55:29. > :55:34.but the richest. I mentioned some of this in the committee sessions of

:55:35. > :55:41.the bill. I have a real issue with homes close to ?1 million being

:55:42. > :55:47.considered as normal family homes and not the preserve of the very

:55:48. > :55:55.richest. In Scotland, the detached average sale price in 2015 was

:55:56. > :55:59.?238,000, that is the average detached sale price. In Edinburgh,

:56:00. > :56:08.at the higher end of the market in terms of price, the detached average

:56:09. > :56:11.sale price was 382,738, this is detached homes, not necessarily

:56:12. > :56:16.family homes, but specifically the higher end of the market homes. At

:56:17. > :56:21.the most expensive place in Scotland, you are looking at those

:56:22. > :56:27.family homes costing around ?382,000. I was looking at what you

:56:28. > :56:32.can get for ?1 million. In Orkney, probably not the best example, fair

:56:33. > :56:35.enough, that you can get a six bedroomed home with an attached

:56:36. > :56:38.three-bedroom lodge and a guest wing for less than ?1 million. Nobody

:56:39. > :56:45.would say that is a normal family home.

:56:46. > :56:50.You can get a ten bedroom detached category B listed mansion in Ayr for

:56:51. > :56:54.less than ?1 million. Also in Ayr, you can get a six bedroom home,

:56:55. > :56:59.which seems relatively modest in these terms, with a swimming pool,

:57:00. > :57:04.for under ?1 million. None of these can be classed as normal family

:57:05. > :57:12.homes. In the mean, they are homes which have been inherited... In our

:57:13. > :57:17.share. Very few of these people will have just picked up these homes. The

:57:18. > :57:21.other thing that the Conservative Government said in a manifesto was

:57:22. > :57:26.you have worked hard for your money, we would like you to keep it. The

:57:27. > :57:29.vast majority of these will not have been first-generation owned, they

:57:30. > :57:35.will be being sold, second generation. They are not by any

:57:36. > :57:40.stretch of the imagination normal family homes. Even in the centre of

:57:41. > :57:46.Edinburgh, you are talking about managing to get an eight bedroom

:57:47. > :57:50.detached very large house for ?1 million. Again, that is the most

:57:51. > :57:54.expensive place in Scotland to buy homes. The problem with the huge

:57:55. > :57:58.amount of the Conservative manifesto is that it thinks about the

:57:59. > :58:02.south-east of England as being normal for the rest of the UK, and

:58:03. > :58:05.it is not normal for the rest of the UK. I know that is where the

:58:06. > :58:10.majority of the population are based, but there needs to be thought

:58:11. > :58:14.about this. You would expect me to say that as a Scottish National

:58:15. > :58:20.party politician supporting independence, but if decisions were

:58:21. > :58:24.made to home, I think they would be more appropriate to those people in

:58:25. > :58:28.Scotland. Her constituency is hardly typical,

:58:29. > :58:33.neither is the Minister's on the other side of the river, as far as

:58:34. > :58:38.these matters are concerned. But the logic of what she says is moving to

:58:39. > :58:42.regionalise tax system. I guess you like it in a nationalised basis, but

:58:43. > :58:49.the nation beginning the other side of Hadrian's Wall. That does she not

:58:50. > :58:52.recognise that the bar that formula operates to give particular

:58:53. > :58:57.incentives to the nations of the United Kingdom, rather than just

:58:58. > :59:00.London and the south-east. I can understand the irritation that there

:59:01. > :59:05.might be Tambe much thinking about London and the south-east, but ?1

:59:06. > :59:11.million buys nothing in many of the 73 London constituencies, as manners

:59:12. > :59:14.-- as well as many in the Home Counties. Short of regionalising

:59:15. > :59:18.tax, isn't this a sensible step forward is to ensure that those who

:59:19. > :59:23.have brought by family at home are not forced to sell it when a

:59:24. > :59:25.relative dies? I think he makes a good point, we might need to be

:59:26. > :59:31.thinking about having differential policies across the UK and,

:59:32. > :59:36.possibly, further devilish. That would be fantastic. If he wants to

:59:37. > :59:42.supporters in that cause, he is welcome to join us at any time --

:59:43. > :59:45.and, possibly, further devolution. The policy highlights a massive

:59:46. > :59:49.difference between the south-east of England and the rest of the UK. The

:59:50. > :59:53.problem we have with Government being so far from people outside

:59:54. > :59:59.London is the fact that policies are made for those people, and for the

:00:00. > :00:02.benefit of the majority of the population living around here. That

:00:03. > :00:07.is really unfortunate for those in the North of England, the people in

:00:08. > :00:11.Wales. The policies made by the national government don't make sense

:00:12. > :00:19.for us. I have made my point about million pound houses, I will not

:00:20. > :00:23.take another intervention, sorry. I just want to briefly mention the

:00:24. > :00:29.Prime Minister's statement that she will take bold action on tax. We

:00:30. > :00:33.have a big problem, even with the changes produced in the Finance

:00:34. > :00:39.Bill, even with the tax changes we discussed yesterday. We have a big

:00:40. > :00:48.problem with the lack of parity and fairness in tax. We have people

:00:49. > :00:53.working as nurses, as carers, in all sorts of professions that are paying

:00:54. > :00:58.20% tax. Although I appreciate the personal allowance has been raised,

:00:59. > :01:04.that is very much appreciated, they are paying a tax that they are due

:01:05. > :01:08.on the majority of their income. We still have a situation that there

:01:09. > :01:12.are too many loopholes. I understand the point made about carried

:01:13. > :01:15.interest and I think we need to see how that works, going forward. I

:01:16. > :01:20.would love to see governments working on that one, going forward,

:01:21. > :01:25.and whether or not it has had the changes that the government intends

:01:26. > :01:31.it to make. We still have the issue were unearned income is taxed at

:01:32. > :01:36.differential rates to unearned income. I understand the point made

:01:37. > :01:39.about Private Equity supporting our economy, supporting some of our

:01:40. > :01:45.community organisations, for example. However, those people are

:01:46. > :01:48.not paying the levels of tax that they should, they are not paying the

:01:49. > :01:52.levels of tax into the government that they should, so the government

:01:53. > :01:57.is not having the funds to disburse that it should. I think we need to

:01:58. > :02:02.do something more radical than this tinkering around the edges. We need

:02:03. > :02:07.to look at making changes that bring about parity, ensuring those people

:02:08. > :02:12.making megabucks in the City of London are at least paying as much

:02:13. > :02:18.tax and as high a percentage of tax as nurses and carers.

:02:19. > :02:27.Markfield. Thank you. I will briefly speak in

:02:28. > :02:34.favour of amendment 151 in relation to carried interest. I have in my

:02:35. > :02:40.time as a member of parliaments sometimes been critical of elements

:02:41. > :02:44.of the tax regime that apply in private equity and venture capital

:02:45. > :02:50.worlds. It seems to me that the generous tax regime, although it has

:02:51. > :02:58.been justified to support entrepreneurs, has often been

:02:59. > :03:04.misused, and only inadvertently, I am not suggesting anything untoward.

:03:05. > :03:11.But I believe that many in the private equity field have in effect

:03:12. > :03:15.been financiers rather than risk takers and, as such, surely it would

:03:16. > :03:19.be more equitable for their rewards to be treated more like income

:03:20. > :03:23.rather than capital gains. This has been at the heart of the carried

:03:24. > :03:27.interest debate. I think the Government has been aware of this,

:03:28. > :03:32.giving some credit to the Government we are perhaps trying to play

:03:33. > :03:36.catch-up, to a certain extent, in regard to this. Inevitably there has

:03:37. > :03:41.been controversy about the treatment of private interest of private

:03:42. > :03:46.equity funds, which is known as a capital gain rather by income. In

:03:47. > :03:52.2010 the difference between those two was rather greater than today.

:03:53. > :03:56.Again, I think that was to raising capital gains taxes but, to an

:03:57. > :04:02.extent, the starkness of the problem is less pronounced than perhaps

:04:03. > :04:06.during the noughties, the time of the last Labour administration. I

:04:07. > :04:12.think it is clear that the Treasury is doing the right thing in trying

:04:13. > :04:16.on the one hand to grant a more favourable regime intended to reward

:04:17. > :04:20.genuine entrepreneurs, and in principle that must mean that where

:04:21. > :04:25.carried interest looks like income, it should be treated as such for

:04:26. > :04:32.taxation purposes. I think this is slowly what we are trying to do in

:04:33. > :04:36.relation to amendment 100 51. I will give way.

:04:37. > :04:41.I am grateful. Is it not the case that the OECD has recommended that

:04:42. > :04:45.all carried interest be treated as income?

:04:46. > :04:48.It has, but I think there is a distinction between elements. I

:04:49. > :04:52.think what they are trying to get to the bottom of this. To be brutally

:04:53. > :04:56.honest, in the longer term I would be much happier to have a regime

:04:57. > :05:06.whereby we treated capital gains and income identically. Abs

:05:07. > :05:11.inadvertently, the coalition perhaps began to move a last sort of

:05:12. > :05:18.direction. -- in that sort of direction. I am sorry that I did not

:05:19. > :05:22.hear the comments of my honourable friend for Richmond earlier, but

:05:23. > :05:25.private equity has had a bad rap because of certain high-profile

:05:26. > :05:30.concerns but, actually, and I think part of that was down to the misuse

:05:31. > :05:35.of tax to allow huge amounts of debt onto balance sheets, but there also

:05:36. > :05:40.be huge number of businesses in the UK in each and every one of our

:05:41. > :05:44.constituencies that benefit from having Private equity investors. A

:05:45. > :05:48.number of jobs are in place because of private equity investment which

:05:49. > :05:55.has gone into play, particularly in growing businesses. I think the

:05:56. > :05:58.Government has broadly got this right. I am sure we will have to go

:05:59. > :06:02.back and look at this. The one slight point I would make in

:06:03. > :06:08.relation to the honourable lady for Aberdeen North, we have already had

:06:09. > :06:13.a joust on inheritance tax, but a more fundamental point is this,

:06:14. > :06:17.where I think she is right, the more complicated a tax code, the more you

:06:18. > :06:23.open the door to tax avoidance of all description. We need very

:06:24. > :06:29.urgently to begin to simplify our tax code. We will be adding yet more

:06:30. > :06:35.pages to it today. Again, lots of it is on last past that we can all

:06:36. > :06:39.support for individual regions. -- reasons. We need to get back to a

:06:40. > :06:43.much simpler tax system going forward. I personally believe that

:06:44. > :06:47.one of the impacts of leaving the European Union is not to have a race

:06:48. > :06:53.to the bottom with lower tax, but a much simpler tax system. This should

:06:54. > :06:59.be a wake-up call for us all in this House, particularly the Treasury, to

:07:00. > :07:01.have a much simpler tax code that is readily understandable, readily

:07:02. > :07:06.supported by all of our constituents. But also one but they

:07:07. > :07:12.do a lot of that inward investment that will come from across the globe

:07:13. > :07:16.to the UK, you know you have a simple tax code, one that will not

:07:17. > :07:21.be tinkered with at successive Finance Bills, because it is very

:07:22. > :07:24.straightforward and can work on that basis. I know that might be wishful

:07:25. > :07:28.thinking, I think most chancellors have talked about having a simpler

:07:29. > :07:33.tax code, but I think this is something that we have to look at

:07:34. > :07:37.very urgently, urgent attention must be placed on getting simplicity. If

:07:38. > :07:43.we don't do that, I think we will all very much pay the cost.

:07:44. > :07:47.I will give way. Khedira entirely echo his comments about

:07:48. > :07:51.simplification. I might seek to catch the Speaker back row's eye to

:07:52. > :07:56.address on that later. But I would caution him on linking to Brexit,

:07:57. > :08:00.because almost all of the complications of what he has called

:08:01. > :08:04.the tax code are due to domestic legislation, nothing to do with the

:08:05. > :08:09.EU. It might be that Brexit will afford an opportunity to start at

:08:10. > :08:12.the bottom in various sorts of Government policy and endeavour, but

:08:13. > :08:18.in this case it is not the EU which will do it.

:08:19. > :08:22.The honourable gentleman obviously doesn't know me enough, we are on

:08:23. > :08:27.the pro-European wing of our party. This is not making any blame, the

:08:28. > :08:31.point I was making was that we will have to look at getting a new set of

:08:32. > :08:39.trade arrangements with dozens of countries across the globe. Rather

:08:40. > :08:42.than a headline rushed to lower tax being the incentive for companies,

:08:43. > :08:47.one of the big things will be a sense that you have a simple,

:08:48. > :08:50.straightforward tax code for the UK, making is open for business in the

:08:51. > :08:57.way we Treasury have been the last 300 years. But we traditionally.

:08:58. > :09:01.This is not the place to make this policy but I hope that we have this

:09:02. > :09:08.firmly in mind, there is an urgent case now for beginning to have a

:09:09. > :09:12.more straightforward tax system, even if it is only one that says

:09:13. > :09:21.this is what we aim to try and achieve and obviously unravelling

:09:22. > :09:27.tax codes for the past, all of those reliefs will be difficult but I

:09:28. > :09:30.accept that, not least because we have entrepreneurs of the past and

:09:31. > :09:37.the future who want to rely upon that to make investment decisions. I

:09:38. > :09:40.thank you honourable member forgiving way. He is making some

:09:41. > :09:45.very important points about the vocation and the impact that can

:09:46. > :09:50.have what on measures going to the use they are intended. As he agree

:09:51. > :09:53.with the subjugation and clarity about the objectives of relief will

:09:54. > :10:00.go a long way to making sure those who might be small enterprises and

:10:01. > :10:03.first-time entrepreneurs will understand and feel they have

:10:04. > :10:06.greater access to the reliefs available in their name that might

:10:07. > :10:14.be used by others with greater experience? Before I Kimmich this

:10:15. > :10:18.house it was a straightforward business that I had in the service

:10:19. > :10:20.industry, there were not huge numbers of relief available, it

:10:21. > :10:26.might be we've had 20 years of additional tax codes and even more

:10:27. > :10:30.complicated and it would be the case for those working in setting up

:10:31. > :10:35.businesses in the 1990s, I agree, again, getting rid of reliefs and

:10:36. > :10:38.making it more straightforward is the right way forward. Rather than

:10:39. > :10:43.having a lot of reliefs that should be recommended to would-be

:10:44. > :10:48.entrepreneurs, let's try and cut that figure and cut it all down.

:10:49. > :10:53.I've spoken for long enough. We almost veering off. I'm sure you

:10:54. > :11:01.would have been first stand-up fight had done so. Number 151 amongst

:11:02. > :11:05.others isn't enabled will be supported from this is a move in the

:11:06. > :11:11.right direction but we will have to come back to the issue of carried

:11:12. > :11:14.interest for the future. I'm grateful for the opportunity to

:11:15. > :11:19.speak in this debate hope opened by my honourable friend force of Ben

:11:20. > :11:26.Eccles on new classes and amendments relating to capital gains tax. I was

:11:27. > :11:31.big particularly the new clause 14, entrepreneurs relief and value for

:11:32. > :11:38.money, amendment 174, removing the capital gains tax and amendments 175

:11:39. > :11:45.and 176, the investors relief sunset clause. Labour's main issue of

:11:46. > :11:49.contention with the Government is with the reduction of capital gains

:11:50. > :11:55.tax, the reasons for which had been a very well outlined in the debate

:11:56. > :12:00.so far. But the issue as well that I want to highlight is a serious issue

:12:01. > :12:05.and matter of a value for money in public finances. And continue main

:12:06. > :12:10.our call for the Government to look at the way in which we also

:12:11. > :12:15.scrutinise and review tax reliefs. As we have argued from the time of

:12:16. > :12:19.the budget from this finance bill is inadequate if we are to rise to the

:12:20. > :12:25.challenges we face and work towards a strong economy where we can all

:12:26. > :12:31.feel and believe prosperity is being shared by all. We know it is a

:12:32. > :12:34.difficult time for public finances that the Government has chosen to

:12:35. > :12:41.prioritise corporate Corporation tax cut as the capital they gains tax

:12:42. > :12:43.cut and certainly well I've been working on the Finance Bill

:12:44. > :12:45.including as the shadow chief secretary and since I've had a

:12:46. > :12:53.number of conversations with business figures who have been open

:12:54. > :12:56.that they did not necessarily expect a corporation tax cut and while

:12:57. > :13:03.other issues that are so important for their business success require

:13:04. > :13:06.greater attention, issues like investment in skills, housing,

:13:07. > :13:10.infrastructure, superfast broadband and making sure we are seen the

:13:11. > :13:16.productivity shifts that this country so desperately needs and so

:13:17. > :13:22.the port or other sometimes sadistic link between a capital gains tax cut

:13:23. > :13:31.and strong enterprise and investment culture, it is not very honest, I

:13:32. > :13:34.would say, in acknowledging it is neither not proven it is neither

:13:35. > :13:44.necessary nor sufficient for that outcome that we so indeed want to

:13:45. > :13:47.see. Let us not forget that the last budget the OBR of the Chancellor's

:13:48. > :13:51.measures into account and still downgraded business investment

:13:52. > :13:56.forecasts, the latest figures from the own desk sure this is --

:13:57. > :14:02.business investment was shown to have decreased by 0.8% between the

:14:03. > :14:06.second quarter of 2015 and 2016. It is a great concern and continues to

:14:07. > :14:10.be that the Government's approach to its economic strategies has not

:14:11. > :14:17.taken into account the wider needs of businesses beyond tax cuts. The

:14:18. > :14:21.context of squeezed public services and lack of investment brings me to

:14:22. > :14:26.this issue of tax relief, particularly those pertaining to

:14:27. > :14:30.capital gains fax and the way we understand the needs of businesses.

:14:31. > :14:36.Tax reliefs are an important part of our tax system and have been needed

:14:37. > :14:43.for a variety of reasons. Many of them extremely valid. Indeed, after

:14:44. > :14:47.six years of his Government's failures in so many ways on the

:14:48. > :14:52.economy and many feeling the extent of the brunt of the cuts, public

:14:53. > :14:56.services are under that considerable strain and every penny of public

:14:57. > :14:59.spending should be going on much needed investment in our schools and

:15:00. > :15:03.hospitals and supporting the most vulnerable. Indeed, when I look at

:15:04. > :15:08.the figures that came out recently and got worse over the summer over

:15:09. > :15:12.one third of our children leaving school without the equivalent of

:15:13. > :15:14.five good cheesiness -- GCSEs, schools in my constituency telling

:15:15. > :15:19.me how they're giving out money every day to help parents by school

:15:20. > :15:26.uniforms and shoes. We need to justify every penny spent by the

:15:27. > :15:31.Exchequer with this in mind, for me, this has to apply to every penny not

:15:32. > :15:35.collected. Tax reliefs are effectively tax foregone and I

:15:36. > :15:42.firmly believe we need to apply just as much scrutiny to a relief as we

:15:43. > :15:47.did the expenditure. That isn't to say I'm opposed tax reliefs. To

:15:48. > :15:49.incentivise good and positive business behaviour come in fact,

:15:50. > :15:55.prior from it. But providing behavioural incentives to achieve

:15:56. > :15:59.economic and social goals as a central part of the role of

:16:00. > :16:01.Government in using effective judgment that is based on the

:16:02. > :16:07.interests of fairness and prosperity. Indeed, a Government

:16:08. > :16:09.that needs to work in strategic partnership with business and

:16:10. > :16:14.industry in the interests of economy and society will be actively

:16:15. > :16:19.considering these measures. There is a serious paucity of scrutiny over

:16:20. > :16:23.whether and to what extent various tax reliefs are achieving these

:16:24. > :16:30.goals and if those tax reliefs remain value for money for the

:16:31. > :16:36.taxpayer. HMRC's website, this 405 separate tax leaves in the UK. There

:16:37. > :16:40.are many more tax regime on this, the office of tax and vocational

:16:41. > :16:50.identified 1140 separate tax reliefs. Of these 405 tax reliefs,

:16:51. > :16:57.102 cost over 50 million a year Kamiji under 50 million a year and

:16:58. > :17:04.there are 219 from which HMRC does not provide cost data. Would she

:17:05. > :17:08.agree with me that the biggest scandal of all those reliefs is tax

:17:09. > :17:13.refund pension contributions which costs over ?30 billion a year of

:17:14. > :17:19.foregone revenue, principally goes to the most well off and the DWP for

:17:20. > :17:24.years has had no evidence that tax relief produces a change in

:17:25. > :17:28.behaviour for more saving on pension contributions so we are in effect

:17:29. > :17:32.handing out a lot of money, mostly but not entirely the a lot of rich

:17:33. > :17:39.people to something with no evidence that it does so. My honourable

:17:40. > :17:45.friend makes a very good point in this conundrum, about how you fund

:17:46. > :17:48.financed incentivised savings for pensions, it used to beat taught

:17:49. > :17:51.more holistically and he'll highlight the important issue of

:17:52. > :17:56.where incentives don't reach the majority, they reached a minority

:17:57. > :18:00.and we need to continue to keep that under review. The Public Accounts

:18:01. > :18:07.Committee took evidence on the issues and the work of the national

:18:08. > :18:12.and resolve this taken for by the work of the National office as well.

:18:13. > :18:18.Their report finds that some reliefs are costing more than ?100 billion

:18:19. > :18:22.per year, they are designed to retrieve policy objectives that

:18:23. > :18:29.could be met through more rigorous and auditable spending programmes.

:18:30. > :18:32.The report states HM Treasury and HMRC do not keep track of those

:18:33. > :18:37.reliefs intended to influence behaviour, they do not adequately

:18:38. > :18:43.report to Parliament or the public on if tax reliefs are working as

:18:44. > :18:47.intended and what they cost and represent is continuing to be good

:18:48. > :18:52.value for money. Nothing really has changed since then the they report

:18:53. > :18:58.last year and that is why they're continuing to raise this issue in

:18:59. > :19:01.this finance bill. For tax reliefs such as capital gains tax relief and

:19:02. > :19:06.entrepreneurs qualifying business disposals or entrepreneurs relief we

:19:07. > :19:11.must be questioning their efficacy. There are clear reasons for this

:19:12. > :19:15.relief and it can be argued is incentivise investment but does it

:19:16. > :19:20.make a great enough difference to be worth the ?3 million a year -- ?3

:19:21. > :19:24.billion year to the Exchequer? I don't cling to have the answers but

:19:25. > :19:29.I believe we need the evidence to prove it does so and the Government

:19:30. > :19:34.needs to be challenged justifies this -- to justify this and other

:19:35. > :19:41.reliefs. The death rattle section to the Treasury defended this relief

:19:42. > :19:43.without evidence to why. He said of course as with all tax rates is

:19:44. > :19:51.entirely appropriate the Government keep and review the -- to ensure as

:19:52. > :19:54.well targeted and not open to abuse. My challenges when will they do

:19:55. > :20:01.this? Labour's new clause 14 will make the Government and as all-time

:20:02. > :20:08.as worm words -- one words and action. This finance bill and I will

:20:09. > :20:12.shortly conclude, introduces annual relief, the investors relief, which

:20:13. > :20:17.extends the low rate of capital gains tax to investors in an

:20:18. > :20:22.unlimited trading company for at least three years. I support in

:20:23. > :20:25.principle the idea of relief intended to incensed over -- to

:20:26. > :20:28.incentivise investment and supporting access to capital for

:20:29. > :20:35.businesses at an early stage in their business lifestyle was and

:20:36. > :20:41.support we can identify and provide evidence for as necessary and

:20:42. > :20:45.helpful to turn those initial ideas into successful job created and

:20:46. > :20:49.innovators of the future is extremely important for how we want

:20:50. > :20:54.to see us create more and the cup economy of the future with

:20:55. > :20:58.opportunities and new technology, that initiatives can bring. It

:20:59. > :21:02.concerns me this could end up being another tax relief introduced for a

:21:03. > :21:05.good reason and left the mushroom into a relief that is extremely

:21:06. > :21:11.expensive and potentially difficult to remove. We need a mechanism to

:21:12. > :21:17.ensure there will be time to review, whether it is achieving the desired

:21:18. > :21:20.effect of the cost to those forecast, whether it constitutes a

:21:21. > :21:25.value for money and it is for this reason that I support the sunset

:21:26. > :21:31.clause for this relief that after being accused by Labour's Amendment

:21:32. > :21:37.176 so that after a period of a number of years in which we can have

:21:38. > :21:41.some evidence in which to base its conclusions, that these questions

:21:42. > :21:45.will not go unanswered, I call on the house and the new Treasury

:21:46. > :21:49.ministers to take seriously our scrutiny of tax relief and support

:21:50. > :21:52.to's amendments to ensure there are proper mechanisms for reviews from

:21:53. > :21:57.those reliefs in place and ensure they remain targeted and supporting

:21:58. > :22:08.businesses whilst showing evidence for value for money.

:22:09. > :22:13.going to start by outlining the Government amendment in this

:22:14. > :22:17.grouping if I can and try to respond to some of the points brought by the

:22:18. > :22:22.members in what I think is a thoughtful debate and as a new

:22:23. > :22:25.Treasury minister I found a number of the speech is good through. As I

:22:26. > :22:31.look forward to a series of meetings into the art. Let me speak the

:22:32. > :22:34.autumn. Let me speak to govern amendments 149 - 151. The Finance

:22:35. > :22:37.Bill provides an incentive for people to invest in companies by

:22:38. > :22:49.budgeting the main rates of capital gains tax from to -- from 18-10%. We

:22:50. > :22:53.announced in the budget the 18% rates would continue to apply for

:22:54. > :22:57.carried interest. That is just about to justify by the current

:22:58. > :23:03.performance relating to award the an award hybrid to distinguish it from

:23:04. > :23:07.most of the total capital gain, as alluded to in some contributions. We

:23:08. > :23:12.learned it is possible to create investment funds structure

:23:13. > :23:18.generating carried it into interest tax of 2010% under clause 82, this

:23:19. > :23:24.would clearly be and contrary to the policy this amendment therefore

:23:25. > :23:28.ensures the continuing 28% and rates apply to all forms of carried

:23:29. > :23:30.interest. I welcome the support of my honourable friend from Richmond,

:23:31. > :23:34.for the general approach we are taking to a number of measures in

:23:35. > :23:38.the bill in particular for his comments on this matter and the

:23:39. > :23:41.knowledge he brings to the house. I also welcome the support of the

:23:42. > :23:44.opposition front for these amendments which we feel strike a

:23:45. > :23:56.sensible balance. If I can turn to Labour amendment

:23:57. > :24:02.174, I will address that. This would withdraw clause 82 in its entirety.

:24:03. > :24:06.The lower rate of capital gains tax introduced by clause 82 to make it

:24:07. > :24:10.more attractive for people to invest in companies, helping companies to

:24:11. > :24:13.access the capital needed to grow and create jobs. These are part of

:24:14. > :24:17.this Government is backed efforts to make sure the tax system is

:24:18. > :24:26.competitive, never more important than when we head into a new future

:24:27. > :24:28.outside the EU, and that they encourage investment to help drive

:24:29. > :24:30.the economy forward into the new future.

:24:31. > :24:33.At 28% after this point, a higher rate of capital gains tax was among

:24:34. > :24:38.the highest in the developed world, we do not want high tax rates to

:24:39. > :24:41.deter investment. The minister says these measures will drive

:24:42. > :24:46.investment, what evidence is there of that?

:24:47. > :24:50.This point has been repeatedly made. One of the things optimist by

:24:51. > :24:54.contributions from those critical of this is the way that measures into

:24:55. > :24:58.right. We are trying to create a climate which encourages investment.

:24:59. > :25:03.There have been a number of International studies indicating

:25:04. > :25:05.that lower rates of CGT support investment to firms, promote

:25:06. > :25:09.high-quality investment in start-ups, that is an important

:25:10. > :25:15.source of innovation and growth. It is part of a package of trying to

:25:16. > :25:24.create a climate which makes the country attracted to invest in, and

:25:25. > :25:26.for domestic investors to investing company growth but, at the same

:25:27. > :25:29.time, as we and other members in this bill have stressed, say that

:25:30. > :25:33.tax must be fair and must be paid. He took part in a good debate last

:25:34. > :25:37.night around some of those measures. A number of external bodies have

:25:38. > :25:41.expressed support, I think this also goes to his point. The CBI and the

:25:42. > :25:45.Institute of Economic Affairs Hub welcome these codes as a means of

:25:46. > :25:55.encouraging entrepreneurship and growth. -- have welcomed these cuts.

:25:56. > :26:02.These lower routes... Rates promote high-quality investment in

:26:03. > :26:05.start-ups. The international perspective from my honourable

:26:06. > :26:11.friend the member for Richmond on this subject. The changes made by

:26:12. > :26:17.clause 82 are about encouraging that investments, when we want businesses

:26:18. > :26:22.to expand. Very much part of a general pro-business agenda, but we

:26:23. > :26:26.have been clear that we want a fair and competitive taxes, but taxes

:26:27. > :26:31.which must be paid. We address that last night, we found a good degree

:26:32. > :26:35.of cross-party consensus. The honourable lady speaking to the

:26:36. > :26:41.opposition mentioned geographical distribution over the CGT Carter.

:26:42. > :26:47.HMRC publishes national statistics on CGT each year, including a

:26:48. > :26:53.breakdown of its players by geographical distribution. There is

:26:54. > :26:57.transparency bar. Up to 130,000 individuals a year are estimated to

:26:58. > :27:04.pay lower tax as a direct result of these changes to CGT, including

:27:05. > :27:08.52,000 basic rate taxpayers. A thoughtful speech, typically, for

:27:09. > :27:14.the honourable member for Felton and Heston, not just about CGT but

:27:15. > :27:20.general thoughts around tax reliefs and how we review them, and tax

:27:21. > :27:25.simplification. The point that I felt she, again, perhaps did not

:27:26. > :27:29.entirely address, was the interaction between these various

:27:30. > :27:33.measures, that they can't be seen in isolation. And whilst the other

:27:34. > :27:37.measures she mentioned were hugely important, she mentioned investment

:27:38. > :27:43.in skills, I did not think it was fair in terms of what the Government

:27:44. > :27:47.has done in that agenda, resulting in, for example, record

:27:48. > :27:51.apprenticeship bubbles. There are other issues, too, but this is part

:27:52. > :27:59.of a general package, not the whole picture. If I could now address

:28:00. > :28:04.amendments 175 and 176, again tabled by the opposition. Budget 2016

:28:05. > :28:07.announced the introduction of investors' relief, benefiting

:28:08. > :28:13.long-term investors in unlisted companies. There is an option of an

:28:14. > :28:20.additional 12 month extension etc if agreed by both houses.

:28:21. > :28:24.And also as the Chancellor to lay a review into the operation of the

:28:25. > :28:28.relief. We feel the proposed amendments are unnecessary as the

:28:29. > :28:32.Government keeps all tax policy under review, in line with normal

:28:33. > :28:37.tax policy making practice. Responding to at least for a two of

:28:38. > :28:41.the points made by the member for Aberdeen North, again, I thought,

:28:42. > :28:44.did not really give credit to the issue of interaction of different

:28:45. > :28:49.measures. And the wider point that, given that these are things the

:28:50. > :28:52.Government is bringing forward to stimulate economic growth, there is

:28:53. > :28:56.no incentive for the Government not to keep a close eye on them and to

:28:57. > :29:02.review them at regular interviews. We do that all the time, because we

:29:03. > :29:09.want them to work and stimulate economic activity, and not in any

:29:10. > :29:11.way to not work. In this Finance Bill there are a number of

:29:12. > :29:14.corrections to things which have been turn in the past where we felt

:29:15. > :29:17.that an improvement could be made to make things work better. We felt

:29:18. > :29:23.there would be limited merit in conducting a review within six years

:29:24. > :29:32.as the first data on the uptake of the relief would be available until

:29:33. > :29:36.2021. We think that these amendments are not needed or useful and we

:29:37. > :29:40.would invite the opposition to withdraw them.

:29:41. > :29:46.Let me turn to new clause 14, tabled by members opposite. They propose

:29:47. > :29:51.that the Chancellor should publish within six months of the passing of

:29:52. > :29:55.the act a report of the Treasury's assessment of the value for money

:29:56. > :30:00.provided by entrepreneurs' relief. As I have just said, obviously, the

:30:01. > :30:06.Government keeps all tax policy under review because we want it to

:30:07. > :30:10.do its intention, to stimulate economic activity and make it

:30:11. > :30:14.attractive for people to invest in business. This includes

:30:15. > :30:17.entrepreneurs' relief, as demonstrated by recent action taken

:30:18. > :30:22.to ensure that it is effective, well targeted and not open to abuse. We

:30:23. > :30:28.will continue to act where appropriate. My predecessor has

:30:29. > :30:33.already informed the house, but it is worth reiterating, HMRC officials

:30:34. > :30:38.have commissioned an in-depth survey of tax payers' reasons for using

:30:39. > :30:42.entrepreneurs' relief and its effects on behaviour, and we would

:30:43. > :30:47.expect the results of this survey, to be published at some point in

:30:48. > :30:51.2017, to inform future changes to the relief. I think that hopefully

:30:52. > :30:57.gives members comfort that it is being looked at closely.

:30:58. > :31:01.General points made in a wider debate about the Budget being tilted

:31:02. > :31:04.towards the south-east of England is, I think there are a number of

:31:05. > :31:08.points to be made in rebuttal of that, not least the debate last

:31:09. > :31:14.night touching on support for the oil and gas sector in Scotland. And

:31:15. > :31:18.more generally, some interesting points about a simpler tax system. I

:31:19. > :31:24.think there will be an opportunity in the next part of the debate on

:31:25. > :31:35.this bill to touch on the office of tax simplification, but it is worth

:31:36. > :31:37.noting as it came up in this part of the debate that we are putting about

:31:38. > :31:40.onto a statutory footing on this bill. Around half the 400 or so

:31:41. > :31:43.recommendations made by the OTS to date have been taken on board, but I

:31:44. > :31:47.take on board the points made by the honourable friend for Cities of

:31:48. > :31:51.London and Westminster, I am sure we will return to this topic over the

:31:52. > :31:56.coming months and years. Thank you to all the members who have spoken

:31:57. > :32:02.in this debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

:32:03. > :32:09.beg to withdraw new clause 14 and to formally move amendment 170 four.

:32:10. > :32:16.Thank you. Is it your wish that new clause 14 be withdrawn? Aye. Well, I

:32:17. > :32:23.have one person in favour. Thank you. By Reeve, withdrawn. Rebecca

:32:24. > :32:31.Long baby to move amendment 174 formally. -- Rebecca Long Bailey.

:32:32. > :32:39.The question is that amendment 174 be made. As many of that opinion,

:32:40. > :33:50.say aye. The contrary, no. Division! The lobby! -- clear the lobby!

:33:51. > :33:58.Order, the question is that amendment 174 be made. As many of

:33:59. > :34:03.that opinion say aye, of the country, no. Tellers for the ayes,

:34:04. > :34:07.Vicky Foxcroft and Alan Campbell. Tellers for the noes, Steve Bryan

:34:08. > :45:28.and Andrew Griffiths. Hors d'oeuvre. -- order. The ayes to

:45:29. > :45:44.the right, 226. The noes to the left, 291. The ayes to the right,

:45:45. > :45:55.236, the noes to the left, 291. The noes have it. Unlock. With the leave

:45:56. > :46:00.of the House, I will put the questions of amendments 149-151

:46:01. > :46:08.together. Minister, to move formally. The question is, the

:46:09. > :46:18.amendments be made? As many that opinions say ayes, of the contrary

:46:19. > :46:23.noes. The ayes have it. We come to government new clause nine, which we

:46:24. > :46:30.will consider the other clauses and amendments listed on the selection

:46:31. > :46:35.paper. Minister to move new clause nine, Jane Ellison. Madam Deputy

:46:36. > :46:41.Speaker, I beg to move the clause be read a second time. In this final

:46:42. > :46:47.debate, we have an array of amendments and clauses to consider,

:46:48. > :46:52.across a wide range of subjects. I'm sure we will cover a great deal

:46:53. > :46:57.ground. Let me first outlined the amendments the government has made.

:46:58. > :47:02.The government new clause nine, to ensure fairness in the tax system,

:47:03. > :47:07.the clause allows for the exemption from income tax for supplementary

:47:08. > :47:16.payments funded by the Northern Ireland executive. Amendments

:47:17. > :47:30.132-134, and government amendment 139, changing the date for

:47:31. > :47:35.withdrawing relief. Amendment 139 changes the effect that the duty

:47:36. > :47:45.rate comes into the 4th of November. Government amendment 135, and

:47:46. > :47:49.146-148, and 138, consider venture capital trusts, lifetime dividends,

:47:50. > :47:53.making changes to ensure these policies work as intended. Let me

:47:54. > :48:01.now turn to the new clause and amendments tabled put forward by the

:48:02. > :48:05.opposition. New clause 15, tabled by the honourable lady opposite and her

:48:06. > :48:09.colleagues seeks to prevent the use of secondary legislation to alter

:48:10. > :48:16.the rate of VAT to the installation of energy-saving materials. Since

:48:17. > :48:20.2001, the UK has applied the 5% reduced rate of VAT to the

:48:21. > :48:24.installation of 11 types of energy-saving materials. That

:48:25. > :48:31.reduced rate remains in place and is unchanged. The Court of Justice of

:48:32. > :48:36.the European Union argue that the UK had interpreted VAT law too broadly.

:48:37. > :48:39.The government published a consultation on this complex issue.

:48:40. > :48:44.We are considering their responses. While this clause seeks to prevent

:48:45. > :48:51.the use of secondary will insulation to alter the rate of VAT in regard

:48:52. > :48:56.energy-saving materials, the tax love achieve the same effect.

:48:57. > :49:00.Indeed, it goes further. Will she confirmed: now we are leaving the

:49:01. > :49:06.EU, we would have no intention of raising this VAT rate, and we will

:49:07. > :49:10.be scrapping it altogether? As for the Secretary of State for exiting

:49:11. > :49:14.the EU, said during that lengthy statement, those are matters that

:49:15. > :49:20.will be looked at. He confirmed he is looking at it, as is the

:49:21. > :49:25.Treasury. We feel that the tax law goes further, by preventing the use

:49:26. > :49:30.of secondary legislation, to reduce the scope of rates. This clause

:49:31. > :49:37.would serve no purpose except to duplicate existing legislation. The

:49:38. > :49:39.new clause three, on the marriage allowance, this would place a legal

:49:40. > :49:44.requirement of the government to carry out the review on the marriage

:49:45. > :49:50.allowance. Although I am sympathetic to, and have discussed with my

:49:51. > :49:55.honourable friend for Enfield South, and others proposing this clause, I

:49:56. > :49:59.hope I am able to show such a report is unnecessary and address some of

:50:00. > :50:05.the concerns. Let me reiterate the government remains consider

:50:06. > :50:10.committed to showing that the marriage allowance is delivered

:50:11. > :50:15.successfully. Take-up of this policy was initially lower than expected.

:50:16. > :50:18.The government is taking action to change this. The HMRC ran a

:50:19. > :50:23.successful marketing campaign to help raise awareness among eligible

:50:24. > :50:28.families, and the results were dramatic. Daily applications

:50:29. > :50:35.increased by a factor of seven between November 2015 and March 20

:50:36. > :50:39.16. Yesterday HMRC will accept its 1,000,000th marriage application.

:50:40. > :50:45.They will launch a more ambitious campaign to raise awareness next

:50:46. > :50:52.month to help maintain the momentum. The government has assessed the

:50:53. > :50:56.impact of the policy, one quarter of those are households with children,

:50:57. > :51:00.who will benefit. Most of them will go to the bottom half of the income

:51:01. > :51:07.distribution. I know he will have more points to make. He will have

:51:08. > :51:12.more points to make in his contribution. I will look to respond

:51:13. > :51:17.if I can briefly at the end. He also has another new clause tabled. This

:51:18. > :51:21.proposes a review of the impact of the rate of duty charge on sparkling

:51:22. > :51:31.cider, of the strength exceeding 5.5%. The Conservancy has raised, I

:51:32. > :51:35.know he has raised them before, the government will tackle alcohol as a

:51:36. > :51:41.cause of crime, in the 2012 alcohol strategy. Some ciders can be

:51:42. > :51:48.associated with alcohol harms, and has taken action. Since 2010 we have

:51:49. > :51:53.acquired drinks to contain 35% of apple or pear juice to be defined as

:51:54. > :51:58.cider. To reduce the cost of the cheap white ciders. From my previous

:51:59. > :52:04.role as the Public Health Minister, I am aware of the concerns around

:52:05. > :52:08.alcohol harm. Further changes to alcohol policy would need to target

:52:09. > :52:15.cheap drinks associated with these harms without penalising responsible

:52:16. > :52:19.drinkers. The Treasury is willing to consider any evidence about how

:52:20. > :52:28.these should be taxed. I don't think a legislative requirement is

:52:29. > :52:35.necessary. Turning to the amendments 180-182, tax simplification. Madam

:52:36. > :52:41.Deputy Speaker, these tabled by the honourable member for Ilford North

:52:42. > :52:52.would require appointments and dismissals from the office of tax

:52:53. > :52:59.certification are taken by the Treasury committee. We will consider

:53:00. > :53:04.this continued work, the government is on a permanent statutory footing

:53:05. > :53:08.on this bill, increasing powers. I am grateful to the honourable member

:53:09. > :53:14.for Chichester and Ilford North in his place, and other members of the

:53:15. > :53:16.Treasury select committee for their commitment to safeguarding

:53:17. > :53:21.independent bodies, and increasing transparency. The government's view

:53:22. > :53:25.is that there is a balance between ensuring robust scrutiny and making

:53:26. > :53:33.sure it is proportional to the function of the OTS. Having

:53:34. > :53:40.considered those recommendations, the government would ensure the

:53:41. > :53:43.Treasury select committee is able to hold meetings with fugitive

:53:44. > :53:47.free-macro candidates before their appointments are formalised, putting

:53:48. > :53:51.appointments to a vote in the House. These arrangements put in place

:53:52. > :53:58.should be a permanent method of appointment for future OTS chairs. I

:53:59. > :54:03.don't feel we think there is justification for going further and

:54:04. > :54:06.putting in a power of veto. I hope those arrangements as I have

:54:07. > :54:09.outlined are welcomed by members of the Treasury select committee. I

:54:10. > :54:16.would invite them not to press their amendment.

:54:17. > :54:23.Could I just say I am very grateful to the Minister for what she's just

:54:24. > :54:28.said on those proposals. And I am very pleased that a compromise has

:54:29. > :54:31.been able to be worked out which I think is very reasonable all round

:54:32. > :54:35.and builds on the arrangement that is have been put in place for the

:54:36. > :54:39.appointment of the cham and chief executive of the financial conduct

:54:40. > :54:44.authority. -- chairman. Earlier in the year with the former Chancellor.

:54:45. > :54:49.And I see no reason at all why this can't form the basis for a permanent

:54:50. > :54:54.arrangement for ensuring that we get the best possible candidate in

:54:55. > :55:00.supported by parliament into the OTS in future years. I thank the

:55:01. > :55:03.chairman of the Select Committee very much for that intervention and

:55:04. > :55:08.for his indication of support for these arrangements and I agree with

:55:09. > :55:12.him, we have set out a way into the future and I have also written to

:55:13. > :55:19.him and the Chancellor will be writing to confirm that for the

:55:20. > :55:23.record. But I thank him for that intervention and it's welcome. New

:55:24. > :55:27.clause eight, tabled by the Scottish National Party, would require the

:55:28. > :55:31.Government to review how the changes to dividends tax will affect

:55:32. > :55:35.directors of micro businesses and that review would be impossible to

:55:36. > :55:39.deliver, we feel, as information from the self assessment process

:55:40. > :55:43.will not be available until 2018. Secondly, and more fundamentally,

:55:44. > :55:48.the dividend tax changes cannot be looked at in isolation, this is a

:55:49. > :55:51.point I touched on in the last debate. Small company directors will

:55:52. > :55:57.have benefitted from various recent tax changes made by the Government

:55:58. > :56:00.and that includes cuts to the corporation tax rate and to business

:56:01. > :56:04.rates with obviously more to come into effect in spring of 2017 and

:56:05. > :56:07.the introduction of the employment allowance which I know has made a

:56:08. > :56:10.considerable difference to businesses in my constituency as I

:56:11. > :56:15.talked about and other honourable members. So we feel that these

:56:16. > :56:21.matters must be looked at in the round and for that reason don't feel

:56:22. > :56:25.that we can accept the new clause. New clause 18, proposes another

:56:26. > :56:29.review on the impact of section 24 of the summer finance act 2015 and

:56:30. > :56:33.this is on the availability of affordable housing. Again we feel

:56:34. > :56:37.the report is unnecessary. The changes made by section 24 are being

:56:38. > :56:40.implemented in a gradual and proportionate way, only one in five

:56:41. > :56:45.landlords are expected to pay more tax. We do not expect this to have a

:56:46. > :56:50.large impact on either house prices or rent levels due to the small

:56:51. > :56:53.overall proportion of the housing market affected and the Office of

:56:54. > :56:58.Budget Responsibility it is worth noting have endorsed this

:56:59. > :57:03.assessment. New clause six, VAT on Scottish police and fire service.

:57:04. > :57:08.New clause six I gather from my predecessors is something that has

:57:09. > :57:12.come up a number of times in the past. This asks the Treasury to

:57:13. > :57:15.conduct a review of the VAT treatment of the Scottish Police

:57:16. > :57:21.Authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service. I am afraid that I

:57:22. > :57:26.can't add very much to the responses that members on the Scottish

:57:27. > :57:29.National Party benches have heard before, with this and previous

:57:30. > :57:31.finance bills, the Treasury made clear to the Scottish Government

:57:32. > :57:37.that the changes they considered would result in losing he will jiblt

:57:38. > :57:41.for VAT refunds. It choose, as legitimately as its right to go

:57:42. > :57:56.ahead, but there can be no expectation we will review as

:57:57. > :57:59.consequences were clear beforehand. The UK Government, the Treasury will

:58:00. > :58:03.be able to initiality all sorts of various ideas in terms of VAT and

:58:04. > :58:08.one of those ideas may well be devolving VAT to the devolved

:58:09. > :58:12.administrations in the Scotland bill it's assigned responsibility for

:58:13. > :58:15.half of receipts but following Brexit if it's a non-membership

:58:16. > :58:19.option that the UK Government decides on it could go further. Is

:58:20. > :58:25.that something the Treasury are considering? Well, I think as has

:58:26. > :58:28.been made clear in the House by a number of ministers, there are a

:58:29. > :58:32.huge range of issues that we need to consider as we go forward but as I

:58:33. > :58:37.say we are clear on this matter for now and no doubt he will raise his

:58:38. > :58:43.point again in the context of the debates about our future outside the

:58:44. > :58:48.EU. Let me turn to Liberal Democrat new clause 16 and that would require

:58:49. > :58:54.the Government to publish a review, I don't actually think we have any

:58:55. > :58:58.members present but anyway - I will speak briefly to the new clause in

:58:59. > :59:04.that case and move swiftly on to those tabled by parties that are

:59:05. > :59:06.present. The Government does undertake assessments of all new

:59:07. > :59:10.measures and that includes considering age as a protective

:59:11. > :59:16.characteristic and additionally it's worth noting and I am sure something

:59:17. > :59:20.welcomed across the House the Prime Minister's launched unprecedented

:59:21. > :59:24.audit to reveal racial disparities and to look at the way in which

:59:25. > :59:27.public services serve people right across our country and the Treasury

:59:28. > :59:33.will of course play its part in that audit and no doubt some of these

:59:34. > :59:38.issues can be looked at as part of that important exercise. Looking at

:59:39. > :59:41.new clause 19, distribution analysis on different levels of income, that

:59:42. > :59:46.would require the Government to review the impact of measures in

:59:47. > :59:51.this bill on different levels of income. At each budget an autumn

:59:52. > :59:54.statement since 2010 the Treasury has published analysis showing the

:59:55. > :59:57.impact of Government policy on the share of tax paid and spending

:59:58. > :00:01.received across the household income distribution. Since 2010 the

:00:02. > :00:04.Government has published far more distribution analysis than its

:00:05. > :00:07.predecessor and we are determined as the Prime Minister has made clear on

:00:08. > :00:10.many occasions since coming to office to make Britain a country

:00:11. > :00:15.that works for everyone and our policy choices and actions stand as

:00:16. > :00:18.proof of our commitment. The Government has received

:00:19. > :00:21.representations on this matter, not just from honourable members

:00:22. > :00:24.opposite, also from the right honourable member for Chichester on

:00:25. > :00:29.behalf of his committee and we will consider the appropriate format of

:00:30. > :00:36.documents to be published at future fiscal events closer to the autumn

:00:37. > :00:40.statement. Just on that point, she mentioned the autumn statement and

:00:41. > :00:46.the timeline. Could she let us know when she thinks the autumn statement

:00:47. > :00:52.is going to be? The Chancellor will make that clear in due course.

:00:53. > :00:57.Moving on to the apprenticeship - of course. Just on the issue of new

:00:58. > :01:01.clause 19 and the distribution analysis. As she knows, that is an

:01:02. > :01:05.issue of considerable importance to the committee, it was something

:01:06. > :01:12.which the previous Chancellor accepted in 2010 but then resiled

:01:13. > :01:18.from in 2015 to considerable concern of the committee. On the

:01:19. > :01:21.understanding that the Chancellor really is considering this issue

:01:22. > :01:26.again, that is putting back the original arrangement that is had

:01:27. > :01:31.been in place for the preceding five years, I would not be minded to vote

:01:32. > :01:38.for that clause. Am I to take it from what the Minister has said that

:01:39. > :01:41.this is a serious reconsideration that's taking place and that the

:01:42. > :01:49.Chancellor or the Minister will come back to the House in due course to

:01:50. > :01:52.tell us his or her conclusions? Well, of course, the Treasury

:01:53. > :01:57.ministers and the Chancellor take very seriously points made by the

:01:58. > :02:00.Select Committee chairman and his committee members and it is

:02:01. > :02:04.something as has been confirmed in exchange of letters between the

:02:05. > :02:09.chairman of the Treasury Select Committee and the Chancellor, it is

:02:10. > :02:13.something that we will consider at future fiscal events and closer to

:02:14. > :02:19.the autumn statement. So, we will return to this and it might be the

:02:20. > :02:25.case that I can write to him further but at the moment that is what I am

:02:26. > :02:29.able to say about it. I thank the Minister for giving way. She's been

:02:30. > :02:34.most generous. Yesterday I intervened on one of her colleagues

:02:35. > :02:37.and asked when the very important autumn statement, when we are likely

:02:38. > :02:39.to expect it. The response same sometime November, maybe December.

:02:40. > :02:47.Can she confirm that is indeed the case?

:02:48. > :02:51.Well, as I said before the date will be confirmed in due course but the -

:02:52. > :02:54.I think it's reasonable to assume given it's the autumn statement this

:02:55. > :03:01.sort of the window of opportunity that he outlined in his remarks is

:03:02. > :03:07.broadly right. Let me just turn if I can to again briefly as we don't

:03:08. > :03:13.have a Liberal Democrat presence in the chamber, to the amendment 179 on

:03:14. > :03:16.the apprenticeship levy. This would exclude qualifying bonus payment and

:03:17. > :03:20.businesses from being considered part of the employers pay bill when

:03:21. > :03:23.calculating the levy. And to ensure that the levy is as simple and fair

:03:24. > :03:28.as possible the Government has decided to use the existing

:03:29. > :03:31.definition of earnings, those used from employers national insurance

:03:32. > :03:36.contributions and this avoids unnecessary complication and this

:03:37. > :03:40.was a point made repeatedly to us during the consultation to avoid

:03:41. > :03:42.such complication. We feel the proposed amendment would add

:03:43. > :03:50.complication and therefore we would urge the House to reject it. Lastly,

:03:51. > :03:55.on Labour amendment 141 on employees share schemes, this proposes a tax

:03:56. > :03:58.exemption for residual cash amounts remaining in share incentive plans

:03:59. > :04:01.when they're donated to charity. Whilst we appreciate the proposal is

:04:02. > :04:05.made with the best of intentions I think we are concerned that the

:04:06. > :04:08.change again would add additional complexity and that amendment lacks

:04:09. > :04:11.details. We would need further development and evidence of this

:04:12. > :04:18.idea before giving it further consideration. I will end there with

:04:19. > :04:22.those remarks. I may look to respond previously at the end if there are

:04:23. > :04:28.further -- briefly at the end if there are further points to help the

:04:29. > :04:32.House. Otherwise I would forward to the debate. The question is that

:04:33. > :04:37.Government new clause nine be read a second time.

:04:38. > :04:47.I am disappointed by the Minister's concluding remarks on amendment 141

:04:48. > :04:51.in my name and those of my honourable friends. She says the

:04:52. > :04:55.amendment lacks detail. Well, we talk about simplification today and

:04:56. > :04:59.I will go on to address the House on that issue, but this amendment is

:05:00. > :05:02.more than an A4 page. It might be the wrong detail, I am not an

:05:03. > :05:06.accountant, I freely accept that, but I can't get my head around the

:05:07. > :05:10.concept it lacks detail. I am disappointed and would urge her to

:05:11. > :05:17.reconsider. I am pleased at the movement there's been from the

:05:18. > :05:21.Government on amendment 180. I did want to briefly touch as the

:05:22. > :05:24.Minister did on new clause six, it won't surprise the SNP I do so.

:05:25. > :05:27.Frankly, they've made their bed and should lie in it. They were warned

:05:28. > :05:30.this would be the situation, that would be the financial effect and

:05:31. > :05:34.having an inquiry into the financial effect of something they knew was

:05:35. > :05:37.going to come and has happened and may be an adverse financial effect,

:05:38. > :05:41.that's what you get with devolution. You make your decisions and you live

:05:42. > :05:46.with them and they shouldn't as they are seeking to through a mechanism

:05:47. > :05:51.here indirectly be looking for yet another bung from the English

:05:52. > :05:54.taxpayer when they're already getting shed loads of money under

:05:55. > :05:57.the Barnett formula and I support the union but sometimes, frankly,

:05:58. > :06:01.people can push their luck a bit and I think they are in this regard

:06:02. > :06:11.having known in advance. What I did want to make some brief

:06:12. > :06:14.remarks on was the question of evidence-based decision-making and

:06:15. > :06:18.the difficulties we have as policy-makers and legislators in

:06:19. > :06:21.this House in that regard, particularly in financial matters

:06:22. > :06:25.where, of course, the other place, the House of Lords, whilst it

:06:26. > :06:29.scrutinises finance bills, does not vote upon them for historic reasons

:06:30. > :06:34.which are very good and therefore cannot amend the finance bill and we

:06:35. > :06:37.have to get it right here T has become in recent years an

:06:38. > :06:41.increasingly frequent mechanism for those who take issue on all sides of

:06:42. > :06:47.the House with a particular course of action or lack of course of

:06:48. > :06:50.action, rather than, for example, to suggest abolishing something as the

:06:51. > :06:54.Liberal Democrats extraordinarily did yesterday when they suggested

:06:55. > :06:59.they had an amendment on to abolish corporation tax at a cost the

:07:00. > :07:02.Minister said was ?43 billion a year, extraordinary. It's become

:07:03. > :07:06.commonplace because oppositions cannot put in amendments to put up

:07:07. > :07:13.taxes, instead to put in amendments expressing concern by calling for a

:07:14. > :07:19.review. And today again we had several yesterday, but today again

:07:20. > :07:22.we have in this section we have new clause three which is to do with the

:07:23. > :07:25.review, new clause six which is to do with a review, new clause eight

:07:26. > :07:31.which is to do with a review, new clause 16 to do with a review, new

:07:32. > :07:34.clause 17, new clause 18, new clause 19, lots of reviews and in the

:07:35. > :07:38.previous section and the previous debate we had new clause 14 which

:07:39. > :07:45.was to do with a review and amendment is 67. It is the flavour

:07:46. > :07:50.of the day. It does highlight a problem which the Minister addressed

:07:51. > :07:56.in her concluding remarks in the previous debate an hour or so ago.

:07:57. > :07:58.We have at the moment an economy with extraordinarily good

:07:59. > :08:03.unemployment figures. They are very good. I praise the Government for

:08:04. > :08:06.that. It's come down. We have two had 2.5 million more jobs in the

:08:07. > :08:12.last six years, that's great. But it has been bought on a sea of debt

:08:13. > :08:15.with the deficit going up 60%, for a Government which imposed austerity

:08:16. > :08:19.in order to bring as they said public finances under control,

:08:20. > :08:22.they're still not under control. We have a mounting deficit. We have

:08:23. > :08:26.crumbling infrastructure and services where we are storing up

:08:27. > :08:29.problems for the future. If you drive around lots of towns in

:08:30. > :08:34.England, I don't know about Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland, I

:08:35. > :08:37.suspect it may be the same, you see crumbling roads literally because

:08:38. > :08:42.local authorities are cutting back on filling in pot holes because it's

:08:43. > :08:46.a short-term saving but it leads to longer term costs and that is as I

:08:47. > :08:50.say an example of what is happening around the economy and we have had

:08:51. > :08:56.six years of stagnating and falling wages. But the interactions between

:08:57. > :09:00.the economic measures of the Government which has led to the

:09:01. > :09:06.negatives and I have only outlined some just now and the positive of

:09:07. > :09:09.unemployment going down considerably, employment being up

:09:10. > :09:11.2.5 million, is unclear to many of us and I think is unclear to

:09:12. > :09:29.economists. The minister pointed to a

:09:30. > :09:34.combination of measures, and when we are talking about economic policies,

:09:35. > :09:40.the aggregation of measures, whether one measure or a package of measures

:09:41. > :09:48.is an effective measure, or infective. The minister said the

:09:49. > :09:53.government reviews, on tax breaks, all the time, they are under review.

:09:54. > :09:58.What we are saying in these amendments and new clauses, and have

:09:59. > :10:03.been repeatedly are, make that public. I often repeated the

:10:04. > :10:07.minister, as I did yesterday, there is a question mark as to how much

:10:08. > :10:14.some of these measures and policies are kept under review. He comes from

:10:15. > :10:18.the National Audit Office, in a report two years ago, saying there

:10:19. > :10:21.are five different types of Mrs which could broadly be called tax

:10:22. > :10:28.relief, delineating them. They said they could count some 1200 such tax

:10:29. > :10:33.reliefs. The National Audit Office could only find evidence that about

:10:34. > :10:40.300 of them were being monitored by the government, for effectiveness or

:10:41. > :10:49.otherwise. The minister may well believe and be told that these

:10:50. > :10:52.reviews are I'm going all the time. I have to say from a somewhat

:10:53. > :10:58.different angle, that is not what the National Audit Office found two

:10:59. > :11:02.years ago. I would urge her to go back to HMRC and the Treasury, and

:11:03. > :11:08.find out what is going on about examining this. We have seen the

:11:09. > :11:13.Lady leadership campaign, the emergence of a post-factual world. I

:11:14. > :11:20.am in favour of evidence -based policy making. That does not mean we

:11:21. > :11:24.reach a cosy consensus, sometimes thought by those post-factual, and I

:11:25. > :11:30.would give the House a simple example. If a suburban road has a 30

:11:31. > :11:38.mph speed limit, and there is a survey that finds that 60% of cars

:11:39. > :11:43.are going above 40 mph, that is the fact, as long as someone accepts the

:11:44. > :11:49.survey. The policy one could make following on from that could vary

:11:50. > :11:57.between putting in speed humps, chicanes, radar gun. Even raising

:11:58. > :12:04.the speed limit to 40 mph. Those are the policy implications that we, as

:12:05. > :12:07.politicians, from different perspectives, might draw from a

:12:08. > :12:14.common set of facts. Trying, as much as one can, having a common set of

:12:15. > :12:20.facts, is important for evidence -based policy making. I don't think

:12:21. > :12:24.the government, as legislators, have they not information. Therefore we

:12:25. > :12:29.cannot be sure that the measures we pass in this House have any

:12:30. > :12:35.likelihood of doing that which they are intended to do. Earlier today I

:12:36. > :12:41.gave the example of tax relief on pension contributions. Perhaps the

:12:42. > :12:44.worst example. ?30 billion a year spent trying to do something and

:12:45. > :12:50.there is no evidence it does what we wanted to do. It might be from that

:12:51. > :12:54.fact, and I take it to be a fact. The House of Commons library cannot

:12:55. > :12:59.find any real evidence that behaviour is changed by the massive

:13:00. > :13:02.tax relief. One could draw many different conclusions. Must try

:13:03. > :13:07.harder to advertise, we should be doing it because it is a good thing.

:13:08. > :13:12.One could say they should abolish it entirely, and we should tinker at

:13:13. > :13:18.the edges, and bring the 40% breakdown. We need to try and start

:13:19. > :13:26.with a common basis, that is what these new clauses and amendments

:13:27. > :13:33.seek to do. That is a step towards what I would like to see, and is in

:13:34. > :13:38.amendment 180, referring to the office of tax simplification. We

:13:39. > :13:48.look seriously as a society and religious

:13:49. > :14:02.-- a legislature, whether we should look at substituting corporation tax

:14:03. > :14:08.with all the avoidance we see with etc simpler. We ought to have that

:14:09. > :14:11.debate. Excellent speech by right honourable friend, the member for

:14:12. > :14:18.Felton Heston, in terms of evidence -based, getting the information. It

:14:19. > :14:22.ties into simplification. One needs the evidence, as is often expressed

:14:23. > :14:28.on all sides of the House when we want a simpler tax system. Many of

:14:29. > :14:33.the small business tax reliefs, that sounds very good, and maybe that

:14:34. > :14:37.give, but I don't know because we don't have the evidence. My

:14:38. > :14:43.experience of small and medium business, very often, those making

:14:44. > :14:47.the decisions are not aware of that part of the tax regime until they

:14:48. > :14:53.speak to the accountant at the end of the year. It has not altered

:14:54. > :15:00.their behaviour, although it may, because of the existence of tax

:15:01. > :15:05.relief. It may hold the behaviour in year two and three. In my experience

:15:06. > :15:08.of interacting with small businesses, they see what's on

:15:09. > :15:14.trying to run the business, Tiwari and about tax relief for this and

:15:15. > :15:18.that, and what they will do in sales. They are too busy pursuing

:15:19. > :15:23.the goals they have set themselves. Let's have some simplification. We

:15:24. > :15:31.need to recognise simplification that many members, on all sides talk

:15:32. > :15:37.about, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remember him in a

:15:38. > :15:40.position, and my party were in government, he said in the Finance

:15:41. > :15:49.Bill committees, in which I served on six, repeatedly saying that the

:15:50. > :15:55.tax code, using the Americanisation, in terms of the tax guide, seven or

:15:56. > :16:07.eight years ago, it ran to 1000 pages, now 1500 pages. We have gone

:16:08. > :16:13.the other way. Governmenthas not had the guts to say if you have

:16:14. > :16:17.certification, it only do things which are rough and ready. You will

:16:18. > :16:23.lose the nuance. As a lawyer, I think that is right. We is the most

:16:24. > :16:28.graphically in an area where I practice, employment tribunal. When

:16:29. > :16:32.they were introduced as industrial tribunal 's, they were supposed to

:16:33. > :16:37.be the people fast access to justice, simple and rough and ready.

:16:38. > :16:43.We have had layers of complexity brought in, say for most employment

:16:44. > :16:47.tribunal 's, and we see off the lead with the government putting season,

:16:48. > :16:52.so people don't go, because they cannot afford to. They cannot afford

:16:53. > :16:58.thousands of pounds to go through a full employment tribunal, introduced

:16:59. > :17:03.by the last government. They need legal representation, they cannot

:17:04. > :17:07.get legal aid, get a so-called no-win, no fee agreement in England

:17:08. > :17:13.and Wales, I don't know about Scotland. The access to justice is

:17:14. > :17:20.lessons because of the complexity. You can't, for I shall save, very

:17:21. > :17:24.difficult to do employment tribunal as a layperson in England and Wales

:17:25. > :17:31.without access to specialist legal advice. Because of the legal aid

:17:32. > :17:35.regime, it costs money. One way is to make legal aid available for

:17:36. > :17:39.employment tribunal 's, the other way would be to make them less

:17:40. > :17:45.complex. That would be rough and ready justice. The same with the tax

:17:46. > :17:50.measures in this country. I would urge the government to look at

:17:51. > :17:57.monitoring, and getting evidence only 1200 or so tax reliefs, and of

:17:58. > :18:03.the distributional analysis, some of the clauses talk about. I was urged

:18:04. > :18:07.the government to take the bull by the horns, have the guts, as they

:18:08. > :18:11.have on some measures of tax avoidance, and I salute them for

:18:12. > :18:19.that. Go for a simplification which would help businesses, but at the

:18:20. > :18:24.cost of the rough and ready. In the absence of the government is keen to

:18:25. > :18:28.the horns on tax implications. How do you get the government to part

:18:29. > :18:33.with information they say they have on tax reliefs? I have not been an

:18:34. > :18:37.MP for long, it strikes me there is a failure in the system if we're not

:18:38. > :18:41.seeing that transparency of the government doing these reviews, and

:18:42. > :18:49.not providing working to committees or MPs on the opposition benches. A

:18:50. > :18:59.failure in the system, how did we get them to part with the

:19:00. > :19:02.information? I'm unlikely to ever be a government minister, that it is

:19:03. > :19:07.the government minister, I'm hoping this afternoon, they will stand up

:19:08. > :19:10.and say that was a jolly good points made by the member for Aberdeen

:19:11. > :19:16.North. We're keeping these things under review all the time. Let's

:19:17. > :19:21.have the transparency, because we have talked about transparency. I

:19:22. > :19:26.salute the government did yesterday in relation to 145, what the

:19:27. > :19:31.government did for transparency. I'm urging them to day together it

:19:32. > :19:35.further in terms of transparency, publishing some of the evidence they

:19:36. > :19:40.do have. Go further in terms of marshalling more evidence disclosing

:19:41. > :19:47.it. In terms of having the courage to go seriously for simplification

:19:48. > :19:52.which would be better for business and employment in this country. If

:19:53. > :20:01.we can get there. Even though they would be a cost, as they say, born

:20:02. > :20:11.in terms of society, the more rough and ready. Something things the band

:20:12. > :20:18.members of the House, constituents with rights are saying we have only

:20:19. > :20:23.one situation you have needles those which a monochromatic and do not

:20:24. > :20:28.help me. I think we have to have the guts to save that is a price worth

:20:29. > :20:33.paying and have the guts to do so. I have faith in my points, by

:20:34. > :20:37.intervention by the Minister. I was not happy with your answer, I would

:20:38. > :20:39.like to try again and extend my case a little, on the matter of

:20:40. > :20:44.energy-saving materials. The principal issue in state for new

:20:45. > :20:50.clause 15. As I was trying to explain to the Minister, many of us

:20:51. > :20:54.feel it would be quite wrong if we had to introduce VAT on

:20:55. > :20:59.energy-saving materials. This House decided to choose the lowest rate we

:21:00. > :21:04.are allowed to impose under European Union law. A case was lost in the

:21:05. > :21:11.European Union court from the government wisely and insert a very

:21:12. > :21:14.long consultation on how it might implement this ill-conceived and

:21:15. > :21:19.unwarranted judgment. The longer it considers it the better, the sooner

:21:20. > :21:24.we get out of the European Union, we can bring the whole Sherard to a

:21:25. > :21:29.happy end. It illustrates exactly what was wrong with our membership.

:21:30. > :21:34.Something we can offer our constituents, as we come out. They

:21:35. > :21:43.voted to leave, take back control of vendors. Including laws over taxes.

:21:44. > :21:48.During the campaign, we made a great deal on the league side, how we

:21:49. > :21:53.wanted to scrap VAT on energy-saving materials, like many people in this

:21:54. > :22:04.House, we feel we can do much more saving energy, and skewness fuel

:22:05. > :22:07.efficiency. If we did not access, it would send a clear message it is

:22:08. > :22:13.something we believe in. I would urge the Minister, together is far

:22:14. > :22:17.as she can, if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to save

:22:18. > :22:22.government as they wish to put tax on energy-saving materials, and

:22:23. > :22:26.would not do so if they were free to make severance accesses. I would

:22:27. > :22:31.urge you to say, once we are free of the EU requirements, we will be

:22:32. > :22:35.scrapping it altogether. Not a huge moneyspinner for the government. It

:22:36. > :22:40.was sending a message from helping people in fuel poverty and who find

:22:41. > :22:48.energy-saving materials particularly expensive, and the extra VAT on them

:22:49. > :22:51.as well. The ministers saying this is something that the bricks at

:22:52. > :22:56.secretary is dealing with. Let me assure you, he's not. He made a

:22:57. > :23:01.clear statement on these matters in the House yesterday wisely telling

:23:02. > :23:06.us all, and I repeat for those did not have the benefit of hearing it,

:23:07. > :23:10.it is his role to work with the Prime Minister to get powers back,

:23:11. > :23:15.making sure this House and all of us once again unsettled taxes for the

:23:16. > :23:21.United Kingdom without having to accept the judgment and the

:23:22. > :23:24.overwrite the European Union. It would be Treasury ministers and

:23:25. > :23:30.divided Cabinet recommending how we use those wider powers, and to bring

:23:31. > :23:37.to the House proposals once they are free to do so. As soon as the

:23:38. > :23:45.trigger article 50, which I hope we do as soon as possible, another

:23:46. > :23:51.reason why we should not rush to impose higher taxes, something we

:23:52. > :23:57.wish to encourage, and something we want to incentivise them really

:23:58. > :24:00.think. They get cash incentive, related to budget matters in the

:24:01. > :24:07.Finance Bill, we would soon be able to get back the

:24:08. > :24:15.10,000,000,000-a-year, remembering every month delay, it is another 850

:24:16. > :24:19.million have to raise in this House through a finance bill like this.

:24:20. > :24:25.Money was sent away and do not get back. I was a similar city take this

:24:26. > :24:28.seriously. I would urge her again to say this government has absolutely

:24:29. > :24:33.no intention of increasing VAT on energy-saving materials until it is

:24:34. > :24:37.legally forced to do so. Sending my view, the sooner we out, sooner we

:24:38. > :24:42.can have a rational policy on this important item.

:24:43. > :24:51.I rise to address amendments 180-182 and new clause 19 tabled in my name

:24:52. > :24:56.and the names of honourable and right honourable friends. As still a

:24:57. > :25:00.relatively new member I would like to place on the record my enormous

:25:01. > :25:04.thanks to members of the public bill office who over the course of this

:25:05. > :25:07.summer, not only assisted in the production of these amendments for

:25:08. > :25:11.the finance bill but over 30 amendments to the higher Education

:25:12. > :25:13.Bill so I have been busy but I have been keeping them busy and as new

:25:14. > :25:18.member perhaps slightly more demanding, I am very grateful for

:25:19. > :25:26.their time and support. Turning first of all to amendments 180-182,

:25:27. > :25:30.as the Minister acknowledged in their opening remarks this afternoon

:25:31. > :25:34.these amendments have arisen as a result of concerns reflected right

:25:35. > :25:39.across the Treasury Select Committee about the nature of appointments to

:25:40. > :25:43.the most senior offices and the dismissal of those post holders and

:25:44. > :25:47.the office for tax simplification has an important public duty of many

:25:48. > :25:51.of us want to see the tax code sim playified. We know that there are

:25:52. > :25:55.inevitably constraints because the tax system is as complicated as life

:25:56. > :25:59.and therefore will always have a degree of complexity but we also

:26:00. > :26:02.know, particularly those of us who represent not just individuals, we

:26:03. > :26:05.all do, but particularly those of us with constituencies with a large

:26:06. > :26:09.number of small and medium-sized businesses that the more complicated

:26:10. > :26:13.the tax code, the more complicated it is for businesses to understand

:26:14. > :26:18.what it is they should and shouldn't be paying. The greater the

:26:19. > :26:22.advantage, frankly, there is to those companies that have the means

:26:23. > :26:26.to get a great deal of very expensive advice to make enormous

:26:27. > :26:31.savings and just yesterday during the course of the debate about the

:26:32. > :26:34.finance bill my right honourable friend was talking about the

:26:35. > :26:38.widespread practice of aggressive tax avoidance by multinational

:26:39. > :26:43.corporations, if the tax code were simpler and clearer, that sort of

:26:44. > :26:46.aggressive avoidance would be harder. That's why there is such a

:26:47. > :26:49.degree of parliamentary interest in the work of the office for tax

:26:50. > :26:53.simplification and the determination to make sure that in those most

:26:54. > :26:58.senior posts appointed by the Government that there is the

:26:59. > :27:01.appropriate degree of parliamentary oversight primarily but not

:27:02. > :27:05.exclusively through the Treasury Select Committee. Therefore, can I

:27:06. > :27:09.welcome the constructive approach that the Minister has taken and the

:27:10. > :27:13.agreement that she's given to the chairman of the Treasury Select

:27:14. > :27:17.Committee, the member for Chichester, who does a sterling job

:27:18. > :27:22.batting for all members of the committee on behalf of all sides of

:27:23. > :27:25.the House. I think this has been a good example of how Government and

:27:26. > :27:31.the Select Committee system can work effectively together to reach the

:27:32. > :27:36.right outcome. So it is not my intention to move amendments 180-181

:27:37. > :27:40.and 182 to a vote this afternoon, I think we have sufficient assurances

:27:41. > :27:45.for the Minister and we look forward to that process being continued

:27:46. > :27:50.under successive governments. Turning then to new clause 19, even

:27:51. > :27:54.newer members of the House are familiar with the regular display

:27:55. > :27:58.and theatre of any budget. There is inevitably in this modern age a

:27:59. > :28:04.degree of briefing and counterbriefing and misleading in

:28:05. > :28:09.the run-up to the event in order to misdirect the opposition, and save

:28:10. > :28:13.the best headlines for the budget. On the day of the budget itself, we

:28:14. > :28:16.have the routine announcements about the business that needs to be

:28:17. > :28:21.conducted in any budget. And of course the inevitable rabbit out of

:28:22. > :28:24.the hat. Once the smoke and Mirallasers have been cleared --

:28:25. > :28:29.smoke and mirrors have been cleared and put back in their place the real

:28:30. > :28:33.analysis begins of exactly what the consequences for each budget item is

:28:34. > :28:37.for the people that we are sent here to represent and even those of us

:28:38. > :28:42.who follow the scrutiny of bills closely, as members of the Select

:28:43. > :28:47.Committee or bill committees know, that trying to penetrate the real

:28:48. > :28:50.impact of a finance bill or any fiscal event is a significant

:28:51. > :28:54.challenge and I have to say that challenge has been made more

:28:55. > :28:57.difficult by the decision of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer

:28:58. > :29:02.to move away with the - move away from the commendable practice he

:29:03. > :29:06.previously followed of publishing alongside the budget the

:29:07. > :29:10.distribution analysis of the impact of tax welfare and public spending

:29:11. > :29:15.changes in the Government's budget. This is really important. Because I

:29:16. > :29:17.think all members on all sides of the House actually, the first

:29:18. > :29:21.question that we face when we are presented with a budget is what is

:29:22. > :29:23.the impact on our constituents and those of us committed to social

:29:24. > :29:29.justice are particularly interested in what the impact is on the poorer

:29:30. > :29:33.households as opposed to the wealthier households. In fact, the

:29:34. > :29:38.right honourable member himself described this analysis as the most

:29:39. > :29:41.comprehensive and robust assessment available. Which is why it was so

:29:42. > :29:45.disappointing that following the general election the previous

:29:46. > :29:50.Chancellor decided to abandon that practice, a move that was condemned

:29:51. > :29:53.at the time by a wide range of antipoverty charities as a serious

:29:54. > :29:58.mistake. Now we can spend lots of time debating why it was that the

:29:59. > :30:02.Chancellor at that particular moment choose to abandon the practice. We

:30:03. > :30:05.can have our usual exchanges about the priorities of Conservative

:30:06. > :30:08.governments as opposed to Labour governments but with the appointment

:30:09. > :30:12.of a new Prime Minister and a new Chancellor I hope we can instead

:30:13. > :30:18.debate the merits of the principle that we believe that any Government,

:30:19. > :30:22.whatever its priorities and whatever its political shade, should follow.

:30:23. > :30:24.The right honourable member for Chichester, the chairman of the

:30:25. > :30:29.Treasury Select Committee, has written to the Chancellor to express

:30:30. > :30:33.concern that last year's - at last year's summer budget the Treasury

:30:34. > :30:38.replaced its previous excellent distribution analysis with what he

:30:39. > :30:42.described as a manifestly deficient substitute. Since her elevation to

:30:43. > :30:46.the office of Prime Minister, she has made a great deal of fanfare

:30:47. > :30:50.about the commitment she made outside Number 10 Downing Street to

:30:51. > :30:54.lead a Government that works, not for the privileged few, but for

:30:55. > :31:00.everyone of us. I would dearly love to have a debate with the Government

:31:01. > :31:04.about the means through which we achieve social justice, about

:31:05. > :31:08.whether or not it is in of itself a good thing, but I certainly agree

:31:09. > :31:13.with the chairman of our committee that a high level of transparency

:31:14. > :31:18.about the effects of tax and welfare policy on households across the

:31:19. > :31:22.income distribution would seem to be a logical perhaps essential starting

:31:23. > :31:27.point. That's what motivated the tabling of new clause 19 because we

:31:28. > :31:30.think it's important that a Government, any Government, is very

:31:31. > :31:35.clear and transparent about the impact of the effects of the budget,

:31:36. > :31:39.not just to enable proper parliamentary and public scrutiny of

:31:40. > :31:42.budgets as will always take place in this chamber and in Select

:31:43. > :31:47.Committees, or indeed in conversations around the kitchen

:31:48. > :31:50.table up and down the country, it's also important because knowing that

:31:51. > :31:53.analysis has been produced and seeing that analysis formed as the

:31:54. > :31:57.budget itself is prepared, it helps to concentrate the minds of

:31:58. > :32:01.Ministers and civil servants and to ask the question before the

:32:02. > :32:04.Chancellor stands at the despatch box to announce his budget or her

:32:05. > :32:09.budget, it gives them that opportunity to reflect on the budget

:32:10. > :32:13.in its entirety. We know that successive governments and

:32:14. > :32:20.successive Chancellors have once or twice fallen foul of public opinion

:32:21. > :32:23.by realising that the whole of the budget is not necessarily as great

:32:24. > :32:28.as what they thought it was when they were considering each part. So,

:32:29. > :32:32.having this analysis in place as the budget is prepared will not only aid

:32:33. > :32:35.parliamentary and public scrutiny, it will also enable ministers to

:32:36. > :32:39.make the right judgment about how budgets should be balanced. On this

:32:40. > :32:44.side of the House, particularly when there are difficult judgments to be

:32:45. > :32:46.made about tax and welfare changes and public spending, we believe that

:32:47. > :32:51.the books should never be balanced on the backs of the poorest. But I

:32:52. > :32:56.hope that is an issue and an area where we can find agreement with the

:32:57. > :32:59.new Chancellor and the new Prime Minister, particularly given her

:33:00. > :33:05.stated aims. But whoever occupies the highest offices of this land, we

:33:06. > :33:09.should surely agree that parliamentary scrutiny is vital and

:33:10. > :33:13.we should also agree that since the Treasury have the evidence to hand,

:33:14. > :33:16.we are not asking the Treasury to do additional work, this work exists

:33:17. > :33:19.already, the analysis exists, we are simply asking the Treasury to put it

:33:20. > :33:23.in the public domain. I don't think that's too much to ask. I welcome

:33:24. > :33:27.the fact that this afternoon the Minister has left the door open and

:33:28. > :33:34.says it's an area that will be considered by ministers. On that

:33:35. > :33:37.basis, I accept the Minister's and the Chancellor and the Treasury will

:33:38. > :33:41.make considerations about this. Can I assure her and the Chancellor that

:33:42. > :33:44.we will return to this issue on the Select Committee and at future

:33:45. > :33:50.fiscal events if this is not changed but on the basis that the Government

:33:51. > :33:58.has an open mind and open ears on this issue, I am prepared to not

:33:59. > :34:05.move new clause 19 to a vote. It's a pleasure to take part in this stage

:34:06. > :34:08.of the finance bill and I am interested to hear the comments from

:34:09. > :34:12.the member and to pick up on the point he mentioned in terms of

:34:13. > :34:15.social justice and wanting to see social justice from this budget and

:34:16. > :34:19.future budgets and to see that at the hearts of the Government's

:34:20. > :34:23.agenda as was made clear on the steps of Number 10 by the new Prime

:34:24. > :34:27.Minister. And also looking at the impact on the poorest households and

:34:28. > :34:32.indeed that's the focus of both new clause two and new clause three in

:34:33. > :34:37.the review that is within those amendments. It's also interesting as

:34:38. > :34:43.ever to hear from the honourable member for Wolverhampton south-west

:34:44. > :34:46.and to listen to his thesis on post-factual analysis of whether

:34:47. > :34:51.it's the Labour leadership contest or indeed in relation to this bill

:34:52. > :34:56.and perhaps in his example of roads maybe he should come counsel down to

:34:57. > :35:01.Enfield and give us a post-fact Yule analysis of the cycle lanes planned

:35:02. > :35:04.in my Borough and see whether we should continue with that very

:35:05. > :35:11.expensive proposal, at least in the best value. But to the matters at

:35:12. > :35:19.hand. To speak to new clause two firstly in my name and that of my

:35:20. > :35:27.honourable friends who can't be here, she is leading a health Select

:35:28. > :35:30.Committee. I would expect across the House there is support for the

:35:31. > :35:36.principles of wanting to properly carry out a review of the impact of

:35:37. > :35:39.the regime, particularly in relation to high strength side, although I

:35:40. > :35:44.very much welcome the comments made by the Minister and the need as she

:35:45. > :35:49.knows for her previous role in public health, she will know all too

:35:50. > :35:54.clearly the impact of alcohol and particularly high strength alcohol

:35:55. > :36:00.and indeed cider on the poorest and those most in need of our attention.

:36:01. > :36:07.And welcome perhaps the hint there could be a more wider review of the

:36:08. > :36:11.relationship between alcohol duties and harm that was mooted by the

:36:12. > :36:15.previous Prime Minister but seemed to go into the long grass and has

:36:16. > :36:18.never returned, and she will know very much of the different interests

:36:19. > :36:21.across Government in relation to this review and its final outcome

:36:22. > :36:27.when we had the previous Prime Minister talking about alcohol

:36:28. > :36:33.pricing in terms of when, not if, and it's gone back to being an if. I

:36:34. > :36:38.look forward perhaps to in future consideration of a more wider review

:36:39. > :36:43.of relationship between analysis of that and the impact on behaviour

:36:44. > :36:49.particularly on the poorest. This new clause particularly actually

:36:50. > :36:52.looks to hone in on an area that is not just about health harms,

:36:53. > :36:57.although that's the core of the argument, but also actually an

:36:58. > :37:04.anomaly compared to how we deal with beer. At the risk as a Remainer of

:37:05. > :37:07.sounding like the right honourable member for Wokingham, would the

:37:08. > :37:13.honourable member agree this is one area where as a small silver lining

:37:14. > :37:18.leaving the European Union may assist, because the rates of exise

:37:19. > :37:20.duties and definitions and so on are related to our membership of the

:37:21. > :37:25.European Union, for example, the way in which wine is treated because of

:37:26. > :37:29.the Italian, Spanish and French wine industries and that if and when we

:37:30. > :37:35.leave the European Union we will have more flexibility in this

:37:36. > :37:41.regard. I welcome reluctant converts whenever they come to the cause of

:37:42. > :37:45.Brexit. It's a silver lining amongst many, I see very much as sunshine as

:37:46. > :37:50.silver linings which is shining on the - it's making it at the heart of

:37:51. > :37:54.it all, us taking back control over an issue of duty that impacts - VAT

:37:55. > :37:58.previously already, that impacts not least on the most vulnerable, I look

:37:59. > :38:03.forward to hearing from the Scottish members to hear their support for

:38:04. > :38:08.the same silver lining because they've been battling to ensure that

:38:09. > :38:11.their proposal for minimum unit price something not subject to court

:38:12. > :38:15.and European court interference and they perhaps could welcome that

:38:16. > :38:22.silver lining as well and look forward to us joining in very much

:38:23. > :38:28.the words of the honourable member. Getting back to my new clause two.

:38:29. > :38:32.When one looks at high strength ciders and when one - if members as

:38:33. > :38:36.they've been in their recess and enjoyed their crieders of all shapes

:38:37. > :38:44.and varieties they'll have taken, some maybe even have had the

:38:45. > :38:49.sparkling ciders which are a substitute for champagne, have no

:38:50. > :38:54.fear, the essence of this review is actually about very much the nasty

:38:55. > :38:58.stuff that I doubt many honourable members have perhaps par taken, you

:38:59. > :39:05.will have to go down to the off-licence and get the large bottle

:39:06. > :39:08.or canned up white cider which isn't particularly sparkling and isn't

:39:09. > :39:13.particularly pleasant but is something which attracts underage

:39:14. > :39:21.drinkers and particularly dependent drinkers. And as was mentioned in

:39:22. > :39:27.the comments by the Minister. But we do need to look at the fact This

:39:28. > :39:32.Week area, this white cider attracts the lowest duty of any product and

:39:33. > :39:36.frankly represents the cheapest way to get drunk and to consume alcohol

:39:37. > :40:14.and to continue the dependency of addicts.

:40:15. > :40:24.My honourable is going to be hopefully navigating that with

:40:25. > :40:28.cross-party support on 28th October. Connected to that and this is

:40:29. > :40:32.perhaps a wider point in terms of a future budget is looking at the

:40:33. > :40:35.impacts that not least duty plays and the evidence that there is that

:40:36. > :41:06.the price does have a particular impact on behaviours.

:41:07. > :41:12.half the cost of those regimes can have in terms of health services and

:41:13. > :41:16.social services, no government has got the right. There is a cost of

:41:17. > :41:26.the fiscal policy does not get right. We have to change policy

:41:27. > :41:28.across all the areas. I welcome the intervention, the longest serving

:41:29. > :41:34.conservative public Health Minister, she can bring to bear this, given

:41:35. > :41:40.the number of ministers on the Treasury bench, covering the

:41:41. > :41:47.aspects, creating a better overall review. Linking up with what we hope

:41:48. > :41:54.to receive from the government, the long awaited life chances strategy,

:41:55. > :41:59.whether social justice, life chances, we must ensure it is

:42:00. > :42:04.focused on the most important factors, those impacted by those

:42:05. > :42:26.issues mentioned, honourable friend. Those bottles, those units and

:42:27. > :42:38.containers, more than the government guidelines. Diamond White, those

:42:39. > :42:51.white ciders, spending one third as much. These high alcohol ciders.

:42:52. > :42:58.The only taxes based on volume, rather than strength. That has an

:42:59. > :43:01.impact on behaviour is. And manufacturers. Looking at the

:43:02. > :43:14.incentives of what they produce. They go for volume, not hit by the

:43:15. > :43:19.string. The beer regime has that trading, it does have an impact.

:43:20. > :43:39.When we look at high streets. Different strength of beer. There is

:43:40. > :44:06.Edinburgh,, it is a huge issue. A large number of drinkers will no,

:44:07. > :44:12.having experienced this, in constituency areas, those dependent

:44:13. > :44:17.on this harmful drinking. It is a drink of choice for many harmful

:44:18. > :44:25.drinkers. The Chief Executive, Jeremy Swain, 78% of deaths amongst

:44:26. > :44:34.clients can be traced back to high street drinks, like white cider.

:44:35. > :44:46.That is a shocking statistic. I would look at the impact. There have

:44:47. > :44:50.been efforts made. The Minister has made efforts, with manufacturers, to

:44:51. > :44:57.get them to sort out and become responsible. Retailers have done

:44:58. > :45:01.that, Heineken and other friends withdrawing their high-strength

:45:02. > :45:06.brands. We should praise them. Retailers like Morrisons have

:45:07. > :45:15.acknowledged the problems with these products. You have to come to my

:45:16. > :45:21.constituency on Green lanes, working off-licences have this readily

:45:22. > :45:25.available. Sadly targeted on heavy drinkers, they are more likely to

:45:26. > :45:31.have white cider. This is based on evidence. It does need a wider

:45:32. > :45:40.debate and review. They are more responsive to the price of cheap

:45:41. > :45:46.alcohol. There are responsible retailers and manufacturers. They

:45:47. > :45:50.have seen the impact of this disease, there have been changes in

:45:51. > :45:56.the lack of accessibility. The increased price of the products.

:45:57. > :46:00.Alcohol treatment charities, they have parts of the drink industry,

:46:01. > :46:05.and the dependent drinkers themselves, they have made the point

:46:06. > :46:12.themselves. Recognising the impact of the increased price. It is indeed

:46:13. > :46:16.time for the government to provide additional reassurance that this

:46:17. > :46:24.will be hanged in focus on future budgets. Also of wider review of the

:46:25. > :46:28.impact of higher strength alcohol, and the targeting of white cider

:46:29. > :46:35.sales. The Minister did say we must be proportionate, in the way we

:46:36. > :46:42.handle the duties. Ensuring that people not be duly impacted by

:46:43. > :46:48.giving out, and having a cider. This does not impact on most mainstream

:46:49. > :46:53.ciders between four percent and 5%. In terms of the issue of

:46:54. > :46:59.simplification, this brings us in line with the treatment of beer.

:47:00. > :47:06.Since 2011, there have been three tiers of beer duty, on high-strength

:47:07. > :47:12.beers. The question is, why doesn't the government, for the issue of

:47:13. > :47:17.simplicity, maker similar consideration on cider. Particularly

:47:18. > :47:20.because of the impact on the poorest, in relation to high

:47:21. > :47:26.strength cider. The government has put social justice at the heart of

:47:27. > :47:29.all it does, including this area, where the spotlight associations

:47:30. > :47:35.must go, in terms of harmful drinking. I welcome a few words of

:47:36. > :47:42.support on the targeting increase on high-strength cider, working very

:47:43. > :47:46.seriously in the next budget, and recognise this as part of a wider

:47:47. > :47:53.review into the issues of alcohol duty, and the relationship to harm

:47:54. > :47:57.and the importance. Moving on to another area of interest, in

:47:58. > :48:04.interest in previous finance bill debates. I wish to speak on the new

:48:05. > :48:08.clause three, and 16 other right honourable friends. And others who

:48:09. > :48:13.have given their support for this review. Seeking review for the

:48:14. > :48:22.marriage and civil partners tax allowance. Providing a particular

:48:23. > :48:26.focus, on low income households. Low-income households, particularly

:48:27. > :48:30.couples with young children. It would be progressive if the

:48:31. > :48:34.government was to focus and get more take-up, as the minister said, and I

:48:35. > :48:38.welcome the comments about the take-up. Also focus on making a more

:48:39. > :48:44.significant amount that will disproportionately impact on low

:48:45. > :48:48.income households. I very much welcome the introduction of the

:48:49. > :48:53.transferable allowance for married people and civil partners. Unlike

:48:54. > :48:58.previous debates, along with other honourable friends you have been

:48:59. > :49:04.here before, we have established that in the tax system, that battle

:49:05. > :49:08.has been won can the promise has been kept. Recognition of marriage

:49:09. > :49:14.in the tax system, which is evidence -based. The institution of marriage

:49:15. > :49:18.builds social resilience, improves mental well-being, aiding health and

:49:19. > :49:25.relationships, particularly with children. I won't dwell on that

:49:26. > :49:28.prospect. As the Minister said, by the dispatch box. She only half of

:49:29. > :49:34.the government is committed to that transferable allowance, here to stay

:49:35. > :49:37.under this government. That is welcome, if other hands got on the

:49:38. > :49:45.tiller, they could be in effect. Also we have to look cannot sit

:49:46. > :49:52.back, we have recognised marriage, we need to look, as we do across

:49:53. > :49:59.government, how is it going to impact on poorer households? Those

:50:00. > :50:03.that are impacted. We need to look at incentives, and financial

:50:04. > :50:12.incentives and disincentives, around couple relationships and penalties

:50:13. > :50:17.that do still exist. We must prevent marriage from becoming the preserve

:50:18. > :50:21.of the most wealthy. We cannot be content, and I'm sure members across

:50:22. > :50:26.the House will join me in not being content with the fractured society

:50:27. > :50:30.when relationships break down, we must do all we can to help couples

:50:31. > :50:35.staying together, with children and the impact on children when couples

:50:36. > :50:41.then stay together. Evidence that same married couples with children,

:50:42. > :50:44.they will be served better by the fact the couples stay together.

:50:45. > :50:48.There are different incentives for that, and not all about the tax

:50:49. > :50:55.allowance. A whole range of support that can happen. That is subject to

:50:56. > :51:01.another debate, another time. We can play our part, in terms of fiscal

:51:02. > :51:11.incentives. I recall a recent speech, by Lord Sacks, initially we

:51:12. > :51:19.spoke about. We are building a party of one nation, he refuses to Leeds

:51:20. > :51:24.referred to a growing two nations, a failure to support marriage is

:51:25. > :51:29.creating two nations with two very different sets of life chances. As

:51:30. > :51:38.the government build their strategy, we should not ignore that life

:51:39. > :51:43.chances change, in the difference of marriage. 1 million children will

:51:44. > :51:47.grow up without their fathers. Creating a divide in societies the

:51:48. > :51:55.like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of two nations.

:51:56. > :52:01.A loving relationship with the two people who brought them into being

:52:02. > :52:07.will mean a healthier childhood, more successful education, growing

:52:08. > :52:13.up healthier and live longer. We certainly can play our part fiscally

:52:14. > :52:18.supporting a lack, to ensure we are not divided, and gave many

:52:19. > :52:24.opportunities from couples being together. This context, focusing on

:52:25. > :52:28.how we can get more out of the money, the government allowance.

:52:29. > :52:32.That I want to particularly draw attention to four honourable

:52:33. > :52:36.members. There has been a low take-up. The Minister referenced it

:52:37. > :52:41.in her opening remarks. There has been a good marketing campaign. The

:52:42. > :52:46.take-up, as the Minister said, they will be the 1,000,000th take-up to

:52:47. > :52:50.the allowance. It is available, I'm sure those watching the debate will

:52:51. > :52:55.want to see if it has not been taken already. I'm pleased about that.

:52:56. > :52:59.Nevertheless, there has been a huge underspend in the government's

:53:00. > :53:05.original budget for the transferable allowance. Allocating ?490 million

:53:06. > :53:11.support for marriage and the tax system. A partial allowance, from

:53:12. > :53:19.earlier iterations, a smaller transferability. Nevertheless, a

:53:20. > :53:25.significant amount of money. There is now a gap, the funding initially

:53:26. > :53:30.allocated has now not been taken up. Even if one took the Minister's

:53:31. > :53:35.figures, announced to date with 1,000,000th person taking up the

:53:36. > :53:41.allowance, in my estimation, that would be ?210 million. If they all

:53:42. > :53:45.take that payment. We are still weigh less than half the amount

:53:46. > :53:49.originally allocated for this policy. When we are in challenging

:53:50. > :53:53.Financial Times, I am looking at how we can get more out of this

:53:54. > :53:59.principle from the government. Nearly a ?500 million commitment.

:54:00. > :54:03.How can we refocus it, ensuring there is a take-up? Ensuring it is

:54:04. > :54:08.therefore those who most need it. Can the government increased the

:54:09. > :54:15.level of almost four pounds a week. I'm looking at the honourable

:54:16. > :54:20.member, and the Prime Minister'swords, when it comes the

:54:21. > :54:24.taxes we will prioritise not the wealthy, focusing on ordinary

:54:25. > :54:31.working-class families. Those not just taking up this allowance, those

:54:32. > :54:33.particularly getting more fiscal incentives. Trying to reduce the

:54:34. > :54:39.financial inaccessibility of marriage. I would encourage

:54:40. > :54:46.honourable members to look at new clauses. Financial constraints, but

:54:47. > :54:50.using the money allocated better, and going further. Looking at

:54:51. > :54:55.whether it can be targeted particularly at married or civil

:54:56. > :55:03.partners, who particularly need that additional support. It is the

:55:04. > :55:06.campaign being waged for many years by Care and the Centre for Social

:55:07. > :55:11.Justice, focusing on married families with families under fire,

:55:12. > :55:18.that would particularly help them. There have been reports out focusing

:55:19. > :55:22.on the crucial early days and years, and it would promote stability and

:55:23. > :55:27.support child development. When it is most needed. Also a very

:55:28. > :55:31.progressive form of tax. Looking at evidence, people after the budget

:55:32. > :55:33.asked what the Institute for Fiscal Studies thing. What do they think of

:55:34. > :56:04.the transferable allowance? Indeed as the effect of raising the

:56:05. > :56:06.personal allowance to 12 - 12500. Now I welcome very much the personal

:56:07. > :56:10.allowance and the commitment to that. I think it's a wholly good

:56:11. > :56:16.measure. But if one is looking across the board at its relationship

:56:17. > :56:20.to other areas of allowance and looks at the transferable allowance,

:56:21. > :56:24.we shouldn't just simply, it should be looked in a proper context at

:56:25. > :56:29.what is progressive and helping lower income households, then let's

:56:30. > :56:34.look at what the IFS says. They said that by contrast to the personal

:56:35. > :56:38.allowance in terms of the transferable allowance 70% of the

:56:39. > :56:42.benefit goes to those in the lower half of the income distribution band

:56:43. > :56:45.and that is in itself a socially just approach to dealing with

:56:46. > :56:55.allowances and the Government I would nurj to look at it carefully

:56:56. > :57:00.and I ask them to see if they would still agree the 2010 interpretation

:57:01. > :57:05.analysis. Yes, in fact, whatever the beauty of the transferable

:57:06. > :57:08.allowance, even if it's the small transferability at the moment or

:57:09. > :57:13.indeed a larger transferability which I would encourage the

:57:14. > :57:18.Government to go down to eventually, indeed 100% transferability to help

:57:19. > :57:22.not least stay at home families who are impacted by the present tax and

:57:23. > :57:27.the high margin tax rate that impacts upon these couples. The IFS

:57:28. > :57:30.says it would continue to result in approximately 70% of the money

:57:31. > :57:34.secured for the transferable allowance going to those in the

:57:35. > :57:39.lower half of the income distribution band and that has to be

:57:40. > :57:44.borne in mind. There has to be one - the context is and this I would also

:57:45. > :57:48.encourage the Government not to look in isolation at the marriage tax

:57:49. > :57:53.allowance, it has to be looked at more widely and internationally. If

:57:54. > :57:57.you look at tax comparisons conducted by Care, the UK tax burden

:57:58. > :58:01.placed on a one earner married couple with two children on an

:58:02. > :58:05.average wage is 25% greater than the case across the OECD average. We

:58:06. > :58:10.need to look at that broader context to see that we need to support the

:58:11. > :58:14.transferable allowance. As the previous Prime Minister said, he

:58:15. > :58:17.thought it was a staging post and we should increase it, in money and

:58:18. > :58:22.indeed in percentage of transferability but also if we can't

:58:23. > :58:26.perhaps go that far immediately let's focus on those that would

:58:27. > :58:30.particularly benefit and be impacted by it which is couples with I didn't

:58:31. > :58:34.think children. Thank you very much. Just on that point, particularly the

:58:35. > :58:37.point around choice for parents and whether or not they choose to stay

:58:38. > :58:41.at home or choose to work, despite the measure that's been put in, I

:58:42. > :58:44.support anything that allows parents to have the choice or more of a

:58:45. > :58:48.choice in terms of whether or not they stay at home to look after

:58:49. > :58:52.children or put them in child care, however, we still have a massive

:58:53. > :58:57.problem with families not being able to make those choices with child

:58:58. > :59:01.care not being affordable enough for families particularly for those

:59:02. > :59:05.caring for under fives and parents are forced into being stay at home

:59:06. > :59:08.parents or into taking low wage jobs at strange hours because of the lack

:59:09. > :59:12.of affordable child care that we have. Does he support measures to

:59:13. > :59:19.change the child care regime as well as to change the tax regime around

:59:20. > :59:23.this? The honourable member takes me to a wider debate. The Minister I

:59:24. > :59:26.think would also point to the measures in relationship to child

:59:27. > :59:30.care and when one looks at supporting couples with young

:59:31. > :59:33.children there is other ways that the Government have been very much

:59:34. > :59:38.involved in in improving the offer. There is work to go in terms of

:59:39. > :59:43.affordability and accessible, I know that in my constituency in relation

:59:44. > :59:46.to poorer households accessing appropriate child care. But I

:59:47. > :59:51.appreciate the honourable member talking about choice. There is also

:59:52. > :59:55.the issue of choice that while the Government is encouraging as many

:59:56. > :59:58.people to work as possible to exercise that choice, there is

:59:59. > :00:03.sometimes that choice for those that would indeed want to stay at home

:00:04. > :00:08.and the fiscal incentive to do that is not currently there. There is an

:00:09. > :00:12.impact generally across the tax system for single earner couples, a

:00:13. > :00:15.huge impact upon them which I don't believe is getting sufficient

:00:16. > :00:19.attention and this transferable allowance does do that. There is

:00:20. > :00:22.lots of measures across the system that do seek to focus support on

:00:23. > :00:25.children but we must particularly support the benefits of this

:00:26. > :00:32.allowance which is around couples and marriage and the commitment to

:00:33. > :00:36.marriage and civil partnership and inclusion - I believe that by

:00:37. > :00:42.looking and following the cause of new clause three it can be a win-win

:00:43. > :00:45.situation for the Government because it not only obviously recognises

:00:46. > :00:49.what we do already that marriage within the tax system but it allows

:00:50. > :00:52.us to get a maximum effect from the Government's original commitment

:00:53. > :00:57.which I believe was welcomed but still was somewhat partial in terms

:00:58. > :01:03.of original intentions but recognising financial challenges, it

:01:04. > :01:07.would ensure that we can seek to remove some of the disincentives,

:01:08. > :01:11.helps us to support social resilience, helps transferability

:01:12. > :01:15.and is fiscally conservative and really what new clause three is

:01:16. > :01:21.about is getting more bang for our buck to support marriage and social

:01:22. > :01:25.justice. Thank you. There are several new

:01:26. > :01:29.clauses upon which I intend to speak, most of them briefly, the

:01:30. > :01:35.first of which is new clause 18. New clause 18 calls for a review of the

:01:36. > :01:40.impact of section 24 of the 2015 finance act. I and my SNP colleagues

:01:41. > :01:46.have concerns that the changes made in section 24 may have adverse

:01:47. > :01:51.consequences on the availability of affordable housing in Scotland and

:01:52. > :01:55.beyond. This piece of legislation seems to be yet again another London

:01:56. > :01:59.centric policy which fails to take account of the diversity of the

:02:00. > :02:04.housing market throughout the UK. Unlike other parts of the U can

:02:05. > :02:07.where large rental agencies dominate, Scotland has a

:02:08. > :02:12.disproportionate number of landlords who own small number of properties.

:02:13. > :02:16.This is hugely beneficial to tenants, particularly those of low

:02:17. > :02:19.incomes as these small scale landlords are often more willing to

:02:20. > :02:25.rent properties at an affordable price. And to those relying on

:02:26. > :02:30.social security as a safety net. Due to the changes introduced in section

:02:31. > :02:38.24 of the 2015 act, we are concerned that these small scale landlords in

:02:39. > :02:41.Scotland maybe forced to either drastically increase rental Cowes

:02:42. > :02:44.costs or sell their properties, particularly resulting in these

:02:45. > :02:49.properties being purchased by less sympathetic landlords or agencies.

:02:50. > :02:55.Given the UK-wide housing crisis we currently suffer and the rising cost

:02:56. > :02:58.of rented accommodation, it is incredibly important to ensure that

:02:59. > :03:03.landlords who rent at affordable prices and to those who depend on

:03:04. > :03:08.social security as a safety net must not be pushed out of the market. As

:03:09. > :03:12.such new clause 18 calls for a review of the impact of these

:03:13. > :03:16.changes on the availability of affordable housing so those on lower

:03:17. > :03:21.incomes are not adversely affected by these changes. I now move to new

:03:22. > :03:25.clause six which calls for a review on the VAT treatment of Scottish

:03:26. > :03:29.Police Authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service mentioned

:03:30. > :03:33.before by members in this House and I thank the Minister for her

:03:34. > :03:38.comments and consideration in her remarks. Many in this chamber maybe

:03:39. > :03:41.familiar with the matter of VAT in relation to the Scottish police and

:03:42. > :03:46.fire rescue services. It has been raised here on a number of occasions

:03:47. > :03:51.by my colleagues. However, it remains an incredibly important

:03:52. > :03:55.matter and one which this Government has failed to properly address.

:03:56. > :03:58.Since the corporation of police and fire authorities in 2013 the

:03:59. > :04:02.Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish fire and rescue services

:04:03. > :04:06.have been charged VAT by the UK Treasury. This UK Government has

:04:07. > :04:11.refused to grant an exemption to these vital services in Scotland

:04:12. > :04:19.despite the fact that since the time of incorporation HMRC has handed out

:04:20. > :04:24.exemptions to new transport agency highways England, and Olympic legacy

:04:25. > :04:29.organisation London legacy. This Tory-backed charge on essential

:04:30. > :04:33.Scottish public services is costing emergency services tens of millions

:04:34. > :04:38.every year that could and should be spent on front line services. Just

:04:39. > :04:43.this past summer in June it was reported that Scotland's police

:04:44. > :04:47.force has paid ?76. 5 million in VAT since it was formed three years ago

:04:48. > :04:53.and remains unable to claim this money. It is worth noting that only

:04:54. > :04:58.the Scottish police and fire services have been expected to pay

:04:59. > :05:04.VAT to HMRC and not English, Welsh or Northern Irish services. This is

:05:05. > :05:09.a disgrace and it seems absurd and unfair for this Tory UK Government

:05:10. > :05:11.to continue to expect the Scottish Government to rectify the matter and

:05:12. > :05:15.cover the difference especially given the consistent cuts to the

:05:16. > :05:19.pocket money it grants Scotland to run devolved matters. As such, we

:05:20. > :05:24.have tabled new clause six which seeks a review of the impacts of the

:05:25. > :05:28.VAT treatment on the Scottish police and Scottish fire and rescue

:05:29. > :05:32.services, including analysis of the impact of the financial position of

:05:33. > :05:38.these services arising from the VAT treatment. I now briefly turn to new

:05:39. > :05:41.clause 15 which seeks to prevent VAT being increased on the installation

:05:42. > :05:45.of energy saving materials. The right honourable member from

:05:46. > :05:50.Wokingham, I agree with his prevention or intent to prevent the

:05:51. > :05:53.VAT increases if not his methods. This Tory Government has

:05:54. > :05:57.consistently instituted regressive policies in relation to clean energy

:05:58. > :06:04.and energy efficiency measures, from cuts to the solar subs tees - I give

:06:05. > :06:12.way. I am extremely grateful to the honourable gentleman. Does he agree

:06:13. > :06:16.that this would be a relatively cheap way of incentivising

:06:17. > :06:20.householders and energy saving products in addressing some of the

:06:21. > :06:24.damage that the Government and the previous coalition Government did by

:06:25. > :06:28.effectively dismantling the green energy policy they claimed to

:06:29. > :06:32.support at the outset? I thank the honourable gentleman for his

:06:33. > :06:35.intervention and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments.

:06:36. > :06:40.And to go on from his comments there, from cuts to the solar subs

:06:41. > :06:46.tees, the scrapping of onshore wind, the scrapping of the green deal for

:06:47. > :06:50.energy as mentioned, for efficient energy efficient homes, the selling

:06:51. > :06:53.of the green investment bank, this Government is taking the UK

:06:54. > :06:57.backwards when it comes to renewable energy and I fear with Brexit

:06:58. > :07:03.looming on the horizon this trajectory is set to continue. As

:07:04. > :07:06.such, it seems rather logical to me for the installation of energy

:07:07. > :07:14.saving materials to be exempt from a hike in VAT as a minimum given this

:07:15. > :07:21.environment of cuts. I would like to speak now to new clause eight in

:07:22. > :07:23.respect of dividend income. My honourable friend submitted the

:07:24. > :07:27.amendment during the committee stage of this bill regarding the proposed

:07:28. > :07:32.changes to the treatment of dividend income by HMRC. However, my

:07:33. > :07:35.colleagues and I feel the issue has not yet been sufficiently addressed

:07:36. > :07:40.by the Government and as such did not push the clause to a vote at

:07:41. > :07:44.that time so we may at a later date address that matter, we do so now.

:07:45. > :07:48.Now we do not wish to rehash previous points made. However, the

:07:49. > :07:54.matter is one of great importance and as such we have submitted the

:07:55. > :07:57.new clause. Numerous stake holders groups have raised concerns

:07:58. > :08:02.regarding the regressive impact of the changes to dividend income as

:08:03. > :08:06.proposed within this bill. And particularly the effect it will have

:08:07. > :08:11.on small and micro businesses which are businesses that employ between

:08:12. > :08:15.one and nine people. Those raising these concerns have highlighted that

:08:16. > :08:19.the changes will have a disproportionate effect on micro

:08:20. > :08:24.businesses run by owner-operators who are on modest incomes. Given

:08:25. > :08:33.there is already many disincentives to running micro businesses as

:08:34. > :08:40.opposed to tradition salary employment - I give way.

:08:41. > :08:43.On the point of this new clause, does my honourable friend agree that

:08:44. > :08:47.this finance bill was devised prior to the vote to leave the European

:08:48. > :08:51.Union and that particularly in this measure which is going to have a

:08:52. > :08:54.disproportionate effect on micro businesses that the Government

:08:55. > :08:55.should accept our new clause on this measure and then review this in

:08:56. > :09:05.light of Brexit. Up I thank my honourable friend for

:09:06. > :09:08.her intervention, and I have sympathy with all nations in this

:09:09. > :09:18.position, as my honourable friend says. The measures were devised

:09:19. > :09:25.prior to the EU vote, and does not recognise an economy facing the

:09:26. > :09:31.harsh realities of wrecks it. We wait until the Autumn Statement, and

:09:32. > :09:34.see what it states, imaginary and otherwise. We will see whether the

:09:35. > :09:41.new Chancellor is as good a imaginary numbers as the previous

:09:42. > :09:46.one was not. The Federation of Small Businesses has raised concerns.

:09:47. > :09:52.Highlighting changes particularly acute for members on modest incomes.

:09:53. > :09:58.Submitting extensive evidence on the feedback for the proposed changes.

:09:59. > :10:02.They have highlighted concerns from small and micro businesses. The

:10:03. > :10:06.changes may mean they will not be able to continue to employ the small

:10:07. > :10:15.workforce. Evidence has been submitted to the committee by Crunch

:10:16. > :10:23.accounting, producing work on the matter. This analysis is

:10:24. > :10:33.significant, and as such, should be raised again. Crunch accounting has

:10:34. > :10:38.highlighted that the changes would hit Lower earning businesses the

:10:39. > :10:43.hardest. Changes in income will be offset by future charges in the wake

:10:44. > :10:46.HMRC treats corporations, according to the government, as well as

:10:47. > :10:51.planned changes to personal allowances. Crunch has highlighted

:10:52. > :10:59.that these anticipated changes will not fully offset the impact by the

:11:00. > :11:02.changes to micro businesses proposed in this legislation. They have

:11:03. > :11:07.highlighted how measures cited by ministers, such as changing

:11:08. > :11:10.employment allowances, and employment investment allowance,

:11:11. > :11:15.they are rarely available to micro businesses. They have little capital

:11:16. > :11:21.investment. I would like to stress the importance of small and medium

:11:22. > :11:27.enterprises, to the Scottish and UK economy, and it cannot be

:11:28. > :11:32.overstated. There are a few things on which I agree with the Prime

:11:33. > :11:38.Minister, but her statement that small and medium businesses are the

:11:39. > :11:41.backbone of the country, that is one I strongly agree with. In the same

:11:42. > :11:46.speech she intends to listen to smaller firms. However I have

:11:47. > :11:51.concerns that despite this profession from the Prime Minister,

:11:52. > :11:57.that aggressive changes to dividend income will dis- incentivise them

:11:58. > :12:00.from forming chemicals in the potential to cause existing micro

:12:01. > :12:05.businesses to fail. It is essential to note the number of small and

:12:06. > :12:12.micro businesses which are categorised, the UK is home to 5.2

:12:13. > :12:16.million micro businesses from employing 8.4 million people. In

:12:17. > :12:21.Scotland they play an essential role in the economy, according to recent

:12:22. > :12:26.Scottish Government statistics, 90% of businesses in Scotland are

:12:27. > :12:32.categorised this way. The vast majority are micro businesses. 81.5%

:12:33. > :12:36.of the businesses in Scotland. This figures are similar for the UK as a

:12:37. > :12:51.whole. According to do House of Commons library it is a similar

:12:52. > :12:55.take-up. Micro business is essential to the local and national economies.

:12:56. > :12:59.Even that they make up the vast majority of businesses in Scotland

:13:00. > :13:06.and UK wide, I find it absolutely staggering that HMRC does not assess

:13:07. > :13:10.them as a separate group. Given the prevalence of them throughout the

:13:11. > :13:15.economy, it does seem that the government has listened to the

:13:16. > :13:19.concerns of smaller firms. Last month's proclamations from the Prime

:13:20. > :13:26.Minister. When my honourable friend first introduced the amendment, to

:13:27. > :13:33.the way he HMRC treats dividend income. The response to this

:13:34. > :13:36.regarding micro business, the government had considered the

:13:37. > :13:40.general economic impact of the changes, it is not expected to have

:13:41. > :13:46.any significant micro economic impact. This statement taken alone

:13:47. > :13:52.is staggering. As I previously stated, 94% of businesses in the UK

:13:53. > :14:00.are categorised as micro businesses. Introducing a change which

:14:01. > :14:04.principally impacts them, how could it not make a change? The minister

:14:05. > :14:08.stated in the introductory remarks, that we do not know the impact of

:14:09. > :14:13.such legislation. I would highlight, to the chamber from the oral

:14:14. > :14:21.evidence given to the committee in the other place, in February 20 the

:14:22. > :14:26.deputy director of personal tax HMRC, when asked by the chairman of

:14:27. > :14:30.the impact of these changes to micro businesses, I quote, I can ensure

:14:31. > :14:35.the committee we recognise dividend tax changes will mean in their own

:14:36. > :14:40.or manage businesses are paying a higher level of tax than previously,

:14:41. > :14:45.despite the benefits they will see in the reduction of its corporate

:14:46. > :14:50.tax rate. Madam Deputy Speaker, these two statements seem to be

:14:51. > :14:55.disagreeing with one another. Does the government believed, as

:14:56. > :15:01.indicated by the member for South West Herts that these changes will

:15:02. > :15:08.not significantly impact and micro business? Or as indicated by Miss

:15:09. > :15:11.McDonald at HMRC, the changes will impact owner managed businesses,

:15:12. > :15:17.despite future changes to the corporate rate? Given the

:15:18. > :15:21.uncertainty to the inconsistent responses coupled with substantial

:15:22. > :15:26.evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses, Crunch accounting

:15:27. > :15:31.and others, seems as if the government has not fully cognitively

:15:32. > :15:39.consider the impacts of small and micro businesses. The backbone of

:15:40. > :15:43.our economy. Clause 860 conduct a review of these changes on micro

:15:44. > :15:47.businesses, including the impact on the failure rate of micro business.

:15:48. > :15:53.The options for minimising the impact of the changes on directors

:15:54. > :16:02.on low incomes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I can advise we will be

:16:03. > :16:07.moving new clause eight to a vote. I want to support new clauses two and

:16:08. > :16:11.three. The social justice arguments, in support of some of the most

:16:12. > :16:15.vulnerable individuals and families in our society have been so

:16:16. > :16:21.eloquently and comprehensively set up by the honourable member for

:16:22. > :16:25.Enfield Southgate. Whilst I have prepared speeches on both of these

:16:26. > :16:29.new clauses, there is no need for media echo what the honourable

:16:30. > :16:33.member has said. I put on record my full support for what he said, and

:16:34. > :16:43.ask to be identified with his remarks. I beg to move amendment

:16:44. > :16:51.141, in my name and that of my right honourable friends. I am extremely

:16:52. > :17:06.grateful for Miss League 2 let my amendment be held today. -- grateful

:17:07. > :17:09.to the Madam Deputy Speaker. This amendment seeks to establish a very

:17:10. > :17:17.small tax exemption for residual cash balances remaining in an

:17:18. > :17:22.employee incentive share plan when the employee leaves said plan. That

:17:23. > :17:26.money would be insufficient to buy a single share that month, usually

:17:27. > :17:30.carried over to the next month. Which has to be refunded if an

:17:31. > :17:35.employee is leaving the scheme. What I am proposing, that balance, capped

:17:36. > :17:42.at a maximum of ?10, instead donated to charity. Reducing costly and

:17:43. > :17:46.burdensome processing. Share incentive plans are good way to

:17:47. > :17:50.saving a tax efficient way for the future. Many employees them up. The

:17:51. > :17:54.employee share ownership is something I think we should

:17:55. > :18:00.encourage. When an employee leaves a share plan but there is commonly a

:18:01. > :18:06.cash residual amount remaining in the account. Often just a few

:18:07. > :18:10.pounds. When the employee leaves the plan, or leave the company's

:18:11. > :18:13.employment, this residual cash cannot be carried forward. Under the

:18:14. > :18:19.current system, any remaining cash when the employee leaves is required

:18:20. > :18:23.to be processed by the employee's payroll, so National Insurance and

:18:24. > :18:29.taxes applied, paying the net balance back to the employee. This

:18:30. > :18:34.process, typically costing between two and ?9, providing little benefit

:18:35. > :18:39.to the individual receiving such a small amount. Furthermore the

:18:40. > :18:43.benefit of Exchequer is far less than the total cost to companies

:18:44. > :18:50.administering these payments. Paying almost twice as much to process them

:18:51. > :18:54.as the Treasury receives. To put them into numbers, it is estimated

:18:55. > :19:01.the administration cost to companies is between 400 and ?500,000. The

:19:02. > :19:06.benefit to the Treasury is just ?200,000. If the amendment was

:19:07. > :19:11.accepted, charities and good causes would benefit by ?360,000 a year on

:19:12. > :19:17.top of the savings that companies with C. There is a precedent for

:19:18. > :19:22.such change to take place. Already examples of situations where HMRC

:19:23. > :19:28.has agreed to individual exemptions to share incentive plans. Currently

:19:29. > :19:31.on specific requests assessed on a case-by-case basis. The appetite for

:19:32. > :19:39.the change is out there from share investment plan advisers and HMRC

:19:40. > :19:44.itself. This is a very small change to this bill, compared to what it

:19:45. > :19:48.covers. It is one I believe could bring benefits to companies and

:19:49. > :19:52.charities and good causes. While supporting share investment plans by

:19:53. > :19:58.removing a costly part of the system. It would help to simplify

:19:59. > :20:03.the tax code, encouraging charitable giving. They stated priorities of

:20:04. > :20:07.this and any government. I was very pleased and heartened when the

:20:08. > :20:12.government accepted my right honourable friend for Don Valley's

:20:13. > :20:17.amendment. I hope the Minister will accept and achieve the same result

:20:18. > :20:21.to date. If not, I would not seek to divide the House, I cannot see any

:20:22. > :20:26.reason why the government would not want to see this amendment carried.

:20:27. > :20:33.It is a great pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman, I rise to

:20:34. > :20:38.speak in favour of new clause three. To which I added my name, agreeing

:20:39. > :20:42.with everything the honourable gentleman, the member for Enfield

:20:43. > :20:46.Southgate has said. I cannot promise to be quite as brief as my

:20:47. > :20:52.honourable friend for Congleton. I want to add one or two remarks of my

:20:53. > :20:59.own. The fundamental problem is family breakdown is costing a

:21:00. > :21:02.staggering ?47 billion per annum. Apart from the consequential social

:21:03. > :21:08.dislocation and pain it is causing, it is also undermining the British

:21:09. > :21:12.economy. Of huge importance, most breakdown does not arise from

:21:13. > :21:17.divorce, but the ending of relationships whether couples

:21:18. > :21:21.concerned have not made that public exclusive and legal commitments,

:21:22. > :21:25.that is marriage. Where they do make the commitment, not surprisingly

:21:26. > :21:30.relationships are far more likely to be stable. In this context, there

:21:31. > :21:33.remains a massive public policy imperative that you ask if there is

:21:34. > :21:38.anything we are doing to make marriage less accessible, that is

:21:39. > :21:43.otherwise the case in other similarly developed countries. We

:21:44. > :21:48.have been unusual in this country for failing to recognise marriage in

:21:49. > :21:54.our income tax system prior to now. The solution initially proposed was

:21:55. > :21:58.the full transferable allowance. In the event it was only be 10%

:21:59. > :22:04.transferable allowance for that has been in fact enacted. Madam Deputy

:22:05. > :22:10.Speaker, it is a statistic that has been mentioned, that bears

:22:11. > :22:19.repeating. The tax burden on the unmarried couples with two children,

:22:20. > :22:24.25% greater than the OECD average. Not making marriage more accessible

:22:25. > :22:27.in a meaningful way. In this context, no surprise to hear the

:22:28. > :22:32.take-up of this allowance has been so slow. The Minister's comments

:22:33. > :22:37.were welcoming, they are moving in the right direction going forward.

:22:38. > :22:41.There are two things that could be done, if it is not possible in the

:22:42. > :22:46.short term to make the full transferable allowance, we should at

:22:47. > :22:50.least ensure that some basic rates for families, receive a meaningful

:22:51. > :22:55.transferable allowance. Given the research is so clear, that child

:22:56. > :22:59.development is greatly enhanced by the presence of both mother and

:23:00. > :23:05.father, and the public policy benefits of marriage is so well

:23:06. > :23:11.developed, perhaps a full transferable allowance for married

:23:12. > :23:17.couples under five would be a good place to start? Perhaps in the

:23:18. > :23:21.slightly longer term, they could be working to a full transferable

:23:22. > :23:25.allowance for couples generally. This would not be cheap, but it

:23:26. > :23:30.would be considerably cheaper than the current cost of ?47 billion. Of

:23:31. > :23:35.course it promotes choice by removing obstacles to marriage, as

:23:36. > :23:40.has been pointed out, it is about promoting the life chances agenda. I

:23:41. > :23:42.look forward to the Minister saying one or two more words in her closing

:23:43. > :23:54.remarks. Thank you. In these group of clauses

:23:55. > :24:00.I want to address in particular a couple of questions around the

:24:01. > :24:02.Government's new clause number nine which obviously relates specifically

:24:03. > :24:05.to Northern Ireland in terms of the tax treatment of supplementary

:24:06. > :24:10.welfare payments that might be made in Northern Ireland. But before I

:24:11. > :24:15.come on to that, I do want to acknowledge in respect of some of

:24:16. > :24:22.the other amendments that are before us I think the honourable member for

:24:23. > :24:26.staly bridge and Wolverhampton south-west have spoken persuasively

:24:27. > :24:29.in relation to amendment 141 and really the question that arises is

:24:30. > :24:34.why would the Government and why would parliament not do what is

:24:35. > :24:40.proposed in that amendment? Similarly, in respect of new clause

:24:41. > :24:44.19, which the honourable member for Ilford north has tabled, it is

:24:45. > :24:47.hugely important that this parliament should be in the business

:24:48. > :24:50.of making sure there is transparency. In the debates

:24:51. > :24:54.yesterday the emphasis on making sure there was transparency on the

:24:55. > :24:59.tax affairs of companies. We as a parliament should be insisting that

:25:00. > :25:04.we show full transparency as far as our intent on tax policy and

:25:05. > :25:08.taxation measures are concerned and that new clause 19 clearly means

:25:09. > :25:13.that we would get back to a point where there would be clear

:25:14. > :25:16.transparency in terms what was is the anticipated impact of tax on

:25:17. > :25:22.families of different - and families and households of different incomes

:25:23. > :25:28.and also there would be an analysed impact as well later on in the year

:25:29. > :25:33.to see what the impact of that tax policy has been or is and what the

:25:34. > :25:37.cumulative impact of various tax policies might be. Because surely

:25:38. > :25:43.that is what we should be all in the business of, when we go through the

:25:44. > :25:46.very complicated and confusing exercise of budget debates here and

:25:47. > :25:50.the various stages of budget debates here, the one thing we all value is

:25:51. > :25:55.when we know what the actual impact that we are talking about is going

:25:56. > :25:58.to be and I have been in this House whenever there was a Labour

:25:59. > :26:03.Government, adopted a misguided measure in respect of the 10p tax

:26:04. > :26:08.band and a number of Labour members raised the alarm as to what the

:26:09. > :26:11.impact of that was going to be, there was was going to be an adverse

:26:12. > :26:15.impact. The Government briefed no, that was nonsense and people were

:26:16. > :26:18.marched through the lobbies. Similarly, we had the recent

:26:19. > :26:21.experience in relation to the proposed tax credit changes that

:26:22. > :26:26.people were celebrating and thought this was wonderful, these changes

:26:27. > :26:28.and working tax credits and they believed the Chancellor's spin and

:26:29. > :26:32.thankfully not only people on this side of the House but also

:26:33. > :26:35.honourable members in the Conservative benches raised very

:26:36. > :26:41.real and practical concerns about what the impact was going to be. So

:26:42. > :26:47.why would it be wrong to follow new clause 19 and ensure that in all our

:26:48. > :26:53.budget deliberations in future there is an effort to have a properly

:26:54. > :26:57.appraised impact assessment as far as taxation measures are concerned.

:26:58. > :27:03.So that we can see in a budget, not the question that is usually asked

:27:04. > :27:06.immediately after a budget about what credit a particular MPs or

:27:07. > :27:10.ministers get for what measures because the issue about is budget is

:27:11. > :27:17.not who gets the credit, the issue is who gets the benefit from it in

:27:18. > :27:22.terms of fairness, social equity and the efficiency of economic impact

:27:23. > :27:26.that induces. So, I would fully support new clause 19 for those very

:27:27. > :27:33.reasons. Similarly, arguments have been made, many honourable members

:27:34. > :27:36.have referred to the case around new clause 15 and again, the

:27:37. > :27:42.straightforward point has been made by a number of honourable members

:27:43. > :27:48.that it would be almost perverse for the Government to refuse an

:27:49. > :27:51.amendment, a new clause which would preclude an increase in VAT on the

:27:52. > :27:55.installation of energy saving materials. I know the Government

:27:56. > :27:58.will say they have no intention of doing so, but the fact is we have

:27:59. > :28:02.had the experience of the last number of years of a Government

:28:03. > :28:06.adopting a series of perverse measures which have confounded what

:28:07. > :28:09.have been the underlining policy commitments in terms of the green

:28:10. > :28:14.economy and renewables and energy efficiency. So given that the

:28:15. > :28:21.Government have introduced so many measures that have had a persraers

:28:22. > :28:25.effect on that sector and have an adverse effect on households, it

:28:26. > :28:28.makes sense to at least have that sort of belt and braces new clause

:28:29. > :28:33.there so I can't see what is wrong with that. I also note in passing on

:28:34. > :28:39.his and it's at risk of another voice activated intervention from

:28:40. > :28:44.him, I do note that the honourable member when he intervened on the

:28:45. > :28:47.matter and sought to contradict the financial Secretary's earlier

:28:48. > :28:52.comments, he cited what he thought was a point of clarity in the Brexit

:28:53. > :28:57.Secretary's performance yesterday. It's the first member who has

:28:58. > :29:01.offered me any point of clarity from that performance which I actually

:29:02. > :29:07.thought was demonstrating that new Secretary of State's wish to be the

:29:08. > :29:11.First Minister to fulfil the new Government policy of environmental

:29:12. > :29:14.sensitivity because he treated us to over two hours of cosmetics and

:29:15. > :29:18.there wasn't a micro bode of substance in anything that we heard.

:29:19. > :29:23.-- microbead. In relation to the principle clause in this section,

:29:24. > :29:28.the opening clause which is new clause nine that obviously does

:29:29. > :29:32.refer specifically to Northern Ireland and it deals with the

:29:33. > :29:37.ability that is to be there for the Northern Ireland Assembly to have

:29:38. > :29:41.some additional mitigation measures or supplementary payments that would

:29:42. > :29:49.offset some of the impact of the welfare reform measures now being

:29:50. > :29:53.imposed by direct rule through this House, courtesy of the so-called

:29:54. > :29:57.fresh start agreement. Now my party, we expressed our misgivings and our

:29:58. > :30:02.opposition to that overall arrangements in terms of direct rule

:30:03. > :30:07.powers, etc, and the imposition of the effects of the welfare reform

:30:08. > :30:12.legislation on northed. However, we have long canvassed the case for

:30:13. > :30:17.mitigation and for supplementary payments and established that case

:30:18. > :30:23.with the DWP early in 2012. The one concern I think that people will

:30:24. > :30:29.have is with the language that is used in new clause nine because

:30:30. > :30:31.while the Government in its new clause clearly provide for the

:30:32. > :30:36.Treasury to ensure that there would be no liability to income tax

:30:37. > :30:43.arising on supplementary welfare payments of a specified description

:30:44. > :30:47.they also then in another subclause allow the Treasury to have

:30:48. > :30:52.regulations which would impose a charge to income tax under part ten

:30:53. > :30:56.of income tax earnings and pensions act 2003 on payments of a specified

:30:57. > :31:00.description. So the power is there to make sure that they would not

:31:01. > :31:03.activate a tax liability on supplementary payments that have

:31:04. > :31:07.been discussed and voted through by the Assembly, but there seems to

:31:08. > :31:11.also be a power there to actually subject some of those payments to

:31:12. > :31:15.tax and I wonder why the Treasury feels the need to have that reserved

:31:16. > :31:18.power to actually impose a tax liability on such payments because

:31:19. > :31:21.remember these payments will be being made out of the executive's

:31:22. > :31:27.own resources in terms of the devolved budget, it comes out of the

:31:28. > :31:33.departmental expenditure limit for the Assembly and it's not going to

:31:34. > :31:36.happen under annually managed expenditure. So why is it there?

:31:37. > :31:42.Because many people would be concerned that there will be an

:31:43. > :31:47.attempt by the Treasury to insinuate themselves into any debate that

:31:48. > :31:51.there is among executive parties or among Assembly parties about what

:31:52. > :31:57.measures they should adopt in mitigation of welfare reform by

:31:58. > :32:03.saying that some of the measures you introduce we may actually subject to

:32:04. > :32:11.a tax clawback because it's clear in subsection three of the - as well as

:32:12. > :32:16.what I referred to in subclause two, subclause three - sorry subclause

:32:17. > :32:21.three of new clause nine, when we look at subclause four of new clause

:32:22. > :32:24.nine it would permit the Treasury to make regulations which make

:32:25. > :32:29.different provisions for different cases, to make incidental or

:32:30. > :32:34.supplementary provision or consequential provision. Now that

:32:35. > :32:40.difference raises questions as to why they want to reserve the power

:32:41. > :32:45.to still impose tax on measures that the executive or the Assembly seek

:32:46. > :32:51.to bring forward and why can they do it differently on a case by case

:32:52. > :32:56.basis because that gives rise to arguments of inequity and capriious

:32:57. > :33:01.performance. The suspicion here is that the Treasury when we look back

:33:02. > :33:05.to the standoff that there was about welfare reform in Northern Ireland,

:33:06. > :33:10.the Treasury sought to answer the standoff in the Assembly when the

:33:11. > :33:13.accept wouldn't discharge the karaoke legislation it was being

:33:14. > :33:18.asked to pass in relation to welfare reform, the Treasury intervened by

:33:19. > :33:22.saying if you don't pass it, we will effectively tax your devolved budget

:33:23. > :33:27.to the same tune of what we estimate you would be overspending on

:33:28. > :33:32.welfare. So, the Treasury insinuated itself into what should have been a

:33:33. > :33:38.debate for the devolved Assembly itself. The danger is now that even

:33:39. > :33:42.in the area of the mitigating powers, the supplementary payments

:33:43. > :33:44.that the Assembly will be able to offer as provided for under the

:33:45. > :33:50.fresh start agreement, there is the danger that in the language of this

:33:51. > :33:55.clause the Treasury could insinuate itself in the choices and the

:33:56. > :34:00.consideration being undertaken by the executive and by the Assembly.

:34:01. > :34:05.They haven't resisted the temptation to insinuate themselves. Therefore,

:34:06. > :34:10.I would want some assurance from the financial Secretary that this

:34:11. > :34:14.language is not there to give the Treasury the right to interfere in

:34:15. > :34:17.the choices that may be made by ministers and by committees in the

:34:18. > :34:23.Assembly in respect of the supplementary payments that they

:34:24. > :34:29.would be allowed to bring forward. It's a pleasure to speak in this and

:34:30. > :34:33.can I commend all of those who have made valuable credit contributions,

:34:34. > :34:36.in particular, can I commend the honourable member for Enfield

:34:37. > :34:40.Southgate, he is not here, but his presentation on clause three is one

:34:41. > :34:43.that I want to speak to and he very clearly set out the scene for where

:34:44. > :34:49.we stand in relationship to that. I want to put on record again for the

:34:50. > :34:53.purpose of this term of this House that my party, the DUP, have

:34:54. > :34:58.consistently supported the provision of transferable allowance for

:34:59. > :35:01.married couples. I can remember the honourable lady myself and in this

:35:02. > :35:06.chamber taking verbal attacks, mostly from this side of the chamber

:35:07. > :35:10.I have to say, upon our stance on that issue. But we persevered and

:35:11. > :35:15.the Government persevered and I want to thank the Government for bringing

:35:16. > :35:18.that in the last term. I would have hoped perhaps there might have been

:35:19. > :35:21.some indication that the new clause three could have been one the

:35:22. > :35:23.Government could support but I understand after talking to the

:35:24. > :35:27.honourable gentleman for Enfield Southgate that he is not going to

:35:28. > :35:33.press on this one and if that's the case, well, then, we have to abide

:35:34. > :35:38.by his indication. The sadness for me in this, if I can say this, the

:35:39. > :35:42.Government has until today chosen to invest the lion's share of resources

:35:43. > :35:46.and other income tax policy raising the personal allowance. While it is

:35:47. > :35:51.undoubtedly true that this policy does help poor families, it is very

:35:52. > :35:55.badly targeted. I want to make that in a respectful way, if I can, just

:35:56. > :35:59.to say that it seems to be targeted at those who can well afford it as

:36:00. > :36:03.against those who can't and I would have to put on record I would have

:36:04. > :36:08.some concern other that. As the IFS has demonstrated 75% of the benefit

:36:09. > :36:13.and now as the allowance has been raised from 10,000 to 12500 even

:36:14. > :36:18.more than 75% of the benefit goes to those in the top half of the income

:36:19. > :36:22.distribution. The stats that we have and the stats that are available

:36:23. > :36:29.indicate that and the charts as well as it does and I have to say they're

:36:30. > :36:33.very stark. They do indicate an imbalance in the system which I have

:36:34. > :36:36.to make concern to. Can I just say as well the honourable gentleman

:36:37. > :36:40.clearly indicated that and I give way. I thank the honourable member.

:36:41. > :36:44.There is another imbalance in the system. I don't know if he is aware

:36:45. > :36:50.that the married couples allowance which provides married couples where

:36:51. > :36:57.at least one spouse was born before April 1935 is worth ?8355 a year.

:36:58. > :37:03.Shouldn't we also be looking at providing for those families with

:37:04. > :37:07.young children who are in the lowest socio economic bracket to support

:37:08. > :37:09.them similarly. I thank the honourable lady for the intervention

:37:10. > :37:15.and I couldn't agree more. I want to make comment on that later. The new

:37:16. > :37:18.clause three as it's worded very clearly outlines that's important to

:37:19. > :37:21.do so. Unfortunately we haven't had that opportunity to have it today

:37:22. > :37:26.although I am sure the Minister who I respect greatly and she knows

:37:27. > :37:31.that, will be able to respond to some of our concerns. By contrast,

:37:32. > :37:34.the IFS has demonstrated the transferable allowance results in

:37:35. > :37:39.70% of the benefit going to those in the bottom half of the income

:37:40. > :37:42.distribution. The problem is that so far it's only received symbolic

:37:43. > :37:45.recognition. The first effect is that it's not really addressed the

:37:46. > :37:49.fundamental marriage accessibility challenge which is a massive issue

:37:50. > :37:53.given the impact of being brought up in a married home and life chances

:37:54. > :37:57.compared with being brought up in a non-married home. Secondly, the very

:37:58. > :38:03.limited symbolic recognition is translated into a low take-up and

:38:04. > :38:07.given the distribution impact of the two tax policies and the impact of

:38:08. > :38:13.the traps fishable allowance and life chances, the Government was to

:38:14. > :38:18.have one symbolic policy and one substantive one, then they've got it

:38:19. > :38:22.the wrong way around. I say that with respect. Rather than

:38:23. > :38:26.distributing billions to those in the top half by raising perm

:38:27. > :38:34.allowance. Going forward I believe there is clearly an urgency to

:38:35. > :38:39.change this. And if I could just - in the short-term this cannot be

:38:40. > :38:44.made gem available to married rate couples, it should be focussed on

:38:45. > :38:47.those with children under five. In the new clause three as we have

:38:48. > :38:52.before us, if I could refer to that very quickly. The first one is on

:38:53. > :38:57.the levels of take-up. I understand that the Minister has indicated

:38:58. > :39:01.through her department that there is some willingness to in relation to

:39:02. > :39:05.the levels of take-up to set targets. Can I ask the Minister if

:39:06. > :39:09.it's possible to do that because that would enable those who haven't

:39:10. > :39:12.taken advantage of the married tax allowance to do so and figures set

:39:13. > :39:15.to make that happen as well. As the honourable lady referred to, the

:39:16. > :39:19.impact of the allowance on individuals with children aged five

:39:20. > :39:23.years or under, we should be focussing and I say we, this

:39:24. > :39:29.Government and this House should be focussing upon families with

:39:30. > :39:33.children aged five years or under because they're the group who within

:39:34. > :39:37.child poverty are growing across the whole of the UK and in my own region

:39:38. > :39:40.in Northern Ireland obviously it's something that I have great concern

:39:41. > :39:43.of. In Northern Ireland those in child poverty are the highest levels

:39:44. > :39:47.in the UK and Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You can't ignore

:39:48. > :39:52.those facts. I give way.

:39:53. > :40:05.It is the honourable member where, the highest levels of marriage

:40:06. > :40:08.breakdown occur when a child is 0- three? We would be looking to

:40:09. > :40:14.support marriage when it is at the greater strain. I thank Echo that

:40:15. > :40:20.intervention. If we can help at the critical time, when the pressure is

:40:21. > :40:26.on, this House should do so. The Minister should do so, as well. The

:40:27. > :40:32.impact on low income households, on the proposal from the new clause

:40:33. > :40:37.three, one we need to address. I will do that the right time. The

:40:38. > :40:42.full point, ways it could be changed to target low-income families. Those

:40:43. > :40:49.points clearly illustrate what is necessary within the legislation we

:40:50. > :40:54.have, unfortunately, it is not hard and fast as we would like. I can

:40:55. > :41:03.break, I'm conscious of the time, only account of that. In the longer

:41:04. > :41:08.term, a pressing need to raise the transferable allowance. I fully

:41:09. > :41:11.support the transferable allowance, I hope the government commit

:41:12. > :41:19.themselves to that. If this means less money going to the former, as

:41:20. > :41:23.someone committed to progressive tax policy, targeting those in the lower

:41:24. > :41:32.half, rather than the top half, in my judgment, and in the judgment of

:41:33. > :41:37.many, this would be no bad thing. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I

:41:38. > :41:46.wish to speak to new clause 15, 19, amendments 141, and 182, in the

:41:47. > :41:51.names of myself and my honourable friends. I will touch on the other

:41:52. > :41:57.amendments, and the clauses in this section, which has turned into

:41:58. > :42:01.ragbag of issues. New clause 15 relates to VAT on energy-saving

:42:02. > :42:04.materials. The clause itself would prohibit any order being made from

:42:05. > :42:08.which would have the effect of raising the rate of VAT on

:42:09. > :42:16.installation of energy-saving materials. For any individual

:42:17. > :42:19.category therefore. It would prevent the government from implementing

:42:20. > :42:26.their planned hike in VAT free secondary legislation. For

:42:27. > :42:30.honourable members you have forgotten the background. I will

:42:31. > :42:37.reiterate how the debate came about. From the fallout from the so-called

:42:38. > :42:41.ultra shambles budget, the government was forced to become the

:42:42. > :42:46.first in history, as far as I'm aware, to accept an opposition

:42:47. > :42:52.amendment to their budget. Designed to block the government's planned

:42:53. > :42:58.300% increase in VAT on solar panels and energy-saving materials, a green

:42:59. > :43:04.energy tax hike, essentially. The solar tax alone would add 1000

:43:05. > :43:09.pounds to household solar energy installation, punishing those trying

:43:10. > :43:15.to do the right thing, doing their bit to halt climate change. It would

:43:16. > :43:22.also put at risk thousands of jobs, in an industry already expected to

:43:23. > :43:27.experience 18,700 job losses, as conceded by the former energy

:43:28. > :43:33.secretary. This tax rate would cause even further damage. We tabled an

:43:34. > :43:39.amendment to the budget, to enable the Chancellor to use the Finance

:43:40. > :43:43.Bill to maintain the current rate of VAT on green energy and high

:43:44. > :43:47.installation. The government initially claimed a European court

:43:48. > :43:51.ruling prevented them from stopping the tax hike, although it was

:43:52. > :43:57.apparent they had failed to negotiate at European level to

:43:58. > :44:00.protect the renewables industry. The industry made it clear that there

:44:01. > :44:08.was room to avoid the drastic measures they were planning to

:44:09. > :44:12.impose. When this led to significant numbers of members opposite adding

:44:13. > :44:16.their weight to those on this bench, it looks like the government would

:44:17. > :44:19.be defeated on the issue. Ministers backed down, claiming what we

:44:20. > :44:24.proposed was their position all along. Only to avoid making such a

:44:25. > :44:32.commitment when pressed that Treasury questions, and supplicant

:44:33. > :44:34.elite he abolished energy and climate change questions just one

:44:35. > :44:39.week later. This is not surprising given the government's failure to

:44:40. > :44:43.give any kind of certainty to the renewables energy sector in the UK.

:44:44. > :44:47.Over the past six years, the government has constantly undermine

:44:48. > :44:53.support by cutting the feeding tariff by 64%, strapping tax relief

:44:54. > :44:58.for clean energy projects, and removing subsidy fees for offshore

:44:59. > :45:04.wind farms. The 1 billion fund for investment in carbon capture and

:45:05. > :45:07.storage has been scrapped. At the same time safeguards to reduce the

:45:08. > :45:11.environmental risk of fracking have been stripped away. Fracking has

:45:12. > :45:18.been given the go-ahead on national parks. As Greenpeace's kite

:45:19. > :45:23.executive director put it, a tax hike on solar panels was the latest

:45:24. > :45:27.edition to a litany of poor decisions, and the gunmen should

:45:28. > :45:34.accept they have a reverse Midas touch on

:45:35. > :45:40.energy investments. This would be inopportune time for the Chancellor

:45:41. > :45:45.and his team to signal a change in direction by accepting the amendment

:45:46. > :45:49.to date. I do fear, with the abolition of the Department for

:45:50. > :45:53.energy and climate change, the Conservative Party's husky riding

:45:54. > :45:58.days have long gone. I'm pleased that the government has seen fit to

:45:59. > :46:03.publish the committee on climate change's report on the compatibility

:46:04. > :46:09.of UK onshore petroleum with meeting the UK's carbon budgets. I can see

:46:10. > :46:14.why they sat on it for four months. The report states, our assessment is

:46:15. > :46:18.that onshore petroleum extraction on a significant scale is not

:46:19. > :46:24.compatible with UK climate targets. This will remain the case unless

:46:25. > :46:31.these three tests are met. One well development, production and

:46:32. > :46:37.decommissioning must be structured. Carbon requirements must be

:46:38. > :46:43.followed. Accommodating shale gas emissions with targets. Do they

:46:44. > :46:46.agree that tighter safeguards around fracking, which Labour called for

:46:47. > :46:52.during the passing of the energy Bill are absolutely necessary? I

:46:53. > :46:58.digress. To conclude, my remarks on new Toolis 15, the opposition

:46:59. > :47:04.benches want to ensure that the original solar tax U-turn is

:47:05. > :47:09.guaranteed is that preventing a second U-turn. Providing the

:47:10. > :47:14.renewable energy market with the certainty they need and deserve,

:47:15. > :47:17.sending a signal that the new administration is prepared to look

:47:18. > :47:23.again at the future of that industry in a green economy. If we are to

:47:24. > :47:27.take seriously the intention of the new ministers to rethink these

:47:28. > :47:33.fundamental issues. Now is the time for them to show it. I'm turning to

:47:34. > :47:38.new clause 19, tabled by the honourable member for Ilford North,

:47:39. > :47:42.and has front bench support. This clause, as the member articulated

:47:43. > :47:46.earlier, requiring the committee review the impact of the measures on

:47:47. > :47:52.households are different levels of income. Also requiring the

:47:53. > :47:56.Chancellor to review the impact on fiscal measures, on households at

:47:57. > :48:02.different levels of income once in each financial year. This provision

:48:03. > :48:06.is an excellent amendment. The front bench of the Labour Party supports

:48:07. > :48:10.it fully. As I pressed the government earlier, during the

:48:11. > :48:15.course of the capital gains tax debate, and yesterday, considering

:48:16. > :48:19.corporation tax, this bill has unfairness at its very core. The

:48:20. > :48:26.reduction in capital gains tax alone relates to a tax giveaway to 200,000

:48:27. > :48:31.people, just 0.3% of the population, around ?3000 a year on average.

:48:32. > :48:37.Clearly this government conducts no distributional analysis, if it does,

:48:38. > :48:41.the results are so bad, they don't publish them. This amendment would

:48:42. > :48:45.force the government to publish such analysis. Therefore I am pleased to

:48:46. > :48:50.hear the Minister's comments earlier. It seems to be the case

:48:51. > :49:02.they are seriously considering this matter. I do hope she takes it

:49:03. > :49:08.forward. Amendments consider that the director of the OTS only be

:49:09. > :49:16.terminated in selected in line with the House. At public Bill committee,

:49:17. > :49:20.a similar amendment in my name, and that of my honourable friends, which

:49:21. > :49:24.at the same effect was debated, we did not provide the committee on

:49:25. > :49:28.this issue. During the course of the debate, I made the point, while

:49:29. > :49:33.Labour supports the establishment of the office of tax simplification. On

:49:34. > :49:37.a statutory footing, we feel the independence is the most utmost

:49:38. > :49:44.importance. As Labour is aware, we have placed concerns about it being

:49:45. > :49:48.used for political purposes. And ensuring that the chair and tax

:49:49. > :49:51.director is accountable to the Treasury select committee seems a

:49:52. > :49:56.sensible approach to safeguarding the impartiality of the

:49:57. > :50:00.organisation. Again I'm pleased to litigate the minister seems to be

:50:01. > :50:09.taking our opinions and the opinions expressed seriously. Amendment 141

:50:10. > :50:15.would introduce a tax exemption for residual cash balances remaining in

:50:16. > :50:18.a share incentive plan when donated to charity with an upper cap and

:50:19. > :50:24.?10. This seems like an extremely sensible suggestion. The Labour

:50:25. > :50:31.front is supportive of amendment 100 41. I wish to congratulate the

:50:32. > :50:36.honourable member for staying and hide for tabling this and

:50:37. > :50:39.articulating it well and earlier. Clause eight, the members of

:50:40. > :50:46.Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, Aberdeen North, Christ Bridge and Bell's

:50:47. > :50:49.hill. This would require a review to how the changes on the tax dividend

:50:50. > :50:55.income would affect directors of micro-businesses. Some concerns that

:50:56. > :50:58.the effects of the changes to dividend taxation would have a

:50:59. > :51:07.detrimental effect on the owners of micro-businesses. Jason Kit Kat has

:51:08. > :51:15.done some detailed analysis, showing that the detailed tax changes

:51:16. > :51:20.detailed in clause five are regressive in nature. Crunch

:51:21. > :51:28.analysis showing a limited company director paying themselves through

:51:29. > :51:36.dividends would have 1020 pounds a year more, where as a director with

:51:37. > :51:40.?7,000 pre-tax profits would only be paying ?1300 more in tax. The

:51:41. > :51:44.Federation of Small Businesses has stated that these measures have

:51:45. > :51:49.caused substantial disquiet amongst their members. Especially acute for

:51:50. > :51:54.members on modest incomes, unlike territory counterparts will see a

:51:55. > :51:59.rise in their tax liabilities. This is very worrying, and indeed makes

:52:00. > :52:04.the case for distributional analysis, referred in new clause 19

:52:05. > :52:07.earlier. It is even more important. A review of the impact in these

:52:08. > :52:12.measures seems quite sensible at this stage. We will support the SNP

:52:13. > :52:19.if they divide the House on this issue. Finally government new clause

:52:20. > :52:26.nine refers to the tax treatment of supplementary patients in Northern

:52:27. > :52:29.Ireland. The low income tax reforms group have outlined technical points

:52:30. > :52:32.for clarification, which I hope the Minister can shed some light on. In

:52:33. > :52:40.essence, which payments will be taxable. The budget set where the

:52:41. > :52:44.Northern Ireland executive tops up benefits, as it implements welfare

:52:45. > :52:50.reform, the government will exempt from the tax top-up payments, the

:52:51. > :52:56.implication confirmed in the explanatory notes, that top ups are

:52:57. > :53:00.taxable as well. If you take the payments to mitigate the impact of

:53:01. > :53:06.time-limited contribution support allowance, it does seem that the two

:53:07. > :53:19.situations are possible. One, the person's

:53:20. > :53:31.contribution TSA they will receive payments to cover the difference.

:53:32. > :53:44.The second possibility, they will see

:53:45. > :53:53.Derek ESA end, or the government will meet the contribution. It is

:53:54. > :53:58.not a top up. The difference between the two is given as a supplementary

:53:59. > :54:07.payment. In the latter case, the supplementary payment is replacing