Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the motion on behalf of the Opposition. Looking back over the corresponding debate last year, I was interested to see that the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), told the House that, due to the tight timetable,

“the Treasury has made every effort to provide early copies of the convergence programme document in advance of today’s debate.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 851.]

I acknowledge that today the Financial Secretary indicated the difficulties in providing the document in a timely fashion. I received a copy only on Friday. At more than 250 pages long, it was perhaps not ideal, but it certainly made for interesting weekend reading.

[Mr Gauke]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that many of those pages were familiar, having been in the Budget documents? No doubt, by Friday, she had already read and digested all the Budget documentation.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I was just about to say that I know the Minister is courteous and accommodating, so I understand that the delay might have been unavoidable. As he quite often does, he has anticipated a number of the questions and points I intended to raise—indeed, the whole thrust of my remarks is just how familiar some of the documents and the issues they cover are, given that they have been discussed already and are likely to be debated again tomorrow. I hope to be able to do the subject justice this afternoon.

Some things have changed since last year. Looking across the Chamber, I see that, unlike last time, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is not in his customary place. I know what a keen interest he normally takes in European matters, having had the pleasure of his company in many European Committees, including one only this morning. As the Minister last year observed, the hon. Gentleman

“could go on for hours and hours on that particular subject.” —[Official Report, 30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 854.]

Given his absence from the Chamber this afternoon, the debate might be shorter than was anticipated.

As the Financial Secretary observed, once again we have been provided with a barrage of figures, accompanied by bouts of backslapping, boasts and congratulations from the Government to themselves. The overarching theme of the document is to show just how well the Government have done—and, no doubt, the Government would say that is entirely in order from their perspective. However, the document—and to some extent this debate—is something of an exercise in repackaging. Bits of the Red Book and bits of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” are spliced together with a new binding—a theme and variations on the Budget, except there is little theme and scant variation. Although the Government can try to repackage the Budget, I would argue that they cannot mask some of the problems we have already raised and the reality of the failure.

Part of me thinks that the Minister’s tune, like the Chancellor’s last week, strikes a pretty discordant note, because the truth is that, under even the mildest scrutiny, the Government’s economic credibility behaves like a sand castle in the waves, melting away before our eyes. Attempts have been made, through choice language and careful presentation, to obscure the impact that this Government have had, and continue to have, on the people and public services of this country. The theme that runs through the Red Book and the report we are discussing today is that everyone can put away their umbrella, because the sun is shining, people across the country are better off, and we should all be very grateful as we walk hand in hand into the sunlit uplands of peace and prosperity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

I hear the cheers from the Government Benches. Hon. Members may wish to wait for the next part of my speech before further congratulating the Government. The picture is very different for the millions of people across the country who are still firmly mired in the slough of despond because of what has happened to their lives. For example, there are those who are £1,600 a year worse off since this Government took office, or those who are £1,100 a year worse off as a result of the tax and benefit changes made by this Government, including the rise in VAT. The hundreds and thousands of people across the country, including many in my constituency, who are forced to rely on food banks—a persistent and pernicious feature of Tory Britain—are not feeling the benefits of the recovery. For them the sun is not shining. They can see through the smoke and mirrors that the Government use to try to paint a glowing picture.

To judge only by the language and tone of the document in which the Government claim to have laid the foundations for a strong economy and a fairer society, one might be forgiven for thinking that the worst was over. In some ways that is the most troubling aspect, because we know that the worst is yet to come. The Chancellor may have shuffled the numbers around, but no shuffling can conceal the truth about the Government’s economic plans. As the OBR said, the Budget will mean

“a much sharper squeeze on real spending in 2016-17 and 2017-18 than anything seen over the past five years”,

and a

“sharp acceleration in the pace of implied real cuts to day-to-day spending on public services”.

Perhaps I do not share the Chancellor’s or the Minister’s sunny disposition, or perhaps I am more in touch with the reality of the lives of people across the country. I do not see much fairness in the document before us or in the Government’s approach. The cuts of more than 5% planned for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are twice the size of any annual cuts in this Parliament. That has resulted in a somewhat erratic trajectory, described by the OBR as a “rollercoaster ride” of public spending. Remarkably, for all the cuts yet to come, the Government continue to repeat the tired mantra that “we are all in this together.”

That is not borne out by the evidence. Wage growth has been stagnant over the course of the Parliament. Energy bills, on the other hand, have gone up by around £300 over the past five years. Although the Government boast of more jobs and high rates of employment, we have to consider what kind of jobs these are. Many are low paid. For evidence of that, one need look no further than the state of the nation’s tax receipts. Income tax receipts and national insurance contributions are £97 billion lower over the course of the Parliament than was forecast in 2010. Jobs are often insecure and uncertain, typified by the over-reliance on zero-hours contracts. Alongside the proliferation of insecure, low-paid jobs, the wealthiest have been handed a £3 billion tax cut, while the poorest have lost out disproportionately from the cuts to tax receipts and the increase in VAT.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way in a moment.

Labour has announced today that under no circumstances will we increase VAT in the next Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to say something from his Government’s point of view. Perhaps he will give the same assurance.

[Simon Kirby]

As the hon. Lady mentioned income tax, I was thinking of the millions of people taken out of tax and the 27 million people benefiting from the increases in the personal allowance, many of whom, in my constituency, are among the lowest paid. It is all very well to say that we are helping the rich, but we are helping the low paid even more.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Under a Labour Government, there would be a new 10p starting rate for tax, and we would also reverse the tax cut for millionaires, which this Government gave and which by no stretch of the imagination can be seen to be fair. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not mention VAT. I assume the Minister does not want to intervene at this point to give me an assurance that his Government would not raise VAT in the next Parliament.

It is worth looking back and considering that this is the first Parliament since the early 1920s in which the average person in work will be worse off at the end than they were at the beginning, and the poorest are worse off than the rest. Last week Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies spelt it out in language that I think everyone, including the Government, can understand:

“Looking only at changes implemented by the coalition the poorest have seen the biggest proportionate losses.”

That sounds pretty conclusive to me: the poor have lost the most.

The Minister has given his account of what will happen, but I think that he has been pretty coy about what is really in store for the future. What about the £12 billion of welfare cuts that the Government have committed to? They have already overspent on their welfare plans by £25 billion over the course of this Parliament, while at the same time imposing the unfair and iniquitous bedroom tax, so it is difficult to see how that £12 billion squeeze will be achieved.

When interviewed by Andrew Neil a few days ago, the Minister gallantly held the Government line and steadfastly refused to say where the cuts will be made. While we can perhaps applaud his loyal and resolute nature, he really should be more forthcoming about just where the axe will fall next, because voters across the country will be wondering what the Government are keeping from us. What more can he tell us today? He appears still not to want to say anything about VAT, so I will move on and deal with the Government’s pretentions to fiscal credibility.

For most people, a Government who are fiscally credible are a Government who meet their own fiscal targets. The budget deficit will be around £90 billion this year, and next year’s budget, far from being balanced, as was promised in 2010, is projected to show a £75 billion deficit. Meanwhile, public sector net debt will be £217 billion higher in 2015-16 than was projected in 2010. How can the Government claim to be credible when they have missed their own targets by such wide margins? The end result of all that failure, all those missed targets and broken promises, is even bigger spending cuts.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor pointed out last week, it really has come to something when a Government are forced to boast that spending as a proportion of GDP will fall only to 1964 levels—levels last seen over 50 years ago. It is not a pretty picture. Close scrutiny of the OBR tables shows that 2018 spending, on the historical comparative measure that the OBR uses for day-to-day spending on public services, will fall to its lowest level since 1938. Despite their best efforts, the Tories are still the party that wants to take us back to the 1930s.

The Red Book is trying to perform a delicate balancing act; it is trying to assure us that the worst is over and that stability has been restored while at the same time plotting deeper cuts than anything we have seen in this Parliament. I think that it is seeking simply to paper over the cracks of failure and evade the debris of broken promises. It is for that reason that we will be voting against the Government’s motion today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Bated breath might be overstating it, but I expect the new GERS figures very soon. In recent days we have seen evidence of the damage that the Scottish National party’s ideas would do to the UK economy—higher debt for the whole of the UK at the end of this Parliament than at the beginning of it, and an extra £5 billion a year being spent on interest payments. Having been defeated on its proposals for independence, which would have undermined and damaged the Scottish economy, the SNP seems inclined to offer the same damage to the UK economy as a whole.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Under the Scotland Act 2012, from April 2016 Scotland will indeed have significant new tax-raising powers. HMRC’s own risk register shows that the risk that Scottish taxpayers will not be identified by April 2016 has risen from amber to red, so can the Chief Secretary tell the House why, despite these being the biggest changes to Scottish tax ever, only 11 full-time equivalent HMRC staff are working on them and, according to Audit Scotland, they rely on a single official in the Scottish Government?

[Danny Alexander]

I am confident that the resource being applied at the HMRC end of the spectrum is sufficient to ensure that we can deliver the devolution that is planned. That process is going on at present. Stamp duty devolution starts in April this year and income tax devolution the following April. Whether or not the Scottish Government are applying sufficient resource, effort or people to make sure that the tax system will be competently administered is a question for them to answer. I recently signed off the orders to devolve stamp duty, and they will now need to make sure that that is done properly.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the Chief Secretary for that response, although it does not entirely fill me with reassurance. Is it not the case that this whole process risks descending into absolute chaos, and is it not time that both the UK and the Scottish Governments got a grip? How many HMRC and Treasury officials have been seconded to the Scottish Government to help clear up the mess? If people have not been seconded, will he now have urgent discussions to see whether that would help?

Future Government Spending

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to wind up the debate today and to speak in favour of our Opposition motion. This gives me a chance to describe in plain terms the gulf between this Government’s spending plans and the approach that will be taken by a future Labour Government. It also gives me the opportunity to make it crystal clear that we reject the failed austerity plans that were set out in the Government’s autumn statement.

The Minister and the Chancellor were patting themselves on the back in the media this morning, congratulating themselves on their success. That just shows how out of touch the Government are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said earlier, the Chancellor told the “Today” programme this morning:

“We’ve got on top of our debts and deficits.”

My hon. Friend made it quite clear that they have not. As he and many other Labour Members made clear, this Government have failed on their own terms. In 2010, the Chancellor said that he would balance the current budget by 2014-15, but in the first nine months of this financial year, the gap was £74 billion. The Chancellor has had five years, and he has failed. We cannot afford to give him another five. That point has been made time and again this afternoon.

Let us look at some more evidence. As I have said, the Government have missed their current budget target by £74 billion. In addition, the social security bill is £25 billion more than planned, and tax credits have risen, subsidising the low-wage economy. The number of working people receiving housing benefit is up two thirds, and tax receipts are much lower than expected. The Government have failed on the deficit, on the debt and on living standards.

Some Conservative Members seemed rather excited about today’s Institute for Fiscal Studies report, but if we look at it in more detail, we can see what it actually says. It states that people are worse off today than they were in 2010. As we have heard this afternoon, the real problem is that more people are scraping by, from day to day and week to week, in poorly paid jobs or on exploitative zero-hours contracts. A number of Members have described what it is like for their constituents who have to wait for a text message on a Monday morning to tell them whether they will have any paid work that week. That is no way for them to live their lives. It does not enable them to have any sort of quality of life or to balance their household budget. There is nothing in that for the Government to be proud of.

A number of Members have eloquently argued that at the heart of the Government’s failure is their ideological obsession with shrinking the state. That seems to be their true aim, superseding all else. From what we have heard from the Government this afternoon, it is clear that they will continue to keep chipping away at that, even as the ground crumbles beneath us.

We have heard some powerful and passionate speeches from Labour Members this afternoon. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Corby (Andy Sawford), for Preston (Mark Hendrick) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), all of whom are powerful champions for their constituents. My hon. Friends were speaking up for the people who have suffered under this Government, laying out in clear terms what the impact has been on families right across the UK and talking about their experiences of dealing with the zero-hours contracts, the low pay, being on agency work, and the impact of cuts on local government, which has affected and in some cases decimated local services. They spoke about the sense they got from their constituents that living standards simply have not improved for them; any recovery has not yet reached the kitchen table of our constituents.

My hon. Friends spoke this afternoon about the need to do more to tackle tax avoidance. They spoke about the inequities of the Government’s lack of action to tackle the tax dodgers while imposing the hated bedroom tax. Labour Members made it very clear that our constituents cannot face another five years of Tory Government and that we need a change. As for the consequences of five more years of the Tories, they are still intent on doing more damage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East reminded us in his opening speech, and as hon. Members said at various points in the debate, five more years would take us back to a spending level as a percentage of national income that was last seen in the 1930s, before there was an NHS, when kids left school at 14 and when life expectancy was 60.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has been much quoted by Government Members this afternoon, that would necessitate undeliverable and nigh unthinkable cuts of more than £50 billion. It would, as the IFS said, represent:

“Spending cuts on a colossal scale”—

which would leave—

“the role and shape of the state… changed beyond recognition.”

So let us make no mistake: this is not about fixing the economy; it is about remodelling the role of the state This Government’s plans will do real and lasting damage in the long term, wreaking havoc in public services, decimating our skills and infrastructure, and undermining our competitiveness.—[Interruption.] I hear Government Members shouting, “Rubbish”, but they clearly have not listened to the testimonies of Opposition Members, who so eloquently, passionately and powerfully laid out the impact of this Government’s policies and actions on their constituents.

[Mr Newmark]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am not going to give way because the hon. Gentleman had his opportunity earlier, and I wish to make a few more points about what has been said this afternoon.

The true scale and nature of that impact cannot be quantified, because the Government will not set out where their billions of social security cuts will fall, so we have to look at past performance as our guide. Those reliant on tax credits to make ends meet will be justly wary of another five years of the Tories; because of their tax and benefit changes, a typical household is £891 worse off this year. This Government’s right-wing, doctrinaire approach to the deficit has already done untold damage. Their trickle-down philosophy has been exposed for the sham that it is, and their true aim, as it ever was, is to pulverise the state and to protect the wealthy.

Labour has a better plan. As last year’s IFS green budget made abundantly clear, there is a huge gulf between this Government’s approach and that outlined by Labour. Our approach is not punitive; it is a common-sense approach. It is balanced and proportionate. We acknowledge and accept the need to close the deficit and reduce the debt as soon as possible in the next Parliament, and we are committed to achieving that, but we will do it fairly. That is because we think the wealthiest should shoulder the greatest burden. So we will reverse the £3 billion tax cut for those earning over £150,000, to increase tax revenues and help reduce the deficit fairly; we will introduce a mansion tax on homes worth more than £2 million and crack down on tax avoidance, investing the proceeds in our NHS; and we will tax bank bonuses to create jobs for young people and the long-term unemployed, increase the minimum wage and incentivise payment of the living wage. All our spending commitments will be fully funded. We will deal with the deficit and the debt, but we will not place our public services in jeopardy. Our plan will secure the rising living standards, higher wages and sustainable growth that are needed to fix the economy fairly in a way that benefits everyone, not just a few at the top.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said at the outset, the stakes could not be higher, and the choice could not be starker. There is a massive gulf between this Government’s spending plans and those outlined by Labour. The Tories' austerity agenda has failed. The choice at the election is between five more years of Tory failure, wage stagnation and decimation of the state, or Labour's progressive and balanced plan for the economy that is sustainable in the long term and better for current and future generations.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

How dare Opposition Members indulge in the sort of scaremongering that we have heard this afternoon! I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) would like to celebrate the fact that youth unemployment in her constituency has gone down by 43% since 2010 and that overall, unemployment has gone down by 31% over the same period.

[Cathy Jamieson]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way to the hon. Lady as she did not give way to my hon. Friends.

Furthermore, does the hon. Lady agree that Labour’s motion today is false? She said that the cuts we have made take us back to the 1930s. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that

“by 2019-20, day-to-day spending on public services would be at its lowest level since 2002-03 in real terms.”

And that was when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was in the Government. Does she want to celebrate any of those points with me?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the Minister for eventually giving way. Although I celebrate young people and the long-term unemployed finding work in my constituency, I hope that she will recognise that for many of them, it is zero-hours contracts, low-paid work, and jobs that are not in their chosen careers. They want more from a future Labour Government and they will get it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure that there is no need for me to give way to the hon. Lady again so that she can congratulate us on the fact that, on average, 75% of those new jobs are full-time employment. There are some other facts that Opposition Members might like to celebrate. I am talking about the fact that the UK was the fastest growing major economy in 2014; that more than 760,000 private sector businesses have been created over the past four years; and that employment is up by 1.85 million since the last general election—that is 1.85 million more people with the security of bringing home a regular pay packet. She might like to celebrate the fact that wages are rising significantly faster than inflation, and that total pay was up 2.1% in the three months to 2014.

The hon. Lady might like to hear the views of international commentators. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, said:

“The sweet spot you want is low, stable predictable inflation. You’re going to get that”—

in 2015. Is the hon. Lady interested in the view of President Obama? He said:

“I would note that Great Britain and the United States are two economies that are standing out at a time when a lot of other countries are having problems. So we must be doing something right.”

Perhaps she would like to hear the views of Christine Lagarde who runs the IMF. She says:

“A few countries, only a few, are driving growth.”

The hon. Lady needs to listen to this. Christine Lagarde is talking about America and the UK. She goes on to say:

“And the UK, where clearly growth is improving, the deficit has been reduced, and where the unemployment is going down…Certainly from a global perspective this is exactly the sort of result that we would like to see.”

There is a word of warning from the OECD. It says:

“Well done so far, Chancellor. But finish the job. Britain has a long term economic plan, but it needs to stick with it.”

That is vital and it is what we intend to do.

Let me turn now to some of the very interesting comments made by colleagues across the House. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) gave an excellent talk about the reality of our determination to sort out Labour’s mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) told us why the Government have been so good for his constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) spoke about the importance of competition for economic growth. It is absolutely vital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) contrasted Labour now with Labour in 1997, when the party at least had a vision. He also talked about Labour’s spiteful prejudice against success, and that is right, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) pointed out the vital need to invest in infrastructure in his constituency and his fears that Labour would prioritise Scottish over English interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) pointed out the nonsense of Labour’s motion and the need to ensure that we in this generation do not leave our debts to our children and our grandchildren.

Let me point out to Opposition Members what the IFS recently said about Labour: higher Government borrowing acts to support household incomes in the short run, but the resulting higher levels of Government debt mean that a greater proportion of public spending must be allocated to financing debt interest payments in the long run and potentially leave the UK more vulnerable to large negative shocks in future. Simply borrowing more is just not an option.

The hon. Members for Corby (Andy Sawford) and for Preston (Mark Hendrick) both accused this Government of having done nothing for the NHS, but perhaps they would like to celebrate with me the fact that the health budget has increased in real terms every year during this Parliament, that total health spending has increased by £12.7 billion during this Parliament and that on top of that in the autumn statement the Chancellor announced an additional £2 billion for front-line NHS services in England in 2015-16. The vital point about the NHS is that we cannot have a strong NHS without a strong economy.

Since today we have had a very interesting living standards report from the IFS, I want to give hon. Members some other things to celebrate. The IFS has assessed that average household incomes are now restored to around pre-crisis levels. That is something to celebrate. Wages are up 4.1% in real terms for those in continuous employment. That is fantastic. Inflation is at 0.3%, helping family budgets to stretch further. Let us look at inequality, which is lower than when this Government came to power with, as the IFS has said, pensioner poverty at near record low levels. That is vital in our economy. This Government support fairness and have also ensured, as the IFS has today confirmed, that the richest households have paid the most, with

“larger proportional falls in income for higher-income households.”

That is absolutely vital. Inequality has fallen and the biggest burden has been borne by those with the broadest shoulders.

It is vital that members of the public who have to choose very soon who they want to run the Government for the next five years know that they have the choice between a Government who have been determined to ensure fairness and an Opposition who are completely incoherent and whose lack of facts and plans lead them simply to resort to scaremongering in the hope they can persuade people to accept a non-coherent plan from their Front-Benchers. This Government believe in a fairer society and a fairer society is created by helping the weak get stronger, not by making the strong weaker. We can only have a fair society on the back of a healthy, well-functioning economy and we can only have a healthy, well-functioning economy on the back of sustainable public finances.

The Government’s long-term economic plan is making public finances sustainable for the first time in a great many years. It is delivering economic growth and as the IFS confirmed today it is raising the standards of living across the country. That is vital. We are finally on the right track and now would be the worst time to change direction. Let us keep going, let us finish the job and let us give the people of this country the fair, strong, healthy and vibrant economy that they deserve.

Question put.

Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes bonuses should be rewards for exceptional performance and that, following the banking scandals that have emerged in the last few months, this year’s bank bonus round should reflect this principle; further believes that a tax on bank bonuses should be levied in order to fund a guaranteed paid starter job for young people who have been out of work for over a year, and that this tax should cover allowances paid by banks which attempt to get round the EU bonus cap; calls on the Government to reform the rules on bankers’ bonuses by extending clawback of bank bonuses that have already been paid in cases of inappropriate behaviour to at least 10 years and by also extending the deferral period for senior managers to 10 years, in line with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards; and further calls on the Government to implement wider reform of the banking industry to increase competition and boost net lending to small and medium-sized businesses.

As we enter this year’s bank bonus season, I am reminded that seasons used to be for football and fashion, but it now seems that we have a season for bank bonuses as well. I am delighted to have this opportunity to set out everything that a Labour Government would do to reform the banking sector in this country, and to highlight the areas where the current Government have failed to make the necessary reforms.

Earlier this month, in our Opposition day debate on tax avoidance, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), with whom I have traded places today, explained how the tax system is underpinned by the principles of fairness, trust and transparency. Those principles are equally applicable to the banking sector. Just as a Labour Government will restore those principles to the tax system, ensuring that tax loopholes are closed, tax dodgers are caught, and everyone pays their fair share, so we will restore them to the banking sector. In doing so, we will be acting in the best interests of businesses, consumers, the wider economy and the banks themselves.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s motion seeks to increase competition in banking. Will she therefore explain why the Labour Opposition voted against the Financial Services Act 2012, which specifically encouraged competition in banking services?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Having sat on the Bill Committee for that piece of legislation, I remember well the considerable discussion that there was. If the hon. Gentleman has read our paper on banking reform, he will know that we support the reference to the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that we get new challenger banks in the system. That will be an important feature of our reforms in government.

Our programme of reform, as stated in our recent paper on banking, is designed to undo the reputational damage that has been inflicted by the financial crisis and the subsequent scandals. Our approach will help to restore the trust and confidence of savers, businesses and investors, and to ensure that fair dealing, integrity, prudence and probity are once again the pillars on which Britain’s banks are founded. In a global industry, an international reputation for good practice can only be a competitive advantage.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady believe that the tripartite system, which was brought in by the previous Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor, was one reason why our banking system was left so much more vulnerable in the difficult time that we had? Does she accept that the Labour party should take responsibility for that?

[Cathy Jamieson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we did have a global financial crisis. The Labour party has accepted that perhaps the regulation could and should have been tighter; we have said that on numerous occasions. I was not in this place at the time of the financial crisis, but I do not recall many on the Conservative Benches making the case for tougher regulation. Indeed, the opposite is true; they were actually looking for light-touch regulation. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but perhaps he should look at his own party’s record on this matter as well.

[Guy Opperman]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to make a bit of progress, but I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.

[Guy Opperman]

Clearly, regulation is needed, but it is only because we have relaxed some parts of the regulations that we have been able to allow up to 20 new challenger banks to be established since 2010. Does the hon. Lady think that her proposals will encourage or discourage challenger banks? The evidence thus far is that Labour has voted against every single measure that would create greater competition in banking.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am now becoming a bit confused about what Conservative Members are arguing for here. Do they want more or less regulation? [Interruption.] Did I hear someone say both? The important issue here is to ensure that regulation is fit for purpose, and that we do not simply have more of the same when we talk about new entrants into the banking system.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Let me help to clarify the matter for the hon. Lady. The point that she was trying to make is that having an enormous amount of regulation can be ineffective and bureaucratic, but, equally, having too little regulation will not work. What we need is effective regulation. One of the most effective aspects of regulation, when it comes to changing behaviour, is the potential for criminal prosecution of those who do wrong. That is not mentioned in her motion. Will she address that during her speech?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some clarity. He is absolutely right that regulation is part of the process, but we also need a culture change and an attitudinal change. He is correct to identify the lack of prosecutions. Although that is not mentioned specifically in the motion, I recommend that he reads Labour’s document, which takes account of that point. Our agenda is not entirely punitive, because it is driven by economic imperatives. We all know that the performance of the banking sector is vital to the health of Britain’s economy. It employs more than 1 million people, each of whom has an important role to play in advising businesses and consumers, and helping them to manage their money, invest wisely and plan for the future. Without the banks, consumers would be unable to save and borrow. Businesses would not have access to the patient finance that they need if they are to grow and to create high-quality, well-paid jobs.

Too often in recent years, many banks have fallen short of the very high standards that we expect of them; that is a view shared across the House. In many instances, they have not acted with trust and they have not acted fairly. At times, they have acted recklessly and unethically. Instead of helping their customers, they have exploited them.

Banks and their employees operate in a high-skilled environment, dealing with sophisticated financial instruments that are often beyond the ken of the average consumer and small business owner. Rather than using that knowledge to guide and advise consumers, they have, in some instances, abused that knowledge to exploit them. In investment, consumer and business banking, banks have betrayed the trust of customers and undermined the integrity of the industry. In doing so, they have totted up some truly colossal sums in fines.

Indeed, 2014 was a record year for fines in the City of London, culminating in the £1.1 billion fine levied by the Financial Conduct Authority on five banks, including HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland, for their part in the forex fixing scandal. In recent times, four UK banks—Barclays, HSBC, RBS and Lloyds—have also paid £1.5 billion in compensation for mis-selling interest rate hedging products. Other recent scandals include LIBOR fixing and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is making an intelligent speech. With regard to the recent fines, is it not fair to say that in the vast majority of cases the actions that led to those fines were perpetrated under the old regulator, the Financial Services Authority, and that the bringing to justice, meaning the fining, has been done under the new regulatory regime? Does that not reinforce how bad the old system was and how good the new one is?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was a bit of a compliment about me making an intelligent speech. Of course, he then proceeded to make a party political point by trying to shift the emphasis back on to what happened before, and I understand why he would seek to do so. It is important to acknowledge that there have been changes, but there is no evidence yet to suggest that all the behaviours that led to wrong decisions being taken have changed, so we still need to keep an eye on that.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I would like to give the hon. Lady an opportunity to rise above the party politics that the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), were he here—I note that he is not—would no doubt be indulging in. Does she welcome the £5 million funding from LIBOR sources that has benefited charities up and down the country, including the East Anglia air ambulance in my constituency?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. The shadow Chancellor is not here, but neither is the Chancellor, so I am not sure what point she was trying to make in that regard. I recognise that a significant amount of money has gone to support valuable organisations such as the one she mentioned, but I hope that she was in no way suggesting that the banks should not be paying attention to their current ways of operating. We must ensure that we never again have a situation in which those fines are necessary, so hopefully things will change.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady confirm that the forex and LIBOR scandals took place before this Government were elected, and that it is this Government’s regulatory regime that has taken action to deal with them? Does she also agree that bonuses tripled in four years under her Government, and that under this Government they are a fifth of what they were? Much progress has been made, and she ought to give the Government credit for the work they have done.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will always give credit where it is due, but we also have to look at what has happened on this Government’s watch. As the hon. Gentleman knows, what we have seen with HSBC over the past few weeks shows that it can take a considerable time for some of those issues to come to light and be dealt with. The important point is to have a regulatory environment in place that allows those issues to be dealt with quickly, rather than just put to one side. We also need a change in culture to ensure that those things do not happen again.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point. She will remember that after the LIBOR scandal the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards set out a programme of reform for the banking sector. Is she as concerned as I am that those reforms have not gone nearly far enough in their implementation? We need a proper investment bank and proper competition in banking, and we must also ensure lending to businesses.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a useful point. I am confident that he has read the paper we published on that, which highlights the need to ensure that finance gets to small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, and the important role that a proper British investment bank can play.

Earlier this month we saw a new and startling example of impropriety, with the allegations that HSBC’s Swiss subsidiary actively advised customers on how to avoid, and indeed evade, tax. I want to emphasis again that all those activities are symptoms of a wider culture that has seeped from investment to retail banking. That culture has been characterised by short-termism and the pursuit of profit at the expense of all else—in many cases, at the expense of the banks’ own customers and the wider economy. That culture led to banks exploiting their consumers and ripping off the taxpayer.

That culture has also caused banks to lose sight of what should be their core function. The role of our high street banks is, or should be, twofold: they must serve the needs of consumers, providing basic borrowing and saving facilities and loans for mortgages to buy homes; and they must provide finance to businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) suggested, enabling them to start up, grow and create well-paid and secure jobs. However, lending to business has fallen by over £55 billion since 2010, despite an array of Government schemes, such as Project Merlin and the funding for lending scheme, all of which have to varying degrees failed to deliver. Despite that, however, and despite all the scandals, the banks have continued to pay lavish bonuses to a small cohort of senior employees.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. She says that business lending is not quite what it was in the old days, but is it not fair to say that business lending in the old days was incredibly irrational and irresponsible, and that that led to the financial crisis that brought the banks down? We want the banks to lend, but we do not want them to lend irresponsibly and create another crisis.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we want irresponsible lending. We want those businesses that are valuable, sustainable and want to grow—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard from them in his constituency, as I have in mine—to be able to access finance. That is the important point.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way to Conservative Members, and I would like to quote another Conservative, albeit not a Member of this House. Kay Swinburne, an MEP for Wales, had this to say on the subject of the court case in Europe that the Government decided to contest with our money:

“I can tell you there is not a single constituent I have met that actually thinks we were right to have taken that to the courts”.

She then suggested that bankers could be “a little more innovative” in getting around the cap. That is the real voice of the Conservative party, even if Conservative Members are not expressing it here today.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I was planning to say something about the cap later, but my hon. Friend has made her point with words that I would have difficulty bettering.

Let me return to banks paying lavish bonuses. The public are understandably still questioning why, with wage stagnation and the cost of living crisis that they are all facing, senior bankers have continued to reward themselves in that way. Let us look at the figures. Last year, bonuses at Barclays were up 10% to £2.4 billion and those at Lloyds were up 8% to £395 million. The Royal Bank of Scotland, 79% of which is owned by the taxpayer, announced a bonus pool of £577 million. Some may say that that is all well and good, because it is just senior bankers enjoying the hard-earned fruits of their labour, but that is more difficult to justify in the light of recent scandals and given that two of the UK’s four largest banks—Barclays and RBS—have experienced drastic falls in profits. Earlier this week, with impeccable timing, of course, HSBC announced its bonus pool for the year, awarding its chief executive, Stuart Gulliver, £7.6 million—I repeat, £7.6 million—and paying 330 of its top employees in excess of €1 million, despite the revelations of recent weeks and a 17% fall in profits.

It would be remiss of me not to refer to the role that the Government have played in all this. As well as the failure of their schemes to galvanise lending, they have failed—this point was made my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish—to implement all the reforms recommended by the Independent Commission on Banking and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. They ignored Labour’s pleas for action to regulate benchmarks when the LIBOR scandal first came to light, and they have actively aided and abetted bankers’ efforts to safeguard their bonuses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) pointed out, the Chancellor launched an ill-fated and misguided legal challenge to the EU bonus cap, which limits bonuses to 100% of fixed pay or 200% with shareholder approval, which still seems fairly generous.

[Mark Garnier]

What troubles me about a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying is that she is confusing how much bankers have been paid with how one goes about paying them. While many of us would agree that having pay packages of millions of pounds is an issue in itself, it is not to do with bonuses. She will probably propose in due course that bonuses should be clawed back over a period of 10 years, which I recommended as a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, so I agree with her entirely about that. However, capping bonuses reduces the amount of money that can be clawed back. In fact, if one pays a banker £1, 90p should be paid as a bonus, because then there will be more to claw back and therefore more sway over that banker to encourage them to behave better.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know that he made those points during the work that he did. I am glad to hear that he agrees with us on some of this, and I will deal with a number of his points later.

We still have to look at the actions of this Government in taking on the legal challenge to the EU bonus cap, however. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not suggest for a moment that that was a sensible thing to do. I do not think that the public saw it in that way—

[Mark Garnier]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I want to finish this point.

As I said, it seemed that the scenario proposed was still fairly generous, but it was obviously not generous enough for the Chancellor, who decided to take legal action. The quest ended in failure after he meekly admitted defeat at the hands of the EU’s lawyers, but not before he had wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money in legal fees. Let us remember that this Chancellor will not devote himself to ensuring that tax avoiders and evaders are brought to book, when the first thing that he does is to challenge something of that sort, but he will devote himself to defending the right of bankers to receive high bonuses, while spending taxpayers’ money as he does so.

The Chancellor has been a diligent defender of bankers on the home front, too. Last year he had to be pressurised by Labour and others into refusing to give taxpayer-owned RBS the shareholder permission it needed to breach the cap and to pay bonuses of 200% of salary, and he still has serious questions to answer on HSBC. Over recent weeks, he has done his best not to answer them and has sent his Treasury Ministers out to do the talking for him. On Monday, he finally put in an appearance, yet he did not have any answers at all, so we need to keep asking the same questions. Did he discuss allegations of tax evasion at HSBC with Lord Green before Lord Green was made a Tory Minister; why has only one person been prosecuted out of 1,100 names; and why has he signed a deal with Switzerland that could prevent HMRC from getting its hands on similar information in future? He has been Chancellor for nearly five years and this is his responsibility. He needs to start taking his responsibilities seriously. If he does not, people are going to draw their own conclusions.

Let me move on to Labour’s reforms. It has been clear since this Government took office that they do not have the stomach for the serious reforms that we need. As our motion explains, a Labour Government will do things very differently. Our starting point, as I outlined, will be trust and fairness. We believe that banks should serve the needs of their customers and the economy, and that bonuses should be a reward for exceptional performance, not a compensation for failure.

[Guy Opperman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will, in the hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to agree with my last point.

[Guy Opperman]

I do agree that there is a need for greater competition. Let me ask the hon. Lady this question again: why did she troop through the Lobby—I presume that she did so with the rest of her colleagues—to vote against the provisions on greater competition in the Financial Services Act 2012?

[Cathy Jamieson]

As I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier, perhaps he would like to take some time to read the report that we produced last week, which shows that we need to make several changes to ensure that there is greater competition. I do not see anything inconsistent in that and I hope that he will choose to read the report.

I want to return to the point that bonuses should be a reward for exceptional performance, not a compensation for failure.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to finish my point. I have been very generous and time is moving on.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way just on this point?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I am going to finish the point that I began.

Bonuses are a reward for exceptional performance in other industries, so that should be the case in the banking sector as well. However, despite the scandals that have emerged over the past year, most recently at HSBC, it looks as though this year’s round of bank bonuses will once again be very generous.

There needs to be more accountability in banking, and pay must be more closely aligned with long-term performance, so a Labour Government will embark on a serious and far-reaching programme of reform in the banking sector. We will reintroduce our successful tax on bankers’ bonuses, which generated over £3 billion in 2010, and act to ensure that this tax incorporates role-based pay or any other payments made by banks in an attempt to circumvent the EU bonus cap.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I am going to finish this point because it answers a number of questions that hon. Members have put.

We will use the money generated to fund our compulsory jobs guarantee, creating a paid job for every 16 to 24-year-old who has been out of work for over a year, and for those over the age of 25 who have been out of work for more than two years. According to the latest labour force survey, youth unemployment was 740,000 in the three months to December 2014, which was an increase of 3,000 on the previous quarter. We know that being unemployed while young damages people’s prospects years into the future. Research shows that young people who have been unemployed for a year will, on average, be £125,000 worse off over their working lifetime, which means that a person on the average wage would have to work nearly six years longer to make up for the cost of being unemployed while young.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am not going to give way because I am making important and serious points about the future of our young people. I have been very generous in giving way and I want to finish this point. Our bank bonus tax not only will offer a lifeline for thousands of young people, helping them to earn, learn, and get a foot on the career ladder, but will help the economy and mean that the banks give something back to society.

In addition to that and our wider programme of reform, we will extend the deferral and clawback period for bonuses, ensuring that rewards are paid out proportionately and can be recouped when evidence of reckless or inappropriate behaviour is revealed further down the line. As I said, the financial crisis and recent scandals have shown that risky decisions can take up to a decade to have an impact. The next Labour Government will therefore ensure that if bankers have been shown to have acted inappropriately or made reckless decisions, banks will be able to claw back any bonuses awarded. We will act on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards by extending the period for the clawback of bank bonuses that have already been paid to at least 10 years. We will also extend deferral periods for senior managers to at least 10 years, which will help to deter the rash and short-sighted behaviour that we have seen in the past, and to encourage banks and their employers to have a view of the long term.

[Mark Garnier]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more, given his role on the Parliamentary Commission.

[Mark Garnier]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady; she really is being incredibly generous. Capping bonuses and targeting the bonus with a tax in itself will inevitably drive banks’ behaviour towards the perverse outcomes that none of us in the Chamber wants. If we tax bonuses, the banks will change them into something else. They cannot wriggle out of a balance sheet tax, which this Government have imposed, but they will be able to wriggle out of a bonus tax, and we cannot avoid that.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful by making points that I know have been made before, but I refer him to the previous occasion on which a bankers bonus tax was implemented, when a number of anti-avoidance measures were put in place to deal with such a problem. We do not want any unintended consequences.

I am trying to signal our intent. When we are in government, we intend to make the tax work to change the culture and practice in banking, as well as to ensure that we help our young people. I am sure that any folks listening to my speech who are thinking about devising ways of not paying up or not making a fair contribution will hear the intent in what I am saying and therefore not pursue such a course.

I remind hon. Members who have not already read our “Plan for Banking Reform”, which was published last week, that it sets out a series of wide-ranging reforms to the banking sector. It builds on much of the work done by the commissions and is informed by speaking to people in the industry. It focuses on the four key areas of stability, competition, access to finance, and culture and pay. The one-off tax on bankers bonuses is just one part of the reform process, but it is an important part.

Last week, I hosted a jobs fair in my constituency, as have many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I saw at first hand how much the young unemployed people who came along want to work and to contribute to society. I met people who have been out of work over a fairly lengthy period and are desperate for the opportunity to get back into employment and to contribute to society. They want decent jobs with decent pay; they do not want the instability of being on zero-hours contracts or of working for umbrella companies that are more interested in avoiding paying their taxes than in paying their way in society. We need to ensure that such young people and the long-term unemployed—not just in my constituency, but right across the UK—get the help that they need. These young people need to make the first step on to the careers ladder, and the long-term unemployed need help to get back into real jobs. It is absolutely vital that such support is given to not only our young people, but the long-term unemployed, who are almost at risk of being frozen out of the jobs market.

As I said, Labour’s programme of banking reform is driven by economic imperatives. The motion sets out that banks should make a social contribution as well as an economic one, and that the bonuses they pay should be a reward for exceptional performance, not a compensation for failure. I believe that those are vital steps along the road to restoring fairness, stability and trust to the sector so that banks serve the needs of the wider economy. I hope that the Government see fit on this occasion to support our motion.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). I find it absolutely astonishing that Labour Members have the courage to raise the issue of bankers’ bonuses. Perhaps they have forgotten that it was under their light-touch regulatory regime that the worst excesses of the banking sector were allowed to flourish. I wonder whether she regrets the fact that the shadow Chancellor is not in the House today. Does she suspect that he regrets saying, as City Minister in June 2006, that

“nothing should be done to put at risk a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime”?

Does she think that he regrets presiding over a system under which £66 billion was paid out in bonuses on his watch?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I wonder whether the Minister heard what I said when I was challenged about whether the shadow Chancellor ought to be in the Chamber. I noted that the Chancellor is not present, and I raised the question of what Conservative Members had done on light-touch regulation. Were they not arguing for it? Can she give me an example from that time when her party proposed something different?

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is just another typical Opposition ploy. At that point, the Conservative party was in opposition and the Labour party was in government. It is absolutely unconscionable for the Labour party to suggest that the Opposition of the day should have saved the Labour Government from their own excesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

While my hon. Friend is on the point of credit unions, does she support our proposal to increase the levy on payday lenders to support various ethical alternatives, including the expansion of credit unions? I am sure that she will, as she has a great deal of expertise in this matter.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The extortionate charges put on the most vulnerable have been a total disgrace and there is something interesting to say about why a significant proportion of people in this country are unbanked. That is generally put down to being about the high lending risk in that community. It is partly about that, but it is also about the costs of having the institutional infrastructure to reach that community. That is one area where the main high street banks have failed disastrously in this country.

Tax Avoidance

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said in her opening remarks, the tax system in this country is based on trust: trust that the Government will make responsible decisions on how to use the money they collect; trust that if I pay my fair share, so does my neighbour; and trust that the Government will be even-handed in their application of the rules. But, as we have heard in today’s debate, under this Government that trust has been eroded.

I wish to highlight a few points made by Opposition Members in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), who has been a champion on this issue, rightly raised international aspects, the links with tackling poverty and the role of non-governmental organisations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) raised serious concerns about HSBC operations and the links to tax havens, and the role of the other big banks. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) highlighted specific examples that have been in the public domain relating to large companies and their position on paying tax, and she stressed the need for fair play. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) highlighted the sometimes inappropriate messages sent out to the public when people are not held to account and the need to crack down harder. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) emphasised the need for fairness and spoke about the damage done to honest businesses when larger businesses are not held to account. She also rightly raised issues relating to resources for HMRC. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) also spoke about international matters and the need for EU countries to work to take action, as the G20 countries also should.

We heard a number of strong speeches containing important points, but we have also heard a lot today about the Government’s record—or perhaps lack of a good record—on tax avoidance. We have heard about a tax gap of £34 billion, which has grown larger by the year, and a Swiss deal that, of course, is full of holes. The Chancellor claimed when announcing it in 2012 that it would raise £3.1 billion, but as we have heard today, it has raised just £873 million. Perhaps the Government are failing because rather than closing existing loopholes, they are busy opening new ones.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the Government’s shares for rights scheme could cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, yet it seems today that the Government regard their record on tax avoidance as a source of pride, rather than as something that needs far more work. Let us go back to that much quoted study by the Financial Times, to which a number of hon. Members have referred, because it is important yet again to put on the record what it actually said:

“Measures put in place by Labour during its 13 years in power to counter corporate tax avoidance are projected to raise ten times as much over the next four years as those introduced by the current coalition government.”

There we have it: 10 times more raised under plans introduced by our Government during those 13 years. And that is even before we get started on HSBC.

We all know the story by now. HMRC was passed information about HSBC’s complicity in abetting tax evasion. Other Governments in other countries received the same information and used it proactively to recover millions of pounds of unpaid tax. What did our Government do? They cut corners and they cut deals behind closed doors. As our motion highlights, just one of 1,000 people alleged to have avoided or evaded tax has been prosecuted. Perhaps the Government are going to point to the money repaid, but it is just a fraction of what is owed. As Labour Members have repeatedly asked, what kind of message does that send? It sends the message that not paying tax is fine for big companies and big corporations because this Government will not pursue them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood also quoted Richard Brooks, a former HMRC tax inspector, in her opening remarks. He said that the Treasury and HMRC

“knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC”

in 2011, but the Government

“simply washed their hands of it”.

She was also right to say that that is a damning indictment. It is not good enough and it is time we got some answers.

My hon. Friend also put questions to the Chancellor when she wrote to him earlier this week and she reiterated them to the Minister today. Did he ever speak to Lord Green about tax avoidance and evasion at HSBC? Given the scale of the alleged wrongdoing, why was there only a single prosecution? What role did Ministers play in deciding on a selective prosecution policy for those accused of tax evasion or avoidance? These are substantive questions and we deserve substantive answers, but so far we have had no answers at all, and the Government must now come clean and supply answers to those specific questions.

I found it increasingly difficult to listen to what the Ministers were saying. Somehow they were denying all responsibility and failing to join the dots when they were given information, and they failed to ask the right questions. People have lost faith in this Government because they have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted to act fairly and in the best interests of all. Our motion sets out what we would do to restore that faith. We will be able to do that because we recognise a fundamental truth about the tax system that this Government have failed to appreciate, which is that it is about trust and it is about fairness.

Let me reiterate what our plan is to restore that faith. We will introduce penalties for those who are caught by the general anti-abuse rule. We will give the plan teeth by introducing a tough penalty regime, with fines of up to 100% of the value of the tax that was avoided. We will close loopholes on stamp duty that allow the hedge funds to avoid paying hundreds of millions of pounds in tax through intermediary relief. We will take action to close loopholes that allow some large companies to move profits out of the UK and avoid corporation tax. According to HMRC, the tax loss from that loophole is around £200 million each year, and it has been reported elsewhere as £500 million.

[Frank Dobson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that if people have swindled their tax, confessed and avoided going to court, their names are disclosed, even if they are great big corporations or wealthy individuals, in the same way as a small business in Swindon would have its name disclosed if it was being pursued by the Inland Revenue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I think that we all could cite examples of where small businesses and others in our local constituencies have had some fairly aggressive actions taken against them. They find it difficult to understand why the same rules do not seem to apply to others.

To go back to the point I was making, it is important that we use the money that we generate from closing loopholes to save the NHS as part of our £2.5 billion a year Time to Care fund, and we will supplement that with another £400 million a year raised by stopping employment agencies exploiting tax relief and travel and subsistence through the use of umbrella companies. We will act, where this Government have failed to do so, by making tax havens, which have links to the UK, put company ownership information in the public domain. Importantly, we will scrap the failed shares for rights scheme, which the Office for Budget Responsibility warned could enable avoidance and cost £1 billion.

We will also ensure stronger independent scrutiny of the tax system, giving new powers to the National Audit Office and placing new responsibilities on the Chancellor and chief executive of HMRC to report annually on their efforts to tackle tax avoidance and to reduce the tax gap.

As we have heard today, tax avoidance and tax evasion are not new problems. For as long as states have levied taxes, people have sought to avoid them. But we owe it to the taxpayers who pay their taxes to ensure that the rules are applied fairly and that is what we intend to do, because that is how we will restore faith and trust in the system. We will do the right thing, close the loopholes, and ensure that everyone pays their way and that the system is fair for all.

Insurance Bill [Lords]

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

Part 1 sets out some definitions for the Bill and is purely technical but, with your indulgence, Mr Chope, may I say again that this is a non-controversial Law Commission Bill, on which we had a constructive debate last week in the Second Reading Committee, and which has been scrutinised by a special Public Bill Committee in the other House? I hope that we can agree that clause 1 should stand part and move on to discuss the substantive clauses, taking each part in turn.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister has outlined, this is a non-controversial Bill overall, and we did indeed debate and discuss it last week. I have no issue with clause 1 and think that it is important to get on to the other areas of the Bill on which the Minister might wish to answer some questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Application and interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 3 to 8 stand part.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

There is nothing particularly controversial in clause 2, or indeed in clauses 3 to 8 and schedule 1. As the Minister said, the clause provides that the duty of fair presentation, which is set out in the remainder of the part, applies in the event of a variation to a non-consumer insurance contract as well as upon the initial agreement or the contract.

Clause 3 introduces a requirement on the insured to

“make to the insurer a fair presentation of the risk”

before the contract is entered into. That replaces existing duties in relation to disclosure and representations contained in the Marine Insurance Act 1906, but retains essential elements of those provisions in ensuring that the insured provides insurers with the information they require to decide whether to insure a risk and on what terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 3 deals with insurance warranties and similar terms. An insurance warranty is typically a promise by the policyholder to do something that mitigates the risk. Under the current law, any breach of warranty completely discharges the insurer from liability from the point of breach. That is so even if the breach is remedied before any loss is suffered and if the breached term had nothing to do with the loss. The insurer’s remedy therefore often seems unsuitable and too punitive. The Bill provides that an insurer will be liable for insured losses arising after a breach of warranty has been remedied. It also prevents an insurer from refusing payment on the basis of a breached term that could have had no bearing on the risk of the loss that actually occurred, such as where a warranty concerning a fire alarm is breached and the insured then suffers a flood in the insured property. The Bill also abolishes “basis of the contract” clauses. These clauses convert every statement made by a policyholder on a proposal form into a warranty.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, it has been helpful to hear the Minister’s comments. We have no difficulty with these clauses.

On clause 9, under the current law, an insurer may add a declaration to a non- consumer insurance proposal form or policy, stating that the insured warrants the accuracy of all the answers given or that such answers form the “basis of the contract”. That has the legal effect of converting representations into warranties. The insurer is discharged from liability for claims if the insured made any misrepresentation, even if it was immaterial and did not induce the insurer to enter into the contract. The Law Commission gave the example of a claim for flooding being refused, as the Minister suggested, because the insured had failed to install the right model of burglar alarm. The clause seeks to put an end to this practice by abolishing “basis of the contract” clauses in non-consumer insurance. Clause 10 replaces the existing remedy for breach of a warranty in an insurance contract.

Clause 11 was initially not included in the Bill. That gave rise to the introduction in the other place of a new clause that replicated a similar clause originally included by the Law Commission pertaining to situations in which an insured had breached a term of contract but could show that

“its breach of the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.”

In the Lords Committee, some expressed the view that this omission was an error. The Minister, Lord Newby, explained that the clause as originally drafted was

“too controversial to go through the special procedure for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills.”

He did, however, admit that it was

“difficult to argue against the policy and to say that insurers should be entitled to refuse liability for a loss that is of a completely different nature from that contemplated by the breached term.”

At the Government’s prompting, the Law Commission submitted a new draft, which became the current clause 11 and which was

“intended to minimise the uncertainty inherent in the first formulation”.

The clause acts to rectify the situation prior to the Bill when the actual nature of a breach of term was irrelevant. This has been a helpful process to ensure that that piece of tidying up was done. On that basis, we have no problem with these clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Remedies for fraudulent claims

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 13 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Fraud is a serious and expensive problem for insurers and innocent policyholders alike. According to industry statistics, policyholders currently pay an additional £50 on every insurance policy because of the cost of fraud to insurers. The Bill therefore strengthens and clarifies the civil law aspect of the Government’s drive to combat fraudulent claims by policyholders. The Bill sets out clear statutory remedies for the insurer where the policyholder has made a fraudulent claim. It affirms the common law position that the policyholder forfeits the fraudulent claim. The insurer has no liability to pay any element of it and can reclaim anything it paid before it knew about the fraud.

The Bill also clarifies an area of uncertainty, in that the insurer may choose to refuse any claim arising after the fraudulent act. However, previous valid claims should be paid in full. Finally, the Bill gives the insurer the equivalent remedies against a fraudulent member of a group insurance policy.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The Minister has again clearly outlined what the clauses do. As she said, clause 12 sets out the insurer’s remedies where the insured makes a fraudulent claim. It puts the common law rule of forfeiture on a statutory footing. Where the insured commits a fraud against the insurer, the insurer is not liable to pay the insurance claim to which the fraud relates. Where the insurer has already paid out insurance moneys on the claim and later discovers the fraud, the insurer may recover those moneys from the insured. As we have heard, that provides the insurer with a further remedy giving it an option to treat the contract as if it had been terminated at the time of the “fraudulent act”. That does not apply where a third party commits a fraud against the insurer or the insured, such as where a fraudulent claim is made against an insured party who seeks recovery from its insurer under a liability policy.

Clause 13 gives the insurer the remedies where there is fraud by one member of a group scheme. Again, we have no difficulty with these clauses standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Good Faith

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will convenient to discuss clauses 15 to 18 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 5 deals with two separate matters: the principle of good faith and the ability of parties to contract out of the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 14 retains the statutory and common law principle that a contract of insurance is one predicated on good faith. However, the clause abolishes avoidance of the contract as the remedy for breach, recognising that avoidance is capable of operating very harshly against policyholders.

The provisions are a default regime for business insurance contracts. They are expected to be appropriate for the majority of insurance contracts, but there may be circumstances when parties prefer to set out their own bespoke arrangements. However, if an insurer wishes to rely on a term that will operate more harshly against the policyholder than the Bill otherwise provides, clauses 16 and 17 require it to act transparently when the contract is made, by ensuring that the meaning of the alternative provision is clear, and by drawing the attention of the policyholder to it. In so far as the Bill applies to consumers rather than businesses, it is a mandatory regime. Insurers are not entitled to contract out of its provisions to the detriment of consumers.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, insurance contracts are ones of “utmost good faith”. Clause 14 removes avoidance of the contract as a remedy for breach of that duty of good faith, both from the 1906 Act and at common law. The intention of clause 14 is that good faith will remain an interpretative principle, with section 17 of the 1906 Act and the common law continuing to provide that insurance contracts are contracts of good faith.

Clauses 15 and 16 prohibit insurers from inserting in an insurance contract terms that would leave the insured—be they a consumer or a non-consumer—in a worse position than that required by the Bill.

Clause 16 defines transparency in respect of what an insurer must do to draw the insured’s attention to the disadvantageous terms of the contract. Clause 17 sets out the transparency requirements. For example, the insurer should take sufficient steps to draw disadvantageous terms to the insured’s attention within a reasonable time frame prior to their entering into the contract, but when an insured has knowledge of the term, they may not claim that the insurer has not brought it to their attention. Clause 18 deals with the insurer’s remedies where a member of a group insurance contract makes a fraudulent claim. Again, we do not think that these clauses are controversial and we are content for them to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Power to change meaning of “relevant person” for purposes of 2010 Act

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 20 and schedule 2 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 6 covers a topic that is distinct from insurance contract law. It amends the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 and will assist injured parties who have claims against parties that are now defunct where insurance was in place to cover such claims. As I said in the Second Reading Committee, part 6 will make it easier for mesothelioma sufferers to obtain compensation due from insolvent employers.

The Bill allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to add or remove circumstances in which a person will fall within the provisions of the 2010 Act. The intention in the first instance is to use this power to add insolvency and other similar events to the 2010 Act. Draft regulations are being prepared by the Ministry of Justice. Once the first set of regulations are made, the 2010 Act can be commenced. The Government are committed to bringing the 2010 Act into force as soon as practicable.

[Cathy Jamieson]

In the Second Reading Committee, I welcomed the fact that part 6 gives mesothelioma sufferers the opportunity to be dealt with in a timely fashion and to receive the justice they deserve. It is a terrible condition that many people have suffered as a work-related illness. We should do everything possible to support them.

Clause 19 inserts a new section into the 2010 Act. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations adding or removing circumstances in which a person is a “relevant person” for the purposes of the Act, provided that the Secretary of State considers that the proposed circumstances involve dissolution, insolvency or financial difficulty, or are similar to those for the time being prescribed in sections 4 to 7 of the 2010 Act. That seems sensible and we have no problem with the clauses or the schedule standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 7 deals with technical matters such as commencement, territorial extent and consequential amendments to existing legislation. The Bill repeals or amends various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, which are superseded by provisions in parts 2 and 3. Clause 23 provides that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the provisions on insurance contract law will come into force 18 months after Royal Assent.

From a practical perspective, the new provisions will not apply to existing insurance contracts, but rather to new contracts and variations agreed after the Bill comes into effect. The regulation-making power on the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will come into force two months after Royal Assent.

[Cathy Jamieson]

As the Minister has said, clause 21 makes provisions consequential on part 2 and amends or repeals various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, as well as the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. She has also confirmed that clause 22 ensures that those provisions relating to fair presentation and good faith apply only to insurance contracts entered into after the end of the period of 18 months from the Bill’s entry into force. Clause 23 ensures that the Bill extends to the whole of the UK, apart from consequential provisions in clause 21 relating to Northern Ireland. Again, we are happy for these clauses to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I, too, thank everyone who has worked on this important Bill, including the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. It has been interesting to follow the special procedure. There is no doubt that the Bill was rigorously scrutinised in the other place, and a number of amendments were tabled. That perhaps makes our task in Committee and on Third Reading somewhat easier, and will help to ensure that the Bill safely completes its passage through the House.

I raised one issue that was originally suggested in the Law Commission reports but did not make it into the Bill: late payment. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to reply, but to recap briefly, the Law Commission report states:

“We consider that a policyholder should have a remedy where an insurer has acted unreasonably in delaying or refusing payment.”

It recommended

“an implied term in every insurance contract that the insurer will pay sums due within a reasonable time”,

with appropriate caveats. Those points were deemed too controversial to be included in a Law Commission Bill, and as I have said before, although the recommendations have merit, I recognise that a Law Commission Bill may not be the appropriate vehicle for putting such provisions into statute because of the way that “controversial” is interpreted.

I asked the Minister whether she would consider legislating for late payment by some other means. She offered encouragement on that and also said that

“evidence presented to the Law Commission, the Treasury and the Special Public Bill Committee demonstrated that the problems in the existing law are worse in theory than in practice.”––[Official Report, Insurance Bill Second Reading Committee, 26 January 2015; c. 9.]

Although the Minister provided some encouragement, she perhaps also suggested that such measures would not be a priority for the immediate future. It would be helpful if she clarified that point and said whether the Government have plans to take the issue forward and to what time scale. In general terms, the Bill has taken us forward and is largely technical in how it updates insurance law in statute. We have given it a good airing and should see it successfully enacted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The Chief Secretary and I certainly recognise the pressure on the North sea producers. We want to make sure that we continue to extract the maximum amount of oil from the North sea basin. That is why we cut oil taxes at the autumn statement, published a consultation on the investment allowance and made it clear that further action may be required at the Budget.

May I draw it to the House’s attention that what the hon. Gentleman calls the softening of the oil price would have done disastrous damage to the finances of an independent Scotland? The Scottish National party’s projections for its oil revenue were out by almost threefold. It is a reminder of the strengths of the United Kingdom that we can bear pressures such as a falling—or, indeed, a rising—oil price across the entire UK.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Industry and economic experts say that thousands of jobs in the North sea oil sector are at risk, yet both the UK and the Scottish Governments seem to be passing the buck, rather than taking the urgent action that is needed. Will the Chancellor give a commitment to bring forward tax measures immediately to support the industry, as we have called for, rather than delaying for another seven weeks until the Budget?

[Mr Osborne]

As I said, we have already cut the supplementary charge. I announced that in the autumn statement and it came into effect at the beginning of this year. We have launched a consultation on an investment allowance. We regularly meet the industry; we met industry representatives last week. They think the Budget is the appropriate time to make further announcements, if there are further announcements, on the North sea oil and gas tax regime, but the hon. Lady and the industry have my assurance that we will do everything we can to support the North sea oil and gas industry during this difficult time. Of course it is impacted by the fall in the oil price. We want to make sure that we get the maximum amount of oil out of the North sea and that the record investment that we have seen over the past year is sustained.

BMI Pension Fund Compensation

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I agree. That is precisely my point.

I ask the Minister to take a number of steps and, if she is not prepared to agree to them today, perhaps she will at least consider them and come back to hon. Members at a later stage.

First, it is right for the Government to ask HMRC to review the application of the tax rules in this case. The trustees of the BMI pension fund did lobby for the rules applying to the then annual allowance limits and the lifetime allowance rules to be disapplied in the case of the BMI scheme, because of the special circumstances of the scheme. I should not have thought that it was impossible for it to review the rules, given the special circumstances, notwithstanding the legislation that applies to pensions more generally.

Secondly, if HMRC will not review the position, I ask the Government to consider legislating to make a change for this particular case. Again, the Equitable Life scheme is a model that can be followed.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend provide some clarification to help me with questions that I may later ask the Minister? I recall that he questioned a former Exchequer Secretary about this issue in Parliament, who offered to set out more detail in writing. Did my hon. Friend receive that information? Would anything that came out of that be helpful in this debate?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Minister sent me a letter that I think was received by all hon. Members who wrote to him about the issue. It was helpful, but I do not think it added anything particular with regard to the concerns that I am raising.

Thirdly, if the Government are not prepared to change the legislation, I ask them to consider making an additional one-off payment to the BMI pension fund scheme to allow payments to pension fund members to be topped up, to at least allow for the fact that tax has been taken off. A parallel to that is VAT on church buildings: although taxes were increased by the Government, a compensation scheme was set up to pay those churches, allowing them to pay the tax back to the Government. Things like that can be done when the Government want to.

Fourthly, I ask the Government to move ahead as quickly as possible with the proposals to allow an increased cap in the Pension Protection Fund for those with long service in the pension scheme. I am aware that this is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions and that the relevant Minister has been pursuing it, but I hope that the Minister here today will urge her colleagues in that Department to introduce those changes speedily, to ensure that there is at least some benefit, hopefully to members of the BMI pension fund scheme, and to others, who are losing out because of the cap in the Pension Protection Fund provisions.

At a time of financial pressures, it might be said that it cannot be a priority for the Government to find money to top up pension payments to a group of workers who will have been relatively highly paid during their work life and will still receive a relatively high pension compared with the average paid for by the safety net of the Pension Protection Fund. I can see that argument being made. There might be those who are cynical and will say that, whereas millions were affected by the Equitable Life scheme, only a few hundred people spread across the country are affected here and that, bluntly, that is not going to make a difference in the general election next year. Indeed, that would be cynicism, because there is a matter of justice here: these people contributed to their pension over many years and are now going to receive much less than they expected.

To give an example of the sums lost, let me mention my constituent who raised the matter with me, no doubt because he is so concerned about what has happened. Even allowing for the Pension Protection Fund guarantee, he is facing a shortfall of £700,000 on his pension fund. He will receive about £134,000 from the Lufthansa scheme, so when allowing for the tax taken off the Lufthansa compensation, he will still be almost £600,000 worse off.

Let us bear in mind that the employer did not go bust, and the Pension Protection Fund had to bail out the pensions, as it was set up to do. In fact, the previous major shareholder sold his shareholding at a profit that some have estimated to be in excess of £200 million. He sold it to Lufthansa, which then sold the entire company—or most of it, to be precise: of course, bits of it were disposed elsewhere—to IAG. Lufthansa and IAG are both international airline companies whose fortunes go up and down but, bluntly, in most years their profits number in the hundreds of millions and billions of pounds and euros. These companies have not gone bust.

In the middle of all this activity, where some people and companies are making lots of money, the long-standing former staff of BMI are losing large parts of a pension for which they worked all their working life. Of course, through the levy they are paying to the Pension Protection Fund, other companies are paying the costs of compensation going to the scheme’s members, because the pension fund members are no longer receiving it from pension funds and, therefore, from the companies by which they were employed.

As I have said, there appears to be a similar development in the case of Monarch Airlines. Indeed, there is no reason in principle why this type of arrangement could not apply to other company pensions and to people at any income level, not just those who happen to be higher paid, as with members of the BMI pension fund.

Clearly, there is something wrong here, both in respect of the individuals affected by this case and what is happening more generally with regard to how the Pension Protection Fund scheme is used, and particularly in this case. The situation needs to be remedied. The Government need to act, not just for these pension scheme members, but to ensure that this practice is not taken up increasingly by other companies that see a way of escaping from their pension obligations when they choose to restructure or in other ways change the nature of their business and dispose of parts of their operations.

I have taken some time today, but this is an important issue, not just for those affected by these developments, but more widely. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the points that I have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber this morning, Mr Sanders, and to have you in the Chair once again.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on bringing this important subject before Parliament. Many of us have received representations from our constituents—sometimes relatively small numbers of people in each constituency, but the matter is none the less an important one. It is useful to have the opportunity for a thoughtful debate.

My hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and, most recently, for Edmonton (Mr Love) have given us a wider picture of the impact of the Pension Protection Fund and tax treatment decisions on the individuals concerned. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also made a contribution, and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) intervened to make important points that I am sure the Minister will want to respond to as well.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said in his opening remarks, many of the former BMI employees who were in the BMI pension scheme have suffered through no fault of their own. They engaged in good faith in the pension scheme, and the decisions taken were not of their making. We are in a quite different situation from some of the other resolutions that have had to come from the Pension Protection Fund, because this does not involve a company going into insolvency—the problem arose largely because the company was sold on. Consequently, the buyers did not have to take responsibility for the pension fund. Again, those are things completely outwith the control of the employees.

As has been acknowledged today, many people might think, “Well, these folks had relatively good jobs and they’ve been relatively well paid”, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The fact that people have been in responsible, well paid jobs, contributing to their pensions in a decent pension scheme, does not mean that if things somehow change or go wrong they have any less right to justice in terms of what they receive in pension. That is the principled position. I fly fairly regularly up and down from Scotland, and I want to know that the people flying and crewing the planes that I travel in—the hon. Member for Strangford might be in a similar position—are well trained, well paid and well looked after for the important job that they do.

As I said, the problem we are discussing was not employer insolvency, as is normally the case when a scheme is transferred to the Pension Protection Fund. We have heard the figures, but the shareholder sold the shareholding for a considerable profit, estimated to be in excess of £200 million. The shareholding was sold on to Lufthansa, which this March announced an operating profit that had risen year on year by 62% to about €1 billion. We are definitely not talking about an insolvency scenario, which makes things a bit different.

We could look at how decisions were reached or how the Pensions Regulator operated, but we are where we are, and we now have to look at the various points that I am about to make to the Minister. What can be done to resolve the tax treatment issue amicably? Perhaps the Minister will answer my question when responding, but what would the financial implications be for the Treasury if it simply resolved the tax treatment in this case? In the global scheme of things, a relatively small number of people might be subject to such taxation, and in order to achieve some equity—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and others have mentioned how the Equitable Life scenario was dealt with—can something more be done to help people?

Another important issue is that we would not want people already in detriment to suffer further detriment because of the taxation rules, which appears to be what has happened with the BMI pensioners. As has been mentioned, the top-up payments that were intended to reduce the detriment are now subject to tax. I am sure the Minister will come back and say, “The tax rules are the tax rules and they have to be implemented.” That is true, but the rules can be changed. In certain circumstances they have been changed and there have been different tax treatments. I have only recently finished dealing with the Taxation of Pensions Bill: we went through a whole Bill to ensure that the way certain things are treated in a tax context can be changed. Where there is a will, there can be a way. That is why I am interested to hear what the financial implications would be. If it is not a huge amount of money for the Exchequer, why can we not resolve the matter in an amicable way? I have a great deal of faith in the ingenuity of officials and Ministers when they want to do something, to go away and find some resources and a way of taking things forward. I hope that the Minister will do that today.

I come back to some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith raised in his opening remarks. I want to put a number of points to the Minister. My hon. Friend asked the Government to look again and for the HMRC to review the application of the tax rules in this case with specific regard to the annual allowance that might result from the additional tax charge being levied. I would be interested to hear what the Minister is able to say about that.

In her intervention, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asked about the implications for copycat deals. Some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton raised are relevant to that. It would be unfortunate to say the least if other companies thought they could somehow avoid doing the right thing by their employees simply by going into the PPF, thereby leaving the problem for others to resolve. As has been said, this is not about increased resources having to come from the taxpayer; it is about the industry taking care of itself, but a degree of equity and fairness has to be looked at in the industry context. Will the Minister, along with her colleagues, look again at the PPF and the rules and ensure that there are no loopholes that incentivise that kind of behaviour, which we would not necessarily think to be a good thing? If HMRC can review that position, I hope the Government will consider the possibility of making necessary changes to the legislation, particularly to ensure that the pension holders affected are not left worse off than they thought they would be at the outset.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton comment on the situation of those in the Monarch Airlines scheme. I am grateful to him for bringing that to our attention in the detailed way he did. I was not fully aware of all those points, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to them. I hope that she will go back to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to look at the arrangements that have been made to see whether something can be brought forward, even at this late stage, to try to resolve the problems.

In conclusion, we have had a useful debate that has given us information and a number of points on the justice of the situation and the technical details of the taxation system. I particularly press the Minister on the tax treatment of the compensation payments because that is the responsibility of the Treasury, although I recognise that there are wider responsibilities within the DWP. I hope that she will go to her colleagues and assess what she can be done.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sanders. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for raising this issue in a thoughtful and considered way. I also thank all others Members who have contributed to the debate. In addition to interventions, the hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr Love), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) made considered contributions.

It is fair to say that this is a serious and important issue. Members have rightfully raised their points and concerns on behalf of their constituents in a considered way. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) just said, these are serious concerns about people’s pensions. These individuals have done the right thing by saving and investing in their pensions. That is right and proper, and they have had the opportunity to do that through an employer’s scheme, which is to be commended. Not only the Government, but all Members are concerned when we hear about issues of this nature.

I start by putting the debate into context from a Treasury point of view. The subject reaches into the territory of the Department for Work and Pensions, and I will come on to that, but it would be helpful if I set out the facts of the case as they are known to the Treasury. Following the sale of BMI by Lufthansa, the BMI pension scheme was admitted to the Pension Protection Fund. Admittance to the PPF for a particular scheme is not a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury, but for the PPF and the Pensions Regulator. Members will appreciate that I cannot comment on the details of that decision, but I will, as all Members here today have asked, follow up with the Department for Work and Pensions on that. I will also pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Edmonton made on the pensions cap. As he suggested, I will ask for a response on the points highlighted about the DWP, the cap and the Pensions Regulator to be sent to every Member who has contributed to today’s debate.

The PPF provides compensation to members of eligible defined benefit occupational pension schemes. The PPF provides two levels of compensation depending on a member’s circumstances at the time the scheme enters the fund assessment period. The first is for members who have reached their scheme’s normal pension age or are already in receipt of a survivor’s pension or a pension on the grounds of ill health. The second is for the majority of people below their scheme’s normal pension age. Those members are entitled to 90% of the compensation and are subject to the compensation cap, as has been outlined. The PPF rules and restrictions apply to all members, which means that they will not receive all the pension benefits they anticipated. However, while the PPF strives to award compensation fairly, compensation relating to pensionable service before April 1997 does not increase in line with inflation each year, so compensation may not equate to the full value members would have received had their scheme not been admitted to the PPF.

As has been discussed, to compensate BMI pension scheme members for the loss in expected benefits, Lufthansa offered to make an £84 million voluntary payment either as cash payments to the members or into another registered pension scheme on their behalf. The debate is about the tax treatment of that payment. Retirement benefits are subject to tax when they are received, so one would expect the £84 million payment to be taxed.

It may be helpful for me to set out how the tax treatment changes depending on how the payments are made. Where pension schemes can make cash payments to individuals, the tax legislation clearly sets out how those payments are taxed. Any one-off cash payment would be liable to income tax and national insurance contributions, as they are what are known as relevant benefits. It has been put that those payments cannot be subject to income tax and NICS because the members of the BMI scheme were not employed by Lufthansa. However, it is not because the payments are earnings that income tax would apply, but because they are deemed to be relevant benefits. Cash payments are subject to tax as relevant benefits when, for example, they are paid after retirement in connection with past service, as is the situation in the highlighted cases. Relevant benefits are taxable as employment income, and there does not need to be a direct link between the employer and the payee to establish relevant benefits. There is also no statutory requirement for the benefits to be financed by an employer of the beneficiaries. A scheme for the provision of relevant benefits to employees or former employees of an employer commercially linked to the one financing the benefits will be in the legislation for tax and national insurance contributions.

Where payments are made into a registered pension scheme on behalf of the individuals concerned, there will be a different tax treatment. Members would receive pensions tax relief on their share of the £84 million payment as well as the exemption from national insurance and income tax on the payment they would get with any contribution to a registered pension scheme.

However, the payment to a registered pension scheme could give rise to annual allowance or lifetime allowance charges. Let me explain that further. Pensions tax relief is one of the Government’s most expensive tax reliefs and the gross cost doubled from £17.5 billion in 2001-02 to £33 billion in 2010-11. The annual and lifetime allowance has been set to protect the public finances from that growing cost. However, the Government are still likely to forgo more than £36 billion in tax revenue this year and more than £39 billion in 2016-17.

The annual allowance is therefore designed to strike an appropriate balance between providing financial incentives to encourage and support saving for retirement and the fiscal risk to the Exchequer. Therefore, while there is no limit to the amount any individual may contribute to their pension scheme, there is a limit—the annual allowance—on the amount of tax relief those contributions can attract in any one year.

Tax relief is given on contributions up to £40,000 a year, but any contributions in excess of that limit will be subject to an annual allowance charge. To ease the impact of the annual allowance charge, the Government introduced a carry-forward facility, which allows individuals to make use of any unused annual allowances from the three previous years by offsetting them against excess savings. In many cases, that will result in there not being an annual allowance charge to pay.

As a result, the only people affected will be those whose pension savings over the past four tax years, including their share of the £84 million contribution, are worth more than £190,000 for 2014-15 or £180,000 for 2015-16. If an individual takes pension benefits valued at more than the lifetime allowance—currently set at £1.25 million—when they become entitled to those benefits, they will be liable for the lifetime allowance charge. The lifetime allowance charge is 25% if the excess is taken as a pension or 55% if it taken as a lump sum. As the allowance is set at those generous levels, that charge is likely to affect only a small number of people.

[Cathy Jamieson]

What estimate has the Treasury made of the number of people who are affected by the lifetime allowance charge and what income will the Exchequer receive as a result of collecting that charge?

[Priti Patel]

I will come on to that and address other Members’ points as well once I have made some progress. Some individuals may have existing enhanced or fixed protection, which means that they can test their pensions against the lifetime allowance at the time at which those protections were granted. That is subject to no further contributions being made to their pension schemes. As payments from the £84 million will be relievable contributions, members who have existing enhanced or fixed protection would lose those rights if the contribution was made to a defined contribution scheme. Again, only a small number of people will be affected by that.

Individuals will have a choice about how they access their share of the £84 million paid by Lufthansa to a defined contribution pension scheme on their behalf. From April 2015, individuals will be able to access the funds as a lump sum or as a series of payments or they can choose to purchase an annuity or draw-down product, provided that they are aged 55 or older. Alternatively, they could choose to transfer to a different pension arrangement. Payments on pensions will be subject to the individual’s marginal rate of income tax and no NICs will be payable.

I will come on to many of the points addressed in the debate. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned the costs for those affected. Those will depend on the precise circumstances and how payments are made. Such payments made direct to a scheme will be taxable, but the contributions will receive tax relief up to the normal limits. We do not have an estimate of the total cost to the Treasury should tax charges not be applied, but, as I said, that is dependent on the circumstances of how the payments are made.

The scheme was compared in a number of contributions to the Government’s approach in the one-off payments made under the Equitable Life payment scheme. It is worth highlighting that that scheme was established back in 2011 in response to the parliamentary ombudsman report that identified areas of Government maladministration in respect to the regulation of Equitable Life. The Government accepted the then ombudsman’s report and, as a result, made the ex-gratia payment for the loss stemming from what was Government maladministration at the time. The circumstances surrounding the loss of pensions relief for members of the BMI scheme is not owing to the Government’s maladministration and, therefore, it is not comparable in that sense at all.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith as well as other Members touched on HMRC and reviewing rules relating to the annual allowance and lifetime allowance. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has set out, HMRC must apply tax legislation consistently and it does not have discretion to waive tax charges intended by Parliament. The legislation is clear in respect of that: all new contributions into defined contribution schemes are tested against the annual allowance and all benefits are tested against the lifetime allowance.

It is fair to say that this is a complicated matter that is not at all comparable to Equitable Life. The Government are familiar with the case, which has been raised by many Members in the debate today as well as in previous representations.

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Absolutely. Ministers are involved in the process and will be consulted. That is right and proper. The point that my right hon. Friend makes is about the transitional rules, which we touched on earlier.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) mentioned Scotland and the changes to stamp duty land tax, which has been devolved to Scotland. The Government will monitor how stamp duty land tax receipts change in the light of that. That is part of the usual policy-making process.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Was discussion with the Scottish Government held in advance of the announcement? Will there be additional discussions during the coming weeks and months to ensure that there are no adverse consequences?

[Priti Patel]

This is a commercially sensitive area so specific discussions were not held. I reiterate that as part of the usual policy-making process there will be ongoing reviews of how the system works between Scotland and England. Now that the change has been made, discussions will take place when necessary.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The Minister refers to the normal policy-making process. However, given that the changes in Scotland are due to be introduced in April, there is a very short opportunity for discussion, particularly about any adverse impact that there might be on the market. Does the Minister have plans to meet her counterparts in Scotland for discussions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct—we have substantially increased the number of prosecutions in that area. The yield brought in by HMRC as a consequence of its enforcement action has also increased substantially, and in the autumn statement it was announced that that yield is anticipated to be £26 billion in 2014-15—around £9 billion more than when we came to office.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has made much of what the Government are doing on tax avoidance, but will he tell the House by how much tax receipts were revised down in the autumn statement?

[Mr Gauke]

It is the case that tax receipts were revised down, but so was expenditure on debt interest payments. This country continues to face the major challenge of living within our means, and it is important to have a Government who stick to the long-term economic plan that delivers that.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The Minister gave a very partial answer because he did not mention the fact that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that tax receipts have been revised down by £25 billion by 2018-19. Is one key reason for that the fact that wage growth has been revised down again, and that the Government’s failure to raise living standards for working people is why they have also failed to meet their promise to balance the books by next year?

[Mr Gauke]

The answer to increasing wage growth is not just to observe that it would be nice if wages went up but to have no policies to do that. If we want wage growth, we need investment in the UK, which we are getting. We want more people in jobs, and a record number of people are in jobs. We want to improve our training and education system, and record numbers of people are taking up apprenticeships. We want to improve our transport infrastructure, and the Government have committed to the biggest road building programme since the 1970s. If we want wage growth, we must stick to the long-term economic plan.