Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you all for coming. I will aim my question at Mr Alton, but everyone can probably have a go. Mr Alton, you mentioned 15,000 potential closures, and Mr Lord just said 9,000 in Q1 next year. There was also a figure of, on average, 15 employees per pub. That brings us up to about a quarter of a million potential job losses, which will be across the board—not just full-time jobs, but part-time jobs, holiday jobs and starter jobs. It will have a huge impact. Has the sector, or have you, modelled where those are likely to fall, when they are likely to come and how they might be mitigated? Ultimately, what can be done to prevent those losses or to help those people move into other businesses across hospitality? Steve Alton: Some of that is already happening. Some people are already trimming their staff numbers down anyway to try to get ahead of this, so they have some degree of resilience. The real frustration is the reverse of what you just said: we pride ourselves on being the place that takes people in. We have some amazing charities in our sector that bring in people who are facing homelessness. We have placed over 600 of those individuals into hospitality, put our arms around them and given them a platform. They have already progressed to phenomenal levels of achievement within our sector. That is what is at risk. Equally, the part-timers are under scrutiny right now, because they are triggering a premium payment for the employer. Some of those individuals absolutely depend on that fixed-hours role, because it is the only thing that they can fit in versus their demands, whether childcare or others. It is heartbreaking to see some of those individuals already starting to lose hours and ultimately jobs, but that will come, in a way. That is just direct employment; we have to think about the supply chain as well. When you are looking at the multipliers and the real impact, I ask you to consider that foundational economic place that pubs prop up. Where are all the tendrils that go out into the community—all those connected jobs, from the butchers to the cleaners, the window cleaners and everything in between, that are sometimes hidden? Every job lost in a pub will be connected to multiple jobs in that community that are dependent on the demand that that pub drives. Again, the situation is deeply frustrating, because we know that the Government passionately want to get people back into work, and we are the answer to that. Right now, however, they are unfortunately limiting the potential of our sector to help with that issue. Kate Nicholls: When you look at the job losses in our sector, it is very difficult to strip out and identify the difference between the business rate changes that we are talking about versus the changes in NI. Steve is absolutely right that, for somebody on the minimum wage or just above at 20 hours a week, the effective increase in the employer’s tax on those jobs is 75%. That is where you will see hours cut and jobs reduced as a result of that change. You cannot just dissociate the two. That is why it is very difficult to model this and answer your question specifically about where we will see business failures versus job losses. Clearly, we are looking at—

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Was a job analysis done in the scope of the Bill? Jim McMahon: Those witnesses were very positive about its impact. Lots of other changes will be coming through the system. We still have to do the revaluation. We still have, through the next fiscal programme, to talk about the rates. That type of analysis will be done at a later stage. To be clear, although there was a lot of context about the operating environment being challenging—there is only so much you can do within months of coming into office—on the small business rate issue and on retail, hospitality and leisure, every witness said that the Bill will play a part in supporting local businesses to be more sustainable in the future. The other issues are well outside of the scope of the Bill.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It could have a positive impact on jobs, but we do not know because we have not had an analysis. Jim McMahon: If we are giving a tax relief to retail, hospitality and leisure for almost all community operators, convenience stores, pubs and other businesses, and we are doing the same for town centres, city centres and high streets, then the answer is self-evident: it will be a positive outcome.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. Jim McMahon: In the scope of the Bill, this is the much-needed relief that retail, hospitality and leisure need. Every one of the witnesses who came to talk about the impact of it, within the scope of the Bill, were—

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is very brief, and is relevant to what Mr Lenon said about margins being tight. Is there a figure for the average margin that one of your schools would expect? How might that be affected by the changes to the business rate relief? David Woodgate: The benchmark is 10% net surplus on gross fees. We had many schools drop down to 5% to break even, and they are now going into deficit in order to meet the quadruple whammy—if I can put it that way.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning, Mr Watson. What impact do you see the changes to the multipliers having on the number of appeals that are coming through the business rate system? Do you think the appeals are more or less likely than at the moment to have a grounding or a basis? Will they clog up the system? What is your position on that? Gary Watson: I do not see that particularly. The question of appeals is interesting. To pick up on one point on appeals, the thing that we are going to find, if we focus on retail and hospitality, is that at the moment if someone does not receive one of those reliefs from a local authority, the only way they can challenge it is by way of judicial review, which is a very high barrier to meet. What we are finding is that some councils will interpret it and give it, and some councils will interpret it and not give it. What you will find once the Bill goes through is that those challenges will move from judicial review into the magistrates court. If a council chooses not to give a relief, the challenge would be against a liability order application. I think what you will find is that you will get more cases being challenged at a liability order hearing, because however you draft a provision that says, “These people will definitely get it, these people won’t, and these people are subject to whatever,” those challenges will move into a magistrates court. You can argue about whether that is the right place to have those challenges. The institute’s view for a long time has been that having all disputes on business rate, whether it be liability, occupation or mandatory—these reliefs—in the magistrates court is probably not the best place for them. The best place for those is probably in the valuation tribunal where the valuation disputes for business rate goes. All the council tax disputes go to the tribunal, but business rate disputes do not. The revaluation will obviously be the trigger for how many appeals come in, and my valuers have given me a heads up on the areas that will see big increases at the next revaluation. But when you are looking at appeals and you focus on the retail, hospitality and leisure, those challenges will come into the magistrates court. The weakness of that is also that the only way you can challenge it is to refuse to pay the rate to get a summons to go into court and argue to a magistrate. Case law is good because it builds the rating system, but I feel that that might be something to keep an eye on going forward. I think that there will be a lot more appeals against the billing authority’s decision, whereas at the moment they are not challenged through judicial review, because it is a very high barrier to change. The ratepayer could turn around to say, “Well, that council is giving it to me, but that one is not—can you really go to judicial review?” and the challenge would probably be sensible. In my understanding, we have not seen any since those discretions came in.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I understand that James Lowman, the chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, has written to the Chancellor following the Budget, and he described how 2025 will be a bleak year for small convenience stores, as they face over £666 million of additional cost. Will the Bill’s changes to the multipliers of domestic rates make a dent in that? Overall, will your convenience stores benefit from the Budget or be disadvantaged by it? How do those two things fit together? Edward Woodall: You are right that our estimation of the cost of the Budget was £666 million, and we wrote to the Treasury to set that out. As I said, I think the Bill provides more structure and permanency in the support for retail, hospitality and leisure relief. I cannot comment on how much it will do, because I do not yet know where the multipliers will be set, but I think there is an opportunity to make the investment environment for businesses better with this Bill. We are not just looking at one single relief; we are looking at it over a period of time and we have the opportunity to discuss how that multiplier is set. One way in which the Bill could facilitate that better is through the procedure for the setting of the lower multiplier, which is currently by negative resolution in the Bill documents. That might want to move to an affirmative resolution so that we can have a debate on whether it goes up or down in the future, so that we can have a closer discussion on those things.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister believe that oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that, which is why it is so important that we protect the jobs and the investment. The companies in our supply chain have the skills and expertise that will drive the transition, as will the investment that comes in, and that is why we need to keep them.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We were saying a moment ago how extraordinary it is that they are not here to stand up for their main industry. That shows how much they value or care about jobs across Scotland. We are seeing warning signs already of the impact of these measures. Just a week after the Budget, Apache confirmed that it would cease operations in the North sea, saying: “The onerous financial impact of the EPL, combined with the substantial investment that will be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, makes production of hydrocarbons beyond 2029 uneconomic.” According to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 jobs may be at risk across the UK because of the changes. Offshore Energies UK says that 35,000 jobs directly related to projects that may not now go ahead are at risk. New clause 3, which would allow the Government the opportunity to assess and account for the impact of the Bill’s changes on jobs relating to the oil and gas sector, the supply chain and the wider economy, should be welcomed across the Committee.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly. There must be a balance between production and demand—I will come to demand later. There is no point reducing our domestic production while our demand stays the same, because we will only fill the gap with oil and gas from abroad, which is produced with a higher carbon intensity in poorer working environments, where overseas jobs and investment will take precedence over investment at home. It makes no sense that while we are using oil and gas—the Minister himself confirmed that we will be for a while—we do not prioritise taking it from our own North sea domestic basins. New clause 3 also asks for a review on capital expenditure and investment in the UK. In Scotland alone, oil and gas contributed £19 billion of gross standard volume. In the UK, it contributed £27 billion. A 2022 report by Experian showed that for every £1 million of investment by the oil and gas industry, 14 jobs and £2.1 million of GVA are added. This industry is blatantly a net benefit to the UK and the Exchequer, and one in which we should encourage investment and capital expenditure, not an environment where the returns do not justify the risk of investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the OBR’s own figures show that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, and therefore production of oil by 6.3% and gas by 9.2%, because of these changes. We must ask, can the UK afford this? Maybe those were the parameters that the Exchequer and the Treasury are looking for, if they see them as allowable. But if that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact on the economy and jobs across the UK? The OEUK has put the projected drop in production down to a rapid decline due to underinvestment over the decade. Under new clause 3, we can assess the impact of the changes to the EPL and head this off to begin with because, as I said, it is important that while we have demand, we have production. It has been confirmed that we will need oil and gas in the UK for years to come, but through the changes to the EPL in the Bill, in particular clauses 15 and 16, which increase the EPL by 3% and remove the investment allowances, the Government are choosing to make our homegrown domestic energy sector so uncompetitive that current investment falls away and future investment is no longer on the cards. We cannot afford to lose investment because, as I said, it will drive the transition. It is so important that it is protected now, to help us bring the transition forward quickly and efficiently into the future. Clauses 15 to 18 were introduced without adequate consultation on the impact assessment. New clause 3 simply asks for proper scrutiny of their impact. If the Government are confident in their approach, why resist a responsible request for transparency? My Gordon and Buchan constituents, and people in Scotland working in the oil and gas sector and across the UK, deserve to understand how these changes will impact their livelihoods.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to clauses 15 to 18 briefly, but mainly to new clause 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). It would require the Chancellor to publish within three months a review of the expected changes introduced by the Bill on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand and the economy. It is inherently sensible, and considers the importance of the oil and gas sector to regional and national employment and economic growth in the UK. On the need to review the impact on employment, 82% of direct jobs in the oil and gas sector are located in Scotland. My Gordon and Buchan constituency is at the heart of that. New clause 3 would review the impact of the changes to employment across the country, as it is not just direct jobs that are on the line but supply chain and other indirect jobs. Of those, 90,000 are in Scotland and 200,00 are across the UK.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  How much of that profit was made in the UK versus globally?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. At what point does she believe we will be fully reliant on renewables?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; sometimes there is a complete disconnect in this place between how much we can tax and squeeze something dry and what that does to investment. These companies, especially the global ones, do not have to invest in the UK—they can invest across the world. They are choosing to invest here at the moment, and therefore we get jobs, opportunities and employment. That investment can go abroad, and if it does, it will take jobs with it, to the detriment of all of us, but particularly us in north-east Scotland.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She says it is clear who is on the side of working people versus the companies. My constituents are the people working in the oil and gas sector. They are the ones most at risk of losing their jobs if the changes brought in through the EPL go wrong. I am on the side of working people, and I am on the side of my constituents. No matter what MPs across the House say, I will always fight for my working people in Gordon and Buchan who just happen to be working people in the oil and gas sector.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is not about a presumption of finding fault, but about ensuring that the proposals work correctly? It is so important that the regulator and the regulatory role work perfectly so that the Bill can be implemented in the way that is expected.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, reservation of benefits applies when an asset that is still being used is passed on under the seven-year rule. Is he suggesting that a farmer who has been on their farm for their whole life should move out of their farmhouse, get off the land and pay market rate rent? Where will they get that money from, given that, as we know, farm profits are so small?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Before the Budget, the hon. Member will remember attending a Westminster Hall debate that I organised specifically on agricultural property relief and business property relief. Will he agree that the Conservatives have not jumped on that since the Budget? We have been speaking about it for a very long time.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. He has mentioned claims for agricultural property relief and business property relief, but what about claims for business property relief alone? Have they been included in his figures?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. The CAAV calls the £3 million figure “unrealistic” and “unreasonable”. Does he not agree?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Management of Public Finances · Hansard source

  More

  The Treasury consistently insists that only 500 farms a year will be impacted by the family farm tax. However, the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers calculates that the real number will be five times higher and will include many farms in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. Who is right: the Treasury or the experts?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As the Member for Gordon and Buchan, I represent a constituency that plays a key role in Scotland’s fishing industry. The strategic transport corridors of the A90, the A947 and the A96, which run through my constituency, are crucial arteries on which our fishing industry relies for its distribution network. Those vital links connect our coastal fishing communities to processors and markets across the UK and Europe. I will touch on three crucial issues: the vital role that fishing plays in our food security, the increasing spatial squeeze in our waters, and the TCA. Fish and fishing are part of our national food security. It should go without saying, but it is so important that the industry is not overlooked. The 2021 UK food security report stated that fish constitutes a valuable protein source, accounting for nearly 20% of the total animal protein consumed globally. With the consumption of fish going up in recent decades, both globally and in the UK, the figure will only increase. Our fishing grounds—we are seeing something similar with our farmland—are becoming ever more crowded, with increased pressure for space and with competing and often incompatible uses of the marine environment leading to spatial squeeze. About 37% of the seas around Scotland are now in one of the 240 offshore or inshore marine protected areas. The industry also has to be mindful of the “Will they, won’t they?” potential for highly protected marine areas. Coupled with the expansion of offshore renewable energy, such as wind, tidal and wave, that means that the space for fishing in our offshores is shrinking faster than ever. Fishing is currently excluded from about a third of Scottish waters. Back in the year 2000, the figure was only 1%, so we can see the scale and pace of change. Yes, we need renewable energy and we need to protect the marine environment—important sites such as Forvie in my constituency show that—but we also need proper consultation on how the fishing industry may be increasingly impacted. Generations of expertise relating to fishing, spawning grounds and species movement must be considered when other decisions are taken. The incoming competing pressures in our seas must not be prioritised over fishing or to the detriment of the fishing industry. The current balance does not feel equitable, despite the value of fishing in producing healthy, sustainable and low-carbon food, contributing to our food security and supporting thousands of coastal jobs around the country. As has been said, the upcoming discussions on the trade and co-operation agreement post 2026 are crucial and of real concern to the industry. There is a clear imbalance off our shores, with EU vessels catching in our waters six times the value of fish that we catch in theirs. That imbalance affects not only boats at sea, but the entire supply chain, including businesses and workers in my Gordon and Buchan constituency who form part of the north-east’s fishing industry network. That imbalance needs addressing in the TCA review, and the review offers an opportunity to do so, but the Government must prioritise our fishing sector and not grant EU vessels inequitable access to UK waters as part of a wider deal with the EU. The rhetoric of resetting relationships must not come at the expense of our fishing sector or our coastal communities. It is so vital that the Government prioritise the TCA. There was silence on it in Labour’s manifesto, and that cannot be replicated here.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member, and I certainly hope that that is the case. It is important that these negotiations go well, and it is important that our fishing communities are helped and represented. As I was going to say, money that is spent in the fishing environment has an economic impact onshore that is 2.5 to 3.5 times greater. It is important for everyone across the country, including our fishing communities, that this is handled correctly. I hope the Minister will address the concerns about how we manage the growing spatial squeeze that is felt by our fleet. There must be a proper assessment of the impact on supply chains and distribution networks. The strategy for the 2026 negotiations will be really important, given that they are starting so soon. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) paid tribute to those working at sea, and I want to pay tribute to the RNLI crews. It is a charity close to my heart. Its brave crews risk their lives to save lives at sea; they do us all a service, and they do us proud.