Finance (No. 3) Bill

Anna Turley Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

Under this Government, there is often one rule for the very best-off and another rule for everyone else. That is what we see when it comes to the loan charge, which is covered by new clause 26. The activities targeted by the loan charge were a form of tax avoidance, but the Government’s approach to dealing with them has been deeply unfair.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I do not believe I can, as I have been told that I have to proceed quickly.

For many years, the Government failed to take action, before clamping down purely on taxpayers and doing little to nothing to the enablers of this form of tax avoidance. I hope the Minister will be clear about this. He has talked about the promotion of defective schemes. When taxpayers are described as having done something illegal, which is what HMRC has said about the behaviour of those subject to the loan charge, why will the Government not say that those who promoted those schemes also promoted something illegal? They use this language about defective systems. I am sorry, but that is pusillanimous. Those who were unwittingly led into schemes that are now described as illegal must themselves be able to take action against those who wrongly advised them.

I hope that the Minister will look at that very carefully and accept the new clause. If he does not, I hope that he will accept my backstop, to coin a phrase, and have a meeting with me. I am glad he has intimated that he may be willing to do so to talk about how we can better help people who have ended up in a very difficult situation—some of them with their eyes wide open, but many of them not realising the impact of these schemes.

2019 Loan Charge

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There have been 24,000 contacts with HMRC. The number of telephone calls has increased from 2,000 to 4,000 a week and extra resources have been made available by HMRC, but I am happy to take up any individual cases that my hon. Friend may wish to bring to me.

In the view of the Government and of HMRC, the payments were always taxable as income, and the new legislation reiterates and formalises that stance.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. That final point reiterates the issue here. I have constituents who are employed in the construction industry and when they were taken on by the agencies—the umbrella companies—through which they had to go to access the work, they simply were not aware of their liabilities and were not made aware of them. This is a natural justice issue. The policy is harming people who are not particularly well paid, have done everything right and are being unfairly punished.

[John Glen]

The responsibility to settle tax affairs is on an individual basis. If an employer forced an individual into a tax arrangement of this sort, the employer would be in a liable position.

Folic Acid Fortification

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

It does; my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. A number of foods already contain folic acid, and the consultation will have to take that into consideration. It will also look into what a safe upper limit is in that regard. This is why we want to ensure that the consultation is as thorough as possible.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way; we are not allowing him to make much progress. May I take it from his last assertion about an upper limit that the consultation, which we welcome, is not so much about whether folic acid will be included in flour but about what the upper limit will be?

[Nigel Adams]

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would not expect me do so. It will have to take an upper limit into consideration; indeed, that will be an incredibly important part of the consultation. We want to ensure that the consultation is properly done, that it is thorough and that it can advise Ministers. We will be coming back to the House to report back on it.

I shall move on, if that is okay with colleagues. I think from the tone of the debate thus far that the announcement has been well received. We will be properly consulting on and considering all aspects of this very important issue. I note that many colleagues are well informed about it and that they are aware of the reason behind the calls for mandatory fortification, but it might be helpful to summarise again what we are trying to prevent. Neural tube defects are birth defects of the brain, spine or spinal cord. They happen in the first few weeks of pregnancy, often before a woman even knows that she is pregnant. The two most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly. These are devastating conditions, and the Government are fully aware of their effect on the individuals themselves and their families. We have already heard the acute interest and strength of feeling on this issue from Members of this House and in the other place, including on what can be done to ensure that pregnant women have healthy pregnancies and give their unborn babies the best protection during the crucial early weeks of development.

Unless someone is pregnant or thinking of having a baby, they should be able to get all the folate they need by eating a varied and balanced diet. Existing pregnancy advice to women who are trying to conceive or who are likely to become pregnant is that they should take a daily supplement of 400 micrograms of folic acid until the 12th week of pregnancy. They are also advised to increase their daily intake of folate by eating more folate-rich foods, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) referred. Examples are spinach and broccoli, as well as foods voluntarily fortified with folic acid, including a wide range of breakfast cereals.

We know, however, that around half the pregnancies in the UK are unplanned. In those that are planned, it has been estimated that only half of all mothers took folic acid supplements or modified their diet to increase folate intake. This has led to calls for the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid so that women can get it from dietary sources other than foods that naturally contain it. Successive Governments have not considered that mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid to be the best way to protect public health and have instead promoted the use of folic acid supplements as a part of a wide range of pre-conception and post-conception advice to women of childbearing age. However, we are now taking the opportunity that this consultation presents to seek the public’s opinion on this proposed important change.

My colleague the Minister with responsibility for public health responded to a Westminster Hall debate in May 2018 that was secured by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. In his response, the Minister confirmed that the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—I shall refer to it as COT from now on—had agreed to take forward for further consideration the issue of tolerable upper limits for folate. COT published its interim conclusions in July 2018, but it has yet to finalise its detailed review. In summary, COT concluded that the potential masking of pernicious anaemia was still an appropriate and relevant endpoint on which to base a tolerable upper level, but that the level at which this effect started to occur was unclear. It concluded that further analysis of the data was necessary, but that the upper level would not decrease—that is, it would stay at 1 microgram a day or could be increased—as there was no convincing evidence that masking occurred at levels of intake below 1 microgram a day.

COT has discussed this again at this week’s meeting, and as soon as the outcome of its consideration becomes available, it will inform Ministers’ thinking in respect of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition’s recommendations on the mandatory fortification of flour and about folic acid advice generally. We will reflect that outcome in the consultation document, together with whether we need to take any other action, such as discussions with the industry on removing folic acid from products that are currently voluntarily fortified, such as breakfast cereal. We will also be working closely with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the consultation, its responses and any resulting conclusions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this welcome debate on a welcome Government intervention. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the Public Health Minister. He is not here today, but he has been excellent in listening to the evidence on this case in recent months, and he moved decisively to announce the consultation on Tuesday. As the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), said, the consultation is welcomed on both sides of the House and, indeed, by the scientific community not just in the UK but across the world.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on folic acid fortification. He has spoken with great bravery and sincerity about his family’s experiences, and he and many others have played a far more important role than I have in bringing home to Members the importance of this change.

I also pay tribute to Shine, and particularly to its current chief executive Kate Steele. The charity does wonderful work to support individuals and families with spina bifida and neural tube defects, and it has played an excellent role in campaigning for fortification.

Lastly, I thank Lord Rooker. He campaigned on this issue long before I and many others did. In truth, he has been the leading advocate in Parliament for this change over a long period. This is a proud day for him.

Obviously there will be some controversial questions. The Government are proposing a big public health intervention, and it is right that they are consulting, but the Public Health Minister was right to say on Tuesday that the evidence is overwhelming and that he is convinced by the evidence.

I will spell out the scale and gravity of these conditions in the UK to bring it home to Members, and to those who might read or watch this debate. We now all know that neural tube defects are the failure of the spine to close at either end, and they happen early in pregnancy. Neural tube defects can lead either to spina bifida or anencephaly.

Anencephaly occurs in 40% of neural tube defects and is fatal. Children with anencephaly do not survive, and often they die very quickly after birth. Spina bifida is where the spinal cord does not properly form, which obviously leads to poor mobility, poor bladder control, bowel issues, often learning disabilities, mental health problems, physical health problems and lifelong disability. It is an extremely grave condition.

Neural tube defects affect around 1,000 pregnancies each year in our country. In this country, two foetuses a day are aborted following the diagnosis of a neural tube defect, and two children a week are born with such birth defects.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful case, for which I am grateful. Does he agree that one of the most frightening statistics is that young women under the age of 20 are five times less likely to take folic acid supplements? That strengthens the case for mandatory flour fortification.

[Owen Smith]

From memory, I believe that just 6% of women aged under 20 supplement their diet prior to or, indeed, during pregnancy. It is clear that this particularly affects younger women, perhaps because they have not yet read the literature, gone to classes or otherwise been informed. The other reality is that there is a much lower level of folate among women from working-class and black and ethnic minority backgrounds, which is another fundamental reason for addressing this in the manner proposed.

Shine estimates that the cost of caring for people with spina bifida and other neural tube defects is around £500,000 over their lifetime, but the point is not the financial cost to the NHS or to the taxpayer; the human cost to families and individuals is what counts. In this awareness week for spina bifida and hydrocephaly, Shine has been highlighting some of those human examples.

One example is of a young woman called Nicky, who had spina bifida. She could walk a little, but she used a wheelchair most of the time. She loved animals, and she volunteered at a local animal sanctuary and rode at weekends. At 18, before she intended to start a university degree in animal care, the shunt that controlled her hydrocephalus needed replacing. It went wrong, and she had three dreadful years of ill health during which she was largely housebound or hospitalised. She obviously could not continue with her education, and she died at 21.

That is not an uncommon case; unfortunately, it is all too common. There is no certainty, of course, that had Nicky’s mother supplemented her diet prior to conception, or indeed during pregnancy, Nicky would not have been born with spina bifida. However, we have known for almost 30 years of the clear evidence that there is a dramatically greater likelihood that Nicky would have been born without a neural tube defect had her mother had the requisite levels of folate in her system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said, it was in 1991 that the Medical Research Council first published the evidence showing a 72% reduction in the likelihood of conceiving a child with a neural tube defect if the mother supplements her diet with folic acid.

The history is interesting, because successive Governments have not responded to the evidence with fortification, on which this Government are now consulting. I make it clear that I think the last Labour Government should have done so. We did a huge amount through bold public health interventions. Smoking cessation is the best example, but there are myriad examples. The last Labour Government were very good at addressing public health needs. However, this is one area where they did not undertake to act and they should have done. The position our Government and successive Governments took was to move towards advice that diets should be supplemented with 400 micrograms of folic acid during and prior to pregnancy. As many people have said, the problem is that 40% of pregnancies are unplanned; only 30% of women take the right dose of folic acid even if they are supplementing; young women tend not to supplement at all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) said; and working-class women and women from black and ethnic minority backgrounds have lower levels of folate because they do not supplement very often. Across the whole population, irrespective of demography, about 75% of women do not have the right levels of folate and therefore are at increased risk of giving birth to a child with a neural tube defect.

Other countries have been bolder than us. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, about 85 countries have chosen to introduce mandatory fortification, including America, Canada, South Africa and lots of countries in South America. It has not happened in Europe, but this will be another example of Britain leading the way in Europe.

Freeports

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

As always, Mr Hanson, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and my near neighbour the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) on securing the debate. It is great to come together across the party divide to champion our area, because the hon. Gentleman and I both recognise how freeport status for Teesport could help and support our constituents.

My constituency lies at the mouth of the River Tees, where the North sea brings its cargo from around the world and ships queue to bring their goods to the third-largest port in the UK. It is from that port that steel from Redcar’s blast furnaces once sailed forth to build the world. Today, sadly, the site is desolate; the steelworks is now closed, and the 3,000 jobs it sustained are gone. But the land sits waiting, ready to drive a new industrial renaissance for Teesside. A freeport could be the key to unlocking the site’s huge value and delivering thousands more jobs. It could create employment and economic activity in an area where the need is high.

The same is true across the UK, as the hon. Gentleman said. Of the country’s 30 largest ports, 17, including my own, are in the bottom quartile of local authorities in the index of multiple deprivation. They are crying out for the inward investment that a freeport could draw in, so we must take a radical look at proposals to support their economies.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I make no apology for lobbying for freeport status on behalf of the port in my constituency. Teesport has strong structural advantages that should make it favoured for freeport status, including a deep-water facility that provides lock-free access to the sea and strong road and rail services. The facility already handles 5,000 vessels and 40 million tonnes of cargo a year. The port is integral to the Teesside manufacturing complex, incorporating chemicals, engineering, renewable energy and agritech.

The South Tees development corporation is overseeing the former SSI site, the biggest industrial opportunity that the UK has seen since the second world war. The development corporation—the only one of its kind outside London—has set out its ambition to create 20,000 additional jobs in high-value manufacturing over 25 years, with £1 billion in gross value added for the local economy. That programme would be substantially enhanced by the creation of a freeport. Incorporating the development corporation area into a freeport area, together with the Teesport facility, and in conjunction with adjacent industrial sites such as Wilton and North Shore, could help the region to build on its strengths in chemicals, steel, energy and logistics and realise our vision to become the most attractive place in the country for high-value manufacturing.

With the North East of England Process Industry Cluster leading the way, Teesside is the location for the largest integrated chemical complex in the UK—the second largest in western Europe in manufacturing capacity. The sector has inputs to a range of other key industries such as aerospace, automotive and life sciences. It is highly productive and competitive but faces a number of challenges, such as increasing global competition, high operating costs and skills shortages. A freeport could be part of a range of policy solutions to maintain and enhance the attractiveness of investment in the chemical sector in the UK and on Teesside. Freeport status for Teesside could make the area the gateway of the north, rebalancing the economy and making the region’s manufacturing base more competitive and attractive.

As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland noted, a study commissioned this year by the global construction company Mace Group shows that a freeport in Tees Valley could create more than 17,500 jobs and contribute more than £1 billion to the local economy—more than enough to offset any loss to the Treasury in import tax revenue. That should be considered when we weigh up the economic advantages. For an area in which unemployment is above the national average and many in work have to travel further afield or take insecure jobs, the proposal could be transformative.

As I mentioned, there are many areas similar to mine that have suffered deprivation and industrial decline, and that could see an economic boost delivered by a freeport. A freeport could also future-proof many of our other industries, which are battling to stay increasingly competitive in turbulent world markets. We only have to look around the world to see how our competitors are taking full advantage of freeports. Approximately 3,500 freeport zones exist, employing 66 million people across 135 countries. We are clearly lagging behind the rest of the world in this area.

Freeport zones are recognised around the world as playing a major role in retaining, reshoring and growing domestic manufacturing activity and boosting trade. There are 250 free trade zones in the US, and freeport zones also play a major role in the economies of Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. However, I would urge caution when we are developing the model, to ensure that there is no erosion of employment rights, environmental rights or health and safety rights. It is really important that we look at the models that are being used around the world if we come to develop our own.

My view diverges slightly from that of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who said the advantages of freeports are dependent on being outside the EU. We could be taking advantage of them right now—indeed, he mentioned the legislation that we had in the past for models in the UK. Other member states already have freeports, including the ports of Bremerhaven in Germany, Le Verdon in France, and Shannon in the Republic of Ireland. In fact, there are currently over 85 freeport zones in the European Union. There are no barriers, but there is a lack of political will.

While this is the first debate that we have dedicated to the benefits of freeports, it is not the first time we have made this case in the House. Many Members, including myself and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, have championed freeports for our own areas; indeed, I tabled amendments to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill that would have established the legislative basis for free zones to return to the UK. Until 2012, we had the legislation in place for five freeports, but unfortunately the statutory instruments creating them expired, and freeports were never fully explored. Moreover, the Secretary of State is already empowered to designate any freeport by statutory instrument under section 100A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which was referred to earlier and which is still in force.

I say to the Minister that the Government have an opportunity here to deliver transformative change to deprived areas across the UK, including my own. There could be no better expression of the northern powerhouse than delivering a freeport boost to northern ports and ports across the country, stimulating manufacturing, rebalancing the economy and creating jobs. I beg the Government to give serious consideration to this issue without delay.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Anna Turley Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to take the opportunity provided by this Bill to raise an important opportunity that could bring as many as 90,000 jobs to this country—and, in particular, many to my own constituency. It relates to part 2 of schedule 2 and can otherwise be referred to as the introduction of free ports.

Around the world there are approximately 3,500 free trade zones employing 66 million people across 135 countries. There are currently none in the UK. Conferring free trade status on a UK port would place it administratively outside of customs territory. It would mean that goods could be imported, manufactured or re-exported inside the free trade zone without incurring domestic customs duties or taxes, which is paid only on goods entering the domestic UK economy. As well as bringing benefits through customs taxes and duties, free zones also support economic activity through financial incentives such as research and development tax credits, regulatory flexibility, and tax reductions. They are recognised around the world as playing a major role in retaining, re-shoring and growing domestic manufacturing activity and boosting trade. In the US there are 250 free trade zones, and they also play a major role in the economies of Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates.

Ports are already a vital strategic asset for the UK, accounting for 96% of all trade volume and 75% of trade value. The free port concept builds on our maritime history and an existing UK strength. The creation of a free port would increase employment and economic activity in areas where economic need is high and could play a major role in rebalancing our London-centric economy. Of the country’s 30 largest ports, 17, including Teesside in my own constituency, are in the bottom quartile of local authorities in the index of multiple deprivation. I make no apology for lobbying for such a status on behalf of the port in my constituency. Teesport has strong structural advantages for being favoured for free port status. It has a deep-water facility providing lock-free access to the sea, with strong road and rail services. Teesport is versatile and adaptable. The facility handles 5,000 vessels and 40 million tonnes of cargo a year. The port is integral to the Teesside manufacturing complex, incorporating chemicals, engineering, renewable energy, and agri-tech. The South Tees development corporation is overseeing the former SSI site—the biggest industrial opportunity the UK has seen since the second world war. When the Government closed the steelworks in 2015 and 3,000 Teessiders lost their jobs, the Government promised to do all they could. On the Prime Minister’s most recent visit, she told us that we had to look to the future. Well, we are—the question is, are the Government?

The development corporation—the only one outside London—has set out its ambition to create 20,000 additional jobs in high-value manufacturing over a 25-year period, adding £1 billion in gross value added for the local economy. This would be substantially enhanced through the creation of a free port. Incorporating the development corporation area, together with the Teesport facility and in conjunction with adjacent industrial sites such as Wilton and North Shore, into a free port area would help the region to build on its current strengths in chemicals, steel, energy and logistics, and realise our vision to become the most attractive place in the country for high-value manufacturing.

Led by the north-east process industry cluster and the former hon. Member for Hartlepool, Teesside is the location of the largest integrated chemical complex in the UK and the second largest in western Europe in terms of manufacturing capacity. The sector has inputs to a range of other key industries such as aerospace, automotive, and life sciences. The sector is highly productive and competitive but faces a number of challenges such as increasing global competition, high operating costs, the need to attract investment from global parent companies, and skills shortages. A free port could be part of a range of policy solutions to maintain and enhance the attractiveness of investment in this sector in the UK and on Teesside. Free port status for Teesside could make the area the gateway of the north, rebalancing the economy and making the region’s manufacturing base more competitive and attractive.

This Bill provides an opportunity to establish the legislative basis to enable such a system to be set up in the UK, potentially giving a quick and powerful boost to the British economy as we go forward in Brexit negotiations. However, such a zone is not dependent on leaving the EU. Other member states have free ports, including the ports of Bremerhaven in Germany, Le Verdon in France, and Shannon in the Republic of Ireland. In fact, there are currently 85 free port zones within the European Union. Moreover, the Secretary of State is already empowered to designate free ports by statutory instrument under section 100A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which is still in force. Indeed, the UK itself had five free trade zones until 2012, at which point the statutory instruments that set them up expired, so the framework is in place and the opportunity is there. I hope that this Bill can clarify the situation. Part 2 of schedule 2 allows the Government to regulate on free ports. I hope that the Minister therefore agrees that this is the perfect moment to reopen the debate on free ports, to be bold, and potentially to create a new one—preferably on Teesside.

I conclude by asking the Minister the following questions. First, does he agree with the principle of free ports, and does he recognise the role they can play in driving and rebalancing our economy? Secondly, will the Government be using this Bill to amend the free port powers created by the Customs and Excise Management Act? If so, will they use the opportunity to bring forward powers to enable Teesport to become a free port or subject to special customs arrangements?

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who not only made a very articulate case on behalf of his constituents, but exposed the vacuum at the heart of the regulatory framework to support small businesses. I appreciated everything he had to say. I also congratulate all hon. Members who secured this important and timely debate, which, as we have heard, has real resonance in the life experiences of our constituents. That is why I am very happy to support the motion, and I wish to say something on behalf of one of my constituents who has been affected by this. I also give credit to the work that the Treasury Committee and the all-party group on fair business banking have done to give this issue the prominence it deserves.

I do not rise to speak on the minutiae of financial regulation, as I am sure you will be delighted to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. Instead, I ask the House to consider the human stories of those denied fair outcomes in their financial disputes and those who have had to accept the current lacklustre compensatory measures. This debate is about the consumer and the customer and their right to meaningful redress when things go wrong. It is right that this House takes an interest in these matters, just as it is right that the FCA was established by an Act of Parliament. This House has an obligation to monitor the regulatory environment to ensure that our constituents are adequately protected when they bank, save, borrow and spend.

My constituent, Stephen Lilley, who runs his own business knows the devastating personal and economic effect that bad financial regulation can have. He was mis-sold an interest rate hedging product, which has left his business in considerable financial difficulty. The product was sold to him deceptively by HSBC, and included a base rate swap that was put in place to protect his business from rising interest rates, but without any explanation that should rates fall—and they certainly did—his business would not benefit. The result has left his business in a perilous state. He was let down by HSBC, which mis-sold him the product. He was initially let down by the Financial Ombudsman Service, which rejected his complaint twice until it decided that the swap product had indeed been mis-sold. He was also let down by the FCA and the flawed redress scheme for mis-sold IRHPs, which did not deliver the sort of financial compensation that would get his business back on track.

Mr Lilley and his family have endured sleepless nights and stress. Both he and his wife have had heart attacks in recent years, and have been wracked with worry over the future of their business. They feel powerless and that the bank has a hold over their lives. When HSBC admitted that it had mis-sold a product to Mr Lilley, it said that it had made a mistake in the length of the interest rate cap it had in place. It should have been five years, but instead it was 10. The bank said that Mr Lilley could have the difference returned to him if he accepted a cap at five years. It is very difficult for me to see how that can be right. How is it that, after clear negligence, the bank can continue to hold all the cards, and the customer none? Mr Lilley put it in stronger words to me: he said that the proposal amounted to theft.

This story is repeated all over the country, and we have heard some examples in the debate. Everyone in this House today will have constituents who have suffered similar circumstances—people who want to do the right thing, who have poured every spare penny they have into their businesses, and who have looked to their bank to secure a financial plan for that business. When things went wrong, the bank, the regulator and the ombudsman let them down. The best way that we can serve our constituents and ensure that cases such as Mr Lilley’s do not happen again is to support the motion, which I welcome.

The people who need a proper platform for the resolution of disputes of this nature are ordinary individuals and small and medium-sized businesses—exactly those whom the Government say they are determined to support. This House also has a proud history of acting to protect the wellbeing of citizens of this country, of which the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is a case in point. That Act outlines the duties of employers to take measures, where reasonable, to ensure that persons not in their employment who may be affected by their activities are not exposed to risks to their health and safety.

I do not need to outline the devastating physical and mental health effects that are brought about by chronic worry and anxiety about a business that someone has spent their life building up. The impact on the health and wellbeing of my constituent and his family are clear. Our financial regulatory system has a moral duty to regulate as much as an economic one, and it is the lives of our constituents, and the worry that they bear, which is the test against which it should be measured. That is why I am proud today to support the creation of a proper authority to solve these disputes and why I am happy to support this motion.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jane Ellison]

I thank colleagues for that debate; some points were made by veterans of the previous Bill Committee and I will try to respond to them.

Clause 2 is about amending the meaning of “small charitable donation”. Amendment 1 would extend the gift aid small donations scheme to include donations made by cheque, online or by SMS. Amendments 2 and 3 would extend the scheme to include SMS donations.

The scheme was introduced to address a specific problem. That is at the heart of the debate. It is intended to allow charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style top-up payment when it is not practical or feasible to collect a gift aid declaration, such as with street collections. It is not simply a lighter-touch alternative to gift aid. I think this is probably at the heart of our debate. The scheme exists to provide a similar outcome in situations where charities cannot realistically obtain a gift aid declaration, but the Government are clear that, if a charity can get a gift aid declaration and claim gift aid, it should do so. There are obvious reasons for that, as colleagues will appreciate. For example, there is no cap on gift aid, whereas there is on this scheme. For that reason, the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 restricted the scope of the gift aid small donations scheme to small donations in cash—coins and notes. Although I understand entirely the motivation behind the amendments, they are actually contrary to the stated policy intention of the scheme.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am struggling to understand why the way in which money is donated matters, given that there is a cap on the amount that can be donated anyway. I do not understand why whether a donation is made in cash or by contactless affects the integrity of the purpose of what we are trying to do.

[Jane Ellison]

We are keen to extend the scheme to cover contactless as well as cash payments, but as those who were here in 2012 will know, the scheme augments what we expect charities to raise through gift aid donations and covers means such as bucket collections that it is just not feasible to do gift aid on. The scheme is capped. We actually want charities to claim as much as possible under gift aid, which is not capped and allows them to form a long-term relationship with donors, as many of us probably know from charities that we give to. From the simple point of view of a charity, a wholesale switch to claiming through this scheme rather than gift aid would move it away from such long-term relationships and limit what it could claim. The scheme is meant to be a complement to gift aid, not an alternative or a lighter-touch version of it, and it would be to many charities’ disbenefit if that were the case.

As I explained on Second Reading, the small donations scheme was never intended to cover methods of donations for which well-established and well-used processes for claiming gift aid already exist, such as donations made by SMS or online. It may help if I explain in a bit more detail the processes for claiming gift aid on electronic donations. As the Minister for Civil Society, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), outlined on Second Reading, there is a simple and well-established process that allows charities to solicit gift aid declarations from donors who make SMS donations. I take the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made about the way people respond to that, but it is a pretty straightforward and well-established process none the less. The donor sends a short code word to a six-digit number—for example, “Dog” to 606060—to donate a set amount through their phone bill. A reply is then sent to the donor thanking them for their donation and asking them for their name, house number and postcode and confirmation that they are a UK taxpayer. Once the donor provides that information, the charity can claim gift aid.

I think that is a straightforward process, and I hope that hon. Members would agree that, in circumstances such as that, where a donor provides a charity with a ready means of making direct contact—their mobile phone number—it is feasible for the charity to solicit a gift aid declaration, and indeed many charities regularly do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I understand the point, but I am not entirely clear how adding cheques to the scheme would help. I want to stress that, if we make changes that encourage charities to switch to claiming under this scheme, essentially moving away from trying to claim under gift aid, that will severely limit—cap—the amount they can claim and it will also prevent them from forging a relationship with the donor. I accept that there might be circumstances, like that one, in which claiming under gift aid might be more difficult, but the answer is not to include cheques in the scheme. The scheme has always been about trying to replicate the instantaneous cash-collection type of situation.

[Anna Turley]

I am still a bit confused. I appreciate the point about trying to keep people focused on gift aid as the preferred means of donation, but the whole purpose of the Bill—its raison d’être—is to ensure that the scheme

“operates effectively and flexibly for the greatest number of charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs”,

and we have heard that only a quarter of the charities that could use the scheme are doing so at the moment. Surely, therefore, we should be encouraging more charities to use it, rather than pushing them towards gift aid only. This scheme is much more accessible and more suited to small and locally based charities.

[Jane Ellison]

We want the charities to use both methods, and there is evidence that many do. The scheme was always envisaged as a complement to gift aid, so it is not an either/or.

I totally accept that there is always more to be done in getting charities to claim gift aid. In the Second Reading debate, the Minister for Civil Society talked about the charities day that is coming up and I mentioned that HMRC has an outreach team, which has already delivered more than 600 sessions with charities, talking about how they can make the most of what is on offer. Of course we want to see donations maximised. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said, that we have not yet reached the point we wanted to, but the Bill takes us a good way in the right direction.

We do not want to incentivise a switch to this scheme from gift aid. In any case, there is a matching requirement, so any charity would have to do gift aid to access this scheme. We will perhaps debate that matching requirement later. It is important. We mentioned it briefly in terms of the assurance process.

The Government’s position has always been clear. The scheme was introduced to provide a payment similar to gift aid when charities cannot obtain a gift aid declaration. If a charity can claim gift aid, it should do so, because that is more beneficial to them in the long term, for the reasons I have touched on. Robust processes exist to allow charities to claim gift aid on electronic donations and the Government will shortly introduce legislation to make doing that even easier. I hope, therefore, that Members will not press their amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, new clause 1 would require the Chancellor to lay before the House an assessment of the impact of removing the gift aid matching requirement within six months of the passing of this Act. New clause 2 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the efficacy of the scheme’s anti-fraud provisions in the same period.

I should start by saying that I welcome the cross-party consensus on the importance of protecting the gift aid small donations scheme, and charitable tax reliefs more generally, from abuse. Indeed, I completely agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who said on Second Reading:

“We must make sure that any loosening of the rules for access to Government grants or tax reliefs does not provide a further incentive for tax avoiders, albeit a small minority, to set up a charity.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 220.]

She was exactly right to draw our attention to that. The Government also agree with the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who said during his closing remarks on Second Reading that

“it is vital that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent fraud when Government funding or tax breaks are provided, as in this case, to the charity sector. I think that sentiment would get cross-party support.”––[Official Report, 11 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 247.]

Indeed, I think that sentiment does have cross-party support.

Let me say a little about fraud in the charity sector, which is relevant to the new clause. None of us likes to contemplate it or talk about it, but sadly it exists. As the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), said on Second Reading,

“it is an unfortunate fact that unscrupulous individuals seek to exploit charitable status for criminal purposes.”––[Official Report, 11 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 250.]

It might shock colleagues to hear that the “Annual Fraud Indictor 2016” document produced by Experian, PKF Littlejohn and the University of Portsmouth’s Centre for Counter Fraud Studies estimates that fraud costs the charity sector about £1.9 billion each year. The report also states:

“Fraudsters are fast, inventive, adaptable and willing to quickly exploit new opportunities.”

I am sure hon. Members will therefore agree that it is vital the Government make sure that any initiatives, no matter how well intentioned, have suitable safeguards in place to limit opportunities for abuse, particularly when those initiatives involve spending public money. Indeed, both the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and the hon. Member for Bootle made exactly that point on Second Reading.

The gift aid matching requirement provides a deterrent for those who would seek to exploit the small donations scheme. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the matching requirement; we have heard them again today. A few hon. Members, including the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Clwyd South, cited a survey by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and others that suggested that the matching rule acts as a barrier to claiming from the gift aid small donations scheme, with 50% of respondents with an income under £10,000 wanting the matching rule to be removed or reduced. However, it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to the fact that the same survey also found that only 5% of respondents claimed no gift aid at all, and just 10% felt that they did not claim enough gift aid to make claiming top-up payments worthwhile. Similarly, the Government’s own assessment found that 92% of charities claiming gift aid for the tax year 2014-15 claimed on donations of £500 or more, entitling them to the maximum small donations allowance, which at that time was £5,000. That is interesting evidence that for the vast bulk of charities, the matching rule is not a barrier.

[Anna Turley]

I would put the burden of evidence and proof back on the Minister. This provision has existed for three years now. Does she have any evidence of its benefit or usefulness, either in promoting the use of gift aid or in reducing fraud? If there is none, then given the clear objection from the sector, I really do not see any benefit to it whatever.

[Jane Ellison]

First, I would argue that the matching rule has become more relevant because of the provisions in the Bill to simplify the scheme, for example the end of the two-in-four rule. Secondly, I have been sat here musing as I have listened to Members making their points about the need for me to prove that the rules are necessary. I cannot see how that can be done without first relaxing them and then having to report to the House that there had been large amounts of fraud, public money had been wasted and so on. In other words, the only way to prove it is to prove a negative.

--- Later in debate ---

“among the many small, local civil society groups, the scouts and guides, the air and sea cadets and other local uniformed groups, in particular, will benefit significantly from this change and will be able to receive the support they deserve for the vital work they carry out in our communities”.—[Official Report, Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 217.]

[Anna Turley]

I think this is a really important provision that deserves greater explanation from the Government. It goes much more widely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles said. It should seek to include organisations, such as Age UK or Mind, which have much more devolved operational structures. For example, on the back of the loss of the steelworks in Redcar and Cleveland, the number of referrals to Redcar and Cleveland Mind went up by 93%. That charity relies almost entirely on its own local fundraising. That is an exact example of where the charity ought to be able to have a lot more freedom to raise money and keep its gift aid donations locally, rather than having to be part of a national structure. I implore the Minister to take this away and explore it much more widely.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The role of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account. We are holding this Chancellor to account for a potential attack on disabled people that I believe would have devastated their lives.

What I find most disgraceful through all of this is that there has been no word of apology from the Chancellor or any Conservative Member. Apologise, I say. I say apologise for the pain and anguish he has caused disabled people and their families in the past two weeks. We all make mistakes. I understand that. But when you make a mistake and correct it, you should at least apologise.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend share my view that the most distressing thing the former Secretary of State said this weekend was the point he made about

“it doesn’t matter because they don’t vote for us”?

Is there not a constant thread running through everything—from the bedroom tax to local government cuts to this Budget—that this is a deeply political Government who do not care unless people vote Tory?

[John McDonnell]

I find a form of electoral politics, where you target a vulnerable group in society just because they do not vote for you, unacceptable. Not a word of apology! One nation Conservativism? It is a contradiction in terms.

Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Google tax debacle demonstrates that attempts to patch up the current international tax system are woefully inadequate. Despite the efforts of the OECD and its base erosion and profit shifting overhaul, it appears highly likely that corporate tax will continue to be an optional extra for most multinational companies.

The UK’s tax treaties—this is to do with Ireland as well in terms of Google—with developing countries allow UK firms to limit their tax payments, often in countries where the money is most needed to fund hard-pressed public services. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) rightly mentioned Malawi earlier and I praise him for that.

According to the IMF, recent calculations have shown that developing countries are losing around $200 billion a year through tax avoidance by companies. The OECD has estimated that tax havens could be costing those developing countries three times the current global aid budget.

The value flowing out of countries from companies not paying their tax is huge: an estimated $l trillion a year. To put that into context, Africa is now a net creditor to the world in terms of the tax it loses from multinational companies operating in African countries’ jurisdictions. According to Oxfam, corporate tax avoidance in the form of trade mispricing by G7-based companies and investors cost Africa $6 billion in 2010—more than enough to improve the healthcare systems of the Ebola-affected countries of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea.

Then there are the sins of omission. Anonymous shell companies in the British Virgin Islands were used to acquire mining concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo for $275 million. They were then sold for $1.63 billion, costing the state $1.36 billion, or twice the combined health and education budget.

What is to be done? The Prime Minister is hosting an anti-corruption summit in May, and is inviting Heads of State from all over the world to London, but how can the UK lecture other countries on what they should be doing to tackle tax avoidance and tax corruption when the Crown dependencies and overseas territories in our own constitutional backyard are such notorious purveyors of secrecy? I put that case to the Minister on BBC Radio 5 Live just before the election.

We need to insist that multinationals publish their basic accounts in every country. We need to insist that they clean up their backyards, and ensure that British-linked tax havens—the Crown protectorates—cannot continue to act as conduits for tax dodging. We need to stop applying sticking plasters to broken OECD tax rules, and mandate the UN to develop a set of rules that ensure that big businesses pay their fair share of tax in every country in which they do business.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Kane]

I will.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The clock is on zero. I think it would be unfair to allow the hon. Gentleman to give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) might have commanded a little more respect if he had listened with respect to the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). This debate is about Google, but it is also about so much more. We know that Google is currently valued at $524 billion, and that its profits in 2015 alone were £11 billion, an increase of £1 billion in a year, based on revenues of more than £52 billion. The Daily Mail has reported that Google has more than 5,000 UK-based employees, which is about a 10th of its total worldwide workforce. That figure includes 279 of its European, middle eastern and African directors, compared with Dublin, where it has 79 such directors. As colleagues have said, Google is constructing a new headquarters worth £1 billion near King’s Cross, in addition to its five other offices in the UK.

I do not want to get into a blame game. I want us to get the way we recover tax in this country right, but I believe that certain factors did not help to ensure focus on this growing problem. The public finances were healthy up to 2008. In the year before the crash, the Treasury netted nearly 30% of its corporate tax receipts just from financial services. That figure had fallen to about 17% by 2009. Also, at that time, the online giants of today were largely below the radar. Many floated before they had made a penny profit. Let us look at the corporate giants of today. Twitter, which floated in 2013, was valued at $18 billion on the day of its flotation yet it had never made a profit up to that point and did not do so for another year or more. Likewise, when Google first floated in 2004, its valuation was $23 billion but it was not turning the kind of profits that we are talking about today. Google’s circumstances are somewhat different today, yet after six years and with all the benefits of hindsight, this Government have achieved a payment of only £130 million, and we do not know how much of that is interest or penalties. We have to do more on this.

We can add other household names to the list of companies that paid no corporation tax in 2014: Shell, Lloyds Banking Group, AstraZeneca, SAB Miller, Vodafone and British American Tobacco. Those six companies made a combined profit of £30 billion in 2014, yet they are notionally making no money in the UK.

[Anna Turley]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that initiatives such as the Fair Tax Mark, which is a bit like the fair trade stamp, should encourage more companies to demonstrate publicly their tax liabilities and responsibilities, and that they should consider it a badge of pride that they are paying their full tax?

[Caroline Flint]

Absolutely. I think that there is cross-party support for more transparency.

Given that Google, HMRC and the Chancellor were quick to publicise the outcome of their negotiations, surely they should be open about how they arrived at the figure of £130 million. We need to know what sort of benchmark this is setting not only for Google but for other companies as well. The Government make the rules and HMRC enforces them, and it is about time that we had more openness. To be honest, if I worked for Google and I were advising it, I would say, “Volunteer to give the information, because this situation is not doing your company any good whatsoever.” This is important not only to reassure public opinion but to restore the confidence of those UK-based businesses that have much lower revenues than these giant corporations yet pay considerably more tax, including 20% corporation tax.

We cannot content ourselves with companies appearing to decide whether or not to pay any tax, as though it were discretionary or some kind of charitable payment to the UK. If the broadest shoulders are to bear their share of the burden for funding public services and our pension system, I am afraid that the Government will have to raise their game. We will support the Government on that. Our Labour motion might not receive a majority in the vote today, but this problem will not go away. I, for one, am looking forward to next week when, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I shall hear directly from Google and HMRC about what they have to say.

Financial Conduct Authority

Anna Turley Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Some of my most entertaining afternoons on the Treasury Committee have been following him when he has been quizzing the Chancellor. Who can possibly forget that wonderful moment when he asked the Chancellor whether he had ever visited a Greggs bakery, starting off what then became known as the “omnishambles Budget”? He works very hard.

It is a great pleasure to speak in yet another debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). He has been a truly extraordinary campaigner in this particular area. Without a shadow of a doubt, he certainly deserved the honour he received in Wales for being the Welsh MP of the year in 2013. He has devoted a huge amount of forensic energy to looking into this subject. I have certainly enjoyed very much the privilege of working with him on the huge area of interest rate hedging products and Connaught, and trying to hold the regulator to account. Without his forensic help, we would have had very dull Treasury Committee meetings. It was he who managed to get hold of the smoking gun about how the regulator has turned its focus possibly to being more supportive of banks than the consumer.

When we consider the content of the speeches in this debate, it is fair to say that the evidence presented to us illustrates that the regulator is not necessarily always entirely fair to the consumer. The evidence supports the perception that the regulator has a pro-bank stance. We heard about the GRG report. If one wants to know what a long-delayed report looks like, look at the HBOS report. We see the guillotine of the PPI claims coming through in the not-too-distant future. We have seen the reverse of the reverse burden of proof for senior managers—we spent a lot of time debating that in the previous debate—and we have seen a change in the terms of the thematic review. I argued that this was a wasted opportunity to change the banking culture.

I completely agree that this is all good evidence for how the regulator is not necessarily standing up for the consumer, but when we look at the motion of no confidence in the regulator, it is fair that we need to take a slightly more rounded view. Have we perhaps, on occasion, been guilty of what sports commentators do when a poor goalkeeper successfully saves many, many shots, but, when he lets through one crucial goal, is criticised by everybody for not being up to the job?

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about honing in only on the bad news, but that is cold comfort to the many constituents of ours facing these difficult problems. My constituent Mr Lilley and his family own a small glass and DIY business in the village Marske. They were mis-sold an interest rate hedging product by HSBC and are still owed thousands of pounds because of the difference in the premium. Is that not a perfect example of how the FCA is failing to investigate? This issue is of huge personal significance to our constituents—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.