Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am not sure that last fact is absolutely correct. The level of VAT we have at the moment I think is the right one for the country and I certainly would not advocate any further increases. The right measures for small businesses are the reductions in business rates that we have put in place, which I would hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome. The fundamental review of business rates that we are now undertaking is an opportunity for every Member of this House, and small business across the country, to make the argument on how they want this outdated and outmoded system to be reformed.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

9. What recent steps he has taken to reduce tax avoidance.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

We set out the next set of steps in our plan to tackle tax avoidance in the autumn statement last week. We are introducing a new diverted profits tax from 1 April 2015 using a 25% rate to counter the use of aggressive tax planning techniques used by multinational enterprises to divert profits from the UK. We are also strengthening the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—regime, coupled with a further suite of measures that build on the work we have already done to tackle marketed tax avoidance such as accelerated payments of disputed tax in avoidance cases.

[Stephen McPartland]

My constituents work hard and pay their taxes and rightly expect other people and businesses to do the same. Does the Minister agree that the autumn statement last week showed that it is Government Members who are serious about delivering fairer taxes for all?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. As a Government, we believe in competitive taxes but we also believe in a system in which people and businesses pay those taxes.

Taxation of Pensions Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helpfully reminding the House of that important point. It is a significant achievement of the Government that we have been able to undertake such a fundamental reform—perhaps the biggest for nearly 100 years—in this area. Our record compares favourably with that of our predecessor. Of course, the Bill is part of a wider set of Government reforms, including the single-tier pension, the rolling out of auto-enrolment and the triple-lock guarantee.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Gauke]

The floodgates have opened.

[Stephen McPartland]

How many people will benefit from this pensions revolution?

[Mr Gauke]

Some 320,000 people retire each year with defined contribution schemes, and those people will now have far more choice. Of course, people who are saving for their pensions will know that at the end of their working life, or at various points after the age of 55, they will have more flexibility with regard to their pension pot.

I am grateful for the interesting debates that we have had during the Bill’s passage through the House and I would like to reflect briefly on how it has changed since its introduction. The Government's recently tabled amendment regarding how individuals inform schemes if the £10,000 annual allowance applies to them will provide that people only need to tell schemes to which they are contributing, or contribute to in the future, when they access a pension flexibly. They will also have an extended time period of 91 days in which to do so. These changes will make the new system easier for individuals and schemes to comply with, while ensuring that the annual allowance is implemented effectively.

The Government have made a number of minor and technical amendments to the Bill to ensure that it works as intended. The most substantive changes have been to the taxation of pensions at death, to ensure that that taxation remains fair and appropriate under the new system. The changes will allow individuals who die with pension funds remaining to pass those funds on to anyone they choose. The funds can be paid tax-free if the individual dies before the age of 75; if they die having reached that age, and the funds are paid out as a pension, they will be taxed at the beneficiary’s marginal rate—or at 45%, if the funds are paid as a lump sum. The aim of the changes is to ensure that individuals who have made sacrifices to save over the course of their life can pass on their pension savings without worrying about excessive tax charges after they die. They also preserve the incentive for people to keep money in their pension, as there will not be the fear of their beneficiaries being hit by a 55% tax charge.

Members may be interested to note that today, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that the changes will extend to annuities. Death benefit payments from joint life and guaranteed term annuities will also be tax-free when the policyholder dies before the age of 75; such death benefits can be paid to any beneficiary. That will also apply when an individual uses uncrystallised or draw-down funds inherited from someone who dies before the age of 75 to buy a dependant’s annuity. Those changes will be legislated for in due course, although not through this Bill. In conclusion, the Bill is important. It will increase choice at retirement for individuals who have saved all their lives. It contains measures to prevent individuals from using the new flexibilities to gain unintended tax consequences, and ensures that the tax treatment of pensions on death remains fair.

Finally, I thank hon. Members who participated in debates on the Bill, both in the Chamber and in Committee. In particular, I would like to mention the diligence of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who has, I think, accounted for significantly more than 50% of the time taken to scrutinise the Bill. As I said, the Bill increases choice for the 320,000 people retiring each year, and I commend it to the House.

Consumer Rights Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to speak to new clause 22 about letting agents’ charges. When the Communities and Local Government Committee did a report on the private rented sector last year, we had more evidence and more complaints about letting agents’ charges than almost anything else. That was reflected by the OFT, which said that complaints to Consumer Direct about letting agents were almost all about fees and charges. It is not just that there is one fee up front for a tenancy agreement; there are also the charges for inventories and for credit checks, and people enter into a viewing not knowing what the ultimate charge will be. It is a charge they have to find up front as a prospective tenant, at the same time as they are trying to find the deposit, and often these are people on very low incomes.

The process gets repeated to a degree every time people renew their tenancy after six months or 12 months, and that militates against having longer term contracts. Agents see this as an incentive not to let longer term contracts because short-term contracts mean renewals and more fees for them. I have described letting agents as being a bit like football agents as they make their money out of transfers and renewals of contracts. We ought to be extremely wary of that.

Shelter said the average size of a fee to a tenant was £355. The Foxtons website gives its fees as £420 to a tenant to create a contract, £96 to renew it and £150 for an inventory check. Such charges are replicated by most letting agents.

The Committee responded that there should be absolute transparency of fees up front when a property is advertised and it must be clear what the totality of charges to tenants will be and there should be no double charging. If there is transparency, it will be harder for a letting agent to charge a tenant and a landlord for the same thing, which happens at present.

We want these changes to be put in a mandatory code of practice, but the Government have not agreed to do that. On transparency, all that has happened is the Advertising Standards Authority has given a ruling saying the fees that are compulsory should be shown up front as part of the price quoted. However, when we go on websites like that of Foxtons, we see those fees are in very small print, so, in practice, letting agents are going through the motions when it comes to the ASA ruling, but they are not sticking to the spirit of it.

We did not recommend a complete abolition of fees to tenants. What we said was that it has been done in Scotland and that we should review the Scottish experience. The Committee will come back in the autumn and look at the Scottish experience and consider whether banning charges to tenants means higher rents. If so, there is a question as to whether tenants favour paying a bit more in rent rather than having a massive fee up front. The Committee will also look at the fact that the contract is with the landlord, not the tenant. We will take further evidence on those matters in the autumn.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I wish to speak briefly to new clauses 18 to 21. I was a member of the Public Bill Committee and we had a long debate about ticket touts and the secondary ticketing market. I think there is cross-party support on this, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for the work they have done as chairs of the all-party group on ticket abuse of which I am proud to be a member. The report that has been produced is excellent and is close to my heart as Knebworth, which is in my constituency, is the largest outdoor music venue in the UK. I am therefore very keen to ensure that we eradicate ticket touting for all events. Having cross-party support to eradicate ticket touting is very welcome, and we need to push that forward.

In Committee I referred to an organisation called Twickets. It takes a photograph of the ticket in question and places it on its Twitter feed and it can then sell that ticket for the face value or less. That is the only way in which that ticket can be sold. That provides a good opportunity for someone to sell a ticket at face value or less to a third party whom they do not know.

One thing that disturbed me in Committee, and one of the reasons why I cannot add my name to new clauses 18 to 21, is that botnets are buying up huge amounts of tickets from the online retailers, and 90% of tickets in the UK are currently sold online. So one huge problem facing us is how to stop these botnets buying up the tickets. Consumer behaviour is in many ways driving the problem, because consumers are prepared to pay almost any price and so they accept the market; they pay the price and that allows ticket touts to flourish. We need to focus on how we can remove ticket touts from the UK and how we eradicate them as much as we can.

Consumer Rights Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I will come on to whether the voice of the consumer is strong enough with the regulators. That is the sort of issue a regulator could consider, because not all people access services in the same way.

With that in mind—I am conscious of time—I will press on to the final question that we will set for the Bill in Committee, which concerns whether it has a clear enough framework for when things go wrong. We know that absence of enforcement gives an advantage to firms that break the rules, whether in a local community or nationally. Consumers are getting a poor deal and providers are getting away with it because there is little accountability or likelihood of prosecution. Giving consumers a stronger voice in the regulation of goods and services would enable consideration of the consequences of the different way that services are managed among different groups in society.

Again, the Bill could have led on that and tackled the problem. The concept of an ombudsman is clear in principle, but confused in practice. There are at least 17 different ombudsman services including the Financial Ombudsman Service, the local government ombudsman, the housing ombudsman, the pensions ombudsman and the legal ombudsman, as well as the parliamentary ombudsman and the health service ombudsman. In addition, there are also 14 recognised complaints handling services, including the Advertising Standards Authority, the commissioner for young people, the Information Commissioner and the schools adjudicator. However, not all ombudsmen and adjudicators are the same. Some exist through European and UK statute, such as the housing ombudsman, but others have been set up by the industries as voluntary bodies.

Let me return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has sadly left the Chamber, about the furniture industry where we see such problems at first hand. The furniture ombudsman was set up as part of the Furniture Industry Research Association and is the only profit-making ombudsman service in this country. Some sectors have one ombudsman, but others have many. Businesses can pick and choose which they sign up to, further complicating matters for consumers. The lack of clarity about what an ombudsman could do and what powers it has is a problem for all consumers, and I say to the Secretary of State that tweeting about the issue or using social media is not the way to address it. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has been diligent in raising the case of Farepak consumers, which seems exactly the point at which a stronger and clearer ombudsman system would come into play.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am conscious of time and want to press on.

Women and the Cost of Living

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I will make some progress. There will be an additional 100,000 families who will eligible for child care support under universal credit. We have also ensured that our changes help the record number of women who have entered self-employment under this Government. That is a critical step. If women started businesses at the same rate as men, we could have an extra 1 million female entrepreneurs and a million more entrepreneurs, which would mean a million more people creating wealth, jobs and growth for our economy.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that things are very positive in my constituency of Stevenage? More than 30% of local start-ups are by women, which is something that we need to encourage further.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a critical point. The tax-free child care policy that we have announced will, for the first time, benefit self-employed women, and that is something that the current voucher system does not do.

In conclusion, it is clear that, despite some of the claims put forward by the Opposition, the Government’s plan for recovery is the only plan that will create sustainable long-term growth for our country. It is the only plan that will support employment. It is also the only plan that not only puts faith in the abilities of the women and men of this country to help us work our way back into prosperity, but puts money, through our rise in the personal allowance, back into their pockets. I, like the hon. Member for Ashfield, want to see even more women working, setting up businesses and rising to the top of businesses. The Government want to make that happen, so I ask the House to reject the motion before us.

Several hon. Members rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). He and I will have been the only two males who have made formal speeches in a debate on women and the cost of living, and I think Parliament should celebrate that.

Following every election there is an increase in the number of female Members of Parliament, and I think we should be positive about that as well. I am a natural optimist, and I always look for the positive aspects of events. Today I was rather saddened by Opposition Members’ attempts to create a Dickensian view of our present society, because that is not a view that I recognise. I understand that there are challenges to be faced, and I understand that some families are struggling, but I think that we take a step backwards when we try to create an issue between men and women, and between women and men. In my opinion, we should look after every member of society irrespective of gender, and extend the range of the equality laws that have been passed over the past few years.

The issue of women and work has been raised in the debate. This morning I had the pleasure of opening the Hertfordshire Business Expo at Knebworth house in Stevenage. A large number of local businesses were represented, and many of the stands were staffed by females. Moreover, many of the business owners were female. In my constituency, nearly 30% of new businesses are started up by females. That too is a positive development that should be celebrated, and we should see more of it.

I am interested in issues such as the employment of women in engineering, My constituency contains the headquarters of the Institution of Engineering Technology. Thousands of people are employed at Astrium, which builds 25% of the world’s telecommunications satellites, and at MBDA Systems, which builds complex weapons systems. Just under 4,000 are employed at GlaxoSmithKline, which develops pharmaceutical drugs, and whose research and development facility is the largest in Europe. We also have Fujitsu, and a range of other companies. However, 93% of the companies in my constituency have a turnover of less than £1 million, and many of them are led by females.

I am proud of the contribution that women make to my constituency and to society as a whole. I think that a suggestion that women are victims has been allowed to creep into today’s debate, but I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) that they are not victims—although of course domestic violence is an issue: I deplore it, would support 100% anything that could be done in my constituency and throughout the country to reduce it, and believe that it must be stamped out.

It is clear that young women often achieve more than boys at school, and that needs to be encouraged, but why is there a gap later on? Why do those young women not also achieve more in the workplace? Some Members on both sides of the House have tried to suggest that there is a structural issue, and that may well be the case, but I am never very interested in playing politics. What interests me is trying to resolve the issue that is in front of me, and trying to create an holistic society in which people can succeed. What interests me is aspiration. I want every young woman in my constituency who is at school or a college of further education, who is going off to university or who wants to set up a new business, to go out there and think “Yes, I can succeed.”

I accept that I am an optimist. When I was growing up I saw a poster in the 1992 election which read “What does the Conservative Party offer a working class kid from Brixton? They made him Prime Minister.” So I will maintain my approach. [Laughter.] I am not setting my stall out; I am merely saying that we need to aspire, and to encourage aspiration. We need to say “Whether you are male or female, if you think you are good enough and want to give it a go, then give it a go, and let’s see how far you get. If you fall down along the way, so what? We will try to help you get up again so that you can have another go.”

That, I think, is what the Government are doing. They are trying to help by increasing the personal tax allowance, cutting tax for 25 million people and taking 2.7 million out of tax altogether. I do not care which party does this, but I should like income tax thresholds to rise by as much as possible, because I believe that the best way of making it easier for people to deal with challenges involving their personal finances is to put money in their pockets and allow them to choose how to spend it, because they know what is important to them personally. I should like the threshold to rise to such an extent that no single person on the minimum wage need pay income tax. That would be a positive step for British society, and something I would wholeheartedly endorse.

There has been a lot of talk about what we are doing in terms of child care. Some 800,000 three and four-year-olds are benefiting from the 15 hours a week of child care we give them at present. That is fantastic, and from next September we will be expanding that to disadvantaged two-year-olds, which is wonderful. I sound a note of caution, however. I worry about primary schools having extended hours where a five or six-year-old is dropped off at school at 6 am, perhaps, and then collected at 8 pm. That is a very long day, especially for someone aged five, six or seven, and we need to think about the impact of that on the child and their family as they are growing up.

I celebrate the women in my constituency, just as I celebrate the men in my constituency. We need to do everything we can to ensure that everybody does their best. I stand here incredibly proud that when the unemployment figures came out last week they showed that unemployment in Stevenage is now down to 3.7%. I have more women who are employed than men who are employed in my constituency. Anybody who is unemployed is one person too many, and we need to do all we can to support everyone.

I want to celebrate the contribution that women, whether working or stay-at-home mothers, make to society, to my constituency and to the families up and down this country as they go out every single day. The reality is that they are all contributing in their own way and we should be proud of them and do everything we can to support them.

Finance Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

We have had hollow promises to kick-start the economy, hollow promises to get growth going, and hollow promises to balance the books in this Parliament. When the British people, right across the country, look at this Government’s record, they understand that this Government have failed to deliver, time and again.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there are some success stories? In my constituency, for example, the Government are giving almost £2 million for a purpose-built homeless shelter, which will serve a large part of Hertfordshire, and we have provided the funds to build the first council houses in Stevenage in 30 years. As for infrastructure, my local hospital redevelopment is part of a £150 million hospital rebuilding scheme, and a section of the A1M is being widened. It is not all as bad as the hon. Lady makes out.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure his constituents will appreciate the fact that he has raised the matter in the Chamber today. The people who make use of that homeless shelter no doubt welcome the fact that it is there for them but, with respect, that does not get away from the wider need to ensure that we have good quality, affordable housing right across the country. Although his constituents may be benefiting at present, sadly I see in the places that I visit and right across the country that there are areas where that level of investment is not happening. People are finding their living standards squeezed and they are finding it extremely difficult not only to balance their own household budgets, but to plan for the future.

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention leads me neatly on to the subject of house building, although I suspect that that is not what he intended to do. None the less, it gives me the opportunity to move seamlessly into that part of my speech. The Government have had four major housing launches in three years and they have made more than 300 announcements on housing. Some areas would have welcomed 300 houses, never mind 300 announcements. We know, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s comments, that house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s, and research by the House of Commons Library confirms that no peacetime Government since the 1920s have presided over fewer housing completions than this Government have in the past two years. So for all the launches and all the statements, are things going to get any better on this Government’s watch? That is a question that the Minister has to answer.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman’s true colours have come through in that way. He is clearly not going to support the move to reduce the retirement age to 60. He should, and I will tell him why. The key question was put by Lord Eatwell in the other place, who asked about the different treatment and whether the Government could justify it. He asked:

“In what way is it less onerous, when they”—

that is, the MOD firefighters—

“have to work on military establishments”—

as the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said—

“dealing on occasion with extremely dangerous materials, and occasionally also in war zones? How is their job less onerous?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 568.]

Unfortunately, my noble Friend did not receive a satisfactory answer to the question, so I repeat it now to the Minister: what reason is there for that different treatment? Do not Ministry of Defence police officers have to stay fit, remain physically alert and intervene in events of great physical danger? Do not Ministry of Defence firefighters have to be ready to run the gauntlet, endure the exertions of search and rescue in extreme circumstances, take intense risks, prove their stamina and make sure that they can rise to the most testing of circumstances? The arguments that justify excluding the police and fire and rescue workers from the link between state pension age and normal pension age apply equally to the MOD police and the MOD firefighters. Just because they are a tiny number of workers should not mean that Ministers can just turn a blind eye and ignore the issue. We cannot allow it to be swept under the carpet. There is no reason for the difference, and the Government have no justification for opposing the amendments.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

This is a difficult amendment owing to its emotive nature, with a small number of people feeling almost as though they have been victimised. If the Government reject the amendment, can the hon. Gentleman offer those workers some hope that if Labour formed a Government in 2015, it would do as the Lords amendments say?

[Chris Leslie]

I am amazed that hon. Members who are in government refuse to take responsibility for the offices that they hold and for the decisions that they have in their grasp. I said that it is important to admit that a mistake has been made for these 350-odd MOD firefighters and police. Why on earth cannot Members on the Government Benches say the same? [Interruption.] If the Minister wishes to correct me, I shall be delighted to hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

I agree entirely, as somebody who is facing his 60th birthday—it comes up like an express train. I was a care worker, and I would hate to think that I would still be caring for people at my age, and in the physical shape that I am in at the moment. I would guess that the people I would be caring for might share that view.

The Minister says that there will be negotiations and discussions, but if there is to be a serious discussion, a job evaluation scheme needs to be put in place to see who a worker should be compared with. So far, the people in question are being compared with other civil servants. Should somebody carrying backpacks and armour be compared with somebody working in an office? Of course not. They should be compared with people who are out there doing a similar job for a different organisation. That would lead to exactly the conclusion that John Hutton has now come to. That is why we should support the Lords amendments and the Minister should have the good grace to accept them. They would get him off the hook.

[Stephen McPartland]

The Lords amendments are great, and I would like to be able to accept them, but I have some concerns about them. Members of all parties are concerned about the emotive nature of the Bill’s effects on a small group of people. I would like to put it on record that I am proud of the public sector. Many members of my family work in it, and they show great commitment to the services in which they work on a day-to-day basis. Some of them risk their lives, and others almost risk their lives teaching very small children—I would much rather address the House than a classroom of 30 primary school children.

The work of Ministry of Defence police and firefighters is incredibly important, and it would be disingenuous of Members to try to identify whether the job of one set of police officers in the Home Office is more dangerous than that of another set in the Ministry of Defence. Some police officers in the Home Office do a great deal of work in difficult circumstances in some of our areas on a Friday and Saturday night, and some have jobs that are predominantly focused around the desk and paperwork. Those jobs are also very important in the attempt to reduce crime and provide police intelligence.

As I said, this is an emotive issue, and the real problem is the knee-jerk reaction that we are seeing on the Floor of the House to the attempt to resolve it. The shadow Minister said honestly that a mistake was made in 2007 that went through by ministerial order. There was no debate in the Chamber on the retirement age of the forces in question being raised from 60 to 65. I understand, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, that some people of a particular size, weight and age would not be the best at resolving the problems we have in some of our towns and cities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman is fortunate—as are we all—to have been elected by his constituents to make decisions, and what could be simpler than this? Essentially it is about whether all firefighters and police officers, whoever their technical employer, should be able to retire at 60. The hon. Gentleman is flannelling around trying to find reasons not to do that, but in his heart of hearts he thinks they should retire at 60—does he not?

[Stephen McPartland]

I genuinely believe that people should have the opportunity to make that decision and consult the Government and the trade unions. I do not want a broad-brush approach to this matter. It is not that I do not trust the shadow Minister, but he is trying to pull me into a political trap. I am not interested in politics in that sense; I am interested in representing my constituents and I do not want to accept an amendment that could technically make those fire and police officers worse off in the future. I would like to know far more about the details behind the amendment and what accepting it would mean.

The Minister mentioned a figure of around 8% that could be a reduction in net pay. If we accept such an amendment, and the mistake made by the previous Government in 2007 is reversed, I think we should negotiate with trade unions and fire and police officers so that we fully understand what its impact will be on their take-home salary at the end of each month, and how it will affect decisions in their careers and moving forward. I want everybody to have a fair opportunity, and as I have said, I am proud of the public sector and the work it does. Although the amendment seems fair, I do not feel that I can support it because of the broad-brush approach that could lead to MOD police officers and fire service personnel having a worse set of circumstances in a year or two, just so that party political points can be scored. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support the amendment, but I urge the Minister to provide us with more detail in his winding-up speech about how he will encourage the MOD to sit down with the unions and ensure that the pension age will not rise above 65, and that any decision on the pension age will be about 65 and downwards.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I wish to make a few brief points in support of Lords amendments 78 and 79, which seem eminently sensible and seek simply to bring the normal pension age for MOD police and defence fire and rescue personnel in line with arrangements for other fire and police personnel who do broadly similar jobs. As others have pointed out, when the amendments were first debated in the other place, Lord Hutton seems to have acknowledged that the omission of MOD police and firefighters from his original considerations was an oversight. I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks when he said:

“It is incumbent on us to address that issue and not to use the technical arguments as an excuse for not addressing this fundamental discrepancy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]

I support the Lords amendments because MOD police and firefighting officers need consistent treatment with other police and firefighters.

Lord Hutton’s conclusion in recommendation 14 of his report was by no means arbitrary. In recommending a normal pension age of 60 for uniformed services personnel, the Hutton report drew on a wide evidence base. It recognised that the nature of the job places intense physical demands on officers and requires them to maintain levels of health and fitness that are not necessary in other day-to-day jobs. That acknowledgment has underpinned the design of terms and conditions for police and firefighters for many years, and remains as pertinent and relevant as it ever was, even if the age at which those personnel will be eligible for retirement has shifted.

It is useful to remember that changing demographics and increases in life expectancy have underpinned the process of pension reform. However, although life expectancy has increased significantly in recent decades, the increase in healthy life expectancy has not kept pace. People are living longer, but they are more likely to live with debilitating health conditions or disabilities. I made general observations on that in earlier stages of the Bill, but it is particularly relevant to the uniformed services, because it is imperative that officers are physically capable of meeting the demands of the job. Hutton implicitly acknowledged that when he called for the increase in normal pension age for the uniformed services to be kept under regular review.

We must be realistic about the physical limitations of mere mortals. Hard physical work takes its toll on human bodies. It is clear that people who work in heavier, more demanding jobs suffer more physical strain as they get older. Like the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), I was struck by the briefing ahead of the debate from the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation, which set out in some detail not only the physical demands placed on defence fire and rescue personnel, but the risks to officers, which increase with age—they rise exponentially for officers aged 50 and over. We must be realistic about what we ask people to do. We should not do the sums on paper without thinking of the real cost.

We need to be careful when we talk about the monetary cost. The Minister relied on the argument that the measure will cost too much, but we need to be careful if we assume that the higher pension age will save us money. All hon. Members know that staff retiring on health grounds can be an expensive business. It is all the more expensive when the reasons for a person leaving their job are linked to their occupation. That is an extremely expensive way to do things. We need to look at both sides of the balance sheet before we jump to the conclusion that treating MOD police and firefighters differently from other police and firefighters will save us money.

At the end of the day, this comes down to the fact that MOD police and the defence fire and rescue officers are, to all intents and purposes, uniformed service personnel. They need to be fit and strong, and physically and mentally capable of carrying out their duties in an emergency. We need to recognise that and treat them in exactly the same way—as far as possible—as we treat other police and firefighters.

Another important part of the context is that morale in those services has been put under considerable strain in recent times owing to changes to terms and conditions and proposed reductions to services. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who intervened earlier, I have MOD police in my constituency—they look after the St Fergus gas terminal. I am therefore very much aware of the great uncertainty that has overshadowed the service because of MOD reviews. I am also aware that a proposed voluntary early release scheme, for which, I believe, 600 officers applied, has been subject to a rethink. I am glad that the MOD has recognised the folly of rushing in with ill-thought-through cuts, but officers who had applied for early release have been left in a kind of limbo. The service needs to ensure that younger officers come up through the ranks, but the uncertainties of the past few years have undermined morale and the good will of officers, who take substantial risks in their day-to-day working lives, and who we expect to be on the front line during any crisis.

That is why I do not have confidence in the solution set out by the Minister. I know that some of his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition have accepted it—if I had not seen officers being mucked about by the MOD’s prevarication over the early release scheme, I would have more confidence in the Government’s proposals. However, having witnessed that, and seeing that the issue is still unresolved, I really do not have that confidence. In that context, I would be keen to see the amendments go through as they are, and I urge Liberal Democrats to come through the Lobby and make their voices heard on behalf of their constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

It is customary to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, and in this case it is a great pleasure to have listened to the contribution from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He asked precise questions and reinforced some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) in order to move forward what the Minister had said earlier. Thanks to those two contributions, we are beginning to get to the real meat of the issue of how we can ensure that this group of overlooked public sector workers can find an acceptable and fair outcome to their pension situation after all these years.

Within the overall ambit of the Bill, I speak as one who sits outside the cosy compromise between Government and Opposition Members on the principles set out by Lord Hutton. Our decisions on pensions must stand the test of time. People make decisions about contributions to their pensions based on the expectation that those contributions will have an effect 20 or 30 years later when they retire. My concern about the compromise relates to affordability, given that we are asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the specific costs involved in the measure. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the amount involved is £10 million per annum. I am a big admirer of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), but he said earlier that £10 million a year was not really a considerable amount of money. I believe, however, that it is indeed a considerable amount of money to be paid year on year. Under the previous Government, it was that attitude that £10 million here and £10 million there did not really matter that led to the grotesque financial situation that we found ourselves in in 2010.

[Stephen McPartland]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Fuller]

I will give way to my spendthrift Friend.

[Stephen McPartland]

The point I was making was that, although £10 million is a lot of money at a personal level, I do not feel that it should be a reason to allow such discrepancies to continue. The House should be trying to create parity between all those who do that difficult job on a daily basis, and to focus on the overall package of measures rather than just on the pensions question. That £10 million could provide savings, as the Minister suggested earlier.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend has characteristically drawn us to the centre ground. When we consider our public sector workers, we should look not at their pensions in isolation but at the broader question of the compensation terms and conditions under which they are employed.

As I have said, we are talking about a relatively small number of workers. Those members of our public services have a physically demanding job, but it is also a requirement of their public service employment that they are at times asked to put their lives at risk to maintain public safety. It behoves us to take a special approach to such workers and to the way in which their pension conditions are treated.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle; I will finish, then.

What, therefore, are the reservations about this scheme? The first concerns the way in which the spend will be dealt with. Of course, loans have to be repaid, and the scheme has been financed through a DEL cut across Departments of 1%. Secondly, it amounts to £4 billion over the next three years. The question is, could that money, if it is spent on housing, target the most needy, rather than being spent across the board with no restriction on income, meaning that people can buy second homes? Is there a better way of spending that £4 billion? Or, as the hon. Member for Dundee East suggested, if the approach were less prescriptive, are there other capital areas it could be spent on, leading to a far greater multiplier effect and impact on the infrastructure of the United Kingdom? Those are questions about the scheme that need to be asked.

My last point is that although the dynamics of the housing market would suggest that if someone moves from their home to a more expensive, bigger home—I am sure that the Minister will make this argument—it releases houses further down and starts the market moving. My main priority for constituents who come to see me is those who are not even in the housing market at all. Even though the dynamics of getting people to move up the housing chain are important, it seems to me that the priority ought to be those who cannot get social houses and who cannot afford privately rented housing as rents, certainly in Northern Ireland, are going up at a rate that prices many people out of the market. The opportunity should be provided for them to get in at the low end of the market through affordable housing. That is why we need a much more targeted scheme. One reason why I think it would be useful to examine the scheme within a short period of time is that it would show whether the real objectives and priorities in the housing market are being addressed by these schemes.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Hoyle, and I shall make my speech very short as I appreciate that two Opposition Members wish to speak. I will speak for about three minutes tops and will rattle off my points as fast as I can.

The first issue I want to raise on new clause 5 is the fact that it refers to property and does not distinguish between residential property and business property. That concerned me greatly when I first looked at the new clause, as it would create huge concerns in the business community. In my constituency of Stevenage, we have some large business interests. GlaxoSmithKline has a huge operation employing 4,000 scientists in Stevenage—[Interruption.] Although the new clause mentions the “mansion tax”, it just states that it would be on “property”.

How would that property be valued? There seem to be two values in property at the moment: the value one thinks one’s property is worth and the value at which someone would buy it. There is always a big disparity between those values. Such a change would lead to a large revaluation exercise across the UK and my concern is that once we have that revaluation exercise, council tax revaluation will be a real problem across the country. A huge number of people will be very concerned about council tax increases if all their properties have been revalued. Council tax more than doubled under the previous Government and I am pleased to say that under this Government it has been frozen for the past three years—[Interruption.] I see the annunciator has just changed to show my name, although I will sit down in about one minute.

My other point is that the new clause also refers to a tax cut for low-income and middle-income earners, and I am proud that this Government have introduced a tax cut that will be worth more than £700 next year for those low earners on up to £10,000. I am sure that the Opposition would agree with the Government that the best way to introduce a tax cut is to have a tax rate of zero rather than the 10p tax rate on which my colleague the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) had a very robust exchange with Opposition Members.

I shall now sit down as you are gesturing for me to do so, Mr Hoyle.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The test of what is happening is whether the economy will be stimulated. That is the real test that we should keep under review. If we want collectively to stimulate the economy, the most direct way of doing that would be to fund socially rented houses. That would get people into jobs, who would then help to stimulate the rest of the local economy. I do not know whether an ideological aversion to that has brought about the proposals we have before us; perhaps it has, because all the affordable housing the Government seem to want to fund directly is not even affordable.

In this very week, when we are remembering the 1980s and the Prime Minister of that time, we are in grave danger of repeating what happened then. The Government chose to allow housing benefit to take the strain rather than investing directly in housing, which resulted in the problem that we now have a large housing benefit bill. The way this Government are going about even the affordable housing they say they will build, which will not of course truly be affordable, again runs the risk of increasing the housing benefit bill.

We are looking to stimulate the economy with something for which there will probably be no take-up, judging from experience, and it will not benefit the people we should really help. If we do not review this policy quickly, we could be going down a very dangerous road.

Tax Transparency (FTSE 100)

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

Many Members over many years have spoken eloquently in this House about the differences between tax avoidance and tax evasion and how the lines between them have become blurred. Tax evasion is clearly wrong, illegal and unfair to the rest of society, because everyone else has to pay more in taxes to make up for those who do not pay their fair share. We cannot have mob rule and many Members are very much in favour of the positive contributions that large FTSE 100 companies make to the larger overall tax take.

Just before Christmas, there was an explosion of public interest after the Public Accounts Committee named and shamed some well known companies that use transfer pricing to offset their tax liabilities in the UK—basically, to avoid paying tax. I am aware of the strong argument that UK tax authorities could do more to enforce tax payments. The Government have done a lot of work on tackling tax avoidance—so much so that I fear that the general anti-avoidance rule that will be introduced might be too severe and end up penalising sole traders and small and medium-sized enterprises more than larger companies.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important and topical debate. Does he agree that it is incumbent on us as legislators to ensure that tax legislation is robust but fair?

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which has been put to me in the more than 60 responses I have received from FTSE 100 companies. I agree that we need to get the legislation right, but later in my speech I shall explain how there are more companies registered in Jersey than in the whole of China, despite tens of billions of pounds of trade with that country.

My interest in tackling tax avoidance stems from a meeting I had with Christian Aid supporters in my constituency last September, when the “tax justice” bus visited Stevenage. The tax justice campaigners believe that tax dodging by international companies costs the UK about £35 billion and developing countries an estimated $160 billion a year. Many of the FTSE 100 companies that replied to me questioned the figures, but, in reality, the figures are large, irrespective of the measure used. Imagine for a moment the dramatic difference such a huge sum of money would make, if it were available to invest in public services, infrastructure and other services essential for economic growth both at home and abroad.

There is growing anger and concern about the fact that some large companies are hiding behind complex accounting rules that may be strictly legal, but are considered to be unethical by the public. The problem of the missing billions in tax is not just a problem for the UK; it is worldwide, and it does the greatest damage to poor and developing countries that cannot stand up to massive corporations. ActionAid told of a lady selling beer in Ghana who paid more in tax than the large brewer in the facility next door. That large brewer’s parent company in the UK declared profits of £2 billion. Governments all around the world will agree with the sentiment of greater tax transparency—I know that the Minister agrees with it—but they will struggle to introduce it, because every nation competes in the global race.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s initiative to make tackling tax avoidance a priority when the UK takes over the presidency of the G8. He made strong references to a particular company needing to

“wake up and smell the coffee”.

I must be one of the few Members who does not have any such coffee chains in my constituency. The Chancellor, with whom I do not see eye to eye on many issues, has also agreed that aggressive tax avoidance is “morally wrong” and “abhorrent”. We have had the words; it is now time for action.

My first question to the Minister is, what plans do the Prime Minister or Chancellor have to convene a cross-Whitehall meeting with tax justice experts and campaigners to identify what a tax transparency policy would look like in practice? There is real concern and feeling that transfer pricing is at the heart of the problem, so what measures will the draft finance Bill include to create enforcement in respect of transfer pricing and put a stop to it?

As I mentioned, ActionAid commissioned interesting research in October 2011 into the use of tax havens by FTSE 100 companies. It found that the FTSE 100 companies at that time had 34,216 subsidiary companies, joint ventures and associates and that 38% of their overseas companies were located in tax havens. Ninety-eight groups had declared tax haven companies; only two groups, Fresnillo and Hargreaves Lansdown, did not. There were 623 companies registered in Jersey—a tiny island just off our shores—and despite our tens of billions of pounds of trade, only 551 are registered in China. ActionAid struggled to get the research and, like me, would like to see Companies House enforce sections 409 and 410 of the Companies Act 2006, so that information on UK-registered multinationals is more accessible to the public.

The Minister and Government have the best of intentions, but in the end, it will be up to the companies themselves to lead the way, and they will do so only if their customers—the British public—drag them kicking and screaming towards tax transparency and a fairer tax system for all. With that in mind, last November I wrote to the chief executives of all the FTSE 100 companies asking them individually whether they were willing to pledge their support for corporate tax transparency and whether they would support a new international accounting standard for country-by-country reporting.

The current international accounting standards require multinational companies to report accounts on a global consolidated basis only, which makes it incredibly difficult to know where taxable economic activities are occurring and where profits are declared. I gave the example a few moments ago of a lady in Ghana paying more in tax than a massive, multi-billion dollar, multinational company. Companies, particularly multinational corporations, move billions of pounds of profit between jurisdictions in order to reduce their tax bills, and large companies are allegedly manipulating their centres of interest through the use of holding companies, offshore accounts and intellectual property rights.

I am not saying that FTSE 100 companies are engaged in tax avoidance or aggressive tax planning; the point I am trying to make is that whether it is tax avoidance or tax evasion, illegal or immoral, the British public and most Members believe that it is wrong and should be stopped.

A recent inquiry by the Select Committee on International Development called for

“legislation requiring each UK-based multinational corporation to report its financial information on a country-by-country basis. Such information should include the names of all companies belonging to it and trading in each country, its financial performance in each country, its tax liability in each country, the cost and net book…of its fixed assets in each country, and details of its gross and net assets in each country.”

Some of the FTSE 100 companies that replied to my letters believe that there could be greater tax transparency. All agree that they are as transparent as they possibly could be and that people would not like them to be even more transparent because it would make their accounts more unwieldy.

I look at the extractive industries, the work coming out of America on the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the proposals for EU directives on transparency and accounting, and I wonder whether such legislation could be used for our multinationals. The extractive industries are being forced down a line of country-by-country reporting with more focus on transparency, because it has been felt over many years that they have not been as clear as they should have been. Do we need a more even playing field?

The only way to resolve the problem is to introduce greater transparency. Members will be pleased to learn that, in the interests of transparency, I have published all the responses that I have received on a website: www.taxchallenge.co.uk. The responses from over half the companies are online. With the responses, I have given people an opportunity to sign a petition to demand greater tax transparency.

The responses from the FTSE 100 companies have been wide-ranging, but generally disappointing. HSBC offered to help design a tax transparency standard. BT and others welcomed the transparency initiative, but not the new accounting standard. Hargreaves Lansdown, which we now know was one of the few FTSE 100 companies not to have tax havens at the time, questioned the value that it receives for the taxes that it pays.

More positively, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s agreed that consumers are best placed to encourage companies to pay the tax that they are supposed to pay, as they can vote with their wallets if they do not think that the company is making a fair contribution to society. Capita stated that it was both interested in and supportive of the establishment of a new international accounting standard. Morrisons suggested that the Government should force all companies to disclose their corporation tax payments in the UK. Does the Treasury have any plans to do that? The refreshingly honest response from Aggreko summed up what many other companies felt—that they pay lots of tax and probably more than is needed, but that greater tax transparency is “a lousy idea”.

[John Stevenson]

I understand my hon. Friend’s arguments on transparency, but does he believe that the Government should also look at how we tax companies?

[Stephen McPartland]

I agree. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and has a wonderful legal mind. Many of the companies believe that they have a responsibility to their shareholders, but shareholders, to push up their returns, are interested only in the overall amount of tax that they have to pay globally. In their responses, some companies claimed that their overall tax rate is more than 45%, while others claim that it is about 25% to 28%. Although they all believe that they are as transparent as possible, it is perfectly clear that they are not being as transparent as the general public would like to see and understand.

We must move to a simpler tax system, in which it is much easier to see what is going on, and what companies have to pay in tax. I do not want this debate to appear to be anti-business or anti-FTSE 100. I am a Conservative Member of Parliament who is going to end up in the Morning Star as a result of this debate—probably the first one to do so—but the reality is that FTSE 100 companies make a huge contribution to Britain, including through the whole range of taxes that they pay. I understand that the FTSE 100 are responsible for almost 10% of the tax take in the UK, including the income tax and employer’s national insurance contributions that they collect on behalf of the Treasury.

The FTSE 100 are therefore massively good companies for the UK, and I am delighted that we have them in our country, but I want them to be a little more transparent, so that we can all have a bit more faith. As I have said, I believe that we have to lead the way in forcing them to accept the idea of tax transparency. Aggreko has said that it pays lots of tax and probably more than is needed, but that greater tax transparency was “a lousy idea” because it sees that as 500 new pages of the tax code and a great load of regulations that it does not want.

I could go on about the responses—I will if hon. Members wish—but the general thrust is pretty simple: the biggest companies in Britain believe that they all pay their taxes honestly and make a huge contribution to the economy by employing people who pay taxes. So far, most responses clearly show that they are not prepared to be proactive, and will comply only with current laws. Unfortunately, fancy corporate lawyers can blur the lines between tax avoidance and tax evasion, but that is clearly wrong, illegal and unfair to the rest of society, as I have mentioned.

I firmly believe that most employees in most of the FTSE 100, the FTSE 250 and other companies in the United Kingdom would expect their employers to pay their fair share of tax in the UK. We must start thinking about tax and tax transparency as a measure of corporate social responsibility.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I apologise for missing the first few sentences of my hon. Friend’s speech, but he knows that I am very much with him in this campaign. Has he thought of using his website to encourage shareholders of each of the top companies to raise the issue at their annual meetings and to force the issue internally, in the way that many green and environmental issues have been raised from within as well as through pressure from outside?

[Stephen McPartland]

My right hon. Friend makes a wonderful point, as he often does about tax transparency. I genuinely believe that that is an excellent way of moving forward. Many of the companies have offered to meet me, and I know that they have meetings with Christian Aid and ActionAid. Those companies are huge organisations that struggle to understand the complexity of what is going on within them.

I had a very positive response from the chief executive officer of AstraZeneca, who explained in great detail how he holds each member of his staff personally responsible for conducting its business, how he considers them to be ambassadors, and how he wants to help in any way he can to create tax transparency. There is, however, a fear that greater tax transparency will lead to greater regulation. He believes that many of the issues we are raising are already covered in the company’s accounting reports—the information is already collected—and that the question is how to go about demonstrating and sharing that information.

If we can demonstrate that there is great political will, shareholders will show great will to move the idea forward, saying, “Yes, this is important to us. It is like being green. Tax is part of our corporate social responsibility.” We will then be able to make progress. I very much take on board my right hon. Friend’s suggestion and will try to promote it.

The companies that I was referring to have a very devolved and developed sense of corporate social responsibility. British customers, employees and consumers want them to create greater tax transparency. There has been a huge hoo-hah about some large, non-British companies moving their profits overseas. Those companies have had difficulty in interacting with their own customers, and one of them has volunteered to pay tax. It should not be a voluntary option; it should be a legal requirement.

My new website—www.taxchallenge.co.uk—gives hon. Members’ constituents an opportunity to sign a petition calling for greater tax transparency, so that everyone will know which FTSE 100 companies are willing to sign up for that and which are not. Every one of us can then decide individually whether the biggest companies in Britain really care about the poorest in our society, at home and abroad.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on securing this debate and setting out his case so clearly. In recent months, he has shown great tenacity on the issue, including by raising it on the Floor of the House a few weeks ago.

I want again to put on the record the Government’s view that companies must pay tax in accordance with the law, and it is crucial that they are seen to do so. Many businesses help their cause by releasing data or other information relating to their tax payments, and I very much welcome greater transparency from businesses about their tax affairs. As a Minister, I have said for some years that businesses need to do much more to explain the taxes that they pay and how they comply with their obligations. Such transparency can go a long way towards building greater trust between them and their customers, and might end up having commercial benefits.

Of course, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as the tax collector in the UK, has a statutory duty of confidentiality that protects the tax affairs of all taxpayers, and it is important that it continues to honour that duty. I make that point because that is one of the reasons why it is difficult for Ministers to engage in individual cases, some of which have been very high profile, because we do not of course see any information that is not in the public domain.

I want to focus on what we in this country can do to assist developing countries in collecting the tax that is due, which is at the heart of my hon. Friend’s concerns. We are committed to supporting developing countries to access sustainable sources of revenue, while balancing action in this area against costs to Government and industry. To achieve that, our priorities, which I will set out before turning to my hon. Friend’s specific questions, are capacity building; improving exchange of tax information and assisting developing countries in accessing the benefits from that; and increasing transparency, particularly in the extractives sector, to address corruption.

On capacity building, it is of course up to individual jurisdictions to make decisions on how best to run their tax systems, but the Government are committed to supporting developing countries to access sustainable sources of revenue and to collect the tax that is due. The most effective way of doing that is to provide the technical support to their tax administrations that will help them maintain sustainable domestic taxation systems.

The Government’s work with the Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority, for example, has helped strengthen the accountability and efficiency of revenue collection in Ethiopia. As a result, tax collection in Ethiopia in 2011 was seven times higher than it was in 2002. Furthermore, Ethiopian customs clearance times for low-risk imports have been reduced from seven days to 10 minutes. The UK will also continue to work with international organisations such as the African tax administration forum, the World Bank and the OECD to support other capacity-building projects in developing countries.

There is increasing recognition that strong institutions are important for a country’s development. In the light of that recognition, the success or otherwise of the revenue-raising authorities in a developing country is absolutely crucial. We want to do everything we can to assist them.

[Stephen McPartland]

The Minister will be delighted to know that many FTSE 100 companies see capacity building, revenue building and the secondment of HMRC civil servants to developing countries as positive steps towards helping create that tax base. Many have offered to help, so I would be delighted to pass on those names to him.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s constructive point. It is recognised that effective tax authorities are important. That feeds into political benefits as well, because a broad base of revenue raising will result in stronger political institutions that will be held accountable by the people of that developing country. I welcome his remarks and I know that he welcomes the measures that we are taking in this area.

Related to strengthening capacity building is ensuring that information is available to tax authorities around the world. The international tax transparency agenda, and the tax information exchange in particular, is a key tool in tackling offshore tax evasion, and we are actively promoting that agenda. Through the G20, we are providing leadership and direction in increasing tax transparency and the exchange of tax information. Through the global forum on tax transparency, we are ensuring that jurisdictions meet the international standard on tax transparency. Through the expansion of the multilateral convention on mutual administrative assistance to more jurisdictions, we are providing a mechanism to access the benefits of tax transparency, which is particularly suited to developing countries. Furthermore, our direct assistance to Ghana ensured that it was in a position to join the convention and access the benefits of exchange of information, and we look to build on that. I am confident that the sensible, considered conversations that we are having internationally, and the exchanges of information coming from them, will have a real impact on the overall tax landscape.

Extractive industries is the third area of international action that I want to highlight. This sector and the fears of corruption in it are of great concern to not only this debate, but the wider global community. My hon. Friend will therefore be pleased to hear that we are committed to greater extractives transparency through the accounting directive, which addresses civil society accountability without imposing unnecessary burdens on business. Not only do we support EU proposals to improve transparency in the extractives and forestry sectors, but we have extensively consulted representatives from civil society groups and industry to reach a position of reporting in greater detail that is proportionate with existing burdens upon industry.

I want to address my hon. Friend’s concerns about country-by-country reporting, which is a somewhat broader approach than the one that we have been taking on extractives and forestry. The country-by-country reporting model is currently being considered in the proposed amendments to the EU accounting and transparency directives. The UK supports EU requirements for extractives companies to ensure that they disclose the payments that they make to Governments—as I said, corruption is a particular concern in this sector—and that proposal will have an immediate impact on reducing potential corruption by allowing citizens of resource-rich countries to hold their Governments to account for their use of the extractives revenue received. However, we are not yet convinced of the merits of the wider model of country-by-country reporting proposed by some and neither is the OECD. We do not believe that the case has been made in terms of the costs and benefits of extending the proposals for EU mandatory requirements to report payments to Governments beyond the extractives sector and forestry. We will of course keep the matter under review, and it will be interesting to see how the experience of greater extractives transparency plays out.

On profit shifting, there are international concerns over whether the current international tax rules manage properly to capture the profits generated by multinational companies. It is an issue that all countries face, and we need to work together to develop the appropriate solutions. As with most major economies, the tax system in the UK is based on the internationally agreed OECD guidelines that mean that a multinational company pays corporation tax where it carries out the economic activity that generates its profits and not on its sales. We have already reaffirmed our support for the OECD work to address profit shifting by multinationals and erosion of the corporate tax base at the global level. At the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers last November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued a joint statement with his German equivalent calling for concerted international co-operation to strengthen international tax standards as a first step to promoting a better way of dealing with profit shifting and base erosion of corporate tax at the global level. To back that up, the UK, alongside France and Germany, has offered additional resources to the OECD to speed up progress. We will hear of that progress at the G20 meeting later this month.

My hon. Friend asked specifically what we are doing in the UK on the matter. The problem is essentially international, because the UK complies with the OECD rules, as do all other major economies. We are, however, strengthening HMRC’s capacity in the area. In the autumn statement last year, additional funding for HMRC was announced, much of which is to be focused on strengthening the transfer pricing capacity of HMRC, challenging multinationals to ensure that their arrangements are compliant with the rules that currently exist, and ensuring that tax is paid in the jurisdiction where economic activity occurs. I do not want to be drawn into individual cases, but it is clearly not acceptable for multinationals artificially to inflate the costs apparently incurred in a low-tax jurisdiction, resulting in tax not being paid on profits that should, in truth, be attributed to other jurisdictions. We are determined to give HMRC the capacity to deal with that. It is worth pointing out that HMRC’s activity on transfer pricing over the past four years, for example, has brought in some £4.1 billion. Last month, I visited one of the transfer pricing teams in HMRC and we should recognise the good work that is being done, but we want to build on that, which is why we are strengthening HMRC’s capability in this area, which my hon. Friend will support.

I hope that the Government’s actions, both domestically and internationally, also have my hon. Friend’s support. We have taken steps to address concerns and we are clearly moving to a climate of greater international tax transparency. The Government do not necessarily accept all the numbers that are cited on the loss to developing countries, but we want to strengthen developing countries’ capacity, and we are at the forefront of ensuring that we do precisely that.

Corporate Tax Avoidance

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing such an important debate. I listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who eloquently described the differences between tax avoidance and tax evasion, and how the lines between them have been blurred. Tax evasion is clearly wrong, illegal and unfair to the rest of society, as everyone else has to pay more in taxes to make up for those who do not pay their fair share. We cannot have mob rule and, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), we cannot have anti-business sentiments.

Just before Christmas, there was an explosion of public interest after the Public Accounts Committee named and shamed some well-known companies that used transfer pricing to offset their tax liability here in the UK, basically to avoid paying tax. I am aware there is a strong argument that the tax authorities in the UK could do more to enforce tax payments. The Government have done a lot of work on tackling tax avoidance—so much so that I fear the general anti-avoidance rule that will be introduced might be too severe and end up penalising the sole trader and small and medium-sized enterprises more than the larger corporates.

My interest in tackling tax avoidance stems from a meeting I had with Christian Aid supporters in my constituency last September when the tax justice bus tour visited Stevenage. The tax justice campaigners believe that tax dodging by international companies costs the UK around £35 billion and developing countries an estimated $160 billion a year. Just imagine the dramatic difference such a huge sum of money would make if it were available to invest in public services, infrastructure and other vital services essential for economic growth—both at home and abroad.

There is growing anger and concern at the fact that some large companies are hiding behind complex accounting rules that may be strictly legal, but are considered to be unethical by the public. The problem of the missing billions in tax is not just a problem in the UK; it is worldwide, and it does the greatest damage to poor and developing countries that cannot stand up to massive corporations.

I know that Governments from all around the world will agree with the sentiment of greater tax transparency, but they will struggle to introduce it as every nation competes in the global race. I welcome the Prime Minister’s initiative to make tackling tax avoidance a priority as the UK takes over the presidency of the G8, and I would urge him to convene a cross-Whitehall meeting with tax justice experts and campaigners to identify what this policy would look like in practice.

There is real concern and feeling in this evening’s debate about the fact that transfer pricing seems to be at the heart of the problem, so the draft Finance Bill could include some measures to try to create enforcement in respect of transfer pricing and to stop the problem. However, despite the best of intentions, I believe that in the end it will be up to the companies themselves to lead the way and they will only do that if their customers—the British public—drag them kicking and screaming towards tax transparency and a fairer tax system for us all.

With that in mind, in October or November I wrote to the chief executives of all the FTSE 100 companies asking them individually whether they were willing to pledge their support for corporate tax transparency, and whether they would support a new international accounting standard for country-by-country reporting. The current international accounting standards only require multinational companies to report accounts on a global consolidated basis, which makes it incredibly difficult to know where taxable economic activities are occurring and where profits are declared. Companies, particularly multinational corporations, move billions of pounds of profit between jurisdictions in order to reduce their tax bills, and large companies are allegedly manipulating their centres of interest through the use of holding companies, offshore accounts and intellectual property rights.

Whether this is tax avoidance or tax evasion, whether it is illegal or immoral, the British public and most Members of Parliament believe that it is wrong and should be stopped. A recent inquiry by the International Development Committee recommended legislation

“requiring each UK-based multinational corporation to report its financial information on a country-by-country basis. Such information should include the names of all companies belonging to it and trading in each country, its financial performance in each country, its tax liability in each country, the cost and net book value of its fixed assets in each country, and details of its gross and net assets in each country.”

I believe that the only way of resolving the problem is to introduce greater transparency, and Members will be pleased to learn that, in the interests of transparency, I am publishing all the responses that I have received on a website that I launched today: www.taxchallenge.co.uk. The first 15 responses from the FTSE 100 are now live, and many more will be published during the coming days and weeks. The responses have been wide-ranging. HSBC has offered to help design a tax transparency standard, BT and others have welcomed the transparency initiative—although not the means—and Hargreaves Lansdown has questioned the value that it receives for the taxes that it pays. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) spoke about that eloquently earlier today.

[Paul Farrelly]

One of the reasons for the Government’s intention to change remote gambling taxation is the fact that all the companies bar one have gone offshore. That one is Bet365, which owns my local team, Stoke City. It is staying here because the Coates family believe in paying their taxes—they paid £130 million last year through Bet365—and in creating local employment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the companies in his survey should wholeheartedly follow their example, and that the National Association of Pension Funds and the Association of British Insurers should try to ensure, on our behalf, that shareholders encourage them to do so?

[Stephen McPartland]

I do agree, and I firmly believe that most employees in most of the FTSE 100, the FTSE 250 and other companies in the United Kingdom would expect their employers to pay their fair share of tax in the UK. They all have very devolved and developed corporate social responsibility projects and organisations, and they want to understand what British customers, employees and consumers want them to do. They are very conscious of their brand.

The new website—www.taxchallenge.co.uk—gives Members’ constituents an opportunity to sign a petition calling for greater tax transparency, so that everyone will know which FTSE 100 companies are willing to sign up to tax transparency and which are not. Every one of us can then decide individually whether the biggest companies in Britain really care about the poorest in our society, at home and abroad.