Category: Economy

Stewart Hosie – 2020 Speech on the Trade Bill

Below is the text of the speech made by Stewart Hosie, the SNP MP for Dundee East, in the House of Commons on 20 May 2020.

May I start by agreeing with the Secretary of State that it is absolutely vital that we keep trade open and recognise the importance of the supply chain, and that it is absolutely essential that we stand against protectionism? We need to do that, because right now there are three main threats to trade. The first is self-evidently from the covid crisis, which the World Trade Organisation has suggested might cause a fall in global trade of something in the order of 13% to 32%. That is a substantial reduction, no matter where on the scale one looks. The second is the impact of Brexit. Assessments suggest that the UK could lose a substantial chunk of its global trade. The third is the more systemic problem that the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the ex-Trade Secretary, was speaking about, which is the continued implementation of new and the continuation of existing trade restriction measures, with tariffs valuing somewhere around $1.6 trillion in force.

I am not confident that those problems will be resolved any time soon, not least because there is as yet no cure for coronavirus and restrictions of one sort or another may well remain in force for some considerable time, because of the highly publicised lack of progress on the Brexit negotiations, and also, sadly, because of the absence of a functioning World Trade Organisation appellate body. This Trade Bill does not address any of those matters, other than perhaps at the margins, by trying to roll over and maintain the trade the UK has with third countries via membership of the EU and thereby minimise the losses from Brexit.

The Bill does do a number of other things, as the Secretary of State set out. It creates procurement obligations arising from membership of the GPA—the agreement on Government procurement; it creates the Trade Remedies Authority; and it gives powers to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect and share data. However, it is not without its problems. Let me deal with the powers relating to the devolved Administrations first. The previous Trade Bill, which was under consideration in the previous Parliament, contained provision for regulation-making powers to be available to the UK Government within areas of devolved competence. That Bill also contained a provision that prohibited devolved Administrations from using powers to modify retained direct EU legislation or anything that was retained EU law by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) 2018 Act in ways that would be inconsistent with any modifications made by the UK Government, even in devolved areas. As a result, the Scottish Government could not consent to that, and that view was shared by the Scottish Parliament Finance and Constitution Committee.

That Trade Bill did not complete its passage and fell, and the good news is that those provisions have been removed from this reintroduced Trade Bill. However, there remains no statutory obligation for the UK Government to consult or seek the consent of Scottish Ministers before exercising the powers they have in devolved areas. However, during the partial passage of the previous Trade Bill, the UK Government made a commitment to avoid using the powers in the Bill in devolved areas without consulting and ideally obtaining the consent of Scottish Ministers. The then Minister of State at the Department for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), subsequently restated those commitments in his letter to Ivan McKee, the Scottish Trade Minister, on 18 March, and I hope that the Minister we hear from today will restate these non-legislative commitments.

The Bill is not without its problems, and they do not relate simply to the devolved Administrations. It allows the UK Government to modify retained direct principal EU law, and it appears to me that there are no legislative limits on such modifications. The second problem is the description of an “international trade agreement” in clause 2(2)(b), which states that it may be

“an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than a free trade agreement.”

As we know, modern agreements are as much about regulation, standards, conformance, dispute resolution or food safety as they are about quotas and tariffs. Many people will uncomfortable that Ministers can modify existing agreements in the way in which this Bill permits, particularly without scrutiny and consent.

That leads me to the fundamental problem with the Bill. The absence of parliamentary scrutiny and a parliamentary vote on significant changes or modifications, or, indeed, in the future, on new trade deals as may be envisaged by the Government, is a huge problem. Modern democracies need to have full scrutiny of trade agreements, from the scope of the negotiating mandate right through to implementation. That is absent from this Bill, as is any provision for scrutiny other than through the voluntary scrutiny proposed by the Government in the Command Paper published in the previous Parliament, to which I will return briefly at the end of my speech.

These issues also highlight the absence of any formal input into trade deals or significant modification of existing ones by the devolved Administrations—a problem replicated in the membership of the Trade Remedies Authority, where no formal ability exists for the devolved Administrations to propose or nominate a member with expertise in regionally or nationally significant trade.

I shall turn briefly to the Command Paper that was published in 2019 and covered the previous Trade Bill. Does it still apply? Does the commitment to publishing our negotiating objectives and scoping assessments still exist? Even if it does, does the Minister recognise that that still does not give Parliament or the devolved Administrations any role in approving them? Is it still the intention of the UK Government to provide sensitive information to a scrutiny Committee? Would that be the Select Committee on International Trade, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)? If it is, will any papers provided be publishable, or will they be restricted? If they are restricted, that will still leave Members of Parliament, exporting businesses and other interested third parties none the wiser about the Government’s real intentions. I am conscious of the limited time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me end simply by saying—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close. I thank him for his contribution, but we must move on. I am now introducing a time limit of five minutes, and I advise hon. Members who are speaking virtually to have a timing device visible.

29/05/2020
Rachel Hopkins – 2020 Speech on Finance

Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Hopkins, the Labour MP for Luton South, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2020.

The covid-19 crisis has had a dramatic impact on the UK’s economy. A small state, low taxes and pure free market economics have failed to prepare the UK for the public health crisis and the ever-present climate emergency.

The public health crisis has forced the Government to postpone this failed style of governance, in favour of an interventionist, corporate welfare policy, aimed at protecting the needs of capital, with the hope that benefits will trickle down to workers through business-first schemes. The post-covid-19 economy must have fair taxation and strong workers’ rights at its centre. Self-employed workers will be pivotal in our economic rebuild, and people who are genuinely self-employed deserve fair support while also paying their taxes.

The Opposition are fundamentally committed to promoting and advancing workers’ rights, so we are deeply concerned that IR35 reduces the rights of the worker and the responsibilities of the employer. It is essential that, during the review of IR35, the Government recognise the overlap between employment law and tax status, and do not see them as exclusive entities. An initial recognition of their interrelation provides the basis for levelling up self-employment protection and ending forms of self-employment that are used as cover for tax avoidance.

I am aware that some workers are forced into self-employment by employers trying to cut costs and reduce their obligations. That was directly referenced by the Taylor review, which stated, based on evidence submitted to it, that

“the nature of the tax system acts as an incentive for practices such as bogus claiming of self-employed status, by both businesses or individuals.”

This highlights the importance of not assessing tax law in isolation. A joined-up approach that brings together tax and employment law can ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax and that no one is exploited by holes in the system. It is vital that the Government recognise the relationship between poor employment practice, exploitative working arrangements and the tax system. Do the Government intend to introduce any additional measures to tackle the enablers of tax avoidance schemes, including those who exploit gaps relating to tax and employment law?

The precarious nature of certain forms of self-employment has made it difficult for many to access the coronavirus self-employment income support scheme. A large number of my constituents, including those working in the creative industries, cannot access SEISS as they receive less than 50% of their income from self-employment. Will the Minister consider introducing additional support that can be offered to those who receive less than half their income from self-employment, and who may also have been using short-term pay-as-you-earn contracts?

The covid-19 crisis has created a critical juncture in our country’s economy. I urge the Government to ingrain workers’ rights and fair taxation into the post-covid economy.

28/05/2020
Meg Hillier – 2020 Speech on Finance

Below is the text of the speech made by Meg Hillier, the Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2020.

I think it is fair to say that covid-19 has shone a light on the different ways of working. Whether it be freelance work through personal service companies, which are often set up to deal with insurance and liability, or freelance work via short-term pay-as-you-earn contracts, many of these people are falling through the net. That does not even begin to embrace those who are in insecure, zero-hours work. Many in my constituency work four jobs over seven days just to make ends meet, while others earn enough to work a four-day week and can live quite comfortably.

Hackney South and Shoreditch is a microcosm of all the different ways of working, some of which the Chancellor has supported in his package, and some of which he has not. It is also a hub of innovation, particularly in the tech area in Shoreditch, in the creative industries. We are proud to be the home of many disruptor businesses that start off trying to change the way things work.

This motion brings to the fore a number of issues. Contractors providing a flexible, agile workforce allow many of the businesses in my constituency to buy in the skills they need when they need them. Those are typically high-cost skills that a business could not put on the payroll, especially at the start-up stage. Businesses have been in touch with me about this measure for that reason in particular. They would not be able to create a full-time job. They do not need this expertise full time, long term on the payroll. They need to be able to hire someone quickly, and if the company does not succeed, there is no direct impact on the careers of the people they have hired for that short contract because they go on to the next contract. It allows start-ups to get the help, support and technical skills they need as a fledgling business.

Since the Government announced the extension of IR35 to the private sector, many companies in my constituency have already taken the view that they need to move overseas, and many of the individual contractors are moving overseas. They often work in different countries anyway, so where they are physically based is less of an issue than it may seem.
Many of the companies that are employing those contractors are taking a very risk-averse approach, designating all contractors as needing to go under the IR35 umbrella. That is having a negative impact on those technically skilled individuals who would be available for work but will end up being employed for tax purposes only, with none of the perks. In pursuing the national insurance contributions of employers, the Government are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No one wants to see tax avoidance on a huge scale, but this system has grown up and helped to generate a whole business sector that relies on this flexibility, and the employees caught up in this will have none of the benefits of employees but will be working alongside people who do.

The issue of national insurance contributions is really important in terms of the Government’s review. We need to know exactly what the timetable is for that review, who will do it and how they will calculate the tax take. Many businesses are presented with evidence, which I am happy to share with the Minister, about why the tax take will not actually increase for HMRC by going down this route. It is really important that we get those fundamental numbers right. Is the research commissioned yet? How will be people be able to contribute, and will it look at the overall tax rate? The delay of a year is welcome, but I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that we are going into an economic contraction, the likes of which this this country has never seen before, and a year is not long enough. We need to delay this further or we will lose these skills, and businesses will not replace these roles as employees, so we will have a double whammy in the economy.

28/05/2020
Alison Thewliss – 2020 Speech on Finance

Below is the text of the speech made by Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2020.

It is a strange day indeed when I end up agreeing with the House of Lords and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but I very much support a review, as does the SNP, as we had this in our manifesto. Concerns about IR35 have been well raised by myself, my colleagues and colleagues of all parties. I mention in particular my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who in 2018 raised the impact on rural communities where teachers, doctors and nurses may be employed through intermediaries. My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) have also raised concerns about the impact of these reforms on people working in the oil and gas industry, which is also under significant pressure at this time.

In my constituency, many people working in IT are already finding that their contracts are not being renewed. This is having an impact on their industry because of the ongoing uncertainty with this policy. I should also like to mention the possibility of an equality impact assessment. Many of those people have come here to work from other countries because of their expertise, and if they are not able to work, that could have an impact on their immigration status and their ability to stay in this country, where they have made their home. I ask the Minister to consider that.

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has set out very well the issues with IR35. Its report states that the Government should reassess the flawed IR35 framework and give serious consideration to the fairer alternatives to the off-payroll working rules. The report sets out a number of options that the Government may wish to pick up. In the Chancellor’s earlier statements on support for self-employed people, he hinted about the support the Government are offering to some of them—not all of them; there are still big gaps in the scheme—but there is an inconsistency in contributions between the self-employed and the employed, with a bit of uncertainty as to what exactly that means when we come out of coronavirus. What will people be expected to contribute? Any clarity that the Government can give on this would be extremely useful. The House of Lords also makes it clear in no uncertain terms that IR35 is not a good base to build on. Yes, it has been in place for 20 years, but for 20 years it has been plagued with these types of problems and by bolting more on to it and trying to reform it, the Government are building a house on the sand. We cannot rely on that house standing any longer.

The Taylor review that the Government carried out made it very clear that there are options open to the Government. The Financial Secretary spoke of reviews past and reviews yet to come, but there is a real lack of proper assessment and understanding of the impact this has already had in the public sector and there is a need to understand how this will work fully when it comes to the private sector. Further, the House of Lords Committee points out that shifting responsibility on to business for a scheme that is not fit for purpose is the Government and HMRC ducking a degree of responsibility.

I want to raise this with the Minister because we, and many in the industry, have concerns about the future of contracting because we do not know what the impact will be. As I have said, this ongoing uncertainty has led to people not having their contracts renewed. A deferral for a year gives the Government and HMRC some time, but they must use it wisely. Although some research has been carried out already, other people have looked at this and the industry understands what they need and what the norm is in their sectors, the outcome is still very unclear. The Government have said that they will use this year, but can the Financial Secretary say when that review will be completed and when it will actually be available for people to see and reflect on? Coming to this in nine months’ time will be too late for lots of people to make those changes; it needs to be much sooner than that. If the Government can say categorically that it will be six months, that is different—it provides a bit more time—but I am not quite convinced yet that the Government know what they want from this and what they are going to achieve.

Overwhelmingly, we are concerned about employment rights. I have seen from my casework, as we all have, people who are uncertain about what they are able to do, what their rights are, and what they are obliged to do by their contracts and by their employers. I think the Government need to reflect carefully on the situation that many have ended up in during the period of coronavirus, when some people have very little at all on which to survive.

28/05/2020
David Davis – 2020 Speech on Finance

Below is the text of the speech made by David Davis, the Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2020.

In the light of the impact that coronavirus is having across all sectors of the economy, the Government have rightly committed, in the motion, to postponing the planned reforms to IR35, but only until next April. The effects of the pandemic are going to be felt for considerably longer than one year. On this basis, in April next year self-employed contractors will be hit with unnecessary costs, confusion and uncertainty, just as many of them are getting back on their feet after the coronavirus has wreaked havoc across the economy. It is the self-employed and small businesses that make up the beating heart of our economy, and they will power the recovery of our economy out of this crisis.

The IR35 rules, as the Minister said, have long applied to the public sector. This is about applying them across the private sector. In that light, they were studied by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee in a report referred to by the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The report stated that the rules

“have never worked satisfactorily, throughout the whole of their 20-year history. We therefore conclude that this framework is flawed.”

The report found a system riddled with unfairness and unintended consequences and called for a wide-scale independent review—not just a few research reports, Financial Secretary—focused on how the reforms would affect the wider labour market and the costs that would be forced on businesses. The Lords Committee said that IR35 had the effect of reducing contractors to

“an undesirable ‘halfway house’: they do not enjoy the rights that come with employment, yet they are considerably employees for tax purposes. In short, they are ‘zero-rights employees’”.

That is, zero-rights employees effectively created by the state.

The Lords recommended that the Government adopt the Taylor review proposals, which we as a Government promised to do years ago, as they offer the best long-term alternative solution to the off-payroll rules and provide an opportunity to consider tax, rights and risk together, as they should be. Despite what the Financial Secretary said, however, the Treasury has neither the time nor the capacity for a wholesale review right now. Therefore, the only sensible course of action is to pause these reforms and take the time to properly review the impact they will have on the self-employed. So, I will vote for this motion today, if we have the opportunity, but only in the expectation that will be back here in nine months’ time to do all this again.

28/05/2020
Dan Carden – 2020 Speech on Finance

Below is the text of the speech made by Dan Carden, the Shadow Minister for Finance, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2020.

I am delighted to contribute to this debate as shadow Financial Secretary. May I start by acknowledging the significant interest and the strong feelings of people across the country on this issue? We are considering a technical change to our tax system, reforming compliance on IR35 rules for the private sector, but for many people watching us, there is genuine concern that this technical change—this attempt to strengthen the system against tax avoidance—may affect their incomes and their livelihoods. I and the Labour party approach this matter with the seriousness and the consideration that it merits.

The ambition of IR35 rules and the associated difficulties have been a long-running saga over three decades, and it is a near impossible task to do the issue justice in the five minutes I have to contribute today.

Provisions were introduced by the last Labour Government in 2000 for HMRC to investigate and identify the relationship between businesses and contractors and to ensure that, where individuals actually perform the role of employees, they were contracted as such, to pay the correct tax and benefit from the correct employment protections, two issues that remain at the heart of the difficulty around IR35.

The nature of today’s economy, with the weakening of workers’ rights and employment protections and with zero-hours contracts, demands a radical overhaul. We need a progressive tax system, and we need to rebalance the relationship between those at the top and those at the bottom. In the meantime, what we have are piecemeal attempts to stop some, perhaps the more blatant, tax avoidance arrangements utilised by some companies. The challenge for tax authorities and for us is to understand, and differentiate between, fair and correct contractual relationships for the genuinely self-employed who are providing a crucial service to business and those who are all too often forced into bogus self-employment by unscrupulous employers, a practice that has become all too common and is designed to cheat the tax system and to deprive working people of their rights and even their entitlement to a minimum wage and fair pay. HMRC estimates such bogus self-employment schemes cost around £3 billion a year in lost tax revenue, and the February 2020 Treasury review put the cost of non-compliance with IR35 at £1.3 billion a year by 2023-24.

Having taken effect in the public sector in April 2017, these measures were initially meant to be rolled out to the private sector last month, but that is being delayed by a year due to the current pandemic, and the Labour party broadly supports the decision to delay. We have raised concerns about the implementation of this reform and have called for a proper and thorough review before the roll-out to the private sector, and, as the Financial Secretary recognised, the additional time now available gives him an opportunity to get to grips with these concerns, but we do need reform.

The Labour party is committed to modernising the law around employment status, including new statutory definitions of employment status, and the Government’s own Taylor review was right to conclude that the nature of the tax system acts as an incentive for practices such as bogus claiming of self-employed status, both by businesses and individuals. It called on the Government to make the taxation of labour more consistent across employment forms while at the same time improving the rights and entitlements of self-employed people. I would also add—as we consider these changes in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic that has forced 2 million people on to universal credit and millions to rely on the Government’s furlough scheme, unsure of their future—that we need a social security system fit for the modern era that can protect all of our people in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet.

I would just like to finish with a few points that I hope the Financial Secretary can respond to when he winds up. Can he explain how reforms will only affect people working like employees through a company, and does he agree that there can be no space in our economy for zero rights employment? Will he respond to concerns most recently set out by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee that lessons have not been learned from the roll-out to the public sector, and will he look again at serious problems highlighted with the “check employment status for tax” online tool?

We need a joined-up approach in the consideration of tax regulations and employment law. We need better protections for the self-employed, and we need to tackle tax avoidance, and the Labour party will work constructively to achieve that end.

28/05/2020
Jesse Norman – 2020 Statement on Finance

Below is the text of the statement made by Jesse Norman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2020.

I beg to move,

That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision taking effect in a future year may be made amending Chapters 8 and 10 of Part 2 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

This ways and means motion enables the Government to amend the current Finance Bill in order to implement reforms to the existing off-payroll working rules. We are presenting it separately because we wanted to extend the date at which it comes into force by one year to April 2021 in recognition of the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. The off-payroll working rules have been in place for 20 years. They are designed to ensure that people working like employees but through their own companies pay broadly the same income tax and national insurance contributions as people who are directly employed.

In April 2017, the Government reformed the way in which the rules operate in the public sector by transferring the responsibility for determining whether the rules apply from individual contractors to the public bodies that engage them. Unfortunately, in the private sector, non-compliance with these rules remains widespread, and it is forecast to cost the Exchequer over £1.3 billion a year by 2023-24 if not addressed. This is not a sustainable position. It costs the taxpayer a great deal of revenue that is needed for our public services, it perpetuates an unfairness between individuals working in the same way but paying different levels of tax, and it prolongs the disparity with the public sector, where the rules have been in place now for three years.

At Budget 2018, the Government announced that the reform would be extended to medium and large-sized organisations in the private and voluntary sectors, but it would not apply to engagements with the 1.5 million smallest businesses. It is important to be clear that this is not a new tax. The off-payroll working rules have been on the statute book since 2000. This reform is focused on improving on improving compliance with the rules that are already in place.

Let me turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) the hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I understand that it will not be moved today, but it is important to be clear about the Government’s position on it. To help businesses and individuals deal with the economic impacts of the coronavirus, on 17 March the Government announced that the reform to the off-payroll working rules would be delayed by one year from 6 April 2020 until 6 April 2021. The amendment would delay the introduction of reform by a further two years to April 2023, but it is hard to see any genuine rationale for this further delay.

The current measure was first introduced at Budget 2018. Since then, the Government have carried out two consultations on the detail of the reform. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has worked extensively to support businesses in preparing for the change. Draft legislation and guidance has been published. There was a further review earlier this year that resulted in several additional improvements. By delaying until 2021, the Government have already ensured that businesses and contractors will not need to make final preparations for this reform until next year. There is therefore no need for further delay. Moreover, such a delay would have very significant drawbacks. It would not address the intrinsic unfairness of taxing two people differently for the same work, it would extend the disparity between the private and public sectors, and it would come at a significant fiscal cost that other taxpayers up and down the country would have to make up.

I turn now to the substance of the measure. I want to address a number of further concerns that have been pressed by colleagues, including, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) and for Watford (Dean Russell). The first of these is that organisations will no longer engage with personal service companies as a result of this reform, reducing the number of contracts available in the labour market. It is important to recognise that the Government are fully aware of the importance of the flexibility for individuals and businesses to agree working arrangements that suit their needs. We know that that has been one of the pillars of the success of the UK labour market in recent years.

In 2017, soon after the implementation of the public sector off-payroll working reform, the Government commissioned independent research to assess its effect on the labour market. It found that the Government and independent researchers had not seen any evidence of an overall change in the demand for the services and skills of contractors.

Some organisations have clearly decided to change the balance of their employees and their contractors. That can be for many reasons—for example, where that better suits the evolving business model of that organisation—but many organisations will still choose to engage contractors using personal service companies where that is appropriate to their business.

Nevertheless, the Government remain keen to ensure the long-term flexibility and success of the labour market. We will therefore use the additional time given by this one-year delay to commission further independent and robust research into the long-term effects of the 2017 reform on the public sector. We want that research to be available before the reform comes into effect in other sectors in April 2021, and I can tell the House that the Government will give careful consideration to the results of that further research and thereafter will continue to monitor the effect of the reform on the labour markets of those sectors, including by commissioning independent research six months after this private and voluntary sector reform has taken effect.

Secondly, colleagues have concerns that organisations might take a blanket approach to status determinations, categorising all engagements as employment, regardless of the facts. The Government have been very clear that determinations must be based on an individual’s contractual terms and actual working arrangements. Many businesses and public sector organisations have described processes that they have put in place to ensure that determinations are correct, based on the actual working practices of the individuals concerned. There is a vigorous contractor lobby, which has also shown itself willing and able to highlight cases where it feels that the rules are not being followed. The reforms themselves include a client-led status disagreement process, where contractors can lodge a complaint if they disagree with how they have been categorised.

Thirdly, HMRC is continuing to help businesses to get their employment status determinations right by ensuring that they have access to a wide programme of education and support. The independent research that we are announcing post-implementation next year will also evaluate from an external perspective whether decisions are being made properly.

Finally, HMRC has committed to a light-touch approach to penalties in the first year of the reform and has stated in terms that the reform will not result in new compliance checks being opened into previous tax years unless there is reason to suppose or suspect fraud or criminal behaviour, and the same is true for penalties for inaccuracies.

The Government very much value the important role that contractors play in the labour market and want businesses to be able to design their workforces in a way that makes sense for them. That should not mean, however, that contractors pay less tax than employees where their engagement meets the test of an employment relationship. The legislation is designed to remedy that unfairness and to support the tax base needed to fund our public services, and I commend it to the House.

28/05/2020
Rishi Sunak – 2020 Statement on the Covid-19 Economic Package

Below is the text of the statement made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 12 May 2020.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your warm wishes.

This Government’s plan is one of the most comprehensive anywhere in the world. We have provided billions of pounds of cash grants, tax cuts and loans for over 1 million businesses, tens of billions of pounds of deferred taxes, income protection for millions of the self-employed, and a strengthened safety net to protect millions of our most vulnerable people. These schemes speak to my and this Conservative Government’s values. We believe in the dignity of work, and we are doing everything we can to protect people currently unable to work.

Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our plan for the next phase of the public health response, and today I can confirm the next stage of our job retention scheme. This scheme has been a world-leading economic intervention, supporting livelihoods and protecting futures. Seven and a half million jobs have been furloughed—jobs we could have lost if we had not acted—and nearly 1 million businesses supported who could have closed shop for good.

As we reopen the economy, we will need to support people back to work. We will do so in a measured way. I can announce today that the job retention scheme will be extended for four months, until the end of October. By that point, we will have provided eight months of support to British people and businesses. Until the end of July, there will be no changes whatsoever, from August to October the scheme will continue for all sectors and regions of the UK, but with greater flexibility to support the transition back to work. Employers currently using the scheme will be able to bring furloughed employees back part-time. We will ask employers to start sharing with the Government the cost of paying people’s salaries.

Full details will follow by the end of May, but I want to assure people today of one thing that will not change: workers will, through the combined efforts of the Government and employers, continue to receive the same level of overall support as they do now, at 80% of their current salary, up to £2,500 a month.

I am extending the scheme because I will not give up on the people who rely on it. Our message today is simple. We stood behind Britain’s workers and businesses as we came into this crisis and we will stand behind them as we come through the other side.

16/05/2020
Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Bounce-Back Loans Scheme

Below is the text of the statement made by Alok Sharma, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2020.

I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the details of the new bounce-back loans scheme (BBLS).

The bounce-back loans scheme was launched on 4 May, and is facilitated by the Government owned British Business Bank and delivered through its delivery partners. Lenders offer term loans of between £2,000 and £50,000 to support small businesses that are affected by the coronavirus outbreak.

The scheme is available on a temporary basis for an initial period of six months and can be extended as required. The key parameters of the scheme are as follows:

BBLS will provide term loans only for a term of six years, with businesses able to access loans equivalent to 25 per cent of their turnover from £2,000 up to a maximum loan size of £50,000. The interest rate will be standardised across all lenders and fixed at 2.5 per cent. There will be no fees for borrowers to access the scheme.

The percentage of net (post-recovery) losses for each loan that is guaranteed by the Government will be 100 per cent, with no cap on gross Government liability at the level of the lender’s whole BBLS portfolio. Personal guarantees are not permitted, although some personal assets could be claimed as part of recovery from sole traders. Sole traders’ principal private residence and vehicle may never be claimed as part of recovery.

A Government grant, “the business interruption payment”, will be provided for the benefit of businesses, equal to the interest incurred on the facility for the first twelve months. Businesses will not be required to make any repayments on capital during the first twelve months of the facility.

The Government will be subject to a new contingent liability as a result of the bounce back loans scheme, and I will be laying a Departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.

For more information on this and other support for business, please go to https://www.businesssupport.gov.uk/.

14/05/2020
Fiona Hyslop – 2020 Statement on Covid-19

Below is the text of the speech made by Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture, in the Scottish Parliament on 21 April 2020.

The Covid-19 public health crisis has led extremely quickly to an economic crisis that is global in nature but also local, impacting on many people and businesses in Scotland. To combat the spread of the virus, many businesses have already closed and we face an enormous challenge in helping other businesses to survive, to provide jobs and to service the economy.

I thank all businesses and their workers for following the social distancing guidance, the essential sectors and supply chains for continuing to keep the country running and those companies that have repurposed to manufacture supplies for the health sector.

We estimate that up to 70 per cent of the workforce is still working, with many people delivering health, care and welfare services, and many others working from home, often combining that with childcare and home schooling. By staying home, they are playing their part in tackling the virus. They are helping to protect the health service and to save lives.

As Covid-19 continues to have a significant impact across the world, there is major uncertainty in financial markets, supply chains and the functioning of the global economy as many countries, including Scotland, have had to reduce economic activity to stop the spread of the virus. The latest surveys for Scotland show a similar pattern to other countries, with falls in business activity in March that are even sharper than during the financial crisis. The chief economist’s “State of the Economy” report, which was published today, projects that Scotland’s gross domestic product will fall by a third during the period of social distancing.

It is important, however, to put the economic impacts in context. This is no normal downturn and we need to view economic data and projections in that light, recognising that productive and profitable businesses across Scotland have been required to pause activity to support the public health effort.

We have pursued three main aims for the economic response to date: to keep companies in business and with productive capacity so that they can recover; to keep staff in employment with appropriate income protection and support; and, most important, to provide support to staff so that they can self-isolate and care for loved ones.

It is in everyone’s interest to help companies through this turbulent period. The United Kingdom Government has the immediate fiscal and macroeconomic powers to respond to the economic crisis and it has made substantial and welcome commitments to support businesses and employees. However, those commitments do not fully meet the needs of Scottish businesses. There are still significant gaps in both the job retention scheme and the support for the self-employed. Last week, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, I wrote to the chancellor, outlining the changes that need to be made. I am also pressing the UK Government to urgently share data on the implementation of support schemes so that we are better able to tailor our support to businesses.

To address Scotland’s specific needs, we announced additional funding to fill some gaps in the UK Government’s schemes. There is no doubt that we will be dealing with the uncertainty of the impacts and duration of the virus for some time. I engage regularly with businesses, business organisations and the unions and I have been building consensus in recent weeks in support of our four-step economic plan: response, reset, restart and recover.

Initially, we have focused the majority of our efforts on the response stage. Our package of business support is now worth more than £2.2 billion: it is delivering almost £900 million-worth of rates relief and we continue to work with local authorities to progress our £1.3 billion business grants scheme. Support for the fishing industry of up to £22.5 million was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity has agreed further measures of support for the bus industry of £92 million, for ferry operators of £45.7 million and for rail franchisees of £254 million. We continue to work closely with the UK Government and Oil & Gas UK to assess what more can be done to support the oil and gas sector during its immediate and longer-term challenges.

The Minister for Trade, Investment and Innovation has been working on procuring international and domestic supplies for the health service. On Saturday, 10 million masks arrived at Prestwick airport, and during this week 100,000 litres of sanitiser will arrive at the national health service’s central distribution warehouse. Our enterprise organisations have provided advice and support to over 178,000 companies.

The additional £100 million that we allocated last week will be a vital lifeline for Scottish individuals and businesses to relieve hardship and protect the newly self-employed, who are ineligible for other support, and viable micro, small and medium-sized enterprises that are in distress and might be ineligible for UK Government sources of funding or not yet in receipt of the funds that they need to survive. The grant funding will be channelled through local authorities and enterprise agencies. The scheme will open for applications by the end of April and recipients will receive funds in early May. The provisional allocation will see £34 million for the newly self-employed, £20 million for creative, tourism and hospitality companies that are not in receipt of business rates relief and £45 million for firms that are vulnerable but vital to Scotland’s local and national economic foundations.

The recently self-employed, who are excluded from the UK’s scheme but still suffering hardship, will be able to receive £2,000 grants. For creative, tourism and hospitality companies that have up to 50 employees, there will be easy access to £3,000 hardship grants or larger grants of up to £25,000 where it can be demonstrated that that amount is needed. Support and grants for pivotal SME enterprises will depend on the specific need of each enterprise, and will be developed by the relevant enterprise agency with wraparound support.

I also recognise the challenges that are faced by the cultural sector, which is so reliant on social interaction in theatres, music venues, galleries and festivals. For artists who are facing hardship, I was pleased to announce, yesterday, that an additional £1 million will be given to Creative Scotland’s bridging bursary fund.

Because of our decisions, thousands more businesses, including some that are in vital sectors of the economy, will benefit from support that is not available elsewhere in the UK. However, there will still be gaps, so we continue to engage with businesses on a regular basis to understand their needs and press the UK Government to deliver for them.

The reset phase that we are now entering involves preparation to know what a safe restart will look like sector-by-sector across the economy and what needs to be done to help businesses deliver that. Together with industry sector leads and trade unions, we are developing sector-by-sector guidance to give assurance and confidence as closed businesses—at some point—reopen and restart economic activity. However, that will happen only when scientific and health advice supports it. As an example of the work that is being done, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning and the construction leadership forum have formed a cross-industry group to address the wider issues that are needed to get the industry started again following lockdown. During the coming months, our plan for economic restart and recovery will need to be managed in a safe and orderly way.

Public sector spending on infrastructure accounts for around 50 per cent of all construction activity across Scotland. Therefore, our infrastructure investment will play a vital role in how we reset, restart and recover the economy. So far, only essential construction activity continues in the sectors that are delivering critical national infrastructure—such as primary healthcare, energy, telecommunications, transport and water. Those networks and systems are vital to our ability to keep our country moving and sustain as much economic activity as possible in the current crisis. As we all know, our digital infrastructure has proved to be an essential lifeline for people, businesses and services across Scotland.

The restart might be phased. A slower but more effective restart will reduce the danger of a second wave of the virus, and will avoid a false restart for the economy, which would require further closures. Recovery will not be quick and the post-crisis world will be very different, with different business practices, markets and behaviours.

Last week, I announced the establishment of an advisory group on economic recovery. I am sure that members will agree that independent expert advice is more important than ever. The group will be steered by Benny Higgins and will include Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli. The challenge that I have set for the group is to engage, analyse and listen to those who are affected by the crisis, and to bring forward solutions to enable our economy to recover quicker and better.

Mr Higgins will lead engagement with the business community alongside the enterprise organisations. I am pleased that Lord Smith of Kelvin, who is the chair of Scottish Enterprise, has agreed to be part of the process of gathering the views on the business aspects of the economic response.

We will go wider, with active engagement with trades unions, local government, third sector and environmental representatives, because how the economy recovers is relevant to everyone.

I am setting a demanding timetable: proposals to Government are due by the end of June. The proposals will be taken forward alongside a range of other sources of expert policy advice as we implement the Government’s agenda to build a wellbeing economy and ensure a green recovery. The advisory group will also draw on input from the Council of Economic Advisers.

I can announce further members of the advisory group: Dame Sue Bruce, Professor Anna Vignoles, Professor Dieter Helm, Grahame Smith and Professor John Kay.

The Scottish Government recognises the significant impact that the response to Covid-19 is having on Scotland’s economy, businesses and people. We are doing everything that we can to mitigate that impact, respond to the crisis and reset as much economic activity as we can. At the same time, we are planning ahead to restart the economy and, in due course, to support economic recovery.

23/04/2020