Clive Lewis
MP for Norwich South · Labour · United Kingdom
“I do not know whether I am alone in this, but I am hearing the shadow Secretary of State glibly throw away 80 years of legislation on human rights—human rights that were forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of concentration camps, of the horrors of fascism.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for his speech. Maybe I can answer his question. Perhaps it is because of a nostalgia for an Israel that no longer exists—an Israel that made the desert bloom.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent speech. There are lots of things about AI and its impact that we do not know. But one of the things that history teaches us is that if vast amounts of power and wealth are handed to a handful of individuals, corporations or even the Chinese Communist party—this is not just about corporati…”
“coli from raw sewage, and why thousands of our constituents are made sick every year. When public anger saw the Government ban bonuses, water execs raised their salaries and rebranded the payouts “retention payments” and that comes on top of the £78 billion to shareholders and £60 billion borrowed, our bills up 40%, and 30p in every pound…”
“I thank the Minister both for her response and for putting up with me—I am a bit of a broken record on this issue. We are all well aware that water is essential to life itself—to food, industry, nature, housing, energy, and now even the data centres powering the supposed AI revolution—and yet we have handed a monopoly where no competition…”
“South East Water is one of a number of privatised water companies that are responsible for selling off 35 reservoirs since 2017, and those companies have not built a single one since privatisation that is complete.”
The complete record
Every one of 606 lines we hold for Clive Lewis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“Good morning, Mrs Moon. As the Minister outlined, the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012, which came into force on 6 April 2013, introduced a new scheme to enable charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style top-up payment on small cash donations of up to £20 in circumstances in which it is not practical or feasible to obtain a gift aid declaration. The draft order will increase to £30 the maximum individual small charitable donation on which such payments can be claimed. My understanding is that eligible charities and CASCs can claim top-up payments up to £8,000 for small donations each year. As hon. Members are probably aware, the gift aid small donations scheme was established in 2012 with cross-party support.”
“We will probably abstain, but may I pick up the point the hon. Gentleman is making? It is easy to assume that all charities are charitable in their nature and how they operate, but clearly there are some with the potential not to do what they say on the tin. According to the Lloyds Bank Foundation, “the proliferation of larger public service contracts meant that new types of charity had emerged, which had little interest in meeting local community need, but were instead ‘driven by market share’ and ‘prepared to slash costs to win contracts, with little regard to service quality.’” We also know that there can be fraud and that charities can be used as a front for it. Our position is simply that there needs to be transparency.”
“I reject the Minister’s mantra that the cuts and their consequences are inevitable and unavoidable. I urge the House to do the same.”
“Here we can see all the elements of that approach in one disturbing example: never-ending austerity and cuts to every public service, forcing them into permanent retreat; the attacks on those public services and public servants, and the creeping privatisation of their functions for corporate profit; the burden of taxation and priority for spending gradually shifting in favour of the more affluent and against the poorest; and the driving down of terms and conditions and pay for ordinary workers to save money for their employers—all at the expense of the public good. We have seen it before and we have seen it elsewhere, of course, but even in the 1980s Thatcher did not touch the police. Under this Government, no public service is safe. Unfortunately, the consequences are that the public are less safe. I will not stand by and watch.”
“How long can it be before this becomes a path to the full privatisation of entire roles that are currently the responsibility of the police? Perhaps the Minister could answer that in his summing up. The next step will inevitably be either an erosion of the status of the police, no doubt including their pay and conditions as public sector workers, or a slow shrinking of their role, downgrading it one function at a time. This is the first move of its kind in the country, but I fear it will not be the last. Responsibility lies squarely with the Government, not just in their political choices but in the ideology that underlies them.”
“Not only will it mean that there is no job security or guarantees for those employees, but our local police force will be hugely vulnerable to employees simply saying, “No thanks,” when they are called to ask for help. They are not and cannot be expected to be obligated to be there at every beck and call if they are not going to be given the respect of a real working contract that works in their interest. In reality, where does this leave our police force? Who will be responsible if there is nobody to cover the vital role of protecting a crime scene? Who will be liable if a crime scene is breached, a witness lost, or any other eventuality where a civilian contractor is responsible? How do we avoid the risk that an ever-expanding casual civilian workforce is an easy target for criminal exploitation, infiltration or corruption?”
“According to the job advertisement, the main activities of the role include “preserving crime scene integrity” and dealing with “enquiries from public and media”. Guards will also be expected to perform duties such as running the scene log and recording details of any witnesses who come forward. Criteria such as “experience of working with confidential and sensitive information…dealing with confrontation” and “working in a police environment or similar” were listed as desirable but not essential skills for applicants. As the chairman of the Norfolk Police Federation stated: “with austerity, standing at a cordon is a luxury we cannot afford.” These employees will save the force money, of course, but as we have warned the Government time and again, policing on the cheap will only put public safety at risk.”
“Norfolk constabulary will be left with a cut in cash terms, never mind real terms. As is so often the case with the Government, they offer you a penny with one hand, while the other is in your pocket taking a pound. Today, I want to reveal the latest twist in this tale of cuts and underfunding. As I told the House earlier, Norfolk constabulary has already taken the unprecedented decision to entirely abolish police and community support officers. At the time, both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), the shadow police Minister, warned that that set a dangerous precedent. Now, we have discovered the next step. The constabulary has advertised for civilians, on £10 an hour and zero-hours contracts, to fulfil the role of guarding crime scenes. It describes the role as an “alternative reserve style model”.”
“Unsolved crimes stand at an almost unthinkable 2 million cases. Police and Home Office violent crime figures show that Norfolk has experienced the largest four-year surge in knife and gun crime anywhere in the country. That is topped off by serious crime being predicted to increase by up to 29%. The Home Secretary, in presenting this statement, was looking to position himself as the man to clear up this mess, but he has voted for every single police cut since 2010. He is as much responsible for the crisis in Norfolk as the Prime Minister. It is a consequence of their political choices. The Minister will no doubt claim that this year Norfolk will get an extra £3.2 million from central Government, but that will be totally wiped out by the £3.4 million cost of pension contributions imposed by the Treasury.”
“It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Norfolk constabulary has been forced to endure eight consecutive years of inadequate funding settlements, adding up to £40 million in cuts by 2020. In that time, more than 100 officers have been lost from our streets, all of our PCSOs have been abolished—we are the first force in the country to do that—10 police stations have been shut and the last one open in Norwich does not even open for a full week. This has left Norfolk with one of the lowest per capita number of police in the country. The consequences in our area and nationwide have been stark. Never since records began has police-recorded violent crime been as high as it is today. Never since records began has knife crime been as high as it is today. Arrests have halved in a decade.”
“A while ago, like many Members, I was lobbied by staff and students in further education who told me that they and their institutions were at breaking point. At 16, the average further education student receives £1,500 less than the average student aged under 16. When will the Government understand that this investment in our communities needs to happen, and it needs to happen now?”
“I hope the Minister will be able to offer a satisfactory answer to the questions I have raised. Clearly a serious injustice was faced by policyholders at Equitable Life, which has been the source of much discussion, inquiry and debate over many years, yet those affected do not feel that this has been resolved adequately. The Government have looked at this matter before, and I hope they will resolve to look at it again and begin a full and proper process of consultation with the campaign. Ultimately, people’s savings are in question, lost through no fault or wrongdoing of their own but a combination of factors outside their control. I look forward to the Minister’s response.”
“Lastly, while I have discussed the position of Equitable Life policyholders throughout my speech, there is also the question of the regulatory environment now. We have to ensure that lessons have been learned, so that such an awful case can never happen again. The regulatory frameworks that operate in this country must be continually stress-tested and reviewed. Regulatory organisations need the appropriate resources to ensure that proper regulation occurs. We have to consider that 100 or 150 people are looking at 200 insurance companies. What protections have the Government put in place to guarantee that similar regulatory failures cannot happen again? That seems an important consideration, not only to reflect on the past and seek justice for those affected, but to ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.”
“Given that the Government have accepted that there were regulatory failures and offered some compensation already, they may be open to further discussions, to respond to the clear dissatisfaction that so many policyholders feel about how this matter was resolved. I hope the Minister will give a clearer sense of the Government’s willingness to look again at this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) raised the important matter of policyholders’ data. The campaign is anxious that the necessary data is retained, to ensure that policyholders can be identified were there to be a change in Government policy. The campaign has hoped for reassurance from the Minister, and perhaps we will have that today.”
“The Minister has been asked to consider carefully whether the Government should make different decisions or choices today, with the benefit of hindsight. After all, regardless of how fault is distributed among the institutions involved, these policyholders have found themselves significantly out of pocket, through no wrongdoing of their own. Many Members from across the House, including colleagues from the shadow Front Bench, as well as the leader of the Labour party, have met the campaign to listen to its concerns and the full details of the case. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he has met the campaign, and whether he might consider doing so in the days following this debate, to hear its case directly.”
“This leaves a significant disparity in the losses faced and compensation awarded that so far has not been adequately explained or addressed by the Government. Instead, the Chadwick report of July 2010 concluded that relative loss should be defined as “those who have suffered financial loss”, but pointed out that the ombudsman recognised that losses in policy values were only partly due to maladministration, and that the backdrop to cuts in policy values was a sharp fall in world stock markets that all life insurance companies were forced to respond to. Similarly, the report argued that compensation should be assessed on the cost of maladministration as opposed to the size of investor losses. However, we are politicians, and we can revisit decisions and choices.”
“In 2009, the Government apologised and appointed an independent adviser, Sir John Chadwick, to provide guidance on how to determine and resolve various technical issues. During this time, both the European Parliament and the Public Administration Committee had published sympathetic independent reports. It is worth noting that in 2010, the Conservative party manifesto, as many Members have mentioned, included a commitment to making “fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders”. All this culminated in a payment worth £1.5 billion in compensation to policyholders. As we have heard, the Equitable Members Action Group campaigners remain unsatisfied with this response, arguing that their losses amounted to more than £4 billion.”
“Following the society’s collapse, the Government of the day set up the independent Penrose inquiry, which raised serious questions about the practices that had been happening at Equitable Life. This decade of mismanagement, combined with maladministration, was a major contributor to the society’s collapse. As we have heard, the Penrose inquiry was followed by an ombudsman report in 2008 that found that this mismanagement had corresponded with “a decade of regulatory failure”. This included an inadequate response to the chief executive’s appointment; inadequacy of advice by the Government Actuary’s Department; and poor transparency on the part of other Departments, including the Treasury.”
“Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) explained how it has affected people across a wide swathe of society—nurses, doctors, teachers and civil servants. Hon. Members have spoken of the despair and distress that this failure and collapse has caused to so many of our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East described it as one of the greatest financial scandals of the modern age. I hope that the Minister has heard the clear and unambiguous views of many Members from across the Chamber. As has been set out, this issue stretches all the way back to 2000, when Equitable Life Assurance Society closed to new business and was forced to acknowledge that it could not deliver for its policyholders, leaving up to 1 million people out of pocket through no fault of their own.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate, which has been thoughtful and considered. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) have persisted to ensure that this important issue remains high on the political agenda over the years. They have worked tirelessly and they should be commended by this House. The hon. Member for Harrow East set out the situation clearly, and it is a very unsettling picture. Hon. Members have spoken of the debt of honour and of the erosion of trust in this House that we face for failing to rectify this injustice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that she herself has been affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, highlighting the sheer scale of the impact this issue has had across the country. My hon.”
“They slashed solar subsidies, with 9,000 job losses; and fracking has been announced, put forward and is now actually happening, and not just in this country—they are also doing it in China, with taxpayers’ money. The climate science tells us that we need to leave that gas in the ground—80% of it—and that this cannot happen. In the words of that legend of Norwich, Delia Smith, I say to those on the Government Benches, “Let’s be ’avin’ you.” Let us have that general election. Let us have that vote. Support this motion.””
“On mental health, after the Prime Minister personally promised to improve that Cinderella service, Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust has been put into special measures again—that makes three times in four years, which is a first for any trust in the country. In this day and age, real-terms funding is down by 13% but demand is up by 50%. Let me deal with an issue that the House and, in particular, the Government have failed to adequately address: the impending climate catastrophe and biodiversity loss. Above all else, given the timescales we are talking about, this is a calamity waiting to happen, but the Government are comprehensively failing on it. Time after time, we hear the greenwash from Conservative Members that they will do what it takes on the environment.”
“Because Norfolk County Council says that the Government’s cuts are forcing that to happen. It was a day of complete shame in my city. Without a hint of irony, the Government, while closing down our children’s centres, have declared Norwich an opportunity area as they attempt to improve failing social mobility. It is a policy akin to attempting to fill up a bath with no plug. In education, schools face real-terms funding cuts. In The Guardian today Norfolk County Council, in the media again, is under fire from the local government ombudsman for failing to address concerns and look after children with special educational needs.”
“Some Conservative Members have been calling into question the motivations of the Opposition in calling this no-confidence vote. Let us be clear that yesterday’s vote was not just a defeat but a complete and utter rout. Some Members have talked about historical parallels, but if yesterday’s vote had been a battle, it would compare with the battle of Cannae, in which Hannibal annihilated the Roman army. It was a textbook defeat, just like last night was a textbook example of arrogance and hubris in government. Last night’s vote aside, let me run through the myriad reasons why the Opposition and I have no confidence in the Government. In-work poverty is at 4 million people, and homelessness is soaring. Yesterday, we learned in Norwich and Norfolk that 38 of our 53 children’s centres are being closed. Why?”
“Let us consider the challenges that this country and our children will face in the coming century, such as climate change, the loss of biodiversity, rampant inequality, threats to our democracy, and undreamed of technological changes. Surely it is nothing less than criminal to pursue policies that will cut the social and educational tools that people will need to navigate their way through those coming challenges.”
“Given that those centres already provide outreach, as well as helping people who come into the centre, how can we expect them to provide the same level of support when funding has been decimated? It is well known that for every £1 invested in early intervention and in places such as children’s centres, the state saves £13 further down the line. Children’s centres plug the gaps left by other services that have already been cut. People in my city do not want their children’s centres to be shut. It is beyond doubt that closing so many centres will cause great harm to parents and children in Norfolk, and there was a bitter irony in Tory county councillors citing cuts by their own Government as the reason for those closures. They may try to pass the buck, but the blame rests with them both.”
“Between 2011 and 2019 Norfolk County Council made £364 million of cuts. Over the same period, the council had to absorb additional costs of £386 million. Despite facing huge cuts under the previous coalition Government, between 2013 and 2016 the Labour-led administration at County Hall managed to keep every children’s centre open and protect the budget of £10 million a year. Tories at Norfolk County Council now want to halve the budget for children’s centres to £5 million a year. Local Conservatives are trying to con us by stating that they can make such a cut and close most of our children’s centres but still provide a good service, and they justify the closures by saying that replacement services will get to the people who need them via outreach.”
“At a Norwich children’s centre I heard from a mum how, following a difficult and traumatic birth, support from the centre protected her mental health. Another parent who had fled domestic violence told me that her centre was a safe place to go when she needed it most. No one judged her and she was able to get specialist help safely and quickly to protect her children. I also spoke with a mother who had a learning disability and epilepsy. She told me how the outreach provided by her centre before her child’s birth gave her the skills and confidence to join the ante-natal class. She said, “It made me feel normal, like the other mums, like I fitted in. I made friends”. Where are they expected to go if their local centres close? What is the future for their children if the centres are shut? A long, complex path has led to where we are today.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for securing this debate on an issue that affects communities and constituencies across the country. The latest stark example of what we are talking about is the plan by Conservative-led Norfolk County Council to close 38 out of 53 children’s centres, including three out of five in my constituency. At the same time, without a hint of irony, the Government have designated Norwich an opportunity area, to increase social mobility. I politely advise the Minister that trying to improve social mobility while targeting early years provision for such cuts is a bit like trying to fill a bath without a plug—an impossible, Sisyphean task. There is no doubt that the proposals will hurt some of the most vulnerable people in the city.”
“Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have given any consideration to such steps given their potential interrelationship with total quantities of landfill waste? Sweden also allows people to claim back from income tax 30% annually—up to 50,000 Swedish kroner, or some £5,000 per person—of the labour cost of repairs to white goods appliances such as fridges, ovens, dishwashers and washing machines, as well as purchases of data and IT services, and of some social activities such as babysitting, household cleaning and gardening. Will the Minister explain why the Government have not taken similarly innovative steps to tackle throwaway consumption and boost the market for repair and reuse, enhance the economy through the jobs and small businesses that go with it, and enhance social living?”
“Similarly, amendment 131 requires the Chancellor to review and publish the analysis of and any findings on the impact of the clause on our ability to meet the EU-mandated target of recycling 50% of our waste by 2020. As the Minister is aware, our low recycling target is unambitious by comparison with that of our northern European neighbours such as Sweden, which has developed highly effective closed-loop resource, recycling and reuse systems for a number of household waste items. Those more successful countries have achieved that change in significant part through tax changes, such as the decision to cut VAT on repairing bicycles, clothes, household linen, leather goods and shoes from 25% to 12%.”
“Will the Minister confirm that those are indeed objectives of public policy and expand on how he believes that landfill tax and the changes contained in the clause will contribute to achieving them? What is the evidential basis for the Government’s belief that they will do so? In that vein, the amendment simply requires the Chancellor to review the anticipated impact of the measure on revenue and to publish it for scrutiny. Will the Minister explain precisely why the Government assume no impact at all on revenue given that tax increases on goods and services invariably lead to increases in successful avoidance by some taxpayers? What kind of modelling and analysis has been conducted internally? Has expert opinion been taken? Was there any consultation or was a broad assumption made without detailed consideration behind it?”
“Will the Minister explain why the measure is being introduced without such basic information being available to him, let alone the Committee? If such data are available, why have they not been published alongside the Bill with the accompanying Budget documents? That is especially so given that those types of assessment would surely guide any reasonable adjustment to the tax rates in order first to ensure the most beneficial outcomes for the environment and the Exchequer; secondly to accelerate the roll-out of a functioning, closed-loop, circular resource economy in the UK; and thirdly to do the most we can to stop the illegal dumping of wastes that have such an adverse impact on local communities and environments.”
“As has become something of a theme in our debates today, a number of assessments seem to be lacking: the market and revenue impacts of the clause, its effect on recycling rates and meeting Government targets, its impact on UK waste exports and the amount sent to landfill, the costs of tax collection, its environmental impact, and its impact on the behaviour of waste disposal operators. Labour Members find it remarkable that the Government should seek to adjust such an important levy on all forms of waste—it is one of the few fiscal tools in the Government’s policy bag to encourage recycling and reuse rates, and to dampen waste streams—without apparently carrying out any assessments in the first instance.”
“That change was announced in the autumn 2017 Budget and follows the pattern of increasing duty rates in line with inflation, which applied for both 2017 and 2018. In the 2018 Budget, the Government announced that duty rates will be increased in the same way for 2020. The measure, although it widens the differential between the lower and the standard rates of the tax, is estimated by the Government to have no overall impact on Exchequer revenue, but we are concerned about a number of points to which I will draw the Minister’s attention.”
“I am not quite sure how I have displeased the shadow Chancellor so that I have to do yet another speech, this time on rubbish—or landfill—but it has fallen to me. I will speak to our amendments to clause 64, and I hope the Minister can answer some of the questions on it. As will become clear, we have some serious doubts about the clause as it stands, which I will explain in greater detail. It might be that the Minister resists our amendments, but in any event I hope he will have some answers to the serious questions we have. As the Minister will no doubt outline, the clause sets the rates of landfill tax for 2019-20, increasing the standard and the lower rates in line with RPI rounded to the nearest 5p. The Exchequer impact is estimated to be nil.”
“That being the case, in the absence of significant assurances from the Minister, we will struggle to support the clause as it stands. However, I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to provide us both with those assurances and some answers to the questions that we have posed. I look forward to his response.”
“Will the Minister tell us how he means to address the very serious concerns of the Environmental Industries Commission and its members about the growing gap between the lower rate and the higher rate of this tax? The existing gap is already causing significant problems in the industry, with some operators presenting for the lower rate inert waste that actually contains asbestos fibres and therefore should be subject to the higher rate. How does the Minister intend to address that imbalance? In the EIC’s view, which is shared by Labour and a number of prominent environmental and countryside non-governmental organisations, the gap should be closed and not made wider, so that the tax acts as a deterrent to illegal waste disposal of all types and so benefits the public purse and society at large in significant environmental ways.”
“I thank the hon. Lady—her point is taken on board. Such a beneficial undertaking would help both businesses and households to reduce drastically their waste streams and so cut their work-related and living costs. It would also go a very long way to helping the UK to meet its energy and greenhouse gas emission targets on the way to becoming a zero-waste, zero-carbon economy. As well as securing existing jobs and helping to create many new ones in the reuse, repair and recycling sectors, adopting the amendments that we are calling for would undoubtedly help to protect urban, suburban and natural environments where illegal waste dumping continues.”
“I will withdraw amendment 130, and will not press amendments 132, 133 and 135, but will press the remaining amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 131, in clause 64, page 45, line 22, at end insert— “(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effect of the changes made by this section to section 42 of the Finance Act 1996 on the UK’s ability to meet the Waste Framework Directive target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”.— (Clive Lewis.) This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of Clause 64 on the UK’s ability to meet the target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020.”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for her timely and useful interventions, which shed light on this issue. Waste management is often the poor relation when it comes to policy making. It is not sexy, but it is critical. We have spoken about the environment and climate change today. Scientists say that it is entirely possible that we could save ourselves from climate change and its effects, only to destroy ourselves by breaching other planetary boundaries. Recycling and waste management are critical, if we are really to reap the benefits of improved recycling and technological processes that ensure we use resources as efficiently as possible. As we move through the 21st century, and population increases, that will become critical.”
“Secondly, I hope he can clarify that that applies to any additional revenue raised by the two clauses before us. If he can give us an expected amount, will he indicate how that will be allocated?”
“When I represented the Opposition in February this year on the Delegated Legislation Committee implementing the levy, I pressed the Minister, and he assured us that “regardless of how much is raised, the Government remain committed to funding the Department for Education with the £1 billion that we originally expected, and providing the devolved Administrations with the full amount that we promised at the time.” He went on to say: “Every penny of England’s share of the spending raised by the levy will go towards improving children’s health”.—[ Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 7 February 2018; c. 3.] Perhaps he can confirm today whether that remains the case, and that the Government are not counting the £350 million that was cut from the healthy pupils fund towards the latter commitment.”
“As a constituency MP, I know just how desperate schools in Norwich South are for funding. Schools have had to fire teaching assistants because of the budget constraints they find themselves in, and that money could have been very useful to them in helping our children and their educational attainment. I also know the impact that austerity has had on the health of our children.”
“A ring-fenced sum was put aside for the healthy pupils capital fund, which would fund schools to create facilities for better physical and mental health, or for disability access. At the time that was announced by the then Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), the Government “pledged to ensure that the amount schools receive will not fall below £415 million regardless of the funds generated by the levy.” That solemn pledge, still available on the Department for Education website, did not last the year. Instead, the fund was cut by more than three quarters, to just £100 million for the year, when the Government desperately tried to plug their own gap in the main schools’ budget for one year only, by raiding the money that was meant to be ring-fenced for children’s health.”
“I must confess that my knowledge of the Manx soft drinks industry is sadly limited, so perhaps the Minister can give us a sense of its scale and tell us whether there is a revenue impact. I would hazard a guess that it is likely that our import and export of soft drinks to and from the Isle of Man are not of identical value, but perhaps he can confirm that to the Committee either way. Before I conclude, I want to return to the point about the overall revenue impacts of the two clauses in the context of the soft drinks industry levy. This is important, because when the levy was created, it was linked directly to investment in projects that would improve the health of our children.”
“First, the Manx SDIL is described in the Government’s accompanying notes as “modelled” on the UK version. Can the Minister clarify what that means? Is it identical or are there significant differences? The rates are presumably the same, but are there any variations in design? Have the Manx Government made any improvements in the structure or implementation, from which we could learn? Are we confident that they will be able to enforce the levy in a consistent way that does not create any incentives for producers to relocate from one jurisdiction to the other? In the meantime, can the Minister assure us that we are not missing out on revenue that should be owed, due to failures of collection and enforcement at the point of import? Does he have any figures on the total revenue raised from charges on imported soft drinks from the Isle of Man?”
“The Isle of Man, however, is introducing Manx SDIL from the next tax year, which is equivalent. As the UK and Manx Governments have now agreed, in principle, to treat soft drinks that have been levy-paid in the one as being levy-paid in the other, and to share revenue, administration and enforcement of the respective levies, I understand from the Minister that the Government’s view is that those arrangements are, in effect, being superseded. The levy will therefore be treated as a common duty under the 1979 Act, with a commencement date to coincide with the introduction of the levy in the Isle of Man—in other words, at the start of the next tax year in April 2019. The Opposition have no objection to those arrangements, but I would ask the Minister to clarify a few points—before we lose the light completely.”
“Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the impact of different dates might be, and what consideration the Treasury has given to that in its assumptions and planning? Clause 67 is designed to facilitate the movement between the UK and Isle of Man of soft drinks on which the industry levy has been paid, without that being designated as an import or export respectively for the purposes of the levy. It also adds the levy, and the Manx equivalent proposed by the Isle of Man Government, to the list of common duties in the Isle of Man Act 1979. After the introduction of the levy in April, eligible soft drinks that were brought into the UK from the Isle of Man were chargeable under section 33 of the Finance Act 2017, and those removed from the UK can attract an export credit.”
“Indeed, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what the due dates are for quarterly returns over the next year, what returns are required at the end of the financial year, and whether this measure applies to those or simply to returns at the end of each quarter. Of course, the Minister is not responsible for the allocation of parliamentary time, so he may not be able to predict when Royal Assent is likely. When it comes to this Government, things are, to put it mildly, a bit unpredictable. Given the apparent trouble with their supply and confidence agreement, in which confidence seems to be somewhat lacking, the passage even of the Finance Bill may be a bit choppy when we go back downstairs to the main Chamber. [Interruption.] I apologise if I am keeping the Government Whip awake.”