Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between George Kerevan and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I wish you well in your retirement.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

May I, too, thank the new hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) for such a passionate and entertaining speech? It is good to have a representative of the land of Beatrix Potter here in this Chamber. I listened to her last points about the deficit and her encomium that this Government are bringing it down. I will be slightly wicked in saying that I am sure she knows that the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting a rise in Government borrowing this financial year, and she might care to ask why that is the case.

I have one specific question for the Minister on this group, as her introduction notably failed to explain why clause 5 has been withdrawn. That clause deals with the proposed reduction in the dividend income that investors in small companies can take. Are the Government embarrassed by the clause and is that why it is being withdrawn?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 disagreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Workers’ services provided to public sector through intermediaries

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

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 8 to 15 stand part.

Government amendment 4.

Clauses 48 to 51 and 124 to 127 stand part.

Government motion to transfer clause 127.

Clauses 128 and 129 stand part.

Government amendment 10.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Government amendments 11 and 12.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Government amendment 57.

That schedules 16 to 18 and 27 to 29 be schedules to the Bill.

New clause 1—Review of international best practice in relation to tax avoidance and tax evasion—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of international best practice by Governments and tax collection authorities in relation to—

(a) the prevention and reduction of tax avoidance arrangements, and

(b) combatting tax evasion.

(2) A report of the review under subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(3) In this section, “tax avoidance arrangements” mean arrangements broadly comparable in their effect to arrangements in the United Kingdom which have the obtaining of a tax advantage as the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the arrangements.”

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I have two points. First, I reiterate to the Minister, who artfully shifted to saying that there was a 2% rise in the tax, that there is a two percentage point rise. It is a 20% rise in the tax. I asked the Minister how she justified that massive, excessive increase relative to inflation. She did not reply—I suspect because, as a Conservative tax cutter, she is embarrassed. I have a further question for the Minister. Will she rule out extending the provision of IPT to reinsurance? Clearly, IPT has been hit on by the Government because it is one of the few things that they have not yet legislated not to increase as a form of taxation. That will doubtless change in the Conservative manifesto. But as long as this is the tax that the Government are hitting on because it is the one they have left, will the Minister state that they will not in future years extend IPT to the reinsurance market, which would net them even more money?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Landfill tax: taxable disposals

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

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 61 to 64 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 65, page 73, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

Clauses 65 to 70 stand part.

New clause 3—Review of oil and gas corporation tax rates and investment allowances—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the corporation tax rates and investment allowances applicable to companies producing oil and gas in the UK or on the UK continental shelf.

(2) A report of the review under subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

New clause 4—Review of tax regime relating to decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the ways in which the tax regime could be changed to increase the competitiveness of UK-registered companies in bidding for supply chain contracts associated with the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure or the development of new fields in the UK continental shelf.

(2) In undertaking the review under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must consult—

(a) the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy;

(b) the Oil and Gas Authority;

(c) Scottish Ministers; and

(d) such other stakeholders as the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks appropriate.

(3) A report of the review under subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Debate between George Kerevan and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I just want to remind hon. Members that opening speeches are usually up to 15 minutes long—there is some flexibility—and to warn them that I will be applying a formal limit of up to eight minutes so that everyone can get a fair shot.

[George Kerevan]

For that reason, having been reasonably accommodating, I will press on to the nub of my argument.

For a permanent resolution of the problem, we need three different mechanisms. First, we need a shift in the legal onus on banks to provide a duty of care or good faith in how they deal with customers, particularly business customers. That is open for broad debate—over the years, the banks have been unwilling to accept a narrow duty of care—but we need to redress the balance between major banks and small business clients by providing a mechanism around the legal onus on banks. I would even accept it, initially, if the banks collectively were prepared to come forward with a solution themselves. Secondly, given that many small companies end up insolvent, we need a more balanced insolvency practice to remove the possibility of banks or lenders being tempted to force small and medium-sized enterprises into unnecessary or premature insolvency. Finally, we need a new permanent and effective redress system for banks and small businesses in dispute. In effect, putting those three together, we need to change bank culture.

In order, I hope, to build some common ground with the Minister, I should acknowledge that the Government have already moved some way in recognising this issue. The Government’s impact assessment on the establishment of a small business commissioner in the Enterprise Act 2016 reads:

“The Government is concerned that for small firms, negotiating a contract with a larger business can be challenging… Government has been told that small businesses often feel intimidated and accept such terms (rather than walking away from a proposed contract or refusing to agree to a change) and there is concern that larger firms”—

for that, read “banks”—

“sometimes use their market power to impose unfavourable terms.”

That, I think, is what lay behind the issue of the hedging products sold to small businesses during the economic boom in 2006 to 2008. The Government have recognised the general problem, therefore; it is just a matter of how we resolve it.

Just to show that there is a broader political agreement on this, from right and left, I want to quote the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who wrote a piece for the Free Enterprise Group three years ago, entitled “Defending the rights of those who take risks”, in which he wrote:

“Over the years...the banks have contractually extended their rights through their ‘standard terms and conditions’ to give LPA”—

the Law of Property Act 1925—

“receivers general powers of sale, to set aside the limit on the fees that a receiver may charge and to load all associated costs on to the borrower. They have even moved to grant themselves the right to peaceably re-enter properties over which they have a charge without any recourse to the courts. The contractual extension of power taken by the banks goes well beyond what was originally envisaged in the Law of Property Act 1925.”

In other words, the banks have gradually extended their powers of receivership, making it increasingly difficult for small companies in financial difficulties to get redress, and leading to the situation with RBS’s Global Restructuring Group, which has now re-entered the public domain with the initial report from the Financial Conduct Authority.

I expect the Minister to tell us that ultimately, if there is to be a change in the redress process, it has to come from the FCA. To that end, the all-party group on fair business banking has been consulting the FCA, and subsequent to that, I raised the matter with Mr Andrew Bailey, its new chief executive, when he appeared before the Treasury Committee. I asked if he drew any relevant conclusions from the FCA’s experience with the banks in drawing up ad hoc processes of redress for the various mis-selling schemes, and he said that he did. He said that the problem arose where schemes lay “outside the regulatory perimeter”—much of the mis-selling was of unregulated products—but that the FCA had learnt from the experience, having come late to it, that businesses felt they had not had their day in court. He went on:

“Now, they do not want to have a literal day in court because that is obviously very expensive. However, what I conclude from this is that it”—

the ad hoc procedures—

“is not satisfactory from the point of view of the FCA, because the FCA has been involved in creating a lot of bespoke processes. We discussed this on the board a number of times. Were there to be a mechanism that could substitute for these—let us loosely call it a tribunal, for the sake of argument—rather like the ombudsman but for more complex cases, because corporate cases often are more complex, this would be a big step forward. From the point of view of the things that come out, we are creating a lot of work for ourselves. However, I am very sympathetic to the people involved, so we have to do it. However, if there were to be a process that could substitute for this…I think this would be a big step forward.”

We are proposing the idea of a tribunal. At this stage, it is a generic proposal, and there are issues to be discussed. It would, for example, cross the boundaries of the devolved Administrations, so if we went down this road, there might have to be separate institutional tribunal procedures in Scotland. There are also financial issues, but since we are dealing with redress where the FCA has decided that a bank has been involved in mis-selling—in other words, since we are already in the territory where a bank is going to pay—any permanent tribunal system could be funded by the banks. The all-party group is open to a general discussion with the Government about how to proceed, but the general backing from the FCA is there; it is just a matter of the detail.

This is important because the issue has not gone away. The situation with RBS GRG is coming back into the public domain. RBS has put forward a new ad hoc procedure for dealing with complaints from small businesses put into GRG. We have advance notice of a report, not yet finalised by the FCA, in which, having taken technical advice, it has clearly found a conflict of interest in how RBS handled the cases of companies put into GRG: the part of the bank taking over and reselling properties from the insolvent companies was part of GRG. In effect, therefore, the bank was putting companies into insolvency, taking their property and handing it over to another part of the bank, and generating cash that way.

Given that this issue has reappeared and that there is a public debate over the nature of the redress system, we are not looking at legacy items; we are looking at a future situation in which the Royal Bank of Scotland is creating an ad hoc redress system that we need to ensure is a correct one.

I know that other Members want to participate in the debate. The bottom line for the Minister is that there is now an ongoing process of debate and a general consensus, even from the FCA, that we need a more permanent resolution system and that we need to go beyond just looking at insolvency law. The door is open for the Government to join the rest of us on both sides of the House to ensure that that resolution process is provided.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As I said, we will have a voluntary limit of up to eight minutes. If it is not voluntary, it will have to be imposed.

Quantitative Easing

Debate between George Kerevan and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bank’s definition of “material contribution to the British economy” is inadequate. Like him, I do not think it is very helpful to be investing in fizzy drinks, but we do need to acknowledge that Siemens has a fantastic development in east Yorkshire and that that is good; that is a proper contribution. I do not think he is really arguing against me—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Come on, sit down.

[George Kerevan]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but underlining what I am saying is the fact that only six British manufacturing export companies are on the list of those 300 bonds that the Bank of England thinks are quality enough to invest in. The whole thing that undermines the trajectory of QE is that it is concentrated on saving a banking system at the expense of our manufacturing system.

What do we do next? We have not said enough about that. We should consider shifting the Bank of England’s targets. The inflation target is the wrong one, and we have spent years ignoring it in any case, which means the Bank has no intellectual anchor, and that raises dangers in respect of the accountability of the Bank of England. We should be looking at nominal GDP targeting, in which case the Bank or the monetary authorities would have to be looking at automatic fiscal buffers, whether we are in a recession or in boom. That brings us back to the whole question of how we rehabilitate the fiscal intervention. At some stage, we are going to have to unwind QE. We have to do that in a controlled fashion, so one thing the Bank should be looking at in any evaluation is what timetable we use. If we have a timetable for the unwinding, that will help the markets to adjust in a better fashion. There is a danger, which we might find when we start to unwind, that the natural rate of interest has fallen so low that monetary policy has been undermined in a historic or generational sense, which again means we have to look seriously at how we combine fiscal policy with monetary policy. It would be unwise to unwind QE in the UK alone. What we should consider is a concerted international approach, which must involve some of the surplus countries such as Germany using their trade surpluses in a controlled fashion to boost consumption.

In the autumn statement, it is incumbent on the Government not to leave all the heavy lifting to the Bank of England. It is time that the Government made an intervention in a strong fiscal policy to allow the transition from QE.

Financial Conduct Authority

Debate between George Kerevan and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry to say that we are now going down to five minutes, because of interventions. I call George Kerevan.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

In that case, we can still have six minutes. I call Michelle Thomson.