Royal Bank of Scotland

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. She is absolutely right to highlight this country’s challenge on access to finance, particularly for the small and fast-growing sector for which bank finance might be appropriate, but it might want to move on to something else. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is looking at a package of measures to make sure that businesses in Hull and elsewhere are able to have a wider range of choice in accessing finance.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

As far as I can make out, the position of the Opposition is that if we delay this sale, the shares might go up by 35%, and they might break even, which would be a good thing. Of course, though, they might go down. Does the Minister agree that they have no right to speculate with other people’s money, particularly when financed by an overdraft? If they believe this, they should buy some shares themselves.

[Harriett Baldwin]

There seems to be no pleasing Opposition Members. They are not happy when Royal Mail shares go up and we sell them for more money; and they are not happy when the RBS share price is where it is today. They seem to argue that the best thing to do, in all these situations, is to borrow more, spend more and invest more in the banking sector.

Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that for the last 10 years of my career at Invesco Perpetual, I was responsible for writing a quantitative bonus scheme that measured the performance of fund managers over three, five and 10 years according to the performance of the team, the business and the individual, which involved clawbacks, as appropriate. I started that work in 1999 and finished it in 2009, so I can say with confidence that I did my bit on remuneration.

What have the Government done that we are so proud of? First, we have brought down the quantum of bonuses. City bonuses are now a fifth of what they were under Labour. The banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer have been a key focus for the Government, so let me inform the House about what is happening with bonuses at RBS. We will ensure that the total bonus pool comes down again, both in total and per head. That will continue the reductions that made last year’s bonuses more than two-thirds lower than those in 2009. The bonus pool at the investment bank will come down too in total and per head. We are continuing to restrict cash bonuses to £2,000, and no executive director will receive a bonus.

Let me also tell the House what is happening at Lloyds. This week, we announced that we are getting back another half a billion pounds for taxpayers—money that they had to put in. We can do that because since the crisis Lloyds has gone from failure to being a strong, profitable bank that is helping to drive the UK recovery and is contributing £230 million a year through the bank levy. We will ensure that Lloyds sees its bonus pool reduce this year and we are continuing to restrict cash bonuses to £2,000.

Let us compare that with the Labour party, which presided over a system that paid Fred Goodwin a cash bonus of £2.9 million in 2007. It is now calling for a 10-year clawback on bonuses—once again asking us to clear up the mess that it left—and has spent its bank tax proposal 10 times over.

The Government have made the link between bonuses and performance crystal clear. Bankers should be in no doubt that their bonuses are at risk should misbehaviour occur. Under this Government, highly paid bankers and those who are liable for big decisions have their bonuses deferred over at least three years, and at least 60% must be deferred for senior managers. Bonuses are now clearly linked to the performance of banks, since 50% of any bonus must be paid in shares or similar instruments. Deferred bonuses can be subject to cancellation in the future. Since the start of this year, bonuses can be clawed back up to seven years after they are paid out when misconduct or serious performance issues come to light. Guaranteed bonuses, which were commonplace under the previous Government, are banned in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

We have taken the lead in ensuring that there is transparency in senior executives’ pay arrangements. We have ensured that all the top 15 banks have signed up to the strengthened code of practice, which is a notable improvement on the two that had signed up when Labour left office. Our reforms to company law mean that shareholders are guaranteed a binding vote on pay policy.

We are not stopping there. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which was attended so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), made strong recommendations on bankers’ pay.

[David Mowat]

The Minister is right to say that the level of bonuses has reduced hugely in the past few years. However, does she agree that the real issue with banking is not the bonus level, but the level of absolute remuneration, which the Labour party’s policy does not address? Why does she think banks require so many people to earn more than £1 million a year, in a way that oil companies and pharmaceutical companies do not? The issue is the absolute level of remuneration.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Philosophically, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Many people across the country will agree that the absolute level of remuneration in financial services needs to be clearly justified. Although the Conservative party truly believes that wealth creation, which creates jobs, tax revenue for the Exchequer and growth for our economy, should be properly remunerated, we want to give as much power as possible to shareholders to ensure that they can take decisions that make it absolutely clear that remuneration should reflect the contribution of the individual, and not just some norm in the industry.

We have agreed with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and asked the financial services regulators to look into implementing them, in particular the extension of clawback to 10 years when an investigation into an individual is ongoing and the extension of deferral to seven years for senior managers, which is a significant increase from the current three years. The regulators are due to publish final rules in response to the consultation shortly. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we want to keep our independent regulators independent, so that they act in the best interests of our economy and not in the interests of a political party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is interesting to take part in another Opposition day debate on this subject. The Opposition had 13 years to deliver their dream for the financial services and banking sector, but what they left us was, of course, a nightmare, and we have had to do a lot to tidy it up. Without wanting to threaten coalition entente cordiale, I should say that people who examine this subject trace some of the problems back to the deregulation that took place in 1986. It was so drastic that it has been called the big bang. It is certainly true that my coalition partners were still calling for lighter regulation as late as 2007.

However, between us, we recognised that there was a nightmare to sort out, and a great deal has happened, principally the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. Let me pick out three items. First, there is a new criminal offence that covers those who run banks and building societies and have engaged in reckless misconduct. The penalty is a maximum sentence of seven years in prison, or an unlimited fine. Secondly, we have worked closely with other countries to tackle risk by introducing strict requirements in relation to the capital that banks must hold. Thirdly, we have prevented banks from engaging in or promoting tax avoidance by making the 15 biggest banks sign up to a code of practice. My party wants more to be done about that: we think that there is room for a new offence of corporate failure to prevent economic crime. We believe that not just those who evade taxes but those who advise or enable them should be prosecuted.

We are still seeing scandal after scandal, and it is notable that most of the scandals that are still hitting the news arose on the last Government’s watch—or the seeds were sown then—so we have had a great deal to do. We introduced the banking levy, and we have kept it going. My party wants it to continue, so that banks go on contributing to the process of rebalancing our budget and helping our economy.

As we have heard from several Members today, bankers are paid a lot. I think that there is a fundamental cultural problem. When an organisation has money to allocate, it has to think about its stakeholders. It has to think about its customers in terms of services and pricing, and it has to think about its shareholders in terms of the reward on the capital that they have invested. It also has to think about investing in its own business. About 10 years ago, my daughter worked in a branch of Barclays bank that was still using punch card machines that I thought had gone out in the late 1970s.

Staff are, of course, part of the balance, but I think most of us feel that the balance between the various stakeholders in some of the big banks has been tipped too far towards senior staff. However, bonuses are a great deal lower than they were. They have fallen from nearly £11 billion, or £33,000 a head, in 2007 to less than £2 billion, or £6,000 a head, in 2013. They are rising a little as banks are getting their act together, but they are nowhere near as high as they once were.

As so often happens with Labour motions, the Opposition have tried to connect two completely disconnected issues. We can have a debate about banking and we can have a debate about youth unemployment, but it is not logical or correct to suggest that the one either depends on the other or is solved by the other.

Of course I support moves to reduce youth unemployment. For me, however, unemployment is not about percentages but about people, and 830 fewer people in my constituency have been out of work in the last year. Unemployment remains far too high, and it is particularly high in the north-east, but it has fallen by an average of about 1,000 people per constituency in the north-east over the past year. In my constituency, youth unemployment has fallen by 43% since the 2010 election, when I inherited my legacy.

The motion asks us to consider the issue of youth unemployment, and also to consider the proposition that the bankers’ bonus tax will help to sort it out. The bonus tax has become the magic porridge pot of Labour policy making. I have a list of nine uses to which Labour Members have put it so far, and I think that my hon. Friends could raise the number to about 11. The last occasion on which we discussed the subject was quite remarkable. The shadow Minister who opened the debate referred to one use for the tax while the Minister who closed it referred to a different one, so they obviously had not shared notes. Perhaps, given that we are so near to a general election, they will finally settle on a use for it.

Let us now think about what will actually happen. If I understand the Opposition’s policy correctly, they want individuals to pay 50% tax on their bonuses, and they want banks to pay 50% tax on those bonuses. Of course, banks have other employment costs, particularly national insurance. Barclays has calculated that, when all that is added together, it will be paying 115% tax on its bonuses. Is it really likely that a bank will continue to declare £1 of bonuses to ensure that a Labour Government receive £1.15?

Matt, the famous cartoonist, must have been very prescient when he prepared his 2015 calendar. The cartoon for this very month shows a banker sitting behind a desk and someone else standing some distance away from him. The banker is saying “I cannot give you a bonus, but there is a £2 million reward for the person who finds my umbrella”—and there is an umbrella on the floor between them. In other words, banks will find ways around this.

It is not just Matt who has made the point. Referring to Labour’s bankers’ bonus tax, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said:

“I think it will be a one-off thing because, frankly, the very people you are after here are very good at getting out of these things and...will find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in the future.”

[David Mowat]

The Opposition’s policy would result in avoidance of the tax through increased fixed-level pay and reduced variable-level pay. A much better way of taxing banks is to tax their balance sheets, which is what the Government have done, because taxation of that kind cannot be avoided in the same way.

[Ian Swales]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point, and his words stand on the record. In fact, I was about to mention an aspect of what he has said. It is interesting to note that the motion itself refers to an avoidance method, and tries to close the loophole. As for the clawback proposal, the more we disincentivise banks from paying bonuses, the lower will be the amount that is available for clawback purposes. So, as my hon. Friend has just suggested, the policy is self-defeating.

The banks say that high pay and large bonuses are necessary for competition, but new competition is already emerging. I recommend all Members to visit their local branch of Handelsbanken, which has no targets and does not pay bonuses. It is an incredibly successful bank, and is growing very fast in this country. Competition has already started to undermine the business models of the large banks. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) mentioned Atom bank. I too have visited its offices, and I am trying to support it as much as I can. Banks of that kind will disrupt existing business models, because they have a much lower cost base than traditional banks. We will see movement: the banks that think life will continue unchanged will find themselves pursued by competition.

One aspect of new funding that needs to be examined is crowdfunding. I think that the next Government will find that they need to consider regulation in that area. We are just starting to hear about some of the scandals involving a practice that is, at present, largely unregulated.

In general, we need to encourage competition, we need disruptive business models, and we need to recognise that, in the private sector, competition should be allowed to beat down bad practice and encourage good practice. We need a successful financial services sector, and we need it to be well regulated. The sector has made it very clear that it does not want a Government who are either anti-Europe or anti-business.

My conclusion is this. If the question is “How do we make our economy stronger and society fairer?”, nothing that we have heard from the Opposition today makes me feel confident that they are the answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is why people watching the debate will find it absolutely incredible that millions of pounds have been paid to bankers in bonuses.

I should like to come back to the central points in the motion. Pay should be a reward for good performance, but we have seen a disconnect between bank performance and the pay of many senior executives and traders. We have discussed whether or not there is improved accountability in the banking system. At the Dispatch Box, the Minister tried to persuade us that that was all sorted and that everything was fine and good. However, the argument that it was right for the Government to resist the EU cap on bonuses because if bankers did not receive bonuses they would just receive higher pay reveals that accountability mechanisms have completely failed. If those mechanisms were working properly, shareholders would be able to prevent that abuse and something that is in effect a loophole. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) would intervene, as that was a point that he made.

[David Mowat]

I thank the hon. Lady for encouraging me to speak. I agree with her. The issue is not about whether to have bonuses or not; it is about absolute levels of remuneration in banks. I do not understand why the Labour party is not trying to address that. There is a good point to be made about why Barclays needs 1,000 people who earn £1 million a year while other organisations do not. The only explanation in the end is that the market is not working properly, which is why we must have more challenger banks to compete that away.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, makes a fair point. One of the regrets of Opposition Members is that not all the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards have been implemented. The weakness of the arrangements set up by the Government was illustrated only this week in the statement by Mr Gulliver, who now heads up HSBC. He said that he could not possibly be expected to know what his many thousands of staff were doing. If we are to have a proper accountability mechanism looking from the outside in at what the banks are doing, we need proper internal management systems; otherwise, the whole thing becomes meaningless. Mr Gulliver is therefore hoist by his own petard.

[Helen Goodman]

That is common sense, and that is why the right culture was not encouraged when the Chancellor toddled off to Brussels to defend high bonuses. That did not engender the kind of attitude that we want to see.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Lady made an important point about Gulliver and the management philosophy that he appeared to espouse. We could call it something pretty close to plausible deniability: “I don’t know what they’re doing in Mexico—it’s a long way away. I don’t know what they’re doing in Switzerland—we’ve only just bought it.” If that is the management model, that is a better advert for the banks being split up than the retail/investment dichotomy that we have spent so long discussing.

[Helen Goodman]

That is another good point from the hon. Gentleman.

What will our constituents think of the fact that last year we saw an increase in the level of bonuses paid by the banks? What is happening at the top of the banks is not the same as what is happening for the ordinary people whom we meet behind the counter. It does not seem reasonable that bonuses are high when we have had high-profile scandals with LIBOR and forex fixing and with the revelations about tax avoidance through Switzerland.

One thing that particularly concerns me about HSBC is the disconnect between the amount of time and energy the bank is clearly prepared to put into setting up special arrangements for its private clients overseas, turning a blind eye to aggressive tax avoidance, and its attitude to my constituents when it wanted to close the branch in Shildon. We have a serious problem with financial exclusion and the major banks are taking themselves out of the poorest communities, leaving them prey to the Wongas of this world. When I wrote to HSBC saying that that was very regrettable and would mean that there was no longer anywhere for people even to access cash in a town with nearly 10,000 citizens, it would not even give a contribution to the local credit union. That shows a degree of arrogance and a lack of social responsibility that I am sure every Member of the House would deplore. I see that even the Exchequer Secretary is shaking her head in disappointment at hearing that.

We need a banking system that provides banking facilities for everybody in this country and for the whole community. Speaking as the Member of this House who was responsible for handling financial exclusion at the end of the previous Government, I think that it is fine to encourage credit unions, which are very nice institutions, but I do not believe that it is credible to believe that they could set up the kind of national network needed to fill the gaps. That is why, once upon a time, we had a more effective post office banking arrangement. We already have an infrastructure, and we already have institutional arrangements. We would do much better to build on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for curtailing his remarks so well. I wish to make two points at the end of this debate. First, the thrust of the motion is to replace a levy on the balance sheet, which is not avoidable or evadable, with a tax on bonuses, which is both those things. It is a bizarre policy. The Opposition seem to have mixed up the real issue, which is the overly high level of remuneration in banks, with the fact that it is split between variable and fixed pay. They appear to think that it is fine to pay someone £3 million a year, but that they should not be paid £2 million with a £1 million bonus, and that the extra bit needs to be taxed much more. That is just wrong. Apart from anything else, that £1 million can be clawed back under our current proposals, and indeed even under the Opposition’s proposals.

The real issue to consider is: what is so unique about the structure of the banking industry that means that banks have to pay so many of their employees so much? The same does not happen in the oil or the pharmaceuticals industries—those companies are worth more than big banks. Earlier, I cited the example of Barclays, which feels the need to pay 1,000 people more than £1 million a year. I am sure that those people work extremely hard, but people in Shell, BP, Glaxo and AstraZeneca work hard, too, and those companies are also world class and world-beating organisations, but they do not have that salary structure. The only explanation is that the market is not working, which is something that both sides of the House should consider when drawing up banking reforms. There is something in the way that investment banks work that stops new entrants coming into the market. I have reflected on this and feel that that is almost certainly the case.

If the chief executive officer of a company is hiring an investment bank, they would not get fired for hiring Goldman Sachs—in the same way that someone in IT would not get fired for hiring IBM. Typically, a CEO will last for only two years in a new company—they do not last long and they do not get many chances. If Goldman Sachs comes along with a big transaction, it bases the price of that transaction not on how much effort it takes to do it but on the 1% increased value in the company. Well, if I am the CEO of Apple and I increase by 1% the value of Apple, which is worth £500 billion a year, and Goldman Sachs gets a slight percentage of that, there is an awful lot of money swilling around. That makes it very hard for new entrants to enter that market.

We all have to address the matter of why it is so hard to get challenger banks into that market, because that is where the abuses occur. The problems do not often occur in the retail sector. We should also address the matter of why it is that so many people need to earn so much, when the shareholders in those organisations do not earn much.

Secondly, I want to reflect on what has happened in HSBC over the last little while. HSBC has been running a management structure that is based on plausible deniability. In Mexico, it has been trading with drug cartels, and it has been involved in evasion in Switzerland and it is saying, “We just did not know that our guys were doing that.” The question is: if its management structure is based on plausible deniability, what is the point of the board and the chief executive? We should think about that, because it provides a better argument for splitting up banks than this dichotomy between retail and investment, because it is, prima facie, a bank that is too big to manage.

Here is the truth of it. The guy who was running the operation in Mexico was told, “This is your target. We don’t really care what you have to do to make it. If you can’t make it, the next guy will.” That is how these banks operate. That is the structure of plausible deniability. That is why we need the cultural change that Ministers on the Front Bench are trying to achieve.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

David Mowat Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

First of all, it is not surprising that the British Government—Conservative, coalition or Labour—would meet one of the country’s largest institutions and banks. So that it is not a matter for surprise. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about any details we have about particular meetings.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

In 2005, at the height of all of this, the then Chancellor told the CBI dinner that he supported a “light” and “limited” approach to regulation including tax administration. What does the Chancellor think the previous Chancellor meant by a “light” approach to tax administration, and can he confirm that we have cleared it up?

[Mr Osborne]

Well, we have taken a much more aggressive approach. As a result, prosecutions are up fivefold. I have the following parliamentary answer from the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and this is what he told the House:

“Where serious tax fraud has been committed, the Board”—

the Inland Revenue board—

“may accept a money settlement instead of pursuing a criminal prosecution.

The Board will accept a money settlement and will not pursue a criminal prosecution, if the taxpayer, in response to being given a copy of this Statement by an authorised officer, makes a full and complete confession of all tax irregularities.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 784W.]

That was the approach of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to tax policy. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says it was before 2000, but the revelations were made in 2009, and the last time I checked there was a Labour Government in late 2009 and early 2010.

Tax Avoidance

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who always makes such fascinating and interesting speeches and observations—[Interruption.] Indeed—and colourful, as well.

I want to draw attention to the incredible amount of historical revisionism we have seen in the debate. It is worth looking back first at what happened in the 13 years before this Government came to office. In those years, the Labour party was very taken with its prawn cocktail offensive and allowed a culture of industrial-scale tax avoidance to grow. We can see it in the figures. During Labour’s time in office, income tax rose by 81% whereas non-oil corporation tax receipts rose by just 7%. Under the previous Conservative Government, between 1986 and 1997, income tax receipts rose by about 79% whereas non-oil corporation tax receipts rose by a stunning 144%. If anybody wants to see more receipts and more money coming in from business, they should send for the Conservatives. We have seen that happen again in this Parliament. Income tax receipts have gone up by 11% whereas non-oil corporation tax receipts have gone up 16%. Again, business tax receipts have outstripped income tax receipts.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Those points are important, but capital gains tax is equally important. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said, this Government’s rates change on business assets—from 10% under the previous Government to 28%—is huge and has made a massive difference in the number of millionaires that are being created.

[Charlie Elphicke]

That is indeed a huge change. The Government have also supported entrepreneurs with entrepreneurs’ relief, which I greatly welcome.

Under this Government, the tax gap for 2012-13 is lower as a percentage of tax receipts than in any year under the previous Labour Government. Tax yield for HMRC has gone up by £7 billion since 2010-11. The Government have been very effective at dealing with the tax gap and bringing in receipts. The corporation tax gap for large businesses in 2009-10 was £2 billion, whereas in 2012-13 it was lower, at £1.8 billion. We see a lot of revisionism from Labour, but when it came to getting money through the door they had an atrocious record. The Conservative party and this Government have had an effective record. Why? We understand that to up the take one must cut the rate. That is what the Government have done with corporation tax, with massive success.

Let me draw attention to another problem with the Labour party: its proposals are completely and utterly muddled. Labour talks about UK overseas territories that do not have a public central register for offshore companies being on some sort of OECD blacklist. The only problem is that countries such as America, Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands and a whole stream of other countries do not do that. The chances of getting the OECD nations that do not do that to agree to blacklist a whole lot of other nations that do not do it are minimal, and that shows the absurdity of the Labour position.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

David Mowat Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

HMRC is essentially performing the same process that has been undertaken for many years, including when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in office. It is consistent, for example, with the Liechtenstein disclosure facility, which was agreed by the previous Government, the point being that it is the most effective way of getting the tax, the interest and the penalty; of getting the money into the Exchequer; and of changing behaviour. I make no apology for HMRC pursuing that route as the first line, because it has proven to be effective.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Three years ago, HSBC was fined $2 billion for acting as money launderers for Mexican drug cartels. Those transactions, and those that we are discussing today, both happened before 2010. Is the Financial Secretary confident that the measures we brought in subsequently will stop either case happening again? Has he had a discussion with HSBC regarding continued transgressions of this type and its banking licence?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When it comes to banking licences, politicians should perhaps not be directly involved; we have a regulator for that purpose. Ensuring a change of behaviour in our banks is important. We have all been appalled by this behaviour over the last few hours––for some of us, it has been longer. This occurred some years ago, at the same time as we saw banks acting recklessly in a number of ways. It is really important for the banking sector to get its house in order. We know that the reforms we have undertaken as a Government can play an important role in ensuring that happens.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), I will be supporting the charter.

This has been an interesting debate. We have heard principled speeches from the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) explaining the travesty of Government economic policy and saying how bad the economy will get and how the country needs a Labour Government to sort it out. The odd thing is that about half an hour from now those three Members, who spoke in so principled a way about why Government policy is wrong, will go through the Lobby on the same side as me in support of this “gimmick”, this “cheap stunt”, this “travesty”, as it has been called. At least the SNP, the Green party and the Welsh nationalists have taken a principled position. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) made an eloquent and reasoned speech about why targets are wrong. We used to say in business: “The great thing about not knowing where you’re going is that you can’t get lost.” That would be a summary of the SNP’s position.

Why is the Labour party going to troop through the Lobby to support the Government? I have only one explanation. I may be wrong, and it is possibly above my pay grade to get involved, but I think that Labour’s decision to support the Government tonight is the start of overtures around a grand coalition. I think Labour has realised that the polls are changing and it is not looking too good out there for it. It has few options left other than to start this dialogue. That is why the hon. Member for Brent North, who spoke so eloquently about the unprincipled Government position, is going to support the Government today. If he did not, Labour would not be signing up to our fiscal compact, and it would be difficult for them to join us in a coalition in May.

As I said, it is not for me to take this decision, as it is way above my pay grade. I would, however, say one thing to those on the Government Front Bench: if we decide to go into a grand coalition with the Labour party on the basis of its support today, could they please not give the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) a job in the Treasury?

It is worth reminding Labour Members of the three components of the charter. First, in three years from now, the current spending round will be balanced. That is part one. Then, the supplementary target is that debt will be falling by 2017. Of course, it has not been talked about, but there is also the concept of the welfare cap, which Labour Members will be supporting when they go through the Lobby.

It behoves all of us to say how we are going to meet these targets. The Conservatives are talking about a mixture of continued spending, welfare reforms and tax evasion. The Liberal Democrats have their own plans. Thus far, Labour has no plans, but let us be clear that the implication of tonight’s vote is that there will be a £30 billion consolidation or the equivalent in tax rates. In the remaining 14 seconds, I reiterate the point that if there is to be a grand coalition, we should not allow the shadow Chancellor into the Treasury.

Diverted Profits Tax

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend said that this unilateral action should not affect a global agreement that may be reached in the future. What concerns me, however, is that some countries—Luxembourg, the Republic of Ireland and, possibly, Holland—are acting as de facto tax havens. They regard helping big companies avoid tax in our country as a method of increasing their GDP. Given that, it is unlikely there will ever be a global agreement of the type my hon. Friend is talking about.

[Nigel Mills]

I have always been cynical about the OECD process, for exactly the reason my hon. Friend gives: the risk is that some countries will block it or undermine it out of self-interest. If the main countries are serious about tackling multinational tax avoidance, one country that really needs to change its rules is the US. The US could stop a lot of this by changing some of its rather strange entity classification rules and other things. That would stop US corporates getting the real tax saving they are after. I sense that until the US is willing to do that, we will never see these things stop completely.

[David Mowat]

I should have added that our hands are not clean. We appear quite sanguine about the status of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. I am always a bit surprised that neither Front Bench has ever regarded that as an issue on which more action is needed. People in Luxembourg would raise that issue with us, just as I am accusing them of acting as de facto assisters of tax evasion.

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the UK doing some sponsoring of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but I will leave the Minister to answer for the Government’s policies on tackling that. My hon. Friend says our hands are not entirely clean; it is interesting that we have introduced the Patent Box to try to have a lower tax rate for intellectual property in the UK—presumably on royalties charged in countries around the world. We have also been trying to get our tax rate down to a low level to encourage international investment. Someone sitting somewhere with a tax rate much higher than 20% might think that we are trying to encourage profits to be taxed here that perhaps should not be, but I am sure that is not the Government’s intention.

To wrap up on the BEPS process, the Association of Revenue and Customs—the trade union for professionals at HMRC—raised the concern that the Government’s proposals were unilateral and stood outside the BEPS proposals. The ARC suggested an alternative approach, whereby the Government remain in the BEPS process and timetable, but use their current initiative to show they will have legislation in place in case the process falters or is impeded. I presume the Government will confirm that they do not intend to slow down on the rules and wait for the BEPS process and that we will see them on the statute book later in the year.

The second area I would like to look at briefly is how likely the rules are to be effective. We all want the tax to be collected in the UK. We do not want to see these corporates able to artificially avoid paying the tax that is due here, but there is a question on whether the rules will survive a challenge under the UK’s many double tax treaties or under EU law. People suspect that the Government have chosen to do a whole new tax, rather than just tweak the existing corporation tax rules, to try to ensure that the rules are not struck down by our international treaties or by EU law. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have looked into that and are satisfied that the treaty analysis is correct? Paragraph 4 of article 2 of the OECD’s model tax convention states:

“The Convention shall apply also to any identical or substantially similar taxes that are imposed after the date of signature of the Convention in addition to, or in place of, the existing taxes.”

At first glance, it looks as though the direct profits tax will be a tax on corporate income, which sounds similar to a corporate income tax and our corporation tax. The definition in the convention suggests that the tax might be caught by the treaties. Article 7 of the convention, which is on business profits, states:

“Profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein.”

The problem we are trying to fix with the avoided permanent establishment part of the rules is that if a company does not have a PE, we cannot tax them. We think they are diverting profits out of the UK and we want to tax those profits, but if we are dropped back into the treaty, we might end up in the same position as we started. It would be useful to understand how the Government have satisfied themselves that the tax will not be caught. Is it because they are trying to tax the UK establishment that already exists, or do they believe that it is a new tax that falls outside the treaty?

On the EU law point, I am no big fan of the EU interfering in our tax system. Tax is meant to be for nation states and not the EU. I have never been keen on the view that the European Court of Justice should interfere in sensible tax avoidance rules, so I will not advocate that here, but there must be a risk for the many companies that choose to site themselves in Luxembourg, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said. We have all seen the tax rulings that have been published, and we know how many companies are doing that. A company based in Luxembourg might say, “Wait a minute: if I am established in the UK and pay tax there, I pay it at 20%. Why, because I am in Luxembourg, do I pay a slightly different tax at 25%? Is that not fundamentally contrary to some kind of freedom of establishment principle?” There is a risk of a legal challenge to the rules on that basis. It would be useful to understand how the Government have satisfied themselves that the European courts would not strike down what many of us see as a sensible anti-avoidance measure that we would not want to lose.

The flipside to that is whether the provisions have been drawn up in the right way, so that they catch those we are aiming at, but do not create onerous burdens for loads of “innocent” corporations or place a ridiculous burden on HMRC. We want targeted rules that attack the corporations engaging in what they must know to be pretty aggressive artificial structuring. The guidance is clear on some of the structures that HMRC and the Treasury are targeting. We would all probably agree that it looks artificial if a sales force gets 95% of the way through a sale and cannot sign the final contract, but has to refer it to Luxembourg, Switzerland or somewhere else. If the rules are drafted too broadly, there is a risk of thousands of companies that the Government had not intended to be caught fearing that they will be caught. That creates a burden on them, and they will have to go through the whole compliance process to satisfy themselves that they are not caught.

The flipside to that is the risk that HMRC gets thousands of notices that it cannot possibly deal with, and then misses the notices that have all the tax at stake. By drawing the rules too widely, people could sneak through the middle who should not. The adviser community is expressing sensible concerns and asking, “Have the rules been drawn too broadly? Is there any way that they can be focused, perhaps through filters, such as those in the controlled foreign company rules?” Through that, we could be clear to taxpayers on who is intended to be caught, and what the hallmarks are that let them know that they are caught. That can give those who are not trying to avoid UK tax artificially some kind of comfort that they are not in the rules and do not need to do the self-assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing the debate. His initiative is excellent, given the enormity of what is proposed.

There is something of a crisis in corporation tax: globalisation, the European Union and the internet have all given many more opportunities to move tax or profits around. In the days since I was a global finance director in 1996, we have seen a lot more predatory activity by advisers and companies. They seem to be far more shameless about carrying out transactions without a commercial basis. With my training, I would have said that that was already a problem, even without any new legislation, but companies seem quite happy to do such transactions, to the extent that a year or so ago the chief executive of WPP could describe the amount of tax paid as “a question of judgment”, which tells us a lot about the amount of flexibility that he could see in the system.

Moreover, the chief executive of Google famously boasted about avoiding £2 billion in tax in a single year. He seemed to have no concept that that meant £2 billion in cuts to public services in the all countries in which his company operates, or the same amount more in tax that other companies and individuals in those countries would have to pay. The climate seems to be changing, although the Prime Minister’s business advisory group still includes that chief executive. I wonder whether he had any input into the new policy and what he thinks of it.

After the measure was announced, Newsweek commented on 26 December:

“The British government, after a search, says it knows how to tax profits Google earns in the United Kingdom. Its solution is simple and elegant, and it probably won’t change a damn thing.”

That view is perhaps overly cynical, but it backs up a point made by several Members: the expectation is that companies will take other measures rather than lie down and pay the tax. That is a huge issue.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley was right to mention the question of how on earth the tax will be calculated. City experts are already saying that the calculations will lead to a “legal quagmire”—that is one expression I have seen used. In other words, when HMRC comes up with an assessment the lawyers will probably start work. I wonder whether HMRC has budgeted sufficiently for the resources that it will need to make the tax stick. It could be involved in lengthy legal cases with expensive lawyers paid by large companies.

That leads us to the main question concerning this tax. When I was trained as an accountant, we were told that the one principle a tax system needs is certainty. In other words, it should be clear what a company is doing and what the tax on that will be; the company can then pay that tax. Certainty is one of the functions of a good tax system, but with the diverted profits tax we are straying into an area of high uncertainty about how the tax will be assessed and paid. The hon. Gentleman made an excellent point about our ability to collect the money: by definition, it could be all over the place and not in the UK. That leads us to the question of the confidence the Minister has in our ability to collect the money—I am interested to hear her comments on that.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about certainty and also about the difficulties that globalisation and the internet have caused for gathering corporation tax. Is there a case for the international community to give up on corporation tax and instead have higher taxes on sales and, if necessary, dividends, so that the tax is still raised in the end but we do not have a continual process of chasing money across international boundaries, which, for the reasons he has given, is time consuming and perhaps counter-productive?

[Ian Swales]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. I know that some commentators believe the right way to go is to scrap the incredibly complex system that we have. Although that might be where we end up, I would like to see country-by-country reporting introduced first, so that we know what activity companies are carrying out in each country, and where they are trading and are declaring their profits will be transparent to the world at large. That would help tax authorities; also, the problems companies would then have with reputation management would cause quite a shift. I would like to see that country-by-country reporting first, but perhaps we will end up in the position that he has suggested.

The estimate is that the tax will raise £1 billion over five years. That is a very small amount given the scale of the issue. One commentator has suggested that Google alone could be assessed as owing around half that figure. The Financial Times has found that in 2012 seven US technology companies paid only £54 million in tax on UK sales of $15 billion. I am aware that corporation tax is levied not on sales but on profits, but the companies we are talking about typically make 20% profit or more on sales, so we could quickly come up with a large number there. Will the Minister tell us how the assessment of the amount the tax will collect was made? What assumptions sit behind it? The figure seems small given all the relevant issues, which we are well aware of.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley rightly mentioned EU law. I will not repeat what he said but there is clearly the potential to challenge the tax through the EU. When one talks to global finance directors, there is no doubt that financing structures and interest payments are the tax avoidance measure of choice—they are how the largest diversion of profits occurs. Will the Minister explain why offshore finance centres and excessive foreign interest payments have been specifically excluded from the diverted profits tax? I welcome the moves that have been made, but a large area has not been addressed by the tax.

I will mention a few other aspects of profit diversion. The Minister may tell us that they are included, but my guess is that most are not. There are well documented loopholes used by banks for tax arbitrage between countries, particularly between the UK and the US, because different instruments are taxed differently in the two countries and by shuffling money backwards and forwards it is possible to create beneficial tax arrangements. Will the legislation address those loopholes? Does the legislation deal with hybrid entities, for which there are similar opportunities because of the different taxation of legal structures between different countries? They are another method that the financial services sector in particular uses to shift profits.

Some of the issues connected to Luxembourg have been mentioned already, but will the Minister address the issue of the wholesale tax avoidance and profit diversion that, for example, sees Vodafone holding five times as much capital in Luxembourg as the GDP of Luxembourg, although it does no trading there? That kind of thing enrages the public, and it is high time it was addressed. When will she get the EU to deal with the preposterous activity going on in Luxembourg behind its so-called headline corporation tax rate of 29%?

The Channel Islands have already been mentioned. The particular point I want to raise is that the majority of contracts for UK private finance initiatives are now financed from those islands. That makes a mockery of the Green Book assumptions about PFI tax recovery; it is assumed that a very high figure—I think it is 6%—will come back to the Treasury in tax receipts, but that assumption completely ignores the fact that PFI deals are routinely moved to the Channel Islands, including those for 50% of the schools in my constituency, which are apparently owned in Jersey.

Those are just a few of the arrangements that may or not be covered by the diverted profit tax legislation. I suspect most are not, but they illustrate the fact that there is a lot more yet to do.

Diverted profit arrangements do not simply cost tax or allow profit diversion; they incentivise offshore acquisition and ownership of UK businesses. These days, highly profitable UK businesses have to create some offshore financing or else somebody else will do it for them, as predatory takeover activity in the UK is often predicated on offshore finance structures designed to move taxable profits out of the country. A good example would be Betfair. Last year, a company was looking to take it over in an aggressive takeover. I wondered what the company was going to add in terms of betting technology or new IT, but the clue was the name: “So-and-so Partners, London and Luxembourg”. The factor the takeover was going to add was the shifting of Betfair’s profits away from the hands of the Treasury. In the end, that takeover did not go through, but the diversion of profits affects business ownership and competition in the UK.

I mentioned the amount that the tax is expected to raise. I think the figure is low because of what are traditionally called behavioural effects—in other words, what companies may do as a result of the tax—and so I am interested to hear more from the Minister on what the Treasury thinks will happen, as opposed to the idea that companies will simply sit there and pay the tax. What kind of measures does the Treasury consider companies might take?

How will the success of the tax ultimately be measured? As the hon. Member for Amber Valley rightly said, it could well be that the real success of the legislation will appear not in diverted profit tax receipts but as higher corporation tax receipts. Does the Treasury have any way of judging how the measures have played out?

I welcome what is happening and hope that the Government will do more. I have mentioned country by country reporting, and that has begun to happen in the financial services sector. It is driven partly by other countries’ legislation. I hope it will expand through the work of the OECD and pressure from our Government, and in the operation of companies around the world will become more transparent. We should push for that.

John Cridland, the head of the CBI, said about a year ago that he was confused and did not know what the Government wanted on tax. I do not think that it is confusing at all. We want companies to account for their UK activities in the UK and pay tax on the profits that they earn in the UK. It could not be any simpler. I addressed the CBI tax forum two or three months ago and made that point. I said bluntly that if its companies were doing otherwise, we would steadily be coming after them.

The Government have a record of at least moving in the right direction. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for more than four years and took part in scrutiny of large companies and tax advisors; judging by the culture and attitudes out there, we still have a long way to go. I vividly remember asking a tax advisor how many of the schemes that he had advised individuals and companies to adopt in the previous few years had been made illegal; he cheerfully said it was all of them. It is good news that HMRC keeps pinning those things down, but the fact is that there is an industry out there constantly looking for new ways to avoid the taxes that we try to levy. I hope that the Treasury will make its proposals work, and will continue to recognise that there is still much more to do.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing the debate, and on his speech. He raised many points on which I, too, want to press the Minister. He was right to say that the issue has not received a huge amount of attention, and that there will not be a great deal of parliamentary time for detailed scrutiny of the Government’s proposals, given where we are in the parliamentary cycle.

The announcement of the proposals was of course rather trumped by the changes in stamp duty, which led the media coverage and debate. However, there has been a lot of coverage in the specialist taxation media, and that has helped to bring out some of the issues raised by the proposed diverted profits tax. I am grateful for this opportunity to press the Government further on their proposals. I will seek answers about technical detail— bearing in mind that there is currently a technical consultation, which will report on 4 February—as well as about practical elements and the Government’s emerging thinking about the impact on the OECD BEPS process. All three hon. Members who spoke mentioned that.

Our general approach is not dissimilar to the Government’s, and we recognise that there is a significant issue. All those who have spoken have referred to the public examples of large companies, with significant businesses that are doing very well, effectively gaming international tax rules to minimise their tax liabilities in this country. That significantly undermines public trust and confidence in the taxation system, particularly at a time of economic difficulty and stress. It is a real issue, and it is legitimate for all political parties to look for practical answers to alleviate such concerns.

As a general principle, economic activity should be taxed where it takes place. The question for all politicians to grapple with is finding an effective way to get to that point. For the Opposition—and for the Government, going by what they have said throughout this Parliament—the starting point is to try to work with international partners, notwithstanding the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Amber Valley about whether the US and other jurisdictions would be willing to play ball on co-ordinated international action to deal with gaming of the international tax rules. It is the right place to start, and that is why we have supported the OECD’s BEPS process. It is the right forum for seeking an international agreement on tax rules.

The Government have of course been much closer than the Opposition to that process, and we rely on publicly available information about its progress, and expert commentary from, and conversations with, some of the participants. From what the Government were saying up to the time of the autumn statement, we anticipated that their preferred way of proceeding on all the issues that form BEPS action points would be to await the final reporting in September before thinking how to go further. They have of course moved a little more quickly with the diverted profits tax, and I, like other hon. Members, would like to hear more about how that affects our role in the BEPS process.

We agree that a solution is needed and are keen for the issue to be dealt with, so we broadly welcome the Government’s proposed action. We will approach the diverted profits tax proposal in the Finance Bill in a supportive and constructive spirit, because we want a workable solution to reach the statute book; but I want to press the Minister further, particularly about the BEPS process. It would be helpful if she could tell us how those in the process have reacted to the DPT proposals, and why the Government felt it necessary to take unilateral action at this point, notwithstanding what many commentators have said about the looming general election. Was there a feeling that BEPS would not produce much of a result in relation to the relevant element of the international tax rules? Does the decision mean that BEPS will effectively be a failure? Is that the kind of world that we are looking at?

Some commentators have, as I am sure the Minister is aware, expressed cynicism about the motive for a unilateral move by the UK, and some have even suggested that it will torpedo the whole BEPS process, so that we get nowhere. I am interested to understand the conversations that the Government have had with people in the OECD and in the tax specialist community about where BEPS now stands.

[David Mowat]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s points about international co-ordination. In the event of a Labour victory in the May election, what would its position be on UK tax havens such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man? I thought that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) made a powerful point about the 50% of schools in his constituency that are financed from Jersey. I would expect the Opposition to have developed some policy on that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to highlight Labour policy in this debate. A few months ago, we published a paper on corporate taxation that included a section on the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. We have made the commitment that, if we win the general election, we will require the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to publish a public register of beneficial ownership. That is the key demand of all in the wider tax justice and fairness community, and it would shine a light on the true owners of businesses based in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. The Government have spoken a great deal about doing something similar, but I think it is fair to say, without being party political, that progress has stalled. We have gone further by saying that we will ensure that that process happens. I have already taken the conversation forward with Ministers and other officials from the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; nevertheless, the UK is at the forefront of driving the international effort to tackle these problems—these weaknesses—in international tax laws that are very out of date. The UK is certainly doing its bit.

In line with the BEPS action plan, in September 2014 the OECD’s first set of outputs from the BEPS project were fully endorsed by the G20 Finance Ministers at their Cairns summit. In a global economy in which goods and services flow freely between countries, international co-operation, as the hon. Gentleman points out, is the only way to tackle the challenge of tax avoidance. Measures taken in Britain will not deal with the problem on their own; we must have global tax rules, too. That is why, under our Prime Minister, we have been pushing, through the G8, the G20 and the OECD, for global solutions.

[David Mowat]

Of course, that has to be the right answer, but does the Minister really believe that countries such as Luxembourg and the Republic of Ireland, which derive a considerable amount of GDP from a tax evasion strategy, will contribute to any such global effort when it is so important to their standard of living?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to all hon. Members for the points they are making about other tax jurisdictions. What the UK can do is lead the international effort and focus on what we can do to ensure that the UK’s tax base is not eroded. Therefore, although these other points are extremely important, hon. Members will realise that I cannot influence directly the tax laws that Luxembourg undertakes for itself, other than through the contribution the Government make to the international effort to put pressure on different jurisdictions.

The Chancellor announced, in the autumn statement 2014, UK action on two of the internationally agreed 2014 outputs of the BEPS project. I know that the hon. Member for Redcar supports the UK’s introducing legislation to implement the G20-OECD agreed model for country-by-country reporting, which will require multinational companies to provide tax authorities with high-level information on profit, corporation tax paid and certain indicators of economic activity for risk assessment. Draft legislation for the Finance Bill 2015 was published on 10 December 2014, with a tax information and impact note and an explanatory note.

Furthermore, a consultation document on the UK plans for implementing the G20-OECD agreed rules for neutralising hybrid mismatch arrangements—another point raised by the hon. Gentleman—was published at the autumn statement. The new rules will tackle a tax avoidance technique used by multinationals to exploit differences between countries’ tax rules to avoid paying tax in either country, or to obtain more tax relief against profits than they are entitled to.

However, the Government have gone further still. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked whether that was instead of BEPS or because we feel that BEPS will not work, but no, not at all—this is in addition. The Government have gone further to tackle tax avoidance by multinational companies operating here in the UK and to strengthen our defences against the erosion of the UK tax base. That is entirely complementary to the BEPS process. Where companies in the UK are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying their fair share of tax, we will act to prevent that. That is why the Government have introduced the new diverted profits tax—to counter the use of aggressive tax planning by large multinationals to avoid paying tax in the UK on profits that have been generated from economic activity here in the UK.

The diverted profits tax will be applied using a rate of 25% from 1 April 2015. The measure is targeted at contrived arrangements used to shift profits away from the UK in a manner that ensures they go untaxed or largely untaxed. The measure is designed to counter the erosion of the UK tax base as a result of complex structures that circumvent the international tax rules on permanent establishment and transfer pricing.

For example, some multinationals have gone for aggressive tax planning that involves quite complicated arrangements, such as the so-called “double Irish”—a point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley—using group companies in other countries as conduits to route expenditure to tax havens so that profits from UK activity goes untaxed.

Specifically, the diverted profits tax applies in two situations. The first is where a foreign company carries out activities in the UK in connection with the supply of goods or services to UK customers in such a way that it avoids creating a permanent establishment, and the main purpose of that arrangement is to avoid UK tax, or a tax mismatch is secured such that the total tax derived from UK activities is significantly reduced. The second situation is where a UK company, or a foreign company with a UK permanent establishment, creates a tax mismatch by using transactions or entities that lack economic substance.

If a multinational company is found to be using those contrived arrangements to avoid tax in the UK, HMRC will issue a notice that requires the diverted profits tax to be paid up front. The legislation provides for a review period of up to 12 months, within which the multinational company will have the opportunity, among other things, to demonstrate that it was not liable for the charge or to provide information to HMRC to show that the level of disallowance of intra-group expenditure in computing the charge is wrong on normal transfer pricing principles. The measure is designed to complement our transfer pricing arrangements.

Offshore Wind Developments

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Weir]

I should perhaps introduce the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who mentioned nuclear energy, and they could have a small debate on that point, which I will come to shortly.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Perhaps to answer that point, the strike price at Hinkley Point was 50% lower than the strike price we are talking about with the offshore industry. Until that strike price comes down, the issue will remain.

[Mr Weir]

We are in danger of having a debate within a debate. I will return to the points I was making on offshore wind, although nuclear power does come into this to some extent. If we are serious about the long-term development of offshore wind, we need clear targets and commitments for developers and we need to ensure that we give certainty to support supply chain investment and development. That would undoubtedly also involve providing the necessary conditions for competition, innovation and cost reduction, all of which are supposed to be the Government’s aims. Instead, there are mixed messages on energy policy and continuing uncertainty. Strike prices are set only to 2018-19 and the levy control framework is set only to 2020. There is no real commitment to a decarbonisation target. RenewableUK described the 2020 deadline as being like a cliff edge, because of the uncertainty on what comes after.

Those points were also raised in the Green Alliance report I mentioned, which concluded:

“The research has identified five actions the next government should take to realise the industrial and decarbonisation potential of offshore wind:

1. Set a 2030 carbon intensity target for the electricity sector of 50gCO2/kWh”—

given the Government’s previous response to that, I am not holding my breath—

“2. Confirm the scale of funding available to support delivery of low carbon energy infrastructure during the 2020s under the Levy Control Framework.

3. Provide more certainty for low carbon generators by confirming the timing of funding allocation rounds for the rest of this decade.

4. Stabilise the supply chain by committing to minimum levels of offshore wind deployment in the 2020s (dependent on generators meeting cost targets).

5. Draw on international experience to derisk UK offshore wind development and ensure a robust pipeline during the 2020s.”

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) made a point about the impact on the bill payer, which we also have to take into account. We cannot say that we will just pump money into any sort of development, irrespective of the impact on bill payers. It is not necessarily about putting more money into offshore wind. As I have said, by investing in offshore wind, we get more than just clean energy; we get industrial investment, jobs and the economic regeneration that many of us are looking for in our areas. It is about certainty and giving the industry a clear signal that the huge amounts of money it is putting into developing these projects will not be wasted and that there is a plan beyond 2020 to ensure that these developments will come on stream, produce energy and increase industrial investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Gray, and I will bear in mind your comments about the length of our speeches.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), and his colleagues who approached the Backbench Business Committee, on raising this important issue. It is important for all sorts of reasons, not least that renewables, onshore and offshore wind in particular, provide a secure energy source in the control of this country and do not lead to dependence on less secure sources elsewhere in the world. Recently, volatility in energy price markets has reminded us how prices go up and down and that when we depend on other countries, we are clearly less secure.

Wind is a form of energy production that, as has been emphasised, is clean and contributes to our commitment to reduce carbon emissions. It also provides real employment opportunities. The hon. Gentleman referred to potential developments off the coast of Angus. I am not sure which constituency they are off—that depends on the starting point—but although they are not off my constituency, it is certainly among those that could benefit from developing offshore wind power off the east coast of Scotland. I take on board the points made about the potential elsewhere in the North sea as well.

Some time ago, the major Spanish offshore wind turbine production company, Gamesa, proposed a major plant in my constituency that could have brought in excess of 1,000 jobs to our area and the south-east of Scotland. The proposal now seems very much up in the air, however, and one reason for that is uncertainty about the direction of Government policy, along with uncertainty arising from international pressures that are beyond our Government’s control.

A real problem is certainly the lack of consistency and long-term vision to which my colleague on the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), referred. A clear message and vision on the Government’s part is essential; there needs to be a clear long-term policy. The long-term support mechanism, the levy control framework, is an important issue that needs to be addressed if we are to see more investment in the offshore wind sector.

Another issue is the small budget available for the newer technologies such as offshore wind and marine. The size of the budget restricts development in the offshore wind sector and has a knock-on effect on other, newer technologies. In my constituency, we had the recent bad news about the closure of the Pelamis wave turbine plant, adding to other problems in the wave energy sector throughout the UK. Among the many complicated reasons for the Pelamis decision was long-term uncertainty.

Another problem when the budget is so small is that the more established technologies are much more likely than the less established ones to get what money is available. In effect, the limited budget is more likely to go to offshore wind, and therefore less likely to go to other technologies such as marine renewables. That is another effect of having only a small budget for newer renewable technologies.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman is the second speaker to talk about the need for consistency. I am sure that is exactly what the industry wants and needs, but in an industry whose business model relies on large amounts of subsidy, Government interaction in the process is reasonable. The industry must understand that, despite the desire for consistency, the Government are entitled to do their best to bring prices down to a level closer to grid parity—something we would all like to see.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I do not disagree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says; in fact, he made a point I was about to make. I of course accept that we cannot subsidise any renewables technology at any price, simply because renewables are a good thing; but we also have to recognise that as such technologies develop and become more mature, the price reduces dramatically. We could end up in a vicious circle: if we do not support newer and initially more costly renewables technologies at the start, their price will never reduce and they will not become commercial, in relative terms, over a longer period. That comes back to the point about the need for long-term consistency and vision, and to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Government’s approach.

Some renewables technologies will of course be more expensive initially. However, if we do not take up the immense opportunities available to develop them, nationally and internationally, other countries will do so and we will lose out. That is what happened with wind, when countries such as Denmark took over our position on engineering and exports. No doubt countries such as China will also take a leading role in renewables if we do not. What we have is a short-term strategy, not a long-term vision. I fully accept that the Government have taken some steps in the right direction, but they should do more. I hope the Minister will give a positive response to the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Angus and for Waveney, and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman’s views on these issues are well articulated and well known, but we have to be a lot more ambitious. I do not want be shoring up our coastline—I would rather be preventing it from falling down in the first place. One way we can do that, and gain economic advantage, is by developing new, innovative technologies, which will have tremendous commercial potential if we develop them properly.

In that light, I am deeply disappointed that no decarbonisation target has been set for 2030. That is a real missed opportunity, and it undermines confidence in the Government’s commitment to the offshore renewables sector. The Government initially seemed much more ambitious about the development of offshore wind, and that raised a lot of expectations, leading to considerable investment from industry. Companies were actively encouraged to make bids for offshore developments, and they have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in bringing projects to consent.

However, the smoke signals from the Government have changed, and the goalposts have shifted somewhat since Ministers embarked on this journey. The budget announced last October for contract for difference bids was substantially lower than expected. The £235 million allocated for group 2 will support an estimated 700 to 800 MW of offshore wind capacity, which is a lot less even than some of the individual projects aim to generate.

I am not questioning the principle of a competitive element to the process, but the money available will, realistically, support only one—and possibly only part of one—of the seven projects in the frame. Given that companies will each have invested tens of millions of pounds just to get to this stage, the support on offer simply does not present sufficient incentives or prospects of success to encourage further development in the sector. I fear that the prospect of offshore wind on the Scottish coast is in real danger of withering on the vine.

It is important to point out that, under contract for difference, offshore projects will compete against not just each other, but other renewables projects, including more evolved technologies, such as onshore wind on the islands, which are now much cheaper and lower risk. Again, that is likely to jeopardise the development of a strong domestic renewables sector and supply chain.

I am concerned that the shifting goalposts, the mixed signals and the interminable delays that have characterised energy market reform are doing the UK considerable reputational damage in international markets, which will deter future investment. Those who feel they may have been led up the garden path this time will be reluctant to venture into our orbit again, which is not where we need to be in attracting investment. The Government need to send a signal that they remain committed to the offshore wind sector—if they are—and to let the sector know that there will be future allocations under contract for difference to make further investment viable.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, because I am conscious of the time, and I want to make a couple of points before I conclude.

I well recall how the Government made the same short-sighted mistakes in the 1980s, when early, first-generation renewable energy technologies being developed in Scottish universities were starved of funding. That simply meant that the research moved to Europe and beyond and that other countries created the manufacturing jobs that could and should have benefited our economy.

There is a grave danger that if we pull the rug out from under the fledgling UK industry before it has had a chance to establish itself, the chance we have will pass us by. Others will harness the technology and steal a march on us. We need not to be content with what we have, but to realise that there is more wind to be harnessed if we go out into deeper waters. However, that takes investment, and it means risk, and we need to take that seriously.

I represent an area that still has a lot of manufacturing, and we are keen to benefit from what is happening. That would have long-term benefits in terms of creating a stronger, more stable and more resilient economy.

There has been some mention of the Government’s direction of travel—the enthusiasm for fracking and the rush towards new nuclear. Others have spoken about the costs at Hinkley Point, but it is worth pointing out that EU experts have said that those costs are actually much higher—about £25 billion. Professor Peter Strachan of Robert Gordon university points out:

“The deal involves paying twice the current price for electricity, with UK taxpayers and electricity consumers locked into a binding contract for an extraordinary 35 years.”

If we also consider the massive decommissioning costs involved, those figures put into context the £235 million available for offshore wind through contract for difference in the current round. Offshore wind developers seem to be scrabbling around for the crumbs.

If it is possible to make a 35-year commitment to support the nuclear industry, it seems short-sighted to have the offshore renewables sector lurching from year to year and round to round. Obviously, we are not comparing like with like, but we simply will not have a renewables sector if we do not give it more certainty and security to develop these ambitious technologies. I would like the Minister to use this opportunity to indicate the Government’s ongoing commitment to the sector.

Renewable energy is an important part of our energy mix, but we need to think long term if we are to realise its full potential. The cost of new technologies is likely to reduce over time. Contract for difference helps to encourage that investment, but we will achieve the added benefits only if we remain in the vanguard. The point has been made already, but it is worth saying again that a native renewables industry is critical to our long-term energy security.

Several Members have said that we lead on offshore renewables. If we want to stay in the lead, we need to harness the stronger winds further offshore. Let us not abandon our initial ambition, and let us ensure that we give our offshore wind energy sector the kick-start it needs to achieve real economic benefits for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I wish you and all colleagues a happy new year. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) and the Backbench Business Committee on bringing forward this important debate.

This will come as no surprise to those taking part in the debate—we talk about such things a lot, and I too was on the Committee that considered the Energy Act 2013 and have gone over the arguments at length many times—but I am pleased to have the opportunity, at this early stage in the new year, to reaffirm Labour’s commitment to cutting our carbon emissions by encouraging investment in clean energy through the system of contracts for difference. I want to make a few comments on some of the speeches. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, there is a broad consensus—barring the views of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has a slightly different view from ours. I, like some other right hon. and hon. Members, am committed both to renewables and to nuclear, which will both have an important part to play in the energy mix. We need both of them to reach our carbon emissions targets and negate the problems arising from climate change.

Many of the issues that have been raised are of concern to us—particularly the question of investment and security, and knowing the way forward. That has been raised with me in my capacity as an MP representing an area on the north-east coast, where many of the issues that have been discussed today are relevant, and where there is potential to benefit from development of the industry. Investors tell me that they want certainty. They want to know where we are going, and that there is a long-term plan. The decision cannot be one for four or five years. There is broad consensus, and much of what I want to say concerns that, but there are some issues.

Scotland, as we know, plays an important role in the UK’s clean energy generation. It is blessed with significant clean energy resources, including onshore and offshore wind, and wave and tidal energy have significant potential. Scotland’s leadership in clean energy is borne out in the funding that it receives from central Government. This year, having travelled many times north of the border in the referendum campaign—it is not that far from where I live—I have seen, as I have driven up towards Glasgow, hundreds and hundreds of onshore wind turbines, which I think are quite beautiful and add to the scenery on the drive. They are clearly a significant part of the economy north of the border.

Scotland currently benefits from a system in which resources from across the UK are pooled. Scotland hosts 8.3% of the UK population and around 9% of the energy bill consumer base from which we fund clean energy projects via the levy control framework. In 2012-13, Scotland received nearly a third of all renewable obligation certificates supporting renewable energy. Furthermore, Scotland will receive a significant proportion of the support given through feed-in tariffs, which in 2014-15 is projected to reach £817 million.

As has been said, the UK is a world leader in offshore wind, with as much installed capacity as the rest of the world combined. I see that as a positive for us, not a negative as the hon. Member for Christchurch sees it. It is therefore critical that we get the right structures and funding in place so that the cost of offshore wind continues to fall. To ensure that that happens and that the contract for difference allocation works for offshore wind, we need to boost the investment that drives cost reductions. We have seen the massive cost reductions that investment can bring in both solar and onshore wind.

Although Labour—and most parties, as the hon. Member for Angus said in his contribution—supported the Energy Bill as it progressed through Parliament, there were significant areas in which we were convinced that it needed to go further. I do not intend to précis our “Powering Britain” Green Paper, as I am quite confident that most people here have read it cover to cover. However, what was missing from the Energy Bill, in addition to reform of the wholesale or retail markets through which energy is traded, were policies to encourage further investment in clean energy. Labour is committed to setting a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target, which is supported by organisations as varied as the Committee on Climate Change, energy developers such as Siemens and Dong Energy and companies such as Asda, Sky and PepsiCo as a crucial tool to provide certainty and clarity to drive investment.

Labour will establish an energy security board. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) mentioned long-term security. An energy security board will plan for and deliver on our energy needs for the future. We will give the green investment bank powers to borrow and leverage new investment. We are focused on looking beyond parliamentary terms and changes in Government to give stability for investors in the energy market.

[David Mowat]

I was listening carefully to the hon. Lady developing her point on Scotland. I thought that she was going to complete the point by mentioning the potential impact of independence, had it happened, on an environment in which one third of all subsidies are currently cross-border. I was wondering—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. That would, of course, be quite wide of the mark. The hon. Lady might restrict her comments to the effect of CfDs on the offshore wind market.

Taxation of Pensions Bill

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said, we did have some of this debate in Committee. I know that the Minister, at various stages, has said that everything is under review and that all things are reviewed. What we seek to do is to put some structure around that so that all reports are brought back before the House.

I think I have made my point in previous Bill Committees and probably at the Dispatch Box as well. Even in my relatively short time in this place and on the Front Bench, I have seen Ministers come and go before my very eyes. I have no doubt that the Minister is concerned to ensure that he does the right thing and monitors what is happening, but it is important to have that commitment on behalf of the Government, which is why I have tabled the new clause.

New clause 2 would provide for a Treasury review of the Bill’s operation within 18 months of 6 April 2015. Such a review would include an analysis of its distributional impact by income decile, an analysis of the impact on Government revenues of changes to the taxation of pensions on death, a behavioural analysis and an analysis of the impact on the purchase of annuities. Any Bill that will have a significant impact on not only people’s lives, but the broader industry and the economy, must be based on evidence, engagement and analysis. We know from our probing in Committee why the Government announced the reforms without consultation, and the Minister explained his position on concerns about the impact on the market. However, it would be helpful to have some idea of whether the Government had carried out the behavioural analysis and impact assessment that we are requesting, and indeed of not only the extent to which that had been done, but what information they could set out. Those points have also been pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who worked tirelessly on the Pension Schemes Bill. That Bill includes provisions on the guidance guarantee, which is crucial to the Bill.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Surely the purpose of such a review would be to drive action. We have an expectation of the Bill’s effect on the annuities market, so will the hon. Lady tell us how the results of the annuities aspect of her proposed review would affect a future Government’s actions? Does she think that it would make any difference to Government policy if there was a 10% or a 90% change in the purchase of annuities, because it seems to me that it would not?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The purpose of the monitoring is to determine whether the Bill has unintended consequences. We would want the process to deal with our concerns of whether the market responds to the changes and if the products that people have envisaged will be available. There is the oft-quoted example of what happened in Australia: people drew down money, but many found that they had not properly planned for the future.

The hon. Gentleman asks what the Government would do, but I think that the Government have a responsibility to keep all legislation under review by looking at its effects and examining whether measures are fit for purpose and if they do what they say on the tin. If changes need to be made, the Government of the day will bring forward appropriate provisions. They have a responsibility to make themselves aware of any unintended consequences that might arise from the Bill and they should tell us how they will close any loopholes.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

Surely we know the answer to the question prompted by new clause 2(2)(e), more or less; it is that dramatically fewer annuities will be purchased. Okay, a review might show that the figure is 12% as opposed to 90%, but what action would be taken pursuant to that answer?

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a bit chicken-and-egg: until we do the analysis, we do not really know the extent of the problem. The solution would come once the problems were identified. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about annuities; that takes me back to the issue that I raised about the opportunity for new products. There is a relatively short period of time in which to develop them. The industry, of course, says that it will try to meet the “challenges”—it consistently uses that word—and ensure that there are options and products. None the less, I find it difficult to understand why the Government seem resistant to the new clauses.

I think it was Ernest Hemingway who said that his novels were like icebergs:

“There is seven-eighths of it under water for every part that shows.”

Sometimes the same can be said of legislation, because the devil is in the detail. One has to see the detail, and be on top of it over a period, to find out what the ongoing impact is. That is why, throughout the passage of the Bill, we have tried to identify and probe any fault-lines on the surface of the legislation.

The guidance guarantee has been the subject of considerable debate, although it essentially formed part of the Pension Schemes Bill. Although we have now seen information on the overarching standards and the apportioning of the levy, published on Friday by the Financial Conduct Authority, we have yet to see all the content of that guarantee. Of course, that is the responsibility of the Government, in tandem with delivery partners. It is vital that the guidance is up and running, and is equal to consumer needs, come April next year. The FCA policy statement published on Friday confirmed that, at least initially, there will be no “second line of defence”, as it was described, which makes it even more important that the guidance is fit for purpose.

In the Public Bill Committee, I talked about the potential impact of the reforms on eligibility for social care. We identified two separate but related points on social care that we believe the Government have not yet adequately addressed. The first is the impact that drawing down money under flexi-access may have on an individual’s entitlement to means-tested benefits and eligibility for social care. The second is a point that I raised earlier: the danger that too much emphasis has been placed on early access to funds. That may result in people taking too much, too quickly, and being left with insufficient funds to cover the cost of care later in life. That is why our review calls for a distributional impact of the reforms by income decile. That is also why we need behavioural analysis. Signs may emerge that consumers are accessing their pensions earlier, which increases the chance that they may be left short of money in later life.

As we heard in Committee, many individuals who access their pension flexibly risk being hit with an unexpected tax bill—a point that the Association of British Insurers highlighted:

“Many people will struggle to understand the tax consequences of these reforms. Apart from tax free lump sums, withdrawals from pension pots are taxable pension income…Not only may people find themselves unexpectedly paying higher rate tax, it is possible that some will be unaware that their tax may not be settled for a year after they have accessed their funds through a self-assessment process that they may be unfamiliar with.”

These risks have to be monitored and reviewed, so that any unintended consequences can be picked up and dealt with.

We also need to see—this comes back to the point raised earlier—whether the Bill results in a proliferation of new products. The impact of such products on consumer behaviour should be monitored. In its 2014 risk outlook the Financial Conduct Authority expressed concern that

“retirement income products and distribution may deliver poor customer outcomes”.

It said:

“While recent proposals for pension reform plan to allow consumers to access any amount of their pension pot at age 55, the need for consumers to understand the options available to them at retirement is still paramount. Any future innovation in decumulation products will compound these risks.”

The FCA was, again, trying to look to the future. We share those concerns. We do not want poor outcomes for consumers, and I am sure the Minister does not want that either.

A further issue is that new products may carry additional charges that eat away at an individual’s pension. Research from the House of Commons Library found that current income drawdown products could see 27% of an average pension pot of £30,000 eaten up in fees and charges. If the reforms lead to continued abuse of charges, the Government may have to consider the introduction of a charge cap.

The changes made in schedule 2 abolish the 55% tax on pension funds on the death of the member. We can see the Government’s reasons for doing this, but it would be worth monitoring the impact on consumer behaviour and Government revenue.

I said that I wanted to ask the Minister some particular questions in relation to the autumn statement and the figures that had been published. Throughout the Committee stage, when we were pressing for information and numbers, the Minister said that those would be published in due course. True to his word, that information is now available to us. What effect will the revisions have on the initial costings of the impact of these reforms? Has he had cause to reconsider the impact of the reforms? Can he explain why the tax take increases because of the annual allowance in 2015-16, but falls in subsequent years? What is the basis for those figures?

Can the Minister give us any more detail about the costing of the salary sacrifice and welfare forecast provisions? The numbers are there, but we do not have further information in the autumn statement policy costing document. In comparison to some of the figures provided in Committee, the estimates still seem low. Given that the Minister has revised his forecast to take into account salary sacrifice and welfare at such short notice that it is not included in the autumn statement documents, had the Government fully considered those factors when they initially drew up these reforms, or did they only later recognise the significance of those factors?

We have asked for a review, as set out in new clause 1, to show whether the Bill increases the scope for tax avoidance and the avoidance of national insurance contributions. In the light of the figures that have been published, is the Minister confident that all his projections will prove to be accurate?

I have had a fair opportunity to set out the case for new clauses 1 and 2, which will allow the Minister to keep his word and monitor, review and report information as appropriate. It is important that the clauses are added to the Bill to ensure that that happens. We need to keep a close watch on the progress of the reforms to make sure that they do not lead to adverse outcomes for consumers or place increased costs on the state. The Government have consistently assured us that they will closely monitor the impact of the Bill, so we see no reason why, even at this late stage, they cannot commit to make good on that assurance and accept the new clauses.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

David Mowat Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I have already said, the rebate and its size were only confirmed to us by the European Commission—by the vice-president for the budget—last Thursday night.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Roughly speaking, the previous Government gave away 20% of our rebate. Based on that logic, they have just cost us a further 20% of £1.7 billion. Does the Chancellor agree that they have just cost us another £340 million?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend underestimates what the previous Labour Government cost us. They actually cost us billions of pounds a year in the rebate that they gave away. That is yet another reason why the idea that they could fight for our interests in Europe is obviously false: we saw what they did when they were in office.