PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Finance Bill - 2 July 2020 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Review of changes to entrepreneurs’ relief—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made to entrepreneur’s relief by section 23 and Schedule 3 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on—

(a) business investment,

(b) employment, and

(c) productivity.

(3) In this section—

‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

and ‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

This new clause would require a review of the impact on investment of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief.

New clause 4—Structures and buildings allowances: review—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by section 30 and Schedule 5 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on—

(a) business investment,

(b) employment,

(c) productivity, and

(d) energy efficiency.

(3) In this section—

‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

This new clause would require a review of the impact on investment of the changes made to structures and buildings allowances in Schedule 5.

New clause 17—Review of geographical effects of provisions of Sections 28 to 31—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must within twelve months of the passing of this Act lay before both Houses of Parliament a report assessing the differential geographical effects, broken down by nation and NUTS 1 statistical region, of the changes made by sections 28 to 31 of this Act.”

This new clause would require a geographical impact assessment of the clauses of the Bill relating to reliefs for business.

Amendment 1, in clause 36, page 34, line 29, at end insert—

“(13) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 5 April 2021, lay before the House of Commons a report—

(a) analysing the fiscal and economic effects of Government relief under the Enterprise Investment Scheme since the inception of the Scheme, and the changes in those effects which it estimates will occur as a result of the provisions of this Section, in respect of;

(i) each NUTS 1 statistical region of England and England as a whole,

(ii) Scotland,

(iii) Wales, and

(iv) Northern Ireland;

(b) assessing how the Enterprise Investment Scheme is furthering efforts to mitigate climate change, and any differences in the benefit of this funding in respect of—

(i) each NUTS 1 statistical region of England and England as a whole,

(ii) Scotland,

(iii) Wales, and

(iv) Northern Ireland;

(c) evaluating the lessons that can be drawn from the effects of the Enterprise Investment Scheme with respect to the encouragement of both private and UK Government-backed venture capital funds in the devolved nations of the UK.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to analyse the impact of the existing EIS and the changes proposed in Clause 36 in terms of impact on the economy and geographical reach; to assess the EIS’s support for efforts to mitigate climate change; and to evaluate the Scheme’s lessons for the encouragement of UK Government-backed venture capital funds in the devolved nations.

New clause 27 calls on the Government to lay a review before Parliament considering all the tax reliefs within this Act, their effect on taxation revenue and the effectiveness of systems to evaluate these reliefs and to ensure value for money. We know that there are real problems with how the Government monitor tax reliefs. Thanks to the outstanding work of the National Audit Office and its report from February this year, we can see how unwieldy the system has become over the past decade and how much this is costing the public purse. It shows that there are currently 362 tax reliefs, which support Government economic and social objectives. This is a huge financial undertaking. The cost of tax reliefs for 2018-19 is estimated to be £155 billion.

The National Audit Office notes that this is not money that would simply be recouped in tax if these reliefs were abolished, but that is not the point that we are seeking to make. We on the Opposition Benches do not doubt that sometimes the outcomes from tax reliefs can be positive and that they can drive positive social and economic behaviour. The problem, as the NAO’s report makes plainly clear, is that we simply do not know enough about this, because the Government are failing to properly monitor and evaluate their effectiveness.

Of the 362 tax reliefs, only 111 have been costed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and only 15 have had published evaluations since 2015. At the same time, on the Government’s watch, their cost has been rising since 2010. In normal times, such an enormous cost, without corresponding effective oversight, would be an area of real concern. As the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in July 2019, tax reliefs are considered to be a new fiscal risk to public finances, due to the Government’s not knowing their full cost and the lack of transparency built into the system. But of course we are not in normal times; we are living through an incredible economic crisis. The lack of effective monitoring and evaluation is hard to justify when our public services are under such enormous strain. The inattention shown by Ministers over the past decade must change and we need a much greater focus on ensuring value for money.

In Committee, we touched on one area where I ask the Minister to respond further today, namely the social investment tax relief, an area also pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and my Front-Bench colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). What further consideration has the Minister given to extending this relief from April 2021 to April 2023? Will he update us on what further consideration the Treasury has given to this arising from discussions we held in Committee? This important aspect has been raised by many charities. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the concerns they raise and I am sure they will be grateful for any further updates he might be able to provide in this area.

Our new clause paves the way for a greater focus on value for money, by establishing a more systematic and transparent way for the Government to evaluate the cost of tax reliefs and to empower Parliament to scrutinise this more effectively. The limiting scope for amendments to the Finance Bill set by the Government means that we have been able to opt only for a review of the tax reliefs contained in the Bill. Many changes to tax reliefs—for instance, on the entrepreneurs’ relief and the annual allowance—will potentially have a significant impact on tax revenues. In other areas, there are concerns about whether tax reliefs are being abused.

TaxWatch UK has highlighted particular concerns about the future of research and development tax credits, given the evidence of abuse in recent years. It is therefore right that there is greater transparency and that Parliament can properly scrutinise whether the measures proposed by Government are having their intended effect. The Minister attempted to address some of these concerns in Committee, saying that the Government kept all these reliefs under review and that he has proposed a more systematic evaluation programme for tax reliefs. We would welcome any progress towards such a system. However, if the picture was so rosy, I doubt whether the National Audit Office would have painted such a concerning picture in its report. I also look forward to the Public Accounts Committee’s report on this issue to find out whether it agrees with his assessment or what further insight it might be able to offer.

None the less, this amendment attempts to get to a wider point, which is that Parliament currently has few proper and meaningful opportunities to scrutinise tax reliefs on an ongoing basis. The Minister will know of the 2017 joint report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Institute for Government and the Chartered Institute of Taxation entitled “Better Budgets: Making tax policy better”. It states that the information publicly available to Parliament on the costs and benefits of tax expenditure is not sufficient for it to assess their value for money, pointing out:

“Although taxes constitute almost 40% of national income, Parliament has little standing support to help look at tax legislation, support general inquiries on tax issues or help with post-implementation reviews.”

The report had a clear recommendation:

“Increase support to Parliament on tax issues”.

That means going beyond the support currently available and the opportunities that exist, in Finance Bill Committees, through the Treasury Committee, through the Public Accounts Committee and through other work in this House, and instead embedding a proper system so we can assess the value for money of past tax measures. That is hardly controversial. As the Resolution Foundation points out, the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand produce annual tax expenditure statements, which can be accompanied by parliamentary debate.

We want to see improved scrutiny of whether money is being well spent, to ensure that the system is fair and helps those who need it most. When all the benefits and tax reliefs are taken into consideration, the Government provide more support to the richest fifth of non-retired households than to the poorest fifth, and that gap has grown since 2010. This is in part due to the system of tax reliefs that has flourished under this Government and previous Conservative Governments and is clearly not based on any genuine notion of fairness.

Today, as we grapple with the looming jobs crisis, the question of fairness is paramount. We need to create a recovery from coronavirus that benefits everyone in our society, from young to old and right across every region and nation. The Opposition do not doubt the scale of the challenge. Our public finances are enormously stretched, our public services have been pushed to the brink by the pandemic, and there is a risk of unemployment on a scale not seen since the 1980s. We have yet to hear anything about the economic support package that we need: a back-to-work Budget to help those at the sharp end of the looming jobs crisis—a Budget that creates jobs, supports people back into work and properly invests in our young people so that they have the opportunities they deserve at this challenging time.

I am keen to talk briefly about the future fund, which is dealt with in new clause 22. The new clause covers those who have benefited from tax relief under the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme, to ensure that those tax reliefs are not withdrawn. These are important tax reliefs. I have set up a number of companies—I declare my interest, Madam Deputy Speaker—and some of the capital needed to invest in them was solicited through the EIS and the SEIS. Those schemes are very effective in encouraging high net worth individuals and angel investors to invest in small start-up and scale-up businesses.

The future fund is really for bigger, high-growth businesses wanting to attract capital. It is a very effective scheme, in that the Government match the funding that is attracted from individual investors—often venture capital investors. It is incredibly important, as we start to recover from this crisis and seize the opportunities ahead, that we encourage more equity investment. The UK is particularly reliant on debt financing in how our businesses start up and scale up, whereas other countries are much more effective at delivering equity finance solutions. This is important because at the moment the Government are investing a huge amount—about £35 billion—through guaranteed loans in the bounce back loan scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, which businesses are making decisions on in terms of debt finance.

However, on equity finance, the Government do not always have the best record on deciding which businesses to support. That is why the future fund is a good scheme, in that it fund-matches private sector investment, which is much better at determining which businesses are the right ones to support. Individual investors are much better at picking winners than are Governments. As we move forward, there are going to be some huge corrections in the private sector. Lots of businesses have borrowed money to get through this crisis and it is fair to say that many of them will not be able to pay that money back. My all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking has contributed to a report by the Recapitalisation Group, a consortium headed by Ernst & Young and TheCityUK, which states that there will be about £100 billion of unsustainable debt—not all connected to the Government schemes—by this time next year because of borrowing by businesses hit by the recession caused by the covid crisis.

To get us through that period and the subsequent period, and to prevent business failures—there is no question but that some businesses will fail and jobs will be lost as a result—we need to understand that it cannot be all about debt financing. The Government cannot be expected simply to give grants to keep businesses going. We need to find a different route to encourage private sector investment, which is good at picking winners, to invest in small and medium-sized enterprises and scale-up businesses. Equity finance will be critical to that. We need something different from the future fund, which is there to help to scale-up, high-growth businesses. Instead of the growth capital that characterises the future fund, we need equity finance for the restructuring, rescue and turnaround of good businesses that could get through this, but that are not big scale-up businesses. In the past, equity finance has been used for high-growth businesses rather than for restructuring and turnaround, and most equity finance is focused on London rather than the regions. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are as keen as I am to ensure that our regions are well served by equity finance and support.

We need a discussion about the schemes that we could introduce. I am a big fan of the seed enterprise investment scheme and the enterprise investment scheme, and I think the tax incentives around them should be enhanced for a time. Clearly, the temptation for high net worth individuals will be to keep their money in the bank for 12 months rather than investing, and wait to see what happens the other side of the crisis. We have to encourage them to put money into businesses today. A doubling of the incentive for EIS relief would be very welcome, and a loosening of the restrictions on EIS investment—such as by enabling relatives to invest in businesses—would be appropriate for the next 12 months.

We need to relax some of the restrictions on venture capital. There are annual and lifetime limits on venture capital in businesses, and they should be doubled, because lots of businesses need extra support at the moment and the venture capital companies that sit behind them did not expect to have to see them through this crisis. I am keen for the Treasury to relax some of the unreasonable restrictions on the amount of money that can be invested in those businesses.

We should perhaps consider loans that are based on a contingent tax liability—a kind of student loan system, whereby the loan is repaid through future profits. I know that Lord Bilimoria is keen to see a new 3i scheme, in which the Government put a significant amount of money—in his view, it should be £5 billion—into several different private equity organisations to sit behind UK businesses.

I will touch on something that is not directly related to tax reliefs, but that is very important in relation to finance. The Minister has been very good at engaging with me on clause 95, which I think unreasonably restricts the opportunity for businesses to get finance by putting HMRC up the ladder as a preferred creditor. That may mean that some lenders are less likely to lend, and I caution the Treasury to keep a close eye on that to make sure that debt finance is still made available to SMEs. I am very supportive of what the Government are doing with the future fund, but we need to go a bit further in certain other areas.

I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and in those of my SNP colleagues. It is important to state from the outset that we hear regularly from across the Chamber—albeit not today, given that it is quite empty for this discussion of tax—that the UK’s tax relief system is full of inefficiencies.

Our core aim with the proposed new clauses is to be constructive and get to the root of that problem in respect of entrepreneurs’ relief by asking the Government to undertake a review of the impact on investment of the changes to the relief. As I said in Committee, that can only be a positive thing. After all, there remain varying views on the effectiveness and efficacy of entrepreneurs’ relief, and whether it delivers the necessary economic objectives or whether that could be done by other means. Those varying views are clear for all to see. For example, the IFS has been quite critical of the relief, highlighting that it is poorly targeted. Conversely, the Federation of Small Businesses has emphasised the importance of the relief for the retirement of business owners.

I have no doubt that we will hear much from the Minister about the fact that a review has already been undertaken. It has, but that was an internal review, which is not good enough. That is of particular importance when we consider that there was much talk in the public domain of entrepreneurs’ relief being scrapped entirely at the Budget. A Back-Bench revolt ensued and that position swiftly changed, so instead of the relief being scrapped, it has gone from £10 million back to the £1 million introduced by the Labour party in 2008. I am sure that even the Minister would agree that the tail should not be wagging the dog on such important matters. What we need is clarity—clarity on effectiveness, clarity of efficacy and clarity on direction. Those points have perhaps never been as important as they are now. As we rebuild our economy following covid-19, it is more important than ever that tax incentives go to those entrepreneurs who we know will rebuild the economy.

That takes me on quite neatly to the further new clauses that we have tabled in respect of tax avoidance, for as we rebuild the economy, the very last thing that we need are individuals and organisations dodging what they are due. On the Scottish National party Benches, we have been clear and consistent in highlighting our profound concerns relating to Scottish limited partnerships, yet despite the obvious manner in which these can be abused, we have yet to see any real action. I sincerely hope that in his contribution, the Minister will make a commitment to end the avoidance practices of such partnerships, but I hope he can go further, too.

For decades, we have seen consecutive UK Governments talk the talk on ending tax avoidance, but in 2017-18, HMRC still put the tax gap at £35 billion. I have some sympathy for the Government in this regard, for just as they legislate to close one gap, another one is opened by those who wish to cheat both the system and the public, but there is scope for a comprehensive anti-avoidance rule to be introduced. The Government will point to the general anti-abuse rule introduced in 2013, but this has been heavily criticised, not least by the TUC. What we need are workable general anti-avoidance rules that tackle avoidance in all its forms, including international tax abuse, and more than ever, we need real action to combat Scottish limited partnerships.

I am conscious of the fact that you wish to finish before 2 o’clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I intend to keep my contribution brief. I will move on to my closing remarks, in which I wish to highlight that more can be done to incentivise energy efficiency through tax reliefs and, similarly, to meet the needs and demands of the Scottish economy.

In respect of structures and buildings, it is clear that the Government are making an attempt to amend the system to incentivise capital investment, but they can and should go further. At the risk of repeating myself once again, the easiest step they could take is to scrap VAT on building repairs. In my constituency of Aberdeen South, I have been struck by just how many homeowners, who often live in some of the most beautiful granite buildings, are unable to undertake the repairs and improvements that they either want or need due to the high costs involved. As we seek to improve energy efficiency in our homes, particularly in often old and cold buildings, surely the Government should be assessing every measure to incentivise progress, not just to help rid us of fuel poverty, but to protect both the environment and the future of our planet. Cumulative action to combat climate change is needed, and I would welcome a firm commitment from the Minister in this regard.

On the issue of tax reliefs, it would be remiss of me not to highlight to the Chamber the proposals put forward in recent days by my colleagues in the Scottish Government. I think that everyone—even the most ardent of UK Government supporters—was deeply underwhelmed by the plans announced by the Prime Minister to restart the economy, and that collective sigh from across the UK was entirely justifiable, because £5 billion will likely work out to be less than the cost of renovating the very building that we are in, and it is a far cry from the £80 billion of investment called for by the Scottish Government. Importantly, however, my colleagues called not just for capital investment, but for tax relief. Indeed, they were clear that reducing VAT must be an urgent act of this Government, both in terms of reducing the general rate of VAT from 20% to 15% for six months and, importantly, reducing tourism and hospitality VAT to just 5%. On top of that, a 2p cut in employers’ national insurance contributions to reduce the cost of hiring staff was also identified.

Unfortunately, as with all too many matters, the hands of the Scottish Government are tied on such issues. The power lies with the UK Government, a Government who Scotland neither supports nor votes for. I hope that the Minister is listening and the wider Government are listening too, because now is the time for them to introduce the tax incentives that the Scottish economy needs; to deliver the investment that the Scottish economy needs; and to provide the Scottish Parliament with the borrowing powers that it so desperately needs. If they do not, they should be ever mindful that they are only doing further damage to the very Union that they claim to support.

Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute to this important debate, the importance of which is perhaps not reflected in the attendance in the Chamber today, but as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), rightly said in her opening remarks, reviews of tax reliefs tend to be important not just for improving the transparency of their effectiveness but, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said in relation to the enterprise investment scheme and the future fund, for their transformative impacts on policy. I agree with him that one of the key things that we need to consider as we move ahead is how we can encourage greater investment, especially equity investment, in regions other than London. I hope to dwell a little on that point later in my remarks.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who not only laid out effectively the inefficiencies of the tax reliefs system but raised the important question, which I would like to address, of whether reliefs achieve their economic objectives in the current climate and context, as we try to rebuild or at least begin to consider how we can rebuild after covid-19. Tax reliefs will have an important part to play, and it will be vital that they are channelled to those who will rebuild the economy.

I wish to speak at greater length to amendment 1 and new clause 17, both of which are tabled in my name. Both are probing amendments. I seek to probe the Government’s commitment to levelling up every nation and region of the UK by requiring them to report on the differential territorial impacts of the changes that the Bill introduces to certain reliefs and tax incentives.

Most hon. Members will welcome the Conservatives’ efforts to see balanced economic growth throughout the UK and in particular to move away from what I consider to be a hub-and-spoke approach to economic development. Over the past decade, the Government have mainly concentrated on improving connectivity between rural areas and smaller towns and the supposed economic engines of the larger cities, as opposed to incentivising and supporting economic growth in those areas themselves.

Such a centralised model has inevitably concentrated economic activity in London and the south-east. As a consequence, Wales’ potential and that of other regions and nations of the UK has been overlooked. That is perhaps most apparent when we consider the way in which public funding for certain development has been allocated. Between 2001 and 2017, London R&D funding per head totalled almost twice the UK average— £3,900 per head compared with a national average of £2,300. What is more, the trend worsened in that time. The share of the core research budget spend across the three cities of Oxford, Cambridge and London—also known as the golden triangle—rose from 42.1% in 2002-03 to 46% in 2017-18.

Perhaps just as relevant to this debate is how public spending on transport infrastructure is allocated. I note that per-head spending in London in the past decade has averaged nearly three times that in the rest of the UK. During the same period, the city has received five times the average per-head spend on culture. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, given that disparity, that the golden triangle of London, the south-east of England and the east of England also attracts the lion’s share of venture capital. Indeed, the region received 73% of all venture capital between 2016 and 2018, according to the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association. When we reflect on this concentration of venture capital in one region of the UK, as with R&D, not only are the failings of past economic development policy laid bare, but it is difficult to deny a popular saying in Ceredigion, “I’r pant y rhed y dŵr”—or in English, “To the hollow the water runs”.

It is clear that as the world moves increasingly to a knowledge-driven economy, expenditure on R&D will be vital not only as a source of innovation that can be commercialised to form the basis of the next generation of business, but as a means of equipping people with the requisite skills for the new economy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said, the post-covid economy. It follows, therefore, that the economy of any nation or region that does not receive the right level of support will be hindered in its attempt to adjust to the challenges of tomorrow. Government support for R&D is essential for Wales in particular, to address problems that range from a low-wage economy to a looming demographic time bomb, while also building an economic platform to take advantage of trends, including automation, that could otherwise cause quite a serious long-term social risk.

New clause 17 would require the Chancellor to report on the geographical impact of changes to several tax rules, including R&D expenditure credit. It would ensure that the UK Government consider how different geographic areas benefit from taxpayer-funded reliefs so that the financial incentives can be better tailored to overcome the UK’s chronic regional inequalities. I have previously drawn attention to the concentration of R&D funding in the golden triangle, but assessments might also provoke a debate within Government about how public spending on other priorities is allocated.

In a similar vein, my amendment 1 would require the Government to consider the unsustainable concentration of private investment in one region of the UK at the expense of the devolved nations and other regions of England. As the UK Government narrow the applicability of the enterprise investment scheme, they need to consider how that will affect firms in different areas of the UK. The EIS benefits us in a great many ways—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton outlined them effectively in his remarks. The ways in which the UK Government can encourage the establishment in the devolved nations of venture capital funds, and therefore private investment, is so important. The geographic disparities to which I have already referred are reflected in the EIS. To pick just one example, between 2015 and 2018, only 210 Welsh firms benefited from EIS, receiving just 1.3% of the total investment. By contrast, to pick on the golden triangle again, that area received 67% of all investment. The average UK business angel investment per firm has been some 40% greater than that in Wales.

Modern advanced economies such as Germany, the Netherlands and even the USA have ensured a better geographic spread of economic prosperity, so the Government’s intention to address this policy failure is to be welcomed. However, we must make sure that the rhetoric is backed up by the reality and that the measures designed to realise such lofty ambitions are fit for purpose. My amendment and new clause would require the Government to report on the effectiveness of some tax relief schemes in this regard, and I hope that the Minister can give them some serious consideration.

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this short but interesting debate. As colleagues have noted, when we think about tax transparency, we are in what might these days be referred to as a niche area of taxation—technical, but no less important. In some respects, it is more important that we do not get lost in the detail but can come back and talk about the issues more widely. If I may, I will address the different clauses and then come to the specific points raised in the debate.

New clause 27 would require the Government to review all

“tax reliefs contained in this Act”.

It states that the review must contain

“the number of tax reliefs…the effect on taxation revenue of each of the tax reliefs…and…an assessment of the efficacy of systems for designing, monitoring and evaluating the effect of the tax reliefs.”

It asks the Government to publish the number of tax reliefs in the Bill and their effect on taxation revenue.

As the House may be aware, the Government already publish tax changes and estimates of the Exchequer impacts of policy changes in the Budget documents at each fiscal event. Moreover, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs monitors the effect on taxation revenue of tax reliefs after they are introduced and issues an annual tax relief statistics publication—I am sure that is closely scrutinised by all Members—which includes estimates of the costs of tax reliefs. Building on this, HMRC is also undertaking a project to expand its published costs information. I remind the House that in May HMRC published cost estimates for a further 47 previously uncosted reliefs.

New clause 27 also asks for an assessment of the efficacy of systems for designing, monitoring and evaluating the effect of a relief. As the House will know, the Government consult on new tax reliefs and proposed changes to tax reliefs, bringing in external expertise as part of the policy-making cycle wherever possible. Officials are constantly working on ways to improve the policy on development, administration and continuing management of reliefs. As colleagues will know, the Government, and particularly the Treasury, keep all reliefs under review.

The Government also do evaluations of different forms. This work has included evaluations of a number of significant reliefs—some 15 since 2015. These include our R&D tax credits and entrepreneurs relief, on both of which I will say a few words later. In 2015, HMRC published an evaluation of R&D tax credits. In 2017, it commissioned an evaluation of entrepreneurs relief that led to a series of reforms, most recently the significant reduction of its lifetime at spring Budget 2020, which is legislated for in this Bill. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) picked up on the point about entrepreneurs relief, which he somehow regards as “the tail wagging the dog”. What he calls “the tail wagging the dog” other people would call consultation across Parliament and discussion with stakeholders. Since the measure resulted in a 90% reduction in the scope of the relief, I do not think he can claim that there is any lack of ambition in it.

HMRC will continue to monitor and evaluate reliefs and will bring forward a pipeline of further evaluations in due course. It will also consider a proposal to which I have already said I am quite sympathetic—I thank the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson); we have discussed this before: a more systematic evaluation programme for reliefs. In the light of all this, the Government do not believe that the new clause is necessary.

New clause 2 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impacts of the reduction in the lifetime of entrepreneurs relief that is being legislated for in this Bill within six months of Royal Assent, and specifically to review the impacts on business investment, employment and productivity in the constituent nations and English regions of the United Kingdom. I would first highlight to hon. Members that the Government have already conducted an internal review of this relief that built on the 2017 independent research commissioned by HMRC. That review considered the distributional effects and benefits of the relief against its cost in order to better understand the targeting of the relief. This, in turn, has been used to inform the reform that is being legislated for in this Bill. It ensures that the majority of entrepreneurs are unaffected. A lot of the concern about entrepreneurs relief historically has been that it is not well targeted, and this measure greatly improves the targeting. Unfortunately, the effects of the changes to the relief will not be visible in six months’ time, and for that reason I urge the House to reject new clause 2.

New clause 4 concerns the structures and buildings allowance. It would require the Chancellor to review the impacts of clause 30, which makes miscellaneous amendments to the SBA, within six months of the passing of the Finance Act. Specifically, it would require the Chancellor to review the impacts on business investment, employment, productivity and energy efficiency. Again, I reassure Members that both HMRC and the Treasury already monitor tax reliefs according to the level of risk that they are deemed to pose. It is in the nature of a structures and buildings allowance that it is configured to reflect the fact that it can take many years to erect new buildings. Claims under the SBA are ordinarily settled when businesses bring buildings into use and submit tax returns at year end. For that reason, it would be neither possible nor appropriate to try to draw conclusions on the productivity or energy efficiency impacts of these changes within such a short period.

New clause 17 would require the Government, within 12 months, to assess and report on the geographical effects of changes to business reliefs across a variety of areas. There is a concern, which I recognise, that there are geographical disparities that reflect the historical evolution of our economy in different areas. It is by no means a uniform picture, even outside London.

HMRC does not routinely require businesses to provide geographical information about where expenditure is incurred as part of claims for the R&D expenditure credit, structures and buildings allowance or intangible fixed assets. To do that, changes would be required that would create additional burdens on businesses. Those claiming the reliefs, of course, could only provide information after the year end. For that reason, it would not be possible for HMRC to have information within the 12 months stated in the amendment. Even if the amendment were passed, it is not capable of being fulfilled.

Will the Minister give way?

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

I declare an interest as somebody who has benefited from entrepreneurs’ relief in the past. Is the Minister considering extending the reduction in entrepreneurs’ relief, which I support, to investors’ relief, which currently stands at the same figure as entrepreneurs’ relief used to stand at—£10 million?

If my hon. Friend is asking questions, he ought to stay for the next debate, because he is abusing the privilege of this debate. I thank him for his suggestion of a revenue-raising possibility for the Government; we take all those in great heart.

Could the Minister say a little more about the social investment tax relief? I am not aware that he responded on that point.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Let me address that. As she knows, the relief remains in place until next year. Even its doughtiest supporters would agree that so far it has not been anything like as effective as anyone would have liked or as had been projected or anticipated. Only £11.2 million has been raised under it in the period 2014 to 2018-19.

We are looking at it closely. As I mentioned in Committee, I am in discussions with leading figures across the social investment world about whether we can get some more visibility on the sources of funds that would use such a relief and the sources of projects that those funds would support. If we do not get that and we cannot have that in a slightly more concrete form, it looks like quite an empty request, but there may be other things that we can do to support social investment. As the hon. Lady knows, I have written a book on the big society. It is an area that I care deeply about, so I am happy to respond and I am grateful for her question.

We do not intend to divide the House on the new clause, but I will make a few brief points in response to what the Minister has said. I am glad that he shares our assessment that the current situation and system are unwieldy, and therefore we look forward to seeing real progress in that area. Frankly, it is not good enough that of those 362 tax reliefs, only 15 have had published evaluations since 2015, at a time when costs have risen.

During these extraordinary times, we need to see much more from the Government, not just on tackling tax avoidance, as we discussed at some length yesterday. There needs to be a renewed focus on taxpayer value for money, with greater opportunities for scrutiny of tax reliefs in this place and from external experts. Although we are not seeking to divide the House, I hope that we will see progress in that area. It is an issue to which we intend to return. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

We will have a three-minute suspension.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 20—Protected pension age of members re-employed as a result of coronavirus.

Government new clause 21—Modifications of the statutory residence test in connection with coronavirus.

Government new clause 22—Future Fund: EIS and SEIS relief. Government new clause 23—Interest on unpaid tax in case of disaster etc of national significance.

Government new clause 24—Exceptional circumstances preventing disposal of interest in three year period.

Government new clause 25—HGV road user levy. Government new clause 32—Enterprise management incentives: disqualifying events. Government new schedule 1—Taxation of coronavirus support payments.

New clause 29—Review of impact of Act on poverty—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct an assessment of the impact of this Act on poverty and lay this before the House of Commons within six months of Royal Assent.

(2) This assessment must consider—

(a) the impact on absolute poverty,

(b) the impact on relative poverty, and

(c) whether such a study should in future be a regular duty of the Office for Budget Responsibility.’

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the Bill on poverty and consider whether the OBR should conduct such assessments as a regular duty.

New clause 10—Impact of provisions of the Act on child poverty—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of the provisions of this Act on child poverty and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the impact on—

(a) households at different levels of income,

(b) the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010,

(c) different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and

(d) levels of relative and absolute child poverty in the United Kingdom.

(3) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.’

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the Bill on child poverty.

New clause 3—Review of changes to capital allowances—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the changes to chargeable gains with respect to corporate capital losses in this Act in each part of the United Kingdom and each region of England and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—

(a) business investment

(b) employment, and

(c) productivity.

(3) A review under this section must consider the effects in the current and each of the subsequent four financial years.

(4) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes in the event of each of the following—

(a) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period without a negotiated comprehensive free trade agreement,

(b) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period with a negotiated agreement, and remains in the single market and customs union, or

(c) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period with a negotiated comprehensive free trade agreement, and does not remain in the single market and customs union.

(5) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes if the UK signs a free trade agreement with the United States.

(6) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

This new clause requires a review of the impact on investment, employment and productivity of the changes to chargeable gains with respect to corporate capital losses over time; in the event of a free trade agreement with the USA; and in the event of leaving the EU without a trade agreement, with an agreement to retain single market and customs union membership, or with a trade agreement that does not include single market and customs union membership.

New clause 6—General anti-abuse rule: review of effect on tax revenues—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on tax revenues of section 99 and Schedule 14 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The review under sub-paragraph (1) must consider—

(a) the expected change in corporation and income tax paid attributable to the provisions in this Schedule; and

(b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions in this Schedule, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid.

(3) The review under subparagraph (2)(b) must consider taxes payable by the owners and employees of Scottish Limited Partnerships.’

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of Clause 99 and Schedule 14, and in particular on the taxes payable by owners and employees of Scottish Limited Partnerships.

New clause 7—Call-off stock arrangements: sectoral review of impact—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must make an assessment of the impact of section 79 on the sectors listed in (2) below and lay a report of that assessment before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The sectors to be assessed under (1) are—

(a) leisure,

(b) retail,

(c) hospitality,

(d) tourism,

(e) financial services,

(f) business services,

(g) health/life/medical services,

(h) haulage/logistics,

(i) aviation,

(j) transport,

(k) professional sport,

(l) oil and gas,

(m) universities, and

(n) fairs.’

This new clause would require the Government to report on the effect of Clause 79 on a number of business sectors.

New clause 8—Review of effects on measures in Act of certain changes in migration levels—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on the provisions of this Act of migration in each of the scenarios in subsection (2) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one month of the passing of this Act.

(2) Those scenarios are that—

(a) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period without a negotiated future trade agreement,

(b) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period following a negotiated future trade agreement, and remains in the single market and customs union, and

(c) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period following a negotiated trade agreement, and does not remain in the single market and customs union.

(3) In respect of each of those scenarios the review must consider separately the effects of—

(a) migration by EU nationals, and

(b) migration by non-EU nationals.

(4) In respect of each of those scenarios the review must consider separately the effects on the measures in each part of the United Kingdom and each region of England.

(5) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.’

This new clause would require a Government review of the effects on measures in the Bill of certain changes in migration levels.

New clause 9—Review of effects on migration of measures in Act—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on migration of the provisions of this Act in each of the scenarios in subsection (2) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one month of the passing of this Act.

(2) Those scenarios are that—

(a) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period without a negotiated future trade agreement

(b) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period following a negotiated future trade agreement, and remains in the single market and customs union, and

(c) the UK leaves the EU withdrawal transition period following a negotiated trade agreement, and does not remain in the single market and customs union.

(3) In respect of each of those scenarios the review must consider separately the effects on—

(a) migration by EU nationals, and

(b) migration by non-EU nationals.

(4) In respect of each of those scenarios the review must consider separately the effects in each part of the United Kingdom and each region of England.

(5) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

This new clause would require a Government review of the effects of the measures in the Bill on migration levels.

New clause 11—Assessment of equality impact of measures in Act—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the effects on equalities of the provisions of this Act within 12 months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The review must make a separate assessment with respect to each of the protected characteristics set out in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.

(3) Each assessment under (2) must report separately on the effects in in each part of the United Kingdom and each region of England.

(4) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.’

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the Bill on equalities.

New clause 15—Sectoral review of impact of Act—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must make an assessment of the impact of this Act on the sectors listed in (2) below and lay a report of that assessment before the House of Commons within six months of Royal Assent.

(2) The sectors to be assessed under (1) are—

(a) leisure,

(b) retail,

(c) hospitality,

(d) tourism,

(e) financial services,

(f) business services,

(g) health/life/medical services,

(h) haulage/logistics,

(i) aviation,

(j) transport,

(k) professional sport,

(l) oil and gas,

(m) universities, and

(n) fairs.’

This new clause would require the Government to report on the effect of the Bill on a number of business sectors.

New clause 16—Review of effect of Act on tax revenues—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on tax revenues of the Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of Royal Assent.

(2) The review under (1) must contain an estimate of any change attributable to the provisions in this Act in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid.

(3) The estimate under (2) must report separately on taxes payable by the owners and employees of Scottish Limited Partnerships.’

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the Bill; and in particular on the taxes payable by owners and employees of Scottish Limited Partnerships.

New clause 30—Review of rates of air passenger duty—

‘(1) The provisions of section 88 shall not come into effect until the Treasury has carried out and published a review of the likely effect of changes to rates of air passenger duty on the aviation sector.

(2) The review must take into account the effects of Covid-19 on the sector.

(3) The review must be published no later than 1 October 2020.’

This new clause would require that the changes to APD in clause 88 not come into force until a review of the effect of changes to APD has been published by the Treasury.

Amendment 2, in clause 80, page 68, line 2, at end insert—

‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 by this Section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.’

This amendment would require the Government to review the impact of the proposed changes to alcohol liquor duties on public health.

Amendment 3, in clause 81, page 68, line 21, at end insert—

‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the TPDA 1979 by this Section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.’

This amendment would require the Government to review the expected impact of the revised rates of duty on tobacco products on public health.

Amendment 4, in clause 86, page 73, line 20, after “supplies” insert “, including human breastmilk”

This amendment would ensure that vehicles carrying human breastmilk would benefit from the exemption from Vehicle Excise Duty.

Amendment 5, page 77, line 10, leave out Clause 95

Amendment 6, in clause 95, page 77, line 14, at end insert—

‘(2) The Government must lay before the House of Commons by 9 September 2020 a statement of the conditions under which it would consider it appropriate to vary rates of import duty under this Section.’

This amendment would require the Government to state the conditions under which it would consider it appropriate to vary rates of import duty in an international trade dispute.

Amendment 7, page 77, line 14, at end insert—

‘(2) No regulations under this section may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.’

This amendment would require the Government to seek the approval of the House before making regulations varying rates of import duty in an international trade dispute.

Amendment 8, page 77, line 14, at end insert—

‘(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than a month before any exercise of the power in subsection (1), lay before the House of Commons a report containing the following—

(a) an assessment of the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of the powers in subsection (1);

(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects of the UK being within the EU Customs Union;

(c) an assessment any differences in the exercise of those powers in respect of—

(i) England,

(ii) Scotland,

(iii) Wales, and

(iv) Northern Ireland; and

(d) an assessment of any differential effects in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) between—

(i) England,

(ii) Scotland,

(iii) Wales, and

(iv) Northern Ireland.’

This would require a review of the economic and fiscal impact of the use of the powers in clause 95 including comparing those effects with EU Customs Union membership.

Amendment 9, in clause 96, page 77, line 26, after “tax” insert

‘which is due at the relevant date from the debtor and which became due in the 12 months immediately preceding that date, and/’

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 10, page 77, line 27, after “deduction”, insert

‘from a payment made by the debtor in the period of 12 months immediately preceding the relevant date.’

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 11, page 78, line 11, after “tax”, insert

‘which is due at the relevant date from the debtor and which became due in the 12 months immediately preceding that date, and/’

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 12, page 78, line 12, after “deduction”, insert

‘from a payment made by the debtor in the period of 12 months immediately preceding the relevant date.’

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 13, page 78, line 35, after “tax”, insert

‘which is due at the relevant date from the debtor and which became due in the 12 months immediately preceding that date, and/’

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 14, page 78, line 36, after “deduction”, insert

‘from a payment made by the debtor in the period of 12 months immediately preceding the relevant date.’

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 15, page 79, line 10, at end insert—

‘(8) The amendments made by this section do not apply to any debt secured by a floating charge in respect of monies were advanced to the debtor before 1 December 2020.’

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

The Government have tabled eight new clauses to the Bill, the majority of which are in response to the covid-19 pandemic. I would like to start by offering Members an explanation for why these new clauses are being brought forward on Report. The Government have been working very hard to combat the pandemic, as the House will know, and these measures are just a small part of a much more extensive and wide-ranging response. I am sure that colleagues across the House will appreciate that Ministers and civil servants have been working in extraordinary circumstances in the past three months. As I often do, I again pay great tribute to officials at the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Without their work, it would not have been possible to deliver many, if any, of these aspects of this extremely comprehensive response, let alone in such a rapid timeframe as, for example, with the coronavirus job retention scheme.

We have brought forward these new clauses at the earliest possible opportunity, and for technical reasons, it is on Report. We have also been slightly limited by the fact that to table each new clause requires a new Ways and Means resolution to be agreed by the House. Report was the first amendable stage of the Bill to take place after the Government had been able to agree the necessary Ways and Means resolution on the Floor of the House. I hope the House will agree that there is a clear need for each of these new clauses to stand part of the Bill.

I will touch on each new clause briefly. New clause 19 seeks to do two things. First, it confirms that grants made under covid-related schemes—for example, the furlough scheme, the self-employment scheme, the small business grant fund, the retail, hospitality and leisure grant fund, the local authority discretionary grant fund and schemes corresponding to those grants within the devolved Administrations—are subject to tax. The new clause also includes a delegated power to add or remove further grant schemes through a statutory instrument, which provides sensible flexibility, so that the Government can continue to support the economy in their response to the pandemic.

The second part of the new clause ensures that HMRC has appropriate and proportionate compliance and enforcement powers in relation to the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme. To ensure that taxpayer money is going only to those who are eligible, the new clause gives HMRC powers to recover overpayments and to impose penalties where there is deliberate non-compliance. HMRC has given a clear undertaking that these powers will not be used to penalise taxpayers who may be going through difficult times but make honest mistakes in their applications. As previously stated, the powers are designed to be proportionate, and they balance the fact that we are in unprecedented and uncertain times with the need to ensure that HMRC has sufficient powers to enforce the schemes according to eligibility criteria set out and to protect the Exchequer.

New clause 20 seeks to mitigate potential pensions impacts for those with a protected pension age returning to work to help in the battle against the pandemic. Its purpose is to provide certainty for those people by temporarily suspending rules that would otherwise see the pension income of recently retired people reduced if they were to return to work in crucial workforces at this important time. These retirees have been and will remain critical to the Government’s response to covid, and this new clause temporarily removes restrictions that might impede a flexible response.

New clause 21 temporarily relaxes the statutory residence test so that highly skilled individuals from across the world are not discouraged from coming to the UK and helping this country to respond to the unprecedented health emergency. The actions and presence of normally non-resident individuals in the UK could have inadvertently affected their tax residence status. The measure is to be restricted, however, to ensure that it applies only between 1 March and 1 June 2020 for time spent in the UK by individuals who worked specifically on coronavirus disease-related activities in specified sectors. That time will not count towards the residence test.

May I press the Minister on innovative companies getting a lack of support from HMRC? I have come across a case in my constituency where a very innovative British company appears to have had a lack of support from the agency. Would he look into that for me?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the House will be aware, HMRC is often responsive and generally extremely responsive to such issues. I will happily look at any correspondence he wants to send me, and I will ensure that there is a properly engaged response to the extent that my limited powers over HMRC permit me. I hope that will be effective.

New clause 23 enables the Treasury to specify in an order made under section 135 of the Finance Act 2008 which payments of tax and other liabilities will not attract late payment interest or surcharge as a result of being deferred by agreement during a period of national disaster or emergency. It also enables the Treasury to set specific relief periods for different deferred taxes or liabilities. As the House will know, the Government have announced an unprecedented package of economic support for businesses and individuals affected by covid. The new clause ensures that late payment interest that would normally accrue automatically where tax is paid late does not apply, supporting taxpayers further and in ways in which I am sure the whole House will support. The payment deferral for VAT that we have announced provides taxpayers with a much-needed cash flow boost. HMRC is using its existing powers as set out in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 to defer those payments of tax.

New clause 24 allows a refund of the additional 3% higher rate of stamp duty where exceptional circumstances prevented the sale of the previous main residence in the three-year window within which a sale must ordinarily take place. The new clause applies to those whose refund window ended on or after 1 January 2020. It is to ensure that responsible actions taken by people do not lead to negative tax implications and that those who would otherwise have received a stamp duty land tax refund are still able to receive it, despite the pandemic.

New clause 25 suspends the heavy goods vehicle road user levy for a period of 12 months, cutting fixed operational costs to the logistics and haulage industries as the economy begins to recover from the pandemic. These industries support many other industries, and temporarily easing their financial burden will support the haulage sector, reducing fixed costs as the economy recovers over time.

I turn finally to new clause 32, which makes minor changes to the existing enterprise management incentives legislation, introducing a time-limited exception to the disqualifying event rule so that EMI option holders who can no longer meet the EMI working time requirement due only to the pandemic are not forced to forfeit their options or to exercise them earlier than planned. This has the effect of protecting employees furloughed under the coronavirus job retention scheme or who have taken unpaid leave and had their working hours reduced. The measure means that affected employees will not forfeit their options or be forced to exercise them within the statutory 90 days normally required.

Since the point of EMI schemes is to help high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises recruit and retain skilled employees by giving them tax-advantaged share options, I am sure the House will understand that the measure supports a very important sector that is also likely to be important to our recovery. The changes will be effective from 19 March to ensure that employees who were furloughed or had to reduce their hours do not lose out. I hope the House will accept the need for the new clauses in these highly uncertain and unusual times. I commend them to the House.

I thank the Financial Secretary for making the case for the Government’s new clauses this afternoon. Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the Labour party has made it clear that as the official Opposition we seek to work constructively with the Government in response to this unprecedented public health crisis which, as we have seen, has brought about an economic crisis to follow it. In that spirit, and to ensure the smooth passage of legislation, we have helped to expedite the progressive measures taken by the Government, and this afternoon will be no exception.

I wish to speak to new clause 29, which has been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Chancellor, and other hon. and right hon. colleagues. Yesterday afternoon, I addressed the Government’s poverty of ambition on climate change. This afternoon, I want to address their poverty of ambition on tackling poverty itself.

The Conservative party has now been in government either alone or in coalition for a decade. Over the past 10 years, their record on poverty in this country and on tackling poverty in this country has been absolutely lamentable. According to the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission, 600,000 more children are now living in relative poverty than in 2012, and that is projected to increase further due to benefit changes and the obvious economic impact of covid-19. As of 20 February this year, some 14 million people were in poverty, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, including 2 million pensioners and 4 million children. We know that the impacts of poverty are felt disproportion- ately among different communities. Children from black and minority ethnic groups, for example, are more likely to be in poverty, with 45% of BAME children living in poverty, as compared with 26% of children in white British families.

We believe that the Government are failing on something that should be the most basic of priorities for any Government. That is not just our view as the Opposition party; the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission has said:

“The government should be more proactive in addressing poverty overall.”

It is worth bearing in mind that behind every statistic is a child, and 30 years ago I was one of those children in the child poverty statistics, growing up on a council estate in London’s east end, sandwiched between the bright lights of the City of London and the glistening lights of what was then the blossoming London Docklands Development Corporation land, which has become Canary Wharf. Today, they are two global financial centres at the centre of our global city. In between is a vista of poverty that was bad then and remains bad now.

One of the things I find most frustrating about the experience I had growing up in a council flat in the east end in the 1980s is that I look back and I think about the conditions of the council flat I lived in and the embarrassment of not wanting to bring friends home from school because the conditions were not ones that we were proud of. It was a source of shame and embarrassment. I think about the experience of relying on free school meals, and the stigma that arises from having to collect a dinner ticket while other children go and pay for their food quickly—and get the best food, I hasten to add, while handing over their cash. I think about the difficulties my mum had as a single mum, balancing the challenge of bringing up a child while relying on the benefits system, and having to make compromises in choosing how she spent the family budget: the choice between putting food in the fridge or some extra money in the electricity meter.

One of the things that makes me most angry is that, when I think about my experience, which I thought was bad in the 1980s, and compare it with that of children growing up in the same circumstances today, as seen in my own constituency casework, things have got worse for children in the decades following my childhood, when things ought to be getting better. Whereas I had the stability of a council flat—albeit not a nice one—and a roof over my head, children in my constituency today, and no doubt in those of so many others across the Chamber, are growing up in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation, being moved from pillar to post and living in substandard accommodation, with disruptive consequences for their education and their schooling, and the inability for them to form lasting friendships and for their families to build supportive networks and family relationships.

When I think about the enormous strides that were made, particularly by the last Labour Government, in tackling educational disadvantage, I think it is outrageous that, in this country in the 21st century, children still today arrive at school at the age of five with their life chances already limited and in many cases predetermined, because we failed to get early years right. Sure Start centres have closed, and the support for families is no longer there. As a result, children arrive at school, at five, less prepared than their peers from more affluent backgrounds. It makes me angry that, for all the difference made to my education through programmes under the last Labour Government and the impact they have had on children since—the London Challenge and Excellence in Cities—today children are leaving school at 16 at a time when the attainment gap between children from the most advantaged backgrounds and the least advantaged backgrounds is actually widening, and where the further education system in which many working-class young people go on to study has been described by the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission as “undervalued and underfunded”. This is at a time when the changing nature of our economy and the changing nature of the world of work make post-16 adult education delivered in further education settings more important, not less. We should be making progress, but we are in reverse gear.

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech, which focuses us, as we should be, on this vital issue. Does he agree with me that a central part of the problem many families face is that the costs of food and of rent have risen so dramatically, with the impossibility of being able to afford a home? In my constituency in Reading, it is very difficult for many people to get on to the housing ladder. Many young professionals and young families are crammed into flats, which are hugely expensive. They are also suffering huge problems with the high cost of food. Does he agree with me that this is a very significant part of the problem?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and that brings me neatly on to the next point I was about to make about employment conditions in our country. For my mum, as a single mum, it was difficult to hold down a steady, stable job and often she was reliant on temporary, casual, low-paid work to help make ends meet. Looking at the picture in the labour market—and this was pre-pandemic—even in households where one or both parents are working, children are still growing up in poverty. As my hon. Friend said, over the last decade we have seen the bills going up, but the wages failing to follow.

We have also seen labour market conditions that mean that, even when people are doing the right thing, as the vast majority of people want to do—going out to work, often with two, three or even four jobs in a week, and working all the hours God sends to try to make ends meet—they are still unable to make ends meet. It should never be the case, especially in a country with the wealth and opportunity available here, that when someone goes to work and puts in a full week’s work, at the end of the day they still do not have enough to make ends meet. Things are likely to become even more challenging in the wake of the economic fallout from coronavirus. Unemployment statistics from recent months have been not only jaw dropping but unprecedented, and the pace at which our economy has collapsed as a result of the necessary shutdown has been astonishing. I welcome and recognise the steps that the Chancellor has taken to try to protect people’s incomes, but unless he goes further than he has already announced, many people will face greater poverty and hardship later this year.

the hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, but he did not say whether the Blair Government hit their target of halving child poverty by 2010. Did they or not?

I am delighted that the Minister asked that question, because I am about to lay out, in full, the record of the previous Labour Government. According to the London School of Economics and its Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, by the end of the new Labour Government’s period in office, child poverty and pensioner poverty had fallen considerably, in circumstances where child poverty would have risen without those reforms, and pensioner poverty would have fallen less far. In terms of absolute poverty, child poverty fell by more than 2 million from 1997-98 to 2009-10, and pensioner poverty fell by almost 3 million in the same period. In terms of relative poverty, child poverty fell by 800,000 between 1997-98 and 2009-10, and the number of pensioners in relative poverty fell by more than 1 million in the same period.

That Labour Government oversaw an £18 billion annual increase in spending on social security for families with children, as well as an £11 billion rise in payments for pensioners by 2010. Those rises were supported by other anti-poverty policies, including Sure Start, the national minimum wage, increased childcare support, and increases in education spending, which rose from £56 billion in 1996-97 to £103 billion in 2009-10—a real-terms increase of 83%. The last Labour Government pretty much eradicated homelessness and made ending insecure housing a priority, reducing the number of households in priority need of housing from 135,000 in 2003-04 to just 40,000 in 2009. They pursued the decent homes standard to boot, ensuring that children were growing up in far better conditions than I did. That is a record to be proud of—a record of a Government who got their priorities right.

It took a celebrity footballer to get this Government to do the right thing on something as basic as ensuring that children who would otherwise have gone hungry were fed this summer. It is not just that the Government do not have their head in the right place; they do not have their heart in the right place either. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on Marcus Rashford being on speed dial to get the Prime Minister to do the right thing on every occasion, and we cannot rely on the Chancellor to do the right thing on every occasion either. That is why it is important, as we have laid out in new clause 29, that we ensure that what counts is what is measured.

New clause 29 would require the Chancellor to conduct a review of the impact of this Bill—no doubt, very soon, this Act—on poverty in the United Kingdom. As with the Government’s environmental ambitions, I doubt that this Bill will move the dial on poverty much, if at all.

The Government’s own Social Mobility Commission has asked for the Office for Budget Responsibility to conduct assessments of all the fiscal statements that it usually does, but this time to look at child poverty and anti-poverty measures in particular. I urge Ministers to look carefully at this issue again. We raised it in Committee and were not successful in persuading the Minister of the case then, but I hope that we can persuade him of the case now. If Treasury Ministers and officials know that the OBR will be looking at those numbers in the same way that it does the other numbers in its assessments of Government fiscal events, perhaps it will concentrate the minds of people in the Treasury to get their priorities right.

Next week, the Chancellor will be coming before the House to deliver an economic update. After the Prime Minister’s statement this week, I think he needs to do a lot better than his apparent boss did when making a speech that was trailed as a new deal. It was not a new deal. Its ambitions were modest and much of the content was re-announcement. It certainly was not a green new deal. Perhaps when the Chancellor is here next week, he can do the opposite of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister over-promised and under-delivered. Given the way in which the economic update has been trailed, perhaps the Chancellor can under-promise and over-deliver next week, because he has a golden opportunity in the wake of this crisis to think seriously and substantially about the way in which our economy works and whose interests it serves.

I hope that when he comes forward next week, the Chancellor does so with the full Budget that the shadow Chancellor has called for—a back-to-work Budget that is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, that can actually tackle the gross inequalities and injustices of our society, and that puts us back on track to eradicate child poverty within a generation and to eradicate poverty for everyone because, for all the challenges of the last decade and all the challenges that we are living through now, this remains one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

This also happens to be a great country that is full of opportunities for so many people—in education, industry, arts, science and imagination—but those opportunities are not available to everyone. That should keep Ministers awake at night. It keeps me awake at night. But having listened to our Prime Minister only weeks ago in this Chamber, when it comes to tackling child poverty in this country, I do wonder whether his heart is really in it at all.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and of a former aviation Minister, as well as of other Members who understand the crucial role of the aviation sector in bringing a very large amount of employment and prosperity to our constituents—in my case I represent an area immediately adjacent to Manchester airport, and my right hon. Friend has many constituents who work at Heathrow airport—and the wider impact of the aviation sector on the British economy and the way it drives growth and opportunity in our country.

The deficiencies of air passenger duty are well known, and this is an argument that has gone on for many years. It was introduced originally under the guise of being an environmental duty or tax. In fact, it has simply been a way of driving revenue. It is, by now, the highest tax of its sort anywhere in the world. In normal times, it is a drag on the development of new routes and connections around the world and a particular problem for regional airports, which find it harder to establish those new, especially long haul routes. Crucially, air passenger duty takes no account whatever of emissions or the environmental impact of an aircraft, a class of aircraft or a flight.

New clause 30 seeks to ensure that a review should be held—and held quickly, to be published within three months, by 1 October—of the likely effect of changes in air passenger duty rates on the aviation sector. The Bill as it stands only provides the capacity for Ministers to increase rates of air passenger duty, but it is critical that we look wider than that at the possible benefits that could come from reductions or a suspension. That is particularly important, of course, in the context of the covid-19 pandemic and the Government’s response to it.

The House will know that the aviation sector, along with hospitality and leisure, is among the hardest hit sectors of all. The effect on aviation has been exacerbated by Foreign Office guidance, which still advises against all but essential overseas travel, and in the past few weeks or so by the implementation of a blanket quarantine proposal, a policy which I hope will come to an end in the very near future with the announcement of a large list of so-called air bridges, which I think the industry expects might take place tomorrow.

The effect over the last few months of both the pandemic itself and policy in relation to the pandemic has been chilling for the aviation sector. The House is well aware of the very large number of jobs that have already been lost in the aviation sector in recent weeks and months, and there is little doubt it will take a long time for aviation to come back to the state of health that it previously enjoyed. While this is by way of a probing new clause, I say to the Minister on the Treasury Bench that the real purpose of it perhaps is simply to flag the importance of this issue prior to the fiscal event or the statement that will be made next week by the Chancellor. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the principle set out by Colbert, who said:

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

The danger at the moment is that far from being an easy source of revenue for Government, air passenger duty, if it remains unreformed in the coming weeks and months, risks killing the goose rather than allowing the Government to extract the feathers.



I hope that the Chancellor will, before his statement, look seriously at the case for a temporary reduction or suspension of air passenger duty to assist the aviation sector to get back to where it should be. This is an opportunity to see the wider economic benefits that could come by achieving greater connectivity for our aviation sector, and particularly for regional airports. It would also be an opportunity to look at whether at the end of such a period of suspension an improved regime might be introduced that seeks to reward more sustainable aviation rather than simply to extract revenue for each passenger who flies.

The unprecedented support that the UK Government have given to business during this crisis has been welcomed, but we feel we need a bolder and more radical approach to ensure that the recovery helps to deliver a fairer, more resilient economy, with wellbeing at its core.

Across the parties and nations of the UK, everybody’s aim in this crisis was principally to save lives, but we now face the difficult task of rebuilding the economy after the unprecedented suspension of economic activity over the past few months. There is no doubt that we will have divergent ideas as to how to achieve this, but my colleagues in the Scottish Government and on the SNP Benches here have worked as constructively as we can to produce a clear strategy for the future of Scotland’s economy. That strategy is important, because it is not good enough just to lurch from crisis to crisis. I have now been in Parliament for five years, with two elections in between, three Prime Ministers, and now a pandemic and a likely no-deal exit from the EU at the end of year. We have seen a vacuum of economic strategy from successive Conservative Governments; it is time for this Government to recognise the unique circumstances in which we find ourselves.

We need to rebuild and grow our economy, and we need a vision for what we want that to look like. This crisis has clearly deepened existing inequalities. We have to seize the opportunity to build a new kind of economy that tackles poverty and inequality at its root. Research from the New Economics Foundation has found that only 6% of the public want a return to the pre-pandemic economy. The SNP’s new clause 10 would hold the Government to account on tackling child poverty and require the Chancellor to review the impact of the Bill, because we want to ensure that the inequalities that have widened as a result of this crisis do not continue to widen. We support Labour’s new clause 10, which complements our clause.

Unfortunately, we cannot trust the UK Government to deliver on tackling inequality on their own. In the past couple of weeks, we have seen an intention to return to the punitive regime of benefit sanctions that has caused so many families misery and hardship. How are people supposed to go out to work when they may be shielding, when they may have children at home and when they may put their families at risk by going out to work? It is really quite impossible. I do not know how the Government expect people to do that. They should definitely urgently rethink the proposals on benefit sanctions.

We have seen the Government providing free school meals for children in England only after being shamed into a U-turn by Marcus Rashford, and we have seen a Prime Minister more concerned about a £900 million paint job on a plane than supporting families. That gives a real indication of this Government’s priorities. The Scottish Government have taken child poverty incredibly seriously. They have set in statute their commitment—[Interruption.] They are grumbling on the Government Benches; if they would like to tell me why spending £900 million on a plane is more important than—

It is £900,000.

If Government Members want to tell me why spending £900,000 on a plane is more important than feeding children—[Interruption.] All of it is too much. All of it is unnecessary; when there are children in my constituency and constituencies throughout the country not having food to put on the table, money spent on redecorating a plane is a shame that should stain this Government.

As I was saying, the Scottish Government have taken child poverty incredibly seriously. They have set in statute the commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2030, with concrete action in the child poverty delivery plan backed by the £50 million tackling child poverty fund. Child poverty in Scotland had fallen, but it has been on the rise since the Conservatives took over in 2010. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation directly attributes this rise to welfare policy. In addition, the policies outwith the control of the Scottish Government, such as no recourse to public funds, cause significant poverty among people who are working. Constituents come to my office who cannot put food on the table for their children and who are struggling to pay their bills. Some have come to my office several years in a row to apply for the Christmas presents fund that is run in Glasgow, because even though they are working, they are not entitled to the benefits that their neighbours get; two children may sit next to one another in the classroom but one will go without because one family has no recourse to public funds. The Government must rethink this, because we have seen through the coronavirus crisis that people with no recourse to public funds find it more difficult to support themselves through this time.

The hon. Lady is right to say that so much of the responsibility and blame for what is happening in Scotland rests on the shoulders of the decisions taken here by the Conservative Government in Westminster, but I cannot resist asking her: given that between 1999 and 2007 Labour was in government in Holyrood and Westminster, are the people of Scotland not better served when there is a Labour Government here and a Labour Government there?

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that Scotland just hangs about and waits for a Labour Government, and everything is going to be fine. We would rather have Scotland’s powers in our hands than have one hand tied behind our back in this Union. So we are stuck with the policies that this Government and Parliament propose, which the people of Scotland, in many cases, have not voted for and do not want.

It is difficult to assess the impact that no recourse to public funds has on poverty in constituencies across the UK. I asked for a breakdown by constituency of the number of people with no recourse to public funds, but the Government said that that information could not be provided to me. So I cannot tell how many people in my constituency have no recourse to public funds and are struggling. It falls to the Scottish Government to try to fix some of these problems, because as soon as anything is proposed to get around no recourse to public funds, the UK Government shut it down and say it cannot happen. The Scottish Government therefore have an anti-destitution strategy for no recourse to public funds, to take a degree of responsibility for the serious situation many people face—these are our people and we want to try to help them. When that strategy comes forward, I call on the UK Government not to stand in the way of trying to support people in society who need help.

Academic research has shown that the single most effective policy to reduce child poverty in Scotland would be for universal credit payments to be increased, and the Scottish Government are using the powers we have to invest in the new Scottish child payment, which will lift 30,000 children out of poverty. With UC applications more than doubling since this time last year, we badly need sustained investment in the welfare system from the UK Government, and it is disappointing that the Prime Minister has failed to rule out a return to austerity. The UK Government’s welfare cuts are estimated to reduce social security spending in Scotland by up to £3.7 billion in 2020-21. The Scottish Government are spending more than £100 million a year to mitigate the worst of those, including by mitigating the bedroom tax. However, as Professor Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, wrote in his report on poverty in the UK:

“Devolved administrations have tried to mitigate the worst impacts of austerity, despite experiencing significant reductions in block grant funding and constitutional limits on their ability to raise revenue. Scotland and Northern Ireland each report spending some £125 million per year to protect people from the worst impacts of austerity and, unlike the United Kingdom Government, the three devolved administrations all provide welfare funds for emergencies and hardships.

But mitigation comes at a price, and is not sustainable. The Scottish Government said it had reached the limit of what it can afford to mitigate, because every pound spent on offsetting cuts means reducing vital services.”

Professor Alston was absolutely right in that assessment.

We cannot, in any circumstances, return to the austerity of the past. The welfare state and public services have been devasted in the past 10 years, leaving our economy vulnerable. Unfortunately, we still do not know if or when a second wave of covid-19 might happen, so we must use this opportunity to build resilience, if possible. We can allow a more flexible labour market response by increasing the generosity of universal credit, which will give people the financial headroom to gain new skills to meet the changing demands of the economy.

The Chancellor said that he would do whatever it takes to protect jobs, after a recent Treasury Committee report revealed that more than 1 million people have fallen through the gaps in support schemes. At this critical stage, it is vital that the Treasury strengthens and extends the schemes to ensure a strong economic recovery from the crisis. It is extremely concerning that the Government are pushing ahead with plans to wind down support schemes, and in particular that new clause 19 will designate grants to help businesses, employers, individuals and members of partnerships affected by the coronavirus crisis as taxable income.

It is also concerning that HMRC will be given new compliance powers to enforce those rules and that that has not been effectively communicated to businesses. Any new powers granted to HMRC must be proportionate and serve to aid recovery, rather than providing a further barrier for businesses to overcome. Those concerns have been backed by tax experts, such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which has said that it is vital that HMRC

“take a reasonable approach to enforcement in cases where recipients of CSPs were not entitled to the amount they received…there will be cases where people have made inadvertent errors in claims which may not come to light for some time. There will be cases where the person just did not know of the requirement to notify an overpayment. It is imperative that HMRC obtain a full understanding of the facts in every case and take a proportionate and targeted approach in their compliance activity in the months ahead.”

It is extremely important that HMRC and the Government get those details right. Many businesses are already on their knees and vulnerable to further shocks. Many businesses in my constituency are struggling to deal with HMRC, with errors in reporting systems meaning that they are not entitled to the payments that other businesses have received. It is difficult to address those problems.

If businesses are left to fail as support is withdrawn, the billions of pounds that have already been spent by the Government will be money wasted. As I did in Committee, I highlight the concerns raised by the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, R3, about the plans to grant preferential status to HMRC in insolvency procedures from December, covered by our amendments 9 to 15. It and UK Finance are concerned that that will undermine business lending and make it harder to rescue businesses from administration. Many companies across the UK in recent weeks have been struggling and going into administration, so the Treasury should carefully consider whether its plans will help businesses or hasten their demise.

Countries all over the world are facing the same choices and growing levels of public debt, but if we are to recover fully from the crisis, we need to prioritise growth and wellbeing over deficit reduction. This week, the Scottish Government laid out a plan for a fiscal stimulus package of £80 billion to stimulate growth for the whole of the UK. That would be used to accelerate major investment in low-carbon energy efficiency and digital infrastructure and deliver a green new deal for UK. The value of that investment can be recognised by assessing the Government’s fiscal sustainability in terms of its public sector net worth.

It is regrettable that the UK will, of course, miss out on the European Commission’s €750 billion stimulus. That makes it even more critical that the UK Government commit to their own stimulus—a proper stimulus, not the pretendy one that was announced by the Prime Minister this week—in the wake of covid-19, such as a reduction in VAT and job guarantees for young people.

Speaking of even younger people, I make a plug for my small and uncontentious amendment 4, which seeks to clarify that human breast milk is part of the vehicle excise duty exemption for vehicles carrying blood. It would be an important signal of support and recognition from the UK Government to those operating milk banks and to the mums donating their breast milk, which helps some of the most vulnerable babies in intensive care units across the UK. Among them is the extraordinary woman who, last week, donated an astonishing 32 litres to the milk bank that covers all of Scotland.

The Scottish Government and my colleagues in Westminster have put a considerable amount of work into formulating a meaningful strategy for Scotland’s recovery and future progress in delivering inclusive growth. I sincerely hope that those policies are taken seriously by the Treasury and that we can look back on this time as a pivotal one for making progress towards a fairer and more equitable society.

It is an honour and a privilege to be addressing you from these green Benches, Mr Deputy Speaker, and most unexpected for a Wukkington lad like me. It would be fair to say that neither the timing nor circumstance of my maiden speech are as I imagined, with my original timing altered by the loss of one of Workington’s great artists—a much-loved former teacher and my wife’s grandmother—followed by lockdown, and the circumstance altered by a socially distanced Chamber and our new normal in the light of coronavirus.

On that subject, I must pay tribute to the huge sacrifices that each and every one of my constituents has made to stop the spread of the virus and to the huge effort from many individuals and businesses with their contributions to local community and national efforts. If I was to look for one positive in recent months, it would be the way that so many of my constituents have stepped up to the plate to support those around them.

The scale and speed of the Government’s response to coronavirus has been unprecedented. The measures that we have seen across the grant schemes, rate relief schemes, furlough schemes and bounce back loans have been welcomed by my constituents in Workington. There is more to do and there are lessons to be learned, but I am incredibly proud to be here today to support the Government in their efforts.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on his maiden speech, and I hope that he—a newbie like me—enjoys his time in this place and is a strong voice for the people of Workington. Yesterday, I spoke in the Finance Bill debate about job creation and the importance of creating not only jobs, but secure jobs that put the needs of workers at the heart of the economy, rather than profit. It seems rather appropriate that I have the opportunity to speak in the child poverty debate today, because as we all know, the Government’s shameful record on employment and workers’ rights is one of the main drivers behind child poverty.

To be honest, I have absolutely no faith that the Government understand the issue of child poverty in any meaningful way. In the space of a month, I had the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care telling me that this Government were committed to levelling up the north-east, yet I also witnessed an equalities Minister admitting from the Dispatch Box that they had not heard of the Marmot report—essential reading when looking to tackle health inequalities. As one popular actor said in response, it is like a vicar not having heard of the Bible.

Over the last decade, Conservative Governments have systematically dismantled the progress that the last Labour Government made on child poverty. Currently, 4 million children are living in poverty, with 3 million of those living in a household where at least one person is in work. In addition to that, the Government’s Social Mobility Commission reports that there are 600,000 more children living in relative poverty than in 2012. The commission referenced the Government’s welfare changes as a key cause of this and have predicted that those changes, along with the impact of covid-19, will only increase child poverty. While the Prime Minister might be confused as to whether the Government have caused more child poverty, I am not. It is there in black and white in those appalling figures and, quite frankly, it is an utter disgrace.

In recent weeks, we have also seen the Government being forced into a U-turn on free school meals after a campaign by a leading footballer—one of the people the Health Secretary was telling to do their bit at the start of the crisis. Is it not shameful that we have a Government who have to be embarrassed into feeding hungry children? To top it all off, the Government have reintroduced benefit sanctions in the midst of a global pandemic and economic disaster. Welfare support from the Government will be essential during the coming recession, yet the Government seem more concerned with taking support away than supporting people in dire financial straits. How on earth does this help child poverty? I wish that the Government were as quick to sanction Dominic Cummings or the Secretary of State for Housing as they are to sanction vulnerable people. What is clear from these decisions is that the Government either fundamentally misunderstand the issue of child poverty or simply do not care. I would ask the Minister which it is, but I suspect it is both.

Unfortunately, this country now faces one of the biggest crises in living memory. There is a combined threat to public health and the economy, which must be tackled together. However, the Government’s tendency to view poverty as an issue with individual causes, and their ignorance of health inequalities, show that they are poorly equipped to deal with this problem. When confronted with the rise in child poverty by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister denied the extent of the issue. To bluster and deflect would be one thing, but to deny that the issue exists is deeply worrying. How can the Government be trusted to tackle the issue if they refuse to confront it and deny its existence?

Successive Conservative Governments have made the problem worse; that is not my opinion but a fact. What they must do now is admit that they were wrong and change course. A starting point would be to accept the Social Mobility Commission’s recommendation that the Treasury give the Office for Budget Responsibility the role of assessing the impact of the Government’s fiscal policies on poverty. Sadly, I fear that under this Government, child poverty will continue to rise, as they simply do not recognise that the problem exists or know how to solve it. I can only hope that they prove me wrong.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) and to congratulate him on a truly excellent maiden speech. It was warm, it was witty and it was thoughtful, and I know that he will serve the people of Workington very well in this place. He, like me, represents a red wall seat. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, spoke nostalgically and warmly about the Blair Government. Under the Blair Government, both his seat and mine had 10,000 Labour majorities or more, and perhaps the Opposition might reflect on why those voters have lost faith with Labour to solve their problems. There is poverty in my constituency; there is poverty in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but those people put their faith in the Conservative party to make their lives and their futures better.

I turn to the Bill and the amendments. It is clear that an ambitious and decisive response was demanded of the Government by the serious economic situation that we as a nation and the whole world face. The Budget debate in which I spoke back in March already feels a very long time ago for all of us, I am sure. In many ways, the world has changed a great deal since the day when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered his excellent first Budget to the House. I welcome these Government new clauses, which provide both relief and certainty in a number of affected areas, and I will speak a little more specifically about new clause 20 later.

In other ways, however, it is even clearer now than it was then that my right hon. Friend was ahead of the curve in the response to the challenges that we face. The Treasury has been at the forefront of the national response to the coronavirus and a leading example to the rest of the world, with its focus on protecting jobs and maintaining the capacity of our economy, while also looking after the most vulnerable in our society in all the measures taken to respond to the virus.

The extraordinary success of the coronavirus job retention schemes means that we have been paying the wages of more than 9 million people who would otherwise have been laid off or made redundant and therefore we have protected their jobs, their livelihoods and their families through this most difficult time. The Government have, in my view, risen to the challenge of protecting our economy thoughtfully, responsibly and with ambition. In my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme, that has meant 10,200 jobs supported through the furlough scheme and 2,600 self-employed workers supported with grants of more than £7 million. The local borough council has also supported our local businesses by distributing more than £21 million of business grants. I have received many emails from constituents asking me to pass on their thanks to the Government for the grants, the furlough scheme and all the other measures that have helped to keep them, their businesses and their families afloat through this period.

It was Mahatma Gandhi, a hero to many Leicester residents, who famously said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. When it comes to ensuring that vulnerable children are fed and looked after, our Government should be ashamed of themselves.

According to the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission, 600,000 more children are living in relative poverty now than in 2012. That is projected to increase further because of benefit changes and, of course, the coronavirus pandemic. In 2018, the number of children living in relative poverty rose by 100,000 to 4.2 million, or around 30% of all children. That appalling figure reflects the Government’s failure on the fundamental principle of governance: to provide for the most basic needs of our citizens.

As of February 2020, around 14 million people were in poverty in the UK. The virus may not discriminate, but our economic and social system certainly does. Children from African, Asian and minority ethnic families are nearly twice as likely to be in poverty than children in white British families. Leicester East is one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse places in the UK and has high levels of both child poverty and in-work poverty—we suffer from a perfect storm which enables the virus to have its impact.

Like many of our residents, I am deeply concerned about the recent increase in coronavirus cases in our city and the economic impact of the necessary lockdown extension. I am particularly worried about the impact that the pandemic will have on those Leicester children who are already living in conditions of unacceptable hardship. Over one in three children—42%—in Leicester East live in poverty. Nearly 6,000 households—around 14%—in Leicester East are in fuel poverty. As of April last year, the average weekly income for full-time employees in Leicester East was £420. That is £130 less than the east midlands average and £160 less than the UK average. The proportion of people claiming unemployment benefits in my constituency is also higher than the regional and national level. Do this Government believe that my constituents are somehow worth less than others? It is unacceptable that they have allowed such rank regional inequality to fester.

The worst thing about these shocking figures is that they reflect our local reality before the unprecedented coronavirus pandemic. We do not yet know the full impact of the unprecedented economic disruption caused by the virus. With widespread job losses, it is certain that it will have exacerbated hardship across Leicester and the UK. I have been helping countless local businesses and employees to stay afloat and access funding, despite the Government’s prohibitively strict guidelines. At a national and local level, we see companies such as British Airways take huge amounts of taxpayers’ money through the job retention scheme and then fire vast swathes of their workforce while imposing worse terms of employment. Too many Leicester residents have started to receive threats of redundancy at a time when the protection of workers must be prioritised. With Leicester required to maintain lockdown measures, it will be necessary for economic support to be extended and expanded. It is crucial that families in Leicester East have the material basis to stay safe and stay alive during the continued lockdown.

The Government’s callousness is demonstrated by the fact that benefit sanctions have been resumed at a time when we face an unprecedented period of economic hardship. For people forced to endure severe levels of hardship and such insecurity, it is impossible to comply, at times, with the Government’s guidance on self-isolation and social distancing. It is a moral imperative and in the public interest of everyone in our community that the basic needs of all residents are met. The cruelty of this Government over the last decade has transformed the Department for Work and Pensions into a symbol of fear. The coronavirus pandemic has further demonstrated the need for universal welfare support that will be there to help and support people, not punish and police them.

Even before the coronavirus hit, the Government had presided over a decade in which they cut essential services for the people of Leicester East while providing tax cuts for the wealthy, in which they allowed poverty and homelessness to rise in my constituency and across the country, and in which they sought to sow divisions as they facilitated the transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest. The Government must act now to prevent the further impoverishment of working people and their families during the pandemic. They must start treating the widespread poverty of our children as the national scandal that it is. This virus has demonstrated that we have a moral duty to ensure that everyone in Leicester and across the country is protected. That means that, after the crisis, we can no longer live in a society that is defined by extreme inequality and in which it is commonplace for our children to go to bed hungry.

It is a pleasure to follow the passion of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe). Our thoughts are with her and her constituents at this difficult time. It is a particular pleasure, if I may say so, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson). He made us wait for his maiden contribution because of the difficult circumstances that we are in, but we are absolutely delighted that it was worth the wait. Workington has gained an important and well respected voice in this House.

I am speaking today in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and of new clause 30, which requests that the Treasury review the level of air passenger duty. I am doing so on behalf of the 645 individual constituents from Arundel and South Downs who have signed the parliamentary petition on support for the aviation industry. They work for firms such as British Airways, Virgin and TUI, and in the extended Gatwick supply chain in West Sussex. As we know, aviation has taken the full force of the economic impact of the covid-19 crisis; it has been devastated by border closures and the calamitous drop in passenger demand. Going into the pandemic, our aviation sector was world-leading in terms of growth, jobs and competitiveness, but that is now at real risk. Research from the International Air Transport Association shows that the UK will be the worst revenue-hit country in Europe, facing a £29 billion revenue loss and with more than 660,000 jobs at risk. There are many aspects of this crisis that my right hon. Friend the Minister cannot help with, and I shall raise those another day, but one practical thing that he could do is to remove or mitigate the headwind of air passenger duty and help hard-pressed families to return to the air.

I know that the Financial Secretary does not share this affliction, but some falsely believe that air passenger duty is an environmental measure. That is manifestly not the case. It is levied on passenger numbers, so that an inefficient empty plane pays less than an efficient full one. It bears no relation to how modern an aircraft is or to the fuel efficiency with which it is being flown. Also, it does not take into account the fact that, to the extent that it disincentivises flight, the alternative for many passengers may be a long and polluting car journey. This is particularly true of domestic aviation. In any case, aviation accounts for barely 2% of human-induced global emissions, and in February this year, UK aviation committed to being net carbon zero by 2050. That is the first national net zero aviation commitment anywhere in the world.

This is a sector on the verge of exciting and disruptive change. We are at the dawn of what is called the third era of aviation, which will bring quieter and cleaner transport to the skies. Electrification will have as profound an impact as the replacement of the piston engine by gas turbines. British businesses such as Rolls-Royce are leaders in this field, providing engines to the first generation of all-electric planes, which are being certified for use by the Federal Aviation Administration right now. Air passenger duty is not a large source of revenue for the Treasury. At the best of times, before this crisis, it was expected to account for just 0.5% of all receipts, but with our busiest airport, Heathrow, reporting flights at just 3% of their normal levels in April, the revenue from APD this year and next will in any case be paltry. I conclude by humbly putting the proposition to the Minister that he may never again have such an affordable opportunity to help a vital British industry, to enhance his own formidable reputation on the Government Benches, to strengthen the Union by supporting domestic flights and to simplify the tax system than he does in accepting new clause 30.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). I spoke in the debate on the Budget delivered on 11 March, which for all of us seems like a lifetime ago, such has been the impact of covid-19 on us socially and on our health but also on our communities and, profoundly, on our economy. That is one reason why I wanted to speak, although perhaps some of my comments are more relevant to yesterday’s debate.

We were told that covid-19 would not discriminate and that all of us would be impacted equally, but, as we have seen, we are witnessing a further widening of inequality by virtue of this terrible crisis. We now know that its impacts are different according to the nature of someone’s employment, where they live and so on. It reminds me of what happened from 2010 onwards, post the financial crash, when we were told we were all in it together. Of course, that was never the case. Those who had wealth and capital prospered. Look at the wealth of the top 100 people in this country and how it grew exponentially in the past decade, and how inequality widened so considerably. That has to be our great fear: the mistakes of the period from 2010 onwards will be repeated now. The warm words are not enough. We have to address this. We must recognise the sacrifice and contributions made by everyone across our society, irrespective of what people do. It does not matter whether they work in finance in the City or whatever; it is not enough. We all make a contribution. We all have a part to play in our society and in our economy.

In my constituency, there are just under 2,000 children living in relative poverty. Many people think it is a wealthy, prosperous community, but that is one in nine of all children. When it comes to energy poverty, one in 11 households lives in such poverty. We have no quality social housing being built at scale: something like nine social rent council homes have been built since 2010, and an average of 90 social rent homes have been built a year for the past five years. That is inequality. The children of this next generation will not enjoy the same benefits those of us who grew up in the 70s and elsewhere. We had a right and an opportunity to quality housing, to an education and to good job prospects. We are now seeing the beginning of unemployment rocketing.

I want to cover what is missing from the Finance Bill, given the drastic change in the economic picture. With prosperity, we can address inequality, but it is a choice. In particular, the support we now need from the Treasury for the automotive industry, which is so important to my constituency, is to protect jobs and get the Warwick and Leamington economy back on its feet. Covid-19 has had a huge impact on my constituency, as it has everywhere else, but of course the effects vary.

I have spoken with a wide range of businesses that have required the financial support offered by Government, which has been broadly welcomed, albeit there have been some huge gaps in the support for directors of small limited companies and others. In Warwick district—that is not entirely the same as the constituency—16,900 people had been placed on furlough. Many of them will be in the sectors hardest hit, such as hospitality, retail, leisure and tourism, and many are the lowest paid workers in my constituency, who will be at the start of their working lives. I have great concerns about what will happen once employer contributions to the job retention scheme are phased out entirely. The claimant count in my constituency has already shot up by 129% since March to over 3,000 people, and the figure will only go higher as the JRS is wound down. I urge the Government to consider extending the scheme for those sectors that are being badly impacted by the virus, until we can remove social distancing measures. The Leader of the Opposition also asked for this at PMQs yesterday.

Even with furlough still in place, people in my constituency are already losing well paid, skilled jobs in our precious automotive industry. Just last month, Jaguar Land Rover announced that it will be cutting 1,000 jobs and Aston Martin announced 500 job losses. With UK sales down 97% in the past two months, the sector has effectively had to cease production for three months, yet companies have often found that they do not qualify for the Government-backed loans. Demand for vehicles has understandably fallen off a cliff, and those businesses are going to need a lot of support to get back on their feet.

Along with colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on electric vehicles, I have written to the Chancellor and the Business Secretary in my role as chair of that group to ask them urgently to discuss a stimulus package for the sector. I hope they will respond to that letter soon. There is an opportunity not only to protect skilled manufacturing jobs—the kind that we are desperate to attract and retain in this country—but to drive the industry towards a greener future. I know that the industry is desperate for the Government to work with it in that regard.

We need Government intervention because it is vital to managing transition. I very much hope that we will hear some positive words from the Chancellor next week. I therefore welcome the reforms to vehicle excise duty in the Bill and the £500 million for electric vehicle charging infrastructure announced at the Budget, but we must be much bolder if we are to make electric vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles a good choice for consumers as has been done in other markets. By way of example, Norway has been the most successful country in achieving EV market penetration. The support from the Government there provides reduced road tax, free municipal parking and VAT exemption. This approach makes the total cost of ownership less than for dirtier, more polluting vehicles. We need 30,000 charging points in the UK—three times the amount we have now—and the investment to make it happen.

When the Prime Minister talks about trying to get the economy back on its feet, the phrase “build, build, build” is wrong for me. We must make, make, make and invest, invest, invest in our infrastructure, including in EV charging points and getting more alternative energy sources into our grids in order to build a cleaner and better future. As it happens, I travel by electric bike and would encourage everyone to take shorter journeys using this mode of transport, but we must make it cheaper for consumers to do so. Such grants and benefits can really help to stimulate new sectors. I urge the Government to consider doing this next week.

I urge Treasury Ministers to look again at how the Government can use our taxation system to incentivise the purchase and uptake of new, cleaner internal combustion engine vehicles; to support our automotive industry to get firing on all cylinders again; to look at alternative fuels, electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles; and to think about how we can really progress and drive the sector forward. The Government must have the sector at the front of their mind before any financial statement delivered next week that is designed to protect jobs. Without urgent action and action at scale, we risk losing this sector forever.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on his maiden speech and warmly welcome him to his place. I shall attempt to tune my Surrey ears to his Cumbrian dialect, and I very much look forward to hearing more from him.

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Government, in their response to the coronavirus and all the challenges that are still to come, to focus particularly on two priorities when making their decisions about how to allocate resources to meet this enormous challenge. The first is to focus on the interests of our children and young people. It would have been unthinkable at any other time for an entire generation of schoolchildren to have missed a whole term and a half of schooling. Among all the justifiable anxiety about infection rates, testing, PPE and reopening the economy, the needs of our children seem to have been somewhat sidelined.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement earlier today about reopening schools in September. Like the rest of the House, I fervently hope that infection rates continue to decline to facilitate this. I would like to see a wholesale commitment from this Government to overcoming the educational deficit that has resulted from the shutdown. We already know how much of an attainment gap opens up between different groups of children over the summer holidays, and we can only imagine how much more pronounced this will have become after half a year’s worth of missed schooling. I urge the Government to allocate generous resources to schools so that they may invest in the additional staffing and resources that they need to meet the needs of all children who have been disadvantaged.

I would also like to see a commitment to more diverse forms of learning to help engage young people who have become alienated from traditional forms of learning over their time away. Music, drama, sport, and open-air learning can all help children to re-engage with their education and will also help to revive employment sectors that have been damaged by the shutdown.

Beyond education, we have a cohort of school leavers who are attempting to enter employment at the worst possible time. If we are not to doom this cohort to a lifetime of missed opportunities, we must act now to provide them with the employment opportunities where they can build real skills and lay the foundations for a meaningful working life. In that spirit, I welcome the aspiration in the Prime Minister’s speech to build, build, build, as I recognise that this will provide opportunities for high-skilled jobs and apprenticeships. However, I ask that the Government include a real commitment to retraining career changers to help people who have lost their jobs in this pandemic to find work among the new opportunities that these projects will provide.

I note that the sectors the Prime Minister promises to provide funding for are areas of employment that are typically masculine. I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to engage young women and female career changers in training for careers in construction and engineering if those are the sectors where employment is due most quickly to recover. We know that child poverty is most effectively overcome when women are in work and earning a good wage, supported by affordable childcare.

On that note, I draw the Government’s attention to the financial precariousness of both our pre-school providers and our universities. Every one of these institutions that is forced to close or scale back activity as a result of the pandemic is a narrowing of opportunities for our children and young people, and every effort should be made to support these sectors. While I am on this point, I should like to take the opportunity to raise the issue of travel in London for those under-18. For many years, it has been free for under-18s to travel on Transport for London services, and that has opened up to all of them a much wider range of opportunities—education, cultural, sporting and social. As part of the package that the Government put in place to bail out Transport for London earlier this summer, they specified that that travel offering for the under-18s had to be scrapped. In support of that decision, they cited the fact that young people use buses only for short journeys that they would otherwise walk. I have obtained from the Minister the evidence for that assertion, and it came from a report published some years ago that concluded that free travel for under-18s had an overwhelmingly positive impact on young people’s social and educational lives. I urge the Government to prioritise young people in this recovery and to make a start by scrapping this restriction on their travel.

The second area that I call on the Government to prioritise as we plan our future beyond this pandemic is the environment. I was really disappointed not to hear a greater emphasis on the progress towards our net-zero carbon targets in the Prime Minister’s speech. This is a fantastic opportunity to implement carbon-free and low-carbon standards into our construction of new homes and into our transport systems. We can also take this opportunity to specify new standards for biodiversity, water quality and air quality and to redouble our efforts to increase the proportion of our energy that comes from renewable sources. I particularly encourage the Government to think not just about new buildings, but about bringing existing buildings up to 21st-century standards. Committing to a programme of retrofitting insulation to our ageing homes, especially those belonging to low-income families, can provide skilled employment opportunities and help us to make substantial progress towards our net-zero carbon goals.

There are so many other challenges that this Government will need to face over the next few months and so many calls on taxpayers’ money, but I want to see the Government establish clear strategic priorities for their future spending, and I would like those priorities to be our children, our young people and our environment.

After a decade of austerity, which has seen an assault on people’s living standards and our social security system, child poverty is at a disgracefully high level, and the Bill will not work towards tackling the root causes. I am speaking in support of Labour’s new clause 29, which would ensure that the Government review the impact of the Bill on poverty, and I commend my hon. Friend on the Front Bench for his opening remarks and others on this side of the House for the passion and understanding with which they have spoken.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on his maiden speech and on taking his place in the House.

I am honoured to be able to give a speech today that will be arguing for the correct place of focusing on child poverty in all our legislation. If we do otherwise, we will fail the very people we should be serving. I stand here to represent a mother whom I met last year. I went to her house to support her children and she told me in passing about the one lightbulb they have in their house. I asked, “One lightbulb, why is that?”. They moved it around from room to room so that her children would not inadvertently be able to switch on and use more electricity, because they could not afford to light up more than one room at a time. That was a stark reminder to me about the child poverty levels we have in this country.

New clause 29 would mandate the Government to look at the effect of this Finance Bill on the basis of its impact on poverty and on inequalities—on relative poverty. To measure the success of the Bill, we need to carry out a review within six months and consider whether future studies should be carried out regularly by the OBR. I may be able to pre-empt the Minister’s response to this new clause. He may well say that it is unnecessary and that impact assessments will be carried out, but if those are not public and are not regularly carried out, the Government are marking their own homework on this. When it comes to measures that may make people poorer, that is not acceptable and we need a public report. The Government’s own Social Mobility Commission says in its “Monitoring social mobility” report, published this year:

“Too often also there is little transparency concerning the impact spending decisions have on poverty. The Treasury has made some efforts in this direction, but has so far declined to give the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a proper role to monitor this. There should be more independent scrutiny to help ensure policy interventions across Whitehall genuinely support the most disadvantaged groups.”

The Government must be more strategic in their recovery from coronavirus than they have been in handling the crisis. They cannot take a hands-off approach, as they have done in the past decade towards child poverty. The cost of inaction, in terms of supporting the economy and reversing growing poverty levels, will be far greater than the cost of action. This really matters in London, which has the highest rate of child poverty of any English region, with 700,000 children—37% of all children in London—living in relative poverty, after housing costs are taken into account. In my borough of Wandsworth, 36% of children live in poverty. Although poverty rates are higher for everyone in London than they are nationally, this gap is larger for children than for any other group. Two thirds of children living in poverty in the UK are in working households or where at least one adult is in work, and they will be very impacted by the measures in this Bill, so we should record it.

When the UN’s special rapporteur Philip Alston produced his report on extreme poverty and human rights in Britain in 2018, long before coronavirus came along, he found that the UK Government’s policies had led to

“the systematic immiseration of millions across Great Britain”.

He also saw the disproportionate impact on women, saying:

“If you got a group of misogynists in a room and said how can we make this system work for men and not for women they would not have come up with too many ideas that are not already in place”.

We cannot continue with this kind of policy making.

Following drastic changes in Government economic policy beginning in 2010, the two preceding decades of progress in tackling child and pensioner poverty have begun to unravel, and poverty is on the rise. This Bill must not add to that. Under the previous Labour Government, child poverty was going down, but the latest figures from the Child Poverty Action Group show that 4.1 million children live in poverty in the UK; 47% of children living in lone parent families are in poverty; and 70% of children growing up in poverty live in working families. This is going in the wrong direction, as 5.2 million children are expected to be in poverty by 2022. Under this Government, we are heading towards having half of our children being poor in 21st century Britain. That would be not only a disgrace but a social calamity and economic disaster rolled into one.

On Tuesday, the regional director of Public Health England, Professor Kevin Fenton, warned a meeting of the London health board that the coronavirus has worsened stark and pervasive inequalities in London. A growing bank of national evidence shows that the virus has hit older people, poorer communities, men, and black, Asian, and minority ethnic Londoners the hardest. Some of those groups are also likely to be impacted by the wider social and economic consequences of the outbreak. According to Professor Fenton:

“These inequalities are stark, they’re pervasive and they are a call to action for the system moving forward to ensure that we do not go back to where we were…but we redouble and enhance our efforts to address these widening inequalities.”

Given those shocking figures, the worrying direction of travel, and the limiting daily impact on so many people’s lives, any new Bill that does not bake in an assessment of its impact on the lives of the poorest people in our country is set up to fail, and it will fail all those people and children in this country who we should be serving the most.

It is a pleasure to bring up the rear in this important debate—last, but hopefully not least—and I commend the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) for his maiden speech. Labour Members obviously mourn the loss of his predecessor, but we trust that the hon. Gentleman will speak up for Cumbria as strongly as she did.

I wish to touch on three important areas that I think the Government should keep in mind as we look to rebuild our economy, and as communities across the UK get used to our new normal. We must remember that this is a recovery from the first wave of covid-19, and events in Leicester and elsewhere in England show how sensitive the evolving situation continues to be. A key component of any recovery effort is public sector pay, and the way we treat those who go above and beyond for us. Our workers deserve to be paid properly, and we must pledge to do that now. Last week there was a debate in this House about how we can acknowledge and support those workers in the NHS who give their lives to keep us, our families and our constituents alive and healthy. The answer to how we show our appreciation, and when we do it, is simple: we should pay people what they deserve. I hope that the Chancellor’s statement next week will lay out the building blocks to enable that to happen.

Newport is one of the most diverse parts of Wales, and I am proud of our city and its diversity. It is, however, a matter of deep regret that our cherished diversity has seen us on the frontline in the fight against the devastating impact of covid-19 on black and minority ethnic communities. A report commissioned by the Welsh Labour Government under First Minister Mark Drakeford was published recently, and it rightly calls for action to tackle the structural and systematic racism that may have contributed to the higher than average death rate in BME communities. Addressing those structural inequalities must be integral to the economic recovery for which our city is crying out.

In a city such as Newport—it will be the same in many other cities across the UK—we know at first hand how vital BME communities are for our collective prosperity. It really is as simple as that. We know that BME workers are more likely to be in low-paid jobs with little of the protection needed to stay safe and secure, and so the funding and delivery of PPE, and other protection, must be a priority for this Conservative Government.

One real, tangible thing that Ministers could do is follow the lead of the Welsh Labour Government, who have made provision for a comprehensive risk assessment that supports people from BME backgrounds in the NHS and social care sector in Wales. That works for my constituents in Newport West, and it should be rolled out in England too. For our welfare system, there is a need for common sense and decency to be at the heart of our economic recovery. That is vital to ensure that we do what the Blair and Brown Labour Governments did, which was to take millions of children out of poverty.

A few weeks ago, we saw a Manchester United player shame this Tory Prime Minister and his Ministers into ensuring that free school meals would be provided throughout the summer in England. I say to new Tory Back Benchers, many of whom are auditioning for places on the Treasury Bench: we will not forget the tweets, the press releases and the speeches in this Chamber explaining why free school meals for children in England were not possible, and neither will the people who were affected. I am proud to say that, in Wales, we take our responsibility to our children seriously. We did not need to be shamed into action; the Welsh Labour Government know how crucial it is that we give our children nutritional and accessible meals. As such, we guaranteed that free school meals will be available to Welsh children throughout the summer, because it is the right thing to do.

As is customary at the conclusion of Report stage, I will speak to the issues that have been raised, rather than the full content of the Bill. Let me start by saying how much I enjoyed the splendidly generous and warm speech by my great and hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson). As Members across the House noted, Workington will have a fine voice in the Chamber for many years to come. I was impressed by his ability to smuggle some Cumbrian dialect into the Chamber—I do not know whether it counts as a foreign language, but it was certainly unintelligible to me, which may be true for other colleagues. I take my hat off not only to Mr Harris for identifying his prime ministerial potential but to my hon. Friend for his robust sense of self-confidence. Colleagues normally play down their prime ministerial potential early in their political careers, and I admire his chutzpah, to use a different piece of dialect, in bringing our attention to that. He also acknowledged his predecessor’s capacity to align himself with the Opposition rather than the Whip; I am grateful to him for that. He made some valuable points, and I congratulate him on his maiden speech.

Labour’s new clause 29 and the SNP’s new clause 10 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of provisions in the Bill on child poverty and total poverty and to lay a report before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent. We were treated to a moving and personal speech from the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). I congratulate him on his achievement in getting to Cambridge University on the back of that personal experience. Of course, he is right to focus on the importance of combating educational disadvantage—a cause that every Member of the House believes in. I found it surprising that he did not go on to acknowledge the achievement of this Government in raising the number of good or outstanding schools from 68% in 2010 to 86% today, or the fact that the proportion of 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university went from only 13% in 2009-10 to 21% in 2019.

The hon. Member talked about pensioner poverty but neglected to mention that there are 100,000 fewer pensioners in poverty now than there were in 2010. He talked about jobs but without acknowledging that, at least until the pandemic, which has struck us all and will have had unfathomable effects, as we know, 3.9 million more people were in employment. Specifically, the employment of the poorest 20% was 9% higher under this Government than in 2009-10.

The hon. Member was right to say that the tragedy of an economic crisis is that it hits the least well off the hardest, and that is precisely the inheritance that this Government’s predecessors left to us in 2009-10. As I never cease to remind the House, the financial crisis of 2007-08 was brought about because bank leverage was allowed to rise from 20 times, where it had been for the previous 40 years, to 50 times in seven years under the Blair Government. If hon. Members do not believe me, they can look at the independent report on banking published under Professor Vickers.

I should, however, return to new clauses 29 and 10, some of which are not necessary because the information they seek is largely already in the public domain, including on the distributional effect of tax, welfare and spending policies, on the equalities impacts of tax measures and on poverty rates.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) for his probing new clause 30. I admire his range of references. I thought he was going to reference Stephen Colbert, the American talk show host, but tragically it was Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who produced the line about plucking the feathers from the goose. He is absolutely right. No one would describe him as a hisser, but we do pay careful attention to the points he has made, and I am very grateful to him for raising them. I would also single out my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who rightly pointed out that the configuration between APD and the environmental performance of flights is a very blunt relationship indeed, so I thank him for that.

Colleagues across the House will know that new clause 30 would ask the Treasury to review the effect of proposed rate changes on APD. We are working closely with the sector and are closely attuned to its concerns in the face of the pandemic, and of course we have paid close attention to the points my hon. Friend raised. I am sure colleagues will be aware that, even as it is, the current rate will only take effect in April 2021 and will rise by only £2 for a long-haul economy flight, which is the cost of a rather inexpensive coffee at airport prices. It may not be quite as urgent, but the point about the wider need to look at this is well made.

I turn quickly to amendment 4, which seeks to extend the exemption from vehicle excise duty for medical courier charities in clause 86 explicitly to include vehicles carrying human breast milk. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) will know that this amendment is not necessary because the clause already provides for the transportation of human breast milk. The purpose-built vehicles used by the medical courier charities, which are exempt from VED, do not merely transport blood; they transport a wide range of medical product, including X-rays, MRA scans, plasma and human breast milk.

There are many other things I could say in response to other comments, but I will leave it there.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

Protected pension age of members re-employed as a result of coronavirus

“(1) In FA 2004, in Schedule 36 (pension schemes etc), paragraph 22 (rights to take benefit before normal minimum pension age) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (7F), at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, and

(c) that the member is or was employed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (7B)(a) where—

(i) the employment began at any time during the coronavirus period, and

(ii) the only or main reason that the member was taken into employment was to help the employer to respond to the public health, social, economic or other effects of coronavirus.”

(3) After sub-paragraph (7J) insert—

“(7K) In sub-paragraph (7F)(c)—

“coronavirus” has the same meaning as in the Coronavirus Act 2020 (see section 1(1) of that Act);

“the coronavirus period” means the period beginning with 1 March 2020 and ending with 1 November 2020.

(7L) The Treasury may by regulations amend the definition of “the coronavirus period” in sub-paragraph (7K) so as to replace the later of the dates specified in it with another date falling before 6 April 2021.

(7M) The power in sub-paragraph (7L) may be exercised on more than one occasion.”

(4) The amendments made by this section are treated as having come into force on 1 March 2020.”—(Jesse Norman.)

In certain circumstances, people who have a protected pension age under a pension scheme (i.e. a right to receive pension benefits at an age below the normal minimum pension age) can lose it on being re-employed. This new clause prevents that happening for people re-employed as part of the response to coronavirus.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Modifications of the statutory residence test in connection with coronavirus

“(1) This section applies for the purposes of determining—

(a) whether an individual was or was not resident in the United Kingdom for the tax year 2019-20 for the purposes of relevant tax, and

(b) if an individual was not so resident in the United Kingdom for the tax year 2019-20 (including as a result of this section), whether the individual was or was not resident in the United Kingdom for the tax year 2020-21 for the purposes of relevant tax.

“Relevant tax” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 45 to FA 2013 (statutory residence test).

(2) That Schedule is modified in accordance with subsections (5) to (13).

(3) Paragraph 8 (second automatic UK test: days at overseas homes) has effect as if after sub-paragraph (5) there were inserted—

“(5A) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (4), a day does not count as a day when P is present at a home of P’s in the UK if it is a day that would fall within the third case in paragraph 22(7) (if P were present in the UK at the end of it).”

(4) Paragraph 22 (key concepts: days spent) has effect as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for “two cases” there were substituted “three cases”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (6) there were inserted—

“(7) The third case is where—

(a) that day falls within the period beginning with 1 March 2020 and ending with 1 June 2020,

(b) on that day P is present in the UK for an applicable reason related to coronavirus disease, and

(c) in the tax year in question, P is resident in a territory outside the UK (“the overseas territory”).

(8) The following are applicable reasons related to coronavirus disease—

(a) that P is present in the UK as a medical or healthcare professional for purposes connected with the detection, treatment or prevention of coronavirus disease;

(b) that P is present in the UK for purposes connected with the development or production of medicinal products (including vaccines), devices, equipment or facilities related to the detection, treatment or prevention of coronavirus disease.

(9) For the purposes of paragraph (7)(c), P is resident in an overseas territory in the tax year in question if P is considered for tax purposes to be a resident of that territory in accordance with the laws of that territory.

(10) The Treasury may by regulations made by statutory instrument—

(a) amend sub-paragraph (7)(a) so as to replace the later of the dates specified in it with another date falling before 6 April 2021;

(b) amend this paragraph so as to add one or more applicable reasons related to coronavirus disease.

(11) The powers under sub-paragraph (10) may be exercised on more than one occasion.

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (10) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”

(5) Paragraph 23 (key concepts: days spent and the deeming rule) has effect as if after sub-paragraph (5) there were inserted—

“(5A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b) and (4), a day does not count as a qualifying day if it is a day that would fall within the third case in paragraph 22(7) (if P were present in the UK at the end of it).”

(6) Paragraph 28(2) (rules for calculating the reference period) has effect as if—

(a) in paragraph (b) the “and” at the end were omitted;

(b) after paragraph (b) there were inserted—

“(ba) absences from work at times during the period specified in an emergency volunteering certificate issued to P under Schedule 7 to the Coronavirus Act 2020 (emergency volunteering leave), and”;

(c) in paragraph (c), for “or (b)” there were substituted “, (b) or (ba)”.

(7) Paragraph 29 (significant breaks from UK or overseas work) has effect as if in sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), for “or parenting leave” there were substituted “, parenting leave or emergency volunteering leave under Schedule 7 to the Coronavirus Act 2020”.

(8) Paragraph 32 (family tie) has effect as if after sub-paragraph (4) there were inserted—

“(4A) But a day does not count as a day on which P sees the child if the day on which P sees the child would be a day falling within the third case in paragraph 22(7) (if P were present in the UK at the end of it).”

(9) Paragraph 34 (accommodation tie) has effect as if after sub-paragraph (1) there were inserted—

“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) if the place is available to P on a day that would fall within the third case in paragraph 22(7) (if P were present in the UK at the end of that day), that day is to be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (b), and

(b) a night spent by P at the place immediately before or after a day that would fall within the third case in paragraph 22(7) (if P were present in the UK at the end of that day) is to be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (c).”

(10) Paragraph 35 (work tie) has effect as if after sub-paragraph (2) there were inserted—

“(3) But a day that would fall within the third case in paragraph 22(7) (if P were present in the UK at the end of it) does not count as a day on which P works in the UK.”

(11) Paragraph 37 (90-day tie) has effect as if—

(a) the existing text were sub-paragraph (1);

(b) after that sub-paragraph, there were inserted—

“(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), a day that would fall within the third case in paragraph 22(7) (if P were present in the UK at the end of it) does not count as a day P has spent in the UK in the year in question.”

(12) Paragraph 38 (country tie) has effect as if after sub-paragraph (3) there were inserted—

“(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), P is to be treated as not being present in the UK at the end of a day that would fall within the third case in paragraph 22(7) (if P were present in the UK at the end of that day).”

(13) Paragraph 145 (interpretation) has effect as if at the appropriate place there were inserted—

““coronavirus disease” has the same meaning as in the Coronavirus Act 2020 (see section 1(1) of that Act);”.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This new clause modifies the statutory residence test in Schedule 45 to the Finance Act 2013 so that the presence of certain individuals in the UK for purposes connected with coronavirus is discounted for the purposes of determining whether they are resident in the UK in the tax years 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Future Fund: EIS and SEIS relief

“(1) This section applies if an individual to whom shares in a company have been issued—

(a) enters into a convertible loan agreement with the company under the Future Fund on or after 20 May 2020, and

(b) subsequently receives value from the company under the terms of the agreement.

(2) If, as a result of the receipt of value, any EIS relief attributable to shares issued before the relevant time would (apart from this subsection) be withdrawn or reduced under section 213 of ITA 2007, the value received is to be ignored for the purposes of that section.

(3) If, as a result of the receipt of value, any SEIS relief attributable to shares issued before the relevant time would (apart from this subsection) be withdrawn or reduced under section 257FE of ITA 2007, the value received is to be ignored for the purposes of that section.

(4) If, as a result of the receipt of value, shares issued before the relevant time would (apart from this subsection) cease to be eligible shares by reason of paragraph 13(1)(b) of Schedule 5B to TCGA 1992, the value received is to be ignored for the purposes of that paragraph.

(5) In this section—

“the Future Fund” means the scheme of that name operated from 20 May 2020 by the British Business Bank plc on behalf of the Secretary of State;

“the relevant time” means the time when the individual enters into the convertible loan agreement.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This new clause prevents EIS and SEIS relief from being withdrawn or reduced for the purposes of income tax and capital gains tax in cases where an individual enters into a convertible loan agreement under the Future Fund with a company and subsequently receives value from the company under the agreement.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Interest on unpaid tax in case of disaster etc of national significance

“(1) Section 135 of FA 2008 (interest on unpaid tax in case of disaster etc of national significance) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), for the words from “arising” to the end substitute “that—

(d) arises under or by virtue of an enactment or a contract settlement, and

(e) is of a description (if any) specified in the order.”

(3) In subsection (4)—

(a) after “relief period” insert “, in relation to a deferred amount,”;

(b) in paragraph (b), after “revoked” insert “or amended so that it ceases to have effect in relation to the deferred amount”.

(4) In subsection (10)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a), omit “and”;

(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, and

(c) may specify different dates in relation to liabilities of different descriptions.”

(5) The amendments made by this section have effect from 20 March 2020.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This new clause amends section 135 of the Finance Act 2008 to enable the Treasury to specify in an order under that section which payments of tax and other liabilities that are deferred by agreement during a period of national disaster or emergency will not attract interest or surcharges.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

Exceptional circumstances preventing disposal of interest in three year period

“(1) In FA 2003, Schedule 4ZA (stamp duty land tax: higher rates for additional dwellings etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 (single dwelling transactions)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (7)(b) for “the period of three years beginning with the day after the effective date of the transaction concerned” substitute “a permitted period”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (7) insert—

“(7A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7)(b), the permitted periods are—

(a) the period of three years beginning with the day after the effective date of the transaction concerned, or

(b) if HMRC are satisfied that the purchaser or the purchaser’s spouse or civil partner would have disposed of the major interest in the sold dwelling within that three year period but was prevented from doing so by exceptional circumstances that could not reasonably have been foreseen, such longer period as HMRC may allow in response to an application made in accordance with sub-paragraph (7B).

(7B) An application for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7A)(b) must—

(a) be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the effective date of the transaction disposing of the major interest in the sold dwelling, and

(b) be made in such form and manner, and contain such information, as may be specified by HMRC.

(7C) Schedule 11A (claims not included in returns) does not apply in relation to an application made in accordance with sub-paragraph (7B).”

(3) In paragraph 8 (further provision in connection with paragraph 3(6) and (7))—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3), after “paragraph 3(7)” insert “by virtue of paragraph 3(7A)(a)”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (4), after “paragraph 3(7)” insert “by virtue of paragraph 3(7A)(a)”;

(c) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(5) Where HMRC grant an application made in accordance with paragraph 3(7B)—

(a) the land transaction return in respect of the transaction concerned is treated as having been amended to take account of the application of paragraph 3(7) by virtue of paragraph 3(7A)(b), and

(b) HMRC must notify the purchaser accordingly.”

(4) The amendments made by this section have effect in a case where the effective date of the transaction concerned is on or after 1 January 2017.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This new clause amends Schedule 4ZA to the Finance Act 2003 to provide that where a person purchases a dwelling intending it to be their only or main residence, the three-year period within which a major interest in the previous dwelling must be disposed of to be able to obtain a refund of the higher rate stamp duty land tax may be extended to a longer period if, because of exceptional circumstances, the interest was not disposed of in that three-year period.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

HGV road user levy

“(1) Section 5(2) of the HGV Road User Levy Act 2013 (HGV road user levy charged for all periods for which a UK heavy goods vehicle is charged to vehicle excise duty) does not apply where the period for which a UK heavy goods vehicle is charged to vehicle excise duty is a period that begins in the exempt period.

(2) Section 6(2) of the 2013 Act (HGV road user levy charged in respect of non-UK heavy goods vehicle for each day on which the vehicle is used or kept on a road to which the Act applies) does not apply in respect of any day in the exempt period.

(3) The exempt period is the period of 12 months beginning with 1 August 2020.

(4) Section 7 of the 2013 Act (rebate of levy) has effect as if, after subsection (2A), there were inserted—

“(2B) A rebate entitlement also arises where HGV road user levy has been paid in respect of a non-UK heavy goods vehicle in accordance with section 6(2) in respect of any part of the exempt period within the meaning of section (HGV road user levy)(3) of the Finance Act 2020.””—(Jesse Norman.)

This new clause provides that HGV road user levy is not chargeable in respect of the period of 12 months beginning with 1 August 2020. It provides that where the levy has been paid in respect of a non-UK heavy goods vehicle in respect of the exempt period a rebate can be claimed (no equivalent provision being required for UK heavy goods vehicles which will benefit from the exemption in respect of any period for which the levy would otherwise be paid that begins during the exempt period).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

Enterprise management incentives: disqualifying events

“(1) The modifications made by this section apply for the purposes of determining whether a disqualifying event occurs or is treated as occurring in relation to an employee in accordance with section 535 of ITEPA 2003 (enterprise management incentives: disqualifying events relating to employee).

(2) Paragraph 26 of Schedule 5 to ITEPA 2003 (requirement as to commitment of working time) has effect as if, in sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) the “or” at the end of paragraph (c) were omitted, and

(b) at the end of paragraph (d), there were inserted “, or

(e) not being required to work for reasons connected with coronavirus disease (within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Coronavirus Act 2020).”

(3) Paragraph 27 of that Schedule (meaning of “working time”) has effect as if, in sub-paragraph (1)(b), for “(d)” there were substituted “(e)”.

(4) Section 535 of ITEPA 2003 has effect as if, in the closing words of subsection (3), for “(d)” there were substituted “(e)”.

(5) The modifications made by this section have effect in relation to the period—

(a) beginning with 19 March 2020, and

(b) ending with 5 April 2021.

(6) The Treasury may by regulations made in the tax year 2020-21 amend subsection (5)(b) by replacing “2021” with “2022”.”—(Jesse Norman.)

This new clause provides that a disqualifying event does not occur in relation to an individual as regards enterprise management incentives as a result of the individual taking leave, being furloughed or working reduced hours because of coronavirus disease.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1

Taxation of coronavirus support payments

Accounting for coronavirus support payments referable to a business

1 (1) This paragraph applies if a person carrying on, or who carried on, a business (whether alone or in partnership) receives a coronavirus support payment that is referable to the business.

(2) So much of the coronavirus support payment as is referable to the business is a receipt of a revenue nature for income tax or corporation tax purposes and is to be brought into account in calculating the profits of that business—

(a) under the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Acts, or

(b) under the applicable provisions of the Corporation Tax Acts.

(3) Subject to paragraph 2(5), sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to an amount of a coronavirus support payment if—

(a) the business to which the amount is referable is no longer carried on by the recipient of the amount, and

(b) the amount is not referable to activities of the business undertaken at a time when it was being carried on by the recipient of the amount.

(4) If an amount of the coronavirus support payment is referable to more than one business or business activity, the amount is to be allocated between those businesses or activities on a just and reasonable basis.

(5) Paragraph 3 contains provision about when, in certain cases, an amount of a coronavirus support payment is, or is not, referable to a business for the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 2.

(6) In this Schedule “business” includes—

(a) a trade, profession or vocation;

(b) a UK property business or an overseas property business;

(c) a business consisting wholly or partly of making investments.

Amounts not referable to activities of a business which is being carried on

2 (1) This paragraph applies if a person who carried on a business (whether alone or in partnership) receives a coronavirus support payment that—

(a) is referable to the business, and

(b) is not wholly referable to activities of the business undertaken while the business was being carried on by the recipient of the payment.

(2) So much of the coronavirus support payment as is referable to the business but which is not referable to activities of the business undertaken while the business was being carried on by the recipient of the payment is to be treated as follows.

(3) An amount referable to a trade, profession or vocation is to be treated as a post-cessation receipt for the purposes of Chapter 18 of Part 2 of ITTOIA 2005 or Chapter 15 of Part 3 of CTA 2009 (trading income: post-cessation receipts), and—

(a) in the application of Chapter 18 of Part 2 of ITTOIA 2005 to that amount, section 243 (extent of charge to tax) is omitted, and

(b) in the application of Chapter 15 of Part 3 of CTA 2009 to that amount, section 189 (extent of charge to tax) is omitted.

(4) An amount referable to a UK property business or an overseas property business is to be treated (in either case) as a post-cessation receipt from a UK property business for the purposes of Chapter 10 of Part 3 of ITTOIA 2005 or Chapter 9 of Part 4 of CTA 2009 (property income: post- cessation receipts), and—

(a) in the application of Chapter 10 of Part 3 of ITTOIA 2005 to that amount, section 350 (extent of charge to tax) is omitted, and

(b) in the application of Chapter 9 of Part 4 of CTA 2009 to that amount, section 281 (extent of charge to tax) is omitted.

(5) In any other case, for the purposes of paragraph 1(3)—

(a) the recipient of the amount is to be treated as if carrying on the business to which the amount is referable to at the time of the receipt of the amount, and

(b) the amount is to be treated as if it were referable to activities undertaken by the business at that time.

(6) Where the recipient of the amount has incurred expenses that—

(a) are referable to the amount, and

(b) would be deductible in calculating the profits of the business if it were being carried on at the time of receipt of the amount,

the amount brought into account under paragraph 1(2) by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) is to be reduced by the amount of those expenses.

(7) But sub-paragraph (6) does not apply to expenses of a person that arise directly or indirectly from the person ceasing to carry on business.

Amounts referable to businesses in certain cases

3 (1) An amount of a coronavirus support payment made under an employment-related scheme—

(a) is referable to the business of the person entitled to the payment as an employer (even if the person is not for other purposes the employer of the employees to whom the payment relates), and

(b) is not referable to any other business (and no deduction for any expenses in respect of the same employment costs which are the subject of the payment is allowed in calculating the profits of any other business or in calculating the liability of any other person to tax charged under section 242 or 349 of ITTOIA 2005 or section 188 or 280 of CTA 2009 (post-cessation receipts)).

(2) A coronavirus support payment made under the self-employment income support scheme is referable to the business of the individual to whom the payment relates.

(3) Where an amount of a coronavirus support payment made under the self-employment income support scheme is brought into account under paragraph 1(2), the whole of the amount is to be treated as a receipt of a revenue nature of the tax year 2020-21 (irrespective of its treatment for accounting purposes).

(4) But sub-paragraph (3) does not apply to an amount of a coronavirus support payment made under the self-employment income support scheme in respect of a partner of a firm where the amount is distributed amongst the partners (rather than being retained by the partner).

(5) An amount of a coronavirus support payment made under the self-employment income support scheme in respect of a partner of a firm that is retained by the partner (rather than being distributed amongst the partners) is not to be treated as a receipt of the firm.

(6) Accordingly—

(a) the receipt is not to be included in the calculation of the firm’s profits for the purposes of determining the share of profits or losses for each partner of the firm (see sections 849 to 850E of ITTOIA 2005 and sections 1259 to 1265 of CTA 2009), and

(b) the receipt is then to be added to the partner’s share.

Exemptions, reliefs and deductions

4 (1) An amount of a coronavirus support payment that relates only to mutual activities of a business that carries on a mutual trade is to be treated as if it were income arising from those activities (and accordingly the amount is not taxable).

(2) A coronavirus support payment is to be ignored when carrying out the calculation—

(a) in section 528(1) of ITA 2007 (incoming resources limit for charitable exemptions);

(b) in section 482(1) of CTA 2010 (incoming resources limit for charitable companies);

(c) in section 661CA(1) of CTA 2010 (income condition for community amateur sports clubs).

(3) A coronavirus support payment made under an employment-related scheme is to be ignored when carrying out the calculation—

(a) in section 662(2) of CTA 2010 (exemption from corporation tax for UK trading income of community amateur sports clubs);

(b) in section 663(2) of that Act (exemption from corporation tax for UK property income community amateur sports clubs).

(4) No relief under Chapter 1 of Part 6A of ITTOIA 2005 (trading allowance) is given to an individual on an amount of a coronavirus support payment made under the self-employment income support scheme brought into account under paragraph 1(2) as profits of that tax year.

(5) For the purposes of that Part, such an amount is to be ignored when calculating the individual’s “relevant income” for that tax year under Chapter 1 of that Part.

(6) Neither section 57 of ITTOIA 2005 nor section 61 of CTA 2009 (deductions for pre-trading expenses) (including as they apply by virtue of sections 272 and 272ZA of ITTOIA 2005 and section 210 of CTA 2009) apply to employment costs where an amount of a coronavirus support payment made under an employment-related scheme relates to those costs.

Charge where employment costs deductible by another

5 (1) Income tax is charged on an amount of a coronavirus support payment made under an employment-related scheme if conditions A and B are met.

(2) Condition A is that the amount is neither brought into account under paragraph 1(2) in calculating the profits of a business carried on by the person entitled to the payment as an employer nor treated, by virtue of paragraph 2(3) or (4), as a post-cessation receipt arising from the carrying on of such a business.

(3) Condition B is that expenses incurred by another person in respect of the same employment costs which are the subject of the coronavirus support payment and to which the amount relates are deductible—

(a) in calculating the profits of a business carried on by that other person (for income or corporation tax purposes), or

(b) in calculating the liability of that other person to tax charged under section 242 or 349 of ITTOIA 2005 or section 188 or 280 of CTA 2009 (post-cessation receipts).

(4) Tax is charged under sub-paragraph (1) on the whole of the amount to which that sub-paragraph applies.

(5) The person liable for tax charged under sub-paragraph (1) is the person entitled to the coronavirus support payment as an employer.

(6) Section 3(1) of CTA 2009 (exclusion of charge to income tax) does not apply to an amount of a coronavirus support payment that is charged under this paragraph.

Charge where no business carried on

6 (1) Tax is charged on an amount of a coronavirus support payment, other than a payment made under an employment-related scheme or the self-employment income support scheme, if—

(a) the amount is neither brought into account under paragraph 1(2) in calculating the profits of a business nor treated as a post-cessation receipt by virtue of paragraph 2(3) or (4), and

(b) at the time the coronavirus support payment was received, the recipient did not carry on a business whose profits are charged to tax and to which the payment could be referable.

(2) In this paragraph “tax” means—

(a) corporation tax, in the case of a company that (apart from this paragraph) is chargeable to corporation tax, or to any amount chargeable as if it was corporation tax, or

(b) income tax, in any other case.

(3) Tax is charged under sub-paragraph (1) on the whole of the amount to which that sub-paragraph applies.

(4) The person liable for tax charged under sub-paragraph (1) is the recipient of that amount.

(5) Where income tax is charged under sub-paragraph (1), sections 527 and 528 of ITA 2007 (exemption and income condition for charitable trusts) have effect as if sub-paragraph (1) were a provision to which section 1016 of that Act applies.

(6) Where corporation tax is charged under sub-paragraph (1), sections 481 and 482 of CTA 2010 (exemption and income condition for charitable companies) have effect as if sub-paragraph (1) were a provision to which section 1173 of that Act applies.

Modification of the Tax Acts

7 The Treasury may by regulations modify the application of any provision of the Tax Acts that affects (or that otherwise would affect) the treatment of—

(a) receipts brought into account under paragraph 1(2),

(b) amounts treated as post-cessation receipts under paragraph 2(3) or (4), or

(c) amounts charged under paragraph 5(1) or 6(1).

Charge if person not entitled to coronavirus support payment

8 (1) A recipient of an amount of a coronavirus support payment is liable to income tax under this paragraph if the recipient is not entitled to the amount in accordance with the scheme under which the payment was made.

(2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to an amount of a coronavirus support payment made under a coronavirus business support grant scheme or the coronavirus statutory sick pay rebate scheme.

(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, references to a person not being entitled to an amount include, in the case of an amount of a coronavirus support payment made under the coronavirus job retention scheme, a case where the person ceases to be entitled to retain the amount after it was received—

(a) because of a change in circumstances, or

(b) because the person has not, within a reasonable period, used the amount to pay the costs which it was intended to reimburse.

(4) Income tax becomes chargeable under this paragraph—

(a) in a case where the person was entitled to an amount of a coronavirus support payment paid under the coronavirus job retention scheme but subsequently ceases to be entitled to retain it, at the time the person ceases to be entitled to retain the amount, or

(b) in any other case, at the time the coronavirus support payment is received.

(5) The amount of income tax chargeable under this paragraph is the amount equal to so much of the coronavirus support payment—

(a) as the recipient is not entitled to, and

(b) as has not been repaid to the person who made the coronavirus support payment.

(6) Where income tax which is chargeable under this paragraph is the subject of an assessment (whether under paragraph 9 or otherwise)—

(a) paragraphs 1 to 6 do not apply to the amount of the coronavirus support payment that is the subject of the assessment,

(b) that amount is not, for the purposes of Step 1 of the calculation in section 23 of ITA 2007 (calculation of income tax liability), to be treated as an amount of income on which the taxpayer is charged to income tax (but see paragraph 10 which makes further provision about the application of that section), and

(c) that amount is not to be treated as income of a company for the purposes of section 3 of CTA 2009 (and accordingly the exclusion of the application of the provisions of the Income Tax Acts to the income of certain companies does not apply to the receipt of an amount charged under this paragraph).

(7) No loss, deficit, expense or allowance may be taken into account in calculating, or may be deducted from or set off against, any amount of income tax charged under this paragraph.

(8) In calculating profits or losses for the purposes of corporation tax, no deduction is allowed in respect of the payment of income tax charged under this paragraph.

(9) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs 9(4) and 14, a firm is not to be regarded as receiving an amount of a coronavirus support payment made under the self-employment income support scheme in respect of a partner of that firm that is retained by the partner (rather than being distributed amongst the partners).

Assessments of income tax chargeable under paragraph 8

9 (1) If an officer of Revenue and Customs considers (whether on the basis of information or documents obtained by virtue of the exercise of powers under Schedule 36 to FA 2008 or otherwise) that a person has received an amount of a coronavirus support payment to which the person is not entitled, the officer may make an assessment in the amount which ought in the officer’s opinion to be charged under paragraph 8.

(2) An assessment under sub-paragraph (1) may be made at any time, but this is subject to sections 34 and 36 of TMA 1970.

(3) Parts 4 to 6 of TMA 1970 contain other provisions that are relevant to an assessment under sub-paragraph (1) (for example, section 31 makes provision about appeals and section 59B(6) makes provision about the time to pay income tax payable by virtue of an assessment).

(4) Where income tax is chargeable under paragraph 8 in relation to an amount of a coronavirus support payment received by a firm—

(a) an assessment (under sub-paragraph (1) or otherwise) may be made on any of the partners in respect of the total amount of tax that is chargeable,

(b) each of the partners is jointly and severally liable for the tax so assessed, and

(c) if the total amount of tax that is chargeable is included in a return under section 8 of TMA 1970 made by one of the partners, the other partners are not required to include the tax in returns made by them under that section.

Calculation of income tax liability

10 (1) Section 23 of ITA 2007 (calculation of income tax liability) applies in relation to a person liable to income tax charged under paragraph 8 as if that paragraph were included in the lists of provisions in subsections (1) and (2) of section 30 of that Act (amounts of tax added at step 7).

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 41 to FA 2008, a relevant obligation relating to income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule relates to a tax year if the income tax became chargeable in that tax year.

(3) But this paragraph does not apply to a company to which paragraph 11 (companies chargeable to corporation tax) applies.

Calculation of tax liability: companies chargeable to corporation tax

11 (1) This paragraph applies where a person liable to income tax charged under paragraph 8 is a company that is chargeable to corporation tax, or to any amount chargeable as if it was corporation tax, in relation to a period within which the income tax became chargeable.

(2) Part 5A of TMA 1970 (payment of tax) applies in relation to that company as if—

(a) the reference to “corporation tax” in subsection (1) of section 59D (general rule as to when corporation tax is due and payable) included income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule;

(b) an amount of income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule were an amount within subsection (6) of section 59F (arrangements for paying tax on behalf of group members);

(c) any reference in section 59G (managed payment plans) to “corporation tax” included income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule.

(3) Part 9 of that Act (interest on overdue tax) applies in relation to that company as if—

(a) the references in section 86 (interest on overdue income tax and capital gains tax) to “income tax” did not include income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule;

(b) in subsection (1) of section 87A (interest on overdue corporation tax) the reference to “corporation tax” included income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule.

(4) Schedule 18 to FA 1998 (company tax returns etc.) applies in relation to that company as if—

(a) any reference in that Schedule to “tax”, other than the references in paragraph 2 of that Schedule (duty to give notice of chargeability), included income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule, and

(b) in paragraph 8(1) of that Schedule (calculation of tax payable), at the end there were inserted—

“Sixth step

Add any amount of income tax chargeable under paragraph 8 of Schedule (Taxation of coronavirus support payments) to the Finance Act 2020.”

(5) But the modifications of that Schedule are to be ignored for the purposes of the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/3175).

(6) Schedule 41 to FA 2008 applies in relation to that company as if —

(a) the references to “income tax” in paragraph 7(2) did not include income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule;

(b) the reference to “corporation tax” in paragraph 7(3) included income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule;

(but see paragraph 13(5) of this Schedule which has the effect that paragraph 7 of that Schedule does not apply in certain circumstances).

(7) For the purposes of paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 41 to FA 2008 (as modified by sub-paragraph (6)), a relevant obligation relating to income tax charged under paragraph 8 of this Schedule relates to an accounting period if the income tax became chargeable in that period.

Notification of liability under paragraph 8

12 (1) Section 7 of TMA 1970 (notice of liability to income tax and capital gains tax) applies in relation to income tax chargeable under paragraph 8 as provided for in sub-paragraphs (2) to (5).

(2) Subsection (1) has effect as if paragraph (b) (and the “and” before it) were omitted.

(3) Subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to “the notification period” were to the period commencing on the day on which the income tax became chargeable and ending on the later of—

(a) the 90th day after the day on which this Act is passed, or

(b) the 90th day after the day on which the income tax became chargeable.

(4) Subsection (3)(c) has effect as if after “child benefit charge” there were inserted “or to income tax under paragraph 8 of Schedule (Taxation of coronavirus support payments) to the Finance Act 2020”.

(5) In relation to income tax chargeable under paragraph 8 in relation to an amount of a coronavirus support payment received by a firm, the duty in subsection (1) (as it has effect by virtue of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)) is taken to have been complied with by each of the partners if one of the partners has complied with it.

(6) The reference in section 36(1A)(b) of TMA 1970 (20 year period for assessment in a case involving a loss of income tax) to a failure to comply with an obligation under section 7 of that Act is not to be taken as including a failure arising by virtue of the modification of that section by this paragraph, unless the failure is one to which paragraph 13 applies.

Penalty for failure to notify: knowledge of non-entitlement to payment

13 (1) This paragraph applies to a failure of a person to notify, under section 7 of TMA 1970 (as modified by paragraph 12), a liability to income tax chargeable under paragraph 8 where the person knew, at the time the income tax first became chargeable, that the person was not entitled to the amount of the coronavirus support payment in relation to which the tax is chargeable.

(2) Schedule 41 to FA 2008 (failure to notify) applies to a failure described in sub-paragraph (1) as follows.

(3) The failure is to be treated as deliberate and concealed.

(4) Accordingly, paragraph 6 of that Schedule has effect as if the references to a penalty for “a deliberate but not concealed failure” or for “any other case” were omitted.

(5) For the purposes of that Schedule (except in a case falling within paragraph 14 of this Schedule), the “potential lost revenue” is to be treated as being the amount of income tax which would have been assessable on the person at the end of the last day of the notification period (see paragraph 12(3)).

Penalties: partnerships

14 (1) This paragraph applies to a failure to notify, under section 7 of TMA 1970 (as modified by paragraph 12), a liability to income tax chargeable under paragraph 8 by a partner of a firm that received the amount of the coronavirus support payment in relation to which the tax is chargeable.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 13(1) of this Schedule, each partner is taken to know anything that any of the other partners knows.

(3) Where a partner would be liable to a penalty under Schedule 41 to FA 2008 (whether in a case falling within paragraph 13 or otherwise), the partner is instead jointly and severally liable with the other partners to a single penalty under that Schedule for the failures by each of them to notify.

(4) In a case not falling within paragraph 13, if the failure of at least one of the partners—

(a) was deliberate and concealed, the single penalty is to be treated as a penalty for a deliberate and concealed failure;

(b) was deliberate but not concealed, the single penalty is to be treated as a penalty for a deliberate but not concealed failure.

(5) For the purposes of Schedule 41 to FA 2008, the “potential lost revenue” is to be treated as being the amount of income tax which would have been assessable on any one of the partners (see paragraph 9(4)(a))—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph 13, at the end of the last day of the notification period, or

(b) in any other case, at the end of 31 January following the tax year in which the amount of coronavirus support payment was received by the firm.

(6) Paragraph 22 of that Schedule (limited liability partnerships: members’ liability) does not apply.

Liability of officers of insolvent companies

15 (1) This paragraph—

(a) provides for an individual to be jointly and severally liable to the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for a liability of a company to income tax charged under paragraph 8, where a notice under sub-paragraph (2) is given to the individual, and

(b) applies paragraphs 10 to 15 and 17 of Schedule 13 (joint liability notices: tax avoidance, tax evasion and repeated insolvency and non-payment) to such a notice.

(2) An officer of Revenue and Customs may give a notice under this sub-paragraph to an individual if it appears to the officer that conditions A to D are met.

(3) Condition A is that—

(a) the company is subject to an insolvency procedure, or

(b) there is a serious possibility of the company becoming subject to an insolvency procedure.

(4) Condition B is that the company is liable to income tax under paragraph 8.

(5) Condition C is that the individual was responsible for the management of the company at the time the income tax first became chargeable and the individual knew (at that time) that the company was not entitled to the amount of the coronavirus support payment in relation to which the tax is chargeable.

(6) Condition D is that there is a serious possibility that some or all of the income tax liability will not be paid.

(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) the individual is responsible for the management of a company if the individual—

(a) is a director or shadow director of the company, or

(b) is concerned (whether directly or indirectly) in, or takes part in, the management of the company.

(8) A notice under sub-paragraph (2) must—

(a) specify the company to which the notice relates;

(b) set out the reasons for which it appears to the officer that conditions A to D are met;

(c) specify the amount of the income tax liability;

(d) state the effect of the notice;

(e) offer the individual a review of the decision to give the notice and explain the effect of paragraph 11 of Schedule 13 (right of review);

(f) explain the effect of paragraph 13 of that Schedule (right of appeal).

(9) An individual who is given a notice under sub-paragraph (2) is jointly and severally liable with the company (and with any other individual who is given such a notice) to the amount of the income tax liability specified under sub-paragraph (8)(c).

For provision under which the amount so specified may be varied, see—

(a) paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 (modification etc),

(b) paragraphs 11 and 12 of that Schedule (review), and

(c) paragraphs 13 and 14 of that Schedule (appeal).

(10) Paragraphs 10 to 15 and 17 of Schedule 13 apply to a notice under sub-paragraph (2) as they apply to a joint liability notice (see paragraph 1(2) of that Schedule) as if—

(a) the references in those paragraphs to “relevant conditions” were to conditions A to D in this paragraph;

(b) sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 10 were omitted (and references to sub-paragraph (3) in that paragraph were omitted);

(c) in paragraph 10(6)(a), after “or (9)” there were inserted “or paragraph 15(8)(c) of Schedule (Taxation of coronavirus support payments)”;

(d) in paragraph 12(6)(b) after “5(9)” there were inserted “or paragraph 15(8)(c) of Schedule (Taxation of coronavirus support payments)”.

(11) Expressions used in this paragraph and in Schedule 13 have the same meaning in this paragraph as they have in that Schedule (subject to the modification made by sub-paragraph (10)(a)).”—(Jesse Norman.)

This new Schedule makes provision about the taxation of payments made under various coronavirus related business support schemes, including the coronavirus job retention scheme (“CJRS”) and the self-employment income support scheme (“SEISS”). Paragraphs 1 to 7 clarify how payments under those schemes are to be subject to tax, following (with some exceptions) the normal principles for taxing receipts of a business. Paragraph 8 provides that where a person receives an amount to which they were not entitled under CJRS or SEISS, or misapplies an amount paid under CJRS, the person will be liable to income tax at the rate of 100% in relation to so much of that amount as was not repaid to HMRC. Paragraphs 9 to 15 make provision in connection with that charge (for example in relation to assessments and penalties).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Third Reading

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Finance Bill stands in the shadow of a pandemic unprecedented in its scale and reach. We are keenly aware of the immense challenges and pressures that that has placed on us. These conditions—this situation—cannot and will not be ignored. The Government are working flat out to alleviate the impact of covid-19 on the economy, on the public finances, and, most importantly, on the health and wellbeing of every person and family in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced numerous measures over the past few months in response to the virus, including the job retention scheme, the business interruption loan scheme, and the self-employment income scheme. Together, this represents, contrary to many of the comments made in the previous debate, an economic intervention by Government on a scale hitherto unseen in peacetime, and necessarily so. At such a difficult time for millions of people around the United Kingdom, the Government have worked to protect businesses and are specifically focused on the wellbeing of the most vulnerable in society.

Of course we recognise, and the House must recognise, that this is a still a work in progress and there is a way to go. The crisis is not over. The pandemic continues. People around this country are still suffering and may do so for many months yet. The Government will continue to work to lessen the impact, but it remains the responsibility, the duty and the important role of businesses, families and individuals to play their part, too, in this colossal collective national effort. Together, we must work to bring ourselves through and out of this crisis.

The Bill supports the emergency services as they go about their vital duties and exempts from vehicle excise duty vehicles that have been purpose-built to transport NHS products. The Government have introduced new clauses that were considered today to ensure that workers who have returned to public sector jobs to help fight the effects of the pandemic will face no adverse pensions consequences from doing so. The Bill reforms the tapered annual allowance so that doctors can spend more time treating patients without facing precipitous tax bills. This pandemic has brought out, in many ways, the best in our society, and I am certain that the Britain that emerges from it will be stronger and fairer.

The Bill provides tax exemptions specifically for those who receive payments under the Windrush compensation scheme, the troubles permanent disablement payment scheme and the Kindertransport fund, as well as for care leavers who are starting apprenticeships, and rightly so.

The necessary focus on the here and now must not come at the expense of tomorrow. In the words of the Prime Minister, our great national hibernation is coming to an end, and we must and will now at last look to the future. Now is the time to start to rebuild the economy and to restore our public finances. Our police, our teachers, our armed forces and many other public sector workers have all played their part in combating this pandemic alongside the NHS. I would also single out, as I have said, our public servants in the civil service, particularly in my own area of HM Treasury and within HMRC.

This public sector support cannot be provided for if the public finances are not supported, in turn, with a fair and sustainable tax system. That is a key fact. We do that while seeking to remain competitive internationally, and maintaining the corporation tax rate at 19% is therefore the right approach. Even at that level, it is still the lowest headline rate in the G20, and it reminds the world of UK strength as a location for inward investment.

But we have also been clear about fairness. Everyone must pay their fair share of tax. That is one reason we have introduced the digital services tax, for which this Bill also legislates. A tax set at a rate of 2% on revenues from digital services will ensure that digital businesses pay a fairer share of UK tax that more accurately reflects the significant value that they derive from their UK users. As we look to recovery, we want business to receive the support that it needs. That is why we have delayed the extension of the off-payroll working reforms in the private sector to April 2021. Businesses need time to prepare for the reforms, and it would have been burdensome to ask them to do so during the pandemic.

We focus on innovation in the Finance Bill. We wish to go further to support enterprise in this country, which will be desperately needed in the coming months. This country has a proud history of innovation, and increasing the research and development expenditure credit rate to 13% will allow that to continue. The structures and buildings allowance rate increase will also aid investment in new shops, factories and agricultural buildings, which will help to stimulate capital investment across the nation. As ever, we are committed to levelling up across the United Kingdom.

As has been pointed out, covid-19 is not the only crisis that we face. The Government have committed to reducing the United Kingdom’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. The Bill is another step towards that target. Not only does it pave the way for the forthcoming plastic packaging tax, but it removes the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement for zero-emissions vehicles and ensures that, now we have left the European Union, a carbon price will remain in place. Those measures will help to ensure that our post-covid-19 economy is greener than before.

At the end of 10 hours of debate in the last two days, for which I thank all my colleagues and the Opposition Front-Bench team, we understand that the world during the passage of the Bill has changed. Its impact on this House, our daily lives and our economic outlook has radically altered. To some extent, we have made changes on the fly to shore up and support our public services and our response to the pandemic. As a result, the Bill is a firm foundation—indeed, firmer than it was originally framed—on which we can rebuild our economy and protect our public finances as we recover from this devastating virus. The Bill supports businesses, the vulnerable and our key workers, and I commend it to the House.

I begin by thanking my colleagues in the shadow Treasury team for their work throughout the journey of the Bill and the Minister and his colleagues for their responses to many of the questions and concerns that we have raised. I also put on record our thanks to the Clerks for all their work. They have helped us so much during the progress of the Bill in difficult and dangerous times for them. The House of Commons Library staff have, as ever, been incredibly helpful and professional and I record our thanks to them as well.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to our discussions about the Bill. I am delighted that we have heard such a range of contributions, not least from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. It is rather disappointing, however, that we have not heard from a single woman from the Government Benches today. I do not know whether it is men-only Thursday on the Tory side when it comes to the Finance Bill, but given that we know the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on women in particular will be profound, I hope that we might be able to set that straight when we continue our discussions of this nature on Wednesday. Women are more likely to have lost their jobs or to have been furloughed during the crisis and, sadly, despite many of the changes that we have seen in our society, they often shoulder the burden of childcare.

As I have repeated throughout the progress of the Bill, it does not recognise the scale of the challenge we face. I appreciate what the Minister said, but it is a Finance Bill for a different age. We have consistently warned of the looming threat of mass unemployment since the beginning of the pandemic. As the days go by, that is becoming a reality. This month, the OECD reported that the UK is set to face a slump in its GDP that will outstrip the falls of France, Italy, Germany and the US.

Young people are about to enter the worst jobs market in more than a decade. Those who entered the jobs market in 2008 will know what a challenge that is, but this will be worse still. The class of 2020 have no part-time retail and hospitality jobs to fall back on while they look for their first job. For young people, completing their education is supposed to be a step on the ladder, but for many this year, it will involve falling down a snake.

Airbus, TM Lewin, easyJet and SSP Group are all large employers that have announced that they will be making thousands of redundancies. At least 12,000 jobs have been lost in the last three days alone; the real number is doubtless higher still. In every case it is a tragedy for those affected, because it means thousands more jobseekers having to rely on meagre social security payments to provide for their families and thousands more jobseekers needing to sign on when demand at jobcentres will already be very high and when recruitment in many sectors has already frozen indefinitely. It is not just young people, however, who will be affected. I think especially of older workers who will need additional support to retrain and reskill during this time.

We recall the devastation of mass unemployment in the 1980s that scarred communities like mine for far too long. The pain was acute and the social and economic damage was lasting and real. I have long believed that Government can and must be a force for good, but this is a political choice. While the lockdown restrictions are slowly easing, the threat of coronavirus is far from gone. It will take much longer for businesses to operate at their usual capacity. We recognise that protecting our economy would be an immense challenge for any Government, but to meet the challenge, we will need ambitious, decisive and swift action.

When we hear that update from the Chancellor next Wednesday, we will need a full back-to-work Budget with a resolute focus on jobs. It is more important than ever that those with broadest shoulders pay their fair share, so that we can raise revenues to fund the schemes and the vital frontline workers we need to get us on the road to recovery and revive our public services.

The Finance Bill is a series of tweaks and corrections. Rather than raising revenue, it extends and expands tax reliefs and tinkers with, rather than ends, the entrepreneurs’ relief. Netflix, Amazon Prime and other high-grossing streaming services will be unaffected by the digital services tax, for all we welcome its introduction in its limited scope. As it stands, the digital services tax will create up to £440 million in annual revenue, when the UK in fact loses £1.3 billion in corporation tax to five of the biggest UK tech firms each year. That is £1.3 billion that could go towards helping schools to enable children to return safely in September, towards more nurses and more doctors, towards creating new jobs, towards decarbonising our economy and towards funding more public health research, which this pandemic has shown we desperately need.

We have sought to improve the Bill in Committee and on Report, introducing amendments so that the Government could review their policies against their effects on job creation, on poverty, on a green recovery and on measuring the cost of tax reliefs. We have sought to entrench greater scrutiny of policies that may well need to be revised in what is becoming an unprecedented economic downturn. Again, the Government have defeated our amendments. We fear that their approach highlights that they have not yet recognised that they will need to go much further in protecting our economy. The Prime Minister’s plans for economic revival are mere repetitions of existing spending, announced wearing a different hard hat in a different tractor. They are a Government who run the economy by repetition, not innovation.

Labour has consistently approached this crisis constructively, and we will try to keep doing so. In this time of crisis, I urge the Government to rethink their approach and to show meaningful dedication to economic recovery next week. We know that the furlough scheme has provided a lifeline to thousands of workers, but that work is not yet done. There can be no room for a sense of pride or complacency. If the Government fail to provide a full stimulus package before October, the 1 million people who lost their jobs in March and April will have been unemployed for six months, and not enough will have been done to support demand and create new jobs.

We again call for a back-to-work Budget that is rigorous, takes into account the differing needs of sectors and regions and gives the right level of support to workers old and young, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach. We need a full Budget that supports viable businesses—a Budget that is future-facing in promoting green jobs, reskilling older workers and investing in our young people, because infrastructure is more than just bricks and mortar. We need a Budget that honours the sacrifices the British people have made during this crisis. The future success of our country depends on it.

Like everybody, I acknowledge these extraordinary times. The world has changed since the Budget was announced in March. All the certainties that we used to rely upon are gone, and things that we thought that the Government would never do, never say or never spend money on are suddenly things that are no barrier whatever. That goes some way to show that the Government can do a lot more when they want to, and that should give us some hope that they may go back on things they have said before.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has contributed to debates on the Bill. I thank the Clerks and the Bill team, who have been so incredibly helpful; I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your sage advice; and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), whose first Finance Bill this is and who has done a fantastic job representing both his constituents and the party.

I also thank our researchers, Scott Taylor and Jonathan Kiehlmann, who have supported us so well throughout this process—with all the amendments that we tabled and having to learn about everybody else’s amendments, it has been a huge challenge to keep up but they have risen to it admirably—and Mhairi Love in my office, who has also done an incredible job while studying for her exams and completing a dissertation. She has provided support to me throughout all that and I thank her for it. I thank the people on Twitter who think I talk too quickly. I swear that I am making an effort to slow down; this is just how I speak.

I repeat the call for evidence that I made at the start of the Bill’s progress. A Finance Bill Committee should be able to take evidence. Other Bill Committees in this House have the practice—for example, the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee for England and Wales took evidence from experts. It seems absolutely ludicrous that Finance Bills, which affect so many different aspects of everybody’s lives, do not take evidence from experts at the start and instead rely on getting written evidence and us scrutinising that written evidence, rather than being able to ask questions about the Government’s policies and find the best way through. I also reiterate that some kind of standing committee on the Budget is very much required to keep an eye on what the Government are doing and how effective their policies and proposals are.

Many questions remain at the end of this Budget process, and I suppose the first of those is whether we will be back here for another Budget in the autumn. Issues such as the loan charge and IR35 are not going away, as much as the Government would like them to. We cannot predict the course of the coronavirus, but we do know that the UK Government’s handling of it has been far from impressive. As I said yesterday, I fear a return to mass unemployment. The Treasury has the toughest of decisions to make, but it ought to put wellbeing and people first, because if we do not have that, we will not have much else to go with afterwards.

The hon. Lady has raised the loan charge; we did not really get a sense of it yesterday, but is the SNP in favour of the loan charge as a substantive matter or against it?

We believe that there are still many questions to be answered on the loan charge, not least the revelations in the press during the week over the FOI request that have raised more questions. We want to see further probing on the issue and further support for those people who have ended up losing not only their livelihoods but their homes—and some have lost their lives. It is no light-hearted matter to be considered in such a flippant way.

If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wants to prevent scarring in the economy, he must encourage his colleague the Chancellor to be bolder next week. He must keep the job retention scheme and the self-employment support scheme going, and he must fill the gaps in those schemes when he makes his announcement next week, because too many people have lost out and too many sectors are not yet back to full strength. When that change comes—when people have to pay more of the wage costs themselves—we will see more and more employers doing what many employers have done this week and simply deciding to hand back the keys, fire their staff and wind up their companies. And the unemployment figures will soar.

Does my hon. Friend share my particular concern about the oil and gas sector in which we have already seen vast swathes of employees made redundant because the furlough scheme had an end date? The fact that that end date is now coming closer and has not been extended will only compound the difficulties and lead to further unemployment.

The oil and gas sector is a perfect example of a sector that needs additional support right now. These are people who have a great deal of uncertainty involving many different factors, not least the oil and gas price at the moment, the need to invest in green technologies in the future and the need to transition in a just way that makes sure that jobs and livelihoods are protected. The Government need to have an oil and gas sector deal to support those jobs and those people and to protect the economy of the north-east of Scotland.

Other sectors of concern include tourism, hospitality and the arts and theatre. There is a huge campaign today for the music sector as well. I fully support those concerns because if we cannot return to these venues, the people who work in them will not get a wage and they will struggle, with many companies perhaps not coming back. They will lose their Christmas season—they will lose everything and perhaps not even be able to come back to theatres and to those kinds of sectors until March. I do not know where the Government expect those people to earn a wage or how they expect them to live, but it is clear that support needs to be in place for the sectors that are affected.

There are stark figures out today from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Its president, Tim Allan, has said:

“It is critical that governments in Holyrood and Westminster continue to provide business support for companies during and beyond the easing of lockdown restrictions. A sudden end to these vital financial support measures would not be welcome by anyone and a tsunami of jobs would disappear overnight.”

Commenting on the results of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce survey, Professor Graeme Roy, director at the University of Strathclyde’s Fraser of Allander Institute, said:

“What is particularly worrying is the employment outlook. The survey shows a clear warning of what is to come, with a sharp rise in unemployment now inevitable as businesses adjust to a new normal.”

Inevitable—a tsunami of jobs lost. It is not surprising that 95% of the firms in that survey reported a fall in business confidence. To boost business confidence, the Government really need to make sure that the schemes continue. The findings paint a bleak picture of the deep economic hit to key sectors across Scotland, once again highlighting the need for strengthened financial support measures to help businesses and industries survive this crisis. Rather than looking to shut down the support schemes and putting increased financial pressure on firms that are already struggling to get by, it is critical that the Treasury extend and strengthen support to protect business and countless jobs.

This Government have all the levers. I only wish that the Scottish Government had at their disposal—as the Government of an independent country—the levers to make such choices. At the very least, the Chancellor should look at the fiscal framework and allow devolution of borrowing powers to the Scottish Government as soon as possible. The Scottish Government’s powers to borrow are incredibly limited, and we do not have the flexibility to meet the economic demands of this crisis. It could not have been envisaged when the fiscal framework was agreed; nobody would have seen this coming. The Government must react and listen to the demands of the Scottish Government.

This Government have a choice. They can invest in green infrastructure and recovery and they can decide to help people, or they can decide to turn off the taps and risk recession and devastation across many sectors of the economy. All I can hope is that they choose wisely.

I have followed the Treasury’s Budgets professionally for a quarter of a century and contributed to many of them, but this is the first time I have helped to legislate for a Budget. As well as speaking in various stages of the Finance Bill, I served on the Bill Committee. I have been impressed by the thought, the hard work and the dedication that Treasury Ministers and officials have put into the Bill, taking on board many of the concerns that have been raised throughout the process. I particularly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who have steered the Bill through its various stages with patience and humour.

When I first sat on the Finance Bill Committee, I never expected that in our discussions I would learn about Burkean philosophy or why there are different rates of take-up of driving licences among different ethnic groups. I pay tribute to the work of the Clerks on the Bill, who made it work so smoothly, and to my own staff, who have supported me throughout the process.

This Budget is one of the most unusual in history. Announced just weeks before lockdown, it was legislated for during the deepest recession and the biggest economic support package in modern times. It is notable that, almost without exception, the measures have withstood these exceptional circumstances and they are as justified now as they were before.

I sat through the amendments that the Opposition tabled in the Bill Committee, and I observed that none of them had anything to do with promoting economic growth. I was reminded of a conversation that I had with a peer of the realm when I first came to this House. I had always thought that he was a Labour peer, but he told me that he was a Conservative. I asked him why he was Conservative rather than Labour, and he said, “The trouble is that they know only about spending it, not about making it, but you can’t spend it unless you have made it first.” That could not be more true.

There are some much-debated measures in the Bill, but I think that in the end it gets the balance right between tackling tax avoidance and encouraging entrepreneurialism. It is right that everyone pays their fair share. I am at heart an economic liberal who believes that if a Government are going to take a person’s hard-earned money, the burden of proof lies on the Government to justify doing so. In general, I get more joy from cutting or scrapping a tax than introducing a new one, but it is notable that the Bill introduces new taxes. The possible carbon tax is needed to tackle climate change by ensuring that companies pay what economists call the externality of emitting greenhouse gases. The plastics tax is a great nudge tax, pushing industry into recycling more plastic by imposing costs on not recycling. As economists say, we should tax bads, not goods.

Then there is the new digital tax, discussed broadly in this House, which ensures that global technology companies pay their fair share. These technology companies bring us all so many benefits, which is why many of them have grown rapidly into some of the most valuable firms in the world, but their global business model and the joys of internal transfer pricing, basically mean that they can decide how much corporation tax they pay in each different country where they operate. The ultimate solution to this is a global agreement on the taxation of technology companies, but these agreements can take forever to reach, not least if those countries that benefit from the lack of an international agreement drag their heels. So it is absolutely right that countries such as the UK take the lead in introducing interim national measures. With declared national profits at the discretion of finance directors, the only option for the digital tax is to be that unprecedented thing—a tax on turnover. So the carbon tax, the plastic tax and the digital services tax are three taxes that can all clearly be justified. I welcome them.

Finally, I want to look ahead at the biggest economic challenge of our time. Yesterday in the Treasury Select Committee, on which I sit, the chief economist of the IMF and the OECD both paid tribute to the Government’s economic support package. Economists rarely agree about anything, but they do agree that things would have been a lot worse without this unprecedented Government support. I welcome the news yesterday from the Bank of England that we are bouncing back quicker than many had feared, but we are still set to have one of the sharpest recessions in modern history. Thousands of jobs are already being lost across the private sector, and the risk is that we undo the hard work that we have done since the 1980s to become a country of high employment and low unemployment. We must do everything we can to prevent that. We must not go back to the 1980s.

We now need to have a laser-like focus on getting the economy going again. We need to stop jobs being lost in the first place and then ensure that the short-term unemployed do not become the long-term unemployed. That means getting them back to work as quickly as possible. We have rightly all been paying tribute to the NHS staff who have done so much to look after us during the pandemic, but we should also pay tribute to the dedication of private sector workers—from supermarket staff who have kept us fed to drug companies that have developed treatments and companies that have built ventilators. It is private enterprise that has taken the brunt of this recession, and it is private enterprise that will pull us out of it. Private enterprise is not the problem that some on the Opposition Benches see it as; it is the solution. Across the House, we need to focus in the coming months and years on helping businesses get going again, so that they can create the jobs and pay the taxes that pay for our public services and our welfare system. We need to build, build, build, and that leads to jobs, jobs, jobs. I commend the Bill to the House.

I believe that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said that there were no female Members on the Conservative Benches, so I just want to reassure her that I am still a woman. I am also delighted to say that on the Treasury Select Committee we have five Conservative Back Benchers, of which three are women. So women are very much represented on the financial side on these Benches.

I promise to be brief, so I want to talk about only two areas in this Bill, which are really relevant to my constituents in Kensington. The first is the digital sales tax, which I commend to the House. We all want it to be superseded by a multilateral solution, but it is an important and bold interim measure. Kensington High Street, like high streets across the country, is suffering. That is partly due to the burden of business rates, but it is also due to changing shopping habits. The new tax will be an important source of revenue for the Exchequer, and it will also go some way towards levelling the playing field between online retail and high streets. I am also looking forward to the fundamental review of business rates that we shall see later in the year.

I also commend to the House the measures in this Bill that incentivise the greening of the economy. Over the last 10 years, we have shown that we can have economic growth while lowering emissions. The environment is critical to my residents in Kensington and, in particular, air quality, since we are in central London. I am glad that my area, Kensington and Chelsea, has seen the largest three-yearly decline in emissions in the whole of London, but we all know that there is an awful lot still to be done, so I welcome many of the measures in this Bill, such as the support for zero-emission vehicles, the changes to the vehicle excise duty regime and the preparations for the introduction of the plastic packaging tax. These will all be warmly welcomed in Kensington.

In the interests of brevity, I am going to conclude there and commend this Bill to the House.

Last but not least is the saying, I suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) gave a fantastic speech, putting it far more succinctly than I will probably be able to. I must also say that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) does not look old enough to have been studying the Finance Bill for the last 25 years—that is quite something. The Treasury has made an incredible effort in preparing the Bill and in all the work that has been put together over the last few months to safeguard our economy through this pandemic, and it should be widely praised.

I shall talk about the digital services tax from two perspectives. Again, the Treasury should be roundly applauded for the tax’s hugely progressive nature. As we heard yesterday, it is a pioneering tax, but I wonder whether we can be even more pioneering. The two perspectives are these: first, by being more pioneering, we can go further and help to save the high street; and secondly, it is all very well saying that we need to do that, but we have to have a solution to be able to do that. This is nothing new—I have been talking about retailing and the high street since I became a Member of this House, and I like to think that given my previous career, I am able to talk a bit about that. However, given the pandemic, the digital services tax, in my view, cannot come quick enough, and I wonder now whether we can go even quicker. What we are seeing is a structural change to the high street, and it is of course incredibly worrying when we listen to the news in the morning and hear of bellwethers such as John Lewis and Harrods beginning to struggle.

I have long believed that it is absolutely key that all our companies pay their fair share of tax, regardless of industry. If they create value in this country, they should be taxed in this country. That is not only bold and brave, but fit and proper. Taxing those companies is more pertinent than ever, because the incomes and profits that they generate are eating away into the more traditional businesses’ market share when they are the very ones that are paying their fair share of tax and suffering as a result of the digital platforms’ dominance. When Google is reported to have paid less than £50 million in UK tax last year and Facebook to have paid £30 million on sales of £1.5 billion, it is absolutely right that the Government are bringing this legislation in as quickly as they are. For me, this is not about taxing those with a competitive advantage, but a move in the correct direction of fairness and equality. As the Government have said, should we find a global solution to this problem, we will probably abolish this tax, making it to all intents and purposes temporary.

Of course, this is not just about taxing the Facebooks, Googles and Twitters of this world; it is more encompassing than that, and it will focus on intermediaries as well. For me, that is a really good thing, because I would like to think that the digital services tax is a bridge to where we should be going. That is the crux of my argument. I do not think at the moment the digital services tax does quite enough—I wonder whether we can go a bit further—and I will just bring out the reason for that. I would like to see some kind of online sales tax levied on online retail sales as a way to support the high street. This would enable the Treasury to take the step, which we know it wants to take, of abolishing retail business rates for good. That would level up an industry sector that is seeing technological shift erode it year after year. The DST is a stepping stone to where we want to be.

At the moment, online sales in retailing are approximately £80 billion, and their share of total retail sales has now grown from 5% when records first started to nearly 20% of all UK retail sales. That means that retailing through traditional bricks-and-mortar stores in towns and cities across the country, which employ millions of people, is being completely eroded by sales moving online, where cost bases are much smaller and profits can grow quickly. Just as we are getting a grip on online marketplaces, I wonder whether we can move on this issue as well.

What coronavirus has done is see a further step change in reduced footfall on the high street. People are doing two things: not only are they not going out, in order to avoid crowded areas, but those that have been inside have converted—we have seen evidence that they have converted, with 48% of all retail sales in supermarket shopping now being online.

If the Government would like to think about abolishing retail rates, they should consider some form of VAT-style levy on retail online sales. If we take £8 billion as the current total of UK retail rates, a VAT-style levy of a few percentage points on those total sales at the moment could pay immediately for half of the amount of abolishing those rates. Surely that is something we would want to think about sooner rather than later to help.

I will finish by saying that I really welcome the boldness of this Bill, and I really welcome the boldness of the digital services tax. I think we are now turning to face the right direction for what I believe is a real institution in this country—shopping on our high streets—and it only leaves me to say to the Treasury Minister that I commend this Bill to the House. I wonder if we can go even further, but I think it is a fantastic step in the right direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.